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.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Day 18: October 24
11 days to Election Day
The first segment of this show is devoted to Sarah Palin. It attacks her on two fronts: first, it portrays her as operating against the wishes of the campaign, with claims that a faction within the McCain campaign believes that Palin is "playing...McCain off the conservative base," and that her "palling around with terrorists" line was given without campaign approval. The campaign is portrayed as dysfunctional and is mocked. Additionally, he plays Palin off of Obama -- while Palin was testifying in the Troopergate case, Obama was in Hawaii visiting his sick grandmother.
The preponderance of the segment, though, is spent with Richard Wolffe talking about Palin's speech on spending. During her speech, in which she talked about a spending freeze, she made a derogatory remark about medical research done with fruit flies -- which, according to Olbermann, is odd because such research has been instrumental in autism research, which is one of the issues Palin is supposed to be knowledgeable about. Though it's a big slip-up, Olbermann and Wolffe go off the deep end a bit. Olbermann asks, "Who is stupid or insensitive enough to let that happen?" Wolffe says that he has to make an effort to be "restrained and measured" about the issue, then says that it is the "most mindless, ignorant, uninformed comment" that Palin has made, "and there's been a lot of competition for that prize." That's pretty blatantly politically biased -- again, not in reporting her mistake, but in the tone that their reactions had.
In this segment there's also a sampling of journalistic bias. They discuss the spending freeze idea that has been floated by the McCain campaign, and describe it as possibly "politically effective,' but that since entitlement programs and defense would be exempt, not particularly effective in reality. Essentially they make the claim that the idea is purely a cynical political ploy to get people to think they're trying to cut costs.
Next is further discussion of Palin, this time concentrating mainly on her clothing expenditures. Craig Crawford joins here, and though the news is bad for Palin, they actually seem to handle it better than usual. They don't really mock Palin (though Crawford's voice seems to be stuck in a constant chuckle), and the tone of the segment is reasonable. However, Crawford does say of her that "symbolism without truth is just demagoguery." This seems to be more journalistic bias -- the implication that Palin doesn't actually mean anything she's saying.
The next section is devoted to the Ashley Todd story: she claimed to have been physically and sexually assaulted by an African-American man because she supported John McCain, but was revealed later to have made the story up. This segment is uneven -- it's hostile toward Matt Drudge, who broke the story and is referred to by Olbermann as the operator of a "garbage website" and a party to "Reconstruction-era race-based fearmongering." It's also hostile toward McCain's campaign, which is accused of fueling the story by releasing information to reporters before the police report was published. There's also some speculation; Olbermann asks Eugene Robinson if this could kill the McCain campaign by linking it to racial strategy, and whether they're responsible for creating an atmosphere of dirty tricks and even fraud. Additionally, though, Robinson does a pretty fair job of impartially examining the racial conflict, referring to "blood-libel against black men," but isn't too heavy-handed about his treatment of the McCain campaign -- he says that if they did fuel the story, it's "reprehensible," but doesn't accuse them of doing so himself. However, beside that, there's a fair amount of anti-McCain bias and journalistic bias in the form of possibly connecting Todd's actions to the campaign.
Chuck Todd is the next guest, and does a relatively fair, impartial analysis of the current electoral map. There's little bias in this segment, but a fair amount of speculation and interpretive journalism -- obviously, since they're discussing things that have not happened yet. This is also a fair example of the "horse race" mentality -- who's ahead, who's behind, and who will win.
"Worst Persons" is "Worst Persons," as usual. Rupert Murdoch gets the business from Olbermann, with a pirate impression and everything -- not exactly hard-hitting journalism, but entertaining nonetheless. "Comedian" Rush Limbaugh wins the day's award for claiming that Barack Obama was in Hawaii not to see his grandmother, but to somehow do something questionable concerning his supposedly fake birth certificate. As usual, bias abounds.
The final segment is devoted to ranting about Bill O'Reilly and his odd claim that there's a conspiracy within the Nielsen ratings system to give MSNBC better ratings than FOX News. Olbermann reads O'Reilly's transcript while doing his impression of O'Reilly. He says that "Bill-O the Clown has jumped the shark tank that is delusional paranoia," that he's entered "stage-3 'We'll do it live!' uncontrollable anger," and that "Bill-O has long eluded reason's grasp." The segment can be summarized with Olbermann's theory on why he has higher ratings than O'Reilly: "It's 'cause...you suck." This isn't really bias of any kind, nor is it interpretation or anything else Patterson despises; it's just pure malice. This isn't journalism, it's just an attack.
The first segment of this show is devoted to Sarah Palin. It attacks her on two fronts: first, it portrays her as operating against the wishes of the campaign, with claims that a faction within the McCain campaign believes that Palin is "playing...McCain off the conservative base," and that her "palling around with terrorists" line was given without campaign approval. The campaign is portrayed as dysfunctional and is mocked. Additionally, he plays Palin off of Obama -- while Palin was testifying in the Troopergate case, Obama was in Hawaii visiting his sick grandmother.
The preponderance of the segment, though, is spent with Richard Wolffe talking about Palin's speech on spending. During her speech, in which she talked about a spending freeze, she made a derogatory remark about medical research done with fruit flies -- which, according to Olbermann, is odd because such research has been instrumental in autism research, which is one of the issues Palin is supposed to be knowledgeable about. Though it's a big slip-up, Olbermann and Wolffe go off the deep end a bit. Olbermann asks, "Who is stupid or insensitive enough to let that happen?" Wolffe says that he has to make an effort to be "restrained and measured" about the issue, then says that it is the "most mindless, ignorant, uninformed comment" that Palin has made, "and there's been a lot of competition for that prize." That's pretty blatantly politically biased -- again, not in reporting her mistake, but in the tone that their reactions had.
