As most all of you scholars recognized during our Mass Media Analysis, the distinctions between news and political organizations continue to be blurred.The debate continued last week, when MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions.
The Christian Science Montitor reports that Olbermann will be back on the air Tuesday, after a two program suspension for contributing to Democratic candidates during the 2010 election in violation of NBC News policy.
But the debate over what standards should apply to cable personalities who cover politics is likely to continue as the distinction between news and political organizations continues to blur.
“Neither Fox nor MSNBC is really a news organization, at least not in the traditional sense,” American Journalism Review editor Rem Rieder wrote Friday on his blog. “They preach to the converted, they fire up the base.”
As Mr. Rieder noted, “The situation is dicier in MSNBC’s case because of its relationship with NBC News, which remains in the news business.”
The suspension, which took effect Friday, triggered a sizable protest from Mr. Olbermann’s audience, MSNBC’s largest. An online petition calling for his return, organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had gathered more than 300,000 signatures by Sunday, the Associated Press reported.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1108/Debate-on-politics-and-news-doesn-t-end-with-Olbermann-s-suspension
FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) reported on other blurred media/political contributions:
A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann's bosses at NBC, and at NBC's parent company General Electric?
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company's political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful "No on 24" campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).
Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had "given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year," reported the Washington Post (8/18/10).
Olbermann's donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough "hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter." Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist--but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard.
So what do you think? Is Olbermann a journalist? If yes/no should he be able to give to a political candidate. And finally, is the media liberal, or conservative? I guess we need to used the Watergate press catch phrase and just, "Follow the Money."
6 comments:
While there has always been a distinction between the media and politics, in recent elections, that line has become increasingly blurred. As such, no media personality should be suspended from work simply because he/she contributed to a political campaign especially if that contribution was made as a private citizen as opposed to as a representative for the media company he works for. It is his right as a citizen of a democracy to contribute his money as he sees fit to any political campaign, regardless of his standing in the media.
It is his right as a citizen, but as a professional journalist, isn't full-disclosure the best practice?
Now while that is the profit-making practice at Fox News, doesn't MSNBC make a distinction between them and Fox.
And ultimately, as my wife the human resources director said, Keith got in trouble because he didn't follow company policy.
At the same time, he got back on the air because of popularity -- 300,000 fans signed an on-line petition to get him back on the air.
I think its ridiculous that any media company would fire, or "suspend" any of its profitable personalities. The media industry is profit driven as are any other companies. As long as a personality has a loyal following he/she should remain on air. When he/she makes a remark or does something stupid, that causes for lost viewer ship they must be terminated.
To Troy's comment, a question:
What if a media personality is popular but says something racist or hateful (ie: Don Imus, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder)? Should they stay on because they have a big audience, or does the media corporation have a public responsibility?
I cannot comment on if Keith Olbermann is a journalist or not, I have not watched an American media network in many years (thank you BBC, TG4, France24 and Al Jazeera!) As a private citizen, Mr Olbermann has the right to make a monetary donation to canidates that he wants in office. As a member of the press, however, it is important that his biases are overtly prevalent, as this underminds his journalistic integrety.
In the US; print media has a tendency to be more liberal, radio tends to be more conservative, television depends on the network. MSNBC is a liberal station from what I understand, and any news organisation owned by Rupert Murdoch tends to be conservative.
As for media responsibility: the press has the responsibility to have their facts straight. Commentary made by a host on a commentary programme are completely acceptable. I would argue as a practice however, that for every racist, sexist, and homophopic comment made, the corporation should offer the offended race, sex and sexual orientation the opportunity to rebute (ie, everytime a member of the KKK is interviewed, interview a member of the Black Panthers)
Even if a popular commentator does make a racist or hurtful remark they can only be terminated if it causes for lost viewer ship. However if their remarks are hurt the networks integrity or cause for lost viewer ship of other commentators, then the offending commentator should be fired. Typically some news networks like to hire people of similar ideologies. Fox hires conservatives, MSNBC hires liberals etc. So the network would then be able to shelter the offending commentator from causing lost viewer ship considering many of the viewers have similar views. Most of the time both parties shame racist and hateful speech out of any commentator.
Post a Comment