Fake Objectivity
Not sure how many of you have been following the fallout from Keith Olbermann’s suspension from MSNBC. There has been Ted Koppel getting the vapors over the loss of objectivity and waxing nostalgic over perfectly objective times gone by. Or how about Howard Kurtz trotting out some of the tick tock on the MSNBC/Olbermann war.
I was going to use these posts to have another go at the fake objectivity of the news business. To remind people that one of the fundamental acts of reporting news is grounded in what reporters and editor choose to report on and what they choose to ignore. Those choices (much like mine to not write a post on,say, the City of Wilmington’s layoffs) are themselves NOT objective choices, but choices largely in the service of shaping the stories they choose to tell. The current fetishization of “objectivity” is largely an excuse for the reporter to not be part of the world that he or she is reporting on. As characterized by Jay Rosen, the current form of “objectivity” is really the view from nowhere — itself a POV that wants to convince you that the reporter is just reporting what he or she sees or hears. Even though said reporter has a well-stocked rolodex of folks who will provide the right balance of POV for any story.
Happily, I don’t have to write that blog post. Because Keith Olbermann did. This is worth reading in its entirety. Because he reminds us that some the signature bits of TV journalism — the ones we hold up as brave and smart — were certainly not “objective” choices. But as you look at those examples, you wonder how the business of holding the powerful accountable can ever exist with the usual view from nowhere.
What interests me about the reaction to Olbermann’s suspension is that we have plenty of folks crawling out of the woodwork to have on about this so-called loss of objectivity. Where were these people as Fox News was recreating itself as a PR arm of the RNC? Their shenanigans are legendary and documented — there are no other traditional news networks who send out a memo with the Talking Points or the POV of the Day. Fox is wall to wall lack of “objectivity” and the usual handwringers never seem to get their panties in a bunch about FOX except as part of a critique of news that needs to call out ALL fringes (stupidly including MSNBC) without calling out the singular abuse of journalism that is FOX.
But here is Olbermann dissecting the business of “objectivity”:
The great change about which Mr. Koppel wrings his hands is not partisanship nor tone nor analysis. The great change was the creation of the sanitized image of what men like Cronkite and Murrow – and H.V. Kaltenborn and Elmer Davis and John Charles Daly and H.R. Baukhage and Howard K. Smith and Eric Sevareid and Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and George Polk and even Ted Koppel – did. These were not glorified stenographers. These were not neutral men. These were men who did in their day what the best of journalists still try to do in this one. Evaluate, analyze, unscramble, assess – put together a coherent picture, or a challenging question – using only the facts as they can best be discerned, and their own honesty and conscience. And if the result is that this story over here is a Presidential chief of staff taking some pretty low-octane bribes and the scandal starts and ends there, you judge all the facts, and you say so. And if the result is that that other story over there is not just a third-rate burglary at a political office, but the tip of an iceberg meant to sink the two-party system in this country, you judge all the facts, and you scream so.
Insist long enough that the driving principle behind the great journalism of the television era was neutrality and objectivity — and not subjective choices and often dangerous evaluations and even commentary — and you will eventually leave the door open to pointless worship at the temple of a false god. And once you’ve got a false god, you’re going to get false priests. And sooner rather than later, in a world where subjective analysis is labeled evil and dangerous, some political mountebank is going to see his opening and seize the very catechism of that false god, words like “objective” and “neutral” and “two-sided” and “fair” and “balanced,” and he will pervert them into a catch-phrase, a brand-name. And he can create something that is no more journalism than two men screaming at each other is a musical duet.
This is good stuff and there’s more at his dKos post. And he is right that “objectivity” serves no one except the person who wants to armor himself with it. It seems to be the last refuge of those who don’t want to make the case for genuinely fact-based journalism, rather than letting the partisans tell their story and pretend that your consumers now know what they need to know with no context for what those partisans say and no fact-checking of what the partisans say.