In this segment there's also a sampling of journalistic bias. They discuss the spending freeze idea that has been floated by the McCain campaign, and describe it as possibly "politically effective,' but that since entitlement programs and defense would be exempt, not particularly effective in reality. Essentially they make the claim that the idea is purely a cynical political ploy to get people to think they're trying to cut costs.
Next is further discussion of Palin, this time concentrating mainly on her clothing expenditures. Craig Crawford joins here, and though the news is bad for Palin, they actually seem to handle it better than usual. They don't really mock Palin (though Crawford's voice seems to be stuck in a constant chuckle), and the tone of the segment is reasonable. However, Crawford does say of her that "symbolism without truth is just demagoguery." This seems to be more journalistic bias -- the implication that Palin doesn't actually mean anything she's saying.
The next section is devoted to the Ashley Todd story: she claimed to have been physically and sexually assaulted by an African-American man because she supported John McCain, but was revealed later to have made the story up. This segment is uneven -- it's hostile toward Matt Drudge, who broke the story and is referred to by Olbermann as the operator of a "garbage website" and a party to "Reconstruction-era race-based fearmongering." It's also hostile toward McCain's campaign, which is accused of fueling the story by releasing information to reporters before the police report was published. There's also some speculation; Olbermann asks Eugene Robinson if this could kill the McCain campaign by linking it to racial strategy, and whether they're responsible for creating an atmosphere of dirty tricks and even fraud. Additionally, though, Robinson does a pretty fair job of impartially examining the racial conflict, referring to "blood-libel against black men," but isn't too heavy-handed about his treatment of the McCain campaign -- he says that if they did fuel the story, it's "reprehensible," but doesn't accuse them of doing so himself. However, beside that, there's a fair amount of anti-McCain bias and journalistic bias in the form of possibly connecting Todd's actions to the campaign.
Chuck Todd is the next guest, and does a relatively fair, impartial analysis of the current electoral map. There's little bias in this segment, but a fair amount of speculation and interpretive journalism -- obviously, since they're discussing things that have not happened yet. This is also a fair example of the "horse race" mentality -- who's ahead, who's behind, and who will win.
"Worst Persons" is "Worst Persons," as usual. Rupert Murdoch gets the business from Olbermann, with a pirate impression and everything -- not exactly hard-hitting journalism, but entertaining nonetheless. "Comedian" Rush Limbaugh wins the day's award for claiming that Barack Obama was in Hawaii not to see his grandmother, but to somehow do something questionable concerning his supposedly fake birth certificate. As usual, bias abounds.
The final segment is devoted to ranting about Bill O'Reilly and his odd claim that there's a conspiracy within the Nielsen ratings system to give MSNBC better ratings than FOX News. Olbermann reads O'Reilly's transcript while doing his impression of O'Reilly. He says that "Bill-O the Clown has jumped the shark tank that is delusional paranoia," that he's entered "stage-3 'We'll do it live!' uncontrollable anger," and that "Bill-O has long eluded reason's grasp." The segment can be summarized with Olbermann's theory on why he has higher ratings than O'Reilly: "It's 'cause...you suck." This isn't really bias of any kind, nor is it interpretation or anything else Patterson despises; it's just pure malice. This isn't journalism, it's just an attack.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Day 17: October 23
12 days to Election Day
The show starts out with polling data -- a series of polls in battleground states were released today, and Obama leads by significant margins in basically all of them. Meanwhile, McCain is trying to cast himself as a fighter who isn't going to give up (not even in the face of such grim polling numbers). John Harwood comes on the show to talk about the state of the campaign. He's asked whether there's any good news at all in the polls for McCain, what will happen to the campaign when Obama goes to see his ill grandmother, what effect Sarah Palin's upcoming policy speech will have, and whether McCain will make any effort to change his focus from Joe the Plumber before the election. The predominant theme of this segment is the game schema -- the talk is all about polls and who's winning and who's falling behind. Even just the term "battleground state" has implications within that frame.
Next Olbermann talks to David Axelrod about where the campaign stands and what's to come in the immediate future. He asks about his reaction to the new poll numbers, whether he thinks they're being "misled" by the polling in Indiana, what the significance is of the AP poll that had a 1% separation between the candidates, whether Obama should be campaigning in states won by John Kerry in 2004, and what the content of the upcoming half-hour Obama commercial will be. This segment is a bit awkward, because it seems essentially that it's just a platform for one of Obama's advisers to promulgate talking points. It seems overly politically biased, even compared to some of the things Olbermann has done before. To be fair, though, Axelrod is an important figure, and thus a good source to talk to. It's doubtful that a McCain strategist would appear on the show, though.
The next segment is a discussion of a new trend of Republicans endorsing Barack Obama, and a sort of mutual attack mode between John McCain and the rest of the Republican Party. Olbermann and Margaret Carlson analyze the situation: he asks her what exactly is happening, why McCain didn't start directly opposing Bush much earlier, how intense the internal backlash in the Republican Party over McCain's new denouncements of Bush policy is, and whether Sarah Palin is now thinking ahead of this election and trying to get herself out early (that is, to try to avoid being overly associated with losing). This is run-of-the-mill Countdown interpretive reporting.
Next, Olbermann and Sam Seder talk about comments made by Freedom's Watch former chairman Brad Blakeman, who said that he believes that Obama's use of a campaign jet to go visit his sick grandmother was worse than the large sums of money spent on wardrobe for Sarah Palin. Both men are outraged -- Seder says he doesn't know "whether to be offended by the stunning insensitivity or just the stunning stupidity of this guy," and Olbermann calls him a "lunatic." They also talk about the Republican tradition of "fake umbrage," as well as whether this would be different had the tables been turned. The outrage of the segment smacks of political bias.
