It's so easy to check up on which politicians that Olbermann, or anyone, is giving to. It should be as simple to see who's paying for all those attack ads.
…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
It's so easy to check up on which politicians that Olbermann, or anyone, is giving to. It should be as simple to see who's paying for all those attack ads.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
Baritone - "Hundreds of millions of dollars have come mainly to Republicans since the vapid Supreme Court decision allowing huge anonymous donations, many from outside the country, with no means to determine who gave what." Care to back that up with numbers?
27 - S A GOULD
"But let's not imply that he was suspended for breaking his journalistic neutrality. He was suspended for breaking the rules."
No he wasn't, Roger. You know that.
Olbermann was 'suspended INDEFINITELY.' This isn't a "break-the-rules, pay-the-price" situation. (Really, how hard a decision could this have been to make? "He broke the rules, penalty is two days off without pay." Whatever.)
By using 'suspended INDEFINITELY' MSNBC/GE/Comast get to judge public reaction, and to see how long it's going to take them to water-down or eliminate ALL pro-individual, anti-corporation presence on the airwaves.
28 - Baronius
Roger, that wasn't my intent, but I think I agree with that sentiment. Olbermann would be biased even if he followed those rules, and he could (if he chose to) be unbiased even if those rules didn't exist.
I guess I have two separate qualms. First, the policy only addresses the appearance of neutrality, not neutrality itself. Neutrality is something that any reporter has to work on regularly. I'm sure that Scott Nance was a liberal back when he was a reporter, and if he was a good one, he kept all his biases out of his work.
Second problem: the modern journo-commentator or opinion journalist or whatever you want to call him isn't aiming for journalistic neutrality. I don't watch the cable news channels, so I don't know what percentage of their shows aim at objectivity, but clearly Sean and Keith and Bill and Rachel don't. That's the difference between regular journalists and advocates. Dan Rather was a failure at neutrality; Keith Olbermann is a success at advocacy.
29 - Cannonshop
The rules he was breaking were the rules of MSNBC-which is his employer. The rules were part of his contract, he agreed to abide by them when he accepted employment there and drew his paycheques.
It's not a question of "Journalistic Neutrality"-Olbermann is an editorialist and his show is an Opinion show...but he broke the rules of his employer, so he's on suspension.
by his Employer, not by some outside agency, not by some overbearing board of Journalistic Neutrality or Kommissar of Media Image.
This could blow up in MSNBC's face if another network decided to rook him from them due to this suspension, (He IS a ratings generator, even if it isn't as high as Hannity, his show gets more viewers than, say, Maddow or other MSNBC programming...)
I guess my question is whether or not this was a good business move by MSNBC's brass.
And I don't know the answer to that question.
30 - Baritone
Bar,
Since the actual #s are not available as I noted, that could be difficult.But much has been made of this very issue and it has been plain that the US Chamber of Commerce, despite their denials have brought in millions in both domestive foreign money solely for Rep candidates and/or the Rep party. Also any # of big names, the most egregious of which are likely the Koch brothers who have given millions directly to Reps and engineered millions more from other sources. If you're not aware of this, perhaps it might serve you to flip on the tube once in awhile. One can become better informed by doing so.
B
31 - Baritone
SAG
"No he wasn't, Roger. You know that."
And by what special divination do you make that claim?
B
32 - zingzing
cannonshop: "I guess my question is whether or not this was a good business move by MSNBC's brass."
it wasn't a move they wanted to make. some part of his audience isn't going to come back to msnbc, and i doubt the new audience generated by his replacement and the current uproar is going to make up for it. of course it wasn't a good business move. but they were forced into it. silly as it is. there wasn't any doubt as to which side he was on. he's partisan. i dislike him as much as anyone over at fox, because i think he uses the cheap tactics that they use, and that shouldn't have any place in the media. so i'm not really unhappy that he's gone. it's not like if we on the left don't have silly fox-aping shows like his around, there's suddenly going to be a movement to the right within his audience. it's no big loss. i hope he stays gone and msnbc tries to be a little more respectable.
33 - El Bicho
"He was suspended for breaking the rules."
According to latest report on Politico he wasn't suspended for breaking the rule:
"Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring 'Countdown.'"
34 - El Bicho
"i hope he stays gone and msnbc tries to be a little more respectable."
