Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between objective journalism and opinion journalism on television.
Wow.
Please share widely!
It must only be ok for MSNBC employees to give to Republicans, not Democrats.
Kathy, if JS and PB are in the same employee group as KO at MSNBC then they deserve to be held to the same standard. I don’t know so I cannot comment on whether MSNBC is right or wrong, but I do agree with you. Equal treatment for all persons in the same positions.
They don’t have to suspend Olbermann, do they? Are all news industry employees prohibited from donating to candidates, or would it be just network anchors?
<
p>The shock to me is that they were Democratic contributions! I would have sworn that guy was a Republican.
but requires they be notified about them and apparently Keith Olberman didn’t. Otherwise I think you are completely correct and that fact would allow Keith Olberman to appeal the suspension and maybe sue MSNBC.
<
p>Personally, I think MSNBC will use this to fire him due to pathetic ratings (which I have posted about here many times).
Salon reports that:
<
p>
<
p>CNBC is also owned by NBC. No announcements of any suspensions from CNBC have been reported.
<
p>Meanwhile, the Mercury News reports:
<
p>Last Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann led a very aggressive (and fair) expose of the flagrant distortions, inconsistencies, and lies-by-omissions of several newly-victorious Tea Party and GOP figures.
<
p>So Keith Olbermann spreads $7,200 across three candidates and is ditched a few days after a prime-time skewering of corporate favorites, while no action is taken against hosts of another NBC subsidiary who make similar contributions. Of course, silence greets the news of the MILLION DOLLAR gift of the Fox News parent to the RGA.
<
p>This has all the earmarks of one or more pissed-off advertisers telling MSNBC that “enough is enough”.
<
p>It exemplifies the mainstream media corruption that I’ve described before. Hopefully, it also puts a silver bullet through the heart of the “liberal media” myth.
Tom,
<
p>Here’s what I think:
<
p>1) TV and Radio hosts are citizens too and should be able to contribute to the candidate of their choice. My belief may run afoul of corporate policies on donations, etc. (in a prior role I have had a requirement that any letter to the editor or op-ed by reviewed and approved by my employer prior to submission not all that 1st amendment friendly). Given my druthers I would let all contribute subject to the same restrictions on anyone else.
<
p>2) However, I think that TV and Radio personalities have additional sway (or potential sway) over viewers and listeners so I would propose that there be a required disclosure much like there is for any financial analyst that goes on TV. You know the one that says I own stock, my family owns stock, etc.
<
p>This just continues the mess that is campaign finance. Its gotten out of hand on all sides. I hope we can put it back but fear the genie is out of the bottle. However, they will not have my money any longer. I may still donate to a local muni candidate, but no more party, state level or national candidates for me.
That’s how MSNBC found out about Olbermann’s donations. Unless you mean that if they interview someone on air they should say in the intro to the interview that they have donated to the person, in which case I think that might be reasonable.
When an analyst is interviewed on CNBC they have this graphic that discloses if there is any relationship between the analyst or their firm and the company(ies) discussed. Could see something similar for people who work for news organizations. Same type of concept you want the listener or reader to be able to discern if their is any conflict or potential conflict.
But if the corporations have rules then they have rules. Now I think we both know if NBC was happy with Olberman’s ratings then this error on his part would have been overlooked and allowed to be corrected. I think this gives them the “out” to cancel his contract and replace him.
<
p>PS Please don’t ever say Olberman had a “fair” expose on anything, he can’t. He is so consumed by partisanship that he would choke on his words rather than say anything positive about Republicans or conservatives. He was forced to apologize after Scott Brown’s victory for his over-the top antics. Did you hear them on Election night, they were pathetic, all of them.
<
p>Look for Comcast to replace the entire lot of them as soon as they can to restore some viewership at MSNBC. If they wee smart, they’d get a conservative to fill the 8:00 slot.
I loved it.
<
p>I thought they did a marvelous job. They asked precisely the kind of tough, razor-sharp questions that every journalist should ask every candidate. Were they biased? Of course. Towards honesty.
