Keith Olbermann Fires Back At Ted Koppel Over Objectivity, 'Real News'

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann lashed out at ABC's former "Nightline" host Ted Koppel and the mainstream media generally in a lengthy "special comment" at the end of his program "Countdown" on Monday night.

Koppel sharply criticized the rise of partisan journalists like Olbermann, whom he described as "the most left-leaning among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts," in an op-ed published in Sunday's Washington Post. On Monday night, Olbermann launched a full-throated defense of his network, arguing that beloved anchors who are considered objective, from Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow to Koppel himself, have long exercised significant editorial judgments.

But Olbermann blasted the reporting Koppel and others did on the U.S. government's justifications for the war in Iraq, which he described as "worshiping before the false god of utter objectivity."

"I may ultimately be judged to have been wrong in what I am doing. Mr. Koppel does not have to wait," Olbermann said. "The kind of television journalism he eulogizes failed this country because when truth was needed, all we got were facts --- most of which were lies anyway. The journalism failed, and those who practiced it failed, and Mr. Koppel failed. I don't know that I'm doing it exactly right here. I'm trying. I have to. Because whatever that television news was before -- now we have to fix it."

Watch Olbermann's special comment below:

Comments

[urlnts]

12:52 PM on 11/30/2010

Keith nails it again with truth,caring,facts and intelligence ,while the rightwing,Just Say Nein infants blubber and whine with "ad" hominem attacks(right Dr. BO Pepper)? (in their defense,it's all that they have)
The funniest thing that the "rough and tumble" right does though is whimpering about being misunderstood and discriminated against?This is the equivalent of the school bully who has denigrated and attacked the other students for years , now crying and threatening legal action because the other students hate him!

[BOin08]

05:16 PM on 11/27/2010

Keith Olbermann is to journalism what Gene Simmons is to medicine.

[talkingpointtorpedo]

06:39 PM on 11/19/2010

You don't need to be a clown to tell the truth.

[ABWoodside]

12:24 PM on 11/19/2010

Kudos to Keith!

"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." - "In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the founders hoped and trusted they would do." - Hugo L. Black, Jun 30, 1971

Murrow, Cronkite, Bernstein and Woodward are but just a few outstanding news journalists that are shining examples of the founders rationality for the First Amendment Rights. Why Ted Koppel did not follow suit as well as he could have is unknown. Perhaps it was because of his political leanings. Perhaps because the Iraq Wars were too controversial for his employer, the Disney entertainment conglomerate, which I would prefer to believe.

"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow

Facts represent evidence that permits believability, persuasiveness and credibility. A preponderance of accordant facts will usually point to undeniable truth(s) which ought to be the objective or end goal of any conscientious journalist (or investigator).

In this country the First Amendment was intended (in part) to encourage and facilitate this noble mission. Nothing, including politics, should curtail or stand in the way of the truth, especially if the nation is misguided and following a reckless path to peril.

ABW

[RedRat]

08:05 PM on 11/18/2010

Implicit in this article is that MSNBC is a traditional "news" program. If one thinks that, then your ideas are somewhat arcane, perhaps wishing for the days of yore. Yes, news is reported on MSNBC just like it is reported on Fox News, it does have a spin, left leaning. However, unlike Fox News, MSNBC does make attempts to verify and present the facts, but it does it with their spin.

I think Koppel is harking back to a simpler time, the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Kronkite, when news programs attempted to be neutral. However, "news" has changed now, it is put out as really entertainment, it is there fore viewers to get exorcised, to get the juices flowing, to get angry, it is only there partially to inform or educate. A long time ago, in the 60s, news programs learned that they could get ratings when they brought together two parties with extremely divergent if not hostile viewpoints, think the KKK and the Black Panthers, or Nazis and Jewish survivors of concentration camps. Fights and bitter words, no common meeting ground. Nothing was accomplished, but so what, it got eyeballs. It has been downhill from there.

[James Nathan]

11:29 AM on 11/18/2010

RogueStates and Palace Wisdom both capture my thoughts and sentiments.

[commentator101]

11:21 AM on 11/18/2010

Olberman makes a good point. The Republican party under Bush took advantage of how traditional journalism defines objectivity, in order to spread lies. Traditional journalism was unable to respond and in particular failed to address the story of the lieing itself. All of this while Fox news was perfecting propaganda journalism under the lieing banner of "Fair and Balanced".

For example, when traditional journalism encountered a lie, it felt required not to call it a lie, but simply to report that a partisan was claiming it was a lie, then interview both a conservative and a liberal about it. The two predictably disagreed, so it appeared that whether or not it was a lie was simply in the "eye of the beholder", which let the lie live.

Anderson Cooper, praised correctly by Jon Stewart for his expose of the "$200 million a day India trip" lie, seemingly stumbled onto a way tradtional journalists could remain non-partisan: simply call a lie a lie. If he and others do so in any kind of sustained way, of course, they will be excoriated by the right, who will say they are biased, because if they don't undermine them they will lose their ability to lie. Nothing about the mainstream media gives me comfort they would be able to stand up to this attack long term.

(cont. below)

[commentator101]

11:23 AM on 11/18/2010

(cont. from above.) Olberman is a significant figure in the history of U.S. News really, as he is I think the first commerically viable figure to use a liberal viewpiont to counter-balance Fox News. While he is significantly less "objective" than CNN or network news, as defined by tradtional journalism, he is certainly less "distorting" than are most of the Fox commentators. I would call him a "fact-based partisan". I have no idea how long NBC will allow it to continue, because at any minute wealthy conservatives could buy a large enough stake in the network to shut him down, but for now his model is the best in town, IMO.

