On Politics and Balance
Interesting AP report on the Web today about Keith Olbermann’s anchoring coverage of the recent Republican presidential candidate debate, shortly after making a Special Comment that criticized Rudy Giuliani. There’s a parallel drawn between the way Republicans view Olbermann and Democrats view Fox News, and a discussion of whether someone who quite openly editorializes on television can also have the neutrality that we tend to associate with “objective” news reporters/anchors.
It’s an interesting question, but I think the article comes close to setting up false dichotomies. It says that “the danger for MSNBC is provoking the same anger among Republicans that Democrats feel toward Fox News Channel.” I find it hard to believe that one person could generate the kind of hostility that Democrats feel toward Fox as an institution. Olbermann is followed by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough on the air, and preceded by Chris Matthews – who didn’t do much to hide his antipathy toward Bill Clinton – and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson. Liberal bloggers like Atrios have even wondered why MSNBC hasn’t taken note of Olbermann’s ratings performance and tried to develop more shows/personalities to appeal to Olbermann’s audience. The closest I can think of to an analogous Democratic presence on Fox is retired General Wesley Clark’s time there as a military analyst, and from what I understand Sean Hannity’s co-host is supposed to provide some liberal balance. (And I’m deliberately leaving aside here the issue of how the two networks’ anchors cover news, since I’m sure different sides of the partisan divide have very different views.)
As for whether or not Olbermann can be neutral enough, I guess that gets us back to the old question of whether it’s really possible to do what the AP article claims is the historic standard: “maintain strict objectivity.” Is this possible? What does it mean? Does it mean removing all efforts at intelligent analysis? If it does, what’s the use of having a trained journalist ask questions?
It’s also worth noting that many of the reporters who are supposed to have the “objectivity” in their day jobs wind up assuming the roles of pundits on TV news programming, at which point they have to start having a point of view. So why not make that point of view clear? Now, if that point of view starts leading to falsehoods or selective editing of information, then we should start to be concerned. But then again, striving for “objectivity” and “neutrality” has led some journalists to hold information back from the public for fear of seeming to interfere with the political process. So, again, what use is there in pretending to be objective when one isn’t? You can have an opinion and still be even-handed in considering both sides of a question. I wonder if that’s just a skill we’ve lost.
All that said, if Giuliani or any other candidate was concerned that he would not be able to accurately get his message out with Olbermann as an anchor, I wouldn’t blame them from stepping back from the debate. We’re all kind of feeling our way through this right now, and it will be interesting to see how the media comes to define its role and its code of behavior in the years ahead.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.