It's TV. Respectable doesn't pay the bills. And he won't stay gone unless there's some grandstanding behind the scenes because he's the channel's biggest star
35 - zingzing
i know, i know. but i really think the existence of both fox and msnbc is a drag on our politics.
i just read an article about the failure of the cap and trade legislation, and even the republicans involved were hushing shit up and trying to push shit through as quickly as possible "before fox news gets ahold of the story." they knew fox would bend it into whatever shape was necessary to choke it to death, and that's part of what killed it. that and obama giving away some of the bargaining chips. sigh. i didn't even like the bargaining chips, but damn if they wouldn't have been useful. but it was doomed anyway.
36 - jeannie danna
:D Great comments B. These people know you are right, it's just the old word game as usual.
37 - handyguy
Olbermann is sometimes over the top, but he is very smart, and his show often provides very valuable counterpoint. Behind the scenes, he's reported to be outrageously stubborn and a real egomaniac [as compared to that blushing wallflower O'Reilly, ha].
But I believe they'll reach some compromise about an apology, and he will be back on, if not Monday, then very soon.
38 - Baritone
I have to disagree with you on this zing. As you well know, the right has literally dozens of voices on the airwaves. FOX hogs the Righty limelight on the tube, but there is a veritable bastian of wingnut radio shows. Air America died a painful death. There may be a liberal voice or two in some markets, but otherwise, MSNBC is IT. I understand that the viewers and listeners of these various networks/programs are essentially the choir, but I find it a bit of a relief, if nothing else, to listen to Olbermann and especially Rachael Maddow. I've no doubt that Olbermann is a huge ego, and he tends toward bombast and blowhardry, but I agree with handy that he is intelligent - far more so than any of the FOX lineup - and all of the MSNBC lefty pundits do bring to lite a lot of things you'd never hear of otherwise.
If you haven't watched Maddow, I suggest you give her a try. She is thorough and the most fair of all the MS leftys.
B
39 - zingzing
i've watched maddow on occasion. she's not so bad. but "journalism" that swings so obviously to one side or the other pisses me off. admittedly, most of msnbc doesn't really piss me off that much, because i agree with a lot of it. but seeing what fox news does, and getting so boiled up by their bullshit, one must wonder what the right thinks of msnbc. each one is just going to up the stakes, move further and further apart from each other, and the political discussion in this nation, because it is dominated by tv news, is just going to fracture more and more. they're both poison. i'd like to see the left be the better man, if you will. we don't need the hyperbole. the right's hyperbole, if it exists all on its own and isn't fed by the left's hyperbole, will eat itself.
the daily show and colbert get it right. they point out the hyperbole, but by making it comedy, rarely add any hyperbole that tries to be taken seriously. and the daily show was viewed by more in the 18-45 bracket (or whatever) than leno or letterman or fox's top performer last week. we don't need an equal and opposite hyperbolic reaction. we need the truth and we need satire.
40 - zingzing
well, there you go... like it or not, he's back on tuesday. king ratings has his way.
41 - handyguy
I don't understand wishing the programs out of existence, Zing. Just don't watch 'em.
42 - zingzing
it's not me i'm worried about. i don't even have a television. i only see them (on the internet) when they do something stupid or someone else does something stupid and they talk about how stupid it all is.
it's the effect this shit has on our politics that bothers me. it's yellow journalism. sensationalism for nothing but ill gain. IT'S TEARING US APART, LISA.
43 - handyguy
I don't think journalism with a strong point of view is automatically so bad. Only when it's full of lies and dishonesty.
The polarization of politics is certainly ugly. But most voters really are still in the middle and that ought to be reflected in the candidates too, eventually.
44 - zingzing
it ought to be reflected in the candidates AND the news media. i view fox as being "full of lies and dishonesty." the right views msnbc the same way i do fox. it pushes us apart. i know it's supposedly "opinion," but people on the right and the left take it as gospel truth.
it's become obvious that fox can influence the politics of our nation, yet they're full of shit. if msnbc presents the other side of that, and they do so in a format that apes fox's format, it's just possible that they're full of shit as well. it's never going to get better if they keep on pushing off each other.
i'm not saying that fox or msnbc should be shut down. i just wish they'd be more responsible for reporting the truth, being real journalists and stop valuing ratings over reality.
