MSNBC

Rachel Maddow Beats Hannity’s Media Bias Special

Posted by on April 25, 2011 at 11:33 pm. 5 Comments :

It’s time for the folks at Britannica to replace whatever picture they’ve been using to illustrate “poetic justice” and insert Rachel Maddow’s picture in its place.

Last Friday, Fox News broadcast a special episode of the Sean Hannity program that promised to get “Behind the Bias,” of what he called the liberal, Obama-mania media. What was truly special about the show is that it came in second place to Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC. Maddow beat Hannity in the key advertising demographic of 25-54 year olds. How fitting for Hannity to lose to a liberal on the night he thought he would be exposing them.

Hannity began the program by saying…

“Now, it is common knowledge that the mainstream media, from the major television networks to the country’s most influential newspapers, are biased against the GOP.”

Common knowledge? Sure it is. It is common in that it is unexceptional or of inferior quality. And it is knowledge in the same way that lemmings “know” to follow their fellow lemmings off the cliff.

Hannity provided nothing in the hour-long program to support his opening assertion of bias against the GOP. He certainly didn’t address the fact that the top Sunday news broadcasts have featured far more Republicans than Democrats. And he failed to note that all three broadcast networks are owned by giant, multinational corporations with predictably conservative leanings. And there was no mention that even newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post advance conservative themes like support for Wall Street and foreign wars. And, of course, he didn’t discuss the role of Fox News itself as the preeminent organ of institutional bias and its being a part of a conservative empire that includes the Wall Street Journal, 27 television stations, dozens of newspapers, Internet sites, and satellite broadcasting.

The show was mainly a collection of incidents that Hannity regarded as bias. However, that does not actually prove bias. It only catalogs it. And since Hannity makes no effort to catalog all incidents of bias, including those on the right, he proves nothing. Furthermore, there is a difference between cataloging random, subjective soundbites by individuals, and conducting an objective content analysis that looks at the whole institution of the media. Hannity doesn’t come anywhere near that sort of examination.

In short, Hannity’s program on bias was blatantly biased. It would be easy to collect twice as many examples of right-wing media disparaging the left as Hannity presented directed at Republicans. But what is even worse is that Hannity had to manufacture some of his evidence of bias.

For instance, he played a clip of Katie Couric saying “Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead.” Hannity left that sentence fragment hanging with the implication that it was Couric expressing her own opinion. Had he played the clip for a few seconds longer, his audience would have heard her say “The Gipper was an airhead. That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today.” She went on to say that the book’s conclusions were “startling” and that the author still thought Reagan was “a great president.” But Hannity chose to misrepresent a tiny slice of the comment in order to advance his phony premise.

It is heartening to know that Hannity’s hour of deceit was so poorly received. It is even more gratifying that he was beaten in the ratings by someone as conscientious and committed to honest discourse as Rachel Maddow.

Fox News Ignores Donald Trump’s NBC Ties

Posted by on April 25, 2011 at 1:42 pm. 1 Comments :

For much of the past decade Fox News has been a virulent opponent of NBC. They have severely lashed out at its news division and many of the hosts on their MSNBC cable arm. The attacks have ranged from NBC being in bed with President Obama to being responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.

Rupert Murdoch’s news empire has made it their mission to destroy NBC. In addition to castigating people like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, they aimed their vitriol at the executive suites. Bill O’Reilly famously called GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt “a despicable human being.” Meanwhile, Murdoch’s New York Post trades in gossipy articles about Olbermann’s mental health and even published his home address, a despicable act whose only purpose was to incite acts of violence.

That makes it all the more curious that Fox News has not said a single derogatory word about Donald Trump’s affiliation with NBC. Does Fox know that “The Apprentice” is an NBC program? This fact seems to have evaded their attention entirely. After so many years of lambasting NBC as a bastion of liberal propaganda, why do they suddenly have no complaints? In fact, why aren’t they praising NBC for employing one of their favorite conservative prospects for the GOP nomination for president?


