Olbermannia
TPP has avoided comment on Keith Olbermann's mini-suspension from MSNBC for violating their journalism ethics code. Or at least Daddy company NBC's ethics code. We know that you have seen the story. Mr. Olbermann was suspended for two whole days for the grave offense of contributing $2400.00 to each of 3 Democrat candidates in the last election. NBC requires advance notification of such contributions so as to avoid the appearance of political bias in their news division. Ahem... Ahem... Whaaaaaaaa???????
We are going to step past the political bias. TPP is not sure that there is anyone alive who can argue for the impartiality of MSNBC in general or of Mr. Olbermann in specific. MSNBC has as a business practice tried to mimic the Fox News phenomena for the left. This was carried out to such a drastic degree that MSNBC.com, which does try to maintain some degree of journalistic standards, has distanced itself from MSNBC TV.
Olbermann himself provides the ratings incentive for MSNBC to lean forward and left. His rants provide entertainment value as a counter to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. There are no coy Chris Matthews "tingle up my leg" moments. Olbermann is in your face and angry. The left wing Alpha Male on a mission. His show is the number one ratings holder on MSNBC, a network sadly in need of ratings. That could speak to the draconian 2 day suspension that Olbermann has suffered for his defiance. Keep it in the news cycle, but don't kill the cash cow.
NBC News, one of the last of the three original dinosaur network broadcasts, is doing it's best to find a fig leaf to maintain modesty with. Brian Williams is well thought of as a journalist, even by those on the right, and the Sunday talk soup does ask tough questions. The network of Huntley and Brinkley was as respected as Cronkite back in the day of network monopoly of the news. So what do you do with the class clown?
Fox News seems to have struck an intelligent balance. They designate their news personalities as journalists, who provide hard news coverage, or pundits whose realm is opinion and puffing ratings - Britt Hume, journalist; Glenn Beck, pundit. It is an easy delineation. Journalists are not allowed to participate in political campaigning, pundits are.
Perhaps NBC needs to stop confusing what Mr. Olbermann does with journalism. Wherever he started out, people tune in now to hear the rant. To those tuning in the news story is not nearly so important as Olbermann's over the top histrionics and hyperbole. It is great TV on a network in desperate need of something people will watch. NBC needs to consider that.
Still there is an insidious, over-the-top Orwellian dimension to reaction by NBC in general. Olbermann received his wrist slap for contributing to the campaigns of candidates that he believed in. He did not go on the air prior to the election and say "I gave money, vote for these candidates". He privately, without fanfare, contributed to the campaigns. It was only after the election it came out that Olbermann gave financial support to any candidates. What verbal support he gave Democrat candidates while engaging his audience was fully sanctioned by the network. It paid the bills.
TPP, as an institution is offended by this. The most basic right outlined in our founding documents is freedom of political thought, and the freedom to support whatever candidate an individual feels will best serve the nation. We may not agree with Mr. Olbermann's choices of candidates, or his position on challenges facing the nation, but we support his right to express his views and support the candidates of his choice in whatever form he chooses.
MSNBC pays Olbermann to express his opinions to a national audience. We find it admirable that Mr. Olbermann chooses to put his money where his mouth is. It speaks to his commitment to the beliefs that he holds. We find it unconscionable that the NBC company feels the need to punish a private gift to a political cause, when the donor himself made no public issue of his donation. There is no conflict of interest, real or implied.
TPP is perhaps more sensitive to the injustice against Mr. Olbermann, when viewed in the light of the summary execution of Juan Williams from NPR last week. We congratulate Mr. Willliams on finding a new refuge at FOX News. We find it troubling that there is a tendency in some media outlets to substitute a politically correct lashing out in place of an examination of the facts and context. It is running rampant in some sectors lately - just ask Shirley Sherrod.
Common Sense Dictates
The plague of political correctness goes back further than the thought police of George Orwell's 1984. It is the chosen tool of demagogues for centuries. How better to control a population than to make certain ways of thinking "wrong"? The Tea Party patriot becomes a racist knuckle-dragger. The Democrat with deep love of country becomes a socialist, or communist intent on imposing a totalitarian state.
