On The Media

The political pendulum is swinging again, made mobile by an unpopular war and high gas prices. Move over Rush Limbaugh.

Keith is perfect for our time.

robert reitinger

Keith O has proven that the left wing media can be just as nasty as the right. And he's succeeded in alienating half his audience.

Keith Overman may be a new presentation. However, the current administration did not do it alone. At best the democrats are complicit. Olberman allegedly attacks from the left simply because he questions a figure of power (the current administration)? More important is what goes unquestioned: alternative models of economics, information, and social order. Life is presented as a zero sum game.

In the allegedly free market place of ideas MSNBC canceled the Donohue show even though it had the highest ratings on their channel.

Olberman (at least as he speaks on his MSNBC show) is NOT on the left. Being against Fox, or even against Ms. Clinton, hardly qualifies. Obama may be slightly to the left of Clinton, but that too does not put him on the left either. At best Olberman and Obama (OO) are centrists.

I really enjoy Keith Olbermann. It is very refreshing to have somebody who can go toe to toe with the morons at Fixed noise. I hope he never changes. I hope he keeps speaking truth to power. This current regime has brought respect for our country to a new low. Perhaps respect for us is way in the basement. I hope Keith points out the failings of the Obama administration also because I want to live in a country I can be proud of. Way to go Keith!!!

So what if the network is perceived as liberal, FOX IS DEFINITELY a conservative network, and so what?! Is the case being made again that liberal is evil and conservative is normal, as it were? It's time for liberals to come out and stand up proud and stop calling themselves progressives, for chrissake.

You said, "in the coveted demographic of viewers aged 25 to 54, MSNBC trounced Fox by 37 percent." I was left unsure whether you meant that MSNBC's audience was 37% larger than Fox's, or that MSNBC's share was 37 percentage points higher than Fox's. A bit of Googling later, I still can't find the raw numbers, so can someone help me out?

As I was ranting about this ambiguity to my mother, she asked "What's the difference?" Imagine in a room full of 100 people, 60 people want chocolate ice cream and 40 people want vanilla. In this case, chocolate beat vanilla by 50 *percent* but only by 20 *points*.

MSNBC has no credibility. It is the mirror image of Fox News. Olberman = O'Reilly and Chris Matthews is almost Obama's cable press secretary. Their ratings have been up because there has only been a Democratic primary race and the diehard liberal Democrats have all flocked to watch their opinion leaders say what they want to hear. When the election is over, when someone else is president, MSNBC and Olberman will sink back to their normal low rankings.

Two things were left unexplored: The question the NBC exec put forth was "Give me one example of how Keith Olbermann has hurt Tim Russert." It's hard to prove a negative, as no studies have been done or provided either way. The fact is that Fox or Fix, however you want to think of them, does not let Hannity or O'Reilly and their "out their" partisanship ANCHOR their coverage. They remain commentators. It DOES effect my acceptance of MSNBC when I know that Olbermann and Mathews are holding their noses at Hillary and McCain in a way that I don't have when Brit Hume anchors. That is not insiginificant, and should be explored.

Second, Bob asked Huffington how she guards against being in the tank by the left wing or DNC the way most assume that Fox is, but not NBC. There have been times when you could swear you read it on the Daily Koz and it popped out of Olbermann's mouth later that evening. The fact that they are not challenged equally by OTM is troubling.

And also, while you had an NBC exec on, why didn't you ask him about one of the most interesting stories of the last three weeks - the White House complaining about the editing of the Richard Engel interview with Bush? THAT is a good media story!

I used to be grateful to find liberal commentary on msnbc, but now I find olbermann slightly obnoxious and a bit adolescent. He's also had tasteless, offensive stuff on his show after the political comments are done. When I switched to clinton after turning against obama, i got sick of olbermann and matthew's negative attitude to clinton, it ruined the shows, so I stopped watching. Now I'm delighted to have hours more time for reading and other activities. Also my outlook is not influenced by the hostile, confrontational minutia of the daily cable tv discussions by the outsized egos on these shows. I don't need these big-mouthed attention- seekers taking up my attention! Life is too short. Now life is better. I have decided to almost ignore the election for quite a while, give myself a rest. Question: what is the least obnoxious place to get my news when I do resume my attention to election coverage? Do any readers have opinions on this? I'd be interested to know.

Oh brother!

