Taboo Alert: The Real -- And Most Disturbing -- News In the Olbermann-O'Reilly Feud
The New York Times story about MSNBC's corporate parent, General Electric, forcing the network to soften its criticism of Fox News has generated a lot of buzz over the weekend. But what's so telling about the story and the residual chatter is that, with the exception of Glenn Greenwald's typically terrific coverage, it largely misses the newsiest -- and most taboo -- part of the whole brouhaha.
What the Times story and the aftershock gossip focuses on is the personality feud and new detente between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. That's supposedly the "news." And yet the real story is the heavy-handed intervention by the CEO of General Electric effectively forcing MSNBC's news team off a crucially important set of stories -- namely, Fox News' politicization/Republicanization of media.
For years, Establishment media voices like Charlie Rose (yes, the same Charlie Rose who the Times story says played a direct role in the corporate parents' intervention at MSNBC and Fox) have insisted that it's a black-helicopter-style conspiracy theory to assert that corporate parent companies pressure/impact/limit the newsrooms they control.
But, of course, the evidence has become overwhelming in the last 15 years.
The three most obvious that come to mind are:
- 1995: CBS' 60 Minutes backs off it's expose of the tobacco industry, due, in part, to pressure from its parent company and the tobacco industry. This sordid affair was made famous by the movie The Insider.
- 2001: NBC's president engages in direct political lobbying against a government order that would force NBC's parent company, General Electric, to clean up its mess in the Hudson River. At the same time, environmentalists noted that NBC did not give the Hudson River cleanup story nearly enough attention.
- 2009: The Washington Post's parent company offers corporations and their lobbyists "off-the-record access" to its reporters and editors in exchange for direct financial contributions of up to250,000.
This, of course, says nothing of the even more nefarious and arguably more widespread practice of these same corporate media outlets promoting as "objective" voices reporters and editorialists* who have secret financial interests in the news they cover -- all without any disclosure. Just a few examples:
- Richard Wolffe: This former Newsweek reporter is now a paid corporate PR consultant. Yet, he appears on MSNBC as a disinterested "political analyst," even hosting Olbermann's show. Wolffe, in fact, publicly sells his media prominence on MSNBC as a reason for corporations to hire him. The implicit suggestion is that the corporate client will be able to buy a spokesman who gets to go on television without disclosing his financial interests - that is, Wolffe offers the corporate client the veneer of non-partisan objectivity. I flagged this ugly situation a week ago, and think I was the first to even notice it, despite how blatant a conflict of interest it is. The fact that it has gone on for so many months without anyone -- much less MSNBC's management -- questioning it shows just how mundane this kind of thing is.
- Doug Bandow: In 2005, Businessweek reported that this senior fellow at the Cato Institute "resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients." Specifically, Bandow "had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s."
- Armstrong Williams: In 2005, this syndicated radio host and columnist took a quarter million dollars from the Education Department to promote President Bush's controversial education policy "on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same," according to USA Today.
- Thomas Friedman: This New York Times columnist has become the single most prominent media voice in support of the multinational corporate agenda and the ultra-wealthy - and his credibility is based on the perception that Friedman is a completely disinterested commentator. However, Friedman -- by marriage -- is a member of the Bucksbaum empire, one of the biggest real estate conglomerates in the world.
- Former Generals: David Barstow of the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for "reveal[ing] how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended."
A corporate media apologist might try to argue that both the latter and former sets of examples are just the very rare egregious examples and further, that in the case of Wolffe and Friedman, there's no direct corporate control/conflict-of-interest because they don't report on the companies they directly work for. But that's actually the bigger point: A newsroom or an individual reporter doesn't have to be directly shilling for their financial interest in order to be unduly compromised.
Sure, examples like CBS's corporate management backing off 60 Minutes on the tobacco story and General Electric heavy-handedly intervening in MSNBC's news decisions are probably somewhat rare. And sure, Wolffe and Friedman (at least to my knowledge) never shilled directly for a client/business interest they were making money off of. However, the direct connect/interest undoubtedly shapes their content by the silent processes of story selection, omission and tone.
For every blatant example of a newsroom or a journalist brazenly shilling for their corporate master's bottom line, there are infinite examples of those newsrooms or journalists avoiding or omitting stories that might offend those masters' in the first place. Is it, for instance, really just a coincidence that the frightening effects of corporate agriculture have rarely been the topic of all those Sunday "news" shows whose sponsor are Archer Daniels Midland? Is it really just a coincidence that Friedman shills for corporations and the wealthy, when he is member of a billionaire family? Is it really just a coincidence that a newspaper like the Washington Post, which was trying to effectively sell its news coverage to corporate interests, generates stories that tend to be particularly soft on corporations and chock full of unchallenged corporate PR?
The list of examples is endless -- and the obvious answer is that none of it is a coincidence, even if most of these conflicts are kept completely hidden from the news-consuming audience.
