Good Riddance?

To be sure, Keith Olbermann will be back.

Where? Who knows. Who will take him? Would you?

There are likely multiple reasons why MSNBC unceremoniously dumped Mr. Olbermann so suddenly: disagreements with management; Olbermann’s suspension late last year over his political contributions to Democratic candidates; the imminent take-over of NBC Universal by Comcast; even, possibly, that Olbermann’s ratings were in danger of upset by his own popular MSNBC colleagues, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.

The list could probably go on. Officially, Comcast denies that Mr. Olbermann was dumped due to any of its influence, but it seems too much of a coincidence that the firing occurred so close to the announcement of the US government approval of the merger.

Maybe Mr. Olbermann’s ungracious fall is all related to the recent criticism of the pugilistic and rhetoric-driven nature of “opinion TV,” a negative light brought about by – among other events – Jon Stewart’s recent Rally to Restore Sanity and the horrific events in Tucson. Not likely, but one could hope. Other than the few moments when the hot rhetoric cooled off a bit after Tucson, we fully expect the negativity on the airways to continue and to generate high ratings on network and cable television. In an interesting twist, it was a political contribution to Ms. Giffords that resulted in Mr. Olbermann’s suspension last year.

So, we are left to ruminate and speculate about what happened at MSNBC and what is next for the TV personality. Mr. Olbermann has been prevented from speaking publicly about the ouster, and he has some restrictions as to what he can do next (ala Conan O’Brien deal with NBC).

Despite the tone of my earlier post about MSNBC, there was value to having Mr. Olbermann spouting his view on television every night. My whole point was that MSNBC should not pretend that they are too much different from Fox News. Just as the conservatives, Tea Partiers and other assorted characters need their daily dose of Hannity, Beck and Palin, it is important for the Left to have its own fighters and opinion-hawkers. MSNBC provided a strong balance. While CNN is often accused of being in service to the Left, their valiant – but unsuccessful – attempt to claim the Middle is very clear when you place the three networks together. Just look at the MSNBC line-up – Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow and O’Donnell. Talking about the “Lefty” assault brigade! But that was the whole point, right (or Left)? MSNBC ratings sky-rocketed the more opinionated its programs became. No surprise, reports are that Lawrence O’Donnell will take over the “Countdown” slot for MSNBC with his own program, “The Last Word.” No word yet of any other changes at MSNBC.

So what about Mr. Olbermann? Although he was a necessary defender of all things liberal, he too often came across as arrogant, spiteful and obsessed. Like too many other TV opinion-makers, he focused too many assaults on his competitors in the media. Sometimes it sounded like no more than a fearful rant against people with higher ratings. Every week that went by seemed to have Mr. Olbermann carrying on-and-on about Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity or one of the other Fox News commentators. That turned really old, really quickly. Viewers of Mr. Olbermann’s show already knew the deficiencies of the Fox News line-up; they did not need the constant reminders. True liberal commentary is much better spent on addressing topics of policy, politics and human rights. We want to hear about what the government is or is not doing for the people of this country; not who over at Fox was the most senseless of the bunch. Maybe it helped his ratings, but Mr. Olbermann did a disservice to the liberal agenda by focusing on the people rather than the policies.

Good riddance, yes – but come on back when you are ready to fight the good fight.

Update (1/23/2011): another article on what lead to the divorce from MSNBC…he was apparently a pain in the tuches…what a surprise!

Update (1/24/2011): a blog post that really tries to differentiate MSNBC, specifically Mr. Olbermann, from Fox, specifically Glenn Beck. Even though the post is full of way too many parenthetical comments (really), the blog post is a good one. However, the poster still gives too much credence to the concept that Mr. Olbermann’s were always based on facts and Mr. Beck’s never are based on reality. Both commentators mix truth and opinion too closely together. That said, I would absolutely agree that Mr. Olbermann is no Glenn Beck.

“Death Panels” Make a Comeback – We are Better Off with Them

So here we go again. The government, in trying to make some actual progress, is being hobbled by the potential negative influence of media outlets (namely, Fox News) and groups like the John Birch Society.

Appears as though the Obama Administration is trying to enact regulations in 2011 which will allow doctors and patients to engage in critical discussions regarding end-of-life decisions. The regulations will provide Medicare compensation to support these discussions, and the administration is taking the principled stand that these discussions are important.

However, according to one story, supporters of this move are trying to keep it somewhat quiet because they fear they will stoke the flames that raged when Mr. Obama tried to get this compensation into the health care legislation passed in 2009. What happened in 2009? Based on an initial statement by Sarah Palin and the immediate support she received, opponents of the health care law began to suggest that Mr. Obama and his “socialists” were trying to convene “death panels” which would decide who lives and who dies. Despite the fact that even Senator Grassley – no fan of Mr. Obama – admitted that such a concept was not part of the legislation (see video here), the rumors persisted. Mr. Obama had no choice but to remove this vital service from the legislation. Knowing what is right, however, has compelled the administration to execute a regulation that our legislators did not have the moxie to enact.

