Rachel Maddow's big day overshadowed by convention fallout; no more Statler and Waldorf; Fox looking smart

Updated: I take issue with Glenn Greenwald's reckless, pugilistic advice for NBC. Below.

Brian Stelter is reporting this morning that MSNBC has abruptly backpedaled on its plan to have Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann co-anchor its political coverage, which going forward means the coverage of three debates and election night. David Gregory will handle those duties, which I guess answers the question of whether Gregory was "NBC's lame duck."

It's too bad that this had to happen on the eve of Rachel Maddow's new TV show on MSNBC, which replaces Dan Abrams' "Verdict" at 8 CT tonight. On the other hand, who was shocked? While Matthews and Olbermann were an entertaining train wreck -- at least The Daily Show and I were entertained -- I will concede that it's probably not a good thing to be making headlines because your talent are giving each other eyerolls on the air.

But I think the focus on the blooper-reel video is misdirected. This one's on Phil Griffin and the people who signed off on his plan to give the anchor desk over to Keith and Chris. This morning, as I read the news, I had to give credit to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, who once again is looking like a genius. Ailes figured out long ago that you can have Hannity and Colmes and Neil Cavuto and John Kasich and Steve Doocy and every other red-meater out there on your airwaves, but if you know where to place the fig leaf, your opponents can only pillory you so much.

MSNBC forgot about the fig leaf. And so, no matter how much Olbermann goes on about Brit Hume's biases, Fox News has seized the moral high ground from NBC. (And with its usual modesty.) I'm not saying NBC deserves the kind of unapologetic hostility that the Republicans showcased for NBC in St. Paul. And I'm not saying Fox News doesn't pat itself on the back for goading the GOP true believers into making GE the enemy. But by avoiding the simple mistake of having one of its polarizing personalities in the neutral news anchor's chair, it's smelling better than MSNBC is this morning.

Olbermann pointed out in his interview Sunday with Stelter that he was doing exactly the same thing at the political anchor desk that he does every night on "Countdown." But. There's a reason they don't call it "a special edition of Countdown" or "a Hardball-Countdown crossover episode." They call it "special political coverage" because they expect you to bring the big guns and to do it in a certain way. And the minute you don't, people start to come up with all kinds of reasons why you suck.

Thus, it really doesn't matter how "great" Olbermann thought Sarah Palin's speech was. If he didn't match the soaring rhetoric he heaped on Barack Obama's speech the week before, then people were going to call him on it. (Indeed, here it is 11 days later, and KOGO's Chip Franklin had KO's reac sound bite ready to go for our radio segment this morning.)

I've been of at least two minds on the Olbermann phenomenon, so if the KO haters want to call me on my flip-flop, they can. I've always loved "Countdown," but back in 2006, I did ask (along with other critics) if KO was the future face of news, and if we were all good with that. As it turns out, we are NOT all good with that. I thought the big jobs should go to the big men (and women). But the people have spoken, loudly and angrily, and so the big job will now go to MSNBC's least MSNBC-like talent.

It's unfortunate, however, that the news couldn't have waited a week or so, until "The Rachel Maddow Show" had gotten through its first week on MSNBC. Maddow, for her part, went to Denver and St. Paul and did what she was asked to do, in a setting almost exactly like the one she has been in since joining Gregory's MSNBC show as a panelist. You expect a certain point of view from the Air America radio host and she delivers it. Tonight, she will try her hand at a "Countdown"-like TV show, interviewing one guest at a time and inserting her take on the news, what's the word ... liberally.

I'm looking forward to that. I'd be lying if I said I was looking forward to MSNBC returning to plain vanilla special political coverage with Gregory at the helm. C'mon: Weren't you ready for Olbermann and Matthews to resume their grudge match? Well, at least we'll still have Joe and David.