The only place I have heard any criticism of NBC for its affiliation with Trump is on MSNBC. That’s a rather startling turn of events as it is almost unheard of for a network to permit such intramural attacks. But MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has been unrelenting in his denouncement of Trump’s show and of NBC for running it. He has noted its declining ratings and mocked its ludicrous presentation of iconic wackos like LaToya Jackson and Gary Busey. And O’Donnell was not the least bit reserved in saying that…

“The NBC standard for crazy people in their primetime schedule saying evil and hateful things…apparently you can do that on NBC.”

O’Donnell, like many others, believes that Trump’s prospective campaigning is only about ratings for his struggling program. If that’s true he is failing miserably. The last episode of Celebrity Apprentice drew 7.6 million viewers, down from 8.2 million the previous week and 9.7 million the week before that, right after he began his Birther spiel. That likely reflects the response of entertainment program viewers who are turned off by Trump’s politicking, particularly the ignorant, dishonest manner in which engages in it.

Both Fox and NBC are tiptoeing around whether their employees are de facto candidates for president. NBC is being coy about Trump even as he polls his Apprentice contestants on-air as to whether he should run (Meatloaf and Star Jones have endorsed him). Fox has suspended contributors Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich while permitting Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin to continue to exploit their Fox presence. [Note: Santorum and Gingrich have just one week to make their intentions known or Fox will cut them loose. No news on Huckabee or Palin]

But only Fox has demonstrated full-blown hypocrisy by completely avoiding the relationship between NBC and Trump, despite their prior obsession with bashing NBC. Could it be that they don’t want to hamper his idiotic promotion of Birtherism so that he can continue to disparage the President? Or are they just reluctant to draw attention to the fact that NBC isn’t as liberally biased as they pretend? Either way Fox is affirming their own dishonesty and lack of journalistic ethics. But then, that isn’t really news, is it?

Keith Olbermann To Launch Internet Venture?

Posted by on January 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm. 6 Comments :

Not 24 hours has elapsed since Keith Olbermann shocked the cable news world by announcing that Countdown has reached ignition and been lifted off the MSNBC schedule. And due to the vague explanations offered by the principals, the public is left to their imagination as to what happened.

Today The Wrap is reporting that the move was entirely driven by Olbermann’s desire to become an Internet media baron:

“With two years left on his $7 million a year contract, Olbermann was seeking a full exit package but he really has his eye on creating his own media empire in the style of Huffington Post.”

Why not? It seems like everybody’s doing it.

Back in the day Matt Drudge, a small-time scandal monger, began publishing his conjecture-laden tabloid, The Drudge Report. Then his spawn, the terminally choleric Andrew Breitbart, followed with his BigWhatever network of outright lie sites. Tucker Carlson, the Biggest Loser (who may hold the Guinness record for the number of times he’s been canceled) launched his Daily Caller. Former MSNBC chief Dan Abrams founded Mediaite. Even Glenn Beck jumped on the bandwagon and lit up The Blaze, an appropriate masthead for a purveyor of incendiary rhetoric.

Still the leader in this parade of personality-driven press is The Huffington Post. If Olbermann chooses this model for an online presence it could be profoundly rewarding. He has a built-in following that already resides in cyberspace. He would have no problem attracting investors. He could cover the issues that interest him most and would be free to appear on any television network to discuss the stories he breaks online.

One minor point, last year Tucker Carlson boasted that he had acquired the domain name, keitholbermann.com. It was a typically puerile act on Carlson’s part that was also brazenly hypocritical. Read the whole sordid story here. Olbermann may have to retrieve his name from Carlson, but that shouldn’t be difficult under the current regulations of the World Intellectual Property Organization, the agency governing such matters.

I, for one, would be thrilled to see the launch of the Olbermann Observer Online. But as with everything else that has been written about his future since the surprise announcement, this story is not verified by any authoritative source. Howard Kurtz is saying the separation was the inevitable result of frayed relations between Olbermann and MSNBC management (i.e. the reprehensible Phil Griffin). And the suggestion that Olbermann initiated the departure doesn’t square with his statement that he was “told” that last night was “going to be the last edition” of his show.

MSNBC has already announced schedule changes to shore up the Olbermann hole. Lawrence O’Donnell is moving up to Olbermann’s 8:00pm slot. Ed Schultz will go to primetime to replace O’Donnell at 10:00pm. And Cenk Uygur will fill in for Schultz at 6:00pm.

