you are absolutely right--is there a petition somewhere?

The Obama campaign could have said no to this months ago and they did not.

There is now word that Ifil is publishing a book about Obama in the coming months, but McCain agreed to her so she is still the moderator.

Same rules should apply for both sides.

This is my opinion, Brokaw should be outta there.

but if you get what you want, then Ifill should be out too.  That's all I'm saying.

As far as I can tell, she's a consummate professional, totally fair, like the rest of the NewsHour team.

about Obama and race and politics.  It could lead someone to think she is biased towards him.

It's about the 4 most successful black politicians, and by all rights Obama falls into that catagory.

For what it's worth, I do think making a stink about Tom B is a bit late.

Michelle Malkin. Puh-leeze.

It would be far more gratifying to beat McCain while giving him every advantage he wants. I just don't see Obama as being threatened.

Regardless, I really don't see the debate leaning any direction without either candidate being able to push it their way.

Also, I just don't respect Media Matters yet.

Since Gwen Ifil is writing a book on Obama, it could be a conflict of interest.  I still think she should moderate on Thursday.  Gwen Ifil is a journalist with great integrity.  

However, I think if Ifil gets to moderate the VP debate, it is acceptable for Brokaw to moderate the Oct. 7th debate.  Hey, at least it isn't Sean Hannity or any of the Faux News nutjobs!!!

Unfortunately, the moderator the debate committee initially wanted for this task was unavailable since he is dead.  That would be Tim Russert...RIP

Actually, reading Nate Silver, I'm coming around to wanting Ifill to withdraw to give the Palinites one less excuse and distraction (though I imagine they'll find something else).

The one thing that journalists prize more than anything is their reputation. Tom Brokaw's is one of the most well-regarded in the business. He's not going to risk that at this point, especially as he has few opportunities to get it back.

I think Media Matters is being silly to attack Brokaw for his statement on Meet the Press. Media Matters has a role to play in going after the media for truly egregious misstatements, lies, etc., but this simply is not one of them. Was it a poorly worded question? Maybe. Was the question accurate? Yes, if maybe a little outdated. The last NBC News survey to ask that question probably saw those results (I haven't seen them, so I'm not sure).

I did not find the New York Times reporting surprising at all. NBC News is held to a higher standard than Fox. Why? Everyone knows what Fox is about. You love them or hate them, they intertwine reporting and opinion with no pause. NBC News is, and should be, considered different. Why? They use the public airwaves.

Much of MSNBC's credibility comes from its position as a part of NBCU and their carry-over credibility from NBC News. The primary season saw MSNBC emerge as NBCU's sole news reporting station and a nearly full integration of NBC News and MSNBC.

However, that's not to say MSNBC should not be allowed to have opinion journalists. But, it shouldn't be surprising that GOP partisans felt they were not getting a fair shake on MSNBC. They weren't. Further, it shouldn't be surprising that the GOP/McCain camp felt they wouldn't get a fair shake from the entire NBC News organization after seeing the tight integration between NBC News and MSNBC (which is not a bad thing).

Dems don't get any kind of fair shake on Fox and we holler and scream about. Reps don't get a fully fair shake at MSNBC. We shouldn't lower ourselves to their standards.

NBC News is appropriately trying to ensure the maximum access to a candidate for President and a national political party. None of the actions or questions that Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams have put forth have been unfair or outrageous. Don't impute bias to a poorly worded question.

on the polling question from Brokaw... Diageo/Hotline poll has a similar question... who "is more prepared to lead"...

Two weeks ago (in the survey completed 9/16), McCain led 51-38%; today, he leads just 46-41%

So, Brokaw's question and numbers were probably correct...

Even if the numbers were correct (though out of date), the point is that it was completely inappropriate for Brokaw as the interviewer to end the segment by "in fairness" summarizing it with a pro-McCain factoid suggesting that that poll result trumped all the previous discussion and represented the True State of Public Opinion.

His allowing Schaffer to walk all over Udall, shouting over him every time he tried to answer a question, and never shutting the guy down or even asking him to let the other guy have a chance to finish.

I don't really think any undecided voter would look at that performance and think, "yeah, that Schaffer guy is right".  I think it's more like they thought, "yeah, that Schaffer guy is a total douch bag."

progressives tend to prefer MSNBC, the fact is that NBC and most of MSNBC programming has been in the tank for McCain for a long time.  

There are three shows (one of which is brand new)which lean Democratic:  Harball (Matthews), Countdown, (Olbermann), and now Rachel Maddow.  Throughout the day, I have monitored MSNBC for months and there is little evidence of Dem-leaning bias during the day.  In fact, MSNBC trotted out more Republicans and gave them much more airtime over the economic crisis and the bailout.  I have mentioned only three hours of pro-Dem programming.  And MSNBC makes sure Pat Buchanon is shrilly injecting himself even in those.  And over at CNBC there is no contest.  Its 80-90% Republican slant.

You write:

The one thing that journalists prize more than anything is their reputation. Tom Brokaw's is one of the most well-regarded in the business. He's not going to risk that at this point, especially as he has few opportunities to get it back.

That hasn't been my experience.

Reporters, in general, and MSM reporters, in particular, care about their careers. The problem here is not Brokaw, per se (it seems to me he has a 50-50 chance of doing a good job), but the fact that as a member of the MSM he has a storng interest in not exposing the flaws of either candidate.

the fact is that is Broakw, or any moderator, did this too well, then he or she would never, ever again be allowed to moderate a presidential or vice-presidential debate. He would also fear politicians boycotting MTP.

Tim Russert, may he rest in peace, was able to get away with this for a while, being a tough questioner and still getting people on his show, but not for very long. He soon became a parody of himself ("Senator, in the second grade you said, and lets put it up on the screen here, 'blah blah blah,' but just last week you contradicted that. Where do you really stand, Senator?")

Above all else, Brokaw, or any MSM reporter, fears this.

Frankly, if he would agree toplay it 95% serious, I think Stephen Colbert would be the best moderator we have.

but I think Al Franken should do it ;-)