Keith Olberman, Have You No Shame, Sir?!!

[EdwinWillers]

Prior to the creation of Fox news, what did we have? Balanced, objective reporting from NBC, CBS, and ABC? Only if you believe that Brokaw, Rather and Jennings were objective. They were liberals. Fox is successful because it offers an alternative to the liberal media monopoly.

I remember when the big three were all we had to choose from, and I can remember flicking from one to another looking for a different take on the news. They were all the same. They covered the same stories and had the same liberal take on it. Its been so long since I have watched the big three networks, I can tell you who the anchors are now. I know Couric is on one of them, and I think it is CBS, but I have never once watched her. The other two, I have no idea.

We're pummelled with cries of 'journalistic integrity' from the left who wouldn't recognize journalistic integrity were it to smack them in the face.

Truth be told, media and entertainment have superseded journalism - and that decades ago. Television is an entertainment medium, a medium of audible and visual stimulation that caters to sensationalistic, almost voyeuristic values. It does so because that's apparently what we want. Apparently we don't want sterile, objective, black and white news anymore. We want dirt and filth and shock and awe - and this they all provide in spades.

Sports isn't sports without 'color commentary' and expert play-by-play analysis. Heck, we even have hour-long shows with nothing but commentary, catering I suppose to the arm-chair coaches of our nation whose lives are apparently so mundane as to lead them to vicariously live them out in front of their flat screens pretending the stadium cares about their beer-induced arm-chair rants. They know more about sports than they do about the politics that enables them to live their lives thus.

And of all things, weather isn't even objective anymore - falling prey to the sensationalism the rest of its media cohorts have.

Which leads back to the 'not-so-big-four.' It's but a short step from sensationalism to abandoning all pretense of journalism whatsoever to using one's platform for their own personal politics and opinions. Obama would not be president today if the media had actually reported NEWS than use their pulpits so shamelessly as they did to get him elected.

Is FOX perfect in contrast? No. But they do at least provide a bubble of breathable air in a ship that has capsized for being too top-heavy in its government.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Prior to the creation of Fox news, what did we have? Balanced, objective reporting from NBC, CBS, and ABC? Only if you believe that Brokaw, Rather and Jennings were objective. They were liberals. Fox is successful because it offers an alternative to the liberal media monopoly.

So you're conceding that Fox news is neither "Fair" nor "Balanced," but more of a counterbalance to a perceived liberal bias in media.

 

[brindisi]

So you're conceding that Fox news is neither "Fair" nor "Balanced," but more of a counterbalance to a perceived liberal bias in media.

Merely by being "fair and balanced" Fox is the counterbalance.

 

[SOAD]

Merely by being "fair and balanced" Fox is the counterbalance.

Wrong.

The idea that Fox is fair and balanced should mean that they are fair and balanced along political and social lines throughout their shows, however this is not the case.

Stating that Fox News is "fair and balanced" when applied to left of center news outlets makes much more sense. This dispels the notion that Fox is actually "fair and balanced" along political lines within their news and commentary. In reality, Fox is nothing more than conservative punditry skewing the lines between media and partisan politics. One blaring example is how many republican politicians who are on Fox News payroll.

 

[lordbt]

So you're conceding that Fox news is neither "Fair" nor "Balanced," but more of a counterbalance to a perceived liberal bias in media.

I dont have a problem making that concession. They clearly lean to the right. And so what? They are the only ones that do. Anywhere else you turn, you get the perspective of the left. In that respect they are the balance.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Merely by being "fair and balanced" Fox is the counterbalance.

Except they're not -- they have a conservative bias. Nobody can sensibly or honestly deny this, and why should they?

This is not a bad thing -- it just means that they provide the counterbalance for perceived liberal bias.

 

[Pommer]

I'm glad he's gone, and I applaud MSNBC for having the integrity to fire him.

He is suspended - not fired. Maddow described it as temporary.

At least MSNBC acted and is making a stand about the issue.

Maybe he should quit and open for Palin at Tea Party rallies and such?

He'd make much more money and all the tomatoes and rotten cabbages he could eat!

He could make Million$ simply having a KO dunk tank after the main event!

You betcha!

 

[Nathan Poe]

I dont have a problem making that concession. They clearly lean to the right. And so what?

Exactly -- so what?

Be nice if other Fox fans were willing to make that concession, but oh well...

They are the only ones that do. Anywhere else you turn, you get the perspective of the left. In that respect they are the balance.

Not to nit-pick, but they're the counterbalance -- now you can watch news that leans either to the left or to the right. After all, it takes two to strike a balance

By themselves, they're as skewed as any other network, just in a different direction. But if you were channel surfing between FOXNews and, say, MSNBC -- then between the both of them, you'd have the "Fair and Balanced" you were looking for.

 

[Pommer]

So you're conceding that Fox news is neither "Fair" nor "Balanced," but more of a counterbalance to a perceived liberal bias in media.

I don't have a problem making that concession. They clearly lean to the right. And so what? They are the only ones that do. Anywhere else you turn, you get the perspective of the left. In that respect they are the balance.

Except they're not -- they have a conservative bias. Nobody can sensibly or honestly deny this, and why should they?

This is not a bad thing -- it just means that they provide the counterbalance for perceived liberal bias.

