What Are The Duties Of Media Critics?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In a post yesterday, I disagreed with Glenn Greenwald's post about Keith Olbermann. Today, Greenwald writes about the obligations of journalists. Greenwald writes:

[If] you posit that journalists have no obligation to do anything other than advance their self-interest, then all media criticism becomes incoherent. So what if journalists pass along McCain's lies without pointing out that they're false? So what if Judy Miller gets herself on the front page by disseminating the false war-fueling claims of unreliable sources? . . . . According to [Matt] Yglesias (and many others), they have no duty or obligation to do anything else. Their only consideration is advancement of their self-interest, and that's how it should be.

More . . .

I agree with Glenn Greenwald that Yglesias' argument is untenable and must then wonder why he wrote in defense of Keith Olbermann yesterday when Olbermann has been violating journalistic principles for years now. Greenwald would say his post was about NBC's kow-towing to GOP pressure while ignoring complaints from Clinton supporters. I think that actually undermines his point. Olbermann and NBC were defended by Obama supporters on the Left. There was no concerted media criticism of Olbermann and MSNBC from the usual sources, including from Glenn Greenwald. The fact is MSNBC and Olbermann's journalistic performance during the Democratic primaries was as bad as anything seen from Fox. And the silence about it was deafening. To complain now about MSNBC's actions against Olbermann and Matthews is, to use Greenwald's words, incoherent. They had no problem when the MSNBC's journalistic malpractice was aimed at Hillary Clinton. They have no standing to complain now. Take Atrios' post today for instance. Atrios writes:

I don't know if what goes on at NBC is influenced more by Tom Brokaw's golfing buddies or GE's desire for government contracts, but it's long been obvious that there's more going on than a simple quest for ratings and advertising dollars at MSNBC.

MSNBC - the home of Olbermann, Maddow and Tweety (who has been a reliable Obamaphile in this election cycle after years of fluffing Republicans) - is attacked by Atrios because, according to Atrios, there's more going on than a simple quest for ratings. What pray tell, does Atrios imagine is going on when Olbermann is the star attraction and Rachel Maddow just got a show? A drive to fluff Republicans is certainly not what is going on.

Here's my bottom line, to have credibility criticizing ABC, CBS or CNN (Fox of course is not a news organization, it is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and no sane person can deny that), you have to be willing to criticize the outrageous behavior of Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. To not do so makes media criticism empty and hypocritical. This was my point to Greenwald yesterday and it is what makes his post today so empty. He has squandered hard earned credibility by not saying what needed to be said about Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. I have plent of respect for Glenn, but I think his recent posts on Olbermann, MSNBC and journalistic ethics demonstrate a real cognitive dissonance.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Kevin Ring Indicted in Abramoff Scheme | Declaring Victory >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Are The Duties Of Media Critics? | 88 comments (88 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Gee, I thought (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST

that a "journalist" wasn't supposed to have any "discernable" self-interests. When they have them, aren't they called something else other than journalist?

Did journalism school add something to the 5 W's called "and my opinion is"? Or maybe they added "and you should think..." to the list of 5 Ws

: If they want to (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by BernieO on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST

just work for their own self interest, they need to find another name for what they do. Journalism is recognized as a profession and a hallmark of a profession is adhering to a code of ethics.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics the primary obligation of a journalist is to seek truth and provide fair and comprehensive accounts of events of import to the public. The code of ethics is based on the premise that public enlightenment is a foundation of democracy. No mention of self interest.
The founding fathers clearly agreed with this premise, hence the special constitutional provision to guarantee freedom of the press. This was included just so these guys could work for their own self interest!

: Maybe (none / 0) (#73)
by cal1942 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST

they added a course in 'How to become an obscenely overpaid news celebrity'

The problem for Genn and others (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST

is that there is an intense desire not to talk about what happened during the Primary, precisely, I think, because they don't want to talk about the implications of the failure the speak out.

I agree (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM EST

The problem then is they need to shut up now about the demotion of Olbermann and Matthews to what they really are - hacks, I mean, pundits.

This is akin to complaining about Palin's lack of experience.


: I would call it (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST

the inconsistent punditry of the left blogs.

Will try one more time (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by GlennGreenwald on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM EST

I did not defend Keith Olbermann yesterday. I criticized his demotion because of what seemed to motivate it.

This is such a basic distinction I actually can't believe you won't grasp it. I used to defend White Supremacists whose First Amendment rights were being violated. People used to say: "I can't believe you're defending White Supremacists. They're horrible." I used to explain: "I'm not defending them personally. I'm against what is being done to them."

Most smart people -- and even many who weren't -- grasped that distinction. Why won't you here?

Maybe this will help. You keep accusing me of wanting a "Fox News for the Left." That's totally false. Just two months ago, I vehemently criticized Keith Olbermann for his mindless support of Obama -- prompting a pretty nasty exchange as a result -- and when I did so, here is what I wrote:

What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.
Is that really what anyone wants -- transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?

