Olbermann's New & Conflicting Statements Fan Flames of GE-MSNBC-Fox Controversy

by: David Sirota

Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 18:06


In my morning post on the MSNBC-Fox-GE controversy, I noted that all we learned last night is that Keith Olbermann said he wasn't "party to any deal" - something the New York Times reported in its original story. To my mind, whether Olbermann was or was not a party to a deal is far less important than the behavior of General Electric and MSNBC executives. Nonetheless, because this is such a destructive and precedent-setting example of corporate manipulation of news content, it's important to check out these new posts by Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher after Olbermann just released a statement today.

It seems Olbermann is now saying two mutually exclusive things: Last night, he said he was not part of any deal, but today he tells Glenn that everything Glenn has reported is completely accurate. And since Glenn has reported exactly the opposite - that, in fact, Olbermann was part of some sort of deal - there doesn't seem to be a way for both of Olbermann's statements to be true.

So, yes, as Jane says, "There will be a cloud over Olbermann's credibility until he clarifies what really happened."

ADDENDUM: Some readers may believe this story is not important - they may believe that we should just forget about this whole sordid affair simply because Olbermann does great work on behalf of progressive causes like ending the war in Iraq and enacting a universal health care system. My response is simple: We can all agree on the quality of Olbermann's work, while disagreeing on the significance of this particular story - and additionally, there's no contradiction in simultaneously believing that Olbermann does great work and that this is an important story. Many of us - and especially many of us working in independent media - believe that corporate control of the media is a crucial issue that tends to distort and impact all other issues (and especially when it involves as huge and as economically significant company as General Electric).

As an MSNBC and Olbermann fan, I'm bummed to see Olbermann caught up in this situation - but I'm not surprised. The problem of corporate control of the media is so big and powerful, there's no way Olbermann could avoid it, despite his vehement protests to the contrary last night. Indeed, his new statement today seem to confirm that very reality.

And so I'll just conclude by saying this: You may like Keith Olbermann (as I do), but if your love of Keith Olbermann makes you refuse to defend/demand respect for independent journalism, then you ought to consider how fucked up your value system really is. Loyalty to an individual over loyalty to principles is the definition of cultism. MSNBC partisans insisting that we should ignore General Electric's manipulation of the news out of deference to Keith Olbermann's supposedly infallible awesomeness are at best being intellectually dishonest, and at worst endorsing in precisely the kind of propagandistic pro-censorship sycophancy that is at the heart of this scandal.

David Sirota :: Olbermann's New & Conflicting Statements Fan Flames of GE-MSNBC-Fox Controversy

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
To paraphrase Desi Arnaz' Ricky Ricardo (0.00 / 0)
Keith Olbermann's got some 'splainin' to do...

I'm not going to defend Olbermann (4.00 / 3)
But it seems somewhat unjust to me that he's the exclusive occupant of the hot seat right now while fat cats at GE, NBC News, and Fox sit back and watch him squirm. True, Glenn Greenwald has focused his high-beams on the "extreme corporate censorship and suppression of journalistic freedom in one of our country's major news organizations," but the accountability is being aimed at the man in the middle--Olbermann. In the "what exactly happened" department there's more than one person whose got some "splainin to do."

I gladly will.. (0.00 / 0)
But your point hits the real target of what we all fight against: ""extreme corporate censorship and suppression of journalistic freedom".

Has David, Glen or Jane ever watched Countdown?? I don't think so. I never miss a show.  And I dare say most of us would have died of humiliation had Keith not come along to light a spark under Congressional Democrats well polished asses.
As a raging Progressive Lefty, not once have I ever been disappointed or angered by Keith's treatment of any news story.  He's all we've got!
This guy never 'suppresses' or holds back on anything.  Nor does Richard Wolffe, not in all the years he's been coming on the show have I felt he was ever dishonest or "holding back" in any way.

Insider sour grapes, are behind this I think

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
Olbermann (4.00 / 1)
I'm not going to fault Olbermann for anything.  If he lied about the lack of a deal and then winked at us via Greenwald, well, I'm fine with that.  That is certainly better than the obvious alternatives.


YES!!! OpenLeft this story please!!! (0.00 / 0)
There has never been someone more in need of openlefting than Olbermann.