But, then, the deception -- and the ubiquity of the deception -- is a big part of the corruption that is destroying journalism. Indeed, the fact that the Olbermann-O'Reilly personality feud was presented as the "big" story -- and not the General Electric intervention -- is a tacit confirmation that corporate-media symbiosis has become such an assumed part of journalism, that many journalists themselves don't see it as any kind of problem, much less news.
Of course, there are certainly some who do. The New York Times' David Barstow did when he reported on the financial interests of former generals appearing on television. Rachel Maddow did when she went out of her way to inform viewers that a supposedly disinterested guest she had on the night before was actually on the board of a corporation the guest was effectively shilling for. And most leading bloggers -- as opposed to most leading journalists who criticize bloggers' ethics -- go out of their way to disclose to readers their personal/financial connections to the news stories they are covering. Those, however, are the exceptions, not the rule.
The victims of this increasingly corrupt media system are both the viewers who are unknowingly fed a steady diet of stealth propaganda, and those trying to build truly independent media. I can personally attest to the latter.
As an independent journalist, I have gone out of my way to avoid financial/personal conflicts of interest, at considerable financial cost to me and my family. That means, for example, turning down various job/client opportunities (even for political groups I agree with), even when money is tight in a recession.
I'm not complaining - I am proud of my independence and I can sleep at night knowing my credibility isn't compromised. However, now that the media ecosphere no longer demands, incentivizes or rewards that kind of independence, that decision to be independent has become purely a decision of personal virtue - not industry mandate. It therefore puts me at a financial/competitive disadvantage in the economy at large.
Like other journalists and outlets who work to protect their credibility, I am sacrificing job/income opportunities in order to preserve my journalistic independence. From a journalism ethics perspective, that makes sense: If I am simultaneously a "journalist" and in the business of trying to recruit corporate clients for, say, a PR firm, the latter business will naturally impact the former. For example, I might be less inclined to write hard-hitting pieces against corporate interests in general, for fear of scaring away potential PR clients.
However, from a career perspective, "ethics" no longer make as much sense. I am going out of my way to preserve independence in a journalism industry that doesn't even pretend to insist on that independence. Indeed, you can be Richard Wolffe and openly get paid by corporations and not risk your place on MSNBC or your billing as a supposed disinterested "political analyst."
The result is a truly corrupt incentive system: the economic incentive now for the average journalist isn't to protect one's independence by avoiding financial conflicts of interest - but to sell out knowing there probably won't be any ramifications for one's journalism career.
Will this ever change? Well, it's hard to know. But I can say this: You can bet that until we build a vibrant independent media and until the news consumers use their economic/audience power to demand more independence (or at least disclosure) from the corporate media, the rule will continue.
* Note: I know that editorialists/opinionists/commentators aren't "objective" in the sense that yes, of course, they have subjective opinions because that's their stated job. But the expectations of professional editorialists/opinionists/commentators is that their opinions are ideologically motivated - not motivated out of a desire to protect their own undisclosed financial interests. So, when I use "objective" when referring to editorialists/opinionists/commentators, I am referring specifically to that kind of personal financial objectivity.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Glad for this article.
Some of us have been aware of these issues for a long time, but it needs to become broadly known. While I find it depressing reading, this is the kind of article we, the public, desperately need. Thanks for writing it.
.
Are there not there laws on the books about these issues? We just need to enforce them.
Unhook people. I got rid of extended cable and all the corporate propaganda and manipulation that spewed forth nightly. No O'Reilly or Olbermann. I just read to get the news and use Netflixs for entertainment. It works great and I save several hundred dollars a year. You don't have to be the passive recipient of the crap that comes from the boardrooms of our corporations and the right wing think tanks that dominate Washington. Oh, and did I mention that all those great TV series out there are even better when they're not interrupted by endless advertisements. Try it, once you get used to it you'll wonder why you didn't do it years ago.
Jazzman is Smartman! Reading allows ME to choose topics & content. 24/7 cable news is nothing but NonsenseNews & FauxNews with fake sensationalism passing for news stories, shouting matches, opinionators, and agitators. They're chief motive is manipulating people into watching the latest crash, burn, sizzle, or sensational conflict.
Why? Because producers can sell advertising when people are notorious stooges staring into the screen, getting brainwashed. Radio stations cashed in on it with talk shows. Every protest they can incite is a love-fest for them, translating into billions of ad revenues that has made Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch & General Electric wealthy ... and powerful..
Americans have become unwitting stooges. Time to pull the plug on TV & radio!
American politics are hugely corrupt, and that will continue until the media exposes it and public outrage demands change. The media will only investigate/expose the corruption if the corrupting influences and control, actual or potential, are eliminated or minimized. That will only be achieved with legislation which (1) severely restricts the ownership.
The short version of your argument: We need Media-Divestiture NOW. It will cure a lot of what ails us, all by itself!
.
Mr. Sirota,
Your article would have much more resonance if you had spent a fraction of the article complaining about Fox and the involvement of their corporate heads dictating the content of "news" stories. This omission makes your article very suspect. I believe you have an ulterior motive with this piece, most likely a spat with Richard Wolfe? Mr. Wolfe was by far your biggest target and not bringing in what everyone knows is the biggest offender of corporate influence in reporting Fox, in my mind makes your article inpotent. Maybe you a point but I am not very inclined to consider it. Sorry, but you blew it!