Previously on TV Barn: I profiled Rachel Maddow, which led to her getting a TV show, and then I talked to her about my getting her a TV show. Also, I discussed MSNBC and its demographic appeal, was fair and balanced toward Fox, and profiled Olbermann once or twice.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald is arguing in Salon that MSNBC's decision reflects an ideological double standard. That when pressed by the supporters of Hillary Clinton, when they were pained by Olbermann's pro-Obama coverage, MSNBC refused to budge -- but when the Republican convention went ballistic on NBC and everyone noticed, whoosh, that was the end of Keith-as-anchor.

"[MSNBC] just implicitly chided and overtly demoted their most popular and valuable news personality because the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right demanded that they do so," writes Greenwald. "It's fine for Brit Hume to host a 'news program' and for hard-core right-wing ideologues to dominate cable news. ... But MSNBC's ratings-based decision to feature Keith Olbermann is a grave threat to modern journalism and must be stopped. So decrees the White House and the McCain campaign, and so the GE-owned MSNBC complies."

I love when someone is so sure of himself that it makes any attempt to argue with his faultless logic seem futile and silly. But. We don't really know yet how this is going to work out. And for Greenwald to breathlessly assume that Olbermann will be vanished off the airwaves is just nuts. Obviously what's going to happen is that Gregory will sit in the center of the desk, and he will be flanked by Keith and Chris, and possibly Rachel and Joe and maybe even Pat and Gene if they've got room for that many people. Just as many people will see MSNBC's show as before. But this time it will have someone in the middle seat who can fall back on his journalistic fairness in a way that none of the prime-time talent can.

So let's concede Greenwald's point. It's not a fair fight. Salon's legal eagle has done a very good job summarizing all of the forces aligned against the handful of MSNBC talent who are left-leaning, including their own corporate parent of GE. But if that is the case, Glenn, then what good is it to take your advice and just keep barrelling ahead? If this is not a fair fight, then the stupidest thing to do is to stand in there and just keep swinging away. If MSNBC is outmatched, why would you just stand right in the middle of the ring like a Rock Em Sock Em robot, swinging and swinging? The head has popped up!

As I noted above, MSNBC forgot about the fig leaf. So now, the fig leaf is now back. MSNBC is redeploying its talent in a way that gets it out of the line of fire of the right wing. And, not incidentally, in a way that gives Olbermann complete freedom once more to say whatever he wants about McCain and Palin and Fox News and whatever because he's no longer captain of the ship. Just as many viewers will be able to see him on Election Night as they would if he were the anchor. But now he is moved off into the Mort Kondracke position. Glenn Greenwald sees this as unforgivably hypocritical. I see it as yet another sign that the longtime lead-footed contender in cable news with the glass jaw is finally learning to get out of the way of the Right's roundhouse.

I'm sure what was happening behind the scenes was that Ed Gillespie and the other Republican goons were threatening to cut off access for NBC if the status quo at MSNBC persisted. So now there has been a public adjustment, and all the predicted reactions have happened, and that's that. But when you tune in MSNBC's coverage on debate night and election night, who are you going to see? That's right: You're going to see David Gregory, and Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. Yes, it's a shame Griffin doesn't have the power to tell the GOP where to stuff it, the way he did the Clintonites. On the other hand, this won't hurt Olbermann's exposure, it will only fire up the base, and in the long run, MSNBC lives to fight another day. If the plans for Keith are more draconian, we can talk about that -- but for now, it sounds like a lot of hoohah, suffused with symbolism, about what is essentially a shuffling of chairs.

Comments

[Reiny]

Matthews is very informative and FAIR in his analysis. I'd rush thru dinner to see Hardball.Olberman shared the same views I had and expressed them better. I looked forward to his take each night on events. I don't trust the cheney/bush controlled media. I believe they picked mccain to succeed them because he was the only candidate to want more war like them.I am a lady who doesn't watch much TV. Without matthews and olberman I will now return my focus to the shoppers channels,,some sport events too.

