Olbermann’s Exit Raises Questions of Journalistic Boundaries

As the New York Times reports, MSNBC is showing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews the door in terms of election news coverage. Reactions to the announcement were as swift and varied as the responses the pair elicited from their fans and detractors on a daily basis. John Aravosis expressed disgust, saying that the network “fell for the Republican’s crap about ‘bias’ [and] caved in to the Republicans.” Ed Morrissey wondered if they “finally just [got] tired of these two credibility killers?” In one of the strangest responses, Taylor Marsh bemoans the loss of Olberman “just when Democrats need [him] most” but assign the blame to Keith’s unfair bias against… Hillary?

Questions about Olbermann seem, at least to me, fairly silly. Back when Keith first popped up on my radar with his “Special Comment” segments on MSNBC, I found myself almost pleasantly shocked. “Wow!” I thought, “There’s a news guy who’s really fired up about something and really stepping outside of the normally neutral tone of news coverage.” But it quickly became obvious that this wasn’t a “normal news guy” having a brief moment of outrage. Olbermann was always outraged and it was always against George W. Bush and the Republican Party. To pretend that he wasn’t heavily biased in favor of the Democratic Party is, quite simply, to deny reality.

Matthews was a different story in my view. He took his “Hardball” theory of news coverage well past the nth degree, and brought it into every aspect of his time on camera. But I saw him employ it against people of both parties on a regular basis. The problem was that he would use it no matter what the question was. A guest could comment on how fortunate they were that the weather was nice for a given campaign event and Matthews would find reason to pound on the desk, shake his finger in their face and begin spewing barometric pressure readings with spittle flying from his mouth.

That’s not to say that these two reporters or MSNBC are unique in the marketplace. I watch both that network and Fox News on a regular basis, just to see what both sides are up to. If you think that Bill Kristol or Brit Hume have ever given a fair shake to a Democrat on Fox as compared to their treatment of Republicans, then you’re as far out on the fringes as anyone who thinks Olbermann was fair and balanced.

This year I have had the sometimes dubious “pleasure” of conducting a number of interviews with politicians, figures of political interest, and advisers from the McCain and Barr campaigns. I can assure you that it’s been an educational experience which has led to bouts of introspection, self-doubt and questions about the nature of journalism. Many of these quandaries apply to the performance of Matthews and Olbermann as well. One of the chief issues, at least for me, is the question of how and where one draws the line between an “interview” and a “debate.” When you invite someone to speak to you for purposes of a published article or radio program, you’re going to have to ask them questions, and you can never know for sure what sort of answers you’ll get. If the subject provides some real jaw-droppers, is it your job to immediately call them out and argue with them? Or do you let the answers stand as given and then choose to comment on them later? When does a “follow-up question” turn into an attack on the subject’s credibility?

An excellent example came when I had the occasion to interview both Silverio Salazar and John Martin. They were, respectively, a former Hillary supporting Democrat now voting for McCain and a Republican backing Obama. Each of these subjects said some things which absolutely had my head spinning, but I had to make the choice to just record their answers, publish them for you here, and comment on them after the fact. I caught quite a bit of flak from the readers in both cases, and it turned into one of my favorite experiences as a TMV author when I was accused of being “in the tank” for both McCain and Obama in a 72 hour period. Believe me; sitting on your hands during the answers given by some subjects is not easy. Martin was interviewed as part of our weekly radio show, and there were a couple of points where my co-host Cindy had to be restrained with a straitjacket and ball gag, but to her credit, she managed to maintain her composure for the entire thing.

Everyone, including television journalists, has their own political opinion and preferences. How much of that should be allowed to bleed through in the course of reporting? When does a news report turn into an editorial, and at what point does an editorial become a partisan screed? Olbermann clearly crossed the screed line far more than once too often, but did he add more spice to televised political coverage? Or did he poison the well?