I decided that it would be best if I waited a while after doing my research (that is, taking notes on a show I already try to watch as often as possible) so that I could get some perspective on what I saw and heard. I believe that there are two things that are the most crucial to be gained from this experience: what Thomas Patterson would think of Countdown, and whether or not he is right to think that. The first is much more cut and dried than the second, so that's the one I'll tackle first (also, it makes more sense to talk about whether something is right after you know what it is).
From a month and a day of Countdown, I believe that if Out of Order was being written now instead of in 1993, Patterson would have devoted at least a chapter to Olbermann, as well as his nemesis Bill O'Reilly (I prefer Bill-O the Clown, personally) and the other people in the cable news business with shows of a similar genre. This show not only violates the principles of journalism that Patterson discusses, it flouts them at nearly every chance it gets. I do not believe this is done intentionally, as I will discuss later. However, according to Patterson, this show would be nearly journalistically void.
The four main things I decided to look for most were use of the game schema, use of interpretive journalism, and the two biases -- partisan and journalistic. All four were found in spades, though not exactly in the proportions I expected from my prior knowledge of the show.
I was expecting to find that the game schema would be the issue that would appear the most. Honestly though, after watching the show for over a month with an analyst's eye, I cannot figure out where I got that expectation from. It was rare that an explicit case of a horse race reference would appear -- the ones that did show up were far more subtle than some of the other violations. This brings about two possibilities -- either Olbermann is really good at keeping that out of the show typically, or it's just really hard to see. To be perfectly honest, I lean toward the latter. I've been a political junkie for years now, and I watch and read a lot of news, so I believe that at this point, I've become irreversibly conditioned to think of elections -- and politics as a whole -- as a game, as a race, or as a battle. Because of that, I think it may be possible that even though I was expressly looking for it, I had trouble picking out instances to which the game schema applied.
Journalistic bias was also hard to find, and the more I think about it, the more I think it may be for the same reasons as for the game schema. This, I believe, proves Patterson's point, to an extent. At this point, I'm so conditioned to be cynical about politics and view it as a war that even looking for examples of these two concepts in news coverage is a challenge.
The other two concepts, though, weren't hard at all -- though both appeared more than I'd expected. Interpretive journalism dominates almost every segment of every episode of Countdown. It is an interpretive show, clearly. There is little to no descriptive reporting, unless news breaks while the show is on air. The preponderance of the show's coverage is based on the views of either Keith Olbermann or one of a number of recurring guests -- Richard Wolffe, Eugene Robinson, Chris Kofinis, and Nate Silver are the first who come to mind. Really, the first part of each segment, where Olbermann gives background information on whatever is the topic for the segment, is the only part of the show dominated by descriptive reporting. Practically everything else is interpretation.
If there's anything that is more omnipresent than interpretation, though, it is partisan bias. It's easy to tell that Keith Olbermann is a Democrat -- or at the very least, a liberal and an Obama supporter -- and basically every topic and every story covered on the show is viewed through that lens. His humor and sarcasm are what make the show interesting, but they are nearly always weaponized and directed at Republicans and conservatives. Entire segments of the show are based on this -- "Worst Persons" is usually just Olbermann's three least favorite Republicans of the day, and segments like "Bushed" and "McCain in the Membrane" are basically just opportunities for Olbermann to point out George Bush's and John McCain's screwups, respectively. I did not cover the latter two segments on a day-to-day basis because they would have ended up like "Worst Persons" -- basically naming the things he'd mentioned, then saying it was biased over and over again. I felt this was unnecessary, because of the repetitiveness factor, which I will discuss in more detail later. "Worst Persons" got coverage because it is a numbered segment.
Even the show's guests are chosen with a partisan bias in mind. David Axelrod appeared on the show several times, and not once did a member of the McCain campaign appear (except for the post-debate shows, where they pretty much had to). Michael Moore, Frank Rich, John Cleese, and other well-known liberals all appeared as well. Even the reporters who appear on the show appear to be like-minded.
On the other hand, as I mentioned when they were employed, I viewed the Special Comments -- though obviously politically biased -- as less intense violations than the rest of the show. This is because unlike everything else, the Comments were presented as pure opinion. They're editorial comments in the tradition of Edward R. Murrow. However, the rest of the show is presented as news, but given with a leftward slant. The separation between the Comment and the rest of the show is what I believe makes it less improper.
It also seemed like to a certain extent, as the election drew closer, the show had less partisan bias. This could have been an illusion, but I believe that as time passed, the level of reporting done on the show was raised. This was not a hard-and-fast rule -- one of the most biased shows of the period was five days before the election -- but it was generally the case, at least in terms of the intensity of the bias if not in the amount.
One other thing I noticed before moving on: the way the show is designed leads it to an awful amount of repetition. Anyone who watches can tell that the show has the same basic structure every day. In analysis, though, it's easy to see that every episode of the show has similarities on a more detailed level, as well. This led to a lot of repetition in my analysis, which is the reason why for a time I considered changing this blog into a paper instead (I decided not to because I'd already done this). This repetition worried me for a while, but I believe that my analysis correctly and accurately describes the show.
Now, Olbermann doesn't appear to be intentionally violating rules of journalism -- in fact, exactly the opposite, with his Murrow sign off, I believe that he wants to be the best journalist he can, and this is how he is trying to do that. This brings me to the second major point: is Patterson right? Is all of this -- the bias, the interpretation, the game schema -- really that bad, and worth trying to purge from journalism?
I do not believe it is -- at least, not all of it, or not completely. Again I will concentrate on the four concepts I focused on in my study.
Of the four, I agree most with Patterson on journalistic bias. The cynicism and distrust inherent in it isn't journalistically sound, as it causes deception. A lot of the things that bias tends to make journalists speak ill of are either not that bad or not even true. I'll use as an example the auto bailout bill that was the subject of discussion in the very first show I analyzed. There was a lot of talk about "goodies" and "sweeteners" and "playing politics," and while I know some of the time it's true and it's warranted, it's clearly used a lot more than it's true. And that hurts our political process -- if people don't believe in their leaders, then how can they possibly believe that their country is being led effectively, that they are safe, and that there's hope for the future? I'm not saying that the media should kowtow to the government, because that would be just as bad, if not significantly worse. I am saying, however, that the press shouldn't resort to claims that members of our government aren't in it for us unless they have good reason to believe it's actually true in a specific case, and can share that reason with viewers (or readers, listeners...the audience, writ large).
