This Valentine's Day, I'm Breaking Up with MSNBC

Update:  Wouldn't it figure that the writer I praise below gets called out for a glaring error in the exact article that brought me epiphany?  Read here to get details on Stanley's mistake in attributing the CNN slogan to MSNBC.  Apparently she has a history of errors in her columns.  Ugh!  I still love her analysis here, but the point is well made that if you're criticizing someone else for their journalism, you gotta make sure yours is done well.  Accuracy ... please!

There was a time, a time not so long ago, when I liked watching Keith Olbermann.  Okay, I'll be honest, I loved watching Keith Olbermann.  I was so enamored, I didn't even take offense when he channeled Edward R. Murrow.  As a matter of fact, I praised him. But now, I can barely stand his show, or anything else on MSNBC for that matter.  From Tucker tantrums to snooty Scarborough to manic Matthews, I'm just tired of the screaming and fighting and lack of depth.  And I used to watch these guys (note: guys) all evening long. 

For some reason, I couldn't put my finger on why my opinion had changed. Then, I read this New York Times column (Thanks, Jason!).  Sure, I'd been dismayed by the Hilary hating that had been going on on the network.  From Matthew's horrid, or as he termed it "brutal," comment about Hilary's success coming from her husband's "messing around" to the more recent and, if possible, more sexist comment by David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton being “pimped out,” there was something quite anti-woman about the white men's club on MSNBC.  That irked me.  I tuned in less.  But that wasn't it.

Instead, it's just as NYT's writer Alessandra Stanley writes in the column that brought me clarity.  She was writing as part of her analysis of this past Tuesday's Potomac Primaries and the careful language and demeanor used by the MSNBC team when talking about or covering anything Clinton-related.  She guesses this softer, gentler MSNBC won't last long because (and here's my light bulb moment ... drum roll, please), "Cable anchors are not really journalists; they are opinion-mongers, news personalities who are expected to entertain viewers, either by amusing them or appalling them." 

Duh!  Why hadn't I put the ratings-pandering, money-making, cash-comes-first pieces of this puzzle together?  I rant in my Reporting class about how economics and earnings guide news media not public service.  And this is just more of that.  MSNBC, after all, is in as much of a marathon for votes (viewers) as the Democratic candidates are.  They want to be the place for political coverage.  They want to be the ratings king.  Logically then, Olberrmann went from thoughtful to dreadful and Matthews has gone from probing to yelling. 

Stanley wisely notes that when the MSNBC men are doing election coverage that is happening live, they are good, maybe great.  It's all those other nights in between when they show off to garner ratings.  I love her metaphor, so I'll end with it.  But I'm not sure what to do.  Do I watch the middle-schoolish MSNBC but only for returns?  Or do I, gasp, start hanging out with that boring National Merit Scholar? (Don't worry, if you read Stanley's witty work below, you'll get the joke!)

"On election nights, especially when NBC News veterans like Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw join them, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Olbermann are insightful and quick-witted.

On a slower news day, MSNBC’s anchors show signs of Cable Insecurity Syndrome, trying to outshout their rivals at the better-rated Fox News. In this middle school melodrama, Fox News gives MSNBC wedgies and steals its lunch money, and MSNBC tries to act even tougher. (CNN is the National Merit Scholar who does the work, stays out of trouble, and is reliable but somewhat dull.)"