As we’ve learned this year, there are JournoLists and then there are journalists. I’ve always viewed Keith Olbermann as a member of the former school—a liberal ideologue who gains excessive pleasure from berating conservatives. As someone who subscribes to a more right-leaning worldview, I’ve never been enamored by his antics, nor have I gone out of my way to watch his show.
All of this aside, Keith Olbermann’s suspension without pay is an absurdity that extends beyond the bounds of rational thought. Why would a liberal who has a popular show on a left-leaning 24-hour news outlet be penalized for donating to Democratic candidates? Or, more pointedly, why would such a man not donate to a left-leaning cause? After all, I’m not surprised by Sean Hannity’s donations to conservatives (nor should I be).
MSNBC is claiming that Olbermann’s donations breached the company’s ethics policies. Interesting, considering that none of the liberal meanderings that dribble from the mouths of Olbermann, Chris Matthews or the other Democratic cheerleaders over at MSNBC have ever been considered ethical conundrums. And those guys have Obama-induced thrills flowing up and down their legs on a daily basis!
At the end of the day, MSNBC’s reaction to the ordeal showcases all that’s wrong with mainstream media. While MSNBC cannot necessarily be considered mainstream, its parent company is. Unsurprisingly, the same ideology that drives the media elite is at the heart of Olbermann’s suspension. It’s driven by an aura of denial. MSNBC, like many other leftist outlets, allows itself to be left-leaning without openly embracing its penchant for liberalism—as though slapping Olbermann on the wrist is going to change anyone’s perception of what MSNBC stands for.
Punishing a journalist for a campaign contribution is essentially assuming that personal thoughts, perspectives and political inclinations won’t exist if the journalist doesn’t contribute to a party or candidate. This is faulty logic. It’s the same logic that keeps the majority of outlets from admitting that they have a left-leaning slant; journalists and outlets alike have hypnotized themselves into believing that their left-of-center views are “mainstream.” Some editors have taken it so far that they recommend that journalists don’t vote in presidential or congressional elections. How silly is that?
True journalistic ethics aren’t about personal perceptions. Rather, true ethics involve the method and mode through which a journalist or media personality frames subject matter. One can be partisan, yet still be more than fair in his or her coverage. Olbermann isn’t someone who is fair in his coverage. His campaign contribution doesn’t surprise me, nor would a lack thereof convince me that he is or ever was a fair-minded and ethical journalist. So what’s the point of his suspension, MSNBC?
At worst, Olbermann is an intelligent, yet hypocritical (he has condemned Fox News for partisan contributions in the past) figure with whom I profoundly disagree. He’s never exercised ethics or balance on his show, so holding him to that standard is rooted in idiocy. Unfortunately, he’s fallen prey to the same obsessive political correctness and liberal demagoguery he so regularly defends.
Welcome, Olbermann! If MSNBC is so concerned about acting ethically, the network should consider spouting facts instead of lines from the Democratic Party platform or, at the least, allow its anchors and personalities to exercise support for the same values in their personal lives that they do on the air. Common sense, isn’t it?
Via Big Hollywood:
Michael Jackson died and the media cried. But don’t worry; they were tears of joy, not despair. After all, what better time to sacrifice journalistic integrity for the sake of high ratings and bloated ad revenues?
In the weeks following Jackson’s death, the level and scope of coverage was and continues to be mind-numbing. Sure, MJ’s death was tragic, but tragedy doesn’t warrant the widespread disengagement of American media outlets, nor does it permit the dumbing down of pertinent information. To borrow from John Ziegler, the obsessive coverage of Michael Jackson’s death is yet another glaring symptom of the malpractice that is all too common amongst today’s media elite.
It’s no surprise that CNN and others are jumping on the bandwagon. Jackson’s collapse and subsequent death fueled increased viewership and network interest. According to CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld:
“Jackson’s death brought all sorts of new viewers to the cable news networks, and it’s obvious that most of them turned to CNN. CNN is still seen, by most people who are not news junkies, as the place to turn to for news they really care about.”
Schonfeld went on to say the following:
“It’s unfortunate that the news they seem to care about is the death of an entertainer, no matter how great, when there are things happening in the world that will affect them and their children much more significantly.”
So, Schonfeld is hypocritically rejoicing over increased ratings while his network abandons world events to cover the life of a man who has had and will continue to have little viable impact on society. He’s basically saying, “How tragic that people care about such irrelevant information, but hey – our ratings are through the roof!”
Railing against citizen love for the unimportant, while praising the effect such coverage has over CNN’s bankroll is nonsensical (from a journalistic perspective, at least). And this is only one example. CNN surely isn’t the only network at fault, as plenty of others have joined in and reneged on their responsibility to the American people.
In their classic spirit when dollar signs come into focus, the media abandon reporting the news that actually affects Americans in order to capitalize on the revenues they can expect from their self-perpetuated campaigns, with “All Michael Jackson, All the Time” being the most recent narcissistic example. Frankly, it’s embarrassing and fraudulent. The Fourth Estate has become the court gesture – and that’s being kind.
But, it’s not only the media who are at fault. U.S. citizens – led by members of my own generation – have continued to fuel the fire. Eric Holder was way off base when he called Americans a “nation of cowards.” What he should have called us was a nation of idiots (please note the sarcasm here, as I’d rather watch MSNBC than give Holder’s comment credence — and that’s saying something).
Many young Americans are so blind to the domestic and international issues that will surely impact their world, that they’d rather fawn over a pop legend they never knew, than confront the important issues that directly impact their lives. Why expend the energy needed to understand the difference between a deficit and the national debt when you can watch the mainstream media slobber over the advertising revenues they receive from exploiting the death of a former super star? It’s shameful.
CNN and other related outlets should have the nerve to report real news, as should the American people crave the information that will lead to greater transparency and personal betterment. Here are some events we missed out on during the MJ hooplah:
- Vice-president Joe “Gaffetastic” Biden said, “”We misread how bad the economy was,” a statement that should have sent the globe spinning. Instead, it quickly faded as the media contemplated which doctor should be blamed for MJ’s death.
- Calls for a second stimulus began to surface (although anyone who was paying attention to Obama’s budget would have noticed billions budgeted for another potential “stimulus” back in April).
- After the unprecedented connection that was established between Americans and Iranians, the media essentially abandoned the Iranian election story as Iranians continued to fight and protest in the streets of Tehran.
- The media showed wreathes and memorials set for MJ, while American soldiers sacrificing their lives overseas went unnoticed. After all, how would the American people know of their sacrifices without a media body committed to relaying such pertinent information? Lt. Brian Bradshaw died the same day as MJ and his aunt had this to say in response to the media’s outlandish coverage: “Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media. Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?” Good question.
Beyond my complaining, it is important to note that the media have a responsibility to serve as a check on our government. Each outlet is intended to add value and context to the democratic process. Whether it be inherent political bias or the abandoning of real news for elevated ratings, the media are continuously abandoning the American people. The only question that remains: Is there any turning back?

