O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann and Maddow: Venomous Snakes?

In a blog last week titled "Murdoch and Immelt: Business Is Business," I wrote:

Thus, Fox News and MSNBC have huge investments in their stars O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, and Maddow. They created these venomous snakes, they have long-term contracts with them, and most importantly, they depend on them for ratings, which have gone up, in part, because of the feuding.

In response to the blog, which was distributed via Jack Myers' Media Biz Bloggers, I received an e-mail that read in part: "I watch Bill O'Reilly frequently, and I dispute your characterization of his [sic] as nasty. It is an opinion program, and in my judgment O'Reilly tries to be fair, frequently giving air time to people who oppose his views. I don't see any attempt at balance at MSNBC, which in my opinion is in the pockets of liberal Democrats."

In response to the same blog posted on the liberal Huffington Post, I received several comments:

"Among sensible viewers the views of Olbermann and Maddow are not sniping. They are digging up real news all the time. Maddow's expose of a rightwing website encouraging protests against healthcare reform, which she gave last night, should be THE featured article on the Huffpost this morning."

"Keith and Rachel behaving as they do is absolutely vital. For far too long the misrepresentations, poisonous invective, and outright lies of the Faux News crew went unchallenged. Someone with a big public signature MUST debunk these creeps."

"...how wrong it is to include Maddow in the 'venomous snakes' category. It's very rare that Maddow calls out another cable news person, and she never attacks the way Olbermann does. It's only been within the past week or so that she called out CNN and their coverage of the birther stories -- which she started out as a response to Campbell Brown's absurd statement that only CNN does real journalism."

"Say what you want about Maddow. She approaches her job with integrity -- yes -- with a liberal viewpoint, but she doesn't spew outright lies to try and bolster her argument. (She doesn't have to.) She may use sarcasm and humor to maker her point, but I don't see what's wrong with that. Give[n] the state of the nation, sometime I think we can either laugh or cry. And I'd rather laugh."

For conservatives who watch Fox News, it's perfectly OK to call Olbermann and Maddow venomous snakes, but for liberals who watch MSNBC, it's OK to call O'Reilly and Beck venomous snakes, but a gross injustice to call Olbermann and, especially, Maddow venomous snakes.

It's called confirmation bias when conservatives watch Fox News and liberals watch MSNBC. Both cable networks confirm the biases of their viewers. This situation is no surprise, of course, and we would expect each group to defend their star personalities/opinionators, even though it is inconceivable to me that there are not only viewers who actually believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced" but also that there more than twice as many of them than viewers who believe that Olbermann and Maddow are similarly inclined.

I probably used the term "venomous snakes" as much to pick a fight as believing that it was a completely accurate description of all the commentators I mentioned. However, I do believe that O'Reilly, Beck, and Olbermann are venomous or poisonous. And ever since the poets who wrote the Book of Genesis used the image of a snake as the embodiment of evil and temptation, the slithery reptiles have been associated with both sins in my mind.

Thus, because I believe the manner in which O'Reilly, Beck, Olberman, and, yes, sometimes Maddow, conduct themselves poisons the debate and dialogue about important issues. These commentators make ad hominem attacks their stock and trade. They don't explain or try to shed light on complex issues such as health care reform or education or the government's stimulus efforts to resuscitate the economy, too often they limit themselves to attacking or making fun of individuals.

Rachel Maddow makes her attacks more satirical and a little less nasty than O'Reilly, Beck, and Olbermann (Hannity, Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs could be added of course) but Maddow is the cleverer, lighter transition to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Colbert wouldn't exist if it weren't for the all-too-easy-to-ridicule Bill O'Reilly, thank goodness. And politicians and other self-righteous, pompous public figures set themselves up for ridicule by the clever, sarcastic Jon Stewart. But as much as we love these two comedians, they, too, do not dignify the debate on issues of public importance. And that's a problem.

Most comedy is based on two underlying elements: surprise and anger. To know what the public face of anger is, just watch O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, Hannity, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, Stewart, and Colbert (or listen to the angriest of them all, Rush Limbaugh). They are all very, very angry at liberals, conservatives, politicians, Obama, government, taxes, or the world.

No one wants to watch normal, well-adjusted, happy, rational, reasonable people on TV; they're boring -- like C-SPAN or the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. Watching David Brooks and Mark Shields discuss the issues on the News Hour doesn't confirm any biases; they are too reasonable and boring. And America needs much more of this type of dignified, respectful, tolerant dialogue and debate.

