Keith Olbermann Suspended Indefinitely After Political Contributions

[atomiczombie]

Olbermann Suspended From MSNBC for Campaign Donations
By BRIAN STELTER AND BILL CARTER
4:15 p.m. | Updated 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.

The MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, issued a statement saying: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

Politico had reported Friday morning that Mr. Olbermann’s contributions were in apparent violation of MSNBC policy.

In a statement to Politico, Mr. Olbermann, the longtime host of “Countdown,” acknowledged donations of $2,400 to the campaigns of Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Attorney General Jack Conway of Kentucky, who lost his Senate race to Rand Paul.

Several hours later, Mr. Griffin released the statement about the suspension.

No one at NBC News, MSNBC’s parent, would speculate about what this might mean for Mr. Olbermann’s future, though two NBC executives privately suggested this was not a step toward firing him.

One executive said the network decided it was imperative to take this kind of strong action as a way of underscoring that MSNBC, while featuring prime-time shows that overly support Democratic policy, remains a channel that adheres to fundamental journalistic values.

An executive with another television news organization, who asked not to be identified in offering analysis of competitors, said NBC may even see the disciplining of Mr. Olbermann as an opportunity to distinguish itself from Fox News, which has been increasingly identified with Republican positions. Media Matters, a liberal media monitoring group that is a persistent critic of Fox, noted on Friday afternoon that two Fox News hosts, Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity, had given money to Republican politicians in the past.

Earlier this year Mr. Hannity made a $2,400 contribution to a Republican congressional candidate, John Gomez, a long-time friend of his, and a $5,000 contribution to the political action committee of Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota.

Fox’s parent company, the News Corporation, also came under scrutiny this year for a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association — a donation that Mr. Olbermann has been sharply critical of.

An MSNBC spokesman had said that in Mr. Olbermann’s absence, Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation magazine and an MSNBC contributor, would fill in as the host of “Countdown” on Friday, but MSNBC later said that was not the case, and did not name a replacement for Mr. Olbermann. Bloggers immediately pointed out that Mr. Hayes had made contributions to Democrats just like Mr. Olbermann had, but the spokesman said those contributions were made before Mr. Hayes was put on MSNBC’s payroll.

Mr. Olbermann’s “Countdown” is the most popular program on MSNBC, routinely drawing more than one million viewers a night. Years ago he gave voice to dissenting views about the Iraq war and about Bush administration policies, and more recently he helped advance the Obama administration’s push for an health care overhaul.

He has long been a volatile figure inside MSNBC, in part for his polarizing points of view. He has sometimes clashed with Mr. Griffin and other managers over editorial decisions, and he has been publicly critical of some of his former bosses.

Mr. Olbermann did not respond to requests for comment after the suspension was announced Friday afternoon.

There was some head-scratching about MSNBC’s decision, since it is well known that Mr. Olbermann is a liberal newsman. There were defenders, including a writer for the libertarian magazine Reason, Michael C. Moynihan, who wondered why MSNBC had a “one-size-fits-all policy” about contributions.

Mr. Moynihan asked, “Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?”

Most television news organizations have rules about journalists contributing to political campaigns, but some make distinctions between their anchors and reporters and those offering opinions.

Fox example, in the wake of the Olbermann suspension, CNN issued this statement: “CNN’s policy prohibits full-time employees from making contributions to political parties or candidates.” But a CNN executive conceded these rules did not cover part-time political contributors.

MSNBC’s policy, as published by msnbc.com in 2007, states that “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.”

Geez, it's not like Keith doesn't wear his political biases on his sleeve every night on his show anyway!!! They should give him a slap on the wrist and bring him back. He is an important voice for the political left in the media.

What do you all think?

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Geez, it's not like Keith doesn't wear his political biases on his sleeve every night on his show anyway!!! They should give him a slap on the wrist and bring him back. He is an important voice for the political left in the media.

What do you all think?

Great question!

I am a very liberal Democrat, but I agree that if the pundits are going to call themselves Journalists they don't need to be contributing to campaigns.

I sincerely have felt recently Keith (whom I LOVE) and Rachel have gone a bit too far and seem like a Liberal version of Fox...leaving important details out of stories and making fun of things best left to comedians, and stiring things up even worse than they already are.

I think MSNBC is trying to distance itself from this perception.