If it were up to me I’d make additional daytime adjustments as well. There is no reason for two episodes of Chris Matthews’ Hardball in the afternoon. His ratings certainly don’t warrant the real estate. I’d let him have 7:00pm and give the 5:00pm slot to recently retired congressman Alan Grayson, where he would be on opposite Glenn Beck. That’s a ratings war I’d love to see.

Keith Olbermann Quits MSNBC, Joins Fox News

Posted by on January 21, 2011 at 10:21 pm. 10 Comments :

* * * Psyche! * * *

Keith OlbermannA cable news bombshell was dropped this evening, but not the one in the headline above. And anyone who clicked on this article thinking it might be true should take a minute or two to have a little chuckle at your own expense.

The actual breaking news is that Keith Olbermann closed his program tonight with the announcement that it would be his last. That’s pretty shocking in and of itself. Countdown is the highest rated program on MSNBC. It has been the launching pad for the rest of the network’s primetime lineup and its ratings cornerstone. It isn’t often that a network will jettison its top fare without some compelling justification. Although it should be noted that MSNBC did it once before when they canceled the number-one-rated Phil Donahue Show. At that time it was conservative politics that precipitated the cancellation. One can only hope that it is not the same case here.

There has already been rampant speculation as to the reason for this split, most of it centering on the just-approved acquisition of NBC by the notoriously conservative folks at Comcast. I find it unlikely that the new management stepped in to abruptly set Olbermann adrift before they have even moved into their offices. But since speculation is the special of the day, I’ll add mine. Olbermann’s au revoir began with him noting that…

“I think the same fantasy has popped into the head of everybody in my business who has ever been told what I’ve been told: That this is going to be the last edition of your show.”

Keith Olbermann has always been an artful author who chooses his words carefully. In saying that he was “told” that this show was his last, it is fair to say that the decision to leave was not his own. So what sort of issue could get a popular news anchor canned on such short notice? Generally it is either something he did recently, or something he was about to do. And since there doesn’t appear to be any event in the recent past that might have gotten him in trouble, it is more likely that there was some conflict with where Olbermann wanted to go in the future. My guess is that he wanted to cover a major event in the world of television news: The Comcast acquisition of NBC.

If Olbermann were to produce a report on this merger, I would expect that he would insist on addressing the passionate opposition to it. Most progressive media reformers have been lobbying mightily to prevent the merger from going through. Coincidentally, today happens to be the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous support for corporations over people in the Citizen’s United decision. There may have been an irresistible temptation for Olbermann to comment on the loss of rights for average Americans resulting from the CU case in the context of a media merger which puts even more power into the hands of a giant corporation. And if Olbermann pitched this story to his bosses who are presently jockeying to keep their jobs post-merger, they may have forbade him to do the report. And that could possibly have led to a heated disagreement and a parting of ways.

[NOTE: Sign this petition from MoveOn to Support a Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Citizens United: Corporations Are Not People]

Phill GriffinOf course, this is just conjecture. No one will know what the real low down is until the parties involved spill the beans and, as of now, no one’s talking. However, it would be in line with the management philosophy of Olbermann’s boss, Phil Griffin, who is an admirer of Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News.

The biggest unanswered question after why is where. What will happen to Olbermann going forward. CNN stands as the biggest potential beneficiary. If the 3rd place network were able to snap him up it would deliver another million or so loyal viewers. But the hardest part of this to understand is how Olbermann, a caring, passionate, honest, progressive voice has lost his job, while Glenn Beck, a hostile, lying, egomaniacal, rodeo clown remains employed even after telling his viewers that to stop progressives “You’re going to have to shoot them in the head.”

It’s Time For Some REAL Liberal Media

Posted by on November 8, 2010 at 7:03 pm. 1 Comments :

The American media landscape has long been dominated by giant, multinational corporations whose interests have never been aligned with those of the people they purport to serve. It doesn’t take a great mental exertion to observe the divergent aspirations of a population that is concerned with jobs, education, health care, and the welfare of their families, and a business enterprise that is concerned with profits, deregulation, protected markets, and returning value to shareholders. A corporate-managed news operation simply cannot represent the interests of their Wall Street board and their Elm Street audience at the same time.

