No, I won't sign the petition to bring back Keith Olbermann, but yes, I wrote NPR to tell them their firing of Juan Williams was wrong wrong wrong. Since both of these actions served the interests of the right, this must mean I'm becoming a shill for Fox News, right? Well.....Let's first admit that journalistic objectivity is a sad and tired joke, particularly in the days of Rupert Murdoch and corporate-executive contributions to campaigns and lobbyists. That said, journalists usually make explicit contractual or implied contextual deals with their employers over how they try to practice objectivity. In the case of Juan Williams, he follows many op-ed/analysts in giving gut-level opinions on a variety of subjects. His comments on Muslims clearly were not prejudiced, but a frank discussion of irrational fears. If his real crime was appearing on Fox, NPR should have told him they were unhappy about that, and let him make up his mind as to which came first. If they were unhappy only about the comments, they should have given him a dressing-down and kept him on NPR.
Olbermann's "suspension" by MSNBC is unusual, in that many conservatives are coming to his defense, according to Huffington Post, and yes, an indefinite suspension for four-figure campaign contributions seems like overkill when his bosses make far bigger contributions. But as an explicit political commentator, Olbermann should realize his role as a lightning rod and "avoid even the appearance of impropriety." I'd agree with HuffPost that MSNBC probably wants to pretty itself up and look neocon with with new Republican victories, but I think the actions against Keith were more justified than NPR's against Juan.
Still, that does not excuse personal lapses in behavior along the lines of traditional journalistic ethics. If Olbermann wanted to make those contributions, he should have announced them in advance in one of those "full disclosure" statements. Failing to do that made him the dummy, more so than MSNBC. And what I find aggravating is the number of liberals/progressives who think that the political correctness of the issue is more important than the ethics of the individual. All's fair depending on whose message is being promoted and whose ox is being gored.
No, no, and no. I told one friend that among people of principle, if you are dealing with someone of your political and cultural background, your family or clan, or gender, race, or sexual orientation, you should hold that person to higher standards than you hold your political enemies. If a peace group does a secret deal with the Pentagon, people of the left or peace community should publicize that fact sooner and more vociferously than Fox News does. It's called self-policing and being ethically consistent. It is not practiced very often these days. And if you don't get where I'm coming from, I simply feel sorry for you.