This isn’t a defense of what Olbermann does nightly (because sometimes it is over cooked), but what Olbermann and Maddow do *is* some real fact-checking and the provision of real context for the spin of the day. Sometimes (especially Rachel) you get to hear some of the worst spin offenders have to really answer for their spin. Outside of NOW and the occasional 60 Minutes piece, there is nothing else like this on TV and there should be MORE, not less of it. Because I’d like any political journalist worth their salt to explain to me how they are holding the powerful accountable or even informing their consumers by just letting two sides say just anything. (And even this two sides thing can be really misguided. During the health care debates, the real debates were *within* the Democratic Party — the Republicans had largely opted out, but you dutifully got the Dems vs Repubs he say/she say throughout.) Beyond the fact that standing in the so-called middle and observing both sides, lets the dishonorable get away with alot of lying. Keith and Maddow deconstruct some of that lying and for their efforts at some accountability they are labeled not “objective”. When they are done, you know more than what he or she said — you know something about how he or she is trying to shine you on. In an era when getting zombie lies into the CW is the only way to influence policy discussion, knowing who is straying from the facts is news I can use.
The story of accountability ought to be in very high demand these days. Because while journalists have been hiding behind their “objectivity” there have been massive stories developing over the past 30 years that they have been completely missing. For example, the wholesale buying and selling of our governments (by both parties). Or even the massive destabilization of the middle class — on purpose — by Reagan acolytes who saw government as a tool to increase the wealth of those who already have money (Or as my Dad says, Supply Siders who think they should have all of the Supply.), rather than as a tool to keep building the most productive middle class in history. Or even right now — where we have lots of folks furiously displaying their deficit hawkery plumage and NO journalists asking these same hawks how stuff they are proposing (modernizing the nuclear weapons arsenal????) gets paid for. Or how this new stuff employs Americans. Or even following up on jobs claims to see if they are real.
Olbermann is right about this though — “objectivity” is not the current crisis of news. Getting journalists to commit to genuine acts of journalism *is* the current crisis of news.
Tags: Keith Olbermann, Media, Media Obsessions
“Olbermann is right about this though — “objectivity” is not the current crisis of news. Getting journalists to commit to genuine acts of journalism *is* the current crisis of news.”
THIS
Excellent post, Cassandra. I concur with your observations and like your analysis.
You have focused on what I would call opinion journalism, in which the more believable are the ones who choose pertinent facts, then analyze them into some kind of a concluding statement. Rachel and Keith are both unusually effective at this; and, there are several others in the MSNBC lineup.
For more objective reporting, I like PBS’s The News Hour. For airing varying point’s of view, I watch Meet The Press. On international and national political analyses and expressions of points of views, I enjoy Fareed Zakaria. And finally, for focused in depth interviews, I watch Charley Rose. Put all that together with some very informative programming on NPR, I think there is a wonderful variety of good information sources available.
My point is, in contrast to Koppel’s longing for the good old days, and Kurtz’s play by play description of the pettiness of cable big-wigs, the news analysis and outlets available to us currently far exceed what I remember of the days gone by. And now we even have FoxNews to turn off!
Interesting post. There is a mindless “objectivity balance” that seems to mean sane positions require opposing positions even if they are based on myth and not fact or are part of a big lie campaign.
The TEA “Party” has benefited from this kind of mindless “news” coverage.
Out here in the boondocks of Dakota, I am continually frustrated by the demonization of Nancy Pelosi being accepted as based on some facts or more than part of a planned campaign that started before Nancy Pelosi ever pounded a gavel.
Thank you, cassandra_m. I was all fired up to refute you when I read the headline of your post.
Having read the entire post, I totally agree with you.
Koppel and Terry Gross should take a look/listen at their interviews of Ollie North (who should have been hanged for treason) and Bill O’Reilly (who is just a talking head, but a lying, misinformed talking head) if they want to see/hear examples of FAKE objectivity.
I enjoyed Koppel on Nightline & I listen to Terry Gross daily. Both are obviously biased, as were Rather, Cronkite, Jennings, Brokaw, etc. These people enabled the creation of Fox News.
Fox = Incredibly Slanted News for Dummies. Fox viewers buy Ann Coulter’s books. Enough said.
Both are obviously biased, as were Rather, Cronkite, Jennings, Brokaw, etc
Actually if you think this to be true, then you are the reason why FOX News exists. Because you are one of the multitudes that has swallowed the bullshit “media is all liberal” whine of the right. Who only ginned up that complaint as a way to work the refs. It is partially this complaint that has the political media using this fake “objectivity” to hide behind.
