Unless you’ve been under a rock, you know of the suspension of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC, the result of his making three contributions to Democratic candidates. NBC has a policy prohibiting such donations without prior approval, which Olbermann did not seek.
Regardless of whether you like the man – and his politics – or not, the suspension has created a furor, the result being his suspension was quite brief and Olbermann will return to hosting “Countdown” tonight.
Many – on both sides of the aisle – have seen this as a free speech issue and decry the suspension. Fox has no such policy and its commentators not only contribute to candidates themselves but raise money for them on the air, as Rachel Maddow pointed out in her commentary Friday evening. It was in that commentary that Maddow, albeit subtlely, raised the issue of journalism and what it means to be a journalist.
There was a time in this country when the lines between news and opinion were rigidly enforced. Newspaper still keep a wall between the two, as indicated in these two columns from earlier this year in The Virginian-Pilot. Those lines have been blurred, at least in the public’s minds. Journalistic purists would never even think of contributing to a candidate, because it would impinge on their credibility as a an independent voice, free of bias. I know journalists who won’t vote in a primary, for example.
That is not to say that journalists are not biased; after all, they are human and humans have bias. Anyone who has watched Olbermann even once knows where he stands. If I understand it correctly, though, journalists are trained to try to remove evidence of their bias in writing/speaking and to simply present the facts.
So my question, dear reader, is not whether he should have been suspended but rather whether this bright line – between news people and opinion people – has been blurred to the point of rendering it useless. Should such rules, like those at NBC or the newspapers, even exist? And if not, what source of “just the facts, ma’am” will replace it?
Inquiring minds want to know 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It was most likely a publicity stunt, although NBC did verify the policy concerning campaign donations. It worked, whether real or imagined!
Um, that doesn’t answer the question 😦
Liberals-Progressives are so afraid of being “Liberal-Progressives. Conservative republicans are very bold about showing who they are and the policies and politicians they support. This is why they can take an issue such as health care reform which had a a 67 percent favorability rating in the polls with the public, join forces, voice their opposition to it and kill public support for it. Democrats should take a look at his example of shifting public opinion on issues they hold dear!!
And that doesn’t answer the question, either 😦
It is interesting that this came up right after the NPR-Juan Williams kerfuffle. NPR, at least, still thinks the bright line needs drawing.
I think that such lines are still useful. I am bothered, though, by MSNBC’s policy of letting management decide when contributions are allowed or not. This really doesn’t enforce such a line; rather it lets management impose its own political biases on the staff. Either a clear line or Fox’s anything goes policy would be better.
I agree that management shouldn’t be in the middle.
Olberman is a commentator, not a journalist. So, if there’s no problem with Scarborough or the Fox hosts doing this, I don’t see why there would be a problem with Keith doing it. However, if I was in his position I wouldn’t donate to candidates.
But why not, Steve? Why wouldn’t you donate?
A couple of reasons.
1. I think it paints you as a partisan. There’s a diffence between having a philosophy, be it liberal or conservative, and being a member of a political party.
2. He makes $7 million a year, now every Democrat on earth will want a donation.
3. Me, I’m cheap.
1. Partisan as opposed to simply a believer in liberal or conservative principles – that actually makes sense to me.
2. Yep 🙂
I have to ask a follow up question: why does a contribution to a candidate make you partisan? I can see a contribution to a party making you so, but not to a candidate. Or do you perceive a contribution to a partisan candidate to be, by extension, a contribution to the party?
Yes, given how slavishly many of our politicians serve their party ahead of their constituents.
TV Journalism is all but dead. As far as I’m concerned, every host on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox is no where close to a journalist. They are all hacks for their respective parties. The people who file the reports that get shown on the major shows, they are still journalists, but those are fading fast.
Everyone knows Olberman is a democrat, so I don’t think there should be any policy about donations. Now if news channels decided to be objective again, I would say sure, let there be a ban. Until then, whats the big deal?
As far as the line being blurred, what line? That line was lost and forgotten long ago and I doubt its coming back. TV stations are in the business of making money and gaining viewers, not educating, but brainwashing. Objectivity is extinct as reporters routinely self-censor themselves.
Check out the book, “Into the Buzzsaw” compiled by Gore Vidal. It has interviews with some huge names like Dan Rather. They talk about the self-censorship that goes on and how its not the government, but their own executives who push them to report on only the things the public WANTS to know about, not NEEDS to know about.
If that is the case – and I don’t disagree, which is why I don’t watch much TV “news” – then why aren’t folks flocking to the few remaining sources of real journalism, such as local newspapers?
I think that the public, by and large, doesn’t see the value of impartial journalism. If they did, surely there would be somebody out there providing it, differentiating themselves from everything else on the dial.
I also wonder if those who care tend to be much better at finding and evaluating news that they find elsewhere and on demand (i.e. online) that they don’t consider a format that comes out less frequently.