I also agree on the game schema to a certain extent, but not fully. Obviously this may be because I've grown up with it, and am therefore used to it. I do feel, though, that elections are competitions, and analogies made to communicate that notion are not really that bad. A lot of what's done in a campaign is done with the goal of winning the election, instead of making policy before taking office. This isn't really a bad thing, it's necessary -- if a candidate doesn't try to win the election, he or she probably won't, and because of that all the policy ideas conceived on the election trail will be largely useless. Game schema reporting shouldn't necessarily disappear altogether, but it should definitely be tempered a bit and mixed with more reporting on the ideas of the candidates simply as they are, rather as some part of a larger narrative on who's winning. Policy ideas on the campaign trail shouldn't be treated like they're political weapons, they should be treated like they're possibly the basis of the country for the next four years -- since, of course, they are. If these ideas would be reported differently, it's possible that voters would look at them more seriously and take them under stronger consideration when choosing a candidate. The game schema could mostly die out on its own in this way.
I am far more willing, however, to defend the other two Pattersonian concepts, at least in the context of Countdown. The first one, partisan bias, is a little more tenuous. I will admit that, at times, Olbermann got to be a little too much even for me, as is easily seen in a few of my write-ups. One of the shows that was harder to get through because of the partisan bias was October 31. Honestly, the combination of a clear mischaracterization of a McCain quote by Olbermann and him having Michael Moore on as a guest just seemed like overkill -- it was almost as if he was inviting criticism.
On the other hand, though, I honestly do not believe that Olbermann's bias colored the facts of his reporting one bit. I followed the election very closely, through many more objective sources, while I was doing this project. I don't remember a time (aside from the aforementioned quote) when Olbermann misreported something or lied or covered up information about the Democratic Party, which are things that FOX News is often accused of doing. I don't know whether they do any of that; that would be another project for another semester for me. But I do have faith that, while obviously Keith Olbermann wanted Barack Obama to win the election, he did not do anything dishonest to try to make that happen. He reported uncomplimentary things about the Republicans, McCain, and Palin, and he tried to make the point that they were inferior candidates to Obama and Joe Biden. But everything he said was true, at least as far as I can tell from the research that I did during the campaign season.
The easiest to defend, in my view, is interpretive reporting. I disagree with Patterson's claim that interpretive reporting only gives the audience the tip of the iceberg. In fact, I think it may be precisely the opposite -- that it's descriptive reporting that gives only the tip of the iceberg, and interpretation then fleshes out the idea. Now, it would not be good to receive only interpretation, because the audience then would lack the background to be able to effectively understand the analysis. I suppose that if the only news a person gets is from Countdown, that would be mostly what would happen. However, the opposite is true too -- if the only news an average person gets is from watching C-SPAN, it's highly unlikely that he will have any idea what is going on, because little to no explanation will take place. Neither type of reporting is bad, I think, and neither type can really stand alone.
To reference another author we have read, Farhad Manjoo claims that there are too many "experts" in news coverage today, and asks whether the experts we see are really "expert." In the case of Countdown, though, the experts are expert. They're high-level reporters and people who have worked in campaigns, and are introduced fully upon each appearance -- in fact, I've now heard the sentence "Democratic strategist, Chris Kofinis, former communications director for the Edwards campaign" so many times that I can recite it along with Olbermann. The point is that the vast majority of people who come on the show are real experts, and their interpretations of the day's political events are very useful. They should not be the exclusive source of news for a person, but they should be considered an acceptable supplement, rather than something to be shunned.
In summary, then, I am fairly certain that Thomas Patterson would have loud objections to Countdown. I, however, disagree with some of his stances, and because of that I believe that the show can be a valuable (though not sole) part of a person's news intake. I acknowledge that it is far from perfect, but it shouldn't be demonized. Patterson makes good points, and the things he talks about should be minimized as much as possible -- I have already said that the degrees to which Countdown meets negative criteria are too high -- but a utopian situation in which all news coverage is solely descriptive and wholly unbiased is impossible and, I argue, not to be desired, necessarily.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Day 24: November 3
1 day to Election Day
The final show of the campaign season opens with the news that Obama's grandmother has died, and a clip of Obama briefly talking about it in North Carolina. It then swings to the final polls before the election: Obama leads in almost all demographics other than evangelicals, the elderly, and whites; he also leads in a measure of supporter enthusiasm and in all of the most important swing states. Howard Fineman joins the show once again, and is asked whether McCain should be finishing his campaign with a claim that Obama opposes coal, what the political impact of Obama's grandmother's death is, what it says that Obama has only been in red states for the past week, and whether Republicans claiming that it won't take a "miracle" for McCain to win have different polling numbers or are just wrong. This is a mixture of interpretive journalism and game schema -- the discussion of polls, and Fineman refers to McCain's coal claim as "small-ball." There's also a moment of partisan bias when Olbermann finishes the segment by saying that he's "still worried" that McCain might win.
The next segment, in which Nate Silver analyzes the last polls, is nearly pure horse race, with a little speculation mixed in. Olbermann asks him whether McCain has a chance to win, what early indicators of the outcome will be, whether there's anything in the fivethirtyeight.com model to account for candidates' ground games or the historic nature of the election (as in, will people come out just to be able to say they voted in 2008), whether exit polls are even remotely useful, and if weather will be a factor. There are several baseball references as well.
Next is a discussion of the early vote margins (heavily in favor of Obama), and by extension the campaign's "ground game." Chris Kofinis appears here, and Olbermann asks how far above average the Obama ground game is, whether empty McCain offices are indicative of volunteers giving up en masse, if there's any legitimate explanation for a McCain win other than "fraud at polls" (Olbermann says here that he's quoting Citizen Kane), and whether Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Hillary Clinton for giving his "ground army," as Kofinis refers to it, a dry run of sorts. This is one part interpretation, one part game schema.
The next subject is "a weekend of comedy." McCain made a last-second appearance on Saturday Night Live before the election, and Olbermann himself was the subject of a skit (played by Ben Affleck). Also, a Quebecois comedy team pranked Sarah Palin, convincing her that she was speaking to French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Eugene Robinson joins the show to talk about the political comedy. Olbermann asks how it's possible that Palin's staff let the prank call through, how the McCain campaign can afford to spend time talking about the Olbermann skit (and whether Robinson was disappointed he wasn't in it), why Palin's handlers lied about a deleted line from her last appearance, and how important the SNL appearances really are. This is primarily an example of interpretive journalism.
"Worst Persons" shows an unusually non-partisan feather today, with honorees including Bill O'Reilly and Bill Cunningham -- more usual suspects -- but also Shirley Neagle, who put out a sign on Halloween saying that children of supporters of one presidential candidate (who Olbermann does not name) would not receive candy. Olbermann says that it doesn't matter what candidate it was, she was "a jerk to children" and should be scorned. Though the first two were Republicans, the lack of identification of the third was a refreshing change.
The final Campaign Comment is a fiction: what would be happening now if all of the mistakes, blunders and gaffes that John McCain has committed were, instead, Barack Obama's? The answer, Olbermann says, is that Obama "would have long since ceased to be taken seriously by any measurable part of the voting public, as a viable, responsible, self-aware, mentally vigorous, non-dangerous, non-risk." This is essentially a plea with America to vote for Barack Obama, and it's a fittingly politically biased end to the period of analysis.
