NBC News and Kelly O'Donnell

[Uzybone]

Very slanted coverage. Its disgusting.

[gabeana]

1. what are they doing now?

[Uzybone]

2. They said McCain cancelled his outdoor event

because he didn't want his supporters to suffer in the rain, inferring that Obama didn't care about his supporters. They parroted the McCain line (thanks foot in the mouth Biden!) that Obamas tax plan keeps changing.

[spartan61]

3. But Palin didn't cancel her outdoor event and it was raining

there, too. Even her glasses had raindrops on them. Does she not care either? McCain is such a putz.

[ErinBerin84]

4. Jake Tapper (who is covering the Obama campaign now exclusively for ABC, I guess...)

said at the end of his report that Obama has not had a press conference in a "month" and that he is sticking to the teleprompters....followed of course by a commercial advertising a Charles Gibson interview with Obama in the next couple of days.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. Didn't he just have a press conference last week?

He took questions after he spoke about national security issues.

Tapper is full of shit.

[ClusterFreak]

5. And what's with O'Donnell showing the Biden clip quoting...

..."$150,000"...and then insisting the Obama campaign corrected him to say it's actually 200 thousand.

200 thousand?

Really?

When did they say that, Kelly?

I don't know this for sure...but I assumed that Biden said 150 in reference to the way it was under Clinton. It was a gaffe, yes. But everyone knows it's 250. It's not 200 and why in God's name would Obama's people now say it's 200, Kelly?

I'll tell you how, they didn't say 200, that's how.

Kelly O'Donnell is perhaps the slyest, sneakiest reporter on NBC. I have ALWAYS thought she was a McCain/Repuke apologist.

[Pirate Smile]

8. There was no change. Ambinder spells it out.

Stunning! Obama Changes Tax Plan Seven Days Out*
28 Oct 2008 01:10 pm

With an appreciable lead in national polls just a week before the election, Barack Obama has radically overhauled his middle class tax cut plan, dropping to $150,000 the cut off for those who'll see a tax cut. What's more, he did so on television in working-class Scranton using a native son, his vice president, Joe Biden.

Can you believe it? What chutzpah. What confidence! Said Biden:

"Spreading the wealth was not--he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just - that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic - they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."

What a gift to Republicans.

* = well, not exactly.

Well, the Obama campaign insists that its plan hasn't changed. Families making $250,000 or less will not see their taxes raised; families making less than $200,000 will see their taxes cut -- and some making more than that will -- depends on other factors, including your outstanding mortgage balance; individuals making less than $200,000 won't pay more and those making $150,000 will pay less.

This comports exactly with what Biden said today.

And it's pretty much what the Obama campaign has been saying all along... most every family making less than $250K would see a cut. None making less than that would see their taxes rise.

(In the second debate, Obama said: "If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.")

On Obama's tax cut website, I posed as the breadwinner for a family of four making $250,000 a year; I'm older than 65 and I pay child care expenditures. The result: no tax cut for me.

Then I inputed an annual salary of between $150,000 and $200,000 and said I had at least three dependents. My tax cut would be roughly $500.

One can question the wisdom of raising taxes (or letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire), but it's not accurate to say that Obama has changed his plan.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/stunning_obama_changes_tax_pla.php

[ClusterFreak]

9. I didn't know the details...but I knew O'Donnell was trying to...

...pull some shit.

Thanks for posting the specifics.:thumbsup:

[Zen Democrat]

7. There no gaffe here. Obama has always stated the following:

Over $250,000 would result in a 3% tax increase for the amount over $250,000.

From $200,000 to $250,000 would not have an increase.

Under $200,000 would get a tax cut.

[elkston]

12. Yes. Obama's exact statements have always been ...

"If you make under $250,000 a year, you won't see your taxes RAISED a dime." Not RAISED. Meaning either they stay the same or are lower. In this case, they stay the same until you reach < $200,000 when they start getting lower.

[rschmitt]

10. Oh, please

This stuff is really tired. Every time someone hears something in a report they don't like, even it's just one small sample, the immediate -- and often devoid of thought -- reaction is to accuse the reporter of bias.
If we ever reach the point where we have completely separate channels for completely separate points of view, that will be a very scary place to be. And one, I suspect, that our Democratic nominee for president would not envision except in his worst nightmares.
You saw a report you didn't like. Leave it at that.