45 - Clavos
I don't watch MSNBC, so can't comment on them, but one thing about FOX: they don't pass off the O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck or other programs as news, or even as journalism. These shows (and show is the right term here) are billed as opinion. The only "shows" billed as news are Sheppard Smith's and Brit Hume's, and even Hume admits to opinion, so I don't see why (other than you disagree with the views expressed) you progs are so anxious to shut down FOX. I know of few conservatives who want to shut down Olbermann or Maddow, most of them just laugh at their antics and ridicule them.
46 - Baronius
The big problem with Maddow is the way she had advanced warning of 9/11 and didn't share the information with the authorities.
47 - Baronius
Bar - Of course I'm aware of the Koch brothers. And you're aware of Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen. You may also be aware of America’s Family First Action Fund, and Commonsense Ten. The Democrats were not hurting for money this year.
48 - Jet Gardner
MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Sunday night, "After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night."
49 - handyguy
#46 - I assume this is a 'joke,' but if so it's drawn from a vein of 'humor' that is invisible to the rest of us.
50 - handyguy
Both Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow [or their staffs] have compiled brilliant montages of clips that illustrate how propagandistic Fox News is, how they pound away at often minor bits of non-news to score an ideological point. Maddows "Stories to Scare White People With" is a classic example.
No doubt Fox fans believe similar compilations could be done with Olbermann's show or others to a similar effect. I have not yet seen such a thing done. And it would be far more difficult to do with material from the shows of the research-centric Maddow or the heavily ironic Stewart.
51 - Jet Gardner
Google the quote Handy, or just turn on the news and you'll see that the joyous news is true
52 - Baritone
zing,
The media is rife with opinion. There are magazines, radio programs and of course how many web sites devoted to political opinion. While I understand that TV perhaps remains the most widely used and most powerful medium, should it be singled out as THE one where political opinion is verboten?
I hate FOX, yet as the old saying goes, I support its right to exist.
It should also be pointed out that both MSNBC and FOX (the latter to a frankly lesser extent) do provide straight news - mainly during the daylight hours. I don't know of the FOX schedule, but MSNBC has after Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough - a Republican/conservative - basic news programming from 9AM to 4PM. At 4 Dylan Ratigan has an hour show, and frankly, I'm not sure just where he's coming from politically, and after that, yes it's all left wing opinion with Chris Matthews (at both 5PM and 7PM EST,) The Ed Show with Ed Schultz at 6PM, then after Matthews' second airing comes Olbermann, Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.
Given the circumstances, I think that MSNBC (which I hear may soon be purchased by Comcast) provides the yang to FOX's yin. (Or is that vice versa?)
I think your assertion that FOX would collapse of its own weight without MSNBC or the like is wishful thinking. FOX is firmly entrenched with a huge audience, and is in effect a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. They even have 2 or 3 likely 2012 Republican presidential candidates on the payroll.
I have also found that the left pundits at MSNBC are much more careful with the facts than they are at FOX, and on the occasion when the MS folks may have gotten something wrong, they quickly and openly admit the error on air. This is even true of Olbermann. I don't see the same happening at FOX. Rather, they feed into the closed ring of undeniablity. Once they say it on FOX (or Limbaugh, or wherever,) it becomes fact as far as their minions are concerned. There's no refutation possible.
And again I reiterate, Rachael Maddow is the real deal. Moreso than any of the others, right or left.
B
53 - Baritone
Bar, Are you for real regarding Maddow? At the time of 9/11 she was no more than a fledgling voice. I'm not even sure if she was on Air America back then. I don't remember when Air America came into existence.
54 - Baronius
No, I was mocking her outrageous accusation from a couple of weeks ago.
55 - zingzing
baritone, as i said waaaay back in the olden times of comment #44: "i'm not saying that fox or msnbc should be shut down. i just wish they'd be more responsible for reporting the truth, being real journalists and stop valuing ratings over reality."
fox news is propaganda and misinformation masquerading as "opinion" and briefly, in little flickers, "news." the american political dialogue has become little other than lies attacking lies. i don't see this as a good thing in the least. it just shouldn't be this way. and for that, i blame fox and (at least by extension,) msnbc.
obviously, censorship isn't the answer. but a little self-policing, a little pride in being a journalist, a little pride in being honest and a little shame in being part of the vortex that sucked this nation's political debate into its current abyss would go a long way.
56 - Baritone
Bar,
Maddow has acknowledged mistakes she has made and admitted that when she was new to the business, she was guilty of not checking her facts thoroughly enough.