<
p>There is simply no way to simultaneously cut taxes and lower the federal deficit — yet that is the lie that the GOP has been foisting on the voters for years. The election night MSNBC coverage skewered the Republicans with the dishonesty of lies like that. Good on them.
<
p>I think that’s why Mr. Olbermann was fired.
<
p>I also think that Keith Olbermann is not stupid — I strongly suspect that more fireworks are to follow.
<
p>I wonder what comes next.
I know we can argue all day as to whether MSNBC did any close to journalism on election night, but let’s be honest.
<
p>Defending MSNBC as being unbiased is like me trying to defend FOX as being unbiased.
You wrote:
<
p>Did you read what I wrote? Here’s what I said:
<
p>I can’t help it if your guys lie. It’s not “biased” do correctly say that a liar is lying.
<
p>The GOP has been saying, for decades, that they want to simultaneously slash taxes and cut the deficit. That’s a lie. They haven’t done it. They don’t do it. They won’t do it now.
<
p>When Mr. Olbermann gets his facts run, then tell me about it. When Mr. Olbermann uses the facts to skewer somebody who is hiding from the facts, go whine to somebody else.
Time and history will decide which of us is right. I wish I knew a journalist who was unbiased (my use of this word in our threads is wrt partisan and ideology) who I could ask whether Fox and MSNBC are identical in their slant towards their ideology.
…maybe identical in their slant toward ideology, at least in prime time, but NOT identical in their slant toward the truth.
Lawrence O’Donnell has been nailing Tea Party people with something like “So you are against President Obama because he is a socialist, correct? (They answer yes.) “Then are you ready to drop Social Security and Medicare since they are clearly socialist systems?” You can call this the “truth”, but he is purposely trying to bait these people into a straw-man argument. Our government and society has been a jumble of all sorts of ideologies and movements, some would consider socialist, fascist and everything in between. We are noting and everything at the same time. Tea Party people can be against the government “moving” strongly in a certain direction without being against “anything” with traits of that direction.
He was absolutely right to do this. You cannot scream “SOCIALISM” as if that should stop the argument and then not back that argument up all the way. You of all people with your consistency fetish should appreciate that. Things like Social Security, Medicare, and the VA are socialist in a lot of ways, but we have come to accept and even embrace them. That’s what many of us are trying to point out. Socialism is service provided by the government and publically owned, but people treat it like it’s its more extreme cousin communism where the government owns all means of production and usually comes with a healthy dose of political dictatorship. What O’Donnell was trying to point out was either these people don’t know what socialism really is or they are not nearly as consistent or outraged as they portray themselves to be.
… a straw man argument. If your against Obama because of socialism then stances with regard to clearly socialist policies are absolutely salient. Declaring yourself anti-socialist necessarily brings your stances toward already established socialist policies into question. The obvious (but never heard) honest response is to retract blanket anti-socialism and stop using the socialist argument, since being socialist isn’t actually objectionable (if one is intellectually honest).
We have too many programs with too many doctrines driving them. Define who you are and I’m sure we could find a program which you like but has aspects of what you disdain.
… about socialism that is out there, I think you have to assume purist intent. Where there isn’t purist intent, they can always be asked about it and then offer clarification about it, which is all O’Donnell (rightly) did. These people, by making these “Obama is a Socailist!” and decrying a “Socialist agenda” as being unamerican smell more like absolutism than not and therefore invite inquiry, which is what we want news people to do, I thought. If they paint with a broad brush “Socialism!” it can be assumed they mean it broadly unless otherwise revised, retracted or (at least) clarified.
<
p>(“I didn’t mean to shout “Evil Socialism!” quite that loud… my mistake. Viv la moderate socialism!”)
you are correct and I won’t quibble. My comments are more towards the people who claim “the President is making things more socialistic…”. I think these people who are complaining will certainly agree with many programs which also have “socialistic” aspects, but I don’t think it makes them stupid or hypocrites. I think many believe the balance we have is good and when they see it going too far in that direction, they react (or overact).
