Rachel Maddow On Keith Olbermann: Here’s The Larger Point…

Keith Olbermann’s suspension from MSNBC for making a couple of political donations without getting prior approval from the network bosses has set media tongues to wagging. However, the real story here is not what Olbermann did, but what other hosts and networks (i.e. Fox News) do regularly without shame or consequence. Rachel Maddow summarizes it nicely:

Here’s the larger point, though, that’s going mysteriously missing from the right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking: I know everyone likes to say, “Oh, cable news, it’s all the same. Fox and MSNBC — mirror images of each other. But if you look at the long history of Fox hosts not just giving money to candidates, but actively endorsing campaigns and raising millions of dollars for politicians and political parties — whether it’s Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or Mike Huckabee — and you’ll see that we can lay that old false equivalency to rest forever. There are multiple people being paid by Fox News to essentially run for office as Republican candidates. If you count not just their hosts but their contributors, you’re looking at a significant portion of the entire Republican lineup of potential contenders for 2012. They can do that because there’s no rule against that at Fox. Their network is run as a political operation. Ours isn’t.


The deep collusion between Fox News and the GOP is there for all to see if they just open their eyes. The sad thing is that most of the audience, even Fox fans, are aware of this cozy relationship. In fact, Fox’s audience actually approves of it, insists upon on, and takes pride in it. It’s the media that is willfully and woefully blind.

Much of the old-school press goes out of their way to defend Fox as if it were a credible source of news. They did so after former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn correctly called Fox “the communications arm of the Republican Party.” They did so after a false allegation was raised regarding Fox being denied access to a White House event. They did so when controversy erupted surrounding the seating arrangements in the White House briefing room after the departure of Helen Thomas.

When will the Conventional Media recognize that Fox is NOT a news network? When will they report the truth about the collusion between Fox and their partisan pals in the GOP? When will they wise up to the fact that while they are propping up Fox, Fox is slandering them? I previously wrote an article that asked the question: Who’s Afraid Of Fox News? (The answer: The Rest Of The Media!). Fox regularly smears their competitors in the most hostile terms yet rarely has to take a return punch. Their very slogan, “Fair and Balanced,” is an insult that implies their rivals are unfair and biased.

So when do they fight back? To date they have exhibited the courage of a flock of ostriches. The “larger point” that Maddow raises has been looming over the mediasphere for years and it is far past time for them to defend themselves, to defend ethical journalism, and to advance the interests of the public they purport to serve. If the Olbermann affair can shine a light on the brazen politicking of Fox News and incite an uprising of truth-telling with regard to it, this whole messy melodrama might actually end up being worth it.

Advertisement:

23 thoughts on “Rachel Maddow On Keith Olbermann: Here’s The Larger Point…

  1. Here’s a link to Fox’s new promo that asks “Does it matter?”

    The gist of this campaign is to dissuade viewers from watching anything but Fox. They want to be the only voice you ever hear.

    • No thanks on clicking the link. But I see from the status bar on the bottom left that it has something to do with FOX’s ratings, so I guess it argues that crushing the competition justifies their tricks of the trade.

      • Exactly. Fox regards ratings as a measure of quality. But I like to point out that…

        McDonalds is the #1 restaurant in America. That doesn’t mean that it has the best food. What it has is cheap crap that is loaded with filler and seasoning to appeal to the largest number of consumers with the least sophisticated taste. Which also happens to be Fox’s business model.

  2. “Their network is a political operation. Ours isn’t…”

    Rachel Maddow lied. That was driven home on election night. Fox News covered the elections with the exact same formula as CNN; the show was hosted with anchors from the hard news division, coupled by several commentators both conservative and liberal. Not so with MSNBC. No bona fide newscaster anywere to be found, just left-wing opinionators. MSNBC’s credibility is non-existent.

    “When will the Conventional Media that Fox News is NOT a news network?…”

    They recognize that it is. Even with people like Bill Press and Ed Schultz actually being allowed in the Briefing Room. Think about that little factoid next time you lecture the rest of us about Jeff Gannon.

