Is Bias Always Biased? In McCain's Case, Maybe Not

As the host of Fox News Watch for ten years, I struggled not to let my biases show. I think I succeeded. For the entire decade, viewers wrote e-mails telling me they couldn't figure out my political affiliation. I was proud of their bewilderment.

I also struggled not to let the program itself show bias. Again, I think I succeeded. Several years ago in a Vanity Fair article blasting the Fox News Channel, James Wolcott cited Fox News Watch as one of the two shows on the network most worth watching.

The purpose of the preceding two paragraphs is not self-promotion (although it certainly plays as such), but to establish myself as someone who believes that both news and punditry should be as objective as human beings can make them.

Because of this, I have been distressed lately at how far to the left one of my favorite news programs has gone. MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann has become less a newscast than a crusade against the Bush variety of Republicanism. And the new program following Countdown, The Rachel Maddow Show, is following the same path. The same warpath.

Of course, numerous programs on Fox are on their own warpaths, heading in the opposite direction---and I ask myself why. Why has so much of TV news become so partisan in the last decade.

And then it hit me. Or, rather, I hit myself---the heel of my hand smacking my forehead and my lips uttering a Homer Simpson-like, "Doh!"

Fox is a topic for another article, and another writer. I will not go into my experiences there. But why are Olbermann and Maddow so biased?

Because the Republicans are providing them with so much material that their bias is, at its core, a form of objectivity. They are not partisan so much as perceptive.

I do not reveal my own choice for president when I state that, several days ago, John McCain made the most eye-popping comment I have ever heard uttered by a candidate for the White House.

The topic was the economy. "My friends," he said to a gathering in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on September 19, "this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.

"We've heard a lot of words from Senator Obama over the course of this campaign. But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it."

Uh . . . yes he was, Senator McCain. Senator Obama was square in the middle of it for less than three years! But you have been square in the middle of it for 22 years! If Senator Obama is too inexperienced to be President, as your campaign has many times suggested, how could he possibly have made such a powerful contribution to the plundering of the American marketplace?

Nobody in McCain's audience laughed when the candidate charged Obama with being an economy-wrecking Washington insider. Nobody snickered when the Washington insider accused the relative outsider of maliciousness beyond his years. Or his ability. Or his record.

I take it back. Somebody snickered. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among them. So was I.

And so now I ask myself, how hard is it these days for news programs be objective when the material on which they report sounds as if it were produced by writers for Saturday Night Live, and then rejected on the grounds of its being too preposterous to be funny?

Comments

[Michaelvin]

When I want to watch left wing news I watch Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. It airs on the Link Channel. I admire her honesty and passion for the topics she covers and she covers important news topics that aren't "sexy", but is important news just the same. She's polite and she's no nonsense straight forward with the news. She probably wouldn't fit on any of the cable news outlets because she's 50 years old, doesn't wear make up, and is a very plain dresser. No cleavage from Amy. That's a compliment to Ms. Goodman because she's real.

When Rachel Maddow was subbing for Olbermann I was hoping that MSNBC would fire Olbermann and replace him with Maddow. Even though their politics are similar she's a very likable person. Olbermann is one hour of pure hatred night after stinking night and I can't accept at face value anything he says. Maddow can appeal to a wide range of people. Olbermann can only sing to the choir, therefore he has no effect on shaping public opinion. He's a waste of time and space.

[research]

Kieth and Rachel are Both wonderful!

[RobinLandseadel]

I've been watching Keith Olbermann let his enormous ego undercut his common sense and humor over the last three years or so. It's not a question of left or right here---I'm pretty far left---it is a question of Keith undercutting himself time and again with bursts of uncontrolled, sputtering rage.

Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, is one cool cat, probably the smartest and most intellectually honest newscaster right now. I really appreciate the quality of her guests and the fact that she is more than willing to take on right-wingers on her show, unlike Keith who merely taunts them at a safe distance. Even more than that, she has the ability to cut through the noise and get to the point on her show.

And she spends waaaaaay less time on puff pieces and noise than her MSNBC cohort. I'd love to see Rachel Maddow moderate the V.P. debate.