Don't you see why it's profoundly dishonest for you to keep saying that I want "a Fox News on the Left" and am defending that behavior when (a) I never wrote that, (b) I've told you repeatedly that I don't think that, and (c) I've written as explicitly as the language allows against such an idea? Feel free to criticize whatever I write - but you shouldn't feel free to make things up, attribute them to me, and then criticize me for it -- as you've been doing for 2 straight days now.

You have a huge blind spot when it comes to Keith Olbermann -- you're extremely emotional where he's concerned -- and it's causing you to lose all rationality when writing about anything related.

But Glenn (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:32:52 AM EST

do you truly see no difference between the cancellation of Phil Donahue's show, and the removal of Keith Olbermann from an anchor position?

It's inappropriate to have someone who proceeds from a position of clear ideological bias in an anchor role, and it doesn't become any more appropriate just because it's the GOP complaining. I don't see anyone silencing Olbermann as a liberal pundit. They're just saying he shouldn't be an anchor.

And you do seem to be saying, at least implicitly, that because Fox News doesn't care when liberals complain about their inappropriate bias, that gives other networks a license not to care about their own biases as well.


I read your article (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by MichaelGale on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST

and the comments following.

My problem is that you appear to want to curtail any emotion which is exactly the point. There comes a time when something as toxic as Keith Olbermann's rhetoric does nothing but stir emotions with it's toxicity.

Granted, the opinion about corporate and Republican entertainment reliance is important stuff, but this has gone beyond explaining the why and should of Olbermann's proper placement as just another pundit.

In my opinion, he was the most damaging cable influence in the primary, a mouth out of control.
I noticed that the one brief paragraph about his disgusting rhetoric, nightly I might add, toward and about Hillary Clinton stood alone.

WE are all Democrats, not just those you chose to defend. Olbermann is not a journalist.


The demotion was merited (4.66 / 3) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST

And you have never said that, not even in this post.

Try saying that the FIRST TIME Glenn. Write THAT POST.


There are many demotions that are merited (none / 0) (#52)
by Faust on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST

but only the right wing gets the demotions they want.


And only the left wing (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST

criticizes the ones that are merited apparently


Well (none / 0) (#72)
by Faust on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:53:34 PM EST

if we could find an example of a right winger being demoted for meritous reasons then I'm sure the right wing would get their chance to criticize a merited demotion.

However, since that will never happen, we will never see it. Are you aware of any such examples? Has the left EVER successfully mau-maued the media in this way? COULD it be successful in this way?


Michael Savage is an extreme ... (none / 0) (#75)
by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:14:59 PM EST

right winger. And he was not merely demoted, but fired by MSNBC.

And boy was their merit to their decision.

Is that the example you were looking for?


: Not really (none / 0) (#77)
by Faust on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST

Savage started out in the extreme position not only in politics but also in the manner he conducts himself. Simply the fact that he was hired was already controversial.
Though that raises another question: are there any left wingers as extreme as savage that are hired by any major news networks?

Don't take it personally, Glenn (1.66 / 3) (#27)
by Garmonbozia on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST

Armando's far more interested in bashing other left bloggers in his self-aggrandizing and quixotic quest to avenge the wrongs perpetuated against Team Clinton in the primaries. Anyone who preferred another candidate is The Enemy, as is anyone who fails to sufficiently criticize anyone who preferred another candidate.

If I didn't have more faith in Jeralyn than I do, I'd be easily convinced she gave a set of keys to a GOP operative, honestly.


Heh (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST

Here is the witty response. Not.

Take it back to daily kos where the intelligence level might apppreciate your writing.


What's most offensive about this is that... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
by Southsider on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:03:03 PM EST

...you deny BTD the courage of his own convictions. It's not enough for you to disagree with him politely - offer counterarguments, fight back strong, maybe ultimately agree to disagree. No, you instead decide to attack his integrity, to lead with the contention that "this guy can't actually believe what he's saying...dude's just holding a grudge." In doing so, you have ceded the intellectual ground.

It's not that people AREN'T sometimes motivated by grudges - look at a guy like Andrew Sullivan, who I trust only slightly less than Dick Nixon, for a guy whose politics flips on a dime depending upon which candidate flatters his particular issue du jour - it's that ANY of your interlocutors deserves to be addressed first and foremost on the merits of their arguments.

Because here's the hilarious point you apparently haven't acknowledged: even in a world where BTD was really only an embittered Clintonite hack - hell, even in a world where he was a Bush moby - his arguments on this Olbermann matter would be every bit as powerful and objectively meritorious. (Obviously he is none of these things.)

And that is ALL that has EVER mattered. I'm not a Democrat out of emotional commitment. I'm not on the left because of a tribalistic belief in "my side right or wrong." I stand where I stand because I believe my guys deserve to win on the merits. And those selfsame merits are all that we should ever be discussing.