Out here in the boondocks of Dakota, I am continually frustrated by the demonization of Nancy Pelosi being accepted as based on some facts or more than part of a planned campaign that started before Nancy Pelosi ever pounded a gavel.
We are just as frustrated about this here in Delaware too. But someone I read or heard somewhere said that the greatest bias held by the press isn’t for left or right, but for their own stories. This strikes me as true, because how else do you explain the CW? More importantly, though, is the fact that Dems seemed to buy this BS lock, stock and barrel too — leaving Pelosi with no defenders out there.
Are you all kidding me? One cannot juxtapose MSNBC alongside Fox News. To be sure, Beck and Hannity are idiots; they are political infotainers. If you don’t like them, don’t watch them.
But their evil twins, or should I say evil quadruplets, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews and now O’Donnell, are far worse because nearly ALL of MSNBC’s line-up is grossly biased.
For the record, O’Reilly is nowhere near as biased as most of MSNBC’s folks. Greta van Susteren is actually one of the best ‘neutral’ broadcasters out there. The ratings prove it!
Obviously, most people, including the majority of the aforementioned comments on here, watch news outlets or read online news sources and blogs that generally pursue a POV that mirrors their own.
I’ve been in the journalism and reporting arena most of my adult life and I’ve never seen such a liberal shift eminating from one news source as I have from MSNBC recently. I watch and read all points of view; I want to be able to discern who’s lying, who’s stretching the truth, who’s demogogueing, who’s only showing ‘one side’ of an argument.
CNN was all but dead in the ratings game recently, they still are not where they once were; however, they generally ALWAYS have two or more points of view and/or guests on to discuss such matters in a professional, dialectical manner. Fox does this too. MSNBC?
Wow! Anyone not disappointed with the abject spin and bias with programming shows on MSNBC is either blind or just part of the stereotypical ‘elitist’ crowd. How can a news show (even though it’s obviously an ‘opinionated’ news show) NOT have on guests with opposite point of views?
Watch Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews (and all shows on MSNBC) and you’ll see a segment talking about an issue that the left doesn’t like, say Bush-Era tax cuts. The host will invariably have on as a guest (echo chamber) Howard Fineman, Richard Corn, Richard Wolffe, Ezra Klein, Eugene Robinson, Christopher Hayes and a number of (D) congresspeople, leaders or ex-(D) officials and former (D) cabinet members. Fox, CNN, ABC’s World News, BBC News, Bloomberg News, CBS, NBC, PBS and other outlets have competing view points and guests on.
Ever since idiot ex-WH Communications Director Anita Dunn decided to take on FOX NEWS as an ‘Obama’ WH strategy, MSNBC moved even further left! Case in point: remember when Obama gave a ‘shout out’ to Olbermann and Maddow after Gibbs excoriated the ‘Professional Left’ for its lack of neutrons? In a Rolling Stone or NYT Magazine article, Obama praised Olbermann and Maddow, specifically.
Since that time, MSNBC’s line-up and news content has shifted precipitously to ‘cheer’ for Obama; even more so than it previously had done. They ‘got the message from the boss’ and are proud to propogandize resolutely.
It’s sad to watch because I love all news. I can’t bare to watch as Matthews makes fun of a sitting congresswoman on national tv. Whether one likes said congresswoman is beside the point (I actually very much DISLIKE said congresswoman), but it is utterly ridiculous to TELL viewers how much you LOVE certain (Ds) on air as Matthews does.
I watch Fox News often and I see lots of one-sided segments. I call them out on it via e-mail and blogging. But at least other news organiztions TRY to be fair and balanced. MSNBC basically gave this endeavor up.
Btw, MSNBC can say or do whatever it wants. But the viewers know what they’re getting – biased, political infotainment. Most independent thinkers see through spin, whether it comes from Fox, CNN or MSNBC. It’s just that MSNBC has sold their soul.
MSNBC, Olbermann and suspensions, PARTII:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45411.html
At least Scarborough is a REAL journalist!
And here you show just how much you’ve partaken of the koolaid. Scarborough is a pundit at best. Definitely not a newsperson, unlike Olbermann.
