Letter to Hardball re: Schuster

[ejbr]

sent to: [e-mail] cc: [e-mail]

fwded to:CNN

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to thank you for allowing David Schuster to fill in for Chris Matthew on Hardball last night. Unfortunately, I have noticed that Hardball has changed from when I first began to watch the show. At that time, Mr. Matthews was actually playing Hardball with his guests, showing no partiality to one side or the other, as well as focusing on the important issues that were at stake. However, recently Mr. Matthews has been very disappointing in that he spends in inordinate amount of time asking ridiculous questions that surely appeal to the National Enquirer crowd, refuses to challenge erroneous assertions that any intelligent political observer would expect to be challenged and continues to invite Ann Coulter on to his show, leaving me to wonder whether you ARE trying to appeal to the National Enquirer crowd.

On the other hand, the fresh-faced Schuster is focused on the realities of a situation and allows ample time for his guests to comment on the topic at hand, cutting them off only when they digress. Unlike Matthews, Schuster asks appropriate, pointed questions, challenges erroneous information and would probably commit hari kari before interviewing Ms. Coulter* who seems to think that political discourse involves fabricated facts and childish insults that others should not even dignify with a response.

I have great anticipation for Mr. Schuster's next hosting assignment. He and Mr. Olbermann remind me of the newscasters of the 1970s where truth was the objective and any obfuscation of the facts anathema. To borrow a phrase from Senator Lieberman**, "there is too much politicization". However, I am not referring to government, but of news broadcasting. There are too many hosts who come to the table with a preset agenda and are ready to defend their side regardless of the facts. I find this not only to be disheartening, but also a sign of contempt for intellectual honesty.

Once again, thank you. Mr. Schuster is a breath of fresh air that I hope will continue to shed light on the many political topics of the day. CNN claims to be "the most trusted". I disagree. Keith Olbermann and David Schuster are my most trusted sources of television news and could convince me to think differently about any topic --not an easy task, mind you -- due to their fierce attention to logic and passion for the truth.


Sincerely,

In an attempt to appear as John Q. Public with no hidden agenda (which I really don't have because I would be content with a news host making any of my Democratic heros prove their point and tell the truth!):

*provided appropriate prefix to remove any indication of partiality. Would have loved to have referrred to her as Ms. Bitch

**did not allude to my utter disgust with and hatred for this man because that would not only be a digression, but an indication of partiality. GOD I HATE LIEBERMAN

[Catshrink]

1. Nice job....

glad you mentioned Annthrax. Why would any reputable news program have her on?????

[ejbr]

2. Thanks!

How can anyone forget to include her as a reason for despising the "news"?

[rubberducky]

3. Your letter needs to be a petition that we can all sign.

Matthews has lost his cred. Shuster is a breath of fresh air. That is what I wrote to MSNBC.

[ejbr]

7. Thanks!

Well, I wouldn't even know how to create a petition letter online for one thing :shrug: and even though you are gracious enough to suggest such a thing, I already feel somewhat presumptious for posting it on this site! :)

[yy4me]

17. Ditto on the petition.

Whip up that letter in petition form and we'll all sign!

Edit: Ask here for help on forming the petition, someone will know!

[ShortnFiery]

4. Kudos to you! Yes, if your letter is made a petition, I'd be honored to sign it. n/t

[ejbr]

8. Thank you for your kind words. :) n/t

[Cass]

5. Great letter, ejbr. You really hit the nail on the head with Matthews.

I used to like watching Hardball in the kitchen while I made dinner but I don't watch anymore because he has changed. His bias is much more evident than it was and that's inappropriate for the type of format he's going for. When he put Coulter on his show for a full hour and called her brilliant I jumped ship forever.

[ejbr]

9. She IS brilliant!

To make millions of dollars by name-calling versus arguing points, as well as making up facts that can easily be discredited is most certainly a sign of brilliance! ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, those that buy her bullshit are the most ignorantly, stupid, suckers whose mothers must have dropped on their heads people that exist in our country today.

I'll take choice number two for 2 billion dollars Alex!

[Frustratedlady]

6. Good for you! I intend to write, as well.

We need to show our support for those reporters who are sticking their necks out and speaking for us, since we can't really speak for ourselves.

Good job!

[ejbr]

10. Thanks! You're right. The environment in which they work must be very hostile. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Excellent letter

you are to be commended for staying on point and not making the well-deserved remarks about Coulter and Lieberman in you letter but only to us (who appreciate them).

[ejbr]

12. Thanks...it was difficult though! n/t

[here_is_to_hope]

13. Tweety has become irrelevant...

and Schuster is a breath of fresh air.
Thanks for your efforts!

[ejbr]

14. You're welcome! Thanks for stopping by, won't you stay for tea? :) n/t

[mzmolly]

15. Great letter.

:hi:

[ebayfool]

19. Wrong head?

Dan Abrams is the guy that heads up the MSNBC news division now, IIRC.

And I believe he's also responsible for the wingers that are the primary staple there, as well. He may not have been the one that hired 'em, but he IS the guy that keeps 'em. If he cut some of the GOP talking heads out like Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, etc ... THEN I might say he's doing a good job.

[mzmolly]

21. Yep, I had the wrong dude earlier. Realized it after a while.

However, I think it's fair to have different sides represented. For example Olbermann followed by Scarryborough etc.

[ebayfool]

22. Yes, fair to have different sides represented - but equally. It's not as it stands ...

at present - there's a preponderance of wingers w/a very few representing any other viewpoint. That's why I said cut "some" of them. Leaving the deck stacked w/wingers is, imo, not doing a good job.


"And I believe he's also responsible for the wingers that are the primary staple there, as well. He may not have been the one that hired 'em, but he IS the guy that keeps 'em. If he cut some of the GOP talking heads out like Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, etc ... THEN I might say he's doing a good job."

For it to be equal or fair representation, Abrams needs to toss in a few more Schusters & Olbermanns into the line-up. Till then, he's not doing such a bang up job from my point of view.

Your satisfaction w/the status quo may vary, of course.

[mzmolly]

24. Oooooh I love the "satisfaction with the status quo" line.

I never tire of the status quo remark "status quo."

I find MSNBC one of the most balanced networks on the air.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. I had my husband watch the video saying this is what a real journalist is like

[monmouth]

18. Best I've read, wonderful...n/t

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

20. I'm Sorry, But A Letter Is Much More Effective When.....

You spell the name of the person you're commenting on, Correctly.

No can rec.

[ebayfool]

23. Rec'ed & also rec the idea of this getting written as a petition!

Much more tactful than I could write, therefore also much more effective - I'd sign it!