Letters to the Editor
-
Buffoonery
Olbermann is a left-of-center, Democrat-leaning commentator. O'Reilly is a right-of-center, Republican-leaning commentator. It's a fair comparison.
Walsh writes: "First and foremost, he doesn't run jihads against his enemies." "Enemies" really says it all, doesn't it? If you regard other public figures as "enemies" then you're in the advocacy business, not in the neutrality business.
If anything, the comparison is unfair to O'Reilly, who makes no pretense of being anything other than a giver of opinions.
-
Olberman...
is an easy comparison to O'Reilly except that, as with Britt Hume, he doesn't have anywhere near the experience.
He regularly attacks O'Reilly and anyone he dislikes and regularly labels them the worst person of the day or some such nonsense.
MSNBC is trying to get ratings so they put their ratings and left wing poster boy in the middle of a Presidential debate. Bad move but it's theirs to make.
The fact that Salon would so fiercely defend olberman just shows how left of center he is. You'll protect him as much as you can because he's all you have on TV. Except for Joan on Scarborough of course.
-
I'm a fan of Olbermann...but he's not really the debate facilitator type
TV pundits are not journalists and I would have to say that I agree with the premise of the AP complaint (that Keith is nakedly partisan). I watch his program religiously though. His rant about Guliani was genius.
I would also agree with you that Brit Hume is no journalist either and I would hate to see him heading a debate panel.
There are very few TV pundits I would suggest as debate facilitators...perhaps only one — "good ol' Raisin Eyes" Jim Lehrer. He's as cool, calm and "balanced" as they come.
-
What about Joe Scarborough?
While your article mentioned Joe Scarborough, and it is no secret that he is a former conservative Congressman, It should be noted that he appeared on stage with President Bush in Florida campaign ralles in 2004. It's one thing to be an advocate for a particular point of view or a particular candidate in the television studio, it's quite another to be active on the campaign trail for a particular candidate. Mr. Scarborough does not pose as an objective news anchor like Brit Hume, and he is a commentator with a known point of view, however, actively participating in political campaigns involving people you are covering and commenting on seems to me to have crossed a line. Could you imagine Keith Olbermann appearing at rallies for Democratic candidates? I can't!
Have any Fox anchors made appearances for Bush during a campaign such as Sean Hannity? I am always struck by the fact that former Democratic politicos such as Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Jeff Greenfield and George Stephanopoulos try to maintain their objectivity and fairness when they comment or ask questions of politicians. Can the same be said for former Republicans? Just look at the example of Roger Ailes. While Chris Matthews seems much harder on Democrats than Republicans, and lately I find it impossible to watch him, there is no comparison to Mr. Matthews and the Fox guru. I wonder how Keith Olbermann will treat a Democratic President. I would expect that he would be just as critical, as warranted, as he currently is. I hope we will get the opportunity to observe this in 2009.
-
All the News that Gives You Fits
I'm so glad you commented on this piece, Ms. Walsh. I about did a spit-take when I read it this weekend. This part of that odious "story" (?) angered me especially...
evolving image as an idealogue has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity.
I just found it funny that it suddenly became an issue, and that the loaded "idealogue" was even used (incidentally, "ideologue" is the preferred usage in the States).
If Olbermann was part of the army of right-wing pundits, there'd be not a problem with him; hell, maybe it's "newsworthy" precisely because Olbermann's is one voice running contrary to the right-wing noise machine -- he's engaging in wrongthink, I guess, so it turns up as news. I can't think of why it was even thrown out there, except as a hit job, as you called it, or else Olbermann's angered some reactionaries somewhere.
And journalistic objectivity has long, long since flown out the window. Does the mainstream press truly not realize how disgraced it's become, how far from journalism and objectivity it's gotten? Give me a break.
Lickspittles and sycophants call the tune, and call it news, and get pissed when somebody like Olbermann comes along, messes up the tidy arrangement, I guess. A liberal with teeth appears, and gets attacked for it.
-
Comparison
At least there is now someone on cable news on the other side of the boat, which is still listing badly. The natural counterpoint to Olbermann is Matthews. There is nothing in the media that is the counterpoint Fox "Noise" which represents the rich. Its opposite is the people in this country. There can never be a fair comparison between the left and the right. It is like comparing Copernicus and the Pope.
-
Thank you
That AP article was slanted and misleading- with Mr. Bauder giving us his baised opinions about a pundit he considers biased. How anyone could decry the presence of Keith Olbermann while he is surrounded by Matthews, Tucker Carlson, & Scarborough- or while Tim Russert and his cast of conservatives are supposed to represent journalistic exellence is beyond me. When I watch political debate coverage, I expect intelligent, thoughtful discussion- and with Olbermann I have a better chance than usual of getting it.
-
Good on MSNBC
That was my thought when I saw the debates and that Olbermann was the anchor. I thought he did a credible job and stayed away from personal opinions throughout. Chris Matthews, well, I find it hard to believe he was ever a Democrat, but he wasn't as bad as some and remember that many of the dumb questions came from viewers (other than the throwaway Clinton line.)
I also saw the AP story and it pissed me off as well. I had this idea, obviously wrong, that the AP just reported the news, and in fact I normally check the Salon AP column several times a day. Now, I think it should be relegated to the right-side blog section, bearing opinion and not fact. Yes, it's news that Guiliani and others complained. It's the name-assigning and editorial comments that were inappropriate for a news story. And, I've noticed an increase in junk news in that column recently - is it news that Paris Hilton was 10 minutes late for court? I mean, really. They are really slacking off.
In this case, Salon itself is the consumer for the AP content and not the readers. So Joan, you are the client - complain and threaten to cancel the feed.