    • Apples and oranges…

      Fox’s anchors on election night were just as biased as MSNBC. The difference is that MSNBC doesn’t try to pretend that they don’t have opinions.

      Megyn Kelly is worse than Glenn Beck. She is overtly and aggressively partisan. And the menagerie of so-called “Fox Democrats” they trot out are ridiculous. Fox still identifies Pat Caddell and Dick Morris as Dems.

      And if you really think that Bill Press (former chair of the CA Dem Party) is equivalent to Jeff Gannon (former male prostitute), I really don’t know how to help you.

    • Faux News doesn’t even have a hard news division. Thanks for a good laugh.

      • To Fox “hard news” is news that’s difficult to spin to the right.

  3. Sorry Scott, but I’m not drinking your FAUX retard tea even if we are related by marrage. FAUX has never been about “news” to me, but unlike the rest of you knuckledragging crybabies, I simply do not watch it. Never have. Never will. No matter how many inbred, red neck right wing morons get their brain from FAUX, I’m not one of them. And have no fear. I’m actually inbred. My parents were related before marrage. I, in turn, married my second cousin and we have a beautiful little spit-dribbling baby we call Palin. I’ve always voted against my self interestes, and the family eats lead based paint chips at least twice a week and only shops at wal-Mart because I won’t buy anything made in America. I voted for George Bush becasue I wnted my president to actually be dumber than I am and he failed the country so wondefully that I’ll vote for the teenage cum dumpster’s empty headed moron mother in 2012. I’m exactly like you are, except for one thing. I realize FAUX has never been a “news” source. Please, stop sniffing your own turds from a bucket. It can be harmful to your obviously as small as mine is brain. Take it from me – A guy so incredibly stupid and worthless, he’s from the south, weights well over 450 pounds, eats nothing but dollar menue food and proudly collects his disability check because I’m too fat and stupid to ever hold a job. You know. Just like you and most of the FAUX news viewers are. We’re exactly the same, brother!

  4. “Fox’s anchors were just as biased…”

    Lie. The case against Megyn Kelly is laughable. And you conveniently didn’t mention Bret Baier.

    “And the menagerie of Fox Democrats…”

    Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Joe Trippi (former staffer for Howard Dean) – all of them bonafide liberal Democrats. But because they don’t spew hate like Joy Behar, some yahoos think they aren’t really liberals. What rot.

    Bill Press and Ed Schultz don’t deserve press credentials because they aren’t reporters. Pure and simple.

    “…I really don’t know how to help you…”

    I don’t need your help. And tell your relatives to stop taking up pseudonyms like Cletis.

    • When you simply state that something I’ve said is a lie, without supporting it, you just sound like an idiot. And I’m not saying that to insult you, but to help you avoid embarrassing yourself further.

      I could have just as easily made a case about Bret Baier, but honestly, I don’t exert much energy responding to you because you rarely reply with anything of substance.

      I’ll give you Bob Beckel. He does attempt to challenge the FoxPods on occasion. But Williams and Trippi are complete sellouts. Would you describe David Brock (founder of Media Matters) as a Republican just because he was one many years ago?

      If you don’t like who gets credentialed you’ll have to take it up with the WHCA. But that still doesn’t excuse the asinine comparison between Press and Gannon.

    • Scott, while I agree that MSNBC did themselves no favors assuaging criticism of election night bias, you’ll have to point out to me where the equivalent Fox News commentator is held to the kind of ethical standard Olbermann was held to. Hannity, who like Olbermann is opinion (not news) gave how many hours of free air time to Republican candidates with zero time for their opponents? And Megyn Kelly? AYFKM? Her tone and and bias are so extremely evident with every partisan story she does.

  5. This is NOT the same thing as FOX “News” – KO is not a network and he didn’t give $1 million to a political organization, he’s never raised money on his broadcast nor suggested his viewers give money to a political party or candidate. I don’t see why journalists are not allowed to make personal donations. They are not robots. They only things I would object to would be shilling for personal monetary gain, such as Glenn Beck selling gold coins, or shilling for the Dem party coffers, as the Fox guys do for the GOP, neither of which are the case.