So why are supporters of the new regulations trying to fly under the radar on this?

Discussions like this or like this, on the so-called Fair-and-Balanced Fox News, will continue to distort the truth and confuse the people with the term “death panel.” Those same media outlets and related conservative organizations (and their puppet politicians) will continue to sow the insinuation that somehow the government will compel people to literally make choices between life and death. So much for reasoned and honorable debate.

My mom died on January 27, 2010. Her passing was certainly a very emotional event and a part of my life that I will never forget. Of course, you never forget the passing of your parent, and that is because it is traumatic, emotional and so final. All of the things she did for me come back in my memory and I realize (too late?) what a great influence she was on my development and progress in life. However, in this case, my mom’s passing was made more palatable by the fact that we (as a family) had discussed end-of-life options long before the final moment. In fact, between my parents, their doctors, and all of my siblings, we had a pretty good handle on my mom’s wishes, the medical options, and the alternative choices. Bottom line – we were well-informed.

That – in its essence – is what the Obama administration is trying to provide….a well-informed medical community and client population. We should all have the “luxury” of being able to walk through very gut-wrenching decisions and end-of-life discussions with this full knowledge and understanding. Such knowledge and understanding should be covered by medical insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid or the best private insurance in the world. If we cannot have those discussions, or they can only be had by the ones who can afford them, we are doing a significant disservice to our human population and the values that hold this country together.

AMENDED Jan 5: unfortunately, politics, administrative process and an unwillingness of the Obama administration to stand up to the Republicans has pulled this regulation from the Medicare books. Too bad, really too bad. See here.

Joel Klein to Leave Helm of N.Y. Schools – But Where is He Going?

The real story here is that Joel Klein is leaving NYC schools to head up a “strategy” at News Corporation to get the company into “the education marketplace.” Hmmm, Fox News in the education business…just what we need.

Hearst Official to Replace Klein at Helm of N.Y. Schools – NYTimes.com.

Sorry MSNBC, You are More Like a Fox than a Peacock

Do not get me wrong. If given a final choice, I would take MSNBC over Fox News any day. No issue there. Why? Because MSNBC is closer to my world view than Fox News…by a long shot.

But please, MSNBC, do not pretend that you are all that uniquely different than Fox News when it comes to your prime-time lineup and how you handle the news and commentary. Your key nightly lineup – Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell – should not be mistaken for balanced commentators, and their regular assaults on conservatives, the Republicans and Fox News clearly place them near and dear to the hearts of liberals. But isn’t that why we watch them? Their color, viewpoints and comments add a certain juice to the news and are a nice balance to the insanity spouted by O’Reilly, Sustern, Stossel and Hannity.

So what prompted this post and my attempt to put MSNBC and Fox News int he same sentence? Initially, it was MSNBC’s decision to “indefinitely” suspend Mr. Olbermann for donating money to three Democratic political campaigns without asking for permission, an action that is apparently against the policies of MSNBC’s parent company, NBC News. This seemed like an odd move on MSNBC’s part given the host’s outspoken liberal tendencies, but we can understand that a policy is a policy. News that MSNBC quickly ended Olbermann’s suspension was no surprise since the action sparked such a great controversy. But it was Rachel Maddow’s commentary on her own show that really perked my ears. She used the suspension to distinctively differentiate MSNBC from Fox News, but in the same breath said that Obermann’s suspension should be lifted (the “point has been made”). Granted, her valiant trashing of Sean Hannity’s explicit political endorsements was very nice to see and should not be forgotten. She also bashed Republican fundraising activities by Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, but muddled the fact that these are done outside of their duties as Fox News hosts. While clearly Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee engage in political fundraising, that is done in the “other jobs.” On the air, they are no more conservative and outspoken than Ms. Maddow is liberal and outspoken. Ms. Maddow clearly called Fox News a “political organization” while MSNBC is a “new organization.” Obviously, to Ms. Maddow, one is lower than the other.

I have no doubt that Fox News peddles a specific political viewpoint, and various commentators, guests and news stories help espouse that viewpoint. Some even give money to support these viewpoints. No doubt. But Ms. Maddow should not use her pulpit to seemingly place herself in the realm of Cronkite, Brokaw and Jennings. If I want news, I go to the BBC, The New York Times or (increasingly less) CNN. If I want rightist spin on that news, I watch O’Reilly or Fox News Sunday. If I want the liberal spin, I tune into Ms. Maddow or Mr. Olbermann. The fact that they are not allowed to give money makes no difference. Actually, I would be surprised if Ms. Maddow did not contribute in some way to her own particular world view. And you know what, that’s perfectly respectable and expected.