The final show of the campaign season opens with the news that Obama's grandmother has died, and a clip of Obama briefly talking about it in North Carolina. It then swings to the final polls before the election: Obama leads in almost all demographics other than evangelicals, the elderly, and whites; he also leads in a measure of supporter enthusiasm and in all of the most important swing states. Howard Fineman joins the show once again, and is asked whether McCain should be finishing his campaign with a claim that Obama opposes coal, what the political impact of Obama's grandmother's death is, what it says that Obama has only been in red states for the past week, and whether Republicans claiming that it won't take a "miracle" for McCain to win have different polling numbers or are just wrong. This is a mixture of interpretive journalism and game schema -- the discussion of polls, and Fineman refers to McCain's coal claim as "small-ball." There's also a moment of partisan bias when Olbermann finishes the segment by saying that he's "still worried" that McCain might win.
The next segment, in which Nate Silver analyzes the last polls, is nearly pure horse race, with a little speculation mixed in. Olbermann asks him whether McCain has a chance to win, what early indicators of the outcome will be, whether there's anything in the fivethirtyeight.com model to account for candidates' ground games or the historic nature of the election (as in, will people come out just to be able to say they voted in 2008), whether exit polls are even remotely useful, and if weather will be a factor. There are several baseball references as well.
Next is a discussion of the early vote margins (heavily in favor of Obama), and by extension the campaign's "ground game." Chris Kofinis appears here, and Olbermann asks how far above average the Obama ground game is, whether empty McCain offices are indicative of volunteers giving up en masse, if there's any legitimate explanation for a McCain win other than "fraud at polls" (Olbermann says here that he's quoting Citizen Kane), and whether Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Hillary Clinton for giving his "ground army," as Kofinis refers to it, a dry run of sorts. This is one part interpretation, one part game schema.
The next subject is "a weekend of comedy." McCain made a last-second appearance on Saturday Night Live before the election, and Olbermann himself was the subject of a skit (played by Ben Affleck). Also, a Quebecois comedy team pranked Sarah Palin, convincing her that she was speaking to French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Eugene Robinson joins the show to talk about the political comedy. Olbermann asks how it's possible that Palin's staff let the prank call through, how the McCain campaign can afford to spend time talking about the Olbermann skit (and whether Robinson was disappointed he wasn't in it), why Palin's handlers lied about a deleted line from her last appearance, and how important the SNL appearances really are. This is primarily an example of interpretive journalism.
"Worst Persons" shows an unusually non-partisan feather today, with honorees including Bill O'Reilly and Bill Cunningham -- more usual suspects -- but also Shirley Neagle, who put out a sign on Halloween saying that children of supporters of one presidential candidate (who Olbermann does not name) would not receive candy. Olbermann says that it doesn't matter what candidate it was, she was "a jerk to children" and should be scorned. Though the first two were Republicans, the lack of identification of the third was a refreshing change.
The final Campaign Comment is a fiction: what would be happening now if all of the mistakes, blunders and gaffes that John McCain has committed were, instead, Barack Obama's? The answer, Olbermann says, is that Obama "would have long since ceased to be taken seriously by any measurable part of the voting public, as a viable, responsible, self-aware, mentally vigorous, non-dangerous, non-risk." This is essentially a plea with America to vote for Barack Obama, and it's a fittingly politically biased end to the period of analysis.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Day 23: October 31
4 days to Election Day
The show opens with a recap of everything that happened overnight in the campaign. Obama is attacking in Arizona still, while widening a national polling lead and getting help from an appearance by Al Gore in Florida, the state that cost him the 2000 election. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is claiming that they are statistically tied in Ohio polling, as well as attacking Obama over claiming in an Iowa speech that winning the caucus there "vindicated" his faith in the American people, with McCain claiming that means Obama has less faith than he does. Howard Fineman enters the ring here, to discuss these topics. Olbermann asks him whether a new McCain ad claiming Obama supports him on climate issues is counterproductive by making Obama look good, what can or will change over the weekend, and how much of Tuesday's outcome will depend on the campaigns' ground games. Fineman's answers are interpretive reporting, the polling discussion is based on the game schema (as, for that matter, is the term "ground game").
The next guest is David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, who discusses the mood and strategy in Obama headquarters. Olbermann's first question is "Arizona? Why not Alaska?" which is a reference to the Obama team's activity in McCain's home state. He also asks Axelrod why the candidate is not visiting Pennsylvania, if he wishes Obama hadn't told Rachel Maddow that "we're winning," and whether Axelrod's opposite number Rick Davis's statement that McCain is in the midst of a comeback is true or a talking point. This last question sums up the segment, because Axelrod says it's a talking point -- but he's just spent several minutes giving out his own talking points, with no response from McCain. Rick Davis does not appear on the show. This is basically free airtime for the Obama campaign, unless the McCain camp has turned down invitations and Olbermann hasn't mentioned it.
Next, Olbermann discusses new evidence of Palin's effect on the Republican ticket: Republicans are endorsing Obama, either intentionally or by accident. Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein says that he's voting for Obama because "you don‘t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald‘s, you‘re interviewed three times before given a job." Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger says that she won't be ready to take over as president as soon as she takes office, then backtracks on FOX News, saying that he "made a serious mistake," "wasn't thinking," and that "she's a quick learner." McCain then is quoted as saying that Palin is the new face of the party, either "as the vice president, or—OR..." which Olbermann and guest Jonathan Alter both take to mean that he's horrified at the idea of Palin as president. It's hard to take that seriously -- it's far more likely that his way of phrasing the comment was concerned with not wanting to discuss any other possibility, because that would necessitate his losing the election. This possibility is not mentioned -- not even in passing -- by either Olbermann or Alter. Taking the quote out of context and deforming it in that way is probably the most dangerous instance of partisan bias that I have yet seen while analyzing Countdown, because it is one that is not obvious to the political or journalistic novice. Calling Bill O'Reilly the worst person in the world day in and day out is one thing, but this is nearing intellectual violence that would enrage Olbermann himself, were it perpetrated against Obama.
The rest of this segment is more benign interpretive reporting. Olbermann asks Alter what the McCain quote meant -- as mentioned above -- as well as whether Palin has really united the Republican Party as McCain claims, and whether the vice presidential pick will become more important in all elections or this effect will be restricted to 2008.
Michael Moore appears in the next segment to talk about early voting and health care. Olbermann asks what the emphasis on early voting will do to voting on Tuesday, whether it hurts Obama to see polls released saying that early voting is leaning heavily for him (because it will cause complacency), and what the effect will be of the McCain adviser saying that current employer-provided health care is superior to what will exist under a McCain administration. Beyond just the fact that the guest is Michael Moore, this segment is filled with partisan bias because of the sense of camaraderie between Moore and Olbermann. Moore even refers to "people on our side of the political fence." The game schema is also employed by Moore when he makes an analogy between a fumble by football player Leon Lett and what could happen if Obama supporters become complacent.