Now, I ain't never been to no college where to learn of such things but:
The notion that the "fourth estate" should strive to produce a balanced, non-partisan, just-the-facts-ma'am product is relatively new, certainly within the last 75 years.

American politics has always been fought with friends and like-minded supporters with the money and wherewithal to produce a "newspaper" that promoted your views and trashed your opponent's.

It was only during the time when the "fairness doctrine" rule was in effect that the (broadcast) "press" was pushed into a neutrality.
Most of the time this worked well for the press since in order to provide "equal time" they were "forced" to sell time for both sides.
The guy the station manager wanted to win got the 8:01 commercial and his opponent got the one right before the National Anthem played (anybody old enough to remember that?)

So this "objective reporting" meme is going the way of the dodo because to make the BIG money is to pick a horse and run it hard, trashing the opposition at each and every opportunity.

It's the "free market of ideas", that's neither inexpensive nor very original.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Wiredspirit:

“What's your point? Are you saying MSNBC didn't quadruple its ratings since the days of Keyes and Savage?”

For this to have any real relevance, you would have to post the beginning numbers and the ending numbers as evidence.

Posted by Jase:

“Her point is that the sole purpose of Fox news is a political platform to support and fund Republicans…”

And she is wrong. Her real point was to claim “we are better than they are”. But I agree with what LordBT and Nathan Poe have been saying, in that FOX is the balance to the other networks, which clearly lean left.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now, I ain't never been to no college where to learn of such things but:
The notion that the "fourth estate" should strive to produce a balanced, non-partisan, just-the-facts-ma'am product is relatively new, certainly within the last 75 years.

Not sure about the timeframe, but I won't argue it.

I thik we can also safely assume that no "fourth estate" hs ever managed to be completely objective and balanced -- especially since to do so would be potentially financially ruinous.

American politics has always been fought with friends and like-minded supporters with the money and wherewithal to produce a "newspaper" that promoted your views and trashed your opponent's.

Media has always been a tool for politics, and newspapers are certainly part of the media.

It was only during the time when the "fairness doctrine" rule was in effect that the (broadcast) "press" was pushed into a neutrality.
Most of the time this worked well for the press since in order to provide "equal time" they were "forced" to sell time for both sides.
The guy the station manager wanted to win got the 8:01 commercial and his opponent got the one right before the National Anthem played (anybody old enough to remember that?)

Agreed -- as much as the Fairness Doctrine was meant to enfoce neutrality, there are always ways around it.

So this "objective reporting" meme is going the way of the dodo because to make the BIG money is to pick a horse and run it hard, trashing the opposition at each and every opportunity.

Precisely -- because the BIG money comes in attracting like-minded people to buy your newspaper or watch your news show instead of the other guy's.

It's the "free market of ideas", that's neither inexpensive nor very original.

Nor profitable --so when any "news" outlet claims to be fair and/or balanced, it is best taken with a grain of salt.

I give Murdoch all the credit in the world -- he found a niche and filled it.

 

[WiredSpirit]

Breaking news: Olbermann will be back Tuesday.
MSNBC Wants Keith Olbermann Mea Culpa

 

[rambot]

Why didn't he just funnel his money through some legitimate organizations like the Koch brothers? I mean, doesn't that just make sense to do it slyly and surreptitiously?

 

[Gawron]

MSNBC Ends Keith Olbermann's Suspension After 2 Days


Quote:

MSNBC's chief executive Phil Griffin said late Sunday that after several days of deliberation, he had determined that two days off the air was "an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy."

End Quote. Link: MSNBC Ends Keith Olbermann's Suspension After 2 Days - FoxNews.com

After all that righteous blathering....some punishment for violating their oh so sacred policy. I'm sure his triumphant return will be spent attempting to skewer FOX News and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity while proclaiming his own honesty and virtue.

 

[eldermike]

He should be allowed to give his money to anyone he chooses. We have a name for it: freedom.

 

[Nathan Poe]

After all that righteous blathering....some punishment for violating their oh so sacred policy. I'm sure his triumphant return will be spent attempting to skewer FOX News and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity while proclaiming his own honesty and virtue.

Well, someone has to show honesty and virtue -- nobody expects it to be FOX, Limbaugh, or Hannity.

 

[SOAD]

Keith Olbermann!! Waaaaagghh!! Keith Olbermann......Waaaaaagghh!!

 

[DesertSky]

He should be allowed to give his money to anyone he chooses. We have a name for it: freedom.

And companies are free to set rules and policies. He read his contract before signing it.

 

[SOAD]

He should be allowed to give his money to anyone he chooses. We have a name for it: freedom.

I can certainly see why people can loathe Olbermann. However for this discussion, he has received overwhelming bi-partisan support. I agree with you that he has the freedom to give as he choose, like everyone else. I also have no problem if he is reprimanded because of company policy.

 

[katherine2001]

Me too, SOAD. Someone should have the guts to take MSNBC and other news stations where this is the rule and challenge it. If Olbermann had given the donations in the name of MSNBC, that would be one thing. However, if he gave the money as a private citizen, then he should have the right to donate to whatever causes he wishes to. I live in Montana, but if I wanted to donate to a campaign in another state, I should have every right to.