Over the years there have been some heated debates about the absence of a media platform that represents real people’s issues, particularly from a liberal perspective. The right has had Fox News for 14 years, but nothing remotely similar exists for the left. To the extent that MSNBC comes close, it is still not equivalent. MSNBC never took the explicit role of advocating for party politics in the all-consuming way that Fox does for the GOP. Not that I would want a liberal media outfit to take up with the Democrats. I’m just noting the distinction.

The recent controversy over the suspension of Keith Olbermann for making a few donations to Democratic candidates illustrates the inadequacy of having to rely on another right-wing, corporate parent to satisfy our media appetite. And it magnifies the differences between Fox and MSNBC. Fox would never contemplate removing their most successful anchors from the air over something like that. Fox doesn’t even contemplate reprimanding their anchors when they brazenly lie, overtly incite violence, or call our president a racist. But MSNBC had no qualms about imposing a severe and embarrassing punishment on someone whose political leanings were already well known. As Sen. Bernie Sanders said about the NBC/Comcast deal:

“We do not need another media giant run by a Republican supporter of George W. Bush. That is the lesson we should learn from the Keith Olbermann suspension.”

In the past, I have not been particularly enthusiastic about the idea of building a liberal media enterprise. Not because I don’t think it’s important, but because it would be prohibitively expensive to do it right. Air America is a sad example of what happens without sufficient support and capitol. There are many additional reasons to be pessimistic about such an enterprise, i.e. it would be a risky venture that would require a long-term commitment. Rupert Murdoch deficit-financed Fox News for at least five years; radio and cable channel access is scarce and difficult to acquire; bona fide talent, both on the air and in the executive suites, is hard to recruit; and building any business from scratch is fraught with fiscal danger and obstacles.

However, we may have an opportunity today that has not been available in the past. Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator is in the process of acquiring NBC/Universal. It is a merger that has raised red flags for many media watchdogs who are concerned about the concentration of power that has been getting progressively worse year after year. And Comcast is a conservative-run business that would further tilt the press to the right. Free Press and other reform groups are actively lobbying to oppose approval of the merger by federal agencies. And therein lies our opportunity.

Comcast wants very much to smooth the path for approval of their acquisition of NBC/U. So perhaps they could be persuaded to trade something of value for an agreement to drop opposition. What I would propose is that Comcast agree to divest itself of NBC News prior to the merger. Specifics of such a transaction would have to be worked out but would center around the divestiture of NBC’s news operations, the MSNBC cable network, CNBC, and the related Internet properties. Comcast would still get the NBC broadcast network, the lucrative USA cable network, Bravo, SyFy, and Telemundo. These networks form the basis of the syndication strategy for the NBC entertainment group. And, of course, they would also still have the NBC television station group and the Universal Studios and theme parks.

What makes this proposal viable is that the new media group splitting off is already a profitable business. It would not face the risks associated with building a business from scratch. It already has cable access to most of the country. And it is already staffed with proven talent and executives. MSNBC and CNBC are both profitable in their present form and would likely continue to be.

For this to work there would need to be an acquiring entity and financing. The money could come from a consortium that might include people like Ted Turner, Al Gore, George Soros, Steve Case, David Geffen, and/or Bill Gates. There’s no shortage of available billionaires. And ideally there would be an existing media enterprise that this could be folded into. Some examples might be Tribune, Gannett, or the Washington Post Company.

A requirement for agreeing to this would be a promise to appoint credible, progressive, experienced executives to run the news operations. It would be imperative that the management team be committed to quality, ethical journalism. It would have to be the sort of business that valued investigative projects and was unafraid of controversy. And it must be open to partnering with relevant and respectable media reform groups like Free Press, the Poynter Institute, the Schumann Center, the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center, Media Matters, etc.

By forming a new company in this fashion we would benefit by producing honest, progressive news content; by establishing a baseline for journalistic ethics; by not having to suffer the indignities of hare-brained lackeys like Phil Griffin, the man who suspended Olbermann and is likely already sucking up to his future conservative bosses at Comcast; and by preventing another media merger that would have exacerbated the problem of concentrated power in the press. And as for Comcast, they would benefit by easing their path to the acquisition of NBC/U. There may never be a better opportunity to negotiate a deal that could produce a real liberal media outlet – for a change. And that wouldn’t be a bad name for the channel: Real Media: For a Change.