[Lyle]

Ugh, I won't be watching MSNBC's special coverage anymore. I used to like Gregory when he was the guy calling McCellan's terrible and transparent bull but on Race to the White House his coverage isn't the least bit neutral (except in that usual definition of "neutral reporting" where Tucker Carlson is charming and fair but Rachel Maddow signals a partisan apocalypse). Every McCain gaffe is covered with a "But didn't he mean... " or a "But if you think about it, isn't he right?" (I pretty much gave up on that show when he defended Graham's "whiners" comment).

I can get Gregory's sort of neutrality -- or Brokaw and Mitchell's sort of neutrality which means just repeating what political operatives told them regardless of how they stand up to reality -- on CNN. I'll go back to keeping up with major events on the internet.

[The Pop View]

I agree that there was a blurring of lines between news & opinion that was problematic. But that line got crossed a long time ago. I find it ironic that MSNBC is drawing heat for its shift to liberalism that it never drew when it was skewing conservative a few years ago in an attempt to compete with FOX News. And after all, MSNBC is only getting its 2nd avowedly liberal host.

FOX News may have a fig leaf by not putting one of its "polarizing personalities" in charge of coverage, but aren't all of their people on message almost all the time? Is their bigger benefit that they don't have to balance a straight news organization and a cable news outlet at the same time, the way NBC does?

Quite frankly, I don't see David Gregory as much of an improvement. Put a guy like Frank Sesno in the chair and then we'll talk.

[NAOMI MILLER]

I cannot believe Matthews and Olbermann are out. That is ridiculous!!!! Scarboro and Buchanan should have been the ones to go. They are so racist and biased about everything. Joe never lets anyone else talk. Those two are horrible. I guess we now know who is in the tank for McCain/Palin ---- MSNBC head honchos. Just couldn't take it. So much for freedom of speech unless of course you are Palin and can say anything you want without mentioning one issue. I am not watching MSNBC any more. CNN here I come.

[Stephen Hudler]

MSNBC has made a horrid mistake! By removing Keith Olbermann from its election anchor position they have weakened MSNBC and this nation. America needs the strong voice that Keith provided. What a shame, what a damned shame that MSNBC has bent its network knees.

[CLJ]

Pat B and Joe S were giving their opinions! KO was posing as an anchor.

Also Bush did not pick Mccain. McCain cannot stand Bush for what team Bush did to McCain back in 2000 in the South Carolina primary.

[Sid]

Naomi, come on. If MSNBC bosses were in the tank for McCain, Olbermann wouldn't represent their channel. Period.

Liberals are the one trying to get rid of freedom of speech with the fairness doctrine. Now all the sudden the two biggest morons on TV aren't going to bring their blatant BIAS to an arena that is supposed to be neutral and you're rolling out the 'freedom of speech' card. That's completely illogical.

[Stacey]

This isn't about politics. It's about bias in political reporting. Fox didn't have O'Reilly hosting their primary coverage did they? Nor should Olbermann or Matthews been let anywhere near anchoring duties for the conventions. It blew up in their faces, big time. No, I'm not a Fox News fan. No, I'm not a Republican. No I don't hate the Dems. What I hate is seeing journalism ruined by partisan hacks. Yeah, Fox News blurs the lines and they do have an agenda clearly, but the difference is that MSNBC went way over the line in displaying theirs, along with putting their dirty laundry out there for everyone to see. And it had a cost that probably set back liberals in the media a good 5 years or so. That is unfortunate. Very unfortunate.

[Andy]

I'm not interested in "calling" you on anything, but I hope you can recognize (in hindsight) the changes to Olbermann's format and demeanor in the past year that have caused some former admirers to react with alarm. The fact that you're prepared to brand us as "KO haters" suggests that you don't.

[Stephen Kafkas]

Just because FoxNews is biased doesn't mean that MSNBC should be. I don't watch either at this point, because neither can offer balanced coverage. I think this might actually be a great move. If Olbermann and Matthews are regular panelists, then you get their views with someone in Gregory to moderate. Matthews used to moderate more fairly, but seems to have more trouble doing so lately.