"Worst Persons" tonight is predictably biased, but at least Olbermann is really good at doing impressions of people he doesn't like. The winners are O'Reilly, for continuing his ratings conspiracy claims; G.Gordon Liddy, for saying that Obama will rely on "the welfare class" to win; and Ann Coulter -- or, as Olbermann calls her, "Coulter-geist." Coulter makes the list for being the latest right-wing talker to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler. All three get impressions, and Coulter gets an eyepatch photoshopped onto her picture.
The final segment is a mostly useless (in a journalistic sense) conversation with Monty Python's John Cleese. Cleese talks about issues including McCain referring to Joe the Plumber as his "role model," where the glorification of the "everyman" comes from, Cleese's favorite moment from the campaign (it's McCain's "my fellow prisoners" slip-up), Karl Rove's tactics, and whether there's any hope for the American political system. Cleese also reads a poem that he wrote about Bill O'Reilly, much to Olbermann's delight. It's all very amusing as a throwaway segment, but not particularly useful in a news sense.
The show opens with a recap of everything that happened overnight in the campaign. Obama is attacking in Arizona still, while widening a national polling lead and getting help from an appearance by Al Gore in Florida, the state that cost him the 2000 election. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is claiming that they are statistically tied in Ohio polling, as well as attacking Obama over claiming in an Iowa speech that winning the caucus there "vindicated" his faith in the American people, with McCain claiming that means Obama has less faith than he does. Howard Fineman enters the ring here, to discuss these topics. Olbermann asks him whether a new McCain ad claiming Obama supports him on climate issues is counterproductive by making Obama look good, what can or will change over the weekend, and how much of Tuesday's outcome will depend on the campaigns' ground games. Fineman's answers are interpretive reporting, the polling discussion is based on the game schema (as, for that matter, is the term "ground game").
The next guest is David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, who discusses the mood and strategy in Obama headquarters. Olbermann's first question is "Arizona? Why not Alaska?" which is a reference to the Obama team's activity in McCain's home state. He also asks Axelrod why the candidate is not visiting Pennsylvania, if he wishes Obama hadn't told Rachel Maddow that "we're winning," and whether Axelrod's opposite number Rick Davis's statement that McCain is in the midst of a comeback is true or a talking point. This last question sums up the segment, because Axelrod says it's a talking point -- but he's just spent several minutes giving out his own talking points, with no response from McCain. Rick Davis does not appear on the show. This is basically free airtime for the Obama campaign, unless the McCain camp has turned down invitations and Olbermann hasn't mentioned it.
Next, Olbermann discusses new evidence of Palin's effect on the Republican ticket: Republicans are endorsing Obama, either intentionally or by accident. Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein says that he's voting for Obama because "you don‘t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald‘s, you‘re interviewed three times before given a job." Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger says that she won't be ready to take over as president as soon as she takes office, then backtracks on FOX News, saying that he "made a serious mistake," "wasn't thinking," and that "she's a quick learner." McCain then is quoted as saying that Palin is the new face of the party, either "as the vice president, or—OR..." which Olbermann and guest Jonathan Alter both take to mean that he's horrified at the idea of Palin as president. It's hard to take that seriously -- it's far more likely that his way of phrasing the comment was concerned with not wanting to discuss any other possibility, because that would necessitate his losing the election. This possibility is not mentioned -- not even in passing -- by either Olbermann or Alter. Taking the quote out of context and deforming it in that way is probably the most dangerous instance of partisan bias that I have yet seen while analyzing Countdown, because it is one that is not obvious to the political or journalistic novice. Calling Bill O'Reilly the worst person in the world day in and day out is one thing, but this is nearing intellectual violence that would enrage Olbermann himself, were it perpetrated against Obama.
The rest of this segment is more benign interpretive reporting. Olbermann asks Alter what the McCain quote meant -- as mentioned above -- as well as whether Palin has really united the Republican Party as McCain claims, and whether the vice presidential pick will become more important in all elections or this effect will be restricted to 2008.
Michael Moore appears in the next segment to talk about early voting and health care. Olbermann asks what the emphasis on early voting will do to voting on Tuesday, whether it hurts Obama to see polls released saying that early voting is leaning heavily for him (because it will cause complacency), and what the effect will be of the McCain adviser saying that current employer-provided health care is superior to what will exist under a McCain administration. Beyond just the fact that the guest is Michael Moore, this segment is filled with partisan bias because of the sense of camaraderie between Moore and Olbermann. Moore even refers to "people on our side of the political fence." The game schema is also employed by Moore when he makes an analogy between a fumble by football player Leon Lett and what could happen if Obama supporters become complacent.
"Worst Persons" tonight is predictably biased, but at least Olbermann is really good at doing impressions of people he doesn't like. The winners are O'Reilly, for continuing his ratings conspiracy claims; G.Gordon Liddy, for saying that Obama will rely on "the welfare class" to win; and Ann Coulter -- or, as Olbermann calls her, "Coulter-geist." Coulter makes the list for being the latest right-wing talker to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler. All three get impressions, and Coulter gets an eyepatch photoshopped onto her picture.
The final segment is a mostly useless (in a journalistic sense) conversation with Monty Python's John Cleese. Cleese talks about issues including McCain referring to Joe the Plumber as his "role model," where the glorification of the "everyman" comes from, Cleese's favorite moment from the campaign (it's McCain's "my fellow prisoners" slip-up), Karl Rove's tactics, and whether there's any hope for the American political system. Cleese also reads a poem that he wrote about Bill O'Reilly, much to Olbermann's delight. It's all very amusing as a throwaway segment, but not particularly useful in a news sense.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Day 22: October 30
5 days to Election Day
This episode had a distinct theme or tenor to it: Obama is strong, McCain is weak. There is a veritable avalanche of information to this point in this show and, though in and of itself that is not necessarily biased -- once again, bias is not inherent in reporting something if it's true. However, the way that Olbermann goes about reporting it is, in fact, biased.
Olbermann talks extensively about the campaigns in Arizona -- namely, that McCain actually has to campaign in his own home state, and that Obama is willing and able to advertise in and visit Arizona. He compares appearances made by the two candidates; Obama's rally was packed with enthusiastic supporters, while even Joe the Plumber was missing from McCain's (even though he was evidently supposed to be there). Olbermann mocks McCain roundly, saying that he's "solid in the unlicensed plumber demographic," referring to the mix-up over "JTP's" absence as a "Johnny Carson 'Doc is here, Doc isn't here' moment," and calling Al Gore "Al the Nobel Laureate."
He criticizes his strategy, saying that McCain is hitting the wrong states, while lauding Obama's efficient structure for using the early vote to his advantage. Olbermann also uses some quotes against McCain, using tape of Bill Clinton at an appearance with Obama in which he criticizes McCain, while saying that Obama's two "presidential decisions" -- his vice presidential pick and his handling of the economic crisis -- were the right ones to make. Also quoted are sources from the McCain campaign calling Sarah Palin a "diva" and a "whack job."