None of this will be easy. The proposed merger is already a complex arrangement that could fall apart if someone pulls the wrong thread. But it would be worth exploring. If MSNBC is presently the only allegedly liberal news channel on the dial, then it shouldn’t have to cower in the shadow of right-wing masters who can slap them down if they get too uppity. They should have the freedom to express themselves without fear of reprisal. And if that environment can be created through a spinoff of the NBC news division, then it may be worth it to let the rest of the Comcast transaction go forward.

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

Posted by on November 6, 2010 at 11:24 am. 23 Comments :

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.

Phil Griffin: MSNBC’s Embeded Fox News Groupie

Posted by on November 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm. 3 Comments :

I was reminded of an article I wrote last May by a Twitterer who apparently knows my work better than I do. Below are a few choice excerpts that paint a clearer picture of the man that just put Keith Olbermann on suspension.

Phil Griffin Of MSNBC ♥’s Roger Ailes Of Fox News
 

Roger AilesPhil Griffin, president of MSNBC, was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune and provided an outstanding example of the sort of clueless, illogical, journalistic myopia that is rotting away the American press. When asked about his rival Roger Ailes at Fox News, he gave an almost fawning response that makes one wonder if they are really rivals at all.

“He’s changed media. Everybody does news differently because Roger’s changed the world. Roger early on figured it out and was brilliant.”

Indeed. Roger Ailes changed media – for the worse! His “brilliant” idea was to transform the news into a rancorous, talk-radio style, shoutfest that manufactured conflict and spun every story as far to the right as their ideological wheel could turn. The inspiration behind Fox’s brand loyalty is talk-radio, soap operas, and tabloid news vendors like the National Enquirer.

[…]

If Griffin really believes that his mission is to emulate Fox from the opposite end of the political spectrum, he will only succeed in further debasing the media. In addition, he will miss the opportunity to effectively compete in the cable news marketplace. He needs to realize that, not being a news network, Fox is no more his competition than is Nickelodeon (which I’ve said before is a better source than Fox for news and plays to a smarter audience).

[…]

If Griffin were to apply basic fundamentals of entertainment to a more journalistically ethical approach he could attract a much larger and more loyal audience. He needs to give news consumers a little more credit for being discriminating, skeptical, curious, and capable of understanding the issues that bear directly on their lives. The last thing we need is more of the cheapening of journalism that Ailes has proffered. And we certainly should not be honoring him for the damage he has already done.

Why does MSNBC have a president who idolizes Roger Ailes? He should not be a role model for anyone who reveres journalism and public service. If there is any justice in this world Olbermann will be back on the air next week and Griffin will be suspended for incompetence and a debilitating lack of vision.

Keith Olbermann Suspended For Acting Like Fox

Posted by on November 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm. 4 Comments :

MSNBC released this notice today regarding their primetime host, Keith Olbermann:

“Msnbc TV host Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely on Friday for making campaign donations to three Democratic congressional candidates, apparently in violation of NBC News ethics policy. “

Upon learning of Olbermann’s contributions MSNBC took swift and decisive action to reprimand the talk show host. Some people may argue about whether the punishment is too severe, but I have to commend the network for maintaining a strict policy of ethical conduct. If Olbermann worked for Fox News he would be getting a bonus for this.

No matter what your political leanings (forward or otherwise), you must be accountable for your actions and you must adhere to the standards established by your employer and the journalism community. For the record, here is the policy MSNBC has for its staff:

“Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee.”

Olbermann apparently did not obtain the required approval for his contributions. Of course, it is difficult to see how his donations would have “jeopardize[d] his…standing as an impartial journalist,” in as much as he has never portrayed himself as either impartial or a journalist. What’s more, MSNBC has not been consistent in the execution of their policy as they have permitted Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan to continue working despite having made numerous political contributions.

