Olbermann suspended

[cbucher]

Just another small step in the right direction. There are others that need to go as well.

[USA1]

Just another small step in the right direction. There are others that need to go as well.

The whole network needs to go IMO.
They do nothing but spew misinformation by twisting the truth and
putting there own spin on things to further their own liberal agenda.
Sometimes I tune in just to see what they're talking about and it just makes me want to

Kinda reminds me of obama.

[The Annoyed Man]

Here is why Olberman was sacked: although they admit that he was their biggest drawing personality, he is also the reason that MSNBC is ranked in the bush leagues in terms of total viewership when compared to FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. In other words, while Olberman has had a dedicated following, it is a small following, and he was killing MSNBC. Although it is difficult to believe that Olberman knows anything about capitalism and the free market, the bean counters behind the scenes certainly do.

On 11/3, when the all the numbers shook out from the previous day's election results, MSNBC management looked at the results, considered the anger of the voters - particularly the anger against obamanomics - and they realized that continuing to position themselves as radically to the left of the viewing audience would be to hasten their slide into irrelevancy. When nobody is watching your network, you can't charge as much for the advertising it displays. That is economics outside of the Beltway, where 99.999% of the nation's viewers live. If you continue to insult their intelligence, they will stop watching you. That is certain death to a TV network.

This was a financial decision, and the issue of whom Olberman supported with his dollars is merely a canard. Long ago, surveys of the nation's newsrooms showed that 80% or more of newsroom employees - at all levels - were registered as democrats. We know from reading/watching their "work" (I put that in quote marks because the vast majority of them at the national level major leagues merely parrot whatever they read in the New York Times, and do very little actual investigative reporting or critical thinking), that most of them are also self-identified liberals. Claims of objectivity are worth no more than any sack of manure commonly found at your local garden shop. I worked in the newspaper industry for 9 years myself, and publishers/editors make a show of requiring objective neutrality in the newsroom, but it is all show, and you can't grow your career and be a member of the inner sanctum unless you drink the Cool Aid. That's a fact. Witness what happened to Juan Williams.

FOX isn't perfect by any stretch, but when they gave Williams a new home, just as they have done to other confirmed liberals, they gave legitimacy to their claim of "fair and balanced." PERFECTLY fair and balanced? No. But a darn site better than any of the other networks, whose idea of objectivity is to trot out a Kathleen Parker or some other notorious RINO twit to represent the "conservative" position.

So when Olberman was fired, MSNBC made a decision to preserve their business over preserving Olberman. I think it will be interesting to see where he surfaces next. He can't really go back to being a sportscaster now that he's firmly dug himself a hole in political commentary (and he wasn't great as a sportscaster either, by the way). He's pretty much relegated himself with his brand of vitriol to written commentary on the Daily Kos and the HuffPo. He'll never make enough money again to support himself in the elitist lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. He is known in his personal life to be neurotic and incapable of getting by without enablers. I hope he socked away enough money to cruise on the interest for a while, because he's going to need it. And once he's had a chance to taste what obamanomics has done to the value of his dollar, maybe he'll start singing a different song... ...but I doubt it, because Keith Olberman is a fundamentally stupid and talentless hack.

[philip964]

Today CNN picked up the story. They were very contrite in their sympathy for his viewers. "Who they were sure wanted him back on the air as quickly as possible". So I don't know if CNN is going to go after him or is just wooing his viewers. I assume Keith's fans are not happy with MSNBC.

Does anyone really watch MSNBC, the only reason I know about this guy is Fox occasionally shows some of his antics on their station.

Compared to Amy Goodman he is still a lightweight.

Would Fox pick him up, just to add a little salt to the stew? To me unlike Jaun Williams, he does n't come off as a nice guy, sort of annoying, like a lot of your liberal friends.

[VMI77]

The Penn and Teller antidote to the liberal nut job deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment (profanity at the end).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

[O6nop]

Would Fox pick him up, just to add a little salt to the stew? To me unlike Jaun Williams, he does n't come off as a nice guy, sort of annoying, like a lot of your liberal friends.