Again, if this is all true -- and there's no reason to believe it isn't -- reporting it is not inherently biased. Reporting on bad management and in-fighting within one party doesn't mean the reporter is biased against that party. However, the way in which Olbermann does it -- a superior, mocking tone, almost as if he's watching a rival sports team lose -- is an example of liberal political bias on his part.
There are other examples as well. One of Olbermann's guests is Frank Rich, a well-known liberal columnist for the New York Times. Again, having Rich on the show is not necessarily an example of bias (though it's closer than reporting on Republican mishaps). In fact, if the goal was to have Rich debate a well-known conservative, it wouldn't be biased at all -- it would be speculative, interpretive journalism, but it wouldn't be politically biased. But the segment where Rich appears sounds like two friends with similar views having a casual discussion. At one point Rich calls McCain's campaign a "fiasco," he can barely keep a grin off his face when discussing that "fiasco," and at the end of his segment Olbermann tells him to "keep your fingers crossed" -- no doubt for an Obama win. This segment is essentially not even pretending to be news-oriented.
The show improves a bit when Rachel Maddow appears to tease her interview with Barack Obama -- it seems at times like an Obama lovefest, but he is attacked a bit. Of course, that attack is that he's not liberal enough, so even that feeds back into the liberal political bias. Obama as referred to as extremely calm and confident about the campaign -- Olbermann calls him "the calmest, least perturbable guy in the room." Overall, though, since they are talking about an interview done by Maddow, that at least is more a description of experience than anything else.
The "Worst Persons" segment is predictable: Bill O'Reilly makes the list for calling Charles Barkley a "pinhead," and then Olbermann talks about their comparative ratings. He also takes an opportunity to call blogger Pamela Geller a member of the "lunatic fringe" -- though since she made the list for claiming that Obama may be the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, that at least may not be bias. However, as usual Olbermann attacks only conservatives, so the segment is predictably rife with political bias.
His "Special Comment" is an attack on McCain for "fatal political malpractice" in his attempts to link Obama with Rashid Khalidi, a supposed supporter of the PLO. Olbermann uses that link, via contributions made by McCain to an organization run by Khalidi, to connect the two, then, via other monetary contributions, he links McCain and Bill Ayres. Honestly, compared to most of the rest of this show, the Comment is not an egregious defender. Nothing he's saying is untrue, as far as we can tell. But it's done in such an over-the-top way that it seems like a personal attack on McCain -- much like most of the rest of the show.
This episode had a distinct theme or tenor to it: Obama is strong, McCain is weak. There is a veritable avalanche of information to this point in this show and, though in and of itself that is not necessarily biased -- once again, bias is not inherent in reporting something if it's true. However, the way that Olbermann goes about reporting it is, in fact, biased.
Olbermann talks extensively about the campaigns in Arizona -- namely, that McCain actually has to campaign in his own home state, and that Obama is willing and able to advertise in and visit Arizona. He compares appearances made by the two candidates; Obama's rally was packed with enthusiastic supporters, while even Joe the Plumber was missing from McCain's (even though he was evidently supposed to be there). Olbermann mocks McCain roundly, saying that he's "solid in the unlicensed plumber demographic," referring to the mix-up over "JTP's" absence as a "Johnny Carson 'Doc is here, Doc isn't here' moment," and calling Al Gore "Al the Nobel Laureate."
He criticizes his strategy, saying that McCain is hitting the wrong states, while lauding Obama's efficient structure for using the early vote to his advantage. Olbermann also uses some quotes against McCain, using tape of Bill Clinton at an appearance with Obama in which he criticizes McCain, while saying that Obama's two "presidential decisions" -- his vice presidential pick and his handling of the economic crisis -- were the right ones to make. Also quoted are sources from the McCain campaign calling Sarah Palin a "diva" and a "whack job."
Again, if this is all true -- and there's no reason to believe it isn't -- reporting it is not inherently biased. Reporting on bad management and in-fighting within one party doesn't mean the reporter is biased against that party. However, the way in which Olbermann does it -- a superior, mocking tone, almost as if he's watching a rival sports team lose -- is an example of liberal political bias on his part.
There are other examples as well. One of Olbermann's guests is Frank Rich, a well-known liberal columnist for the New York Times. Again, having Rich on the show is not necessarily an example of bias (though it's closer than reporting on Republican mishaps). In fact, if the goal was to have Rich debate a well-known conservative, it wouldn't be biased at all -- it would be speculative, interpretive journalism, but it wouldn't be politically biased. But the segment where Rich appears sounds like two friends with similar views having a casual discussion. At one point Rich calls McCain's campaign a "fiasco," he can barely keep a grin off his face when discussing that "fiasco," and at the end of his segment Olbermann tells him to "keep your fingers crossed" -- no doubt for an Obama win. This segment is essentially not even pretending to be news-oriented.
The show improves a bit when Rachel Maddow appears to tease her interview with Barack Obama -- it seems at times like an Obama lovefest, but he is attacked a bit. Of course, that attack is that he's not liberal enough, so even that feeds back into the liberal political bias. Obama as referred to as extremely calm and confident about the campaign -- Olbermann calls him "the calmest, least perturbable guy in the room." Overall, though, since they are talking about an interview done by Maddow, that at least is more a description of experience than anything else.
The "Worst Persons" segment is predictable: Bill O'Reilly makes the list for calling Charles Barkley a "pinhead," and then Olbermann talks about their comparative ratings. He also takes an opportunity to call blogger Pamela Geller a member of the "lunatic fringe" -- though since she made the list for claiming that Obama may be the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, that at least may not be bias. However, as usual Olbermann attacks only conservatives, so the segment is predictably rife with political bias.
His "Special Comment" is an attack on McCain for "fatal political malpractice" in his attempts to link Obama with Rashid Khalidi, a supposed supporter of the PLO. Olbermann uses that link, via contributions made by McCain to an organization run by Khalidi, to connect the two, then, via other monetary contributions, he links McCain and Bill Ayres. Honestly, compared to most of the rest of this show, the Comment is not an egregious defender. Nothing he's saying is untrue, as far as we can tell. But it's done in such an over-the-top way that it seems like a personal attack on McCain -- much like most of the rest of the show.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Day 21: October 29
6 days to Election Day
The show tonight opens with a lengthy series of clips from the Obama half-hour ad, as well as reports of (as well as an airing of) McCain's response ad. Howard Fineman joins the show to discuss; he's asked whether the ad worked, whether it made Obama look like a president, if it was too good (with Obama appearing in an Oval Office-esque room), and whether anyone was sold by the commercial. This segment, with the actual ad being shown in part and with the discussion, is half descriptive journalism and half interpretive journalism.