… be characterized as ‘vehement’, ‘loud’, ‘rabid’ or such, while simultaneously asserting moderate position with regard to socialist policies (which only come out when asked by people like O’Donnel did) would actually be contrary to the rhetoric. Such a case would indicate either that the rhetoric is empty or exaggerated (don’t tell the base) or the rhetoric is heartfelt or that the rhetoric is hypocritical and heartfelt.
<
p>You don’t get to stoke the base with this kind of red meat and then plead moderation without either hypocrisy, craven cynical rhetoric-baiting, or Jeckel-Hyde-ism.
<
p>O’Donnel was right to ask. Totally salient.
William F. Buckley Jr. was arguably more rigorously ideological than any conservative spokesperson today. He was equally rigorously committed to the truth. He relied on logic to persuade his audience. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t passionate and partisan in his beliefs — it means he disciplined that passion and partisanship with his commitment to rational discourse. Mr. Buckley stands in sharp contrast to his peers like William Loeb III, who never let pesky facts stand in the way of his personal agenda (whatever that happened to be on any given day).
<
p>Today’s Fox News cast of characters has far more in common with William Loeb then William F. Buckley Jr. — Rupert Murdoch has made a career and a fortune pandering schlock, lies, gossip and (and of course) misogynist sex. Did you ever actually look at his first US publication?
<
p>Here, for your edification, is an example:
<
p>Perhaps you require “time and history” to sort out the differences between MSNBC and Fox, between Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly.
<
p>I don’t.
…Rachel Maddow mentioned in her comments last night that CNBC does not have the same policies on this that NBC and MSNBC do.
I still haven’t forgiven him for the blatantly sexist and biased coverage during the 2008 Democratic primary. If he could have billed the Obama campaign for his assault and blabbery on Hillary, then he wouldn’t have needed to work another day in his life.
Seems like a back door response to the overtly fact-based (read: liberal) coverage of Election Night by Olbermann, Matthews, etc. Given their reluctance to simply accept Bachmann’s lies, we got the usual whining from the right over this. Given NBC’s lack of spine, they found an excuse to make these people happy. As pointed out upthread, Olbermann’s hardly the only one to donate to candidates.
<
p>These consequences have the same integrity as the NFL’s rules on tackling at the moment.
<
p>To be consistent, should we have “all” interviews conducted this way? If someone asks President Obama or any politician a question and they don’t get the answer, should we harangue them, call them names, mock them with remarks like “Are you hypnotized…?” or “President Obama, that’s a bullshit answer, just answer the damn question… sir”? Do you want the uncivil nature of politicians towards each other to spread into the news/journalism community? I don’t for any side of the ideological spectrum.
<
p>
<
p>That may not be in dispute. The question for NBC is, is he the only one who donated and didn’t inform NBC that he did so. If so, they should can him otherwise, he’s got a great leg to stand on.
You write: “The question for NBC is, is he the only one who donated and didn’t inform NBC that he did so.”
<
p>Did you even READ the Salon link that I posted upthread?
<
p>You responded to it. It seems clear enough that several CNBC commentators made contributions — in Suze Orman’s case, reportedly significantly larger.
<
p>Oh, and yes — every interview should be hardball. The job of a journalist is to discern and publish the facts. Any journalist worth his or her salt (and Rachel Maddow is a superb example) is very good at doing just that.
<
p>When a politician is so inept or rude that they ignore the question and relentlessly repeat the same irrelevant or discredited talking points (as Ms. Bachmann did Tuesday night), then — yes, they deserve to be harangued. If Mr. Steele or Ms. Bachmann choose not to answer a question, they should say so: “I’m not going to dignify that question with a response”. When they lie, then their lies must be identified as such.
<
p>When a public figure appears to be hypnotized, a journalist’s job is to report that fact.
<
p>Yes, I READ your comments and the salon story. If you READ my comments, I said I believed the NBC policy was not about contributing but that the workers had to notify NBC about the contributions after contributing. Do we know if the other contributors notified NBC? I don’t know, and the salon story didn’t say so either way.