I really don't care if the right wing wants to make FoxNews an echo-chamber, or the left do the same with MSNBC. But I won't, and haven't been watching either. I wish Russert was still alive. He had political beliefs, but he put them aside for the job of asking the tough questions to both sides.

[christine peck]

Rachel,
We definitely need a new, very smart woman's voice on MSNBC's news program - please, no sweet talk or pretty facial expressions, (Anderson I love you but not those CNN babes)just straight-forward, intelligent comment in these dire electoral times.
Very best of luck - I'm forwarding your program to family and friends around the world.
Christine Peck

[kathryn petrillo]

I can't believe that you are taking Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann off the air. First it was Dan Abrams. Are you setting up Rachel Maddow for a fall too?

I am shocked by your lunacy.

Sure they might have liberal leanings, but their voice is needed. Someone has to challenge the GOP. Is it necessary that such a noble party is allowed to lie, cheat and mix religion with state affairs? And change the English language? Change means change, not more of the same.

I am really very amazed.

I believe in God, attend a Church that Worships in a similar way in which Gov. Palin does. We speak in tongues, believe in the Rapture and do not politicize the pupit. My Pastor preaches it is my individual right to express my faith and no one's right to get in between my God and me.

I also believe that Christ is love. Charity is love. And judge not least yeah be judged.

I cringe when someone makes fun of any religion, or how someone worships. Know that Christians believe that they are blessed if they die for Christ'sake. Certain Christians allow this to mean any sentence with the name of Christ is some how Christ-like. It is important to be critical of what anyone says in a rhetorical fashion, whether it be concerning religion or the state. The wall of separation between the two is necessary for a multitude of reasons, one being the First Amendment.

If I could speak to S. Palin I would say this:

As a Christian, I would not pray for one side or the other in a war. I would not pray for any particular policy. Rather I would pray that every one discerns who would be the best leader. Certainly not who looks good or talks the best Christian rhetoric. After all it is Acts not empty speech that shows character. Liars deceive. The devil is a liar.

She would understand and maybe rethink this whole thing.

Please reconsider your actions NSNBC,

[Dennis Neuenfeldt]

Why is Pat Buchanon given so much time on MSNBC. He blatantly misrepresents facts to support his very Christian right position. Tonight on Rachel Maddow he argued that Palin's prayer in church was not about God wanting the Iraqui war but that she wished that God could support the war. In essence that was false. Palin clearly said that the Iraqui war was a blessing from God.
Separation of church and state is essential and he obiously will not support that prinicple so why give him the time to voice his flagrant appeal to conservative Christians? Is this for ratings? He was abusive to Rachel and attempted to talk oaver her arguments.

[Stu]

If David Gregory were any further right, he'd be on the McCain ticket. Hardly the personification of neutrality.

[Gayle]

Hi Kathryn, I appreciate your comments. I wish I could find a church in Colorado Springs like yours. The ones I have attended are clearly Republican and the theme is that if one is spiritually right he/she will fall in line. Chris and Keith will still have their own shows, thankfully. It's another program they have been pulled from.

[Robert]

I used to watch MSNBC on a fairly regular basis, but the fact is all the on-air fighting and having the supposed anchors giving commentary really turned me off. These people couldn't say enough good things about Tim Russert after his death, but it was obvious that Olbermann & crew never took a lesson from his election coverage. He was always down the middle, and his political leanings were never on display for the viewer.

[Keith Michael]

The thing to remember about Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann is that they are news COMMENTATORS, and I would argue, VERY LIBERAL AND GRATING COMMENTATORS.

They are welcome to their opinions, but that's all they have to offer.

And if they were not so sure that only their opinions matter, I might give them a listen.

They speak only to the cheers of their own choir. I'm not looking for left versus right, liberal versus conservative, or Republican versus Democrat. I am only looking for information that will inform me in making my own decision.

[Mark Jeffries]

Are we talking about the same Chris Matthews that lefty blogs call "Tweety" and claim that he has "man love" for John McCain? That Chris Matthews?