The money and the mouth
Monday, November 8th, 2010
Keith Olbermann will be back on MSNBC tomorrow night, having been summoned by his superiors from an exile to which he never should have been consigned.
I can't fathom why Olbermann was being punished for putting a pittance of money where his voluble mouth always is. A guy who is paid to voice liberal opinions decides to contribute to a few candidates who are liberal…wow, stop the presses. That was a real earth-shaker of a story, right up there with "Dog Bites Man" and "A-Rod Dates a New Actress."
But clearly the suits at NBC, the cable network's parent, saw Olbermann's behavior as scandalous. Somehow, they believed that Olbermann should still he judged as if he was Walter Cronkite, presiding over the news circa 1970, long before the advent and popularization of viewpoint journalism.
The archaic NBC ethics rule warns: "Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee."
For those journalists who aspire to practice objectivity (at least to the extent that human beings can do so), that ethics rule is fine. But it's also woefully behind the times. Because the MSNBC prime-time schedule is specifically geared to liberal viewers who want liberal viewpoint journalism, it's nuts to describe the hosts of those shows as "impartial," and to bind them to the standards of old-school journalism. Viewers tune to Olbermann (or tune him out) because they're already conversant with his views on the news. Why would his "credibility" be undermined by the revelation, via public campaign records, that he seconded his views by writing a few checks?
Perhaps Olbermann could have mitigated this flap by first obtaining "prior approval" from his bosses, in effect asking the teacher for permission to exercise his First Amendment right of free association. Perhaps he could have found a way to mention his donations on the air, in the spirit of full disclosure. Perhaps he would have dodged the "hypocrisy" charge if he had resisted the on-air temptation to tweak Fox News for its own corporate campaign donations.
But these are all ancillary issues. The bottom line is that journalism takes many forms today; the ethics rules need to become more nuanced in order to reflect that reality. With respect to the commentating wing of the profession, total transparency might be the best tonic.
For instance, I happen to be a faithful reader of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. Would I stop reading him if I heard that he gave money to some Republican candidates? Not a chance. Over on Fox News, Sean Hannity actually has given money to the GOP, most notably to Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann. So what? I would expect him to pony up. I watch him anyway, just to see how he's framing the news. If it is revealed some day that he's giving money to Sarah Palin, how is that a "conflict of interest," given the fact that he has already behaved as her obsequious courtier, as far back as 2008?
Personally, I have never donated a dime to any political candidate; that's just me, still under sway to the old-school rules that prevailed when I was a cub reporter. But Olbermann, Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and other professional opiners should be free to exercise their rights as citizens – and they should feel free to disclose their donations to their audiences. I doubt that anyone would be shocked to discover that their donations are in sync with their views. The journalistic game has changed, and the rules need to be tweaked accordingly.
——-
In my Sunday print column, I took a look at the likely Washington atmospherics of the next two years – and the prospects for getting anything done. My verdict was downbeat. By contrast, the esteemed scholar Jonathan Rauch had a more optimistic view in yesterday's New York Times: "Both parties, responsible for governing, have a stake in success…Most important, the country itself becomes more governable and meaningful laws stand a likelier chance of passage, because neither side can easily blame the other for whatever is wrong and because any major legislation needs support from both parties to pass…(D)ivided government, in today’s world of ideologically polarized parties, is the only way of attaining sustainable bipartisanship." Let's hope he is right.
"When it comes to their sources of news, too many Americans live in "silos," protected from contrary views. We'd do better, learn a bit more, by listening to some opposing ideas.
You get that from Fox's O'Reilly, not MSNBC's Olbermann."
Stu Bykofsky scored the number of opposing view guests on Fox vs MSNBC. It was even close. Why is it that there is a segment of the far left that has no tolerance for an opposing viewpoint??
Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20101104_Stu_Bykofsky__Olbermann_fair__O_Reilly_balanced__What_we_found.html?page=3&c=y#ixzz14j8cSxbQ
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
meant to say it wasn't even close
SMike, I don't want to hear anyone scream or be confrontational or demeaning. O'Reilly does that. In fact, he seems to enjoy it. I don't know about Olbermann, since I can't get MSNBC. The mainstream media, which you conservatives deride constantly, almost always interview people from both sides. CNN certainly does. As I've said before, I was watching the noon news on Fox when the health care bill was being passed. The only people interviewed were those against it. CNN interviewed Congressmen who represented both sides. CNN also has roundtables with representatives from left and right quite regularly.