If you've got a problem with that, then...


: I deviated from my initial point here... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Southsider on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST

...which was how godd*mn offensive charges of "you're not a real Obama supporter!" or "you're just bitter!" or "you're a concern troll!" are for people who have demonstrated their good faith and willingness to debate in measured tones.
It's a good thing TL has a strict no-cursing/no-namecalling policy, else I'd be letting loose with the most incomparably foulmouthed stream of invective right about now. Needless to say I've been on receiving end of this BS before myself, and I know how much it enraged me to have people attack my sincerity. I suppose Armando's used to it by now. I still get riled up by it.

I don't suppose you happen to remember (none / 0) (#31)
by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST

who BTD supported way, way back in the primary, do you?


Oh please... (1.33 / 3) (#37)
by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST

No one believes that he actually was an Obama supporter. I think most readers know that was a tact to make his constant criticism seem more objective.


: And Olbermann is a great journalist too (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST

I suppose.
Are you outraged that I am challenging Olbermann's journalistic credentials?

The Appearance of Caving versus Actually Caving .. (none / 0) (#33)
by santarita on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST

into pressure from Republicans seems to be the issue here. The demotion was appropriate because the performance fell below journalistic standards. The fact that it came after the Republican Convention suggests that NBC caved into pressure. So the timing here gives the appearance of caving into pressure whether or not that is the case.

Given the performance of Olbermann, Matthews and Shuster during the Democratic primary, rewarding Olbermann and Matthews with anchor positions was the first mistake. Demoting them publicly was the second.


Yesterday's Bloomberg News article about (none / 0) (#42)
by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09:30 PM EST

McCain falling out with his former Media protectors, made clear in a very public way that Brokaw's moderator stint on one of the Presidential Debates was in danger of being boycotted by McCain ala Larry King, unless . . .

I don't think Tom Brokaw gives beans about Olbermann or Tweety or msnbc, but he cares mightily about his prestigeous debate moderator spot and would sacrifice them in a heartbeat. And he has an ongoing dispute with both Brian and NBC about being replaced by Brian and how NBC has treated him. Brian no better.

Part of what we are hearing is their complaint that their verison of news is the one and only legitimate one and is the top of the NBC pole, which was grossly infringed by letting the cable kiddies in. After all, these were programming decisions made by executives, not by KO or Tweety at all, and if Brian and Tom had decided they did not want to be associated with the little kids, they didn't need to be there on the broadcasts, or they could with their prestige on the on-the-air network have arranged for a separate All Brian, or all Tom feed. There would have been a separate brawl as to which it would have been. It was also a programming decision to put two competitive individuals there as co-anchors, when traditionally there is only one, which was another error. That this is an executive level squabble is shown by the amazingly convenient leaks that Tweety's contract is up for renewal and he is being offered less money.

Unfortunately, the actual machinations have been obscured by those who dislike KO, or Tweety, or both using the opportunity to dump all the abuse they can. thereby guaranteeing that progressive voices, flawed or otherwise, will get still less coverage and respect in a year when coverage is important. One wonders what kind of puffery NBC offered in its attempt to get the Palin interview. I'm sure it was there, and if it involved making KO do some sort of apology, they would have ordered it.


Ahem...Huntley-Brinkley (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by oldpro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM EST

traditionally only one anchor? At NBC?

(Aren't those little naps refreshing, tho?)


Who was Brokaw's co-anchor. Or Brian's? When was (none / 0) (#82)
by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:13:13 PM EST

the last time there was a team of co anchors on Over the air network news? History is fun, but there is a point where something which ended before I was eligible to vote is not relevant. None of the four is used to functioning in a co anchor's environment, and it shows.


: History is fun? (none / 0) (#87)
by oldpro on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:57:17 AM EST

Fun? But not relevant? That is what you young people think of history?
When you use words like 'tradition' you make history relevant to your point.
Look...it's not my fault that I'm old enough to remember these things and it's not your fault that you're too young to know them first hand.
It is your fault, however, to think that being young and not knowing something is an excuse to be rude to your elders in order to win the argument.
Did that work with your parents? Your grandparents? Your history teacher?

Ahhh (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST

And you have the inside scoop on the "actual machinations" do you?


: I spent over two decades in the businees affairs-l (none / 0) (#84)
by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:24:56 PM EST

legal affairs part of the entertainment business in NYC. What I do know about is who makes decisions like the setup of these shows, which is not the on camera personalities. I have read the long reportage of Tom Brokaw's feelings that he was abused by the network whose principal anchor he once was. I have spent years juggling with the egos of those who see themelves as stars, especially when they are no longer at the top and are fighting to retain the perks of the position they no longer hold. And I do recognize an internal status war when I see one. Augmented by the RNC picking the most sensitive point in that situation, threatening to one 'star' who had already demonstrated his willingness to go public against his network with his frustrations, and then letting Bloomberg both get and print it. I am looking at a situation in which one side simply does not do unscripted question and answer and discussion, and the other does nothing else - a business culture difference not taken into account in the discussion on this thread. If you were fussing about Campbell Brown and Larry King, I find the collectively different consideration of this situation 'interesting.' Especially when so many of the comments on this site turn back to the Primary, where our views on what happened will never agree and therefore don't help the Obama campaign to be rehashed over and over.