Maybe FOX should hire him as a contributor - talk about balanced ! Then he can spew his talking points and his fans will be subjected to valid counterpoints that were not available on MSNBC, proving their misguided loyalties. FOX will pick up a few more viewers and possible converts.
Actually, They'd probably drop much of their viewership, at least while he was on.

[baldeagle]

There are so many things wrong with this story it's hard to know where to begin. But I'll begin here. Calling Olbermann a journalist is like calling me an athlete. That's wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. Furthermore, the idea that journalists don't donate to or support certain political parties and/or candidates is laughable on its face. You can look up their donations on the web. This leads me to believe that they were looking for an excuse to hang their hats on because Olbermann has done something else they didn't like, but they don't want to talk about that.

The idea that journalists have an appearance of impartiality is so bizarre one has to wonder what world the MSNBC leadership lives in. Do they SERIOUSLY believe that anyone sees them as impartial?

All in all, the article would rank in the top ten funniest things I've read in a while.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Olbermann is gone. He's a detestable jerk. But the explanation MSNBC gives for his suspension is rank fantasy.

[CaptWoodrow10]

According to Fox News, he's back. His suspension is set to end on Tuesday. So much for MSNBC "seeing the light".

[USA1]

According to Fox News, he's back. His suspension is set to end on Tuesday. So much for MSNBC "seeing the light".

yuk

[Warhammer]

I read that Olberman demanded (and got) and apology from MSNBC leadership and they are revising their ethics policy to allow politcal contribution by employees. Sounds to me like Olberman is coming out of this stronger (and surely more obnoxious) than before.

[The Annoyed Man]

I read tha Olberman demanded (and got) and apology from MSNBC leadership and they are revising their ethics policy to allow politcal contribution by employees. Sounds to me like Olberman is coming out of this stronger (and surely more obnoxious) than before.

That's actually OK with me for a couple of reasons:

1) It will accelerate MSNBC's decline into obscurity. They don't deserve to be heard. He'll help that along.

2) I actually don't mind if political reporters are biased. I just want them to be transparent and declare their bias so that I know to take that bias into account when digesting what they say.

I've posted this before, but here it is again: Certain financial reporters are required by the SEC to declare when they have a personal financial stake in the market or company on which they are reporting. That way, readers have the ability to decide for themselves whether the information being reported is trustworthy, or whether the slant given that reporting is trustworthy.

Political reporters have a personal stake in the object of their reporting. If they transparently declare that stake, then the reader/listener can intelligently decide for themselves whether or not the reporting is hogwash.

Objectively neutral reporting is a myth. The press needs to stop pretending that it isn't, and move on.

[Purplehood]

Here is why Olberman was sacked: although they admit that he was their biggest drawing personality, he is also the reason that MSNBC is ranked in the bush leagues in terms of total viewership when compared to FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. In other words, while Olberman has had a dedicated following, it is a small following, and he was killing MSNBC. Although it is difficult to believe that Olberman knows anything about capitalism and the free market, the bean counters behind the scenes certainly do.

On 11/3, when the all the numbers shook out from the previous day's election results, MSNBC management looked at the results, considered the anger of the voters - particularly the anger against obamanomics - and they realized that continuing to position themselves as radically to the left of the viewing audience would be to hasten their slide into irrelevancy. When nobody is watching your network, you can't charge as much for the advertising it displays. That is economics outside of the Beltway, where 99.999% of the nation's viewers live. If you continue to insult their intelligence, they will stop watching you. That is certain death to a TV network.

This was a financial decision, and the issue of whom Olberman supported with his dollars is merely a canard. Long ago, surveys of the nation's newsrooms showed that 80% or more of newsroom employees - at all levels - were registered as democrats. We know from reading/watching their "work" (I put that in quote marks because the vast majority of them at the national level major leagues merely parrot whatever they read in the New York Times, and do very little actual investigative reporting or critical thinking), that most of them are also self-identified liberals. Claims of objectivity are worth no more than any sack of manure commonly found at your local garden shop. I worked in the newspaper industry for 9 years myself, and publishers/editors make a show of requiring objective neutrality in the newsroom, but it is all show, and you can't grow your career and be a member of the inner sanctum unless you drink the Cool Aid. That's a fact. Witness what happened to Juan Williams.

