The AP takes on Keith Olbermann

May 7, 2007

The [tag]AP[/tag] ran an important piece over the weekend about the media generally and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann specifically that deserves to be read. I describe the article as important because it captures the broader political dynamic in exactly the wrong way.

In an angry commentary on April 25, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann accused Rudolph Giuliani of using the language of Osama bin Laden with “the same chilling nonchalance of the madman” to argue that Republicans would keep Americans safer than Democrats from terror.

Eight days later, [tag]Olbermann[/tag] hosted MSNBC’s coverage of the first debate among Republican candidates for president.

Olbermann’s popularity and evolving image as an idealogue [sic] has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity. The danger for MSNBC is provoking the same anger among Republicans that Democrats feel toward Fox News Channel.

This entire analysis is misguided. Olbermann offered viewers a “special comment” criticizing Giuliani’s offensive comments a couple of weeks ago, which the AP suggests should disqualify him from the network’s GOP debate coverage. Consider, however, the flipside — MSNBC asked Chris Matthews to moderate that debate despite having told viewers recently that Giuliani “may well be the perfect candidate to replace” President Bush — who Matthews has memorably said “glimmers” with “sunny nobility.” Matthews also all but endorsed McCain, declaring that he “deserves to be president.”

Why is Olbermann’s criticism noteworthy, while Matthews’ sycophantic praise not? For that matter, the same debate coverage also featured MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who was not only a Republican congressman, but also an active Bush supporter in 2004. The AP article seems to missed this little tidbit.

But the Olbermann-Fox News comparison is even more bizarre.

Having Olbermann anchor — as he will continue, with Matthews, for big political nights throughout the campaign — is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox News Channel assigning the same duties to O’Reilly.

Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result. Fox has tried to differentiate between its news operation and its prime-time opinion shows, even as its critics believe strongly that’s bunk. In this case, MSNBC doesn’t try to separate news and opinion people, even as it tries to separate news and opinion.

Olbermann may enjoy upbraiding O’Reilly, but that hardly makes them two sides of the same coin. The comparison is wildly off-base — O’Reilly is a demagogue and a bully, who routinely makes up “facts” to smear his perceived enemies. Olbermann is an anchor who, on occasion, helps cut through the he-said, she-said reporting that dominates American journalism, and actually tells viewers when one side is wrong.

I suspect the right would find this controversial, but I’m not even convinced that Olbermann is particularly liberal. He seems to be disgusted by conservative demagoguery, extra-legal excesses, and general incompetence, but I’ve never seen him promote or endorse a Democratic alternative. Olbermann, it seems to me, would be equally likely to go after Dems, with the same degree of gusto, if they were equally reckless and irresponsible.

Joan Walsh added:

Setting up Olbermann as O’Reilly’s counterpart is deeply unfair and dishonest.

The ways that Olbermann differs from O’Reilly are too many to count here. First and foremost, he doesn’t run jihads against his enemies (well, except maybe Bill O’Reilly); he doesn’t invite people he disagrees with onto his show only to shout at and humiliate them; he rarely rants, and when he does, he labels it “commentary.” His “Countdown” is an opinionated take on the day’s top five stories that owes more to “The Daily Show” and “Best Week Ever” than the Nation. He is indeed a Bush critic, but I haven’t found him to be a Democratic partisan…. Certainly as an anchor, he’s far less partisan than Fox’s dark Brit Hume, known for regular slurs against Democrats. To compare Olbermann to Hume would be unfair; to compare him to O’Reilly is disgraceful.

I get the sense that Olbermann is drawing special criticism because he’s unique — he’s the only unabashed Bush critic to host a television show on any major U.S. news network. For that, he’s the subject of hackish articles like this AP piece. It’s a shame.

A few years ago when Olbermann was far less critical of Bush than he is today, he began working on Dan Patrick’s radio show again and Patrick teased him all show long for being a “liberal”. The way it sounded to me, Olbermann was someone who takes pride in not taking sides (he never once took the bait and admitted to any political preferences at all) and Patrick was needling him for the reputation he was beginning to get as an administration critic. I also still remember Olbermann’s round by round Presidential debate coverage in 2004 where he bent over backwards to make the fight even by giving Bush credit for the stupidest things.

  • Critiucism of Dear Leader and those who aspire to the position of Dear Leader is just wrong, because how will we ever keep our advertising up if we don’t publicly suck and swallow for the corporations and their scam artists, the Republicans?

    /snark

  • Someone needs to put together a greatest hits of Brit Hume on Sunday morning. It’s truly amazing that the Howard Kurtzes of the world maintain that he is “fair” and leaves his possible conservative leanings once the cameras come on. The guy is more pro-Bush than Fred Barnes.

  • Conventional wisdom, thanks to years of republicans’ unopposed framing of issues, says that anyone who disagrees with Bush is partisan. There is no such thing as disagreeing with or disliking Bush — or any republican — on the merits.

    The recent upside, of course, is that when the AP or anyone else uses the republican frames, they insult a majority of Americans. Maybe one day the public will wake up and realize the media isn’t liberal any more than Bush is infallible.