One guys show does not a liberal network make. You can scan the cable dial and find no other voice like Olbermann. Finally, a little balance to O'Reilly and all the other nut-bags out there. Olbermann hosting election night is not the same guy you see on his show. Pat Buchanan still gets invited to give forth so why not Olbermann. Bob's voiced "concern" about network "balance" is so funny. All you media types love holding up your supposed objectivity. I don't always love Olbermann's rants BUT it is good to finally have someone on cable news who will make fun of himself, his network, and call out the administration. If you don't like it watch the spitting, sweating Chris Matthews for that old time reporter, talking head show vibe. For me he's a bit of fresh air sorta like On the Media.

raul,

The point I believe your missing is that Pat Buchanan is paid to give the right wing view, so when you say, "Buchanan still gets invited to give forth so why not Olbermann," you're comapring a paid, partisan pundit to an anchor who is supposed to be somewhat objective or at least equally skeptical. Olbermann in the anchor chair is an abuse of the role - the word anchor has come to mean more than host or the one holding down the broadcast, but implies that the person is not spun by every wave of spin.

And it's not just "one guy." Mathews worked for Democratic senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie, ran for congress as a Dem, was a speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration, and worked for Democrat Tip O'Neill. Tim Russert worked for Democrats Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo - Russert at least tries to be hard to pin down, but he ends up being a pundit on election nights, and not an anchor like Mathews and Olbermann!

It's a strange media landscape!

,

I don't have cable, so I was surprised to hear that someone was publically calling the bush people liars, rather that someone who told a lie or told an untruth. Thanks for msnbc and Olbermann.

I can't believe how many times I get angry at the inanity of you NPR reporters. Of course Fox New is the mouth piece for the Bush Administration , just like the Huffington Post is not the mouth piece for the Democtratic Administration, since there is none! And the cutsy Gilligan's Island references, you guys keep trying to be so cute and hip., Just cut it out, it's not helping you.

I listen to On The Media through my local NPR station or through podcast every episode and I am a big fan. But, I must express my dismay at the tone of the questions on the MSNBC story. The difference between MSNBC and FOX is that FOX has no interest in accuracy! I have heard Olbermann apologize for misstatements - can you imagine anyone at FOX doing that?

I believe Kieth Olbermann does us all a service by demonstrating what a "left-wing media bias" really looks like. For more than a decade Republican politicians and their friends at FOX have been gnashing there teeth and screaming "Liberal Bias!" whenever facts or truths that contradict their right-wing agenda are reported.

Maybe Olbermann will draw their fire for a while, and give respectable journalists like Tim Russert and Jim Lehrer an opportunity to report the news and enable the American public to make informed and educated decisions about our leaders and their policies.

Could any of us honestly say that any of the Fox News pundits, including Bill O'Riley, are as tendentious or divisive as Keith Olderman? He raves like a madman, and his attacks are undermining any pretence of political civility in this country. The next step in this process of defaming the people we are competing against for public opinion and political advantage is violence. Who wants that? It seems that all of the real hatred and vitriol is on the left.

I can honestly say that Fox News pundits are more divisive and hateful that Olberman is. Of course, if I was right wing I may feel differently.

Even Fox News anchors (not punditss) can be more divisive and hateful: I just saw a clip where the Fox News anchor referred to Obama and his wife touching fists as a possible "terrorist fist jab." Fox News anchors basically saying Obama and his wife are terrorists. Top that, Mr. Martinez.

I don't have cable myself but love the update, hope Olbermann's and MSNBC ratings continue to soar. Because one thing is for sure: Fox News s.., er, is not good.

It was ironic that Bob Garfield was making the point that reporters and journalists don't ask enough follow-up questions and then did the very same thing in the interview with MSNBC's Phil Griffin.

The misogyny, blatant favoritism for Barack Obama and incessant Hillary-bashing was not fair and balanced reporting from Olbermann, Russert and company. It was shameful and actually shocking. It's not reporting from the Left at all because Democrats, Progressives and Liberals used to believe in hearing everyone's voice.

I was initially thrilled to hear someone on tv rail against Bush and Company until it became clownish. Olbermann's rants are making the sportscaster turned self-proclaimed pundit look increasingly foolish.

I wish you had gone into more depth with both Griffin and Huffington instead of accepting their spin in their biased and over-the-top mediums.

Chris,

My point is that Olderman repels more people than he inspires, even on the left. This can be proven empirically by reading the comments posted here and I think that we can agree that this forum is not the heart of the vast right wing conspiracy. I would not presume to speak for the American polity, that is what elections are for, but I can say that there is a big difference between passion and rage. If Senator Obama is unsuccessful in this year's election it will be due in part to the vehemence and rabidly emphatic posture of some of his supporters. Pit bull’s can turn on their masters from time to time. This is a truism that both Tim Russert and Chris Matthews should remember.

Mr Martinez,

Would you mind expounding on some of the vitriol that you allege comes only from the left? I agree that Olberman is to the left, but isn't the "Olberman effect" just a corollary to a Bill O'reilly right wing ideology?

