Should News Personalitites be Able to Make Donations to Partisan Candidates?

It's a fair question to ask, especially in light of the (indefinite, but actually just 2 day) suspension of MSNBC anchor and host of "Countdown" Keith Olbermann. Either way, MSNBC seems to be sending mixed messages. Just a few weeks ago MSNBC launched an ad campaign intended to 'subtly' highlight it's position as the more progressive news organization between CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Their new tag-line is "Lean Forward" and these series of ads showcase MSNBC's nighttime lineup of news shows. You can see an example of a less partisan branch of this ad here and here and a more partisan branch here.

CNN responded to this ad campaign in an attempt to solidify itself as the only news organization which is 'unleaning', using the slogan "Moving Truth Forward". You can see this ad here.

To my knowledge Fox News hasn't entered the fray, hopefully because they are already aware of how partisan their news has become. Or maybe because they're still delusionally stuck on "Fair and Balanced". I wrote an extensive post decrying Fox News for not explicitly stating their partisan tilt, and I will use this post to call on MSNBC to do the same. The people over at Fox News are probably gleeful that MSNBC has embraced it's leftist side, because it only reinforces Fox's argument that every other news station is partisan, and only Fox is balanced. The whole thing is sickening to anyone who's concerned about the difference between rhetoric and truth. 

The idea behind not allowing commentators on the news to donate to political candidates is that it jeopardizes the journalistic integrity of that news station. That makes sense, to a degree. According to this CNN article, Fox News already has 30 hosts and contributors who have donated to political candidates, and CNN and MSNBC have both tried very hard to distinguish themselves from Fox by maintaining journalistic excellence.

So should Keith Olbermann and others from MSNBC be allowed to donate to political candidates? Absolutely. 

Wait, what? Why you ask? Because Keith Olbermann is not a real journalist! At least not in the sense for which MSNBC is giving him credit! It's not his job to report the news, it's his job to put a liberal spin on the news. The same is true for Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. They are not unbiased. That's the point! MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann is an attempt to legitimize him as a news source, suggesting that he was somehow an example of unbiased journalistic excellence to begin with. He is NOT! Absolutely not! This doesn't make Olbermann not valuable. Just not unbiased news.

What news organizations need to do, therefore, is to recognize and fully own their partisan leans! It isn't exactly journalism when MSNBC's commentators are disparaging Republicans all election night, or when Chris Matthews goes at it with Michelle Bachmann, calling her "hypnotized". It's funny for sure, and yes, Bachmann was dodging Matthews' question, but it seemed uniquely partisan to me, for him to take that tone with her.


And it's not as if I have a problem with left leaning or right leaning news organizations; I'm not a believer in news that's completely unbiased. It's dishonest to suggest that there is a such thing as unbiased or unleaning news. That's why the introduction to my blog states clearly that "To be fair, I fall decidedly on the left side of the political spectrum- however I have made it a point to look at issues in a scholarly/journalistic manner since the September 2010 rebirth of the blog. It is impossible to remove bias from writing, and trying to do so almost completely removes, in my opinion, the essential character from a work. Instead it should be prudent to approach all issues with genuine honesty and reasonable fairness as much as possible."

I make clear where I stand on issues, so you can decide whether or not I'm advocating that perspective or an unbiased one. I like to think that, for the most part, this blog gives an evenhanded approach to news and politics. But MSNBC and Fox News, and sometimes, yes, even for you CNN... all three of these organizations have failed to make clear their anchors' stances on politics.

So, of course, let Olbermann and Beck and Shultz and O'Reilly make contributions to candidates financially; they're already making those contributions in the press, why not allow them to be 'activists' when THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Trying to pretend that these personalities are not activists is, again, very dishonest. Therefore I hereby make this suggestion to the three news networks:

Just as there is a disclaimer for "adult content" in late night comedy central or adult swim that essentially warns the audience to be prepared for a certain type of material, there should also be a disclaimer before news shows that show a distinct bias, and you know who you are. "Countdown is not a regular news program at MSNBC, it is a commentator program. It represents viewpoints which are to the left of the political spectrum and does not represent evenhanded news coverage. These viewpoints do not reflect upon regular news programming at MSNBC which takes place between ___ and ___" could be the simplest way to accomplish this. An insult to Olbermann? It shouldn't be, unless he's deluded himself into thinking that his show isn't leftist leaning. And just to be clear, Fox News should have the same exact disclaimer before their commentary shows.