Today's "Worst Persons" were the New York City Council, congressman Robin Hayes, and Bill O'Reilly. The council voted to overturn voter-mandated term limits for its members and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Hayes claimed that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God," then denied saying it, then denied that he denied saying it. "Bill-O the Clown" gets the nod for being a Gordon Liddy apologist and for thinking that 1998 was 20 years ago. As always, this is the prime example of political bias on the show.
The final segment is a Special Comment that, unlike most others, is aiming at humor. In it, Olbermann basically begs John McCain to stop using Joe the Plumber as a campaign strategy -- first, because it hasn't worked at all, and second, because he's annoyed by it. It's pretty funny, but there's really not much of a point to it -- it accomplishes nothing journalistically, and it's moderately politically biased against McCain (Olbermann mentions a "years-old Republican strategy about campaign strategy: find something irrelevant, inappropriate, or ineffective...hammer it and hammer it and hammer it until people promise to vote for you if only you'd stop").
The show starts out with polling data -- a series of polls in battleground states were released today, and Obama leads by significant margins in basically all of them. Meanwhile, McCain is trying to cast himself as a fighter who isn't going to give up (not even in the face of such grim polling numbers). John Harwood comes on the show to talk about the state of the campaign. He's asked whether there's any good news at all in the polls for McCain, what will happen to the campaign when Obama goes to see his ill grandmother, what effect Sarah Palin's upcoming policy speech will have, and whether McCain will make any effort to change his focus from Joe the Plumber before the election. The predominant theme of this segment is the game schema -- the talk is all about polls and who's winning and who's falling behind. Even just the term "battleground state" has implications within that frame.
Next Olbermann talks to David Axelrod about where the campaign stands and what's to come in the immediate future. He asks about his reaction to the new poll numbers, whether he thinks they're being "misled" by the polling in Indiana, what the significance is of the AP poll that had a 1% separation between the candidates, whether Obama should be campaigning in states won by John Kerry in 2004, and what the content of the upcoming half-hour Obama commercial will be. This segment is a bit awkward, because it seems essentially that it's just a platform for one of Obama's advisers to promulgate talking points. It seems overly politically biased, even compared to some of the things Olbermann has done before. To be fair, though, Axelrod is an important figure, and thus a good source to talk to. It's doubtful that a McCain strategist would appear on the show, though.
The next segment is a discussion of a new trend of Republicans endorsing Barack Obama, and a sort of mutual attack mode between John McCain and the rest of the Republican Party. Olbermann and Margaret Carlson analyze the situation: he asks her what exactly is happening, why McCain didn't start directly opposing Bush much earlier, how intense the internal backlash in the Republican Party over McCain's new denouncements of Bush policy is, and whether Sarah Palin is now thinking ahead of this election and trying to get herself out early (that is, to try to avoid being overly associated with losing). This is run-of-the-mill Countdown interpretive reporting.
Next, Olbermann and Sam Seder talk about comments made by Freedom's Watch former chairman Brad Blakeman, who said that he believes that Obama's use of a campaign jet to go visit his sick grandmother was worse than the large sums of money spent on wardrobe for Sarah Palin. Both men are outraged -- Seder says he doesn't know "whether to be offended by the stunning insensitivity or just the stunning stupidity of this guy," and Olbermann calls him a "lunatic." They also talk about the Republican tradition of "fake umbrage," as well as whether this would be different had the tables been turned. The outrage of the segment smacks of political bias.
Today's "Worst Persons" were the New York City Council, congressman Robin Hayes, and Bill O'Reilly. The council voted to overturn voter-mandated term limits for its members and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Hayes claimed that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God," then denied saying it, then denied that he denied saying it. "Bill-O the Clown" gets the nod for being a Gordon Liddy apologist and for thinking that 1998 was 20 years ago. As always, this is the prime example of political bias on the show.
The final segment is a Special Comment that, unlike most others, is aiming at humor. In it, Olbermann basically begs John McCain to stop using Joe the Plumber as a campaign strategy -- first, because it hasn't worked at all, and second, because he's annoyed by it. It's pretty funny, but there's really not much of a point to it -- it accomplishes nothing journalistically, and it's moderately politically biased against McCain (Olbermann mentions a "years-old Republican strategy about campaign strategy: find something irrelevant, inappropriate, or ineffective...hammer it and hammer it and hammer it until people promise to vote for you if only you'd stop").
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Day 16: October 22
13 days to Election Day
The show opens with a discussion of McCain's new attempts to paint Obama as a "spread the wealth around" socialist," by way of comments he made to the McCain campaign's new mascot, Joe the Plumber. Olbermann attacks McCain on two fronts: first, by insulting McCain supporters who booed Obama's plan for not understanding that they wouldn't be adversely affected unless they make $250,000 a year, and for not understanding that all taxes spread wealth. Second, he mocks McCain for slipping up in trying to condemn John Murtha's derogatory statements about western Pennsylvania, first by accidentally agreeing with him, then by insulting the rest of the country by saying they were the most patriotic and God-fearing people in the country.
Chris Cillizza then joins the show, greeted with a crack from Olbermann, "Let's start in the Holy Land, western Pennsylvania." He shows incredulous disbelief that McCain actually thinks this tactic will work, and asks Cillizza for some baseless speculation on how tired John McCain is, how much of a burden Palin's (yet-to-be-mentioned) big spending on clothes will be, and why the campaign keeps trying to use Joe the Plumber when it appears that he is a totally ineffective political tool.