Olberman and Maddow (4.00 / 1)
Are useful in that they expose the limits of liberalism allowed to even appear on TV.  Glenn Beck can have his daily psychotic break downs, O'Reilly can have producers ambush people, Loud Obbs can foment hatred of Hispanics but we have seen the limits of the leashes Olberman and Maddow are on.

This is no fault to either individual, would it be better if either resigned in protest?  Probably not, after all, other than each other, who in the corporate media would cover the story?

Anyway, at least now we know the very upper limit of honest and accountable journalism that is even allowed to exist on the (non-basic cable) airwaves.


As good as both are (0.00 / 0)
Neither even begins to resemble a substantive treatment of the issues that they cover daily, as the Nation or Democracy Now does. Not because they can't or don't want to, but because their employer would never let them, for fear of losing viewership with too much wonkiness, and their being too effective as progressive spokespeople. So long as their shows are more about snark and outrage than deep journalism, they will be allowed on. If they tried to convert to an all substance format, then they'd be off the air in weeks. The corporate-owned establishment media is simply not interested in or set up for that.

We're going to have to look elsewhere for substance. As we always have.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Or... (0.00 / 0)
As I commented here.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Can't has always been more reliable than mustn't (0.00 / 0)
He who pays the piper calls the tune. That's why I've never taken the objective journalism canard very seriously. If the owner of a news organization is a believer in democracy, and merely grits his teeth and puts his hands in his pockets when his reporters file stories which negatively affect his own interests, then the model works. Clearly, though, no external influence can prevent him from doing whatever he wants -- secretly, if he still fears public opinion, or openly, if he doesn't.

Whatever GE fears, clearly it isn't public opinion. Perhaps we should be glad of that, in that it we can no longer credibly deny what we -- and Olbermann, for that matter -- already ought to know. There are no heroes on Maggie's Farm.


the "keithers" are losing it. (4.00 / 1)
apparently we have to excuse the corporate oligarchy when it involves one of our own.  i found KO to be a bit disingenuous on this one.

Corporate Interests (0.00 / 0)
David Sirota wrote:

"As an MSNBC and Olbermann fan, I'm bummed to see Olbermann caught up in this situation - but I'm not surprised. The problem of corporate control of the media is so big and powerful, there's no way Olbermann could avoid it, despite his vehement protests to the contrary last night. Indeed, his new statement today seem to confirm that very reality."

Exactly right, and perfectly phrased !

Television news especially, because it is so
expensive to produce, will almost always be
controlled by corporate interests.

Internet news is exponentially superior to TV news.
Instead of a limited number of channels, there
are literally millions of sites with millions of
viewpoints. Internet news is so cheap to produce,
that you don't have to be a large corporation to
be able to afford it's production.


i agree that the form of this reported action is disturbing; (4.00 / 1)
but am i the only one who finds it hard to forget what the content is?  olbermann was being asked to stop calling billo the worst person in the world and other similar epithets.  of course roger ailes' motives were despicable, and GE's actions were highly objectionable, but (and maybe i'm in the minority here) i honestly don't care whether, in the future, olbermann pokes oreilly or not.  i always found that section particularly obnoxious, and their pissing match in general to make olbermann look childish.  

so, as much as i hate corporate control of news, i'm finding it hard to get exercised about this particular instance of corporate interference in journalism.  i suppose the principle of non-interference is worth fighting for whenever it is infringed upon.  except, i'd love for the bosses at GE to get the folks at MSNBC to ban the neo-racist Pat Buchanan from appearing on MSNBC shows, and i suspect that i'm not alone in that view.  and while they're at it, they could fire scarborough.  i don't so much mind corporate control of media for the fact that someone other than the olbermanns of the world choose their content, i mind it because the people placing limits on the content are basically all right wingers, of one variety or another.  if they were left wingers, and re-orienting the news to the left, i wouldn't be complaining too much.  maybe that is misguided of me, i don't know.      

i guess the point i'm getting at is that the entire media-scape is determined by corporate interests (which are by definition conservative), so it seems important that we keep perspective about the battles we choose to wage.  if we are honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge that this is more a symbolic battle than a realistic attempt to secure an independent (or progressive) TV media.  it  could, if successful, have a relatively tiny effect on corporate practices at MSNBC-GE (though certainly not at FOX).  maybe it is worth our time, i don't know...  