And this:
I’ve been in the journalism and reporting arena most of my adult life and I’ve never seen such a liberal shift eminating from one news source as I have from MSNBC recently
isn’t true, either. Either your journalism experience or the liberal shift at MSNBC. MSNBC has a liberal lineup in primetime and that is it. But what is fun about all of the handwringing about MSNBC’s liberal news readers is that NO ONE can point out where they are wrong. Or at least where they were wrong and did not correct themselves. The reporters at MSNBC do strive for facts each day. They aren’t invested in whatever Roger Ailes tells them to say each day. Fox on the other hand, is frequently making shit up. Like persistently telling people that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 well after that had been well and truly debunked. Or their bullshit about the New Black Panthers. They just lie. And they lie for Republican causes. MSNBC still wants to be a news network and still acts like one — unlike Fox News.
Now this conversation is truly laugh outLOUD! Fox never has “objective anyone” on their “shows”. Ed Schultz consistently has both sides on simultaneously! Hardball is right center. Olberman, Rachel and now Lawrence (who happens to have the most knowledge as he worked in the Senate), knows how the game is played)does’t allow them to bs him. Rachel and Keith ALWAYS correct themselves,and they use the footage of the person to prove the hypocrisy. Have you ever heard anyone on Faux Noise, lie repeatedly,make up crap from whole cloth, correct themselves? The only really free NEWS program (because it is’nt corporate sponsored) is Democracy Now. Its the only NEWS program where the suffering people, under the fist of multinationals are exposed. The absolute horrific governments, military controlled dictatorships supported by the US government and multinationals around the world causes poverty and devastation. When was the last time on corporate station have you heard whats happening in Haiti? Obama’s trip to Indonesia, where he delivered guns and arms to the dictatorship ship to use against citizens for democracy? Or in England, France, Portugal, Spain, Greece where the citizens are standing up, in the streets against the “austerity measures” their corporate controlled, multinational corporate governments reign down on them. Multinationals, banksters have robbed all treasuries, i.e. I.M.F. and World Bank are to blame. People who were robbed by their governemnts without a un, now cutting the social safety nets for their citizens? Media has been bought and paid for by the corporations. Did you ever wonder why all ABC, NBC, CBS, WAPO and others shut down their newsrooms? Why the Congress tried just yesterday to shut down some websites on the internet, where most of us are getting our news? We should all be fearful when Comcast takes over NBC. I don’t think we will see Rachel, Ed, Lawerence or Keith on showing “the facts” of the hypocrisy of both parties. Corporate talking heads know how far they can go to keep their jobs~ the “news” is scripted by producers. Olberman has enough money he simply doesnt give a damn. While he was tossed off for 2days, Morning Joe the righty repub gave 5 times more money to 5 different candidates and he is still on the air. There was talk yesterday that Joe would be given two days like Olberman, we wait to see!
The only journalists I trust are the independent ones and there arent too many around. Bill Moyer was a great journalist, and I know of know replacement on air anywhere like him.
Joe Scarborough a real journalist. Huh! He is a former Republican Congressman whose aide died in his office. No one knows why but Joe didnt run the next term and ends up as a “talking head” on MSNBC. Mica is much smarter than ole Joe. Rumor is he is quite sexist.
No Shat! I was being facetious! Of course Joe isn’t a journalist DUHHHH! Your retort was so stupid and predictable, I didn’t even read it after the first sentence.
You know nothing about nothing. Are you educated? Libtardies are supposed to be elitists; what happened to you?
MSNBC is blather! Putrid blather. In fact, it is so bad, both CNN AND MSNBC combined do not reach the amount of viewers on Fox, according to Nielsen ratings.
MSNBC is the Huffington Post on TV; or worse, DE Liberal on tv.
Plus, Olbermann has been fired twice in the past already for losing his EI (Emotional Intelligence). He’s so stupid that he started his oft-regurgitated ‘countdown’ to how many days since the Republicans have been in office since the Nov. 2nd election (They don’t even begin the 111th congress until Jan. 3rd or so)! Btw, do you know where ole Mr. ‘O’ got his ‘countdown’ schtick from? Rush Limbaugh! A-hole Rush started ‘his’ countdown on his radio show after his favorite ex-prez, William Jefferson (aka, Slick Willie) Clinton took office in 1992. Rush would litanize his ‘how many days since Bill clinton….’ crap every broadcast.
Gee Keith, kinda icky, huh?
Wtf!