And if these commentary shows' views have spilled into regular news programming at these networks, (and there is some suggestion that they have), these views and objectives should be purged from the regular news programming at the network or else the network itself should have a constant disclaimer up at every change of anchor. That is how one pursues journalistic excellence. Own who you are. Be fair and honest, including as many perspectives as you can. And report on facts and the truth, as they are presented to you.

And then these inherently biased programs become both honest AND useful to the public again. As a liberal, I love Countdown, it's great fun to watch, but I know it for what it is. When you want a spin on news, you should be able to get it. But you should be reminded that it is still spin.

Fox News

After I spent about a week of intentionally switching back and forth between the three major 24 hour US news networks (CNN, MSNBC and Fox News), something needs to be said. I say this not as a progressive, nor as a Democrat, but rather as a member of a scholarly community that employs reason and honestly in the transmission of information. Here it is:

Fox News, not by its existence, but by its persistent claim to be 'fair and balanced', represents everything that is wrong with the world. Believing that Fox News takes a fair and balanced view of news coverage takes a certain special kind of willful ignorance, the perseverance of which in American thought should terrify all honest, reasonable-minded people, and may be the very herald of the kind of American world decline that Fox News representatives seem to fear more than anything else.

And I need to be clear, I am NOT just speaking about the commentary shows like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly which are unapologetically conservative in perspective-- these shows, even by Fox News Network's admission (and rightly so) are not representative of a fair and balanced perspective. Although the existence of these shows on FNN do not help Fox News' case, indeed, even regular news programming on Fox News is almost like a bullhorn for the Republican Party. Bringing on one liberal pundit to a discussion when the anchor and another guest are both clearly conservative is not fair and balanced, it's 2 vs 1 which can not, by any extension of reality be considered balanced or fair.

I make no claim that other news networks are free from inherent biases. The Ed Show on MSNBC does to conservatives what almost all programming on Fox News does to liberals: ganging up on the other guy. I'm even open to arguments that regular news programming on MSNBC leans left; it's almost inevitable when you bring in pundits (outside of their respective commentary shows) like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews to 'reasonably' discuss election results or news items. But MSNBC's motto isn't 'fair and balanced' and reasonable people everywhere recognize it for what it is, a safe place for Democrats to speak their message to people who already agree with them. And yet even MSNBC makes notable overtures to be evenhanded in their approach for most news programs.

The exit of Lou Dobbs from CNN might suggest for some that the network is beginning to lean left like MSNBC, but that's only if your idea of 'leaning left' is the same as 'secular, educated journalism' (which honestly for some unreasonable people out there, it does). Anderson Cooper? Rick Sanchez? Larry King? Wolf Blitzer? These are people that go out of their way NOT to take stands on major issues and to try to get truthful answers from those on their shows (ok, Rick Sanchez sometimes takes a stand on Lindsay Lohan, maybe we should just exclude him from the list). Anderson Cooper's motto is 'keeping them honest' and somehow that makes him liberal, part of the liberal media, seeking the destruction of all conservatives. If honesty would truly bring about the destruction of the conservative agenda, I have serious concerns for the GOP, but I don't think that's the case.

I do think it is the case that it should be imminently necessary for Fox News to strip their misleading motto from their network. I have no problem with Fox News existing; in fact I'm delighted that people are exercising their First Amendment rights in a way that irks others. I'm not delighted that Fox News can manage to whip up mobilized fear through manipulation of ignorance in order to push an agenda that does not have its roots in honesty, fairness, or balance-- with a motto clearly indicates the opposite.