Nevertheless, MSNBC chief Phil Griffin suddenly feels compelled to make an example of Olbermann. MSNBC personnel simply cannot be allowed to behave as if they were on Fox News. Unless, that is, they actually ought to be on Fox News like Scarborough and Buchanan. If you are contributing to Republicans, Griffin has no problem with it. Perhaps he is kissing up to his new bosses at Comcast in advance. For the record, here is the policy Fox has for its staff:

“The prohibitions and limitations on political contributions outlined above relate only to the use of corporate funds and services and are not intended to discourage employees from making personal contributions to candidates or political parties of their choice. Personal involvement in political activity is permitted as long as the activity does not interfere with or impair the performance of the employee’s duties for the Company. In addition, any employee who becomes involved with a political group must make it clear that his or her activities are being conducted purely in a personal capacity and not on behalf of or in connection with the Company.”

So at Fox there is virtually no barrier for employees who wish to donate time or money to political concerns. And dozens of them take advantage of that freedom every day. Even worse, Fox personnel from Sean Hannity to Dick Morris to Greta Van Susteren and more actively solicited donations for their pet GOP candidates and causes. Glenn Beck came right out and asked his viewers to donate so much to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that it would become their biggest fundraising day ever. And we know that the corporation has no barriers either as News Corp was caught making multimillion donations to GOP organizations. The last thing we need now is for other media figures to adopt the standards (or lack thereof) of Fox News.

For that reason it is important to insure compliance with strict standards for ethical behavior. Olbermann is being held to those standards even if other MSNBC personnel are not. Such inconsistency would make Phil Griffin a candidate for Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World.” Lucky for him that Olbermann has been suspended (and Olbermann also recently suspended that segment).


There is no indication from MSNBC how long the suspension will remain in effect. It could, however, be a thorny issue for them. Olbermann’s Countdown is the number one show on the network. He has almost single-handedly thrust MSNBC into the number two slot ahead of CNN. It would be in the interest of the network to keep the suspension short. They may also run the risk of alienating Olbermann who may find greener pastures elsewhere. CNN would very likely give him anything he wanted, including his present time slot that CNN is wasting with Parker/Spitzer. And can you imagine the success that MSNBC would have if they moved Scarborough into the 8:00pm slot?

The reactions to Olbermann’s suspension are already reverberating throughout the blogosphere. Some are calling for boycotts of NBC/MSNBC. That would be stupid. Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Lawrence O’Donnell had nothing to do with this.

The most likely reason for Olbermann’s suspension probably has nothing to do with ethics or political contributions. It is almost certainly related to Phil Griffin’s lust for power. With Jeff Zucker out as network CEO and Comcast looming on the horizon, Griffin sees this as an opportunity to elevate his status. Olbermann represents the 800 pound gorilla at MSNBC and Griffin gets to knock him down a peg by exerting this show of authority. That would explain why Griffin never demonstrated any concern for other MSNBC personalities who did the same thing Olbermann did. They didn’t have any of the heft that Olbermann has and thus it would serve no purpose to bother with them.

While Olbermann may have made a mistake by contributing to candidates when it is against company policy to do so, the punishment is far in excess of the crime, and it has been wielded in a grossly unfair manner. Griffin is revealing himself to be unethical and power mad (or at best a sycophant to his incoming masters).

NBC/MSNBC needs to set aside this unnecessary controversy that only benefits their competition. Fox, and their cultist followers, are reveling in this soap opera. They will get significant mileage out of asserting that MSNBC is unethical while remaining oblivious to their own infractions. That’s what makes this such a idiotic play even if there is some technical justification for it.

In the end it is terrible for business and the executives at NBC/MSNBC have a fiduciary duty to advance the interests of shareholders. So have your little suspension, get it over with, and put Olbermann back on the air by Tuesday.

You can help to resolve this mess by expressing yourselves to Phil Griffin and Co. here:

212-664-4444
phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

[Update:] Nice work, people. MSNBC/Griffin fold. Olbermann will be back on the air Tuesday, just as I demanded. Wow…I have more clout than I thought.

Uh Oh. CNN Takes A Sharp Turn Toward Hell

Posted by on September 25, 2010 at 1:50 pm. 4 Comments :

Remember the old days when CNN was the dominant cable news network? Or the even older days when it was the only cable news network? I didn’t think so. It was a long time ago. Viewers today don’t appreciate how remarkable an achievement it was to launch a 24 hour news channel when nothing like it existed at the time.