<
p>Sorry you want the news media to be snarky and rude to public figures. I think you are totally wrong and I think most people feel it would be wrong as well. You know as well as I do that people from both parties, including people you admire strongly do not answer all the questions they’re asked. And if upon not answering, you would like them skewered with insults then you are completely wrong. I’m all for tough questions and for repeated questions if they don’t answer. My problem with Chris Matthews was his snarky “hypnotized” assertions.
<
p>Again, when someone asks the President a question and don’t get an answer, should they be alowed to snark, “answer the question for Christ’s sake, are you deaf or to stupid to understand my question?” Is that what you want?
<
p> Maddow is not better. Politicans have many options for news interviews and if MSNBC wants to be shunned by many of them, so be it.
If the time ever comes (and I doubt it ever will) when President Obama is as rudely unresponsive and evasive as Michelle Bachmann was last Tuesday evening, then yes, I think he should be treated the same way.
<
p>The point is that President Obama is not that way.
<
p>I note that Rachel Maddow has far more guests with opposing views than anybody on Fox, and she treats them with far greater respect than Mr. Beck or Mr. O’Reilly. She asks them fair (if often pointed) questions and gives them ample opportunity to answer.
<
p>The fact that they often end up talking themselves into rhetorical corners that demonstrate the fundamental absence of logic or rationality in the positions they advocate is the fault of the guest, not Rachel Maddow.
<
p>I have faith that public figures who genuinely want the public to hear their actual views will seek out figures like Mr. Olbermann and Ms. Maddow in preference to propaganda machines like Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Beck, and of course Mr. Limbaugh.
<
p>
The fact that Sunday shows stick with a 20th century format, rather than giving moderators a laptop right on stage so they can say “During the commercial break, we checked what you said and found that…” is ridiculous.
<
p>I’d love it if people in debates were forced to answer a question, and called on their lies. Of course, when someone like Gibson does that during the MA-Gov debate, the right whines about how uncivil and unfair it is.
<
p>Doing something wrong is something wrong, whether telling Daddy NBC about it or not.
showing them say something completely opposite to what the guest just stated. I have nothing against this type of “fact checking” before, during or after a guest’s comment. My issue is with the snarky attitude and rudeness. And if you are going to do this in a debate, please make sure you do it to everybody in the debate or it will look uneven.
We have reached a genuinely sorry and dangerous state of affairs when being fact-based is successfully characterized as “liberal”. This is particularly apparent when the network that leads the charge describes itself as “fair and balanced” while being owned by and promulgating the views of one of the most flagrant right-wing propagandists of the current era. Sadly, ABC is not far behind. When today’s mainstream media cannot differentiate between “fact-based” and “liberal”, our entire political system is in grave jeopardy.
<
p>We see it in the Tuesday night MSNBC election coverage, and we see it in spades in the way the climate change issue is treated in the press.
<
p>It is past time to push back on NBC. Hard.
It isn’t just that being fact-based is now “liberal”. More frightening is that is now “liberal, and thus dispensable”.
<
p>I think it was Fortune 500 that ranked Chinese President Hu Jintao over Barack Obama as the most powerful man on the planet. Crap like this is pretty much the reason.
I once read somewhere that when someone complained to him that his reporting had a liberal bias he replied, “Look, I can’t help it if reality has a liberal bias!”
Fair and balanced, fact-based journalism that sounded like this… “another House seat for the Republicans, another House seat for the Republicans, another House seat for the Republicans, another House seat for the Republicans, another House seat for the Republicans… WOW! Democratic Congressman “X” just pulled ahead in “Y”, fantastic, amazing considering the economy… another House seat for the Republicans, another House seat for the Republicans… Jeez, it looks like Joe Sestak is going to win, he’s leading and this would be a fantastic story to pull it out over Tea Party backed candidate Pat Toomey “Haha snark, snark,laugh…” oh wait Toomey just pulled ahead…another House seat for the Republicans, another House seat for the Republicans…Harry Reid is winning, let’s shit all over Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell (but don’t talk about Alvin Green losing to DeMint)…”
<
p>It was a pathetic snarky group of liberal Democratic news people trying to make the best of a shitty situation (for them) and no different than Fox. No problem to do that but please don’t try to tell me they are centrist, unbiased journalists. NO WAY!