I need to ask (none / 0) (#58)
by MichaelGale on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM EST

Are you saying that you agree with and support Keith Olbermann's attempt to pick one Democrat who he believes is best for the country and trash anyone who gets in the way of his selection?

So you are agreeing that it is completely appropriate to malign anyone other than Obama and if that is not acceptable to some of us then we are in the way of there being a Democratic voice on MSNBC?

Unbelievable.


: I am considering the present situation, not using (none / 0) (#83)
by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:14:19 PM EST

this event to rerun your version of the primaries.

It was refreshing when Olberman... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by lucky leftie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST

...began regularly berating Bush and Co. but at the same time, it made me uncomfortable because it was so biased. When he began berating my preferred democratic candidate, it wasn't so refreshing.

I've always believed that journalists are obligated to tell the unvarnished truth. I don't want any kind of bias in my news, even one that is compatible with my own biases. Just give me the facts and I'll make my own value judgements.

But Fox News... (none / 0) (#29)
by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM EST

needs to be challenged and mocked as only Olbermann can and does. The mainstream media won't do it. Why do only Republicans get a Noise Machine?


: you can have a noise machine (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST

just don't try to call it objective jouranlism

: Journamalism (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:50:52 AM EST

It's not just for Republicans any more.

Preamble for the SPJ (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:27:26 AM EST

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

If our journalists are participating in spin that is consistent with their personal beliefs than they have in effect diminished the credibility of their respective employers, and commit harm against the republic. For the duty of the press is to report the facts, not as presented by our government, its legislators and office holders.

The problem with the argument is that Ms. Miller believed everything she wrote to be true based on her understanding and world views. KO is guilty of the same although is not a journalist.

Investigative reporting requires a system with deeply entrenched commitment toward objectivity which again is based on the objectivity of the publisher/owner/managing directors. The owners, who are some of the wealthiest and most politically connected people in our country, become the arbiters of policy by choosing to chase stories that fall in line with their purview on world affairs.

I believe the answer is the internets (sp intentional) and the blogosphere. Fact checking, alternative views, a shrinking world all contribute greatly to the checks and balances but readership has yet to equal the playing field combined with intentional falsehoods relayed by the new media.

As the blogosphere matures and as bloggers gain more traction and exposure it will level the playing field. Unfortunately, time is a precious commodity and those of us in our 40's and above may not see wholesale change in the media in our lifetimes.

I thank you Armando/Jeralyn/Tchris for being tireless workers in the support of that change. Journalism is not dead it is experiencing a rebirth through blogs and new media. Although media as we know it is on life support the new media is scrapping and fighting for some semblance of respect and acceptance by main stream america. I hope it happens soon....

Role of the Blogs and the Internet (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by santarita on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM EST

I agree that Blogs and the Internet can play an important role in fact-checking and countering the narratives that governments, political parties and journalists want to have us accept. The difficulty I have with the thought that they will be the salvation is that the blogs have their own narratives. This was very apparent during the Democratic Primary. And the blogs on the left and on the right during this election can be guaranteed to point out the mote in the opposing candidate's eye without acknowledging the beam in their own candidate's eye.

It remains the responsibility of the news consumer to check more than one source. If the only sources checked are blogs with a certain bias, then the reader gets only the news that makes it through the filter. And that is problem with relying on the blogs to counter spin.


: well put (none / 0) (#66)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST

the blogs are an answer to some degree but imperfect nonetheless. What I find most disturbing is when the media quotes a poster from a blog and contributes it to the blog host. When I say a particular politician is a moron it should not be attributed to the blog as I am one of 400 posters here. What the blog owner posts and how the blog owner responds is the position of the blog not what an idiot with a keyboard says in response to a post. Yet in most cases when I hear something attributed to a blog and they show the comment, it is almost always a commenter and not the blogger.
In those cases it is not a question of intelllectual dishonesty it is deception and to their own gain, which of course is a serious breach of ethics.

Thank you (none / 0) (#28)
by zyx on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:46:01 AM EST

I was wondering if anyone in the entire debate had been to J-School, heard of J-School, knew of such a thing, or whatever.

Jaysus!


Are you suggesting that J. Miller isn't cyncical? (none / 0) (#61)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST

You stated: "Ms. Miller believed everything she wrote to be true based on her understanding and world views" (emphasis added).

Isn't it just as probable that someone as world-wise as Judith Miller didn't actually believe the GOP talking points she was propagating?

