The Changing Nature of Media

Keith Olbermann has apparently been fired. (I am linking to CNN not out of scorn, but because MSNBC has bizarrely put an unrelated Rachel Maddow clip behind its link to Olbermann's goodbye, though that may get fixed

Just in case anyone was going to ask, I think this was stupid, but am not as angry as the entire rest of the liberal blogosphere about it.

Keith had the highest rated show on the network, as did Phil Donohue, and that makes this something the network will regret for some time. Probably forever. That raises the question, 'Why?'

My guess is that the execs are continuing to misunderstand the changing nature of political news in this country. It was just a few months ago that Olbermann was suspended for donating money to Democratic candidates. That move actually prompted many right-wing commentators to jump to Olbermann's defense. The reason was two-fold: first, because all commentators realize they live on the fundamental principles of free speech, and second, because most of them were donating the Republicans and the action gave them the heebie-jeebies.

I didn't blog about it then, but when people asked, I said I thought it was wrong to suspend Olbermann, but noted that five or six years ago, he likely would have been terminated for donating the money. So would Joe Scarborough, who I mention only to justify writing up a media issue on a Florida blog.

The thing is that the press for most of the last 100 centuries has held to the mantra of objectivity as if it were essential to reporting the news. When one takes a big picture glimpse, though, unbiased reporting is a relatively new concept. Since Gutenberg invented the printing press, it has been used to spread ideas, not bare and dispassionate facts. Joseph Pulitzer today is remembered as the champion of objective reporting, but was also a Congressman, activist and political delegate. The founding fathers famously funded newspaper endeavors to disparage one another.

I have always told people that a political reporter without any political opinions is as worthless as a sports writer without a favorite team. Yes, we need to present facts from all sides, but if you believe the best reporting comes from dispassionate observers with no particular feelings about policy, then you probably haven't met any reporters in person. The best government reporting is from journalists who want to see the best possible job done by government. Yes, most of us are liberals, though more are conservative than many believe, but the quality which separates good reporters from lousy ones is whether we care about the subject which we cover.

At this point in my career, I feel fortunate not to be working for a major media corporation which has guidelines on political speech. I have worked for such a corporation before, and even though I never put a sticker on my car or a sign in my yard, the notion of being barred from doing so was stifling. It also was backward, and a policy unfit for the modern world of journalism.

Keith Olbermann understands that. So too does Bill O'Reilly, for what that's worth. They both realized the public at large wants facts reported, but doesn't want someone putting up the illusion that the anchor has no concern one way or the other which side wins the day in Washington. Both have reputations as shrill, and are hated by politicos on the other side of the aisle. And both too get hammered when they make mistakes, a consequence of taking sides and developing such a rabid opposition.

But both are ratings gold. Consider the voices who get heard the most of cable news today. Glenn Beck. Rachel Maddow. Sean Hannity. Anderson Cooper. I think few people doubt how any of these individuals cast their ballots in the voting booth. Yet, their viewership worships them. If you don't trust these people, you don't watch their shows. But plenty of other people do.

When I started my career in journalism 10 years ago, I never told politicians my own political beliefs out of fear they wouldn't trust me. Over time, though, I learned people judge your credibility based on the accuracy of your reporting. It doesn't matter whether you cover politics, sports or Miley Cyrus' every waking move, what matters is whether you get your facts right. When you don't, sources get angry, and usually you get in trouble with your bosses. Sources sometimes get angry if you don't spin stories their direction, but a seasoned reporter can sense when a politician is disingenuously trying to guilt you into promoting their point of view. After years covering politicians, that, it seems, is the greatest problem a government reporter faces day-to-day.

In some ways, our sources saw this change in journalism before the media did. Cable for more than a decade has been dominated by talking heads who get on TV promoting sometimes wild points of view, then finding the exposure was gaining them capital both with audiences and their professional peers.

Perhaps the departure of Olbermann from the airwaves shows MSNBC would still rather be had by operatives than to control their own editorial voice. I suspect it won't take them long to learn their lesson though. Pandering to media concern trolls who demand unbiased reporting and then freely ignore all information which fails to support their worldview is like deer stopping by a local gunshop to ask directions to the best grazing grounds.

I am not angry Olbermann was fired. I know he will land on his feet. But I am a little astounded that MSNBC is still this far behind the learning curve, and wonder how long it will take them to catch up.