Keith Olbermann Suspended Indefinitely After Political Contributions

[LipstickLola]

I believe that delivery is everything. If news organizations are going to denigrate the facts, in order to "appeal" to a wider, non-thinking audience, then I will simply choose another source for information. The snarky, belittling comments are not necessary, IMO, to deliver the news for an audience of people who want facts and unbiased information. MSNBC seems to be wanting a piece of the Fox pie of late, it is not working, they know it, they've set out to change it!

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by LipstickLola

I believe that delivery is everything. If news organizations are going to denigrate the facts, in order to "appeal" to a wider, non-thinking audience, then I will simply choose another source for information. The snarky, belittling comments are not necessary, IMO, to deliver the news for an audience of people who want facts and unbiased information. MSNBC seems to be wanting a piece of the Fox pie of late, it is not working, they know it, they've set out to change it!

Keith ended his "Worst Persons" segment this week because it was setting the wrong tone. I feel that was a step toward what you're talking about.

[Corkey]

I miss Cronkite. Keith isn't even trying to hide his bias, neither is Maddow for that matter, not a one of them are unbiased. The days of the pure news for the sake of information based on facts and not obedient to any party are long gone.
That said, I can figure out Maddow, and her humor is quite contagious, I don't get my news strictly from MSNBC.
The point of MSNBC as I've seen it, is as a news magazine, not unbiased not always exactly truthful. More than faux news but less than BBC or NPR.
So is he a private citizen contributing to a party and specific candidates on his dime, or do we hold him above the rest of the "journalists" who get to give and still pontificate?
MSNBC has a policy in place, he violated that policy, he is suspended for that violation. Should he loose his job? Not if he learned he is to follow policy his employers set out. Or he can go to talk radio and have his say and paycheck too.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Corkey

I miss Cronkite. Keith isn't even trying to hide his bias, neither is Maddow for that matter, not a one of them are unbiased. The days of the pure news for the sake of information based on facts and not obedient to any party are long gone.
That said, I can figure out Maddow, and her humor is quite contagious, I don't get my news strictly from MSNBC.
The point of MSNBC as I've seen it, is as a news magazine, not unbiased not always exactly truthful. More than faux news but less than BBC or NPR.
So is he a private citizen contributing to a party and specific candidates on his dime, or do we hold him above the rest of the "journalists" who get to give and still pontificate?
MSNBC has a policy in place, he violated that policy, he is suspended for that violation. Should he loose his job? Not if he learned he is to follow policy his employers set out. Or he can go to talk radio and have his say and paycheck too.

It was interesting. A couple of years ago, when BBC America started doing a nightly, hour-long newscast (which is now, sadly, down to half an hour) I was watching with my wife and she made a comment about how *different* it was. She's a decade my junior and so doesn't *remember* what TV journalism used to be--a sober, fact-driven affair. To her, it has *always* been CNN and FOX. The sight of an anchor soberly sitting at his desk and stories that lasted 5 - 10 minutes was completely and utterly foreign to her.

I remember the very end of Cronkite's tenure with CBS. I still remember Frank Reynolds at ABC, when Max Robinson looked like he was going to be the first black anchor of a major American nightly news broadcast and when missing 60 Minutes meant you missed the most important hour of news for the week. I miss that media environment. It wasn't perfect. It did manage to be informative and it seemed to delight in NOT toadying up to power overly much.

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

It was interesting. A couple of years ago, when BBC America started doing a nightly, hour-long newscast (which is now, sadly, down to half an hour) I was watching with my wife and she made a comment about how *different* it was. She's a decade my junior and so doesn't *remember* what TV journalism used to be--a sober, fact-driven affair. To her, it has *always* been CNN and FOX. The sight of an anchor soberly sitting at his desk and stories that lasted 5 - 10 minutes was completely and utterly foreign to her.

See, and that might be the root of why I am uncomfortable with the way in which Maddow and others deliver the news. To me, they don't read like journalists. I don't feel like I am watching the news, I feel like I am seeing some sort of an op-ed type of thing.

I grew up getting my news from the CTV and CBC (and once I was old enough to actually -care- about the news I started getting it from the BBC). Lloyd Robertson, specifically, is where my news comes from (He's with CTV). I like that I cannot tell just by watching him on the television what he THINKS. I have no idea what political party he supports in Canada. None. (Although, I suppose I could google it if I really cared to know) He's a journalist. He delivers facts - with a straight face.

I remember 15 years ago (you know, when I became old enough to actually care about the news) my friends and I all thought that CNN was a giant fiasco. We laughed at it. We didn't trust it. It didn't seem SERIOUS or NEUTRAL enough for us. I hadn't even heard of FOX news at that time (I think it was brand new? It started in the late-90s I think?) and I don't think if you had told me at 18 that there was a news network less trustworthy than CNN that I would have believed you. Little did we know, right?

So, yeah. Long post made short - I guess my issue with Maddow is that I -wish- she would be a journalist instead of a political commentator.

