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.

Laughable Views on the Constitution?

The news is out: Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for US Senate to represent Delaware (her third attempt), seemed to suggest in a debate that the Constitution does not make reference to the separation of Church and State. The audience had a good laugh. The video is all over the place:

CBS

YouTube (extended; includes her position on Intelligent Design – not be be confused in her mind with creationism)

ABC News

But, you know what…she’s actually correct. We should all know that the Constitution does not contain the words “separation of Church and State” or anything close to such a phrase. Thomas Jefferson used those specific words only in a letter in 1802 when he was president, years after the ratification of the US Constitution. O’Donnell’s opponent, Chris Coons, did what most people typically do in this situation – he quoted the “Establishment Clause” of the Bill of Rights (First Amendment) which famously prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion or preventing the “free exercise thereof.” Nothing really about “separation,” right? By its very nature, government (federal, state or local) could not possibly operate without somehow intersecting (and potentially interfering) with religious freedom and exercise.

So why are we laughing? She’s correct, isn’t she? Of course she is not correct. All fair-minded people know that the Constitution is silent on MANY topics and that we have spent over 220 years interpreting, amending and understanding the intent of the document and its purpose. We also know that this process has established some very strong “knowns” such as the right to a fair trial, the right to own private property, and equal protection under the law. Institutions and ideas that are so strong that “we the people” consider them bedrock principles in this country. The “separation of Church and State” is one of those; there may be disagreement as to what it actually means, but there is generally no debate that it is not a “founding” principle. So, we laugh when we hear someone question its existence.

But no one should be laughing. This little incident, which will be “spun” by the O’Donnell-Palin wing of the Republican Party into a comment “taken out of context,” actually points to something truly not laughable….that there are people running around (and running for office) thinking that because The Constitution does not specifically say it, there is not a requirement for separation. Their logic has been used to infiltrate school boards and local governments in an attempt to push Intelligent Design and other religious concepts into school curricula and scientific “debates.” Since “separation” does not exist, a government should be able to allow for the equal treatment of these topics. People who make this argument cannot (and will not) tell the difference between scientific theory and religious principle; and they do not acknowledge that a proper “wall” does exist between a priest and public school teacher.

We need to stop laughing. We need to be concerned. O’Donnell can be ignored as a “wing nut,” but not the rest of them.