Whether or not you like Ted Turner, you have to give him credit for being a pioneer, although given the state of cable news today, I’m not sure he’d want the credit/blame. However, he recognized the unique environment in which his experiment was born, and he further recognized the changes that took place in subsequent years that preclude anyone from ever doing the same (see My Beef With Big Media).

Now CNN is mired in third place, overtaken by a bombastic, right-wing, agenda-driven, Fox News, and a lukewarm, marginally liberal, MSNBC. So it should come as no surprise that the brass at CNN would be looking to shake things up in hopes of recovering their glory days. To that end, yesterday CNN announced that its president, Jon Klein, would be leaving the network. That, in and of itself, would appear to be a routine response to poor performance in the marketplace. The problem here is not that Klein is leaving. It’s who they are elevating to his post that is worrisome.

Ken Jautz, presently the head of CNN’s HLN (formerly known as Headline News Network) has been tapped to replace Klein. He is a brash, iconoclastic, executive who is more interested in ratings than journalism. But perhaps the most disturbing item on Jautz’s resume is that he is the man who brought Glenn Beck to HLN, and to television. Looking back at that millstone in broadcast media is one of the best ways of getting a handle on what may be in store for a Juatz-run CNN. Here is what he had to say upon hiring Beck back in January of 2006:

“Glenn Beck is the next piece of the puzzle,” said HLN prexy Ken Jautz. “Glenn’s style is self-deprecating, cordial; he says he’d like to be able to disagree with guests and part as friends. It’s conversational, not confrontational.”

If Beck is Jautz’s idea of cordial, I hope never to meet anyone he considers to be rude. What’s more, Beck is not known for having guests with whom he disagrees, friendly or otherwise. And the notion that he is not confrontational is absurd on its face. Calling the President a racist; charging that progressives are a cancer; tagging anyone with whom he disagrees a Marxist; declaring his hatred for Woodrow Wilson as well as 9/11 families; these are not behaviors generally associated with being non-confrontational. Jautz went on to say…

“As part of the continued evolution of the network, we wanted another primetime show,” Jautz said. “We didn’t look for a conservative, a liberal or anyone of a particular ideology. It was about getting the best talent that would resonate with the most viewers.”

Well then, it’s a good thing he wasn’t actually looking for a conservative. He would have ended up with a modern version of Attila the Hun (or did he anyway?). It should also be noted that his desire to find the “best talent” who would “resonate” with viewers, was unfulfilled. Beck’s show was a dismal ratings failure on HLN. He would not be a success until he moved to Fox News with its built-in audience of pre-cooked FoxBots.

Given the remarks Jautz made when taking over HLN and bringing Beck into the fold, it is fair to say that he was somewhat disingenuous with regard to his public appraisals. And he was similarly disingenuous in private. In the book “Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck And The Triumph Of Ignorance,” author Alexander Zaitchik noted that Jautz mislead his employers at the time as to his intentions in reforming the channel:

“Facing a staff weary of rumored changes, Jautz gently presented Blue Sky [his programming initiative] as a trial balloon. He promised that CNN standards would not be diluted in the makeover and that soon-to-be-hired Headline News personalities would not appear on traditional CNN news programming. He broke both promises.”

Indeed he did. Glenn Beck not only appeared on CNN, he was permitted to fill in as a guest host on Larry King Live. Taking into consideration the duplicity of Jautz’s comments when he assumed command of HLN, it might be prudent to take note of what he is saying now with regard to his promotion at CNN. Jautz was interviewed by The Wrap and said…

Q: Can we expect a tone change, or any sort of ideological shift?
A: I think that CNN needs to be as lively and engaging and as informative as it is known for its reporting.

Whatever that means.

Q: For a long time, Jon Klein resisted any sort of partisan programming — especially as expressed by the hosts. Can we expect to see more opinions — or at least opinionated hosts — under your watch?
A: CNN has always been about adhering to non-partisan programming in general. And it will continue to be.

However, I do not believe that “facts-only” programming … it will not work. Viewers, if they’re looking for just the news, they can get that anywhere now. The news that happened that day, they probably know already. They want context, perspective and opinion. And we’re going to give that to them. As long as it’s non-partisan, in the aggregate, from all ends of the spectrum.

In other words, we will continue to be non-partisan except when we’re being opinionated. And none of those pesky “facts” that clutter up the news.