My apologies to Bob if I heard this wrong, and according to the transcript I did, I believe Bob said in his editorial that preceded this piece that "Fox News Channel, offering a fair and balanced 24-hour P.R. forum for the Republican National Committee."

Later he comments, "... Fox News, because more than any other cable channel they have benefited from the programming of ideology. But they're also, as a consequence, not taken especially seriously across the political spectrum as a news organization."

It's Bob's show and he's free to express his own opinion with zero factual support, but I find comments like these useless and only revealing of Bob's bias. In the end I'm only left to conclude that a Fox-News-Must-Die website is in the code-writing stage right now.

Another wonder contribution to the web!

I'm not sure why Bob doesn't raise the same questions about Glen Beck on CNN. Why doesn't Beck--whose conservative program is not balanced by any liberal-hosted show--raise doubts about CNN's objectivity?

to alex c.

37% -- as i said. not 37 points.

to many others: sometimes a ciqar is just a cigar and sometimes a question is just a question.

as for "bias," that's the wrong word. it implies predisposition, or idealogical skew. the word you're looking for is "opinion." at least for me, those are a function of analysis and judgment. i make no apologies for mine.

I'd be more impressed with Bob's "opinion" if he revealed some of the analysis and judgment that went into it. Without that, I'm left with the sense that it's simply his predisposition or idealogical skew. So what I'm looking for is some basis for your opinion, Bob.

I've been a critic for more than 25 years and in that time scarcely a month has passed without an outraged letter from a reader accusing me of letting my work be contaminated by opinion. So, as a perk of my job, I get to roll my eyes a lot.

Another good thing about the criticism game is that it leaves a trail. I'm a vertitable Hansel and Gretel. My breadcrumbs on the Bush administration are about 350 hours of programming.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

I believe what listeners should be wary of from pundits is not "bias," but rather something else: the absence of intellectual honesty. That means approaching subjects not to explore the underlying truth, but to proffer your argument. That's how lawyers and politicians work, but it should not be how journalism is conducted.

There is virtually no interview on On the Media that we could not edit to reflect our institutional worldview. But our producers do not work that way. On the contrary, our watchword is to never make an edit that could even subtly alter the speaker's meaning or the context.

I was saying earlier in this thread that sometimes a question is just a question. Sometimes, of course, a question is far more than a question. Sometimes it is implicitly an assertion, or even an accusation. In that moment resides the difference between fairness and dishonesty, because we can edit out anything that doesn't conform to the underlying premise of the question. We, needless to say, never do. On the contrary, we often find that the answer reveals layers of complexity to an issue that hadn't even occurred to us. And sometimes we learn that our premise itself is wrong.

If those exchanges help flesh out a subject, we leave them intact and take our lumps. If they merely expose an interview subject to needless negativity, the listener nevers hears either question or answer.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

Obviously, we could all pretend that we never draw conclusions (that the White House lies compulsively, for instance), but what would that accomplish? It's a charade, and by definition dishonest in itself. As Brooke likes to say, "We own our opinions," and use that -- versus some phony claim of "objectivity" -- to establish the trust of our audience

Mr Martinez,

Your point is receieved, but I believe it's predicated on a limited set of liberal viewpoints (i.e. not emblematic of the majority of the left). One can cherry pick data to butress their opinion, but I think the reality remains that without the success of a Rush, or O'reilly or even Hannity there would be no conversation about an Olberman because there would be no market for it. We'll see what happens when the country sways back to the right.

Some liberals may accuse someone who is stubbornly incurious of being a troglodyte, but keep in mind how many times liberal guests on Fox are cutoff mid sentence or told to "shut up", that is if a liberal is invited to the conversation at all.

Dear Mr. Perez,

Thank you for your civility and gentlemanly courtesy.

See comment 30 for a good example of the point I am trying to make. BTW Chris, Fox fired Ms. Hill for her Obama "terrorist" fist jab comment this morning. They did not elevate her to the prime time news with Brit Hume. I learned Sunday night that former speaker Dennis Hastert, I man I liked, was a crook and had ear- marked millions to developed property he owned with federal highway funds. It was a program broadcast on Fox.

I look for intellectual honesty in the critics' work I read and when in the questions they ask they proffer something as truth (and attempt to create context) when it is more accurately described as argument, I find less value in the respondent's answer.

I think you could have gotten the same answers or perhaps more meaningful ones if you didn't lead the witness (sorry, guest) with your opinions regarding Fox News.

Commence eye-rolling Bob.

Mr. Monte Martinez, I am a democrat and I am very proud of it. The time of democrats lying down and getting rolled over by the "repugnicats" is over. Get used to it. I represent a new kind of democrats, one who does not take any crap from sanctimonious-empty-headed buffoons. Get used to it sir. We are coming on strong and we are not backing down from you people who never fail to cast aspersions on other peoples patriotism when you know that your argument is idiotic. All the so called experience of john mcsame and idiot george got us is an asinine war and an economy that is teetering and on the verge of collapse.

