OK, hoooold me back! Here's the latest from the AP: "Will cable roughhousing extract a price?"

[Berry Cool]

The full column, by David Bauder, can be found here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gun8JJ1XEslHHlWf8LzXa1QXrYwgD9B039MG3

First two paragraphs:

Amplifying the nation's political division has been good business for Fox News Channel and MSNBC during this season of anger — but it may come at a price.

President Barack Obama has complained about a coarsening of political dialogue and cable news cycles where "the loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention." After a summer of raucous health care forums that received wide coverage, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson felt free to shout that Obama was a liar during an address to Congress.

Pretty bad, isn't it? Well, who is to be blamed for this terrible state of affairs? Why...journalists! And you know, the public mistrusts journalists, because they are confusing their opinions with facts, and political discourse is decreasing in quality across our fine country as a result.

How is this story illustrated?

WITH A PICTURE OF KEITH OLBERMANN.

Yes, Keith Olbermann is the AP's poster child for Coarsening of the Political Dialogue Through Loud, Shrill Journalistic Voices.

To add insult to injury, it's a picture of him taken at "the 'Defying Inequality' Broadway concert, a celebrity benefit for equal rights, in New York." (Because, you see, equal rights are supported only by loud, shrill voices that coarsen the political dialogue!)

Read the story. It starts with describing Chris Wallace on Fox calling the Obama administration "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in journalism." (Sounds like his opinion rather than a fact to me. Fair enough.) Then it goes on to speak of the popularity of the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly on Fox. It mentions that Fox cut off coverage of an Obama health care rally, saying it would return if there were "any contentious questions, anybody yelling"; that "liberal watchdogs Media Matters said that during one week, Fox aired 22 comments from health care forums that opposed or questioned Obama's plans, and none that supported the president"; and that CNN's Rick Sanchez has accused Fox of promoting the 9/12 teabagger rally rather than just covering it. All fair comments.

But--but--these examples implicate only the RIGHT, correct? And to do "journalism," you have to provide an equal example from the LEFT, don't you? So, where does Bauder run for his example of a lefty who is just as bad as Fox News at confusing his opinion with facts? You guessed it.

One moment that passed nearly unnoticed on MSNBC illustrated the same trend from a different perspective.

During its coverage of Obama's address to Congress on health care, MSNBC aired the Republican response from Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany, a former heart surgeon. The moment he ended, Keith Olbermann spoke up.

"Congressman Boustany," he said. "We should note that he has been sued for malpractice three times. He is a birther, who believes there are questions about the president's citizenship and ... he is a man reported in court papers to have fallen for a scam in which he tried to buy the British royalty title of `Lord.'"

Only a year ago, MSNBC was so mindful of separating news coverage from opinion that it replace Olbermann with David Gregory as anchor on political night coverage.

So. There you have it. When Olbermann said Boustany "had been sued for malpractice three times," that wasn't FACT, that was only his OPINION, in Bauder's eyes. Never mind that even Politico has confirmed that Boustany lost, or his patient was at least awarded damages, in at least three lawsuits for which he was the malpractice defendant, or that even Greta van Susteren said he had actually been sued eight times! It's just Olbermann's "opinion"! And it's also merely Olbermann's opinion that Boustany's a birther, despite the fact that when Boustany was asked ON CAMERA whether he believed Obama is a natural-born citizen, he said "I think there are questions"! And that business about Boustany trying to buy a fake royal title? That is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD because he filed a lawsuit in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana against the hoaxers who ripped him off! But...it's JUST Olbermann's OPINION.

So, David Bauder, journalist that he is, really balanced out this article. He talked about Fox News' inserting of opinion into the news, and then he counterbalanced it with an example of Keith Olbermann inserting FACTS into the news! Damn that biased Keith Olbermann! He should have stayed replaced by David Gregory, who we all know delivers an impartial, evenhanded view of things! :sarcasm:

Oh, but Bauder wasn't done. He has to let "veteran journalist" Bernard Goldberg defend Fox News for THEIR insertion of opinion into news, because, why, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't know about "Van Jones and the Acorn organization scandal"!

"When Glenn Beck, who doesn't even pretend to be a journalist, breaks stories the so-called mainstream media should be breaking, journalism is in trouble," he said.

In other words, thank God for loudmouthed roughhousing non-journalist opinionators like Glenn Beck, because while they may opinionize, at least they also give us THE NEWS!!!!

Now, does Bauder, in his eternal quest for journalistic evenhanded coverage, go and try to find an example of some alleged lefty journalist "roughhouser" breaking a legitimate news story? No. He does not. Not here. No.

So you see, there you have it, folks, according to the AP.

Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Fox News = opinion-mongers, but that's OK, because at least they give us the news, too.

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC = just a loud, shrill bloviator who confuses his personal opinions with news and brings down the national political discourse.

I can express my feelings about this only one way:



WHAT HAAAAAAAPPENED????

HOW DID I WAKE UP IN THIS CRAZY WORLD IN WHICH JOURNALISTS ACCUSE OTHER JOURNALISTS OF NOT KNOWING OPINION FROM FACT, WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO DO NOT KNOW IT?????? WHERE BLOWHARDS LIKE GLENN BECK ARE PRAISED FOR DOING THE WORK OF JOURNALISM THAT PEOPLE LIKE KEITH OLBERMANN WHO USE FACTS DON'T DO?

TAKE ME BACK WHERE I CAME FROM...PLEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NewJeffCT]

1. well, you have to have balance, don't ya know

saying "Bush lied" with pages of evidence to prove it is the exact same thing as saying that Obama hates white people with no proof whatsoever.