Jautz did improve the standing of HLN. But he did it by ramping up the volume with shouters like Beck and Nancy Grace, and by diving head-first into the tabloid world of pop culture and celebrity gossip. Could that approach help to restore CNN’s prior leadership? Who cares? It isn’t what anyone who truly cares about responsible journalism would want.

And that’s the problem with contemporary corporate media: It is more interested in serving the shareholders than in serving the public. Unless Jautz has recently had a revelatory transformation, CNN has taken a giant step backwards by giving him the reins to the network. The prospect of the man who launched Glenn Beck’s television career running a cable news network is troubling, to say the least.

In related news, NBC/Universal has announced that it’s chief executive, Jeff Zucker, will also be leaving his post. This is an entirely different situation than the one at CNN. NBC is presently the number one network in evening news, morning news, and Sunday news. CNBC is still the top business channel. Plus, under Zucker’s reign, MSNBC moved up from third place to second. The staffing change at NBC is due to its imminent acquisition by Comcast. It remains to be seen who will be replacing Zucker.

Sometimes these sort of changes are merely shifts designed to put a new management’s imprint on the merged entity. But Comcast has baggage that makes it important to keep an eye on them. And they will have an unprecedented range of influence as a result of the merger. Stay tuned.

America Hates The Media – Thank You Fox News

Posted by on August 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm. 5 Comments :

A new survey by the Gallup organization reveals that Americans have all but given up on old media services like newspapers and television. Only about 25% of respondents say that they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in either. This puts the legacy media on a par with perennially hated institutions like banks, HMOs and congress.

It isn’t difficult to surmise the reason for this deep distrust. While the media has long been held in low esteem, there was a noticeable decline that began in the mid-1990s. Since that time confidence has dropped about 30%. And just as a point of interest, Fox News launched in 1996.

There isn’t really anything coincidental about it. Fox News has always had as its purpose the discrediting of news as an institution. I made the case for this last year in Fox News Confidential: The Truth Behind Its Secret Mission:

The real mission of Fox News is [cue trumpets] to so thoroughly tarnish the practice of journalism that majorities of the public would recoil in disgust at all of it. Murdoch and Ailes knew that the introduction of a single cable network would have a difficult time enshrouding the whole of the mediasphere in their veil of lies. So rather than try to change people’s minds, they would endeavor to poison the relationship that people have with the press.

Mission accomplished. By trivializing journalism with tabloid-style sensationalism, and diluting its authority with speculation and hyperbolic opinion, Fox has succeeded in producing large majorities of the American public who are now repulsed by the “mainstream” media that barges into their homes every day. The lies Fox News spews are secondary to the campaign of defamation that they launched against the media as a whole. As a result, their fictional accounts of current events are more enduring because people are paying less attention overall.

The saddest part of this scenario is that the non-Fox media have essentially cooperated with Fox’s disparagement of them. Rather than defend themselves and the integrity of their profession, they went along and allowed Fox to create the negative impressions that are now dominant in society. Even worse, they actually helped to reinforce those impressions.

The Washington Post apologized for not covering more of the fakery of Andrew Breitbart. CNN bent over backwards to endorse the wacko wing of the right by hiring RedState’s Erick Erickson. MSNBC continues to host disreputable characters like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. And everybody persists in covering non-entities like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. With respect to the latter, Sarah Palin just came in fourth (pdf) amongst Republicans in a preference poll for 2012. And the Tea Party registered a measly (pdf) 30% favorable rating with an even smaller percentage (25%) saying they would vote for a candidate with a Tea Party affiliation. Yet these two subjects get wall-to-wall coverage across the media spectrum.

Perhaps if newspaper and television reporters would cover issues that actually address the interests of their audience they would not be so universally reviled. If they could manage to resist the melodramatic minutiae that Fox News has embraced they could recover some of their lost respect. And above all they need to put objectivity and honesty at the top of their agenda, not ratings and revenue.

In other words, if they deliver a product that is informative and useful, and contributes to people’s lives, profits and popularity will follow. If they continue to pursue the Fox model they will only succeed in further damaging their reputation and their prospects for the future. To say nothing about the damage they are doing to a country whose democracy relies on a well-informed population.