Many Americans listen to Rush and watch the "echo chamber" on Fox News to reinforce their own perceptions. Remember "Femi-Nazis"- women who were asserting their rights - or "environmental wackos" as Rush tried to discredit or marginalize concepts that are too difficult for many Americans to deal with. Denial and a regressive mindset are constantly reinforced.
So many Americas want to return to the comfort of consumerism and the idea that, if there is a threat out there, either liberals or Russia, maybe terrorists, but not wage inequality, lack of access to health care, or the declining environment are the "real" problems.
Corporations and banks become parasites that feed off of ignorance and hate, it seems. These business entities do not want Americans to become aware. The stupider the better. We can always import smart people with an education - but only if they can be controlled, too.
Archie Bunker was not supposed to be a real person.
It is absolutely true that Rush and all the other Rush-puppets in the media pray on the ignorant by telling them it is OK to be frightened of things you don't understand, that it is OK to not understand things because they are just so complex, that complex things are inherently evil, that people who seem to understand complex things are also evil, and that is certainly OK to hate evil.
It is OK to use faith to fill the gaps of knowledge, even if those gaps are VERY wide.
It is OK to to be ignorant and ill-informed, just think the way we tell you to think and do the things we tell you to do - we will make it very easy on you.
The survival of our democracy is directly dependent upon the free-flow of verified, or at least verifiable information. Your story, along with many others, shows why we can not trust what we hear on the radio, read in print or see on TV. The web seems to be lacking in well reasoned and centric points of view, but at least it is not as heavily filtered and the sources are clearly based. But the noise level is deafening.
Our world is a vastly complicated and confusing place for those of us who take in massive amounts of information from many sources. How can we expect those less inclined to read broadly, or tune into something other than their preferred brand of "news", to contribute meaningfully to the dialogue and to help progress the needs of our country?
Is there something that exists that we can agree is a fair, complete and well reasoned source of information?
If not, are we simply at the will of the lunatics operating at the far ends of our society, because they are the loudest and most steadfast?
I used to admire Charlie Rose as a journalist, but after he did nothing to question the chicanery around the Bush efforts to get us into war against Iraq and their many other ethical lapses, I thought the price he pays for access is just too high and includes no uncomfortable questions. Bush was one of our most corrupt and failed presidents ever and Rose just sat there for eight years saying nothing.
When journalists were made into celebrities they needed the clothes and cars and lifestyle to go with it and out went journalistic ethics. The celebritization of the journalist began with the advent of "news" television and the talking heads that replaced real reporters as anchors. The corporate advertisers knew what they were doing when they picked their personalities. Better to get your news from the alternative press and places on the web that run articles like this one. Will it take a legislative bill that prohibits the cross fertilization of the business side of a media organization from their "news" department? I'd like to see this legislation written, introduced, and passed this next legislative session to protect the Public's Right To Know.
Just think how much Health Care money is going to these talking heads, Journalists, back room editors. Our Politicians AND MEDIA are both influenced. Even Administration insiders who pretend to be on the team are doing their part to trip it up while they pretend they are for us.
In the end, the Insurance companies will remain very profitable and costs will grow higher than ever. More tax money will be going directly to the Insurance companies. This institution is 4 times larger and 4 times more powerful than the Military Industrial Complex.
50% of the US budget is spent on the Military-D
Thanks, David (and Glenn). People had better wake up and work to throw corporate influence out of the media AND the government or it's the big "f" word coming. Fascism.
"corporate influence", more like corporate ownership. MSNBC's parent company, General Electric, is one of the largest defense contractors in the world.
Never fear -- Keith Olbermann is bad on the job as of now!
Presumably this column will be UPDATED to reflect that, aside from Olbermann insisting he was neither asked nor ordered by MSNBC to drop "coverage" of O'Reilly, this evening he ripped up O'Reilly on yet another bogus O'Reilly claim of victimhood at the hand of mean-old-l
Now, that O'Reilly WAS under such direction was apparently confirmed by Fox and O'Reilly. But Olbermann has said, whatever his bosses talked about or agreed to, no one made him a part of it, and he alone decides what he will or won't cover. He also reminded all of his announced decision in June to stop making jokes about O'Reilly, and why he did that. But again, just to show there's no embargo, he busted O'Reilly in familiar fashion tonight.
Fortunately, Olbermann wouldn't back down.
So I watched Keith tonight and he said that the author of the original article asked him about GE telling him to stop his feud with Bill-o and he told him not only was it not true, but that his bosses never asked him to stop. And the guy printed it any way!
All this for nothing -- I remember when Keith said he wouldn't be mentioning Bill-Os name again because he felt that he had been part of the hate-mongering that caused the death of the a bor tion doctor.
"I remember when Keith said he wouldn't be mentioning Bill-Os name again because he felt that he had been part of the hate-mongering that caused the death of the a bor tion doctor."
And you believed him?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