O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, and CNN's Lou Dobbs are not not dignified or tolerant. They do not respect opposing points of view. They tend to attack people, not ideas. Maddow is the most dignified and the most respectful. Her discussions with conservative Pat Buchanan are typically a model of polite conversation.

Stewart and Colbert can also do a reasonably polite interview, but usually with a touch of sarcasm, that always lets us know where they stand. And, so, they too become personalities/opinionators. More polite, a lot funnier, but, essentially in the same league with O'Reilly, Beck, and Olbermann in poisoning and skewing the debate about issues of public importance.

President Obama is taking his message about health care reform to the people in public forums where he will likely have a polite, dignified debate on the issue because he knows there will not be a polite, dignified debate on the cable news or comedy channels or in Congress -- and shame on them.

Follow Charles Warner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CHWarner

Comments

[gevan]

Must be that Charles Warner is an expert on venomous snakes from his experience as one. O'Reilly is really a comedian pulling fictional facts out of his behind and Beck is a simple bull goose looney who seems to have escaped from one of this country's finer institutions for the treatment of mental breakdowns. Olbermann and Maddow as far as I can tell are digging up true facts which only seem venomous to those who spend most of their time poisoning the American airwaves with lies and calumnies.

[sas]

I love watching MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the Rachel Maddow show ! They are perfect, and much needed antidotes to the right wing misinformation of Fox News !

[mattie wallace]

Thank God for KEITH and RACHEL! you see, after Glenn and HANNITY and Bill have Persecuted the President! Rachel and Keith has to come along and SPEAK in his defense!

I am a AFRICAN AMERICAN! and I pray on a daily basis! and do you know why? well I pray that the UNSTABLE people that FOX cater too, will not take heed to the CODE word's that GLENN, HANNITY and BILL send out! Sir, we are not STUPID out here!

FOX NEW'S is around because weak minded American's would rather to hear a LIE than the TRUTH! FOX NEW'S is good at twisting and turning the TRUTH around! they are expert's at this, but, thank God we have American's that refuse to fall for their TRAP!

FOX NEW'S stand's alone! they have managed to POLARIZE AMERICAN'S, this Station is a DISGRACE!!!!!! they refuse to give the President credit for the good he is trying to do to bring this country out of TURMOIL!

[LiberalBuzz]

One more thing as well.

See anyone pulling out from Maddow or KO?

Seems to me that Beck is losing ads because of his lies and racism.

[dennybop]

The only reason it is a gross injustice to call Rachel Maddow a venomous snake is simply that she is not venomous. She's unapologetically liberal, but I've yet to treat any of her guests with disrespect. She exposes but never ruthlessly attacks. She's not given to ad hominum attack on those she disagrees with.
Limbaugh Beck, Garafolo and Olbermann, et al are gasbags. Rachel Maddow doesn't stoop to that kind of contention-driven infotainment.

[Parsifals]

Totally agree. In fact, from the times I've visited her show, she appears to go out of her way to get the dirt, and not get dirty or blast sand into folks' faces.

[hoopesaz]

Agree.

[Parsifals]

Mr. Warner, thanks for your POV.

Now that you've shot down these on-line talk hosts, or commentators, can you offer your opinion on who you do like, or listen to for news and worthy news.

Do you dig into Truthdigs? Watch or listen to Democracy Today. Support NPR or its stations. Have a program of your own?

Knocking down without lifting up doesn't work for me, here or elsewhere.

Constructive crit is what I learned in school.

[research]

BS! I guess you want liberals to just shut up and do what the plutocracy orders, Right?

[Moshka]

Really? We now hold comedians to the same standards as the so-called newsmen? It's now an absurdity for a comedian to be sarcastic and biting? Please. The difference is that Beck and O'Reiily take themselves entirely seriously, Beck to the point where he is now in a whole different universe from the rest of us. Olbermann is angry and foaming at the mouth, yes, but if you aren't, you haven't been paying attention (thank you, Jon Stewart). I am just grateful that there are people who are able to find a humorous side and make us laugh about horrendous hateful outbreaks, death threats and true venom spewed out by the other side.

[Petronius Jones]

"For conservatives who watch Fox News, it's perfectly OK to call Olbermann and Maddow venomous snakes, but for liberals who watch MSNBC, it's OK to call O'Reilly and Beck venomous snakes, but a gross injustice to call Olbermann and, especially, Maddow venomous snakes."

By your measure Rachel Maddsow is a "venemous snake", because she ardently opposes other venemous snakes like Beck. By this measure everyone is as foul as their opposition.

Thus, since Hitler and Stalin were venemous snakes, then Churchill and Roosevelt were venemous snakes.