*I just don't see why one would attribute an absence of willful complicity to GOP apologists and propagandists like Miller, Russert, Woodward et al.

Isn't the idea to hold them accountable for the possibility of deliberate deception and failure to properly investigate their stories? Isn't one actually more criminal than the other?


: I guess it is possible (none / 0) (#64)
by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST

but I don't think so. I have nothing to base it on other than her statements and believe that she believes so to speak. If she did not believe it, I find it hard to believe she would have reported it. Or perhaps maybe she believed in it as opposed to it.
How can we ever prove what she believed? After all, more than 50% of americans still believe Iraq had wmd and would most likely testify under oath to that end. Does that make them guilty of conspiracy or complicity?
I think it points to the broader acceptance by our society to believe "their" source for news and not fact check it, to the earlier comment above.
The three major networks used to check and balance themselves, cable opened a whole new world and approach to how news is presented and Fox changed that even more dramatically.
I still think the media in the US is an embarassment as a whole with a few exceptions such as Candy Crowley or Jim Lehrer and there are others but those two stick out for me. Again though, subject to my interpretation and likes.

: Very well said Donald. (none / 0) (#81)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM EST

Thanks for the follow-through.

Who Is Responsible For Olbermann's Demotion? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Decal on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST

Glenn and others on the left blogosphere are blaming Olbermann's (and Matthews') demotion on pressure from the right. Yet the available evidence seems to be that NBC news itself (i.e. Brokaw, Brian Williams, David Gregory) put the pressure on network execs to maken the change. They don't want to be seen as the liberal mirror-image of FOX News. And with good reason. You know, as bad as FOX is notice how they don't use O'Reilly or Hannity as their convention anchors. So in a way, MSNBC was going them one better by putting the left's O'Reilly in the role of a straight newsperson. When even John Stewart is calling the MSNBC team "the Lohans", it's pretty obvious Keith and company were embarrassing the network enough so that no right-wing pressure was needed to bring about a change. Did Walter Cronkite ever tell Eric Sevareid or Roger Mudd to "get a shovel" on live TV? Did David Brinkley ever humiliate a pundit he didn't agree with by trying to force him off the air before he was done? And does anybody on the left actually feel badly about Matthews getting the hook? Both clowns still have their opinion shows; nobody's being silenced.

David Gregory? You jest. (none / 0) (#46)
by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST

David Gregory has had for some time a program on msnbc where he has done everything you accuse KO and Tweety of doing. Just not as well, almost like he's reading his attack points off cards. Yes, he has a history of being a White House correspondent, but he also has a history of doing skits with Karl Rove.

And he is deeply in the running on the On the Air side for the Meet the Press spot, so he has every interest in looking good to the On the Air Side.

What you need to be asking and are not is why it is that Tim Russert did not have these problems with the msnbc guys, these same msnbc guys.


That's an argument for (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:25:30 PM EST

Gregory not getting the gig, not one for Olbermann keeping it.


: I saw who was in St. Paul and who was covering (none / 0) (#85)
by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:30:44 PM EST

the hurricane from NY, and give some thought to that, and that and the NYT Magazine article on Tweety makes me wonder which production executive thought a co anchor with those two was ever a good idea, much less mixing it with another two whose medium is not spontaneous talk anyway. Of course they had a culture clash. Gregory was, as far as I know, on the On the Air side, until Road to the White House, and it does not seem his comfortable style. I don't think either of the msnbc pair think they were up for Meet The Press, anyway, but the problem is why you do this horrendous mess in public when the choices which gave rise to it were not made by the victims.

BTD's Crime (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by tdraicer on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST

>No one believes that he [BTD] actually was an Obama supporter. I think most readers know that was a tact to make his constant criticism seem more objective.

So one can only be an Obama supporter by becoming a mindless Obot and blindly worshipping at the Temple of Hope and Change?

Well, that explains the Unity part anyway.

But those of us who opposed Obama recognized BTD as a supporter; just one of the few online we could respect.

I have always believed that BTD (none / 0) (#67)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:17:19 PM EST

was an Obama supporter, a tepid Obama supporter, as he said. Some folks don't have to drink the kool aid to support the candidate they think is most electable.

I can't stand Obama, think he will do a terrible job if elected, but I'll vote for him, because he has the D after his name. His choice of Biden is another issue that stinks like a Limburger grilled cheese sandwich to me, but I digress.

BTD is also justifiably critical of Maddow and Olbermann, IMHO. That and 3 bucks, however, gets you a latte. Me, I make coffee in the office, so I'll save my three bucks. Olberman was pontificating, and came across to folks as a semi-informed blowhard, or at least to me.


But did BTD bet on the wrong horse? (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:20:16 PM EST

as Ben Johnson said in (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST

"She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," "That's not my department."

I'll read what BTD has to say wherever it's posted. He is the closest to an old-line pamphleteer we have going for us.


