MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's indefinite suspension for violating network policies regarding political donations lasted all of two work days. On his Wednesday show (11/10/10), Olbermannbrought up the point that FAIR made in our alert–the difficulty of squaring such a policy with MSNBC parent General Electric'spolitical giving and multi-million dollar lobbying.
Olbermann was joined by Nation blogger Greg Mitchell and Howard Kurtz of CNN/Daily Beast. Olbermann asked Kurtz:
Howard, how far up the tree does it go? If you and I and Greg can't donate, can our bosses donate? Can our bosses' boss donate? Can Rupert Murdoch donate? Because surely, no matter what you might think of what I did, he must have more influence on what appears on TV news than I do. And if it's not Rupert, what about the chairman of GE or of Comcast?
Kurtz replied:
Once you get up to the corporate level, where they're not meddling with newsroom decisions, whether it's Time Warner, General Electric, News Corp, then corporations are going to give money. They lobby. They have corporate interests.
That left Olbermann to say:
OLBERMANN: Greg, to your experience, is there a part of a company–another part of a company that puts on a news broadcast or publishes a newspaper that isn't involved, to some degree? Do you know any chairman of the ultimate authorities who don't get involved in news decisions in some large sense, at least?
MITCHELL: You could probably talk about that better than I could, but, again, in the real world, the owners of companies have an interest.
Indeed. The temporary squelching of the Olbermann/Bill O'Reilly feud last year was reportedly arranged at the corporate level, between GE and NewsCorp executives.
And duringan interview with Al Franken(10/25/05), Olbermann once explained how political pressurefrom inside the news division worked:
You were good enough to come on this newscast with me late in the summer of 2003. It was August or September. And by coincidence, either the next day or the day before,Janeane Garofalo had been a guest on the newscast. And I got called into a vice president's office here and told, "Hey, we don't mind you interviewing these guys, but should you really have put liberals on, on consecutive nights?"
And a recent New York magazine article recounted the fight inside MSNBC over Phil Donahue's program, which was seen by some astoo critical of the drive to war with Iraq. MSNBC heavyweights like Chris Matthews seemed to know that going to the bosses was how to change what was on the air:
Donahue's problems only increased when Chris Matthews let it be known that he wanted Donahue off the air. Matthews was a rising force at the network, with a reported salary of $5 million. He cultivated former GE CEO Jack Welch and had the ear of NBC CEO Bob Wright. (The two summered together on Nantucket.) Matthews saw himself as MSNBC's biggest star, and he was upset that the network was pumping significant resources into Donahue's show. In the fall of 2002, U.S. News & World Report ran a gossip item that had Matthews saying over lunch in Washington that if Donahue stays on the air, he could bring down the network.
That piece also quotes NBC CEO Robert Wright saying that MSNBC's post-9/11 strategy was to try and outfox Fox News: "We have to be more conservative than they are."
About Peter Hart
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mass_writer, FAIR. FAIR said: For @HowardKurtz, political donations are OK for execs, who don't meddle in news decisions. http://bit.ly/djNSQi [...]
That's the strategy – lets fix the news for ratings; attaboy Robert Wright – what a patriot! I bet you made your million while your newroom employees were paid crap…..what a creepy peon…
We need to watch the money trail. The money source determines who is invited to the table, which ideas are presented for discussion, which ideas are discounted, and which questions are ignored.
After I write this I may go vomit……Olbermann was on the right side of this argument!Whew Im glad that is over! Oh boy…..oh boy……WHO EVER IS IN THE BATHROOM GET OUT.IM GONNA LOOSE MY LUNCH
This is a good observation that Hart brings up. The one problem I have is journalists giving money to political candidates. If you're covering the news and function in a newscasting capacity and you give money to political candidates, especially if they appear on your show, that that's wrong. He sacrifices his journalistic independence. That's the important point we cannot overlook. This applies to journalists and newscasters that FAIR agrees with politically or disagrees with politically. Check out Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel\'s â┚¬Ã…“Elements of Journalism." It was clear that Olbermann's actions violated two of the principles based on independence.
****
4. ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER
Independence is an underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its reliability. Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality, is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In our independence, however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism, isolation or nihilism.
5. IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER
Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.
****
The point is Olbermann violated the company's policy on journalism. Rachel Maddow confirmed that in her final comment. These rules apply Maddow as they apply to Olbermann. They are qualified journalists, not part-time pundits like Pat Buchanan, Glenn Greenwald, etc.
I'm glad that Olbermann is back. He deserves to be. But when journalists are giving money that crosses a journalistic line. Let's look at this incident for what it is. NBC handled this poorly from the start, but they were still right in suspending Olbermann.