[creeksneakers2]

11. Its not one report

Kelly O'Donnell is the on the scene campaign corespondent for the McCain campaign for one of the three major networks. She's on Nightly News more nights than not, usually first in the lineup. I always watched and I've never seen her say one thing that's not a McCain talking point. She frequently distorts the truth to help McCain. McCain's latest charge is an outrageous lie and she tried to make it look like its true. I know it wasn't a mistake becaue the NBC blog First Read debunked McCain's lie at 11:00 AM this morning.

Here's a blog post for the Nightly News blog I wrote. I don't know if they'll post it. They almost never do if Kelly is mentioned by name. I wrote this before I read anything on DU about the controversy.

Nightly News gave misleading information about Obama's tax cut plan. Obama's plan has always been for those who make from $0 to $200,000 to get a tax cut; those who make from $200,000 to $250,000 would have their taxes remain the same, and those over $250,000 to have their taxes increased.

Nightly News correspondent, Kelly O'Donnell, unethically, once again, did her best to help John McCain mislead people. McCain charged that since Joe Biden used the figure $150,000 in an interview to describe a class that would get tax cuts under Obama that Obama's plan was being adjusted to apply to lower incomes to rope in more and more middle income people for higher taxes. That's not true. What Biden said does not conflict with the plan as stated here in paragraph one. He was just using $150,000 as an example. No change in the plan took place. McCain was just once again distorting the truth and lying.

After fully airing McCain's false charges, Kelly gave Obama's side by quoting a generic dismissal from the Obama camp but then added on her own that Obama changed the the figure for those getting tax cuts to $200,000 from $250,000. Kelly made it look like McCain was telling the truth and Obama was lying. In fact, as outlined here in paragraph one, the $200,000 figure has always been the top limit for those getting tax cuts. $250,000 is the bottom limit for those getting tax hikes. Of course, tax cuts and tax hikes are two different things. Kelly was twisting the two together to make it look like Obama changed the figure.

Obama didn't change anything. Kelly's accusation was dishonest. I use that strong a word because McCain's misleading charge was debunked here on First Read at 11:00 AM. How could First Read know McCain's charge was false but Kelly O'Donnell not know?

[TheKentuckian]

13. The point is not "liking" or not "liking" the coverage, friend

its about accurately reporting the facts, rather than artificially creating viewpoints which is surely bias. I'm not going to ask for O'Donnell's head because she's been embedded with McGollum and has been fairly reasonable but if she is going to use that credibility to literally present fabrications then she should take some hits over it.

Also, you should have issued this speech years ago or did you miss the existence of FOX News which exists solely for the purpose you rail against.

Guess what? Fair and balanced is a bullshit way to do anything. Fair and accurate is what its about. I'm a Raiders fan and we're crap so I do not expect balance because the story is all about us being crappy or at least there is no way for the positives and negatives to gain equal footing.

What the hell is wrong for wanting the straight story?

[rschmitt]

16. Rail against?

I am perfectly familiar with what Fox means to news, which is exactly I do not clamor to see other networks go that route. My choice is to see and hear all points of view but expressed responsibly and, yes, accurately.

I love watching MSNBC, especially in prime time. I just do not go overboard every time I see or hear something I do not like on that network. I gain a better understanding of certain issues -- know your opponent -- by listening to Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and some others who are regulars and even some of the visiting strategists. I might yell at the TV, but I do not change the channel or scream to the heavens about imbalanced journalism and bias and other nonsense.

Regarding the O'Donnell report, specifically, it sounds like you have more of a book on her work than I do, so I will respect that. But remember that it is her JOB with NBC to cover the McCain campaign and, when it is her turn to be on the air, it is her JOB to report the goings-on of the McCain campaign, including the campaign's view of current matters.

She is not a talk-show host or columnist or whatever it is you would call someone on TV whose primary job it is to give opinion.

That said, she is NOT to be excused for failing to understand -- and pass along -- the most accurate information regarding the tax thresholds.

[stillcool]

14. This shit is why Obama..

has to buy air time.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. She gave a very different view of the McCalin campaign on MTP than we have been hearing lately

Norah has lost credibility with me