: Good one. I'll remember it. (none / 0) (#70)
by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST

Why? (none / 0) (#86)
by Bluesage on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:34:31 PM EST

You say "I can't stand Obama and think he will do a terrible job if elected, but will vote for him because he has a D by his name. His choice of Biden stinks like a limburger cheese sandwich."

Are you serious? If so, that is, in a nutshell, what is wrong with my not-so-beloved Democratic Party these days and exactly why it was possible for the DNC, the Obama camp and his band of thugs we politely call supporters to drag him over the finish line and stick us with this arrogant lightweight for a candidate. We are doomed!


The only defense (4.66 / 3) (#2)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:10:18 AM EST

of MSNBC and Olbermann is the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" defense. In other words, because it's okay for Fox to do it (even though it's not actually okay), it must be okay for us to do it too. By any other standard, the behavior is indefensible.

I don't think anyone should actually have to ask why a serious, old-school journalist like Tom Brokaw might get put off by the antics at MSNBC. It's patently obvious without resort to "corporate media" conspiracies.

Oh, and this should probably go without saying, but Fox was practically Walter Cronkite during this year's primaries compared to the behavior of MSNBC. Even if it were acceptable to be Fox's mirror image, that doesn't mean it's okay to try and outdo them.

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST

I bet this was Brokaw and Williams more than anything else. MSNBC is an embarrassment to NBC news.


Well (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM EST

Brian Williams is more Tim Russert than he is Tom Brokaw in my estimation, but I agree that he certainly cares about the appearance of journalistic respectability.

What's funny is that the argument for a hyper-partisan MSNBC is that "we're entitled to have a counterpoint to Fox News," but that's the exact same argument the people at Fox would use in the first instance. I mean, you and I may see Fox as a GOP house organ as opposed to a mildly biased outfit like other networks, but in their minds I'm quite confident they believe they are LESS biased in a conservative direction than the "liberal" media is in the other direction.

So the problem with this "tit for tat" justification is that there's not going to be universal agreement on who started it.


If MSNBC wants to be the left leaning (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:32:51 AM EST

version of FOX, go ahead. And they should expect people to ask them to stop claiming to be "fair and balanced" just like we ask FOX to stop making that silly claim.


: Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST

If you want a Fox Left, then yes, Olbermann being asked to step down should enrage you. But do not claim to desire journalistic integrity then.

A bias war? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM EST

Great. That's all we need is supposed news programs deciding that they are entitled to be just as biased as they want because someone else did it first.

It might be okay if it was merely "bias" but how do you tell when it stops being "bias" and becomes "propaganda" instead?

(That might be when your ratings tank.)


Steve M, What evidence do you have to support (4.00 / 1) (#56)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM EST

your assertion that: "I'm quite confident [that FOX believes] they are LESS biased in a conservative direction than the "liberal" media is in the other direction".

Do you really think Rupert Murdoch, and the whole of FOX News, truly believe that the mainstream media has had a liberal bias, especially for the past 8 years?

They would have to be deaf, dumb and blind, innocent and ignorant and willfully STOOPID to actually believe a self-evident FALSEHOOD of that magnitude.

Their vast success is patent proof that they are far from stupid. Why is it so hard to believe that FOX serves and protects the GOP by knowingly perpetuating the falsehood that the other networks have a "liberal" bias?


Great Comment! (2.00 / 1) (#18)
by bocajeff on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST

That's what most people who dismiss Fox don't get - that they are (for the most part) tipping the scales back from a center-left bias that has permeated CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC for years (not to mention the NYTimes, WashPost, and LATimes).

The left (and I was in Journalism school in the late 70's and early 80's) never understood that they were biased because mainly they were the same.

Anecdote - I worked with a client that was a the head feature writer for USA Today in the 90's. I asked her about bias and she said that the only bias she takes is for the "have nots" against the "haves". What is a "have?" I asked. "White mean, mainly" she said. Oh, okay.


There are two models of media bias... (4.00 / 1) (#40)
by Southsider on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST

The first model postulates that the media is consciously left-wing, that they intentionally attack and distort and lie and cheat and murder puppies etc. etc. etc. because they're cynical partisans who are singleminded in their devotion to electing Democrats. This, of course, is the model favored by most right-wingers and this, of course, is silly and false.

The second model postulates that the media, taken as a whole, generally aims for fairness and balance and objectivity and all those nice neutral journalistic values they have been inculcated with, but that because the media is largely ultra-homogeneous and prone to group-think (whether driven by political predilection or business imperatives), it ends up tilting left. They try to be fair, but they honestly have no strong understanding of "The Other" because they never interact with these folks on a regular basis and are steeped in a cozy consensus that reinforces the lenses they wear when viewing any particular issue. This, of course, is the less popular model of media bias and, of course, is the one that I believe is true.