[Linus]

I dunno. I can understand the feeling that a commentator is going overboard but this isn't what that is. He is suspended indefinitely for doing something as simple as making a donation to 3 separate candidates, never publicizing those donations or promoting those individuals -- on a TV station that is unabashiedly left/pro-Democrat. The stickler is that he didn't tell his manager. So for this he is just shy of being fired? Really?

Olbermann did things that few, even Rachel, don't do. He started and promoted the heck out of the free health clinics that were run all over the country, particularly in New Orleans. He's not afraid of being human, correcting mistakes nor from shying away from debate with facts (he does actually list facts against those he may challenge).


All I can think is that Phil Griffin is this...

[katsarecool]

Linus, I agree. What is amzing is the petition wanting Keith to have full restitution, it is getting 20,000 to 30,000 signatures an hour. Now that is an impact!!!

[KatieStar]

Originally Posted by betenoire

So, yeah. Long post made short - I guess my issue with Maddow is that I -wish- she would be a journalist instead of a political commentator.

I have respect and admiration for her career - not to mention her academic successes. Lets not forget she's a pioneer within our community being the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship. All of that aside, even though I'm quite a fan of Ms. Maddow (I would say yes if she asked me to marry her) Unfortunately, I have to agree with this statement.

[1PlayfulFemme]

Originally Posted by KatieStar

I have respect and admiration for her career - not to mention her academic successes. Lets not forget she's a pioneer within our community being the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship. All of that aside, even though I'm quite a fan of Ms. Maddow (I would say yes if she asked me to marry her) Unfortunately, I have to agree with this statement.

Katie, Love, now...you and I both know you will not wait for her to pop the question...if the moment ever arrives that you find yourself in the company of one Ms. Maddow (So formal, aren't we??) that you will pop the question within minutes Well. That's my prediction anyway!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I remember the very end of Cronkite's tenure with CBS. I still remember Frank Reynolds at ABC, when Max Robinson looked like he was going to be the first black anchor of a major American nightly news broadcast and when missing 60 Minutes meant you missed the most important hour of news for the week. I miss that media environment. It wasn't perfect. It did manage to be informative and it seemed to delight in NOT toadying up to power overly much.

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj

Oh, I hear you! No, it wasn't perfect, but it had integrity. There is no real news casting left. It all seems to be talking points, yelling and not many facts being presented.

Even when I watch Rachael, Ed, Chris, and yes, Keith I usually only do for about 10 minutes. Not good for my BP or keeping balance in the steady-state that I need in order to think things through. Of course, MSNBC programs align more with my personal politics, but there are times I just see and hear Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly styles of show-personship and it turns me off.

I miss the media environment you speak of, too. Then, again, I miss newspapers and the old-time FM radio format.

[atomiczombie]

I think the conflation of what the commentators at MSNBC and those at Fox do is not a fair one. Yes, the opinions are strong on each side, and there is a lot of snarkiness to go around. But tonight Rachel Maddow hit the nail on the head when she talked about the difference. Here is some of what she said:

Here's the larger point, though, that's going mysteriously missing from the right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking: I know everyone likes to say, "Oh, cable news, it's all the same. Fox and MSNBC -- mirror images of each other. But if you look at the long history of Fox hosts not just giving money to candidates, but actively endorsing campaigns and raising millions of dollars for politicians and political parties -- whether it's Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or Mike Huckabee -- and you'll see that we can lay that old false equivalency to rest forever. There are multiple people being paid by Fox News to essentially run for office as Republican candidates. If you count not just their hosts but their contributors, you're looking at a significant portion of the entire Republican lineup of potential contenders for 2012.

They can do that because there's no rule against that at Fox. Their network is run as a political operation. Ours isn't. Yeah, Keith's a liberal, and so am I. But we're not a political operation -- Fox is. We're a news operation. The rules around here are part of how you know that.

Back before it was politically safe to do it, Keith Olbermann attracted the ire of the right-wing and a lot of others besides when he brought to light and raged against what he saw as the errors and sins of the previous presidential administration. Keith was also the one who brought to light Fox News's water-carrying for the Bush Administration; he was the one whose point-of-view journalism exposed and put exclamation points on the problems of disguising a political operation as a news one, the model embraced by the guys across Sixth Avenue, at Fox.

You can see it all here: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...cable-not-news

[Corkey]

Anyone who equates Faux to news really needs a reality check. They are as far from real journalism as it gets. Yes, Keith stepped in it, he got cought, he is being punished, I hope it ends soon.
Not directed at Drew.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I think the conflation of what the commentators at MSNBC and those at Fox do is not a fair one. Yes, the opinions are strong on each side, and there is a lot of snarkiness to go around. But tonight Rachel Maddow hit the nail on the head when she talked about the difference. Here is some of what she said:



You can see it all here: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...cable-not-news

I did see a podcast of this and I do think she got the differences out there. My prior post had really to do with having a hard time with so much loud point making. I think it is just a personal thing- I like quiet and compative language and voice timbre and pacing gets to me.

I am kind of liking the newer show on MSNBC with Lawrence O'Donnell and I think it is because he doesn't yell. rachaelmaddow is one sharp woman, but, i admit, sometimes her silliness is over the top for me. I certainly think she has great perspective and insight, however.