I basically agree (4.00 / 1)
As my comment below indicates. It's one thing for a corporation to exercize editorial discretion when a journalist is being obnoxious, rude, petty, vindictive, obsessive, etc. (i.e. the sorts of things that Fox would be exercizing editorial discretion over if it had any scruples), which I'm ok with, because it's about respecting the viewers, and the profession. But it's another thing entirely for it to do so when the reason is naked self-interest.

Telling a Buchanan to cut it with the racism, a Tweety with the sexism, or even an Olbermann with his obsessiveness over far-right blowhards (of course, behavior that isn't even in the same galaxy on the objectionable scale as the first two), is ok with me.

But telling a Williams or Olbermann to not report stories that reflect poorly on GE or one of its favorite Repubs is absolutely not ok. I'm not seeing that here, though.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
I'm having a hard time getting worked up over THIS issue (0.00 / 0)
Did Olbermann decide to stop attacking O'Reilly and Fox because his bosses as MSNBC and GE told him to, and if so was it because Fox was trying to blackmail GE, or because the back and forth was getting acrimonious and petty and becoming a silly and distracting sideshow in light of the much bigger issues in the news?

If it's the latter, then I don't see what the problem is. It WAS getting acrimonious and petty and becoming a silly sideshow that was taking away from coverage over bigger issues (like his previous obsessions with Michael Jackson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin), and I can see how they all decided that he should cool it.

If it's the former, though, then it absolutely is a big deal. A HUGE deal. But I'm just not getting the sense that, at least with respect to Olbermann, this is what happened. Maybe there was such a deal cut between GE and Fox, over blackmail, and GE lied to Olbermann about the real reasons for asking him to cool it. Olbermann might have a massive ego, but I just don't get the sense that he's a liar, or one to back down to such a demand by GE due to Fox's alleged blackmail. Not just for ethical reasons, but for ego reasons.

I don't have a problem believing that such a deal was cut between GE and Fox. In fact, I suspect that there was such a deal, knowing what bottom-feeding sleazes their execs can be. But I do have a problem believing that Olbermann was a knowing party to it. They may well have played him for a sucker, which might explain his unusually and uncharacteristically long absence from Countdown. There may well be more to this story than is currently disclosed.

I suspect that there is.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


What is it you're after by targeting a major voice of the Left... (0.00 / 0)
I love the three of you guys dearly but you're letting this petty shit detract from more important subjects.

I've heard what Olbermann said and I've watched Wolffe appear on Countdown for years - another honest voice we've too few of to destroy.

What motive underlies this bizarre chain of stories??

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


Deals -of all kinds -are how the world turns.. (0.00 / 0)
Does Olbermann get too carried away at times with the silliness?  I would suspect upon reflection he would admit that he does.

But I absolutely believe if anyone asked him to do anything other than ease up on the silliness - like change the content of a news story - he would tell them to go f*** themselves.  
And he's also got the balls to be honest enough to come out and tell the public exactly what the bosses asked of him and what he told them to do with their suggestion.

Go Keith and Richard and Rachel!

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
how honest of a voice is wolffe? (0.00 / 0)
he failed to disclose his new lobbying job, which is an obvious conflict of interest with his appearing on KO's show or hosting it.  KO claims that he was unaware of wolffe's new gig.  

i find the lack of disclosure extremely dishonest.


[ Parent ]
"Breaking News" (and Gluing it Back Together) (0.00 / 0)
You apparently don't keep up or stay tuned in.  Keith has just announced that Roger Ailes, the head honcho at Faux News, personally requested a meeting at MSNBC (or its parent company, NBC) to suggest a ban on stories about each other's programming.  It obviously fell on deaf ears.  But why would Ailes do that in the first place?  Could it be that Keith and Rachel are hurting Fox's ratings?  Inquiring minds want to know!

"Against stupidity even the angels fight in vain" --Schiller
"Respect for the rights of others is peace" -- Juarez


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search