Olbermann follows that by re-airing in full the original exchange between Obama and Joe the Plumber, and a long clip of an interview between McCain, Palin, and Brian Williams -- preceded by several impressions gathered by Chuck Todd, who also participated. Todd, says Olbermann, claimed that there was a "lack of chemistry" between the two, and that "it was as if they grabbed two people and said, here, sit next to each other, we're going to conduct an interview." Todd also wondered "whether McCain is now blaming his V.P. pick for his ailing campaign." This isn't blatant political bias, and considering that it's based on actual reporting, Patterson likely wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.
Next is a discussion of the recent endorsement of John McCain by a website with ties to al Qaeda, with Olbermann trying to make the case that the war in Iraq is good for the terrorist group. Richard Clarke joins the program, and Olbermann does the television equivalent of leading the witness in court to reach this possibly politically motivated position. Clarke then speculates on whether an al Qaeda tape would have the same effect today that it did in 2004, whether al Qaeda knows that Americans are less concerned with terrorism now than they are with the economy and other issues, and whether the McCain campaign was prepared for this odd endorsement.
Rudy Giuliani, the Nike San Francisco women's marathon, and congresswoman Michelle Bachman highlight today's "Worst Persons." Giuliani makes it for blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11, the marathon for "choosing" the winner of the race, and Bachman for blaming Chris Matthews for her comments about how members of Congress are "anti-American." This is the first time in quite a while someone has made the list without affiliation to the Republican Party, so it's a kind of watershed moment for Olbermann's pervasive liberal bias.
The show ends with a typically biting Special Comment from Olbermann about the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign: calling Obama a celebrity, when Palin is the one spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothing; blaming Obama for "attacking" Joe the Plumber when it is only because of McCain that he came into the national spotlight; mocking Obama for supporting both teams in the World Series when Palin had done the same with the Rays and the Red Sox. He says, "If John McCain complains about Sen. Obama, you can count on it, whatever it is; John McCain or Sarah Palin or both have done it more, or earlier, or worse, or more obviously." Once again: obvious political bias, though it's in the form of an editorial comment, so it's less of an infringement on Patterson than normal segments.
The show opens with a discussion of McCain's new attempts to paint Obama as a "spread the wealth around" socialist," by way of comments he made to the McCain campaign's new mascot, Joe the Plumber. Olbermann attacks McCain on two fronts: first, by insulting McCain supporters who booed Obama's plan for not understanding that they wouldn't be adversely affected unless they make $250,000 a year, and for not understanding that all taxes spread wealth. Second, he mocks McCain for slipping up in trying to condemn John Murtha's derogatory statements about western Pennsylvania, first by accidentally agreeing with him, then by insulting the rest of the country by saying they were the most patriotic and God-fearing people in the country.
Chris Cillizza then joins the show, greeted with a crack from Olbermann, "Let's start in the Holy Land, western Pennsylvania." He shows incredulous disbelief that McCain actually thinks this tactic will work, and asks Cillizza for some baseless speculation on how tired John McCain is, how much of a burden Palin's (yet-to-be-mentioned) big spending on clothes will be, and why the campaign keeps trying to use Joe the Plumber when it appears that he is a totally ineffective political tool.
Olbermann follows that by re-airing in full the original exchange between Obama and Joe the Plumber, and a long clip of an interview between McCain, Palin, and Brian Williams -- preceded by several impressions gathered by Chuck Todd, who also participated. Todd, says Olbermann, claimed that there was a "lack of chemistry" between the two, and that "it was as if they grabbed two people and said, here, sit next to each other, we're going to conduct an interview." Todd also wondered "whether McCain is now blaming his V.P. pick for his ailing campaign." This isn't blatant political bias, and considering that it's based on actual reporting, Patterson likely wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.
Next is a discussion of the recent endorsement of John McCain by a website with ties to al Qaeda, with Olbermann trying to make the case that the war in Iraq is good for the terrorist group. Richard Clarke joins the program, and Olbermann does the television equivalent of leading the witness in court to reach this possibly politically motivated position. Clarke then speculates on whether an al Qaeda tape would have the same effect today that it did in 2004, whether al Qaeda knows that Americans are less concerned with terrorism now than they are with the economy and other issues, and whether the McCain campaign was prepared for this odd endorsement.
Rudy Giuliani, the Nike San Francisco women's marathon, and congresswoman Michelle Bachman highlight today's "Worst Persons." Giuliani makes it for blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11, the marathon for "choosing" the winner of the race, and Bachman for blaming Chris Matthews for her comments about how members of Congress are "anti-American." This is the first time in quite a while someone has made the list without affiliation to the Republican Party, so it's a kind of watershed moment for Olbermann's pervasive liberal bias.
The show ends with a typically biting Special Comment from Olbermann about the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign: calling Obama a celebrity, when Palin is the one spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothing; blaming Obama for "attacking" Joe the Plumber when it is only because of McCain that he came into the national spotlight; mocking Obama for supporting both teams in the World Series when Palin had done the same with the Rays and the Red Sox. He says, "If John McCain complains about Sen. Obama, you can count on it, whatever it is; John McCain or Sarah Palin or both have done it more, or earlier, or worse, or more obviously." Once again: obvious political bias, though it's in the form of an editorial comment, so it's less of an infringement on Patterson than normal segments.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Day 15: October 21
14 days to Election Day
The show opens with an analysis of a series of new polls on individual issues. Obama is leading among likely voters on almost every issue, including handling the economy, health care, taxes, handling the mortgage/housing crisis, energy and gasoline, the Wall Street crisis, and turnout and enthusiasm of voters. Meanwhile, the candidates have dueling pie analogies about the economy, as McCain says Obama's more worried about giving your piece of the pie to someone else than about growing the pie, where Obama says that the pie is shrinking and that's the problem. Howard Fineman joins the show here to do some of both kinds of reporting: he spent the day in the Obama headquarters, so he reports on the mood among the candidate's advisers and volunteers; also, he reports that David Plouffe told him that the campaign will not, as rumored, be giving some of its money to the DNC for use in downticket races. This is all descriptive journalism, but then Olbermann asks him several speculative questions: whether Obama has finally erased the doubts of undecided voters, how much longer McCain will use the Joe the Plumber/socialist attacks on Obama since they are evidently not working, and if McCain even has a plan or strategy at this point. This is all interpretation and inference, as well as some game schema -- since this is mostly based on polls, and McCain is cast as the "candidate losing ground."