And they could dissect Fox coverage on Tuesday…really, any Tuesday. Have you ever watched Fox & Friends? Besides, MSNBC may inconveniently introduce facts in a way to may Democrats look better — but Fox makes up things and calls them “facts”.
…that what you put in quotation marks above is NOT what was said on MSNBC, but then you clearly adhere more closely to Fox standards of making stuff up.
…looked like she didn’t know how to start her show last night because she didn’t get her usual handoff from Keith. She did however have something to say about this toward the end of the show. She understands the policy but feels the point has been made. I can’t confirm this but I’ve heard that one usual substitute host (Chris Hayes?) refused to fill in for Olbermann in protest of his suspension.
Hayes announced his refusal via Twitter yesterday. If my computer (and, well, me) was running faster I’d grab the link.
but the question is are they trying to help their ratings? If so, they need to go in the Joe Scarborough direction. More echo chamber with a lack of opposing opinion will not draw listeners. How low can the ratings go before they understand this, or are we there now?
That’s exactly Fox’s strategy. There are no opposing views there. And Scarborough sucks.
…was contrasting MSNBC to Fox. It’s not simply a matter of network political leanings being polar opposites, but that MSNBC manages to still uphold journalistic standards while Fox doesn’t. Not sure I completely share your opinion of Scarborough though. I don’t watch him that often, but when I do I feel he at least has some consistency about what it means to be conservative. JohnD’s comment about echo chamber given that he is clearly not only a fan, but also a parrot of Fox is laughable.
I concur that Fox is an echo chamber for the most part. They certainly are conservative and support Republicans. I think MSNBC is the polar opposite for the most part except for Joe Scarborough.
<
p>It’s funny how the people who report and opine in line with what you believe are the ones who are unbiased. You would have to be true koolaid drinkers to not believe MSNBC is extremely liberally biased. I would also say that many here are not “able” to see this and simply would not believe any other unbiased reporting of that fact.
<
p>Exactly what journalistic standings does MSNBC uphold? The Ed show? Maddow? Lawrence O’Donnel? Give me a break.
The aforementioned MSNBC anchors actually base their commentary on the facts, but no-one denies it is commentary. They are much less likely to be called out by neutral fact checkers than the Fox crowd. They uphold the standard of facts; there is NO equivalency in this regard as much as you might like there to be. As Lawrence O’Donnell likes to say, “On my show you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
Per Talking Points Memo
TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)
time slot
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC
Headline News
5 pm
Beck
477
Blitzer
125
Matthews
149
Showbiz
91
6 pm
Baier
345
Blitzer
151
Ed Show
163
Prime
78
7 pm
Shep
372
King, USA
180
Matthews
196
Issues
146
8 pm
O’Reilly
861
ParkerSpitzer
112
Olbermann
218
Grace
93
9 pm
Hannity
569
King
127
Maddow
253
Behar
62
10 pm
Van Susteren
382
Cooper
166
O’Donnell
224
Grace
110
11 pm
O’Reilly
464
Cooper
115
Olbermann
150
Showbiz
116
TOTAL DAY
375
131
137
104
PRIME TIME
604
135
232
86
TV NEWS RATINGS: TOTAL VIEWERS (L +SD)
time slot
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC
Headline News
5 pm
Beck
2018
Blitzer
516
Matthews
566
Showbiz
170
6 pm
Baier
2056
Blitzer
502
Ed Show
677
Prime
261
7 pm
Shep
1815
King, USA
414
Matthews
677
Issues
494
8 pm
O’Reilly
3163
ParkerSpitzer
332
Olbermann
936
Grace
446
9 pm
Hannity
2181
King
419
Maddow
894
Behar
240
10 pm
Van Susteren
1745
Cooper
434
O’Donnell
749
Grace
299
11 pm
O’Reilly
1605
Cooper
296
Olbermann
501
Showbiz
332
TOTAL DAY
1486
403
457
272
PRIME TIME
2365
395
862
319