E.J. Dionne then joins in to talk about the state of the McCain campaign. Olbermann asks whether they will be feeling any better after the Obama ad than before, about the significance of McCain having to defend his own home state with robocalls actually during the Obama ad, whether the "...yet" at the end of the McCain response ad (as in, "Obama isn't ready...yet") undercuts the message of the rest of the ad or whether it will help bring in moderates, and why McCain praised George Bush during a campaign event in Florida and whether that will come back to haunt him. Again, this segment is rife with interpretive reporting and little else.
Next Nate Silver talks about polling, as the McCain campaign's chief pollster claimed today that the numbers were "functionally tied," while the numbers available to the public and press don't show any evidence of that being possible. Silver is asked under what conditions this claim could be true, if there's enough theoretical space between support of a candidate and actually voting for him to make it true, whether there are any good statistical measures for enthusiasm of voters or pollsters are just guessing, and whether the McCain team is just saying this because they have to or because polling really is unscientific enough for it to be possible. This is all interpretation again, and there's some clear influence from the game schema as well.
Chris Hayes is next on the agenda, to talk about McCain's new "fear card": lumping the economy and national security together, along with the spectre of one-party rule by the Republicans, at a national security roundtable discussion put together by the campaign. Hayes is asked to opine on how many "cards" McCain has left, how McCain's claims sound in light of Obama's long-form commercial, if at this point even McCain is concentrating on stemming losses in Congress (in light of his threat of "one-party rule"), why nobody has asked about McCain's claim to have a plan to find Osama bin Laden, and whether he thinks this claim is actually true. Like the rest of tonight's show, this is primarily interpretive reporting.
Today's "Worst Persons" include a "Fixed News" spokesperson who didn't "have the guts" to be named, who smeared basketball's Charles Barkley for calling FOX News "f***ed." Also, Elizabeth Dole, for claiming her opponent is an atheist when she is not, and talk radio's Dennis Prager, for claiming that equality is not an American value, but a European one. The segment has the inevitable partisan bias.
The final segment is another Campaign Comment, this time about Joe the Plumber. Olbermann makes the case that JTP is conning the entire country, as he's being passed along as an "everyman" but is using his new-found fame to leverage a publicity deal and opportunities to write a book and release a country music album. Olbermann says that he's now getting policy questions, the answers to which are even being refuted by FOX News, because JTP has no idea what he's talking about. Olbermann finished it off by offering McCain a deal: if he replaces Joe with the Brawny man, then Olbermann will "shut up." It's a funny piece (and maybe a tempting offer for McCain), but it's politically biased in tone and not really journalistically sound.
The show tonight opens with a lengthy series of clips from the Obama half-hour ad, as well as reports of (as well as an airing of) McCain's response ad. Howard Fineman joins the show to discuss; he's asked whether the ad worked, whether it made Obama look like a president, if it was too good (with Obama appearing in an Oval Office-esque room), and whether anyone was sold by the commercial. This segment, with the actual ad being shown in part and with the discussion, is half descriptive journalism and half interpretive journalism.
E.J. Dionne then joins in to talk about the state of the McCain campaign. Olbermann asks whether they will be feeling any better after the Obama ad than before, about the significance of McCain having to defend his own home state with robocalls actually during the Obama ad, whether the "...yet" at the end of the McCain response ad (as in, "Obama isn't ready...yet") undercuts the message of the rest of the ad or whether it will help bring in moderates, and why McCain praised George Bush during a campaign event in Florida and whether that will come back to haunt him. Again, this segment is rife with interpretive reporting and little else.
Next Nate Silver talks about polling, as the McCain campaign's chief pollster claimed today that the numbers were "functionally tied," while the numbers available to the public and press don't show any evidence of that being possible. Silver is asked under what conditions this claim could be true, if there's enough theoretical space between support of a candidate and actually voting for him to make it true, whether there are any good statistical measures for enthusiasm of voters or pollsters are just guessing, and whether the McCain team is just saying this because they have to or because polling really is unscientific enough for it to be possible. This is all interpretation again, and there's some clear influence from the game schema as well.
Chris Hayes is next on the agenda, to talk about McCain's new "fear card": lumping the economy and national security together, along with the spectre of one-party rule by the Republicans, at a national security roundtable discussion put together by the campaign. Hayes is asked to opine on how many "cards" McCain has left, how McCain's claims sound in light of Obama's long-form commercial, if at this point even McCain is concentrating on stemming losses in Congress (in light of his threat of "one-party rule"), why nobody has asked about McCain's claim to have a plan to find Osama bin Laden, and whether he thinks this claim is actually true. Like the rest of tonight's show, this is primarily interpretive reporting.
Today's "Worst Persons" include a "Fixed News" spokesperson who didn't "have the guts" to be named, who smeared basketball's Charles Barkley for calling FOX News "f***ed." Also, Elizabeth Dole, for claiming her opponent is an atheist when she is not, and talk radio's Dennis Prager, for claiming that equality is not an American value, but a European one. The segment has the inevitable partisan bias.
The final segment is another Campaign Comment, this time about Joe the Plumber. Olbermann makes the case that JTP is conning the entire country, as he's being passed along as an "everyman" but is using his new-found fame to leverage a publicity deal and opportunities to write a book and release a country music album. Olbermann says that he's now getting policy questions, the answers to which are even being refuted by FOX News, because JTP has no idea what he's talking about. Olbermann finished it off by offering McCain a deal: if he replaces Joe with the Brawny man, then Olbermann will "shut up." It's a funny piece (and maybe a tempting offer for McCain), but it's politically biased in tone and not really journalistically sound.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Day 20: October 28
7 days to Election Day
The show starts out with a list of the maladies piling up on the McCain campaign. His vehicle got a flat tire, an event was rained out, new polls show Obama with a dominant lead in several supposedly red states, and Governor Charlie Crist decided to extend early voting hours in Florida to meet demand. Meanwhile, Obama does a speech in the rain, and one of McCain's advisers admits that current employer health care is "way better" than what people would have under a McCain administration. Howard Fineman is brought in to further break down McCain's supposed breakdown, with Olbermann asking why McCain would cancel an event -- rain or no rain -- so close to the election, what the alternative to being a "redistributionist" (as McCain called Obama) would be when taxation is allowed in the Constitution, and what the campaigns' reactions are to the new early vote poll showing a tight margin. Olbermann makes a few cracks about McCain (for example, when shown mispronouncing the word, he whispers, "It's 'pundits!'" Also, there are a few direct references to the horse race metaphor, with Joe Biden making one himself and Fineman saying that "now is when you look at the Electoral College, not just the horse race numbers." So to recap, this segment had interpretive journalism, the horse race metaphor, and partisan bias.
Next Olbermann talks to Eugene Robinson about Obama's dominating presence through personal visits and visits of surrogates, as well as over the airwaves via advertising. Robinson is asked whether it's appropriate to call the Obama campaign a "juggernaut" and whether a juggernaut can lose, if "we" will be talking about Obama's ability to get "erratic voters" to the polls, if the cost for McCain to possibly win Florida is going to be too high, and once again, what Obama will be shooting for with his half-hour commercial tomorrow. As usual for this segment, it's full of interpretive journalism.