Night, all. Life for me is crazy with work right now.
Nigel, Below is an op-ed published yesterday in the USA Today, by Fox News Analyst, Kirsten Powers. Please read and see if you can still tell me that Fox does not have a diversity of viewpoints represented……………………http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-08-column08_ST_N.htm
Also I have many times prescribed a viewing of Fox for you from 6pm to 7pm. This is the best political discussion on television. The roundtable usually includes Juan Williams, Mara Liassan from NPR, Charles Krauthammer and Brett Bair. Have you ever watched? And I don't think you've watched enough of O'Reilly to come to such a conclusion. O'Reilly was very critical of President Bush. His guests frequently included Al Sharpton, Dr. Lamont Hill and Alan Colmes
Mike, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not necessarily saying that Fox doesn't have different points of views on certain shows (though I stand by the coverage of the health care bill, which I saw with my own eyes). But certain people like O'Reilly are know for their confrontational styles. I simply don't want to watch that — and I won't. I like CNN. It's calm. That's what I want when I've worked all day.
Smike: Yeah, but a big part of O'Reilly's "schtick" is to be combative You can't have fights if you don't schedule a bout.
Are Olbermann's bosses just pissed because he was giving to the other side?
Olbermann worked for a company that has clear rules and regulations. He violated them and deserves to be disciplined just the same way a guy in a factory who smokes when there is a no smoking rule would be disciplined. If your employer has rules and you violate the rules, you are subject to discipline, plain and simple. Olbermann figured that he is the star of MSNBC. They won’t touch him. So he could violate any employer’s rules that he feels like. Olbermann’s friends in the media will portray it as a free speech issue. I am sure that we will hear from the boring men of Countdown. Eugene Robinson, Alter, etc. will do their Keith as martyr act. To these clowns, liberal journalists do not have to comply with company rules.
Actually, Chris Matthews is far worse than Olbermann and he showed it when he interviewed Michelle Bachmann the other night. The best part was when she reminded him of his remarks in 2008 about how libidinous he feels when he listens to Barack Obama. Olbermann can join Rick Sanchez on the dung heap of cable television.
http://www.sportsfantreasures.com
All good points, and a fair and balanced look at the situation. However, the only thing missing is the fact that Olbermann, several times on his show, has stated the fact that he does not vote so as not to appear as if he has a horse in the race (paraphrasing his words). He has also tweaked the brass at NBC by saying, on more than one occasion about Phil Griffin (NBC News Pres) "Phil thinks he's my boss". Clearly this was just their way of flexing their muscles in light of the upcoming finalization of the Comcast deal. The Roberts have already hinted at wanting to make changes, so maybe this was Griffin's way of saying "See, I do have control over these wingnuts". Funnier was Rachel Maddow's defense of Keith, trashing Fox for things that happened on Hannity and Beck's radio programs.
Olbermann is an opinion guy, so why does MSNBC trot him out there as an anchor? He and Matthews anchored their 2008 election coverage, and their 2010 coverage has no anchor, just the opinion people. You'll never see Beck, O'Reilly, or Hannity anchoring coverage on Fox. That's left to Shepard Smith or Brett Baier. By the way DP, how can you read Krauthammer and not be swayed by his arguments? I think he's the top conservative thinker in the country.
Because MSNBC likes to tout themselves as a news organization. Maddow said on her show that the difference between them and Fox is that Fox is a wing of the Republican party, while MSNBC is a news organization and would never allow a candidate to fundraise on their shows (they do), would never host a fundraising event for a candidate or party (they do), and would never allow their partisanship to shine through in favoring one candidate over another (they do). See, they are a news organization, giggling during their election coverage aside.
JMC Krauthammer is a top conservative thinker and is well worth reading. That doesn't necessarily mean he is persuasive.
I've read Krauthammer for ~20 years (Pat Buchananfor 30). They're great representatives of conservative thought but following their writings doesn't mean adopting their views.
Pretty good column today. I have to agree with it. NBC was fooling no one by suddenly playing the " objective journalism " card in the case of Keith Olberman. I read they suspended him indefinately on Friday and reinstated today. So he's back on the air Tuesday night. Nice long weekend for Keith.
Mike I think the way they handled it was just a publicity stunt. I still have never watched him.