  6. Rachel is always crying about Fox. Always. She is a real sadsack. Obviously Fox and MSNBC have different standards. Does Rachel not understand that? Her viewship is so low that everything she says is irrelevant. She’s lucky she has a job.

    • “Rachel cries” is about as Newspeaky (the opposite of truth) as I’ve ever seen. She not only demolishes the fauxes – faux populists, faux networks, faux Democrats – she does so with humor and, yes, laughter. She also earns her job and then some.

  7. Mark continues to ignore the unavoidable hypocrisy spewed by Rachel Maddow: If you want to be considered an actual news operation, then your Election Night coverage absolutely has to include bonafide newscasters, and MSNBC had none, zero, zilch. So Maddow lied.

    “Williams and Trippi are sellouts…”

    You mean Juan Williams and Joe Trippi voted for McCain? You’re sounding sillier with each entry. So you sound like an idiot.

    • OK, I’m officially bored by your denseness.

      Maddow said EXPLICITLY that MSNBC hosts have opinions. She does not run away from that. However, they operate as a news operation in that their opinions are based on facts and they do not shill for candidates or parties. Maddow was COMPLETELY honest about that.

      Only Fox lies about their phony non-partisanship. They deny it even exists while they give a platform for Republicans and Tea Baggers. They allow their guests to fund raise on the air, in fact, they do it themselves. And their lies are based on fiction (i.e. the $200,000,000 per day visit to India by the President) Olbermann made some donations but he never asked his audience to do so.

      And as a right-winger you are not the one who gets to decide who represents the left. Neither is Fox News. You simply don’t have the same perspective. And your notion that Williams and Trippi are speaking for me or other liberals demonstrates how little you know about it. I wouldn’t presume to tell you what right-wingers speak for you.

  8. I don’t care if you are bored. And if you are bored by some non-existent condition, that’s your problem.

    “…MSNBC’s opinions are based on facts…”

    The lies on MSNBC reach into the stratosphere. Two recent examples: Olbermann spewed that FNC’s Brian Kilmeade said all Muslims are terrorists. He said no such thing. Also, Ed Schultz actually told his tiny little audience that attendance at the ACT rally was “rooughly equal” to the Restoring Honor rally. All photographic evidence shows that Schult’s rally was only one-third, maybe one half the size of Beck’s rally.

    “…$200,000,000 visit to India…”

    Bill O’Reilly did a segment on that last Friday, and he said the figure was bogus.

    “…as a right-winger you are not the one who gets to decide who represents the left…”

    So what gives you the right to decide who represents the right? Are you actually arguing that you alone get to decide who is liberal and who is conservative?

    “I wouldn’t presume to tell you what right-wingers speak for you…”

    You do it every day. A new level of hypocrisy. Jeepers.

      • Your reality is gonna throw Scott for a loop.

    • O’Reilly didn’t buy into the phony India story, but it was all over Fox News and Fox Nation.

      And when did I ever tell you what right-wingers speak for you?

      With your lies about Kilmeade, India and who speaks for whom, you have now gone off into the delusional.

      I wonder why you even bother to comment here so much.

  9. Again, Brian Kilmeade did NOT say that all Muslims are terrorists:

    olbermannwatch.com/archives/2010/11/day_4_still_no.php#comments

    Don’t rely on Media Matters. Or Olbermann, for that matter. And I did not lie.

    • Can you rely on KILMEADE’S OWN WORDS? He said…

      There was a certain group of people that attacked us on 9/11. It was not just one person, it was one religion.

      But even if you dismiss that, Kilmeade later said that “all Muslims aren’t terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” That’s patently and insanely false, and he had to apologize and retract it.

      Seriously, you are delusional.

  10. Let the record show that the link I provided to Olbermann Watch has been disabled for some reason. Afraid of the truth getting out?

Comments are closed.