OBAMA 08!! Read comment #30 some more,

Dear Mr. Perez,

See Comment 37. Is this the kind of persuasive argument which wins support in the market place of ideas? Mr. Spencer, you just keep being who you are. I urge you to participate in as many public forums as you can. Write to the blogs, call the talk shows, and show up at the town meetings. And please remember to always identify yourself as a proud Democrat.

My point is that the market now exists for Mr. Olbermann. Ideas are not the intention here. It's about ratings and we as consumers of this product should be aware of that. It atrracts an audience just the way O'reilly referring to anybody on Maher or Stewart as "Stoners" or left wing loonies" does. This rhetoric begs reprisal from the opposition which perpetuates the invective.

Keep in mind that the audience is getting entertainment first. If I want to laugh I watch Stewart and if I want to think I listen to NPR.

Mr Spencer is just voicing the frustrations of those of us on the left who feel aggrieved by the policies of Bush and his ilk. I suspect that a lot of Repulican feel similar hence the support of Obama by many of my friends on the right.

I appreciate the insight, the opinion, the relevant news others seem to miss or ignore, but I feel drained after watching Countdown.

It's like a sugar rush. Too much for a hour show.

I stopped watching Keith and use the hour to take a break from Television. I hope his countdown.msnbc.com site starts actually populating information. I could handle reading instead of watching... I find the information relevant, just not the tone that's used to project it.

Keith Olbermann is not a newsperson or pundit; he is a hate pusher and does not belong on the airwaves. I count myself as a liberal, but cannot stand this man. He is no better than any of the other ranters/screamers on the airwaves. As a somewhat progressive person, I used to think that Air America and people like Randi Rhodes and Keith O were refreshing because they often expressed my viewpoints. Not now. They are nothing but hate mongers and neither belongs on the air filling people with negative feelings. During this election, I have seen through Move On.org also. The left wing of the Democratic party is no better, probably worse, than the right wing of the Republican party. Neither really cares about the truth; they are only in it for power. Polite discourse is unknown to these screamers. Bill Moyers, please teach them how to be caring adults.

To Bob Garfield:

You recently described Fox News (I'm paraphrasing) as the mouthpiece for the Republican Party--which I might agree with if you would conced NPR is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Both are biased. What's refreshing about Fox is that there is no preetense of being unbiased as there is at NPR--and CBS, NBC ABC CNN.

Your attempt to analogize Olberman with Fox is inept; if anything Olberman is a humorless Limbaugh. You fail to realize that much of Limbaugh's appeal is his humor; he would never say anything as crude as Olberman telling the President of the United States to "shut up." Anyone in high school can do that--and probably does. Your analysis of MSNBC and Olberman betrays your bias, though I'm sure you will never admit to even having one. Okay, then tell us all: which presidential candidate did you vote for in the last five elections (assuming you were eligible to vote). I'm sure you'll claim some sort of privilege of secrecy or high-falutin journalistic superiority and won't admit you votedlusively for Democrats--or even more leftist canndidates. At least Fox 'fesses up.

Karl:

If NPR is biased towards the left, how come the Amy Goodman/FAIR far left accuse it of being lackeys for evil capitalist corporate AmeriKKKa?

If the extremist nutsos on both sides of the equation are attacking NPR, it must be doing something right.

Could anyone here suggest a logical explanation why Fox News (sic) viewers are repeatedly found to be severely misinformed on the facts? For example, why do more Fox News (sic) viewers believe 1) there is proof that Saddam Hussein was inovlved in 9/11 and 2) WMD were found in Iraq in 2003? If the mark of an ideologue is to be misinformed on matters of fact Karl, perhaps you can explain why NPR listeners are proven to be much better informed than average, and Fox News (sic) viewers much less informed than average?

Hello National _Insecurity: One would think that the people at fixed noise would be concerned about the size of their viewers who believe what you said and one would be wrong. They are all about spinning and twisting information. We progressives have never been good at playing dirty. I would not like to play dirty, but if that is the way to defeat these nuts, maybe that is what we have to do. I am really heartsick by the level of active hatred towards our country. The world is kind of sick of us right now. And it is not because we are rich and strong and they are jealous; it is because we have let them down by torturing people and I am really ashamed. I love this country and I want to see her respected again in the world.

Why doesn't Kieth just wear an Obama for President pin. You would think a "reporter of the news" he could show a little class and respect the fact that not all his viewers feel the same as he does. Oh........I almost forgot thats why he is for Obama he wnats to push his views on every one else.

Some people just cannot stand the truth. Keith Obermann gets the news out; tells it like is and entertains. What more could you ask for?