Next, Margaret Carlson joins in to discuss Sarah Palin's possible candidacy in 2012. The Republican Party comes in two ways on this topic: one McCain staffer refers to Palin as "a whack job," and a former Buchanan aide says that she would be "very appealing" in 2012, whether or not McCain wins. Olbermann jokes at that quote, "...if we get to 2012." Carlson is asked whether the Republicans are trying to give away two straight elections, whether she's the future or the "last survivor" of the party, what the significance is of the fact that this is being talked about, and what would happen if McCain won after all of the sniping back and forth. At the end, Carlson says that she sees Palin "as a game show host" more than as a legitimate presidential candidate, and Olbermann suggests that she try out for SportsCenter. This segment too is made mostly of partisan bias and interpretive reporting.
The next segment begins with a story about George W. Bush appearing at RNC headquarters, evidently to try to help struggling downticket Republicans. However, there were no cameras present, so Olbermann re-enacts the event with "Puppet Theater." This involves paper finger puppets running screaming away from a finger puppet Bush. This is very funny, but pure speculation (and probably totally untrue), and the "Conviction Free for (1) Days" sign in the back of the scene is a little dab of partisanship. Chris Cillizza then joins the show to talk about the downticket races. Olbermann asks him about how this Congressional struggle has come to pass, how incumbents are supposed to try to pretend that they had nothing to do with Bush, what would happen to the Republican Party in 2010 if some of their leaders don't come back to Congress, and if there has been any consideration of the fact that a unified government might be a good thing. This is mainly interpretive journalism.
Today's "Worst Persons" include a flier designed to trick Virginia Democrats into voting on the wrong day, Rush Limbaugh -- "the bully of the airwaves," as Olbermann calls him -- for misrepresenting an Obama quote about the Constitution, and Bill O'Reilly for getting scolded by Nielsen's CEO for claiming that Countdown's high ratings are some kind of conspiracy. Once again, this is political bias, especially when Olbermann says that he doesn't understand O'Reilly because "I don't speak psycho."
The day's Campaign Comment is a bit more biting than usual. Olbermann accuses Sarah Palin of being a "fraud," because of her accusations toward Obama concerning his supposed socialism, when she actually just before being picked to be McCain's running mate bragged in a New Yorker piece that "collectively Alaskans own the resources" and "share in the wealth when the development of those resources occurs." It's probably an accurate description, but the tone with which it's delivered is not particularly journalistic, and is flush with partisan bias.
The show starts out with a list of the maladies piling up on the McCain campaign. His vehicle got a flat tire, an event was rained out, new polls show Obama with a dominant lead in several supposedly red states, and Governor Charlie Crist decided to extend early voting hours in Florida to meet demand. Meanwhile, Obama does a speech in the rain, and one of McCain's advisers admits that current employer health care is "way better" than what people would have under a McCain administration. Howard Fineman is brought in to further break down McCain's supposed breakdown, with Olbermann asking why McCain would cancel an event -- rain or no rain -- so close to the election, what the alternative to being a "redistributionist" (as McCain called Obama) would be when taxation is allowed in the Constitution, and what the campaigns' reactions are to the new early vote poll showing a tight margin. Olbermann makes a few cracks about McCain (for example, when shown mispronouncing the word, he whispers, "It's 'pundits!'" Also, there are a few direct references to the horse race metaphor, with Joe Biden making one himself and Fineman saying that "now is when you look at the Electoral College, not just the horse race numbers." So to recap, this segment had interpretive journalism, the horse race metaphor, and partisan bias.
Next Olbermann talks to Eugene Robinson about Obama's dominating presence through personal visits and visits of surrogates, as well as over the airwaves via advertising. Robinson is asked whether it's appropriate to call the Obama campaign a "juggernaut" and whether a juggernaut can lose, if "we" will be talking about Obama's ability to get "erratic voters" to the polls, if the cost for McCain to possibly win Florida is going to be too high, and once again, what Obama will be shooting for with his half-hour commercial tomorrow. As usual for this segment, it's full of interpretive journalism.
Next, Margaret Carlson joins in to discuss Sarah Palin's possible candidacy in 2012. The Republican Party comes in two ways on this topic: one McCain staffer refers to Palin as "a whack job," and a former Buchanan aide says that she would be "very appealing" in 2012, whether or not McCain wins. Olbermann jokes at that quote, "...if we get to 2012." Carlson is asked whether the Republicans are trying to give away two straight elections, whether she's the future or the "last survivor" of the party, what the significance is of the fact that this is being talked about, and what would happen if McCain won after all of the sniping back and forth. At the end, Carlson says that she sees Palin "as a game show host" more than as a legitimate presidential candidate, and Olbermann suggests that she try out for SportsCenter. This segment too is made mostly of partisan bias and interpretive reporting.
The next segment begins with a story about George W. Bush appearing at RNC headquarters, evidently to try to help struggling downticket Republicans. However, there were no cameras present, so Olbermann re-enacts the event with "Puppet Theater." This involves paper finger puppets running screaming away from a finger puppet Bush. This is very funny, but pure speculation (and probably totally untrue), and the "Conviction Free for (1) Days" sign in the back of the scene is a little dab of partisanship. Chris Cillizza then joins the show to talk about the downticket races. Olbermann asks him about how this Congressional struggle has come to pass, how incumbents are supposed to try to pretend that they had nothing to do with Bush, what would happen to the Republican Party in 2010 if some of their leaders don't come back to Congress, and if there has been any consideration of the fact that a unified government might be a good thing. This is mainly interpretive journalism.
Today's "Worst Persons" include a flier designed to trick Virginia Democrats into voting on the wrong day, Rush Limbaugh -- "the bully of the airwaves," as Olbermann calls him -- for misrepresenting an Obama quote about the Constitution, and Bill O'Reilly for getting scolded by Nielsen's CEO for claiming that Countdown's high ratings are some kind of conspiracy. Once again, this is political bias, especially when Olbermann says that he doesn't understand O'Reilly because "I don't speak psycho."
The day's Campaign Comment is a bit more biting than usual. Olbermann accuses Sarah Palin of being a "fraud," because of her accusations toward Obama concerning his supposed socialism, when she actually just before being picked to be McCain's running mate bragged in a New Yorker piece that "collectively Alaskans own the resources" and "share in the wealth when the development of those resources occurs." It's probably an accurate description, but the tone with which it's delivered is not particularly journalistic, and is flush with partisan bias.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Day 19: October 27
8 days to Election Day
The show opens with an assessment of McCain's supposed three-front battle (only two of which are mentioned initially) -- McCain v. Obama, McCain v. Bush, and McCain v. Palin. The first is a description of attacks made by McCain on the grounds of the economy, saying that it would be "dangerous" to leave it in the hands of liberals. He also makes an effort at dissociating himself from Bush's economic policies. Richard Wolffe is there to talk primarily about Obama's "closing argument" speech; he's asked whether Obama is doing a better job of "closing the deal" than he did in the Democratic primaries, whether it's symbolic in some way that Obama delivered the speech first in Ohio, what the meaning is of the five polls in Virginia showing Obama far ahead and whether they should be surprising, and whether there is any new information about the upcoming Obama half-hour commercial. This is all interpretation, and the discussion of the polls is more game schema, with McCain as the "candidate falling behind."