[EmilyAnne]

13. And birthers = truthers.

:crazy:

[meegbear]

2. Ummm ... it is the AP after all ...

http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=AP&x=8&y=10

[Berry Cool]

4. I know, I KNOW

...but there was a time when AP actually wasn't run by right-wing nutjobs. I desperately miss those days.

[mmonk]

3. Those that say any on the left are anything even remotely

similar with those currently on the right are liars, plain and simple. All the faux outrage on the right and all their so called issues are fabrications.

[clu]

5. thanks for posting this

I remember watching MSNBC, and being taken aback by the fact that they were telling the truth. Then, realizing that it was olbermann and maddow doing the commentary, I switched to another station to see how they were commenting on the affair. Always good to see it spelled out. K&R.

[izzybeans]

6. The state of journalism is poor when the public thinks Olbermann is a journalist.

He uses facts to form opinions, but he's not digging up facts as a journalist.

The problem with journalism is that the real ones have been fired, retired, or can't find a job. If you can state your opinion in a wacky and/or indignant voice, this is what counts as journalism these days.

I didn't read that article, but I do agree with Obama's interpretation of cable news. Fox News was the "market leader" so the rest followed like lap dogs. It's as if Crossfire disbanded and now happens de facto with the stations harping at one another.

I enjoy Keith as much as the rest of us, but I've never understood what he does to be journalism.

[Berry Cool]

7. Your viewpoint is biased.

If he isn't digging up every fact himself, the people who work on his show are. He's an ANCHOR. He does what anchors do. He understands journalism because he's had to practice it throughout his career, even in sportscasting. He often found in sports that the hype was big and the actual facts were hidden.

If you don't understand what Keith Olbermann does to be journalism, I would wager you don't know what journalism is.

[izzybeans]

12. Umm. Ok

Wacky voices and all, I'll take that wager.

I suppose under the media entertainment scope of things it's passable, but I've never seen him or anyone on the nightly talk shows on any channel employ someone who collected the information that became the story. You know, a journalist. They bring them on to discuss the stories, but don't you find it odd that you already know pretty much every story they will discuss at night? It's just opinion, good opinion, but opinion nonetheless. No anchor is a journalist, at least not anymore. They are news readers at best. Olbermann does them one better by reading us the news we've consumed already that day and putting it context.

The only thing I don't like about his show is the nightly discussions about the wackjobs at FauxNews are doing. Occasionally this is great, but my only real critique of the show is that I've gotten bored with the outrage. I get it already. Just remind me once in a while and spend more time on other issues. Olbermann at his best is when he takes a rightwing narrative or any mythos for that matter and unveils the true nature of the subject.

However, that's not journalism proper. It's a critical discourse that falls outside of its professional domain. Above it. Beside it. Wherever. He just does what we all do around the dinner table, except he has a studio sound board and graphics. I only think its helpful to separate what he does from what the journalists do to support his show and our discussions about current events, is all. If not, journalism will continue to be lost to the winds of fauxnews. My hope is Olbermann would agree.

That said, I am missing some context from you OP because I didn't have time to read and am only familiar with Obama's critique of cable news, in general, which I agree with. That critique applies as much to MSNBC as it does to CNN, and only a few tens of yards less than FauxNews. I'll read it later and I apologize if I'm off topic on this one. I just responded to that portion of you OP.

[EmilyAnne]

14. It seems that Olbermann has actually broken certain stories, or at least covered stories that other

journalists/ anchors have ignored.

[DireStrike]

8. WRITE [e-mail]

Remember to keep it CIVIL. More flies with honey, and all that.

My letter:

In David Bouder's report on increasing partisanship in the media, he states: "Both networks seem bolder in letting partisanship seep into news coverage..." The AP seems to take the opposite tack, running so far from the appearance of partisanship that it leaves the facts in the dust behind it.

In this entire piece Bouder continually quotes and refers to right-wing media voices. At only one point does he mention any sort of partisanship from the left, citing this statement by Keith Olbermann:

"Congressman Boustany," he said. "We should note that he has been sued for malpractice three times. He is a birther, who believes there are questions about the president's citizenship and ... he is a man reported in court papers to have fallen for a scam in which he tried to buy the British royalty title of `Lord.'"

While this statement may paint a right-wing figure in a bad light, it is not partisan. Reporting facts is never partisan. Lying in service of ideology is partisan. You could write a book filled with the lies that come from right-wing media fixtures, and in fact Senator Al Franken has written one.

So why, in this climate, does the AP choose to run this story with a picture of Mr. Olbermann, instead of one of the innumerable voices of distortion and partisanship from the right? Does it debate the factuality of his statement? If so, this was not stated in the article. Does Bouder think Olbermann's claim is so ridiculous on its face that he felt such a comment wasn't necessary? Ridiculous or not, Olbermann's statement was not opinion, but fact.

I wish the AP were more concerned with reporting the facts and not simply with appearing neutral. When one side is clearly wrong, it should be reported. There is far more hateful, violent, and above all partisan speech in the media coming from the right than from the left. There is no need to balance the mountain of inaccuracy from the right with a few questionable statements gleaned from the left. Simply call a spade a spade.

[Berry Cool]

10. Excellent letter. You were so calm and collected!

Right now, I'm so angry I can't be that civil. Thank you!

[Lagomorph]

9. Put these on...

[Berry Cool]

11. Very funny.

But the response that comes to mind when I think of the world I'm in now is that I wouldn't want to put those shoes on long enough to tap the heels together. Standing in what we're standing in these days, they'd be ruined instantly. :-(

[Odin2005]

15. Associated Pukes.