A Little Perspective on Olbermann
Apparently, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is already back, after just a two-day suspension. As much as I would have liked him to be in the doghouse for longer, the Economist points out that the whole fracas is somewhat ridiculous since Olbermann's entire show amounts to a massive "in-kind" donation to the Democratic Party. From the magazine's "Democracy in America" blog:
If NBC is worried about impartiality, then why put on a whole line-up of shows without even a fig leaf over the bias? That Mr Olbermann should get the boot for a relatively meagre $7,200 in donations to Democratic candidates seems incredibly silly given that his entire show amounts to an in-kind donation worth millions upon millions to Democratic candidates and interests. If it makes sense to suspend him for kicking a few bucks toward candidates he supports, it makes sense for MSNBC to just shut itself down for producing a transparently partial slate of programmes. . . . I know it's in the interests of big media to pretend money in politics is a huge problem while passing off its own outrageously unequal influence as some kind of noble public service, but who does MSNBC think it's kidding? Say what you will about Fox News, at least it doesn't insult our intelligence in this way.
I agree. I don't ask for unbiased coverage of politics -- I'm not sure such a thing exists -- but I wish people would stop pretending to be neutral when they so obviously are not.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
I'm in the 180 degree opposite position than current big media is on this.
Like you Adam, I think there is no such thing as a person without opinions. Media companies like NBC don't actually disagree - their policy is that biases be hidden. Thus the prohibition on campaign contributions.
I'd actually like to encourage media people to donate. I want to know their biases instead of having to guess.
In fact, since media likes to put (R) and (D) after a congressperson's name, I'd like to see them do that to themselves. If they insist on disclosure, make them disclose. If we can better judge a politician if we have a shorthand notation for their politics, then the same holds true of reporters and pundits.
May '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
Well, I was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that straight-down-the-middle Keith would consider contributing to a Democrat.
What is television media coming to?
Jul '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
The hidden biases thing is huge in academe as well, but the civic culture requires a claim of virtuous objectivity as a plank to ones credibility. As a college senior I raised the question of providing disclosures with academic products characterizing the producers' background and attitude toward the subject of the work. "But that would tend to create bias," my wizened advisor objected. Without "objectivity" we are yellow journalists, hacks, or >gasp< closet Republicans.
Since I mostly don't watch television except for DVD viewing, I'll leave Olbermann to his fate.
Nov '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
The truth of the matter is that there are no unbiased facts unless you limit facts to solutions to math problems.
Every fact comes to us through a filter of some sort. The deliverer has a bias and so does the receiver. As receivers of facts we make our "correction" to the facts as presented based on our perception of the bias of the deliverer.
I know who Keith Olbermann is and I adjust whenever I hear him.
May '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
I expect Olby to do his entire Tuesday return with a piece of tape over his mouth and a really sad/defiant/concerned Martin Sheen look. Subtitles will start off "Faux News Network was responsible for this! Another example of right wing media bias! Corporate America tried to shut me, the rational center, up. For that, we name Faux News THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORRRRRRRRLDDDDDD!
On second thought, let's not go to MSNBC. It is a silly place.
May '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
The good news other than MSNBC showing itself to be a confused fact free network, is Olby's immediate return will probably spare us from naked protests, the random burning of cars, and smashing of windows.
Jul '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
Adam Freedman: Apparently, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is already back, after just a two-day suspension. As much as I would have liked him to be in the doghouse for longer, the Economist points out that the whole fracas is somewhat ridiculous since Olbermann's entire show amounts to a massive "in-kind" donation to the Democratic Party. From the magazine's "Democracy in America" blog:
I think that The Economist is drastically overestimating the value of Keith's in-kind "contribution."
I can't imagine that 5 nights a week of prime time on MSNBC is worth more than $75.
Jul '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
Who's Keith Olbermann?
May '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
Palaeologus I think that The Economist is drastically overestimating the value of Keith's in-kind "contribution."
I can't imagine that 5 nights a week of prime time on MSNBC is worth more than $75. · Nov 8 at 3:23pm
I think The Economist is right that MSNBC programming represents an uninterrupted in-kind contribution... but not to Democrats. Nothing drives moderate voters into the bungling arms of the GOP like smarmy leftist talking heads and the Democrats who love them!
Oct '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
I love how Olbermann's rabid leftist supporters seem to think that it's their protests that got him back on the air (see so many of the tweets that Andrew Breitbart has RT'd).
Did they really think MSNBC would keep him off the air for long?
I would also bet that the "rule" that Olbermann broke will be swiftly rewritten as well.
May '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
1. Oops, the world found out you weren't objective, dispassionate observer/truth tellers.
2. Oops, Fox News continues to give you a nice stomping, week-in week-out.
3. You project your hatred of yourself on Fox News.
4. You make a big show of "firing" someone so you can loudly proclaim that you are in fact objective and dispassionate and see see see "we are not evil like Fox News".
5. You know full well this is a shell game and a pathetic attempt at an unattainable moral high ground that you will reverse at your nearest opportunity.
6. Oops, classical liberals (what 'conservatives' should be calling themselves) actually demonstrate ideological consistency and defend your puppet-martyr and state the obvious (to everyone 'cept you) that it is no crime to choose sides as long as you are forthcoming about it.
7. Back to square one. Russell Simmons breathes a sigh of relief.
Edited on Nov 8, 2010 at 11:10pmAug '10
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
Tommy De Seno:
I'd actually like to encourage media people to donate. I want to know their biases instead of having to guess.
In fact, since media likes to put (R) and (D) after a congressperson's name, I'd like to see them do that to themselves. If they insist on disclosure, make them disclose. If we can better judge a politician if we have a shorthand notation for their politics, then the same holds true of reporters and pundits. · Nov 8 at 12:22pm
Great idea. Transparency in reporting.
Re: A Little Perspective on Olbermann
The fact that Keith Olbermann supports the Democratic party is unsurprising (to say the least). The noteworthy thing about his actions is that, by donating to Democratic candidates himself, he is transforming his bias from a point of view that he promulgates into a cause and agenda that he is actively fighting for and indubitably aligning himself with. Simply put, he's not advocating a side, he's joining one.
I'm all for transparency in reporting; that being said, I place value in the line between advocacy and direct action. Clearly, Keith doesn't.
Edited on Nov 9, 2010 at 6:22pm