 

[Amended: some good commentary]

In Defense of NPR, Free Speech and Juan Williams – but not Fox News

Another prominent TV news personality finds his contract rescinded due to a verbal gaffe based on his own imagination. First it was Rick Sanchez at CNN who had some choice words about Jews and news executives. Now we find that a very well-respected news analyst, Juan Williams, who has been running double-duty on NPR and Fox News over the last few years, expressed some very personal views about Muslims. He was summarily fired by NPR, without an opportunity to fully express his regret. When given the opportunity, he confirmed his personal fears about Muslims on airplanes – but he continued to try to deny that these views were based on prejudice and bigotry.

His personal views spilled out when his host, Bill O’Reilly, asked Mr. Williams to address the situation around the “Muslim dilemma” – a phrase used by Mr. O’Reilly. Essentially, this “dilemma” arises over the feeling that since Muslims perpetrated 9/11, how can we feel safe around them? Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. O’Reilly and went on to express a concern about how he feels when he sees airplane passengers in “Muslim garb” – Mr. Williams feels fear because they are expressing their faith in public and it reminds him of 9/11. Ooops. He failed to mention that not a single hijacker wore “Muslim garb” when boarding those planes.

There are many layers to this story, but those layers are infinitely more complex because Mr. Williams uttered his statements on the Fox News program, “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Not surprisingly, Mr. O’Reilly has taken Mr. Williams’s firing as a “cause celebre” and tagged it with visions of censorship and liberal bias. We can thank Fox News for once again taking a difficult story and turning it into a journalistic sideshow. So, here we go, Bill O’Reilly has yet been given another opportunity to grandstand and showboat his way to the airwaves, and that becomes part of the story despite the fact that the news media is supposed to remain above the story, right?

Watch the full O’Reilly/Williams interview here:

So, maybe we all have this slice of bigotry somewhere in us, and maybe we even have some of the same thoughts as Mr. Williams when we walk on airplanes or in the mall or on the street. By all means, since we are in the United States of America, we have the right to express those views and to tell people what we think. We respect Mr. Williams’s right to speak freely. But we also reserve the right to judge Mr. Williams because of what he says.

In that vein, NPR, as well as Fox News and any other media outlet, has the right to hire and manage staff in support of its journalistic ethics and decorum. So, because his position at NPR was that of news analyst, not editorial commentator, NPR has the right to show him the door. Plain and simple.

Should NPR have handled this differently? Sure, and it is not surprising that a review of the decision-making process has raised issues with some of management’s decisions. At least NPR has the ethical backbone to question their own practices. But to listen to Fox News go on about “censorship” and to hear Mr. Williams (after the firing) talk about a liberal “gulag” at NPR is taking it to an extreme level of rhetoric that fits Rupert Murdoch’s disposition. In quick fashion, Fox News took up the banner with conservative politicians about de-funding public radio. Please! Go find another source for your tax cut for people earning $250K+! Public radio finances are not as reliant upon federal funding as is reported.

Mr. Williams had been walking a fine line as NPR analyst and Fox News commentator, and this conflict was bound to get him into hot water. His roles were very different, and he needs to realize that his Fox News persona cannot be integrated with this NPR responsibilities of fair and objective news analysis. So, Juan, say what you want to say, but do not expect NPR or any other organization to keep you on the payroll despite what you say. There are limits to free speech. Take your $2 million at Fox, the newly found respect from Mr. O’Reilly, and say all you want. Good luck with that.

Oh, Mr. Williams, here is why you were fired – what you said was based on illogical fear, prejudice and bigotry. No other reason. NPR was not “out to get you” because you also worked on Fox. Your comments were not becoming of someone who claims to have journalistic integrity. You want to be concerned about someone’s dress on an airplane?  Then be concerned about the guy riding in First Class dressed in a button-down shirt. Be concerned about the guy in tennis shoes in seat 8C. If you want to be vigilant and sow fear, be vigilant in a smart and serious way. Not a SINGLE one of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11 wore “Muslim garb” to their murderous rampage. Mr. Williams, think about that while you cash those Fox News checks for the next few years. Feel good that you are completely free to say what you want to say on Fox News. We will mourn the fact that you have left real journalism and now have to proactively say that you are “fair and balanced” precisely because you are not. Good luck….and be careful when you fly. That woman in her Wall Street business suit might just blow you up.

Fox News, stop harassing NPR: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/business/media/23williams.html?hp