[Mojane]

I had to cancel cable, so haven't been able to follow Maddowl's program (damn!), but watched Olbermann as often as possible.

Olbermann's format seems to be: First, the news. Second, topical comment, interviewing someone who knows something about the subject. Third, the 'Bushed' segment which is not opinion, it is fact, all of it. Fourth, his Worst Persons, which is fact, with his subjective choice of the "worsts". Fifth, the goofy stuff.

Then, he has his Special Comments which are obviously his thoughts and feelings and opinion. He can be a bit over the top in his delivery, but what he says is never far off the mark. If ever we needed the ghost of Edward R. Murrow, now is the time, and Keith seems to be channeling him. I thank them both.

[MaryT63]

I agree with most comments - KO and Maddow are great. The repubs provide some much material for KO and Maddow, late night comedians, authors, web sites, etc. During the rush to Iraq folks were looking for some alternative media that was not spitting out Bush talking points. When MSNBC brought on KO I knew they had a winner because there was an audience out there for the truth to be told, now they have Rachael.

[jayburd]

I've been saying this same thing to anyone willing to listen. Olbermann and Maddow are biased in favor of the truth first. The fact that the truth lies squarely on the left side of the political spectrum these days is inconsequential. Republicans continue to deny the truth while Democrats speak it. The end.

[Mojane]

Read it again. I think you missed his overall point.

"Fox is a topic for another article, and another writer. I will not go into my experiences there. But why are Olbermann and Maddow so biased?

Because the Republicans are providing them with so much material that their bias is, at its core, a form of objectivity. They are not partisan so much as perceptive­."

[Mojane]

Sorry, I responded to the wrong comment! My apologies.

[research]

As Colbert said:

Reality has a Liberal Bias.

[SpoxLogic]

I blame it all on the "reality" shows. Those programs have so dumbed down the populacr that it's not even funny. Folks can tell you all that happened on one of thsoe shows, but not a thing about the country or who is doing what as a politician.

Very sad!

[imademocrat]

I watched Fox NewsWatch for many years while Mr. Burns was the host. I always found him to be very fair. Since he is gone, I no longer watch the show. It has become a place for Cal Thomas and Jim Pinkerton to rail against liberals. They just sound so angry. But I do take exception to the characterization of the Olbermann and Maddow shows as news shows. They are commentary shows. Both have a liberal point of view. They are a counterbalance to Fox's O'Reilly and Hannity who are on opposite them. I do not understand why it is okay to have Fox with conservative commentary, but bad to have MSNBC with liberal commentary. Now, that seems "fair and balanced". Let the viewers decide. I, for one. love Olbermann and Maddow.

[londongal]

All I can say is Rachel Maddow is wonderful, fair and balanced. She is not afraid to invite opposing views on her show and always gives her guests the opportunity to talk freely.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Fox's Hannity who is a complete bully, is rude to opposing guests on his show and continues to unashamedly show his bias. Hannity sickens me. I have no respect for him.

[ProudLiberalDemocrat]

Oh I disagree, Olbermann & Maddow are not balanced, but they are fair.

But the only way to call outright hypocracy for what it is, they might not be balanced - because it only seems like Republicans who are always trying to have things both ways......

John McCain can say nasty things about Chelsea Clinton, but nothing can be asked when it is discovered that the 17 year-old child of an abstinance-only Governor is pregnant. John McCain can receive donations from a jailed friend (Keating), but it's not OK for Obama (Refko). John McCain can say the economy is fundamentally strong, but if it isn't strong - Barak Obama did it.

It might seem unbalanced, but when Obama (or Democrats) fabricates they call him on it....Dems just fabricates a whole lots less often.

[jayburd]

They're not balanced because there is no such thing these days. As I said in my previous post, the truth lies mainly on the left these days. If your objective is to get at the truth, there is no way to be "balanced" in this day and age.

