Image by danagraves via FlickrRead related » Olbermann’s Raw DealCommentary reflects a commentator's point of view, by definition. It is (presumably) an explication of a commentator's analysis of an event or a situation, with varying degrees of admixture of personal and/or organizational biases. Everyone who expresses an opinion knows this, except the delusional.
The rapidity with which MSNBC bounced Olbermann from the network begs several questions: What did he do that other journalists haven't done? Why now? And why should MSNBC all of a sudden feign an interest in impartiality?
[This related article is recommended in its entirety.]
“Certainly, the faux journalist Olbermann, whose “Special Comment” is among the most hyperbolic, exaggerated, and mean-spirited political commentary available, is the least deserving of sympathy of any figure on the left in America. He oozes a sneering, self-righteous superiority that only liberals who feel similarly blessed with outsized notions of transcendence can stomach. Reportedly, he is not a very nice fellow either, but how could he be otherwise, given the manner in which he routinely portrays the opposition as a cross between the devil and Hitler? […] It would have been nice to see Olbermann exit the old-fashioned way: driven from his job after trying the patience of America with his ignorant ranting and because nobody could stand listening to his shtick anymore. But the entire affair smacks of overkill. Jonah Goldberg writes:
Whether or not such rules make sense for actual reporters, such rules are silly for someone like Olbermann. Does anybody, and I mean anybody, suddenly trust Olbermann’s opinion less because of this news? I’m waiting. Does anyone think he’s less biased? More biased? Un-biased? Second, the larger problem with these kinds of rules is that they do little to prevent media bias and a great deal to hide an important form of evidence of it. Banning liberal journalists from giving money doesn’t prevent them from being liberal, it just gives them a bit more plausibility when they deny it.With MSNBC not even trying to pretend to be impartial anymore, one wonders about the ethics of a company that overtly promotes a political point of view and then punishes an employee when they act on that bias.”
— Rick Moran, November 5, 2010 (pajamasmedia.com)
Everyone, without exception, is entitled to their own obnoxious opinions. Moreover, the fortunate few who live legally in the United States of America, can express their opinions publicly, within broadly defined Constitutional protections. Furthermore, all such publicly-expressed opinions, AKA commentaries, are evaluated by readers, listeners, and viewers in accordance with the only criteria that matter — the economic realities of free-market capitalism.
Teeth D'Olbermann has been regurgitated by his employers at MSNBC for trumped-up charges of policy violations. Ultimately, however, his demise was due to a severe case of audience shrinkage and indigestion.
Post 1,472 The Regurgitation of Teeth D'Olbermann
No comments:
Post a Comment