[Bill Pilgrim]

10:34 AM on 11/18/2010

The Olbermann and Limbaughs of the world are more entertainer than journalist. I’m sure they would not agree but I have taken the time to listen to both and that’s my take on it I do find it funny when a so called journalist gives an opinion and then viciously attacks anyone that does not agree with their point of view after all only he/she has all knowing power , vision, unquestionable knowledge ,and wisdom for the age’s

[mybeep1]

05:55 AM on 11/18/2010

Well we learned once again how thin skinned and hot headed Keith O. is. It is a shame. We need voices from both sides but Keith is ineffective (other than some small 24/7 angry base) because of style. He is however, successful. Anyone getting paid what Keith gets has to be considered successful.

P.S. No matter how subtle you were trying to be in this piece, Keith you never will be a Cronkite or Murrow so don't try some loose association with them.

[lvdragonlady]

12:23 AM on 11/18/2010

There has been NO SUCH THING as real news since the 1990's. All we have now are a bunch of talking heads and THEIR opinions, nothing more.

[haystakt]

11:21 PM on 11/17/2010

It's about a more logic-induced presumption of what's going to be most important to the viewer, from the obvious scale of emergency to irrelevancy, and the integrity it takes to respond to the mix of citizenry and not the forces that be that profit all day over their aggressive interpretation of what dominant influence over the people ought to be prioritized, while there naturally be only the people's notion or some other of their own wiser direction, from those opinions most-shared.

The corporate clippers of the rose bush of civilization cannot call themselves so sweet smelling as the rose, when they have clipped all the roses down beneath those at the very top, rendering the people's call for a progression out from the predatory apathy of corporate militarism to literal thorns in their side ~

The disparity between righteous journalism and robo-calling the journalism into the public at large on a fixed parameter spectrum of messages and rein into both domestic and international affairs, should be as obvious as the story itself. Press cannot put itself on page 6 as a principle unto a deferment to the corporate government influence over much of society. Omission being the most natural sin of journalism, being encouraged to do so and showing complicity to some imagined higher power than the public's cause for access to what information may so affect them in the slightest.

Keith has dug in the trench dug before him that much more, with information as guardian.

[haystakt]

11:26 PM on 11/17/2010

*Omission being the most natural sin of journalism, being encouraged to do so and showing complicity to some imagined higher power than the public's cause for access to what information may so affect them in the slightest, is a very real type of publicly-displayed journalistic prostitution at the public's expense.

nice to finish sentences ~

[bwestleyj]

07:02 PM on 11/17/2010

I agree, Keith. I have watched the "news" change over the last many decades. From Cronkite to Brinkley, from Jennings to Koppel to now. The biggest chance was when the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS) decided to create "news magazine" shows, aired in primetime. This began with shows like Nightline.
There is NO WAY a journalist could be completely objective in the process of choosing what is to be aired during those times. Which I believe was your biggest point.
And, I do remember the endless nights of the Iran Hostage Crisis (!)...thinking "when will there be any other news in the world on again...anything at this point will do".
And the biggest failure, I completely agree, was the Bush-Cheney Iraq War LIE. Everyone knows that they lied now; but, where was the investigative journalism of ole'? I remember, when reporters would tell stories based on where the facts took the stories...it was odd that it seemed as though the media just "turned off" during those times...that we gave Bush a "pass" because of 9/11. A dayum shame.

[watcherreader]

06:44 PM on 11/17/2010

He says that, "nothing could be further from the truth." that it was a business decision by MSNBC to copy the FOX style with different content.

c'mon. MSNBC has developed its style by accident just as much as by design. AND Olbermann's sudden attacks on Anderson Cooper have as much to do with ratings as the Salem with trials had to do with land disputes.

[watcherreader]

06:34 PM on 11/17/2010

Koppel was the only Anchor who showed the graphic casualties of war when no one else dared to for fear of being labeled a pacifist. You CAN reach the truth by showing facts without all the editorialized histrionics of Olbermann.

[PalaceOfWisdom]

04:39 PM on 11/17/2010

"I don't know that I'm doing it exactly right here. I'm trying. I have to. Because whatever that television news was before -- now we have to fix it."

I'll give you a hint Keith. Trying to outdo Fox News at their own game is not journalism. If you want to be a journalist and make a meaningful contribution to political discourse, pattern yourself after Tim Russert. He took years cultivating a reputation as someone who cared about truth over partisan politics, and that allowed him to hold feet to the fire without being accused of having an agenda.

When you openly declare that you stand on one side and spend the bulk of your time demonizing the other with as much hyperbole as you can muster, you are part of the problem.

Imagine giving a speech in honor of a retiring coworker. If you spent the entire time griping about how awful one of the other people at work is, and wrapped up by saying the retiree is better than that, people would look at you like you're crazy. Yet in politics it's the norm.

Russert took on every guest on their own merits rather than always assessing them in relation to others. He did so because he knew that ethics and truth are not relative. Being less conniving than the next guy is not a virtue, and it's certainly not a reason to vote for anyone.

[BushIsAWarCriminal]

05:20 PM on 11/17/2010

Palace of LIes: The 'other side', the Repunks, the Tea Baggers, deserve demonizing. They are demons, and liars, and miscreants, and trouble makers, and, did I mention liars?