Rachel Maddow is the only host on yack tv that can do a decent probing interview, while treating even her most rightist guests with respect. It is nonsense to include her in any list containing the names Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of these lying enemies of the people.

[tommytimp]

This is a terrible argument-are you really suggesting that the town halls we're seeing in the past two weeks are models of civility and reasoned discourse? And you're tarring Olbermann and maddow with the same brush as the FOXheads just because they're ALL on cable news? Ever watched these shows?

[clarryr]

The truth can be tracked on www.mediamatters.org and www.factcheck.org.
It is really easy to determine which side is more truthful than the other. You will
find that Olbermann and Maddow stick to facts when expressing opinions.
O'Reilly, Beck, Fox News in general, and Limbaugh tend to make things up or
deliberately misinterpret things. To put them all in the same basket is not
fair or balanced.

[Bill Black]

Clarryr: mediamatters? Please. Even the most ardent progressive will admit that mediamatters is a progressive website that targets "conservative misinforma­tion." The unbiased "truth" cannot be tracked there.

Please re-read the author's section on confirmation bias. You suggest that Olbermann and Maddow stick to facts because you agree with what they have to say. And that's fine. But don't pretend that MSNBC's line-up is anything but the progressive version of FNC.

Of course, we can both prefer to watch MSNBC, but let's not be delusional.

[registeredguest]

No one suggests that MSNBC does not present a progressive lineup in the evening hours. The argument is over how they present their positions vs. how O'Reilly and Beck present theirs.

Is it confirmation bias to be drawn to factual representations of events vs. the looney tunes arguments of the wingnuts.

If you and Warner want to make your case you need to show where Olbermann and Maddow are factually wrong. So there's a challenge for you.

And so what if Meddia Matters is progressive. You have the same challenge to show where their positions are wrong, not that their positions are progressive.

[Candace8383]

a progressive website that targets "conservative misinformation
yes i agree it targets conservative misinformation BUT that in noway means that what they isn't true i will grant you they dont go after liberals but how does that change the facts of what they report?

[clarryr]

What conservative site is tracking "progressive misinformation" and includes video of the entire segment they are commenting on? On mediamatters they have links to the entire segment they are critiquing? You can watch and hear what they are critiquing. Is that honest enough for you? Where is the honest conservative equivalent?

[sas]

Yes, that is very true. The difference between Maddow and Olberman on one hand at the likes of Lou Dobbs, Beck and O Reilly is not just the difference between left and right, liberal or conservative, but the difference between worldview based on the truth and a midset based on lies.

[Crass Innuendo]

And yet, it wasn't Olberman or Maddow who, however indirectly, just threatened the life of Ezekiel Emanuel. This "everybody's wrong (except me)" canard is old and tired.

[scorpio1970]

I am baffled by this post. Olbermann and Maddow venemous snakes? Who on this earth can put fabricated­-fictional­-materials based commentators like Beck and O'Reilly in the same bag with facts- based commentators as O & M? This analysis is just absurd.
O&M, we need you to debunk the planted myths by putting them on the big and national screen. Republicans were able to maintain power by preying on people's fear and misforming them.
This time, we can watch ED, a little bit of Matthews, a dose of Stewart and Colbert, and a large portion of O&M.

[Json]

What an incredibly shallow analysis. In an effort to be "fair and balanced", the writer seems to ignore that if two people are yelling opposite "facts" one of them is right and one is wrong. Either there are "death panels" or there aren't; someone is lying to you and someone is trying to tell the truth.

By giving equal weight to the two sides, the writer is perpetuating the venomous dialogue that he is decrying. If the concept of "death panels" was a marginal viewpoint, not embraced by "mainstream media" like Glenn Beck, there would be no need for anger on the other side to refute the lies.

[surfergirl70]

Beautifully put.

[Nishnabe]

Json, wasn't sure how I felt about the post by this author. You waded into the argument and made sense of what I was feeling. Thanks.

[gorgonopsid]

The types of tactics used to present and debate issues in the news media today blur the distinctions between comedy, satire and reportage. To me, the use of sarcasm in argumentation lowers the standard of the debate to a contest of personal cleverness in which the issues being discussed are of secondary importance. Di Trevis, an acting instructor at the National Theatre of Great Britain, once critiqued a student's performance of a Bertolt Brecht monologue by saying, " You're too emotional--the importance of your message is too great to let your emotions get in the way of expressing it. Get the audience to feel how important your message is, not how important your feelings are." Good advice. I wish more commentators took it.