Crenta….the singular example of a lack of" independence" is your vote.All journalists get to vote right?There is no demand for them to swear not to choose sides.It is their right to support those(and vote for those) they believe in.It is their job to try to be balanced.Though in this day of punditry even that is not a given.You see that is the color of a free press.A little of this and a little of that.It is up to YOU to sift through those you agree with.This idea of a blind press(blind to choosing sides)is nonsense.In the last election it was painfully obvious that a huge part of the press was carrying Obama's water.They paid for it in readership and listenership and a matching rise in conservative alternative media.
@michael e
*** the singular example of a lack of" independence" is your vote.All journalists get to vote right? ***
You're right. But voting is done in private … in a voting booth. Giving campaign contributions to candidates is done in public, as in you can find out who Olbermann gave money to by consulting the FEC reports. Furthermore, by giving money to one of his guests, that candidate will directly benefit from it (Olbermann could also benefit from the candidate as well). Let's say the candidate/guest KO donates to finds himself in a major scandal. Do you think KO is going to act in a critical and independent journalistic manner to the candidate he gave money to? I doubt that.
Here are two quotes that put this into perspective. Take 'em or leave 'em. I don't care. But IMO, these quotes are valid and accurate about the journalism profession.
"â┚¬Ã…½Even if NBC made an exception for talk-show hosts like Olbermann (to be clear: it shouldn\'t), he has often co-anchored MSNBC\'s election-night coverage â┚¬” as he did this past Tuesday. That is clearly a journalistic role, and the fact that someone who has given money to political candidates would fill such a role is pretty outrageous," – Dan Kennedy, Media Nation
"Traditionally there has always been a firewall between editorial & news. The public may not believe journalists have taken priestly vows of objective fairness, but they have a right to expect that reporters will approach a subject with a clean slate & an open mind & not twist the facts to comport with his/her beliefs. Political donations by reporters call that into question," – Marjorie Arons-Barron, WCVB-Boston
I think the fact that many of us object to the role wealth plays in electoral politics makes it difficult for us to see the similarities between voting and donating. When we vote, we offer our support to a candidate in the most direct way possible–yet few would say that journalists should refrain from taking part in this basic act of citizenship in order to preserve their independence. Wealthy journalists, like all wealthy people, can offer much more substantial support in our system–it's like we allow the rich to cast thousands of votes–and that is problematic, but I'm not sure it has much to do with journalistic ethics.
Journalists should be independent, but the journalist does not depend on the candidate they give money to. Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest, but it's not clear which interests conflict when a journalist–particularly an opinion journalist, if you accept the distinction–offers support to a candidate: The theory seems to be that interest in a candidate winning conflicts with the interest in remaining objective, but the notion of objectivity rests on two fallacies.
One is that the ideal observers of our political life will come to no conclusions about it–will not, for example, decide that one candidate is preferable to another. It seems to me that an observer who never arrived at any conclusions would be deeply defective.
The second fallacy is that the next best thing to actually having no conclusions is pretending you have no conclusions. That those two situations are even close to each other ethically is highly debatable.
I think there's a case to be made that as long as money plays a powerful role in politics, donating money is a political act that journalists have a right to engage in, like voting…or marching in protests, to take another kind of participation that's often forbidden to journalists. I think there's a stronger case that journalists whose jobs allow themselves to openly support candidates do not compromise that role when they also support those candidates with their checkbooks.
I'm sticking with Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, Dan Kennedy, and Marjorie Arons-Barron on this one.
Journalists (regardless of political preference) should not be giving money away to people they support, especially when the recipients appear on his own show. Keith did that. How can that not compromise the content he presents (or with any other journalist for that matter)?
Journalists donating money to candidates they cover is akin to acting like political activists. It corrodes their roles as fair and independent reporters in the public interest. Either that or KO should have been as transparent as possible and be up front about who he supported and who he gave money to. That way he can establish a sense of trust with his viewers and not put on a false sense of objectivity.
As Rachel Maddow said, MSNBC is a news organization and the rules apply to KO. He broke them and he was justifiably suspended. The good news is KO learned from that and MSNBC brought him back. But he can't (nor should any journalist) do that again.
I'm with Ctrenta on the first quote they posted from Dan Kennedy… if Olbermann is hosting election coverage while donating to political candidates, that's a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Granted, he was very opinionated during the coverage, as he's always been, but he's still reporting on something that involves straight news accuracy and bias. So, hopefully, MSNBC (or NBC) will look into that and either not let him host election coverage or not let him donate without disclosing first. We obviously know his political leanings, regardless, but you need to draw a line somewhere with things like this.
Agreed ProgLib.