There are 330 million people in this country, and probably 330 million different opinions on what needs to be done to improve the country. Very few of those opinions are evil, and most of the holders of those evil opinions are either in jail or Congress. Okay, maybe not so many in jail...
A political opinion is seldom wrong, it may be at worst ill-informed. Trying to put a leash on those opinions is wrong. The solution to differences of political opinion is not less debate but more debate. If an idea is good, it can be argued well, and people can be persuaded to accept it. If it is bad, the only way to have it accepted is to limit the debate by marginalizing the bearers of contradicting opinion. Truth stands on it's own merits. Falsehood stands on truth being silenced.
This is America - founded on the principle of free political discourse. NBC is wrong, NPR is wrong - there is no room for third party arbiters of truth. There is no recognized ministry of propaganda in this country, no matter how hard it tries to assert itself. Olbermann and Williams were both within their rights in expressing personal opinion in a way not directly related to their professional standing. In this litigious society that is America, we feel that there are Constitutional issues in play, and it would be interesting to see either Mr Wiliiams or Mr Olbermann explore the possibility of defining the right of personal expression before the Supreme Court. If a stripper can do it, why not a news personality?
TPP supports vigorous and open debate. It stands against the politically-correct silencing of opinion, and instead seeks the forum of open debate for all ideas to stand or fall on their own merit. The adage is true that you have not converted a man because you have silenced him. You have converted him when he sees the benefit of your point of view. So says Common Sense.
RLB
Categories: media bias, Partisan Politics
Tags: partisan politics media bias
Wow,that's dedication to free speech. Going to bat for Olbermann. Kudos I guess. I hope you're not going to recommend him beyond train wreck status. I'm all for free speech, but people actually listening might kill off MSNBC. It's just bad for business.
Reply to this
Olberman and Wiliams both need to be shown the door. Hacks are hacks.
Reply to this
A line does need to be drawn somewhere, otherwise how do you know if the "news" you are watching is just a political ad? It might be okay to let the opinion people have at it, but real journalists really need to keep their reporting and image as unbiased as possible.
Reply to this
I think that Olbermann is the worst sort of reporter. He is not a journalist, he is a fear monger and incredibly badly informed. Still, he did not publicize his donation, or go outside of his normal paramaters in promoting the left wing agenda on MSNBC. I think that he should not have been suspended at all. MSNBC owes him an apology.
Reply to this
I actually agree with you on this issue, at least where KO is concerned. Applying archaic rules pertaining to news reporters as opposed to political commentators reeks of sloppy management. I fully understand slippery slope arguments, but no one should have their rights denied them, especially if they are transparent (as Olbermann was) and not proselytizing his personal choices from the news desk (as Olbermann did not). I know many of your readers do not like KO, but like him or not his suspension has brought some key differences between MSNBC and Fox news to the forefront. It has also brought journalistic integrity, or the lack thereof, into the light of day. I'd say it was worth it...
Reply to this
I'm on board with this one. No one should have their ability to contribute to political campaigns hampered in any way - just as they should not be forced to support candidates they do not support (redirected union dues). MSNBC owes Olbermanniac an apology and his back pay. He should then donate the back pay to the political cause of his choice, just to drive the point home. This ain't Russia yet!
Reply to this
If you are going to keep the pseudo-news guy from contributing does that mean we can sideline all of the Hollywood celebretards mucking up the works in the elections too? Really, who gives a crap what Sheryl Crow thinks?
Reply to this
I can't believe that you wasted time on defending this clown. I guess your point is right. No one would ever consider him an impartial journalist, so there's no bringing his impartiality into question, but really, isn't there real news out there? Pelosi is calling back her minions for the Obama's last stand in the House? You might want to focus on that. Get bck to the issues. If I want irrelevant fluff, I'll go to TMZ.
Reply to this
OK you righties - I understand that you don't value Keith Olbermann and what he does. I could say the same about Limbaugh or Hannity. I am glad to see you step up and defend his right to contribute to candidates of his choice. I can't believe that in this country, there would even be a question. I would like to see NBC challenged on that contract clause. I don't care if you are a commentator or a network anchor - making private donations to political causes is your right as an American. Anything else is unacceptable.
