Civil war at MSNBC

The media is one of the most important elements of any election season, especially when we are electing a president.

Its primary role is to act as an advocate for the people. After all, none of us will likely have access to any of the major players as we approach the election.

Some forums do provide citizens the chance to ask questions to candidates, but those events are usually tightly controlled and don't allow any significant give and take.

Therefore, the media's responsibility should be to ask the questions we would ask if we had the opportunity.

While that seems pretty clear cut, it is not always that easy because many voters believe certain media outlets have a bias against certain candidates.

For example, conservatives often complain about newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post as examples in the media that present news with a liberal slant.

Conversely, most liberals will express similar frustrations against a news outlet like Fox News. Such criticisms from both sides are pretty common during elections.

However, voters very rarely get a glimpse inside a news organization as it develops its strategy to cover a campaign. We got that glimpse recently when MSNBC demoted Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage.

Both will remain as commentators, but their roles have been diminished.

Most who follow politics know Olbermann and Matthews from the shows they host each weeknight on MSNBC. Both shows are commentary shows meaning that very little actual news reporting is done. Basically, both men provide their points of view on the issues of the day.

Both (but especially Olbermann) have recently enjoyed a surge in popularity from liberals because of their criticism of the Bush administration. In watching both men perform, it is pretty clear that their political ideology leans to the left.

Within the context of their shows, there is nothing wrong with that. They are paid to present opinions, and they both do so with passion and flair.

However, things went wrong when both were awarded anchoring duties during the recent national political conventions. Basically, MSNBC put commentators into a situation best handled by a news reporter, and as most understand, there is a big difference between being a reporter and a commentator.

The situation reached a low point when Olbermann made several sarcastic comments at the Republican convention. For example, after vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin made her acceptance speech, Olbermann compared her to Reese Witherspoon's character 'Tracy Flick' in the film Election.

If you didn't see that film, trust me, the comment was not intended as a compliment.

MSNBC made a big mistake by putting these men into these roles. However, what is perhaps even more puzzling is that there wasn't much of an outcry when they were first chosen.

If ABC had assigned a conservative pundit like Rush Limbaugh to anchor its coverage at the conventions, criticism would have been loud and long. However, the selection of Olbermann and Matthews caused little criticism.

Based on published reports, it took an internal rebellion from within NBC's news division to get Olbermann and Matthews demoted.

Now, newsman David Gregory will handle anchoring duties for upcoming events.

One has to wonder whether this problem would have occurred if Tim Russert were still alive. Russert was known for his ability to remain impartial and had the most clout within both the NBC and MSNBC news divisions.

My guess is this never would have happened.

Chalk this up to growing pains caused by Russert's loss. However, it couldn't have occurred at a worse time.

Russert's death leaves big shoes to fill

Political news coverage took a big hit recently when NBC's Tim Russert died on June 13 of a heart attack.

It was a big hit not just because Russert was an extremely popular journalist, but also because he was one of the best.

In an era where personal bias and opinion stains a lot of political reporting, Russert had a well-earned reputation for being one of the fairest journalists in the business.

Despite starting his career as an important figure in Democratic politics, he exhibited little personal bias after changing careers and becoming a member of the media.

When a guest appeared on "Meet the Press," it mattered little whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Russert would relentlessly research his guest and pound them with questions.

However, Russert's influence at NBC carried much beyond "Meet the Press." Despite Brian Williams’ anchoring of "The Night News" and Tom Brokaw still occasionally appearing on the network, Russert was the dominant force when it came to the network's political coverage.

Under normal circumstances, he would be difficult to replace, but his absence will be felt even more at NBC because this is a presidential election year.

Because of this, the big question is: How will NBC handle his loss? This question was at least partly answered when it was announced that Brokaw will handle "Meet the Press" for the election season.

However, don't expect a permanent host to be named for quite a while. Out of respect for Russert, that announcement will likely not be made soon.

Additionally, the show is the most prestigious political talk show on television. Though there will be lots of pressure to quickly name a permanent successor, I doubt it will be a decision made hastily.

Within the network, there doesn't appear to be someone who can match the tone that Russert set for the show. After Brokaw fulfills his duties, options appear to be wide open when it comes to selecting a permanent host.

Some folks have floated Chris Matthews as an option, who currently has a show on MSNBC. Even though Matthews eats and sleeps politics, he would be a bad match for the show.

Russert's trademark was keeping his questioning down the middle while grilling his guests. It was objective journalism that allowed viewers to draw their own conclusions.

Matthews, however, doesn't hesitate to interject his opinions on his show. Like Russert, Matthews' career began in Democratic politics, but unlike him, it is usually pretty easy to tell what politicians he favors. For example, it is painfully clear that he is touting Sen. Barack Obama in this year's presidential race.

If he got involved with "Meet the Press," objectivity would be thrown out the window, and the show would take a severe credibility hit.

The bottom line is he just wouldn't be a good fit.

After him, it is pretty much anybody's guess at this point.

This year's election is already taking shape as a hotly contested race. It will be interesting to see how Russert's absence will impact the reporting of it.

Often times, it is the media that sets the tone for a political race. In losing one of its most important members, the tone will definitely be different.

Though it is a cheesy analogy, Russert's loss is almost like a football team that loses its quarterback before the big game. Somebody will have to step forward to fill his void.

And that will be one of the most interesting sub-plots this autumn.