Richard Wolffe then comes on to do some more interpretation. Olbermann reports on some polling that shows that Sarah Palin is the biggest drag on McCain's candidacy, bigger than his connection to George W. Bush and the economy. He also cites one pollster as saying that the main reason this has happened is because she has become a caricature of herself, and the public cannot take her seriously. He asks Wolffe whether McCain should have dropped Palin from the ticket before the vice presidential debate, whether she was a serious pick or a summer campaign gimmick, if voters are making a distinction between problems inherited by McCain (Bush, the economy) and problems he created (Palin), if her Saturday Night Live appearance sealed the caricature beyond repair, what McCain's options concerning her are now, and what they can do to win Pennsylvania. This is all interpretive journalism, without any of the reporting that Fineman did.
The next segment is more interpretation and horse race, with statistical guru Nate Silver joining the show to talk about McCain's prospects. Olbermann reports that "McCain campaign insiders" say that they essentially cannot win in Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico -- their hopes are "gone," he reports. Without those states, Olbermann says that McCain would have to win every other state that George Bush won in 2004, as well as at least one state that went for John Kerry. Olbermann asks Silver whether McCain is really within striking distance in battleground states (as on-the-record McCain spokespeople claim), what other scenarios can work if McCain loses in Pennsylvania (and how realistic they are), what states Obama can afford to lose while still winning the election, and whether it would be prudent for Obama to gamble advertising money on long-shot states like Montana and North Dakota (since he has so much money).
Next Olbermann reports on the reason why McCain's ACORN allegations have stopped: it's been discovered that his campaign has funded two people, Mark Jacoby and Nathan Sproul, who have used their voter registration outfits to commit "slamming" in the favor of the Republican Party -- essentially, they registered people as Republicans without their knowledge, and destroyed the registration forms of Democrats who were led to believe that they were legally registered. This segment is all reporting, and though it's negative toward the Republicans, it is not biased because of the descriptive tone of the reporting. It's not slanted, it's just factual information.
The "Worst Persons" today include Dana Perino, Sean Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch. Perino claimed that there's no recession in the United States, Hannity brought up Obama's supposed cocaine habit (and whether he's sold cocaine before) while claiming he wasn't bringing it up, and Murdoch's New York Post blamed a false story about Michelle Obama splurging on room service on a bad source. They're all Republicans, and while Olbermann does pretty good impressions of all three, that just adds to the political bias -- as does calling Hannity a "manatee."
The final segment is a "Campaign Comment" on Sarah Palin's apparent inability to understand what exactly the vice president's job is. Olbermann says that it's explicit in the Constitution, easy to memorize and understand, and that she should "at least wait until taking office to try to seize power extra-constitutionally." The comment clearly comes with a political agenda, but since it's an editorial statement, as usual, Olbermann is left with some wiggle room in terms of political bias.
The show opens with an analysis of a series of new polls on individual issues. Obama is leading among likely voters on almost every issue, including handling the economy, health care, taxes, handling the mortgage/housing crisis, energy and gasoline, the Wall Street crisis, and turnout and enthusiasm of voters. Meanwhile, the candidates have dueling pie analogies about the economy, as McCain says Obama's more worried about giving your piece of the pie to someone else than about growing the pie, where Obama says that the pie is shrinking and that's the problem. Howard Fineman joins the show here to do some of both kinds of reporting: he spent the day in the Obama headquarters, so he reports on the mood among the candidate's advisers and volunteers; also, he reports that David Plouffe told him that the campaign will not, as rumored, be giving some of its money to the DNC for use in downticket races. This is all descriptive journalism, but then Olbermann asks him several speculative questions: whether Obama has finally erased the doubts of undecided voters, how much longer McCain will use the Joe the Plumber/socialist attacks on Obama since they are evidently not working, and if McCain even has a plan or strategy at this point. This is all interpretation and inference, as well as some game schema -- since this is mostly based on polls, and McCain is cast as the "candidate losing ground."
Richard Wolffe then comes on to do some more interpretation. Olbermann reports on some polling that shows that Sarah Palin is the biggest drag on McCain's candidacy, bigger than his connection to George W. Bush and the economy. He also cites one pollster as saying that the main reason this has happened is because she has become a caricature of herself, and the public cannot take her seriously. He asks Wolffe whether McCain should have dropped Palin from the ticket before the vice presidential debate, whether she was a serious pick or a summer campaign gimmick, if voters are making a distinction between problems inherited by McCain (Bush, the economy) and problems he created (Palin), if her Saturday Night Live appearance sealed the caricature beyond repair, what McCain's options concerning her are now, and what they can do to win Pennsylvania. This is all interpretive journalism, without any of the reporting that Fineman did.
The next segment is more interpretation and horse race, with statistical guru Nate Silver joining the show to talk about McCain's prospects. Olbermann reports that "McCain campaign insiders" say that they essentially cannot win in Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico -- their hopes are "gone," he reports. Without those states, Olbermann says that McCain would have to win every other state that George Bush won in 2004, as well as at least one state that went for John Kerry. Olbermann asks Silver whether McCain is really within striking distance in battleground states (as on-the-record McCain spokespeople claim), what other scenarios can work if McCain loses in Pennsylvania (and how realistic they are), what states Obama can afford to lose while still winning the election, and whether it would be prudent for Obama to gamble advertising money on long-shot states like Montana and North Dakota (since he has so much money).