And it usually doesn't bother me, not the least reason being because I'm pretty congenial to the center-left outcome. (Hey, it takes a big man to admit his own bias, weakness, and intellectual inconsistency.) But more importantly because it's not borne of malice. A lack of imagination? Perhaps. Incompetence? Perhaps. Herd-following tendencies? Most certainly. But it's not a question of intentionalism, which is key for me. I wholly reject "IT'S TEH CORPORATE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX!!11!"-style paranoia arguments, because even though said interests do exist, my experience with newsrooms and reporter friends (of which I have several) strongly suggests that it doesn't play a role.


As an addendum... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Southsider on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST

...the reason Olbermann is so toxic (and in part why I think BTD is so staunch in his opposition to him in the anchor position), is because he is one of the few examples out there who so clearly and indisputably conforms to the FIRST model of media bias discussed above. He provides ammunition to the Right without seriously advancing our interests on the Left, and what's worse is that he threatens to convince middle-of-the-road voters that the first model might actually be correct.


: The toxicity for me is... (none / 0) (#50)
by santarita on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST

that instead of being thought-provoking, Olbermann has become thoughtfulness-destroying. Fox News and Olbermann have that in common - they promote and reinforce their own views of the world and don't allow for facts and different perspectives that may challenge their world view. The one balances out the other only if the vieweer watches both. But the viewer watches one or the other depending on which correlates most closely with their own views.

Too true. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST

All I've heard this week is that "Fox is doing it. We should TOO!" Principles, apparently, are of no importance.


: And as Steve M points out... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Southsider on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST

...this defense only became more embarrassing when (likely for tactical reasons) Fox decided to outflank MSNBC by offering more balanced political coverage of the Democratic primary and the election this season. Nobody actually believes that Fox has had a 'change of heart' and that they're not still the same old GOP hacks (well, certainly not me), but I'm damn near certain they decided to feint in this direction as a way of further discrediting a competitor network. ("Look, even us supposed right wing death beasts are willing to give fuller and fairer coverage to Hillary than MSNBC!")
It's like the guy who pulls the chair out from under you right before you sit down, for chrissakes.

Bravo BTD, this is perhaps the most (none / 0) (#59)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:22:13 PM EST

relevant and profound piece you have written at TL.

Obviously, we can't have a fully informed electorate in the absence of a free press; without which we have no DEMOCRACY.

Going forward, I can see nothing more urgent than addressing and redressing this fundamental problem.


I think the infighting during the RNC convention (none / 0) (#76)
by jawbone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST

is what brought MSNBC managment to its senses--by embarrassing them. They decided that neither Tweety nor Olbermann was capable of being close to journalistically neutral in anchoring political events or of behaving professionally.

The on-air spats and locker room sniggering about their own personnel, much less the pols they were covering, was embarrassing. And it was not the first time: Tweets had some totally unprofessional moments when he was losing himself in discussing the looks of his female NBC coworkers who appeared on his show. It was humiliating to not only the women on the show, but also to women watching.

But, imho, it was the boyz losing any semblance of objectivity and professionalism on the air that did it. That was too over the top. (The women often did not appear again on Tweety's show--but how they were treated did not bring out any overt adult supervision of Tweety. Took messing around with male talent....)

Also, several times during the primary and debate coverage, Tom Brokaw attempted to direct the coverage comments to a more objective level--didn't always succeed. And he wasn't there all the time.

Will things improve? I hope so, bcz, indeed, the entire NBS News brand was being messed up.

Glenn does have some blind spots--I guess we all do. But this does stand out since so much of his analysis is so spot on.


Glenn is much better when he sticks (none / 0) (#1)
by myiq2xu on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM EST

to legal issues.

His in-depth analysis of FISA, for instance, was first-rate.

As a media critic, he's not so hot.

I think he is a good Media critic (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM EST

when he applies the proper standards across the board.


A liberal Sean Hannity! (none / 0) (#24)
by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST

Olbermann is an s.o.b., but he's our s.o.b. (Now we will have Rachel Maddow too! Yeah!)

MSNBC made the right move. Now Olbermann is free of pretending to be a journalist and can fight fire with fire.


I do not care for Olbermann (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST

myself. Mileage may vary.


I watched the first (none / 0) (#30)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST

few minutes of Rachel Maddow last night since it was her first show. I had higher hopes for her than most others. But, she did the same thing the others do. She opened with a discussion about Palin ( I think it was Palin) and brought on ONE guest who agreed with her to discuss it. I admit I didn't stay tuned for long after that. She may have FINALLY brought on someone with a different viewpoint to have an actual discussion. But, I doubt it. She started out just like a female version of Olberman. You wouldn't want to actually host someone with a different opinion. And if someone does start to share an opposing view (Crawford) then have them banned from appearing on the network ever again.