In that light, Maddow has made research the center of her efforts. She rarely, if ever, now makes any statement that hasn't been thoroughly vetted by herself and/or her staff.
The problem with FOX is that few of those people can be considered "newbys" or wet behind the ears. They've all been around for several years, and yet they still seem to have no problem with reporting anything and everything that pops up without regard to the sources - like the recent assertion that Obama's current trip was to cost taxpayers two hundred million dollars a day plus the deployment of 35 navy warships and dozens of aircraft along with a 2000 person entourage. All the FOX people and Limbaugh among others grabbed that right up and made hay with it without any apparent effort to verify. Rather, they stated that "it had been reported." Reported where? By whom? From what source?
Yet, I would bet you that there are now thousands of the FOX/Limbaugh devotees who still believe that story to be true, and who probably still cling to the notion of death panels and Obama's devotion to islam.
57 - Baritone
zing, I won't belabor the point with you much further, but I just don't happen to agree. I understand what you are saying, and in a more perfect world it might work out that way. For many years, you only rarely heard anything remotely opinionated from TV journalists. About the first pundit I ever heard editorializing was Eric Sevareid on 60 Minutes. Only late in his career did Walter Cronkite start offering commentary.
But it should be clear to everyone that what FOX and the nite time pundits at MSNBC offer is NOT news, perse'. It is ALL opinion. I doubt that many who tune into Limbaugh's rants consider what they are getting is "news" in the journalistic sense. I consider what one gets from around 4PM on, on MSNBC is tantamount to the editorial page of the newspaper. And,I must admit that I enjoy it a lot.
B
58 - zingzing
well, here's the key sentence: "it should be clear to everyone that what FOX and the nite time pundits at MSNBC offer is NOT news."
and of course, the key word in the key sentence is "should." unfortunately, it's not always the case that people recognize what they're seeing. or at least, that's not the effect it has, as your $200m/day story shows.
59 - Baritone
So, we should eliminate these programs because the audience is stupid?
B
60 - Baronius
Bar - So, three weeks ago (when Maddow was less experienced than she is now), she accused a congressman of being an accomplice to the murder of 168 people, but she corrected herself the next day. That makes her your "real deal", and Handy considers her "research-centric".
61 - zingzing
"So, we should eliminate these programs because the audience is stupid?"
you yourself point out that because of fox's bullshit, thousands and thousands of people believe lies. and millions believe further lies that fox has spread. it's the unfortunate reality that our politics are almost completely based on what are at least hyperbolic half-truths. or truthiness, i guess.
and i think i've made it clear that "we" shouldn't be doing any "eliminating" of programs (see comments #55, 44, etc, etc). i just think fox should be ashamed (and publicly shamed) enough to quit being such tools. if you're a news organization, follow journalistic standards. if you're a pundit giving your opinion, at least have the decency to separate fact from fiction, and do your fucking job with the slightest shred of your dignity intact.
is it really so much to ask? i think not.
62 - zingzing
that said, i recognize the fact that no one at msnbc or fox values things like truth, dignity, journalism or anything else higher than they do ratings and cash. and fox leads in the ratings. so fox is the model. so it'll only go downhill from here.
63 - Baronius
Just curious - What do you lib-types think of CNN? It's been a long time since I've watched it, but I would put it on par with MSNBC in terms of its opinion/news ratio.
64 - handyguy
As Baronius's beloved Andrew Breitbart noted, Rachel Maddow retracted the misstatement, corrected it and apologized, and thanked the 'right-wing bloggers who are soo angry with me' [thanked them for the correction, that is].
Breitbart couldn't resist a snarky comment that she apolgized "...sort of, in her own unique way." But I don't see what's wrong with what she said in the retraction. Her point was that Stockman was a wacko extremist who sympathized with the 'black helicopters are coming' militia movement, and that point stands.
65 - handyguy
CNN and MSNBC are quite different. CNN tries to keep an objective "down the middle" tone in its news coverage, and typically has both a liberal and conservative talking head on when opinions are being asked.
In their new 8 pm show, 'liberal' Elliot Spitzer is paired with 'conservative' Kathleen Parker. Surprise: I really like her, and I find him a repellent, nerdy motormouth.
MSNBC is more CNN-ish in the daytime. Andrea Mitchell's show is great, and Chuck Todd is an excellent political reporter.
