MSNBC Sh**s The Bed On Recall Coverage

Dylan Byers at liberal Politico decides that both MSNBC and Fox embarrassed themselves with their partisan cheerleading.

I didn't watch Fox -- when Republicans are about to win, I switch over to MSNBC, to watch the bitter tears and dubious spin -- but I would note this difference:

Assuming this quote describes the tenor of Hannity's coverage...

eanwhile, Fox News was blatantly rooting for Gov. Walker, and the moment it became clear that Walker might win, host Sean Hannity called it "a repudiation of big unions," which did "everything they could do to demonize Scott Walker."

... it appears FoxNews was accurately describing the race.

The race was a repudiation of unions (at least of the public-employee sort). Polls show that a majority of Wisconsinites now support the reforms -- a stark reversal from their original unpopularity.

And given the late "revelation" of the Scott Walker Love Baby (which doesn't exist) and liberal partisans openly calling for the assassination of Walker (and death by colon cancer for Lt. Governor Kleefish), yes, I would say it's accurate that they did "everything they could to demonize Scott Walker."

Confirmation of this can be had from MSNBC's own coverage, where a bitter, sour Ed Schultz sagely informed viewers that Walker might be indicted "in a matter of days."

A liberal may not like the tone of Fox, but nothing that Dylan Byers quotes is actually debatable.

On the other hand, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell proclaimed that "the big winner" of the night was... Barack Obama.

Now, that is not just partisan cheerleading. That is partisan distortion of the actual facts of the evening for purposes of keeping activists engaged and hopeful.

And there's nothing wrong with activists doing that.

But do actual journalists pretend the news is other than it is for purposes of partisan excitement?

So no, Dylan Byers, I do not concede the two were equal-but-opposite. I didn't see Fox's coverage, but I did read your quote, which apparently was among the worst you could find.

And what I find is that while FoxNews might have expressed its rooting interest -- something the networks broadcast every election day, with all Republican victories described as "tempter tantrums" and such -- MSNBC both expressed its rooting interest and presented a palpably false take on the election, deciding partisan grievance-stoking was more important than a dispassionate and accurate account of the evening's news.

Question for Dylan Byers: Some commenters note they were annoyed by the lefty guests on FoxNews, talking their talking points.

I watched some CNN, too (wanted to see Wolf Blitzer cry) and I saw they had guests from both sides of the aisle. They had, I think, Ari Fleisher and Dana Loesch on the right, but also Paul Begala and David Gergen on the left.

So FoxNews had guests of both political leanings, as did CNN.

The one network that was stuffed keel to topspirit with only liberal guests was MSNBC. I watched MSNBC and saw nothing but left-wing "analysts."

Is that news? Or simply activism?

As one commenter writes, accurately, I think, "MSNBC tries to be what liberals imagine FoxNews is."

Update: Dylan Byers says he considers the statement that unions were "repudiated" to be "debatable," and reaffirms that the statement "unions did everything they could to demonize Scott Walker" is a "partisan" interpretation.

In related news, it turns out Scott Walker is Hitler.

In other related news, Democracy Died Last Night.

posted by Ace at 12:34 PM

| Access Comments