FOX isn't perfect by any stretch, but when they gave Williams a new home, just as they have done to other confirmed liberals, they gave legitimacy to their claim of "fair and balanced." PERFECTLY fair and balanced? No. But a darn site better than any of the other networks, whose idea of objectivity is to trot out a Kathleen Parker or some other notorious RINO twit to represent the "conservative" position.

So when Olberman was fired, MSNBC made a decision to preserve their business over preserving Olberman. I think it will be interesting to see where he surfaces next. He can't really go back to being a sportscaster now that he's firmly dug himself a hole in political commentary (and he wasn't great as a sportscaster either, by the way). He's pretty much relegated himself with his brand of vitriol to written commentary on the Daily Kos and the HuffPo. He'll never make enough money again to support himself in the elitist lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. He is known in his personal life to be neurotic and incapable of getting by without enablers. I hope he socked away enough money to cruise on the interest for a while, because he's going to need it. And once he's had a chance to taste what obamanomics has done to the value of his dollar, maybe he'll start singing a different song... ...but I doubt it, because Keith Olberman is a fundamentally stupid and talentless hack.

I discussed this issue with my extremely liberal ex-wife this past weekend and she said the same thing in different terms. It was a business decision, the network head didn't particularly like the guy and thought it would be a wonderful excuse to dump him, and that it would have been wrong to do this to anyone since he did not announce his contributions on the air. I have to agree.

[A-R]

I'm going to have to disagree a bit with the general opinion I've seen expressed by some above. As a caveat before continuing, however. Please understand that I am NOT necessarily talking about folks like Olbermann or Hannity or any other "commentator" - what we in the newspaper biz used to call "columnists". I'm discussing reporters who are paid to objectively report the news, not give their opinion.

1. I do think objective reporting is possible - TO A DEGREE - even in today's insanely fractured news environment. When I was a reporter/editor, I routinely put aside my biases to cover the news. Stick with the facts, only report opinions or even disputed facts through the voice of others via direct quotes and background sourcing, give any alternate viewpoint an equal opportunity to speak on th record. Obviously, absolute 100% non-biased objectivity is not possible. After all, reporters are human - not robotic drones. But following the basic rules of journalism 101 will take care of 99% of objectivity.

2. Bias and subjectivity are difficult to truly define. Is a reporter who hunts down a story tenaciously that paints a particular person or group in a bad light biased against that person or group? Or is the reporter simply aggressively trying to seek "the truth" - or at the very least the closest version of the story to the truth that is possible to uncover? In the most classic and well-known example, analyzed ad nauseum in J-school classes, were Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post biased against Nixon? Perhaps ... maybe even likely. But was their reporting and writing objective, did they give all sides the chance to speak on the record? Yes. And most importantly, were they CORRECT in what they reported? Not EVERY time, but as a whole the years-long pursuit of the Watergate scandal is now accepted as correct and factual historically.

3. There are countless reasons why real bias and subjectivity rears its ugly head, not least of which is the need to SELL PAPERS or GET RATINGS. There are also of course the closeted biases or people or entire organizations in media. When these biases are exposed, a good news organization will forever cut ties with said person as a "reporter" or "editor" and - if allowed to remain at all - will only be able to do so as a commentator or pundit.