66 - Baronius
Breitbart made a snarky comment? Breitbart? Maddow's apology was pure attitude, like your defense of her. You're saying that she was right even though she was factually wrong. The truth doesn't matter as much as the ideology.
67 - handyguy
That sounds like something I would say about Andrew himself. Are you defending this Stockman character, who couldn't even get re-elected after one term in the House? She misspoke, she admitted it, she explicitly apologized. Something Andrew B rarely bothers to do. All you can take from it is her attitude, which of course is what I love about her.
She was "factually wrong" only about the timing of the fax, not about Stockman being a militia-supporting right-wing extremist. And she admitted it! Fer cryin' out loud. Should she break down in tears and beg your forgiveness?
68 - zingzing
baronius, you'll go to your grave defending that liar (and you act like you're dumb enough to believe the things he says, but i know better), but you get upset if someone shows a little snark in an apology? well, excuse me, but if we ever get to see what a breitbart apology looks like, that'll be the day.
i just took a look at his website for the first time in a while. they're reviewing a script for an unmade film, yeah, that's right, it's not even really in development yet, which depicts the rise of (but not the fall, apparently) of karl rove. in the review, they use the term "postmodern politics." i've never quite heard that one. it's actually a very apt term, if a bit dark.
69 - Baritone
I still stand by my assertion that Maddow is the most research heavy of any of the TV political pundits. She gets some things wrong, but as I noted, and as is noted by others above, she makes on air corrections and, if appropriate, on air apologies. I've never seen nor heard of ANYONE at FOX or Limbaugh or Breitbart EVER admit an error or make anything even remotely like an apology. They report lying bullshit virtually every damn day. And it just lays there to fester into Republican votes. And as for Glen Beck, the FOX idiot in residence, he wouldn't acknowledge truth if it up and slapped him in the face.
Ya know, when what advertizes itself as a news organization puts all but declared presidential candidates on its payroll, it's kinda hard to think of it as "Fair and Balanced." What a crock.
B
70 - zingzing
"Ya know, when what advertizes itself as a news organization puts all but declared presidential candidates on its payroll, it's kinda hard to think of it as "Fair and Balanced." What a crock."
that's what i'm sayin! it's pure propaganda! what the fuck happened to news and journalism? FOX Prop is a better name. catchier too.
and the logo would be pretty easy to make. some cartoon fox (probably male, probably white) with some shades on and a hat, leaning up against the word "prop" in a t-shirt and arms crossed. you get it? oh, it's so easy. sassy! and the shades, they'll just bring in the youngsters, like joe camel or whatever rjr used to use in advertising camel cigs to the kids.
suck 'em down, FOX Prop!!!
71 - Baritone
Another thing I'll say in defense of MSNBC. All of the lefty pundits do not shy away from being critical of Obama and other Dems when they feel its deserved. Maddow has been especially critical of Obama and the lack of action on DADT, the failure to close GITMO, and the escalation of the Afghan war.
Olbermann & Chris Matthews were been seriously concerned about many of Obama's choices for Cabinet and other administration posts. Dylan Ratigan has been scathing in his attacks against Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and others on the Obama "financial team" The MS folks are not nearly so uncritical and accommodating to Obama and the Dems as are the wingnuts at FOX toward the Reps.
And yes, as handy points out, the daytime line up at MSNBC is, on the whole pretty straight line news with the likes of Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and others. And Morning Joe can be a real hoot with conservative Joe Scarborough at point and Mika Brzezinski trying vainly to keep him in check.
B
72 - Clavos
Long live FOX!!! If only because it annoys the shit out of the libs.
73 - Baritone
And the same for MSNBC! Olbermann constantly gets under O'Reilly's skin. I love it for that alone.
B
74 - Baronius
You guys ought to get out more if you think that Kathleen Parker and Joe Scarborough are conservatives. I know you're sitting there thinking how narrow my perspective is, but if you think George Stephanopoulos and CNN represent the middle, you're playing a half-court game.
75 - zingzing
beck is now claiming that because someone on msnbc said he was a socialist, that everyone should look out for an "event," which will lead to socialist violence against america, allowing obama to step in, stop the violence and take over america as a dictator or something.
and guess who the left is supposedly setting up as the fall guy? why, it's beck! of course!
very convenient theorizing. get them before they get you, er, america, or whatever, eh, glenn? eh???
and that's the news.