: It got better (none / 0) (#43)
by Pol C on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST

She had Pat Buchanan on later in the show, and it looks like the two of them debating is going to be a regular feature. Which is good. Unlike Joe Scarborough, Buchanan does his homework, and it's harder for her to slip into that awful "I'm not that big on Obama, I just hate all his opponents" sophistry mode of hers when she's up against him. When she's playing things honestly, there's no one in the broadcast media more worth listening to. The only thing she and Buchanan should be careful about is not letting things devolve into shouting matches, which it did towards the end of his segment last night.
Beyond that, though, I hope yesterday was the last and only time I see Olbermann on that program, and if she's going to have that WaMo guy on, she should pair him with a reasonably thoughful journalist with an opposing view. We need to encourage the best from our opponents; it keeps us sharp.

: Maddow (none / 0) (#55)
by Kate Stone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST

No, she opened with KO and spun his interview with BO. The she went to Palin's use of religion in the public sphere with a discussion with a preacher with a 30,000 congregation who did not totally agree with Maddow.

It is hard to defend...... (none / 0) (#7)
by Kefa on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST

something that is just wrong. Glenn gave it a good shot. BTD you just had him dead in the water.

: I like and respect Glenn (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST

I just think he will have a hard time squaring his post today with his post yesterday.
And he does not need to do a pretzel imitation. He is better than that.

How many years didi it take (none / 0) (#8)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:19:59 AM EST

for the media to even begin to admit that they didn't do a very good job for the PUBLIC in the run-up to the Iraq war? And, not all of them have admitted it yet. So, you don't really expect them to admit they did a poor job during the primary do you?

: You mean for the blogs to admit (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM EST

they did a bad job in the primaries?

What a depressing (none / 0) (#25)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:40:25 AM EST

lack of integrity. Why act like well-paid, well-fed journalists are stone age cretins on the hunt, as Yglesias does. We're hearing what we want to hear, and trying to get other people to like the things we hear - that is the point of MSNBC. If we can't be appropriately self-critical, we open up people to thinking, "I watch MSNBC when I want to know what's wrong with the Right [because they are completely blind and indulgent to the Left]" and also thinking "If I want to know what's wrong with the Left, I'll turn on Fox." Since as someone said yesterday, the facts are on our side, generally, why would we want to open ourselves to this situation and lose a good hand? Why set up a "both sides are right in their own way" situation (bipartisan b.s.) when we could just be right???

I also think Olbermann's special comments are so outrageous they preclude him from being a journalist. Who can take him seriously as an observer?

KO a journalist? (none / 0) (#60)
by Kate Stone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM EST

I never thought that Olbermann was a journalist. He is a commentator. Bill O'Reilly is a commentator. If they were syndicated writers for newspapers they would be columnists. They are not journalists. Most pundits we see on the tv are not journalists. They have been around D.C. a very long time, were often legislative aides, then campaign spokespersons, became pundits because somebody somewhere thought they had something important to say and now they call themselves journalists. The blending of star power, journalism and commentary confuses people. KO and Bill O should confuse nobody. They spit, fume, froth, lie and promote the idea that what they have to say is important to hear. They are not journalists. They are highly compensated pitch men.


Which is why he had no business (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:03:52 PM EST

anchoring MSNBC's political coverage. I take it you applaud MSNBC's decision to remove him from anchoring duties.


: KO "demotion" (none / 0) (#65)
by Kate Stone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:08:12 PM EST

I do not think commentators such as Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews should anchor. Hey, I had a problem with Mumbles Brokaw who in his dotage is spouting all kinds of love at McCain for his POW status.

Jeez, bud. (none / 0) (#71)
by elrapido on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST

Fox of course is not a news organization, it is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and no sane person can deny that....

You are determined not to be taken seriously, aren't you?

Hmmm (none / 0) (#80)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM EST

Look in the mirror and go see a psychiatrist.


: You are obviously deranged. (none / 0) (#88)
by elrapido on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:06:38 PM EST

Fox reports the news just fine. You are free not to like the network's editorial leaning, but your claims that it an arm of the Republican party are nothing short of idiotic.
Too bad about Hillary - at least you have Sarah.

So what do you think about (none / 0) (#74)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:23:45 PM EST

media critic Howie Kurtz skipping over your take on Olbermann and only referencing Jeralyn's, because that's the take that fit his argument?

It's impossible to criticize all the ridiculous faux objectivity in the media now. It's a war for who's going to control the narrative. Criticize your allies and all you do is hurt your own side. Objectivity is what the controllers of the discourse say it is, and now they can say that unlike that liberal Olbermann, David Gregory is "a perfectly straight shooter."

The alternatives aren't partisan hackery or objectivity - they're which side's partisan hackery is going to dominate the public discourse.

Howie Kurtz will never cite me (none / 0) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST

as I have called him out as a GOP shill for 4 years. First at DKos and at Talk Left.


: Incorrect (none / 0) (#89)
by elrapido on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST

The reason that he won't cite you is because you are not credible.