Fox News is a GOP electing machine! Maddow's coverage of not only the contributions, but also all of the appearances of Fox hosts at GOP and Tea Party events and fund raisers in this piece was right on the money (pun intended!).

I just feel that the format of "news" shows are all the same these days and sometimes I feel like I am being shot with a machine gun even when the content makes sense to me. It could be an age thing, LOL, I am from the first generation of TV watchers! Hell, back then, there certainly wasn't something on 24/7! Which brings me to the news show "loops" like AC 360. Although, I like AC! I take in Charlie Rose when he is interviewing political guests, often.

I want some news reporting without the glitz, not opinion all of the time! Or, a mix of styles in these shows.

I like both the BBC News and the Public TV News Hour and really like to watch Washington Week with Gwen Eiffle (sp?). Democracy Now with Amy Goodman fits for me as well. I don't have all the bells and whistles with my satellite carrier- just the basics, so I could be missing out on other programs tha are worthwhile.

have to mention that some of the specials maddow has put together have been quite good- I actually prefer those over her daily show.

[Nat]

Olbermann finally speaks after his suspension from Countdown


Today, Olbermann tweeted on his official Twitter account:
Greetings From Exile! A quick, overwhelmed, stunned THANK YOU for support that feels like a global hug & obviously left me tweetless XO

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by LipstickLola

I believe that delivery is everything. If news organizations are going to denigrate the facts, in order to "appeal" to a wider, non-thinking audience, then I will simply choose another source for information. The snarky, belittling comments are not necessary, IMO, to deliver the news for an audience of people who want facts and unbiased information. MSNBC seems to be wanting a piece of the Fox pie of late, it is not working, they know it, they've set out to change it!

What do you do when the people you are interviewing have no concern for the facts? How do you deal with that? If someone says "if we cut taxes, we'll reduce the deficit" and you know that this statement cannot be true because it defies any mathematical or economic logic, what do you do? Is that not a denigration of facts--to present as true something that not only is not true but cannot, by definition, *be* true? What if, when you ask a follow-up question, the person just goes back to saying "tax cuts will reduce the deficit"? So you press on and ask, again, how precisely will tax cuts reduce the deficit. The person again insists that math does not work the way that people believe that it does or that economic theory somehow has it that the fewer tax revenues you take in, the more money the government will have?

I understand what you are saying but that doesn't change the fact that we have one political party that has become completely unmoored from reality. Climate change IS happening. Evolution DID happen. Minority home buyers did NOT bring down the financial system. Barack Obama WAS born in Hawaii and Hawaii WAS at the time of his birth, part of the United States. If you are currently $10 trillion in the hole, reducing tax revenues by $750 billion does not mean that you are suddenly only $9.25 trillion in the hole. Yet one party espouses ALL of those things. They pay no penalty for espousing things that are demonstrably untrue. There are no negative consequences--at least not for them and not immediately--for espousing things that are untrue. Yet these very untruths have *real* policy consequences and thus have an actual impact on our society.

How do you do what you are saying should be done in order to keep your viewing loyalty while ALSO recognizing that one's job as a journalistic outfit is to get actual information out there?

[LipstickLola]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What do you do when the people you are interviewing have no concern for the facts? How do you deal with that? If someone says "if we cut taxes, we'll reduce the deficit" and you know that this statement cannot be true because it defies any mathematical or economic logic, what do you do? Is that not a denigration of facts--to present as true something that not only is not true but cannot, by definition, *be* true? What if, when you ask a follow-up question, the person just goes back to saying "tax cuts will reduce the deficit"? So you press on and ask, again, how precisely will tax cuts reduce the deficit. The person again insists that math does not work the way that people believe that it does or that economic theory somehow has it that the fewer tax revenues you take in, the more money the government will have?

********** edited by Lola for brevity and to get to the point*************

How do you do what you are saying should be done in order to keep your viewing loyalty while ALSO recognizing that one's job as a journalistic outfit is to get actual information out there?

First, let me begin by saying in regards to the subject matter you address that I am not uber intelligent in regards to the tax deficit or any other debt issue our country is battling atm. and I in no way, mean to be antagonistic, just conversational since you cannot 'see me', ok? I get your point. Our country is in overwhelming debt, fact. The government has robbed Peter to pay Paul for years, is there a way to eradicate that? Are tax-cuts the answer? I doubt it. More spending? Common sense would say to me, "not without starting from scratch", but that's just an over-simplistic way to see it, IMO. The truth is not always pretty, but I'd still like to hear it from my news source of choice.

Also? I'm not really sure your question can be answered, but I am not a journalist, just an average person, of average intelligence who wants to know, the "real scoop" when I get my information. That said, I do not necessarily need to be entertained, shocked, (obviously real news is shocking enough) or talked down to. The news *should* be just that, the news, like the olden days, it was even rather boring as I recall. To keep my loyalty? be real, be sincere, be dogmatic when necessary and not shy away from the unpopular. There's a vast difference between being a bully and just plain hard-nosed when it comes to getting to the nitty gritty.