I was actually a bit surprised at how mild this report was (and shocked that Olbermann didn't mention it at all), until I saw this article from dag, that claims MSNBC anchors were asked not to "incorporate" the interview into their reporting for the day.

Watching this again, this looks like Maddow was working under some very specific rules about what she could and could not say about this event. No clip of the interview, and no direct summary of the content of the interview, appear to be some of the rules. While she does, in the end, communicate a sense of gravity to the event, and that it contained a call for the need for more "watchdoggery" from the business journalists (and I suspect the qualifier about business was mandated), it clearly fails to tackle the meat of what happened in any real way.

Contrast this to CBS's coverage of the interview. The difference is striking.

Then again, they aren't affiliated with CNBC.

^ I'm surprised this would surprise you.

I really don't know where our country's headed. I doubt that anybody does. I do think that a lot of cons are hoping that things go to hell (for everybody but themselves) so they can kick into gloating gear. They're already calling this the "Obama Recession" when most people saw things going down almost two years ago, almost everybody but the Bush administration and the likes of Cramer.

I do think that we are genuinely better off with the likes of Rachel and Keith on the air.

>> ^cdominus:
^ I'm surprised this would surprise you.


I was surprised because Olbermann at least had been openly mocking Santelli and Cramer for a while, and Rachel had been at least mentioning the growing ire Stewart was directing at Cramer on her show as well.

Usually those two have license to say things the network is otherwise uncomfortable with, and they'd already been openly piling on mockery directed at their CNBC fellows. I guess I just expected more independence from them.

I am a little curious if that's just going to be the NBC family's response to what happened, to just pretend it didn't happen.

If I had their ear, I'd tell them that this was an opportunity for them to do some public self-reflection, and win back some of the credibility they've lost by letting their commentators talk about it freely.

It's not like that'd hurt their ratings.

My god.. does NOBODY else notice that at 31 seconds in, she looks almost IDENTICAL to Jon?

>> ^Shepppard:
My god.. does NOBODY else notice that at 31 seconds in, she looks almost IDENTICAL to Jon?


Apart from the tits, yes she does!

Upvote for John Stewart with tits.

I'd do John Stewart with tits. I'd make her scream for Lesbian Jesus!