Reply to this
How widespread is this contract clause forbidding campaign contributons? That shouldn't even be able to stand up as enforceable. I can see not being able to lend your name or celebrity to a political cause if you are supposed to be an impartial news source. That's still a world away from supporting candidates with non-publicized contributions. Even if it is disclosed, if the reproter doesn't use it in his work, who's business is it? I don't see how any company gets away with enforcing something like this.
Reply to this
There's an even deeper issue here - the never ending process of trying to have "campaign finance reform". One of the things that helped bury McCain was his abiding by his McCain Feingold Act, which limited what he could raise and spend if he wanted public financing. Obama just opted out. I don't have a problem with Keith Olbermann contributing $2400 or Rupert Murdoch contributing $24 million. No one votes based on that. I object to all of this campaign reform just being assorted ping-pong balls to give one side or the other an advantage. The structure is inherently corrupt, and lots of people make insane amounts of money finding loopholes in whatever law is passed. This goes back to the mindset of public office as a career choice. There is no answer in tweaking financing laws. Term limits is the only way to fix this.
Reply to this
Gotta agree with haftrack. Hit a little writer's block this time around? Whether the ontract is right or not, Olbermann signed it and needed to abide by it. He didn't, so he's out 2 days pay. I'm sure that his local Starbucks missed him. Can we talk about something important now?
Reply to this
I'm not sure if it's the political correctness, or if we are just so focused on stupidity that we can't see serious issues when they come up. Is Olbermann an ideal messenger for this? Probably not, but that doesn't make the issue unimportant. Can you imagine what would happen if Rush Limbaugh was told he coldn't contribute to candidates he liked? Ok, granted, he would never consent to that, but you get the point. KO has a right to contribute to campaigns and NBC does not have the right to reguate his private finances.
Reply to this
The really amusing thing here is that NPR fires Williams, MSNBC suspends Olbermann, CNN fires Sanchez, Obama fires Sherrod. All of these bastions of left-leaning thought are the ones engaged in censoring their people and only delivering a party line message. Of course, if the shocking talk supports the party-line, as with Nina Totenberg wishing AIDS on Strom Thurmond a few years ago, that's okay. They are eating their own. At least you don't see this oppressive message control on the right. The left needs to get a sense of humor, and maybe a toleration for thought.
Reply to this
This 15 minutes is over, but it's sort of funny to look at what the arguments were. Lots ofpeople on the left were PO'd that Olberman got dinged. Lots of people on the right were dismissive of the whole thing. This is about the only place where the issue of his first amendment rights were brought up. This is a really important thing, and you would think that the right would take it a little more seriously. Most whine notoriously about the left trying to revive the fairness doctrine. How much worse is it that an individual's right to support the candidate of his choice was punished by his employer? You would think that the Heritage Foundation would be joining up with the ACLU to scream bloody hell about this. No, we dismiss it as entertainment news and go on to the important story about Michelle Obama's handshake. Maybe we don't deserve what the Founder's designed for us.
Reply to this
I support Keith Olbermann's right to contribute to political campaigns. I'm just finding it difficult to imagine anyone buys anything offered by any of the news networks as news. It is entertainment with an occasional bit of information. There was a blip about President Obama not sealing a deal at the G-20. What gets all of the air time - Obama dancing in India and some mystery optical illusion that is being dressed up as a missile launch. There is no news here, just People Magazine, world edition. No wonder the Congress is such a joke.
Reply to this
I don't think that your take is correct for a lot of people. I don't have any doubt that Olbermann or Limbaugh are all about the ratings and the news is a secondary consideration. You almost have to go as far with the cable news networks. Still, there are reliable sources for news, filtered or not. You just can't accept the loudest voice as the truth, or what gets the most airtime. Being knowledgeable requires a little work, but it can be done.
Reply to this
When I heard about Keith Olbermann getting into hot water for making political contributions, I thought it was weird...and I still do. I think that someone has the right to support political persons/parties in the private time.
Reply to this