Should MSNBC Allow Rachel Maddow To Anchor Breaking News Events?

When MSNBC moved to replace Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews with David Gregory in the anchor's chair during election coverage, relegating the more opinionated hosts to commentary and analysis, the New York Times declared that the "experiment" of putting "politically incendiary hosts" in the anchor chair appeared to be "over."

Davidson Goldin, former editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin, told the Times, "The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what's supposed to be straight news programming."

So it may have been something of a surprise Wednesday evening — as it was for Inside Cable News — to see MSNBC's opinionated darling Rachel Maddow anchoring the coverage of George Bush's primetime address on the financial crisis. From ICN:

Yes, the address is occurring in the middle of Maddow's hour. But appearances are everything for MSNBC these days and the appearance of yet another ideological talking head anchoring MSNBC's news coverage says a lot about what NBC's priorities really are. To quote Roger Daltry Pete Townsend: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Olbermann/Matthews experiment may be over, but the fundamental thinking behind it; namely taking the hot hand and riding it regardless of the appropriateness of such a move, is still in vogue at 30 Rock. If Maddow's ratings weren't hot right now and she wasn't getting all this press you can bet your paycheck that NBC would have put a journalist in to anchor the coverage. This is so blatant it's embarrassing.

An MSNBC representative explained:

The speech was during her hour, therefore she anchored the coverage as part of her program.

What do you think? Vote in the poll below to settle the question: Should MSNBC allow Rachel Maddow to anchor breaking news events? There are a few videos of Rachel from Wednesday night below the poll to help you make up your mind.

Quick Poll

Should MSNBC Allow Rachel Maddow To Anchor Breaking News?

Yes, she's the best in the business!

Yes, she can shut off her opinion when it's necessary.

No, she's too opinionated to remain objective.

No -- and she shouldn't even have her own show!

Who cares?

Comments

[bittertooth]

http://www.talentism.com/business_talent/2006/04/working_at_elec.html?cid=133634927#comment-133634927

Let's face it, neither VP is up to par.

[OneLiberalLady]

She is too obviously biased to be allowed to anchor news events. I am a liberal and I have enjoyed hearing her on Air America. But her constant prediction of who will win this election (hint: it's not who you would think) is just one factor that leads me to conclude she is too free with her opinions. She can be very good and explain things well when she wants to but I am soured on her as a news anchor.

[sanywhere]

i would ask if you have watched her interview republicans and democrats alike on msnbc. she is obviously just looking for the truth to be spoken and calls both sides on it. she is prepared and gives people room to make their points without yelling, talking over them. what more can you ask for.

[djrr]

Maddow is suffocatingly partisan! Her spiteful rhetoric makes me turn her show to Fox every single time! Maddow is like to many journalists who have given the field a bad name. Her sarcasm is at nauseum and I predict it will begin to wear very thin with the audience much sooner than later.

[Plus15]

I suppose your point is that Breaking News Events should be anchored by the independent Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams or David Gregory. Its time to identify Brokaw, Williams and Gregory for what they are right wingers and right wing tools.

Watching Rachel Maddow interview Republican Senator Richard Shelby on the Bailout was a revelation because she actually asked relevant questions and followed up on the Senators answers thoroughly unlike anything we've seen from Brokaw, Williams and Gregory recently or maybe ever. She knew her stuff, she was prepared. It was what an interview and news coverage is supposed to be not just face time and publicity for another news making blowhard. The responsibility much less the functional ability to do that is missing from BW&G and it's why Brokaw and Williams in particular fear and hate the blogs, the internet and cable news.

Unfortunately NBC has no one else for that role, maybe thats the job for Abrams. Shuster has no business hosting or moderating anything. He's best as a field reporter on a very short leash. A number of the NBC on air people suffer from stupid advice and direction from their producers or coaches.

[lapdogs]

And I suppose EVERY reporter at FAUX would give me "straight analysis" of the speech?

Meanwhile, CNN is trying to become FAUX2

[sanywhere]

because this was an article on fox and cnn? no. we know the typical rants. how about something new.

[jayburd]

Did that article really quote The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" in their criticism of Rachel Maddow anchoring the Bush speech? Seriously???

That's right folks, be afraid. Be very afraid because the repressive regime of Matthews and Olbermann has been replaced by the dastardly and despicable Rachel Maddow!!!

[gooseisloose]

I love Maddow, but does anyone else think the graphics in her show are really distracting? Every time I watch, my eye keeps wandering to the lower left corner, where "Rachel Maddow" slooooowly scrolls on the diagonal. And the backdrop has a dated, 80s look to it. Maddow herself is a stand-out -- intelligent, well-spoken, interesting -- and would be much better served by something straightforward and simple that keeps the focus squarely on her.

[wigcon]

Yes.

[vyfareon]

The graphics are awful. They distract from the show. They seem outdated and silly. I feel like I'm watching old British television.

Rachel is wonderful, intelligent and insightful. But you have to watch with your eyes closed.

[camipco]

Approval voting in polls! So awesome. As a huge voting rights geek, that makes me extremely happy.

Also, Rachel Maddow is the best newswoman on tv.

[Pappa]

Maddow is the best in the business; she is smart, vocal, and love to argue with the dark side (right wing). And I would much rather look at her than a balding old man.

[JadedAggie]

I don't really believe it honestly matters since 5 minutes into their coverage they start throwing it to surrogates and talking heads anyway. I would prefer straight news, but let's face it that simply isn't happening on any of the networks. At the same time I think comparing Maddow to KO is insulting to Maddow.

[docfink420]

What's completely ridiculous is that the media pretends like they are above choosing sides on political matters. They never have been, never were, and we are in desperate need for them to inject a little opinion into their reporting. It makes up for the apathy that most Americans share about the state of affairs in this country.

[contemporarymom]

Good points. I agree.

[argent1]

It's Cable Stupid. You news "organizers" are as capable as those who sell mortgage derivatives

[Prism]

NO. Propagandists on both sides need not apply.

[RobertAndropolis]

Dr. Maddow is much more self-assured and confident than the ALWAYS PREENING David Gregory. He solidified his place in journalistic history for many when he was caught on video dancing to the bizarre serenade of Karl Rove rapping. I can't see his face without thinking back on how inappropriate I found that from an integrity point of view as it had the appearance of impropriety. Every cable media talking head have their biases; Maddow at least has intelligence and takes pride in her profession, unlike these other dweebs who think the telecast is all about them.

[addie24]

What about FOX TV. They dont have to follow the same rules???.

[Wirehedd]

Rachel rocks. They know it and so do we.