I hope it works and he is back soon, just reeled in a smidge.

[LipstickLola]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Great question!

I am a very liberal Democrat, but I agree that if the pundits are going to call themselves Journalists they don't need to be contributing to campaigns.

I sincerely have felt recently Keith (whom I LOVE) and Rachel have gone a bit too far and seem like a Liberal version of Fox...leaving important details out of stories and making fun of things best left to comedians, and stiring things up even worse than they already are.

I think MSNBC is trying to distance itself from this perception.

I hope it works and he is back soon, just reeled in a smidge.

I completely agree with you here!! and? while I feel personally they are making him an 'example', if you will, we really must adhere to the rules of our employers if we wish to remain gainfully employed, IMO.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

sincerely have felt recently Keith (whom I LOVE) and Rachel have gone a bit too far and seem like a Liberal version of Fox...leaving important details out of stories and making fun of things best left to comedians, and stiring things up even worse than they already are.

This.

Exactly.

Now, I love the hell out of Rachel Maddow. I think she's smart. I think she makes sense. I trust her (mostly). If I ran into her on the street I'd ask her to sign my cleavage or my copy of Catch 22 or my travel mug. Or all three.

HOWEVER. Her delivery makes me feel icky sometimes. Too smug. Too much like making fun of the people that she doesn't agree with. Of course she's right, but sometimes she just seems like she's being a bit of an asshole about being right. Why try to beat the Fox-types at their own game? Their game SUCKS and I hate to see smart people with opinions that I respect playing that game.

(Mind you, I play that game. That's MY delivery much of the time - but I'm not on television. Nothing I ever say or do will be witnessed by more than a couple dozen people. She has a responsibility to reign in the neener-neener that I don't have.)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Geez, it's not like Keith doesn't wear his political biases on his sleeve every night on his show anyway!!! They should give him a slap on the wrist and bring him back. He is an important voice for the political left in the media.

What do you all think?

I think that he shouldn't be fired but that *some* kind of disciplinary action is probably appropriate here. More than Rachel Maddow--who I think actually tends to be a stickler for facts--Mr. Olbermann gets a bit carried away from time-to-time. I hope that he takes some time and reflects upon what his role as a journalist is.

Ultimately, I don't want MSNBC to be FOX News Left. I want MSNBC to be the standard by which American television journalism is judged. FOX is unabashedly partisan (and all the statements by its supporters that it is fair and balanced mean just this side of nothing, saying something is so does not change the objective reality at all) and what I want is for MSNBC to be reality-based news. That means that if an on-air personality is speculating, they will SAY that they are speculating. What that means is that if a liberal guest says something not supported by the facts, they are called out for it as quickly as a conservative guest would be. The same goes for politicians whether they are on the air or their actions or words are being reported on.

Part of what I love about Rachel Maddow (and which I wish Keith Olbermann would take a lesson from) is that she is very concerned about the facts and getting it right. As most of you know, I have a serious monkey on my back about this kind of thing because I believe--and every day I see more evidence of this--that we (and by this I mean liberals/progressives/the American Left) have theorized ourselves into a corner. By that I mean that we have helped create a culture where it no longer matters if a claim is actually true in any kind of empirically verifiable sense. Ms Maddow is shining light on something that those of us who grew disenchanted with this ideology have been saying for a while: this idea that whatever you believe to be true is alright and deserving of respect has real, serious, political implications. I am glad that Mr. Olbermann suspended the 'Worst Person in the World' segment. It had outlived its utility (however much it might have had) and made him seem histrionic.

When Mr. Olbermann returns, I hope that he recommits himself to being more like his hero, Edward R. Murrow, and less like his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly. We have enough loud voices who play fast and loose with the truth, we need more journalists and on-air personalities who, when some representative of power says that global warming isn't happening, or that cutting taxes reduces the deficit or any of a number of other nonsensical statements, asks the obvious follow up question: "okay, you believe this. But is that belief based in fact?"

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

This.

Exactly.

Now, I love the hell out of Rachel Maddow. I think she's smart. I think she makes sense. I trust her (mostly). If I ran into her on the street I'd ask her to sign my cleavage or my copy of Catch 22 or my travel mug. Or all three.

