David GREGORY, OLBERMANN, and Lester HOLT

[UTUSN]

If, in one fell swoop, David G. took over Hardball permanently, K.O. stays in place, and Lester H. would replace Matt LAUER--------there would be a vast improvement in the quality of objectivity all across the board in cable. Tweety has been gone a lot lately, and GREGORY does a bang-up job. LAUER's swings toward wingnut snarkiness are increasingly obnoxious (he slobbered over Bernie GOLDDIGGER this A.M.), and whether it's his personal problems or his ambition, his disposition has grown more sour in keeping with the aforesaid wingnuttiness. K.O. needs no justification here.

[Booster]

1. I totally agree with all of this, especially Matt Lauer - I think he's

swarmier even than Tweety. Lauer has worn out his welcome on the morning airways and can't hide his bias. I really would like to see David G. take over Hardball, but must admit I don't know a whole lot about him. Here's hoping.

[TrueAmerican]

2. Where is this being reported?

Thanks. LINK?

[UTUSN]

3. My Opinions Have No Link, I Am One Linkless Dude. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

4. I don't know why everyone thinks these hosts act on their own. I believe

Olberman must have some kind of permission to use his wit....but they are all only employees with mortagages and they are not working for benevolent corporate bosses. The NBCs have a GE perspective based on a total right wing controlled mission.

From GE on down - the direction is the same for all the NBCs and the directors execute the agenda - the hosts are only skillful faces and voices. They have a mortgage. If anyone thinks these hosts get to call the shots for their shows as far as being right or left without qualification = please educate me.

NBC dropped their last leftie with Donahue. They keep trying to use Tweetie as their Dem because he once worked for Tip O'Neil, but no one buys that crap. Olberman has a little permission to pretend that they have more balance than FOX.

All the cable is the same - owned by the White House through their corporate bosses and stockholders and they are always criss-crossing between boards and corporations. We have three major cable and three major network stations to preserve the illusion that there is competition and three angles. Forget about it. The only difference between them is a little nuance, probably all worked out and agreed to at a strategy meeting of the CEO's, a representatiaon of stockholders, the Heritiage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and the NSC and Pentagon.

I admire the wit of Olberman and I appreciate his zingers... but look at his guests and watch him when he sticks with the right wing message. He is only a star employee du jour - he is not an independent.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. great analysis, but....any port in a storm of sh*t, right?

[peacetalksforall]

6. Yeah...guess so. Sorry mess, isn't it? n/t

[Berry Cool]

7. OK, I will educate you.

I am wondering whether your cable is picking up transmissions from Mars and they have a news reporter who closely resembles Olbermann, because you are sure not watching the same guy I am.

First of all, Keith Olbermann has never been known for getting "permission" from anyone to do anything. That's part of what has caused him trouble with employers in the past. In fact, whenever right-wingers get mad at him, they love to hurl the accusation at him that he's loopy, a loose cannon, can't hold down a job, etc., because he gets in too many conflicts with his employers. So you can best believe that GE or no, the right wing doesn't control him. Hell, he probably doesn't even HAVE a mortgage to worry about.

He is far more than a "skillful face and voice." He writes nearly all of his news himself. And if there is an "agenda" somewhere trying to control him, he sure must not be listening, because what I hear him say over and over is that the war is unpopular, Bush is unpopular, the troops are not being given what they need, kids are dying, people believe the US is not safer, etc. Oh, and yeah, he was the one guy in all of the major news media who clung to the story on the Ohio election irregularities long after everyone else had said "It's over, Bush won--get over it." That did not make him too popular with some people, but he didn't care.

This is a guy who refers to Fox News as "the 1984 Channel" on his show. You think he does this because he gets "permission" to do it?

I have yet to see him "stick to the right wing message" yet. And he's the kind of person who, if he is not allowed to call it as he sees it, will walk. So much for being a "star employee du jour." If anyone out there is independent, it's him. He's been known to cut off his nose to spite his face, and all for a matter of principle. If you haven't seen that side of him yet, either you don't know him too well or you're watching some parallel version of his show being transmitted from another planet.

Then again, if you really want to believe that all the mass media are controlled by a vast White House conspiracy, I guess you will anyway. In the meantime, did you see Keith interview Cindy Sheehan tonight? If not, too bad. Check it out on crooksandliars.com.

[peacetalksforall]

8. I have little to say against Olberman. What I say about the situation

I am speaking about is not personal. My gripe is and has always been - the NBCs. Those are the angles I approach this from.

Aren't there many 'morning afters' where people express their disappoinment with him and his sidekicks. His sidekicks always stick to the talking points no matter how much banter and giggling. He must only have a certain leeway of deviation from the talking points.

Do you think they would give him free reign? I don't. GE and NBC is not going to let anyone do their own thing. Yes, they probably revel in the idea that DUers are watching NBC and the commericals. We do watch faithfully and infrequently because he is brilliant and it is like reaching an oasis in the desert of hoop and la proopaganda.

I watch (when I can) to see how far off he might go because I've been studying the theft of our news and the takeover by propaganda in the style of the USSR for over a decade.

No man is an island. He has reigns. All you have to do is accept that GE and NBC control your news - not for themselves, but for their political party. If you accept that you have to ask yourself, how they allow him full latitude. Would you? Do you really think it works like that in a corporation, especially that has such an important purpose to the right wing? What are all those project and news directors for anyway - it Olberman gets free reight over them. They are there to guide the propaganda. Olberman is a clever face, but on a leash.

I hope he always stays employed in a similar position because I like brilliant, irreverent people who are original and witty.

I am not saying don't watch him because of GE. I'm only saying he is not an unreigned man. NBC is probably loving the new audience who long ago realized what they are - a right wing tool - and stopped watching. I watch to see how they do the propaganda. Watching the talking points come out and how each one delivers them is like being in the USSR

I even observe their advertisors and try to do all possible to use alternatives.

If they are going to be purposeful, I can be also.

[grasswire]

9. with all respect.....

...the point is that Keith will leave the job if he doesn't have control over content. He told me in an e-mail way back when MSNBC gave him the hour that if he had viewer support, the news executives would give him control over content. They know he'll walk out if he isn't happy. He has done it before. They can't tie him.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. His interview with Cindy was excellent last night. He asked the

tough right wing accusations with humanity, and allowed her to talk. She was wonderful! She mentioned the lies that started the war, the DSM, the Darfour Report, 9/11 Commission & Senate Intelligence Committee reports.

This was far better than minutes before, on Hardball. Gregory had on a woman radio talk show host who put Cindy's in-law's slamming email out there, and a woman who was supposedly a Democratic strategist. The "strategist" didn't have a clue about what Cindy wanted. Because of the latter, the interview swung a great deal to the right, no matter how much Gregory tried to keep everyone on point. Good thing about Gregory...when he interviews, he allows for no spinning.

[UTUSN]

11. And to Clarify

I don't regard any of the three dudes cited as our Lib shills. When I have sent hot e-ltrs to the wingnut media outlets, I have not demanded Lib shills, just objected to WINGNUT shills. My point is that on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, if there were one, our issues would win the day. Yesterday GREGORY shot down the woman defending the NARAL ad. As for HOLT, he is just a reader, but he doesn't read with an obvious TILT---whereas LAUER has seemed to me to be swinging Wingnut more and more all the time. My point in the o.p. was just that with just THESE THREE in key slots, the WHOLE facade would be different, and different in ways favorable to us.