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

[eztempo]

The United States is about the only country in the world that pushes the quaint myth that journalism can be "objective­." Myself, I don't require journalists to pretend that they're unfeeling morons without an opinion on anything -- I just require that they be accurate and truthful. That's what makes news "news," rather than "editorial­."

[BuzzingAlong]

Accurate and truthful they are not.

Republican­/Bush/Chen­ey/McCain shills. Yes

[hugs4u]

Rachel Maddow is today's version of Edward R Murrow.. Greatest newsperson of all time.

[Ramirez]

Indeed. Greatest ever. And she has had her own show for nearly a month now.

[aesova]

On _television_ that is. I've been listening to her on radio for years. She's even better on radio, although I think that it's important that she, and Olbermann, are reaching a wider audience through the magic of television.

[LAB11]

Rachel never reports anything as fact without backing it up with verifiable sources. As long as she continues to do that, it's fine for her to state her opinions as strongly as she can. BTW, ff she anchors election night, many more will watch MSNBC. If Gregory anchors, nobody will watch. MSM would be more appealing. He stinks. So does Matthew and Mitchell. HardBall is a foul ball now, skip it. I never watched Race to Whitehouse because of Gregory.

[servicepap]

I have to agree with LAB11's assessment that Maddow does her homework and backs up her facts with verifiable sources. I also agree that if she anchors election night, it will bring throngs of viewers to MSNBC. My husband and I enjoy Olbermann, but feel Maddow is able to be a more balanced journalist, rather than just a pundit. She is capturing the admiration and respect of the viewers because of her ability to move effortlessly from straight journalism to punditry without blinking. Maddow can talk to anyone respectfully, and with an easy grace, regardless of whether they do or do not share her own viewpoint. She is a winner, intelligent, interesting to watch, and keeps us glued to our MSNBC station.

[Blabbermouth]

Rachel is awesome. They're all haters.

[unfiltered]

She's a big girl and can differentiate between the two. Instead of putting intelligent people, who refuse to spew talking points regardless of substance or truth, journalistic integrity is defined by pretending to be unbiased yet advocating a political agenda by framing questions a certain way and overemphasizing the insignificant while underemphasizing the profound..­.kind of the way Tom Brokaw does for his Republican buddies. Yet, he somehow became the journalistic standard bearer.

Lack of investment in education has led this country to despise nuance and give power to those who refuse to think. The MSM has encouraged phrases like "Axis of Evil" and "you're either with us or against us." Somehow, the idiots in charge don't think you can have an opinion yet ask questions with no ideological slant. I'm glad to watch your death by suicide.

[funkalicious]

Rachel has no objectivity she only sings to the choir unfortunately When Olberman ripped the veneer off fox snooze and went completely in the tank for the democrats.­. he also lost credibility Maddow is in the same boat.. It is unfortunate that there isn't a venue to call a pile of crap a pile of crap.

The way Maddow and Olberman see it a pile of Democrats crap it is jewel toned and has magical properties.

Same garbage with a diferent mask as O Reilly however OReilly shakes it up occasionally and calls people on their crap...

Maddow and Olberman have joined the spin cycle and actually are part of the machinery.

So I don't trust anything either of them say unless I corroborate it else where.. too bad cause I usually agree with them. and generally find them smart and witty.

[bikerdude]

As if anyone would care what you think about M and O....YOU don't belong here and your opinion has no validity. If you are getting troll pay, collect your pennies and be gone.

[phoebie]

Rachel is uncommonly well prepared, articulate and gets right to the heart of the matter. Tim Russert would be proud.

[jayburd]

Tim Russert (rest his soul) couldn't hold Rachel's Mic.

[gloriousgift]

Rachel Maddow is a breath of fresh air. I love her show.

I say get rid of David Gregory and Andrea Mtichell. They both suck !!!

I used to like Chris Matthews but lately he is is really starting to make me sick.

[Cynamen]

I concur...a­nd WWTRS (what would Tin Russert say?) Factual truths make the difference for me, so i keep the remote @ the ready!

[GeorgeKaplan]

There is no more "straight news" news is dead. Now every show is CROSSFIRE. Heated opinion gets better ratings than news. Money runs these cable shows... nothing else.

[ARTIST50]

I think she's a gem. She has such a pleasant personality, yet she asks pointed questions and is so incredilbly smart. Her show doesn't have the venom of a Hannity or O'Reilly. I think the "other side" will welcome going on her show because she welcomes other's opinion. There is true discussion, not the vitrolic meanness that goes on at Hannity. I don't know why Colmes even shows up, he never makes a good point and he is constantly talked over. I guess his paycheck must be fairly large. I wouldn't want Hannity doing this, but Hume does is a partisan, why shouldn't Rachael?

[Wirehedd]

diggin that Artie.

[EducatedDerelict]

I think she did a great job - that is, holding back any sarcasm, venom or apparent distaste for the President of the United States - when she covered the breaking news (that, _unfortunately_ , broke into her own show).

That is to say, it is hard for me to point out any reason her anchoring for that bit of news could not or should not be categorized as 'straight news'.

[mam]

As long as Brit Hume is allowed to anchor breaking news events for Faux, Maddow should be able to do so for MSNBC (and, unlike Hume, she'll actually be intelligible).

[somsoc]

Whether Hume is on the aire or not RM should be on, she could replace that anchor on CBS (if they have one) in the evening. However, she is a great addition to the best line-up in news on TV or cable, where she is at MSNBC.

[raker]

Rachel Maddow is not a newsperson, but strictly speaking, neither is anyone else at NBC or MSNBC, so she'd be as good as anyone else for the job.

[vulvina]

what about all the bimbos --and the dumb men--at Fox and CNN who can pronounce names as well as Palin and have no idea what they are reading.

i am not interested in what the former weather girl of channel 7 in DC thinks about world events. it is shocking she is on the air in CNN

[Wirehedd]

bimbos, bohunks and bulsh*t.

I'd rather watch Cronkite again. Walter had cred. :)

[CammyV]

What could Rachel say (as a "politically incendiary host") that we don't already know about Bush? Even his own party is cra.pping on him.

[lucite]

There are plenty "politically incendiary hosts" on Fox. Why is that not a problem? Personally some of them on Fox news are beyond politically incendiary hosts, they are downright obnoxious and not capable of reporter even softball news.

[chandolyn]

Yes, and he deserves every bit of it, and more1

[levibatgirl]

Rachel is the best!