HOWEVER. Her delivery makes me feel icky sometimes. Too smug. Too much like making fun of the people that she doesn't agree with. Of course she's right, but sometimes she just seems like she's being a bit of an asshole about being right. Why try to beat the Fox-types at their own game? Their game SUCKS and I hate to see smart people with opinions that I respect playing that game.

(Mind you, I play that game. That's MY delivery much of the time - but I'm not on television. Nothing I ever say or do will be witnessed by more than a couple dozen people. She has a responsibility to reign in the neener-neener that I don't have.)

Actually, i kind of disagree with you here. The people at FOX don't seem smug about being right. They seem smug about being dishonest. There's a difference.

IF someone insists that the Sun orbits the Earth and it is then pointed out to them that, in fact, the Earth orbits the Sun and they then go on to continue to insist that the opposite is true that person *deserves* to be shown a fool. It's long past time, our challenges both as a nation and as a species are altogether too serious for us to continue to play this game that if you espouse something that is demonstrably wrong, you deserve to have your ideas taken as seriously and given as much weight as someone who advocates something that is demonstrably correct. And yes, it IS possible to get to a close-enough approximation to correct and incorrect for it to be workable--at least provisionally until such time as better data comes along.

If you are a liberal, I ask you this: over the course of the last, say, decade precisely HOW much good has been done in giving 'respect' to demonstrably, obviously false beliefs. Imagine, just for a moment, how different things would be if the news media had done due diligence and actually followed up on the claims that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and/or had an active nuclear weapons program. Imagine how different things would be if, instead of 'respecting' that some people might believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 kept hammering home that not only was there no evidence for any such involvement but that such involvement would mean that two groups that wanted to destroy one another (Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government) had got into bed with one another to attack America. Imagine how different things would have been if news organizations, instead of breathlessly accepting the Bush administration's lie that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material from Nigeria, actually did the research. The information was out there. (It took me about three hours, using ONLY open sources, to get enough information that I had very serious doubts about those WMD claims. Keeping in mind that at this point it had been the best part of two decades since I had done ANY kind of intelligence analysis and had no access to classified documents or officials. Is there anyone here who believes that the NYT or WaPo or CNN couldn't do a better job than little old me who was trained to do analysis against the Soviet Union?)

The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that global climate change is happening and the predictions based upon the models that exist are, in fact, starting to be observed. But you would NEVER know that from reading your local paper or listening to the American media. We can't afford to continue to be 'nice' and 'respectful' of obviously false beliefs because Nature is not being 'respectful' of climate-change deniers. The ice sheets are melting regardless of whether or not anyone in the Republican party believes that they are or not.



Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Aj, I don't disagree with you and I certainly don't think that whackadoodies who say outlandish things like "If global warming is real why is it snowing today?" deserve respect.

And, you know. I'm probably pretty delusional. Intellectually I DO GET that no amount of laying out facts and figures and pie charts is going to convince people who are making false and outrageous claims that their claims are, you know, false and outrageous. I do get that. But on some level I feel like being snotty and poking fun isn't going to help our case. If someone is making fun of me I tune them out.

But then, I guess the method of delivery isn't going to matter to the whackadoodies. Be it pie charts, rants, or taking the piss out - they're not listening.

[MsDemeanor]

I didn't see this thread before I posted in the breaking news thread, so, at the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself.

I'm quite fine with Olbermann's suspension. The news will hopefully start a conversation about the difference between MSNBC and Faux, between ethical and slimy. If I had a spare fifty bucks, I'd bet it on him having intentionally created this situation.

I find the discussion about Olbermann going over the top to be quite amusing. The over the top guy on MSNBC is Ed Schultz. He's a dear and he's passionate, but he's the one who strays toword the left wing version of the loony right media. Keith is downright sedate next to Ed. And I find Rachel's neener-neener to be quite endearing; she's just so damn cute about it.

[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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Aj, I don't disagree with you and I certainly don't think that whackadoodies who say outlandish things like "If global warming is real why is it snowing today?" deserve respect.

And, you know. I'm probably pretty delusional. Intellectually I DO GET that no amount of laying out facts and figures and pie charts is going to convince people who are making false and outrageous claims that their claims are, you know, false and outrageous. I do get that. But on some level I feel like being snotty and poking fun isn't going to help our case. If someone is making fun of me I tune them out.

But then, I guess the method of delivery isn't going to matter to the whackadoodies. Be it pie charts, rants, or taking the piss out - they're not listening.