Olbermann's nightly show is a news and commentary show with a decidedly progressive bias. as such he should be able to donate as a citizen to any candidate he chooses, with full disclosure. As such he should NOT be used as a news anchor on election night or on any other straight news presentation. This should not prevent him from being a guest on such a show to provide "Progressive color" in the same way that Pat (ex racist, yuck) Buchannon (sp?) might provide,..what's the word….someone help me out here, __________ color (I just can't find a word I can use here). I think it's important to comment here that even on supposedly unbiased news programs with prominant political guests, there should be a more serious effort to question guests about potential serious concerns of legal, moral and ethical concerns. Ya' know, kind'a like Hellen Thomas wasn't afraid to do. Show hosts are far to timid at asking guests questons that might prove embarassing (horrors) especially on the right. On the left, they could ask each guest if they think Obama's a socialist, alien Muslim.
*** his should not prevent him from being a guest on such a show to provide "Progressive color" in the same way that Pat (ex racist, yuck) Buchannon might provide,..what's the wordâ┚¬Ã‚¦.someone help me out here, __________ color (I just can't find a word I can use here). ***
Naturaldave, it's spelled Pat Buchanan, not Bucannon. Furthermore, Buchanan is paid to be a GOP pundit, not a journalist, and he is also not an employee of MSNBC. So that's an apples and oranges comparison.
While Keith Olbermann is an opinionated news and information host, he still need to abide by NBC rules and in general, he has no business offering his assistance to Democratic Party candidates or any other partisan political organization. No journalist, opinionated or not, should be. It's just ethically wrong. By doing so, he compromises his independence and he's basically working as a Democratic Party political operative. That should have no part in journalism (opinionated or not) or in journalism enterprises like MSNBC – Don't bother comparing them to Fox News. Fox is not a legitimate news operation, it's a political operative. True and legitimate experts in the journalism profession agree that to be the case. So Fox isn't even worth bringing into the discussion.
Cretena…Fox is not legitimate?And the mass print radio and Tv press that hid…under reported..lied…attacked anyone who disagreed with lord Obama is?Kieth Obermann is??????Hardy har har.Lets be truthful.Fox is the alternative to the drive by media.THey and conservative commentators are the result of the press failing to do a good job during and before the election.Since than the worm is turning, and you are hearing a bit more of both sides.The last thing most libs want.Embrace it.It is called freedom of the press.The last thing we need is a lockstep press to Obama insanity.
"Fox is not a legitimate news operation, it's a political operation."
Hey! Not always. They do cover natural disasters, cute animals and missing white women, occasionally.
Helen that remark about missing white woman is not really funny because it actually has some basis in fact.Nancy Grace is such a strange show.Actually often the same show over and over and over.That aside…..FOX – to say it is not legitimate is just sour grapes.They are trouncing the competition and it is not voodoo.They were the ones ringing the clarion bell against Obama mania and that call is now seen as correct.Just imagine what would of happened to this country without them ,the tea party and conservative commentators.Obama would of succeeded in "remaking" this country.Now he is -thank God going down in flames and taking his madness with him.The press is there to uncover and print what they believe is the truth.FOX did just that in the highest example of a free press.THey simply dont follow what you believe to be the truth.
Helen Im sure your husband loves you.Does he strive to remake you?Why did Obama need to remake this country?Im sure Obama love this country too.How did Michelle say it????FOR THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!
fauxnews : "fear and biased"
Fauxnews…Full of fear and bias for those who follow lord Obama.Thank God
"Lord Obama." Ach, ziz poor Michael, obviouzly brainvazhed by Fake Noize. I zuggezt therapy!
FOX news is "unfair and unbalanced" by every stretch of the imagination and boy, do they at FOX news have an imagination. $200 million a day, 34 Navy ships, 3000 guests on a trip to India. While the highest costing trip was actually during the Clinton trip to Africa and it was nowhere near these amounts. By the time the news got to Glenn Beck the Indian trip was $2 Billion a day. All courtesy of FOX news, the right wing noise machine and Michelle Bachmann. They really do not like a black president being so uppity and doing the USA's business. How dare he. By the way, check out this link: http://www.billionairesrepublicanmanifesto.com it says it all.
I am NOT responsible for Fauxnews. That was Satan's project.
[...] Silverstein's reporting was criticized by Guardians of the Media Establishment like Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who was very uncomfortable with Silverstein's methods. As he wrote, [...]
[...] Silverstein's reporting was criticized by Guardians of the Media Establishment like Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who was very uncomfortable with Silverstein's methods. As he wrote, [...]
[...] Sunday (5/29/11), CNN host Howard Kurtz wondered: Is the press in danger of being bamboozled by somebody who, in the end, is probably not [...]