Next Olbermann reports on the reason why McCain's ACORN allegations have stopped: it's been discovered that his campaign has funded two people, Mark Jacoby and Nathan Sproul, who have used their voter registration outfits to commit "slamming" in the favor of the Republican Party -- essentially, they registered people as Republicans without their knowledge, and destroyed the registration forms of Democrats who were led to believe that they were legally registered. This segment is all reporting, and though it's negative toward the Republicans, it is not biased because of the descriptive tone of the reporting. It's not slanted, it's just factual information.
The "Worst Persons" today include Dana Perino, Sean Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch. Perino claimed that there's no recession in the United States, Hannity brought up Obama's supposed cocaine habit (and whether he's sold cocaine before) while claiming he wasn't bringing it up, and Murdoch's New York Post blamed a false story about Michelle Obama splurging on room service on a bad source. They're all Republicans, and while Olbermann does pretty good impressions of all three, that just adds to the political bias -- as does calling Hannity a "manatee."
The final segment is a "Campaign Comment" on Sarah Palin's apparent inability to understand what exactly the vice president's job is. Olbermann says that it's explicit in the Constitution, easy to memorize and understand, and that she should "at least wait until taking office to try to seize power extra-constitutionally." The comment clearly comes with a political agenda, but since it's an editorial statement, as usual, Olbermann is left with some wiggle room in terms of political bias.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Day 14: October 20
15 days to Election Day
The show opens with a discussion of the "new depths" of the McCain campaign, including insinuations about possible improprieties in the small donations that have driven the Obama fundraising machine and intimations from the campaign that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could once again become a campaign issue. Olbermann accuses McCain of trying to scare people into voting for him by using buzzwords like "secret donations" and criticizes them for it. However, the level of defense Olbermann gives is a bit much, and he reaches a bit when he claims that McCain described the issue as a possible precursor to a Watergate-like scandal (McCain didn't mention Watergate in the quote used). A mocking reference to Ted Stevens and his "Internet as a series of tubes" speech by Richard Wolffe didn't help to alleviate the feeling of political bias, and the emphasis on so-called negative campaigning tends to feel like journalistic bias -- though that's significantly less intense considering that the campaign actually did say the things Olbermann purports them to have said.
They then discuss Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. This segment is actually not too bad -- the story is covered fairly objectively, with little gushing and few attacks on Republicans. Several Powell quotes are either read or shown on video, basically explaining Powell's reasoning for the move. Clarence Page, a Chicago Tribune columnist, joins the show here, and is also fairly objective -- though he does say that Powell has "a lot more gravitas than the Republican brand." There's also some basically baseless speculation on whether or not more Republicans will switch sides.
The segment in which John McCain's "robocalls" are discussed is a bit more anti-Patterson. Olbermann mocks McCain and Palin over their supposed flip-flopping on the calls, after McCain denounced them in 2000 when they were used against him. "The moral difference?" asks Olbermann: "These are his robocalls." He also discusses the anger of parents whose children were exposed to the calls; the way in which he does that, though, makes it sound as if he's insinuating that McCain is attacking children, which isn't really honest. It's typically politically biased reporting from Olbermann.
The next segment is quite similar; Sarah Palin's Saturday Night Live appearance is discussed, and the segment is spent basically with Olbermann and Eugene Robinson laughing at Palin and mocking her performance and the idea of even going on the show. Also discussed is the fact that Obama ran an ad during the broadcast -- Robinson asks, "What show does he not have a presence in?" The feeling is that even when the McCain campaign is able to get some free advertising, Obama does an end run around them to dull the message -- Obama's stronger and better than them. Again, this may or may not be true, but it's conveyed in such a way as to be almost outright support of Obama.
The "Worst Persons" segment is typical: he calls out Mark Halperin for saying Obama flip-flopped on public financing, three people (including Rudy Giuliani) for calling for more coverage of Obama's past drug use, and Roger Ailes of FOX "Noise" for saying he had respect for Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw because they were able to report without their "liberal Democrat" biases showing. Olbermann attacks two people who spoke ill of Obama and a person with FOX News ties -- more political bias.
The show ends with a Special Comment -- which he says, because of the "disturbing" tenor of the campaign, will likely be a more regular feature than in the past until the election. He discusses the claims by people on the right wing, including Palin and Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachman, that certain parts of the country and certain people are "anti-America." Olbermann attacks their divisive speech as an example of something that's really anti-America (and in so doing, plays the same game his opponents are, to a lesser extent). He calls their speeches "divisive, paranoid, ugly bleatings," he calls Bachman "unstable," and, when he mentions Rush Limbaugh's claim that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama because of his race, calls him the "Grand Wizard of the school of reactionary non-thought" and says he lives in a "closed, sweaty world of blind allegiances." The segment is very harsh, and obviously directed at the Republican Party only. The Special Comment is harder to criticize, though, as it's an obvious editorial -- it's not presented as news, it's presented as commentary. Because of this, the bias here is more excusable than the bias in the rest of the show.
The show opens with a discussion of the "new depths" of the McCain campaign, including insinuations about possible improprieties in the small donations that have driven the Obama fundraising machine and intimations from the campaign that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could once again become a campaign issue. Olbermann accuses McCain of trying to scare people into voting for him by using buzzwords like "secret donations" and criticizes them for it. However, the level of defense Olbermann gives is a bit much, and he reaches a bit when he claims that McCain described the issue as a possible precursor to a Watergate-like scandal (McCain didn't mention Watergate in the quote used). A mocking reference to Ted Stevens and his "Internet as a series of tubes" speech by Richard Wolffe didn't help to alleviate the feeling of political bias, and the emphasis on so-called negative campaigning tends to feel like journalistic bias -- though that's significantly less intense considering that the campaign actually did say the things Olbermann purports them to have said.