[proveit2me]

I began noticing about 15 or 20 years ago a shift in the American psyche that has helped lead us where we are today- and over-indulgence in the sense of relativism, coupled with a growing politically and culturally fed anti-intel­lectualism­. The result is that large swaths of the population now believe provable, objective facts are merely a matter of perception, that stating 2+2 is 5 is as valid as saying it is 4, because it's all a matter of how you look at it. No, it isn't. Gravity works whether you believe in it or not. While commentators like Olberman and Maddow do wear their political views on their sleeve, they don't simply argue the case for a political viewpoint, they argue in defense of the facts. That this is seen as biased says how much we have lowered our standards as citizens.

[BBackSoon]

‘Because the Republicans are providing them with so much material that their bias is, at its core, a form of objectivity. They are not partisan so much as perceptive­.’ – No S#it Shirlock!

Now that that is out of the way, my problem with much of the MSM is in trying to be ‘Fair’ they will actually debate as possible stupid Right Wing Talking Points (Lies). I can almost understand the omissions early on of the McCain Missteps, if we forgeve them with a benefit of the doubt. No More.

I watch the New MSNBC Dual Power Hours every night and I love it. Thanks for the rebroadcasts that helps. I had started to worry, mainly because of some of the trolls on this site, that I was getting my news from only Liberal Biased news sources. So I have been trying to watch other Cable news since that is what fits my schedule. I find FOX both laughable and infurating and CNN seems to omit so many points while over analyzing others. And let us not forget CNN’s use of 2 NeoCons and 1 Centerist on each pannel. Rairly a real smart liberal.

I am no longer sorry that I feel that if your not pissed off, you are not paying attention!

[booksnmore4you]

Let me add something about Olbermann and Maddow.

Of all newscasters, they have a better handle one THE FACTS than any I can think of. Usually, I cannot do anything but be disgusted at the shallow handle other newscasters have on the days occurrences, knowing that I have a better handle than they from, er, reading widely for several hours each day. They might try it sometime!

[booksnmore4you]

> Because the Republicans are providing them with so much material that their bias is,
> at its core, a form of objectivity. They are not partisan so much as perceptive.

Yep. And for the time and circumstance, they are *right*.

[newpotusplease]

Bias= David Gregory, NBC Chief White House Correspondent and anchor of Race for the White House,
He is talking about Freddie and Fannie today and he does not mention,disclose that his wife, Beth Wilkinson, ran Fannie Mae and that she quit her job last friday with four other senior executives when the government had to step in.

[StLBoy]

Among the reasons I watch both KO and Maddow, is that on the rare occasion they get something wrong, they correct themselves (or allow someone else to correct them), apologize and move on. That's a critical step for anyone who wants to earn and keep my trust.

Meanwhile, Fox hosts simply can't bring themselves to take that step. And it's not like they don't have ample opportunity, given their personal pipeline to the GOP talking (lying) points.

The GOP insults our intelligence on an almost hourly basis (It's the credibility, stupid). The goofballs on "Fox (Bullwinkle) & Friends" are a perfect example. Remember the Obamas' "terrorist fist-bump" question? Or how the Fox News producers distorted the photos of two NY Times reporters? I mean, seriously, even if you hate The Times with every ounce of your being, how can a person not see how pitiful an act of cowardice that was? How can you not be frightened by that?

When Hillary was shown repeating her infamous "Bosnian sniper-fire" fairy tale, I threw in the proverbial towel -- and my support to Obama. But the McCain campaign's relentless stream of lies, half-truths and innuendo make Hillary sound like she was on Sodium Pentothal.

[lbrillante]

I cannot watch Fox News because it is neither fair nor balanced. I try occassionally. I watched Paulson this weekend because it was too important not to. But when they broke to a commercial I heear the spin. Coming up Greta Van Sustern will tell us why Obama is losing ground. As it seemed to me common knowledge that he had been gaining ground during the past week... the spin just seemed insulting to my intelligence and certainly did not make me interested in what Greta had to say.

I am so grateful for Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow because they tell the truth, they have integrity. They give voice to those of us who perhaps just have a different world view but much needed perspective. When Rachel took the leap and said how about we call the telling of untruths lies and the repeated telling of the untruths lying it was so freeing for so many of us! Without them the media seems mostly insane.