Journalism, Ethics and Keith Olbermann
Posted by Jeremy Long on November 7, 2010
Friday morning, POLITICO revealed that MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann was suspended after he made contributions to several Democrats running for office.
NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover, the POLITICO article stated.
I haven’t read a lot of the opinion pieces on the Countdown host’s suspension, probably because I can predict what both sides would say.
One side would state: “This is ridiculous and he’s nothing more than an unethical journalist.”
The other side would argue this isnt a big deal. This also happens to be the side I fall on.
Matt Taibbi wrote a short piece on the suspension calling it “lunacy.”
NBC punishing Olbermann for donating to Democratic candidates is like Hugh Hefner fining the Playmate of the Year for showing ankle. It’s completely and utterly retarded, Taibbi wrote.
I have to agree it is ridiculous for NBC to have a such a policy. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why that policy is in place but it does not make any difference if that was in place or wasn’t.
If Olbermann wasn’t allowed to donate to political campaigns he would still vote for a certain candidate.
Many people have brought up that it is unethical for a journalist to donate to a campaign. Hell, one Washington, D.C. newspaper sent a memo to it’s employees that if they attended the Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear they had to remain neutral and not laugh too much. That memo is here.
Taibbi again makes a good point about the “ostensible experts” that want to scream breech of ethics.
We had a whole generation of journalists who sat by and did nothing while, for instance, George Bush led us into an idiotic war on a lie, plus thousands more who spent day after day collecting checks by covering Britney’s hair and Tiger’s text messages and other stupidities while the economy blew up and two bloody wars went on mostly unexamined… and it’s Keith Olbermann who should “pay the price” for being unethical? Because, and let me get this straight, he donated money, privately, to politicians?, Taibbi wrote.
Do not get me started on the “journalists” that cover “entertainment” news.
Here’s the bottom line in my own opinion: If you are a journalist and cannot write a story objectively then you are not a journalist. It is the basic function of a journalist to relay the information to the general public, objectively, without any spin.
If Olbermann donated money to the Jack Conway campaign and was unable to objectively vet Conway, then Olbermann has failed as a journalist. However, if Olbermann can support Conway but at the same time objectively report on Conway then where is the foul?
debraschell said
I personally think that a journalist’s opinion should be kept secret.
Any contributions to a political office or person could be taken out of context.
For me, I don’t have an opinion in public life, I don’t talk about politics or religion except to friends and family, and usually don’t even speak much of opinion, but back up statements by facts, or stories I have read.
Although I understand when a person has a passion for someone running for office, journalists, they have to remain objective.
No matter what your personal view is, if you show support to one party, no matter how much you try to be ethical in writing, readers who know your views will not be able to be objective of material that the journalist writes.
That’s what I think.
Jeremy Long said
I agree with you that contributions to a political campaign can be taken out of context. But that shoudnt prevent a journalist from supporting a candidate or even voting (voter registration records are public info).
Really, anything can be taken out of context. For instance, you lived in Middletown and when you covered Middletown Borough council. I could scream foul. A friendship you have with a local police officer or borough employee, in general can be taken out of context.
It has happened to me. I have been accused of being biased because I’m friends with a borough councilman but the truth is my stories are still unbiased and will report on what happens, friend or not.
I can support a candidate and properly vet them at the same time. Just as if my friend was arrested for DUI I am going to report on it. It is my job. if a journalist is unable to do that, then they are not a journalist.
Everyone has their own opinions of a person. People can claim a journalist is a commie, or a republican or a democrat and infer false things on their writing.
I am reminded of a story where my friend who was a reporter at a small weekly in Northeast Philadelphia received two phones calls on a story he wrote. One phone call accused him of being biased towards the democratic party. The other phone call accused him of being biased towards the republican party.
Where is the sanity?
Grammarpolice said
Debra’s a journalist?
I didn’t expect that with phrases like “readers who know your views will not be able to be objective of material that the journalist writes.”
What? What does that even mean? The readers will not be able to objectively examine a journalist’s writing? Does that even make sense? Are readers supposed to be objective? I’m bleeding out of my ears trying to figure this one out.
Did you mean, it would be harder for a reader to consider a journalist an objective writer if he/she has a public image that is blatantly biased in favor of one party, candidate or philosophy?
TKO: Lessons from the Trial of Keith Olbermann « Two Cents Richer said
[...] contributions, while certainly misguided and poorly executed, was not surprising in the least. Believe it or not, Olbermann is equal parts journalist and advocate. He is both a chronicler of events and a champion [...]