They then discuss Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. This segment is actually not too bad -- the story is covered fairly objectively, with little gushing and few attacks on Republicans. Several Powell quotes are either read or shown on video, basically explaining Powell's reasoning for the move. Clarence Page, a Chicago Tribune columnist, joins the show here, and is also fairly objective -- though he does say that Powell has "a lot more gravitas than the Republican brand." There's also some basically baseless speculation on whether or not more Republicans will switch sides.
The segment in which John McCain's "robocalls" are discussed is a bit more anti-Patterson. Olbermann mocks McCain and Palin over their supposed flip-flopping on the calls, after McCain denounced them in 2000 when they were used against him. "The moral difference?" asks Olbermann: "These are his robocalls." He also discusses the anger of parents whose children were exposed to the calls; the way in which he does that, though, makes it sound as if he's insinuating that McCain is attacking children, which isn't really honest. It's typically politically biased reporting from Olbermann.
The next segment is quite similar; Sarah Palin's Saturday Night Live appearance is discussed, and the segment is spent basically with Olbermann and Eugene Robinson laughing at Palin and mocking her performance and the idea of even going on the show. Also discussed is the fact that Obama ran an ad during the broadcast -- Robinson asks, "What show does he not have a presence in?" The feeling is that even when the McCain campaign is able to get some free advertising, Obama does an end run around them to dull the message -- Obama's stronger and better than them. Again, this may or may not be true, but it's conveyed in such a way as to be almost outright support of Obama.
The "Worst Persons" segment is typical: he calls out Mark Halperin for saying Obama flip-flopped on public financing, three people (including Rudy Giuliani) for calling for more coverage of Obama's past drug use, and Roger Ailes of FOX "Noise" for saying he had respect for Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw because they were able to report without their "liberal Democrat" biases showing. Olbermann attacks two people who spoke ill of Obama and a person with FOX News ties -- more political bias.
The show ends with a Special Comment -- which he says, because of the "disturbing" tenor of the campaign, will likely be a more regular feature than in the past until the election. He discusses the claims by people on the right wing, including Palin and Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachman, that certain parts of the country and certain people are "anti-America." Olbermann attacks their divisive speech as an example of something that's really anti-America (and in so doing, plays the same game his opponents are, to a lesser extent). He calls their speeches "divisive, paranoid, ugly bleatings," he calls Bachman "unstable," and, when he mentions Rush Limbaugh's claim that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama because of his race, calls him the "Grand Wizard of the school of reactionary non-thought" and says he lives in a "closed, sweaty world of blind allegiances." The segment is very harsh, and obviously directed at the Republican Party only. The Special Comment is harder to criticize, though, as it's an obvious editorial -- it's not presented as news, it's presented as commentary. Because of this, the bias here is more excusable than the bias in the rest of the show.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Day 13: October 17
18 days to Election Day
The show opens with some breaking news: the Obama campaign has requested that the Attorney General's office include within a supposed investigation of voter fraud by ACORN a separate investigation into possible involvement of the Department of Justice or the White House in supporting the McCain campaign's claims about voter fraud. He asked for a special prosecutor to investigate whether any kind of collusion or conspiracy to suppress voter turnout had occurred. Olbermann interviews Robert Bauer, chief counsel to the Obama campaign, about the move. This is one of the more journalistically pure segments this show has had since this analysis began, as Olbermann asks for no speculation and allows no bias in the segment -- it's simply him talking to the major actor in an important political story about what he has done already and why, as well as what he will do next. There's no partisan bias here, because there's really no way to balance this, and no reason to -- nobody in the McCain campaign would have anything to add to this issue at this juncture, at least not in terms of what Olbermann and Bauer talked about, specifically.
Next Olbermann talks to Rachel Maddow about the political implications of Obama's decision to head off the voter fraud investigation from the start. There's some political and journalistic bias here: the journalistic bias comes from Maddow's statement that "there's nothing unusual about the tactics that are being used here," and the political bias from the fact that Maddow and Olbermann are so pleased and almost relieved that finally a Democrat has been able to fight off Republican attacks. Maddow even says that she is "impressed by the Obama campaign on this like I haven't been with the Democratic politician in a long time." They sound almost like the Obama fan section here.
Next, Olbermann and Clarence Page have a wide-ranging discussion about issues including David Letterman's interview with McCain -- which they say was the "most substantive interview" that's likely to take place with McCain in the election cycle -- as well as McCain trying to blame Obama for intruding on Joe the Plumber's life, and whether newspaper endorsements are still really a relevant measure of a candidate's popularity or success. There's an odd sense of cynicism about their discussion about Letterman, but it would be tough to call it journalistic bias because the point of the discussion was that journalists aren't going after McCain hard enough. All in all, though, this segment was just about how they felt about events, so it's interpretive journalism.
The next segment is about the Alfred E. Smith Dinner, in which the candidates speak in a kind of roast format and trade zingers. Olbermann shows clips of each of the candidates talking, but the segment gets odd when he shows tape of McCain taking some shots at him. Olbermann then returns the favor, doing a fake stand-up routine in which he says that it will be "a long night in America...four years long" if McCain actually wins, and that he can't think of a bigger joke than Sarah Palin. If there was anyone in doubt at this point as to whom Olbermann is voting for, this segment would end that doubt.