4. Commentators, columnists, pundits, purposely biased "talking heads" truly are a different animal. And likely should not be burdened unnnecessarily by the same rules of objectivity as "reporters" and "editors". It is silly that Olbermann is not allowed to contribute to a political campaign. Everyone knows he's a liberal. But what is not silly. What is downright disgusting and unworthy of a news organization is to allow these obviously biased people like Olbermann and Chris Matthews to anchor the NEWS during big events. I have always been an election night TV news junky. I don't really follow the campaigns that much anymore - who can when they last for years? - but on election night I love to sit in front of the TV with a bowl of popcorn and watch the finality of the decision-making process of the voters. I also make a point to flip around to all of the various stations that are covering election night returns - NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, PBS, even Comedy Central - I like to see how each news organization covers the returns. Here's what I saw in this most recent night:

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox all had a lead anchor or anchors with solid (but not perfect) credentials as relatively unbiased and objective news journalists reporting results, and then leading the discussions of the obviously more biased pundits and commentators. MSNBC on the other hand, has their obviously biased commentators REPORTING the results AND leading the discussions amongst even more obviously biased pundits. There was no "objective voice" on the network at all. This is why when an idiot like Matthews pulls the stunt of asking Republican congresswoman Michelle Bachman if she is "hypnotized" - there is no one there to stop him, or give her a chance to respond, or try to lead the questioning back to some degree of objectivity. Instead, as Matthews is skewering yet another consevative politician, the others in the studio (Olbermann, Maddow, etc) are LAUGHING at the whole thing. It truly was a disgusting display and not the first time MSNBC has showed this outward liberal bias during a big news event. I believe it's fairly obvious that FoxNewsChannel leans conservative and Republican, but at least they have the professionalism to let a NEWS ANCHOR (Bret Baer and Shepherd Smith) lead the discussion of all the mostly conservative talking heads.

MSNBC has sunk to a new low for news organizations, IMHO. I understand and even agree with some of the left's criticism of FoxNewsChannel. The most obvious bias I see in their actual news reporting (not the commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity) is that they will use the obvious right-leaning rants of one of their own commentators as the basis of a "story" or "angle" to cover, spinning the opinion into a "news question" like "Is Obama really a socialist?" Other news organizations like CNN and the three networks do this to some degree too. So Fox is not alone in this.

5. I disagree that there is necessarily an ulterior motive in this Olbermann thing. I think his bosses were just ticked off that he did this and didn't tell them about it, clearly violating company policy (regardless of the right/wrong of that policy). The fact that he's coming back so quickly proves they didn't have it out for him to use this as some excuse to boot him for other reasons.

Anyway, I've rambled on longer than I intended to and am not even sure if what I wrote is coherent (beauty of the internet - no editors to please, only you wonderful folks to tell me if I'm off the deep end:anamatedbanana ). But in closing I'll just say that I do agree it's stupid to prohibit people like Olbermann or Hannity - whatever you want to call them - from contributing to political campaigns because everyone knows their biases. It's also equally stupid, and downright decietful, to allow such obviously biased pundits to report NEWS as if they are - even for a short time - trying to be objective or "fair and balanced" or whatever. Basically, these talking heads can't have it both ways. They can't be Walter Cronkite AND William F. Buckley. And the dividing line between punditry and reporting must remain clear and never crossed if a news organization is to have any hope of credibility. To use Cronkite and Buckley as examples, if I was head of a news organization - Cronkite would be absolutely prohibited from giving money to candidates or parties or attending any political gathering unless covering it; Buckley could give money to whomever he wants but would NEVER be allowed to cover the news.

[The Annoyed Man]

They can't be Walter Cronkite AND William F. Buckley. And the dividing line between punditry and reporting must remain clear and never crossed if a news organization is to have any hope of credibility. To use Cronkite and Buckley as examples, if I was head of a news organization - Cronkite would be absolutely prohibited from giving money to candidates or parties or attending any political gathering unless covering it; Buckley could give money to whomever he wants but would NEVER be allowed to cover the news.

The problem is that Cronkite wasn't even the close to the paragon of objectivity that his worshippers remember. He sat there on the screens in our living rooms, on the heels of a huge U.S. military victory in Vietnam - the end of the Tet Offensive - and told us that the war was unwinnable and lost. And the nation's youth and lefties believed him because he was the alleged prophet of truth. Tet was a military victory for the U.S. by any objective analysis, but Cronkite turned it into a political loser. Hardly objective reporting. The rest is history.