One last thing: I think that with so much of the news available online (especially state/national/international news), newspapers need to do more to focus (or to focus consumers’ attention) on what we can’t get elsewhere.
Haha local newspapers…you and I both know the Pilot just barely qualifies as journalism. Sure, the stories are objective (sometimes), but they are pointless in the grand scale of things. On some issues they do a decent job, but most of it is fluff pieces that don’t really have anything to do with anybody but the people being written about.
Anyone else remember the front page story about stolen wedding pictures?
This is capitalism, market defines product. People don’t want knowledge, they want to be ignorant. If they knew even half the stuff that goes on there would be blood running in the streets before sundown.
I’m a fan of bright lines, and I’m a fan of having access to information which may help me weigh he reliability of a source of information. Now specifically in Keith Olbermann’s case I think everyone and his brother could have guessed that he’s got a liberal bent without knowing who he donates money to; on the topic of the broader question of NBC’s policy against on-air personalities making contributions without obtaining prior consent from management, I’d prefer a policy where personalities were allowed to make such donations as long as they were disclosed on-air.
“So my question, dear reader, is … whether this bright line – between news people and opinion people – has been blurred to the point of rendering it useless. Should such rules, like those at NBC or the newspapers, even exist? And if not, what source of ‘just the facts, ma’am’ will replace it?”
Well, whether they should or not, they do, and Olbermann plainly violated it (and yes, I know you didn’t ask that question). Thus, as a matter of contract, his suspension and/or filing is/would have been perfectly appropriate.
The answer to your first question is obviously “Yes,” even though Lefties have been denying it for, well, decades. There may even be a problem with your premise that there is a “bright line between news people and opinion people.” It would take a lot to persuade me that there ever was such a “bright line” except in the fevered imaginations of journalism professors and pretentious reporters and editors, who “comment” simply by choosing that which receives coverage.
As to whether such rules should exist, I think they should. Management of a news/opinion operation is entitled to know whether their reporters/commentators have a vested interest in a candidacy, and the right to make the decision whether the reporter/commentator should be permitted to report/comment upon such a race, which appears to be the point of the rule which is, I suspect (but don’t know), how NBC News management has been applying it (to answer Randy’s concern). That authority may perhaps be diminished in the case of a commentator, as opposed to a reporter, but that is a judgment that management (which does, after all, control the printing press or air time) should be entitled to make.
Given my answer to your second question, I have no comment on your third.
You’re going to find this hard to believe but I agree that Olbermann should have been suspended for violating the rule.
As for the bright line – tell me Walter Cronkite didn’t keep his opinion out of his reporting.
Well, since you asked: Uh, on Vietnam? We’re both too young to remember it (probably my earliest news memory was the first Moon landing), but on 27 February 1968, Cronkite offered a commentary on the Tet Offensive. You can find it, and a discussion of it and its significance (debatable, of course), here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/walter_cronkite_vietnam_and_th_1.html
In a less negative reference, what about his boyish glee over the space program (glee that I shared when, well, I was a boy)?
Walter Cronkite didn’t keep his opinion out of his reporting. Or out of his decisions about what should be covered, perhaps the media’s most awesome and least understood power. Indeed, I don’t know HOW one keeps his opinion out of deciding what should be covered.
You’re right – I don’t remember that reporting on Vietnam.
Not just Cronkite. Edward R. Murrow wasn’t being purely objective when he went after Joseph McCarthy. He was telling the truth, though.
Yes, I think the rules, and, therefore, the bright line should exist.
News should be unbiased, and one should be able to trust that the facts are as presented without the bias of commentary. Commentators are paid to comment, journalists are paid to report.
I ask, who has blurred the line? I believe the public sees the line as blurred, but that blurring is a result of commentators holding themselves up as journalists.
I know this happens on both sides of the political spectrum, but my left bias sees things as worse on the right. Fox is NOT fair and balanced as they purport. MSNBC isn’t either, though the shows I watch there, at least, try to have representatives all viewpoints. I don’t watch Olbermann, Maddow or Snyder, because I don’t like the rabid left of their comments, the few times channel surfing has landed me there, as I don’t watch Fox for the rabid right.
Even though you didn’t ask, I think the suspension should have been enforced. I expect Olbermann knew the rules and chose not to follow them. Whether the rules should apply to commentators or not is an issue for the principals to address and change if deemed appropriate.
And I totally agree with this. Which, but for the rule, I wouldn’t have any heartburn with Keith having made the contributions.
Doug, you clearly don’t watch Fox News, either, since they are far more balanced in their commentary than you’ll find on any other cable network.
Journalists aren’t unbiased. I’ve worked with hundreds of them. In their simple judgments of what is “news” and what isn’t, their biases show.
What bugs me is not their biases, but how smugly they claim that they don’t have them. I have more respect for a journalist who is upfront with which side of the plate he’s batting on than someone who disingenuously claims to be unbiased.
I would have been surprized if Keith a known liberal didn’t support democratic candidates