That last sentence is what I think is the core of the problem. I don't think we *can* penetrate the memetic immune system that holds sway on the right. I think we *can* convince the people in the middle that there aren't always two sides to every story. I understand the desire for fairness but fairness doesn't mean giving credence to counter-factual statements. Like you, I believe that good data should drive out bad information. However, I also know that this is not always the case. Part of the problem that the reality-based community has--and in this I put Rachel Maddow--is that a lot of times reality is messy, complex and requires a willingness to deal with subtlety. Reality rarely fits neatly on a bumper-sticker and they don't make good sound bites.

Global climate change makes for a fantastic example in how the two sides are dealing with fundamentally different ways of having an argument. In the circles of climate-scientists there is no serious doubt that climate change is occurring and that the primary contributing factor is human activity. There are discussions about how good the models are and in what direction they are in disagreement with reality (i.e. will reality be worse than or better than the models predict and how much different). There are other discussions about the speed at which we'll see changes and what factors contribute what strength. There are lots of discussions about what can be done to ameliorate things. There's functionally no discussion of whether or not it IS happening. We are in uncharted territory and there are a LOT of variables. This should all be taken into account but NONE of the above should be taken to mean that we should do nothing or that there is serious doubt as to whether or not it is occurring.

If you listen to climate-change deniers, however, you would have a very different perspective on things. If ALL you did was listen to climate-change deniers you could be forgiven for believing that climate-change is a fringe science, out of the mainstream of thought in climate science. It would be understandable for you to believe that because Earth has been warmer in the past that this means that Earth being warmer in the future is no big deal. Earth has also been colder in the past. We were, long before anything as complex as us showed up, very near to a snowball Earth. Does that mean that if it got as cold on Earth now as it was, 650 million years ago, it would be no big deal? Not hardly. The last time Earth had a serious snowball epoch, was just before the appearance of multi-cellular life. But "the Earth was warmer in the past' fits on a bumper-sticker. The above paragraph does not. Some climate-change deniers, confusing climate (long-term, average patterns) with weather (short-term localized events), say with each snow "if global warming is happening, why was it cold today" or some other nonsense. That makes a great soundbite.

Which is easier to grasp "Those stupid scientists and their enviro-whacko allies (remember when they said that the Earth was going to freeze, ha ha) think that mankind is heating up the Earth. But the Earth was warmer in the past and anyway, it snowed today. Warm snow, right!" or "given the current models, we expect that if temperatures raise P degree Celsius we should expect to see a sea-level rise of N feet"?

There was a time when that kind of lunacy would be confined to the margins, as it should be. However, we no longer live in that kind of information landscape. We live in a landscape where if enough people on the Internet believe it, it becomes true--in the sense that people begin to act on that belief. The American Right has capitalized on this and the American Left has yet to figure out how to counter it. The media has also not figured out how to deal with it. What I think you see happening, though, is that media figures are getting increasingly frustrated by the cheeky games. Real reporters actually care about getting the story out there and getting the story right. It's in their occupational DNA. Constantly being faced with interviewees who spin untruths without consequence has got to get old.

Cheers
Aj

[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?

[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.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

There was a time when that kind of lunacy would be confined to the margins, as it should be. However, we no longer live in that kind of information landscape. We live in a landscape where if enough people on the Internet believe it, it becomes true--in the sense that people begin to act on that belief.

I love the internet.

However. And this is speaking as someone who is not an American...sometimes I feel like the internet is screwing up the whole world. Specifically what I see here at home are a bunch of formerly sane people who have had their eyes and ears so frequently attacked via the internet by the vocal and stupid minority FROM THE US that, like you said, they are starting to believe the hype.

I hate to use the phrase "un-Canadian" because I know it makes me sound exactly like the type of person who I think is an asshat...but I admit that there are some attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs that I feel are un-Canadian. And because of increased access to What The Vocal Minority of Jackasses From The US are doing and saying - it's changing Canadians. Our Conservative party which was once mostly just fiscally conservative is now overrun with a bunch of scary SOCIAL conservatives - that's un-Canadian.

Ditto with those Tea Party freakadoodles. Would they have been able to so effectively manipulate formerly sane people in the US if it weren't for the internet? I doubt it.

Boy oh boy am I ever off-topic.

[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

[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.

[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!!!

[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.