Radio's Ed Schultz announced his new gig yesterday, joining MSNBC's tough progressive line up. Ed is a fine progressive voice, but I've been disenchanted with MSNBC, fearing their news editor may be influenced by executive politics.

Speculation has been growing concerning MSNBC's editorial muzzle since Olbermann and Maddow were reportedly prohibited from commenting on the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer controversy, presumably not to embarrass the xNBC family.

But I've been much more perplexed at Maddow in particular in failing to report the Mike Connell story. Following Rachel since her Air America radio debut with Chuck D, this seems exactly the type of juicy GOP mystery Rachel boldly made her name reporting when no one else would.

After succeeding in her mainstream media debut, Rachel signed a six figure deal with MSNBC. But I wonder what kind of non-disclosure agreements were included in this, or Olbermann's seven figure deal. Were there any editorial constraints written in? I would imagine this is standard practice in an industry that has for years routinely ignored "depressing" war news, disregarded shocking corruption scandals and grossly undercovered election integrity issues.

When Mike Connell died alone in a plane crash last December, the blogosphere immediately began speculating whether he was bumped off because he was forced to testify about his role in suspected election fraud in Ohio 2004 where Bush astonishingly upended a Kerry lead in the middle of the night.

Perhaps even more shocking than this murderous conspiracy theory, however, was the revelation that Connell was overseeing the official Ohio Secretary of State vote reporting website at the same time he was running the sites for the Bush campaign, the SwiftBoat campaign and dozens of other highly partisan GOP/RNC websites.

Much to my chagrin, Maddow and Olbermann neglected any mention of this appalling conflict, or even Connell's demise, after it appeared on AP's newswire, the CBS News website and Huffington Post, also blanketing Ohio TV and print media for weeks. This made me question Maddow's free hand, and I'm only saying this because I'm such a long-time devoted fan of Rachel's many "seedy underbelly" reports.

So when Ed Schultz appeared yesterday on my favorite morning show on WWRL-AM radio 1600 in NYC, I phoned in to speak with Ed and host Errol Lewis. The producer who took my call recognized me as a frequent caller. I said I had a real "hot seat" question and asked if Ed would comment on whether MSNBC had any editorial control clause in his shiny new contract.

After a loooooong awkward pause, the producer said this was not the day to ask that question and explained he was going to exercise his own "editorial control" and let me go. I do understand why - he didn't want to pee on the parade of a beaming Ed Schultz live on the air.

But I think this is a serious "where the rubber hits the road" matter for everyday Americans. Few progressives would deny that the mainstream media hasn't covered some of the most crucial issues of our time. When Congress filed articles of impeachment against Bush, it didn't even make the 6 o'clock news. A relative of mine who used to work for CNN confirmed there was absolutely an executive hand censoring the news throughout the Bush years, as if we couldn't see this for ourselves. 

We know MSNBC has been seeking to expand it's "liberal" line-up, and we should be grateful after an 8-year lockdown on reality-based reporting on Bush and Cheney's exploits. But is MSNBC hiring progressives because the country is shifting its attitude, or because their bosses want to contain the liberal message by getting these influential voices under contract?

In the end, it's a probably neither. It's more a complex web of money, market share and message. Ad revenue, demographics and political pull are all ingredients in the secret meetings held by the big TV execs. 

But any potential evidence that vote flipping took place should be thoroughly examined, if only to be debunked. The national media whitewash of Connell's IT work bodes poorly on the chances of the two 2004 Ohio vote fraud cases alleging officials including Kenneth Blackwell and Karl Rove may have known of network vulnerabilities during Bush's miracle 2AM comeback.

Lou Dobbs and CNN got cold feet after taping a segment with Cliff Arnebeck, the lead attorney in the case - it never aired. I feel there must be a great story-behind-the-story being held secret concerning Maddow's non-reporting of the Connell story as well. 

Network news is sadly still news with an asterisk, and as Cyndi Lauper says, money changes everything. Rachel Maddow is still the first thing I watch on TV, with stellar guests, insightful questions, an incisive wit and an uplifting through-it-all positivity. But MSNBC's hard-hitting new progressive phalanx needs up-armored transparency.

Author's Bio: (OpEdNews Editor) GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, the arts and obscure vinyl records.

www.opednews.com/articles/Has-MSNBC-muzzled-Maddow--by-Gustav-Wynn-090403-914.html