Has the Olberman/Matthews removal signaled a power play by the establishment to silence print/TV

[Divine Discontent]

Have they started a game changing move by silencing critics pointing out the obvious - that the emperor has no clothes, or empress in this case? Palin is shockingly bad, and if this were 1988 or 2000 she'd have been the focus of nightly news at this point with her refusal to answer intelligent questions about affairs since she only wants, possibly, the presidency? Who is she? Who knows, John McCain only met her one time before he picked his "soul mate" to be his VP choice. He's losing it! And I have noticed a lot more ridiculous stories like this one from politico http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080909/pl_politico/20934

Notice how they leave out the part about these people not agreeing with her politics at all, but make a major news story about people being angry about people judging that a woman can't juggle kids and running for VP. Their comment about not agreeing with her is like 5 paragraphs in! I just want to put this question out and see if others who read news, quite possibly all day long, notice a change from a month ago?

It is nice to see MSNBC finally has the Palin expense reports story up finally.

[Orsino]

1. Print/TV *are* the Establishment.

It's a power play, all right, but only to replace talking heads with others more compliant with management.

[On the Road]

2. I Don't Think It's So Much That Standards Have Changed

as that there was no one like Keith Olberman in coverage of previous elections. And being Keith, he went further than corporate would allow. I understand it in the sense that an anchor should have at least the appearance of neutrality, and KO certainly does not. The good news is that he's still involved, and should be able to still speak his mind. It's probably more appropriate as one of several commentators.

[Divine Discontent]

4. good point

I hope eviscerates McCain Palin when he gets his turn....

just chews them up and spits them out.

[ellacott]

3. They haven't been silenced

[ErinBerin84]

5. I'm pretty sure that 95% of what jossip posts is not true.

http://www.jossip.com/phil-griffin-thought-he-was-saving-msnbc-from-itself-maybe-he-was-wrong-20080908/

but this item kind of made me laugh, and it has a clip of Chuck Todd taking a few shots at Joe Scarbs this morning. He was probably kidding, but I like the idea of everyone at MSNBC hating Gregory and Scarborough (though according to Jossip, everyone at MSNBC hates everyone).


"Part of the announcement was that David Gregory would be playing center square, turning to O+M for their analysis while he moderates the hard news during the presidential debates and election night returns. And that's the other sticking point for NBC News staffers: Nobody wants Gregory in that role, according the temperature our sources have taken inside the network. "The Phil management style has infuriated people who aren't even fans of Olbermann," says one spy. Gregory's own 6pm Race To The White House has been a ratings dud, and while Olbermann and Matthews have kept MSNBC's ratings alive, many fear Gregory will tank that progress. Staffers are cheering for the home team, but find it hard when the guy making the calls is Griffin.

And who might be taking the news the hardest? Joe Scarborough.

Because, just maybe, Scarborough thought he was better suited for the job than Gregory?

He didn't show up for work this morning, claiming illness, we're told. Possibly, he is sick, but conspiracy theorists — like Chuck Todd, who makes the case here on Morning Joe that with fewer than 60 days to the election, it's important for a show host to actually be on the air — would argue he woke up at his usual early hour, saw the Times story (or got word it was coming), blew up in a typical fury, and refused to get in the town car for 30 Rock."