A hopefully flame-free thread on the trouble with Olbermann

[jpgray]

To be clear, the fact that Olbermann is an advocacy journalist means he did not jeopardize public trust in his impartiality--there wasn't much belief in his impartiality to begin with. Active support for a party is most dangerous when it is secret, unduly influential, and in violation of public trust. As far as I can tell Olbermann's donations were none of these things. He deserved to be reinstated.

But I still don't like what he represents, considering him as story-breaking journalist more than digestive commentator. Here's why:

Suppose Olbermann as journalist uncovered a massive and genuine scandal in the Republican Party, getting the story from sources which must remain anonymous. His advocacy for one party over the other is a license for the immediate dismissal and denial of that scandal for anyone who wishes to do so. Many of the public will wait for independent verification to be convinced that his reporting is fact and not advocacy, and others will refuse to believe it forever simply because it comes from a "tainted" source. Advocate journalists for the opposite party would certainly deny it forever on this basis.

If you don't believe me, switch the supposition around. If FOX broke a similarly genuine Democratic Party scandal via anonymous sources, I would sure as hell wait for independent confirmation. I would likewise have a permanent excuse for doubt, given their history of advocacy.

Even though Olbermann's advocacy is more ethical than FOX advocacy, reporting that benefits the favored side or harms the other will always carry with it that excuse for doubt. Further, with the proliferation of this sort of journalism, it is easy to become isolated in one's choice of news. these days I can exclude all voices which do not advocate for my views, if I want. That can be dangerous if I see all other voices as tainted--there are few things more damaging to informed voting than the phrase:

"Unless I hear it on FOX, I won't believe it."

Olbermann is again much superior to FOX in sticking to facts, but when there is no acceptable mainstream source for journalism, neither side need admit wrongdoing in anything. Solid investigative journalism loses its impact if both sides feel free to deny, dismiss and doubt anything they don't like.

[HopeHoops]

1. "I faahht in your general dirrection. Your mother was a hampster & your father smelt of elderberries

Okay, maybe not ENTIRELY flame-free. :evilgrin: :hi:

[truebrit71]

2. ..."now go away or a I shall taunt you a second time..."

.."so called Arthur King..."

[cayanne]

3. MSNBC is not billed as news

It is a place for politics. Most who watch Keith already know what he reports on because we read it during the day on DU or other liberal blogs.

If I'm gone during the day, I catch up in the evening with Keith. I always watch Rachael and Lawrence, they are the best and had better watch their backs, dot their i's and cross their t's or they will be next.

[jpgray]

7. What worries me are two things

The tendency to entrench and avoid/distrust less-friendly sources as tainted, and the ability this provides for doubting or dismissing an unwelcome story. I think the attitude toward polls here often reveals the latter, and I wonder if it is traceable to the wide availability of advocate sources for news.

[EFerrari]

4. Healthy and active skepticism

is our friend.

Even the most skewed version of a story, say from Fox, betrays facts that can be checked. Even the more neutral sounding reporting usually has an opinion.

Doubt is generally a good thing when it comes to fact checking.

[jpgray]

5. All of this is very true.

:hi:

[stopbush]

6. Simple: if KO "uncovered a massive & genuine scandal in the R party,"

he could turn the lead over to a straight journalist to do the hard investigation that would be required.

Of course, that would assume that KO is a big enough person that he could forgo taking credit for unearthing the scandal in the first place, but knowing how he is no stranger to apologizing on air for his miscues - even awarding himself a "Worst Person" at least once - I don't see this being a problem.

Since you're talking about KO uncovering a big juicy story as a journalist, then let's be clear: the last I looked, KO is not in any sense an investigative reporter. He's a commentator who offers his opinion on shit uncovered by the work of real journalists. He brings in pundits to comment on the stories, usually agreeing with KO's position, occasionally disagreeing.

Ergo, the premise for your worry is unfounded.

[jpgray]

8. As commentator, Olbermann doesn't worry me

And if that's mostly what people see him as, I would have to agree with you. Do you think there's any impact on the attitude toward more vanilla journalism from today's advocacy journalism? There are bias problems in vanilla as well, of course (climate change, calling torture torture, etc.).

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Not one investigative reporter on Countdown

Which is an opinion and commentary show about the day's events. It is not a news program, and Keith is not an investigative reporter. So if he uncovered a big story, it would be the same as if I did, shocking, random, and in need of being passed to reporters. NBC has a news division, you know. That is what a commentator should do with an uncovered story that comes to them, pass it to the news division. Or Rachel, who is an actual journalist and does actual reporting.