Jonathan Alter then comes on to have a similar conversation about McCain. He's asked about McCain's closing argument: whether it's "one of 'nots,'" that he's not Bush, that the people should not elect three Democratically controlled parts of government, and that they should not elect "a tax happy liberal." He's also asked whether the geography of where the candidates are still campaigning -- almost exclusively in states Bush won in 2004 -- is the key story, and why McCain is trying so hard to win Pennsylvania. This is all speculation and interpretive journalism.
Next comes a segment about claims from within the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin has "gone rogue," that she is deviating from scripts and ignoring advice and orders from the campaign. Olbermann says also that it's been reported that one McCain adviser called Palin a "diva." Chris Hayes joins the show to discuss: he's asked whether the McCain campaign is sending the message that they've already lost, what Palin could do other than going "more rogue" to help the Democrats, whether critiques of Palin from inside the campaign will "boomerang" back at McCain since he chose her as his running mate, and whether the division within the campaign (and between former Romney supporters and the rest of McCain's staff) is indicative of a coming larger split in the Republican Party. Again, this segment is all interpretive journalism. There's also some political bias, with Olbermann making fun of Elizabeth Hasselbeck (who appeared with Palin and supposedly is advising her now) and Hayes admitting to "schadenfreude" in watching the disarray within the McCain campaign and the Republican Party.
Next comes a discussion with Chris Kofinis about whether the Republican National Committee should consider shifting its money away from the McCain campaign and into down-ticket races, and if so, whether they should concentrate on the House of Representatives or the Senate, as well as why it took the Republicans so long to realize that McCain's was a failing campaign. This is mostly interpretation, but there's a little political bias mixed in, since Olbermann mocks the Republicans a bit. The interpretation is the more egregious sin here, though.
In a rare moment, "Worst Persons" today is not 100% an avatar for political bias. The first two winners (the Washington Post, for changing a caption on a photo of Bill O'Reilly, and Joe Lieberman, for switching sides again and claiming respect for Barack Obama) are typical. However, the third, Chad Michael Morissette, makes the list for hanging a Sarah Palin mannequin with a noose and burning a John McCain look-alike. Olbermann calls it "as unacceptable if it is McCain as if it is Obama," and says it's in "the spirit of violence." After that, it's hard to criticize this segment.
The day's Campaign Comment is equally admirable. Olbermann delivers a plea to John McCain to step forward and say something about the Ashley Todd hoax, in order to stop the divide between races from widening immeasurably and destroying the campaign altogether. He does it rationally and fairly -- though it's all opinion, it's delivered with respect toward McCain and with a compliment on his past effort to do the same thing in Minnesota, when he was asked if Obama was an Arab. In terms of Patterson's critique, this is one of the best Special Comments I have analyzed so far.
The show opens with an assessment of McCain's supposed three-front battle (only two of which are mentioned initially) -- McCain v. Obama, McCain v. Bush, and McCain v. Palin. The first is a description of attacks made by McCain on the grounds of the economy, saying that it would be "dangerous" to leave it in the hands of liberals. He also makes an effort at dissociating himself from Bush's economic policies. Richard Wolffe is there to talk primarily about Obama's "closing argument" speech; he's asked whether Obama is doing a better job of "closing the deal" than he did in the Democratic primaries, whether it's symbolic in some way that Obama delivered the speech first in Ohio, what the meaning is of the five polls in Virginia showing Obama far ahead and whether they should be surprising, and whether there is any new information about the upcoming Obama half-hour commercial. This is all interpretation, and the discussion of the polls is more game schema, with McCain as the "candidate falling behind."
Jonathan Alter then comes on to have a similar conversation about McCain. He's asked about McCain's closing argument: whether it's "one of 'nots,'" that he's not Bush, that the people should not elect three Democratically controlled parts of government, and that they should not elect "a tax happy liberal." He's also asked whether the geography of where the candidates are still campaigning -- almost exclusively in states Bush won in 2004 -- is the key story, and why McCain is trying so hard to win Pennsylvania. This is all speculation and interpretive journalism.
Next comes a segment about claims from within the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin has "gone rogue," that she is deviating from scripts and ignoring advice and orders from the campaign. Olbermann says also that it's been reported that one McCain adviser called Palin a "diva." Chris Hayes joins the show to discuss: he's asked whether the McCain campaign is sending the message that they've already lost, what Palin could do other than going "more rogue" to help the Democrats, whether critiques of Palin from inside the campaign will "boomerang" back at McCain since he chose her as his running mate, and whether the division within the campaign (and between former Romney supporters and the rest of McCain's staff) is indicative of a coming larger split in the Republican Party. Again, this segment is all interpretive journalism. There's also some political bias, with Olbermann making fun of Elizabeth Hasselbeck (who appeared with Palin and supposedly is advising her now) and Hayes admitting to "schadenfreude" in watching the disarray within the McCain campaign and the Republican Party.
Next comes a discussion with Chris Kofinis about whether the Republican National Committee should consider shifting its money away from the McCain campaign and into down-ticket races, and if so, whether they should concentrate on the House of Representatives or the Senate, as well as why it took the Republicans so long to realize that McCain's was a failing campaign. This is mostly interpretation, but there's a little political bias mixed in, since Olbermann mocks the Republicans a bit. The interpretation is the more egregious sin here, though.
In a rare moment, "Worst Persons" today is not 100% an avatar for political bias. The first two winners (the Washington Post, for changing a caption on a photo of Bill O'Reilly, and Joe Lieberman, for switching sides again and claiming respect for Barack Obama) are typical. However, the third, Chad Michael Morissette, makes the list for hanging a Sarah Palin mannequin with a noose and burning a John McCain look-alike. Olbermann calls it "as unacceptable if it is McCain as if it is Obama," and says it's in "the spirit of violence." After that, it's hard to criticize this segment.
The day's Campaign Comment is equally admirable. Olbermann delivers a plea to John McCain to step forward and say something about the Ashley Todd hoax, in order to stop the divide between races from widening immeasurably and destroying the campaign altogether. He does it rationally and fairly -- though it's all opinion, it's delivered with respect toward McCain and with a compliment on his past effort to do the same thing in Minnesota, when he was asked if Obama was an Arab. In terms of Patterson's critique, this is one of the best Special Comments I have analyzed so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