  • Olbermann is the only commentator who speaks the truth to power without a partisan agenda. His facts withstand scrutiny. His attacks are against what is said and done no matter who it is doing it. There’s is no comparison because he is unique in his integrity. The right just dislikes anyone who challenges them. They would rid themselves of all dissent and criticism as the current administration demonstrates..

  • Chris Matthews, for instance — there’s still a little mystery about what they’ll do inside a voting booth

    David Bauder, what bizarro world do you live in??

  • Tucker Carlson covered the Democratic debate for CNN. MSNBC had Buchanan and Scarbrough. Can someone look up what the AP said about this injustice?

    The ghost of Solomon lives on.

  • The racial component of the Banana Republican party is well known. being the party that caters to their Confederate component & the supression of minority votes has been documented well. For them, in America, in racial terms, if you have any non-white ancestors, you are not white. This is most apparent for anyone with some black ancestry.
    Now here’s my point:
    In a similar manner, if you do not mach in lockstep with the “Authority,”
    you are not a conservative, you are a (children, avert your eyes) LIBERAL!

    Olberman, therefore, must be a liberal. He does not follow the blessed word our Dear Leader.

    Also, Tom (re#2) where’s the snark? Sounds competely true (if not crudely put) to me.

  • I’m constantly asking people with whom I converse why everything that W, Cheney and Condi say is reported as news but not the demonstrable fact that what they say is false.
    Olberman is the first real newsman that actually points out the inconsistancys (lies?) in public statements. I have faith that when Hillary lies he’ll point that out too.
    This is clearly a dangerous man.

  • Yet more examples of the slippery slope we started walking down when the Dems bailed on the FOX sponsored debate related to the network’s right leanings. Everybody now seems more focused and concerned on the “fairness” of each venue, sponsor, host, etc. vs. the actual content of the debates.

  • That AP story was very odd, though at least it got out the fact that Rudy was whining because of what mean old Keith said about him. Boo hoo.

  • Yes, AP, Keith is an ideologue. The tenets of his ideology are the three dimensions of our nation’s liberal heritage – decency, dignity, and democracy. Any other reporting AP muses about is simply an attempt to suck up to the authoritarian ideologues amongst us. -Kevo

  • I’d have to agree. I’ve made it a part-time job to watch Keith’s show for evidence of liberalism, and I’m hard pressed to find any.

  • Olbermann doesn’t accommodate dishonesty and tyranny so I guess that makes him a bigot in the eyes of some. Personally he is to me a drink of water after a long walk on a very hot day. He tends to say what I and apparently (if you believe the ratings), a lot of others are thinking. The more they cut him down, the higher his ratings go, and, unlike the folks at FOX, he separates his commentary from the rest of the news.

  • Olbermann is the only real journalist who works for the compliant, complicit press anymore. The national press is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the right, and they’ve forgotten their responsibility to aggressive, adversarial journalism when it comes to politics, and Olbermann is the only one who remembers what journalism is supposed to be about. It’s amazing he even has a job in an industry dominated by GOP hacks and cronies as it is.

  • to compare keith and billo is to compare cujo to churchill’s bull dog. they both can bite, but one is rabid.

  • For the past six years, a Liberal has been defined as someone who refuses to deify the President. A Conservative was someone who deified the President. A Centrist was someone who deified the President but wasn’t a Republican.

  • On a tangent from the Olberman “controversy” is this take by Leslie Stahl on a 60 Minutes segment about Lou Dobbs – http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/07/lou-dobbs-is-not-a-fan-of-president-bush/ . Stahl is indignant that Dobbs calls himself a journalist yet can say he is no fan of the president. Stahl trots out the “fair and balanced” dog and pony show for yucks but Dobbs still disagrees with her.

    I can run hot and cold on Lou Dobbs, so I don’t defend the man on his record, but he does get to the gist of the issue that the AP is also biting Keith for: a newsman can and should most assuredly call bullsh*t when he/ she sees it. Being a journalist means you are looking for the truth and not hiding the answer when it’s found. Leslie Stahl is obviously a Summa Cum Laude graduate of some school of governmental stenography, but she’s dead wrong that a reporter can’t say what is truthful. A reporter should not attack a subject without due cause, but if there is reason to, as Olberman and Dobbs often do, it is their journalistic responsibility to say the president is wrong when the facts come out that way. Leslie Stahl, you suck, and you are definitely NOT a journalist with your standards.

  • I think you’re right about Olbermann, and it’s the same way with Dan Froomkin of the WPo. Both see their roles as journalists as being watchdogs on the group in power. Olbermann was certainly critical of Bill Clinton during his coverage of the Lewinsky scandal. The right wing can’t stand any criticism of Bush, therefore both of them must be biased “liberals.” The way you don’t get branded “liberal” by the right wing is by licking Bush and the Republicans’ boots as often as possible.

  • It is called “working the refs” or as Chomsky put it “flak”

    If the single critic is taken down, the rest don’t seem so out of touch.

  • It will be a curious thing if Olbermann turns out to be as tough with a Democrat president and the GOP suddenly loves him for his brilliant analysis, dubbing him an elite conservative.

    I can only hope liberals will recognize solid criticism as an opportunity to change for the better the way Bush has not.

    • Comments are closed.