The "Worst Persons in the World" today include Bob Grant, who claimed that Obama wanted to be a dictator because he'd made up his own flags -- which were actually the state flag of Ohio -- Sarah Palin's Secret Service detail, for preventing reporters from leaving the press section at Palin rallies to interview crowds; and Rick Santorum, for complaining about Obama's lack of a flag pin when he's actually almost always wearing one -- and neither McCain nor Santorum himself wear the pins. As always, the segment is an example of the show's political bias.
The final segment is a discussion on the effect that Saturday Night Live has had on the election. The two main focuses are the show's portrayal of McCain as delusional by saying that Joe the Plumber was an imaginary friend, and the planned appearance by Sarah Palin on the show. Emily Hein is asked about whether the risk of letting Palin go on the show is outweighed by the reward, if Palin has become a kind of self-parody, whether it's within bounds for SNL to have the portrayal of McCain and his imaginary friends that they did, and if SNL and other shows like it are valuable as a way to give the public a sense of who the candidates are outside of the bubble of the campaign. There's some political bias evident in this segment; Olbermann and Hein both mimic Palin's speech pattern at one point, and Olbermann says that she will need to work on "self-awareness" before she can get the ability to be self-deprecating.
The show opens with some breaking news: the Obama campaign has requested that the Attorney General's office include within a supposed investigation of voter fraud by ACORN a separate investigation into possible involvement of the Department of Justice or the White House in supporting the McCain campaign's claims about voter fraud. He asked for a special prosecutor to investigate whether any kind of collusion or conspiracy to suppress voter turnout had occurred. Olbermann interviews Robert Bauer, chief counsel to the Obama campaign, about the move. This is one of the more journalistically pure segments this show has had since this analysis began, as Olbermann asks for no speculation and allows no bias in the segment -- it's simply him talking to the major actor in an important political story about what he has done already and why, as well as what he will do next. There's no partisan bias here, because there's really no way to balance this, and no reason to -- nobody in the McCain campaign would have anything to add to this issue at this juncture, at least not in terms of what Olbermann and Bauer talked about, specifically.
Next Olbermann talks to Rachel Maddow about the political implications of Obama's decision to head off the voter fraud investigation from the start. There's some political and journalistic bias here: the journalistic bias comes from Maddow's statement that "there's nothing unusual about the tactics that are being used here," and the political bias from the fact that Maddow and Olbermann are so pleased and almost relieved that finally a Democrat has been able to fight off Republican attacks. Maddow even says that she is "impressed by the Obama campaign on this like I haven't been with the Democratic politician in a long time." They sound almost like the Obama fan section here.
Next, Olbermann and Clarence Page have a wide-ranging discussion about issues including David Letterman's interview with McCain -- which they say was the "most substantive interview" that's likely to take place with McCain in the election cycle -- as well as McCain trying to blame Obama for intruding on Joe the Plumber's life, and whether newspaper endorsements are still really a relevant measure of a candidate's popularity or success. There's an odd sense of cynicism about their discussion about Letterman, but it would be tough to call it journalistic bias because the point of the discussion was that journalists aren't going after McCain hard enough. All in all, though, this segment was just about how they felt about events, so it's interpretive journalism.
The next segment is about the Alfred E. Smith Dinner, in which the candidates speak in a kind of roast format and trade zingers. Olbermann shows clips of each of the candidates talking, but the segment gets odd when he shows tape of McCain taking some shots at him. Olbermann then returns the favor, doing a fake stand-up routine in which he says that it will be "a long night in America...four years long" if McCain actually wins, and that he can't think of a bigger joke than Sarah Palin. If there was anyone in doubt at this point as to whom Olbermann is voting for, this segment would end that doubt.
The "Worst Persons in the World" today include Bob Grant, who claimed that Obama wanted to be a dictator because he'd made up his own flags -- which were actually the state flag of Ohio -- Sarah Palin's Secret Service detail, for preventing reporters from leaving the press section at Palin rallies to interview crowds; and Rick Santorum, for complaining about Obama's lack of a flag pin when he's actually almost always wearing one -- and neither McCain nor Santorum himself wear the pins. As always, the segment is an example of the show's political bias.
The final segment is a discussion on the effect that Saturday Night Live has had on the election. The two main focuses are the show's portrayal of McCain as delusional by saying that Joe the Plumber was an imaginary friend, and the planned appearance by Sarah Palin on the show. Emily Hein is asked about whether the risk of letting Palin go on the show is outweighed by the reward, if Palin has become a kind of self-parody, whether it's within bounds for SNL to have the portrayal of McCain and his imaginary friends that they did, and if SNL and other shows like it are valuable as a way to give the public a sense of who the candidates are outside of the bubble of the campaign. There's some political bias evident in this segment; Olbermann and Hein both mimic Palin's speech pattern at one point, and Olbermann says that she will need to work on "self-awareness" before she can get the ability to be self-deprecating.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Day 12: October 16
19 days to Election Day
The show opens with a story about two men being beaten at a Sarah Palin rally because they were chanting Barack Obama's name. Their alleged assaulters were a group of 65-year-old women. This story is coupled with a quote from Palin at another rally, where she said that some protesters should be allowed to stay so that they could "learn a lesson." This becomes a larger question about the tone of the campaign, as McCain's debate performance and robocalls are also discussed. Richard Wolffe analyzes what is happening, with Olbermann asking him whether he thinks the beating actually happened, and whether it's McCain's responsibility to curb this violence. This is all speculation and analysis, but on the positive side there's not a lot of bias or game schema involved here.
The next segment is a discussion of Joe the Plumber, both as a person and as a campaign strategy. The discussion's centered on the disconnect between what McCain uses Joe for and what he really is -- he's not making as much money as he claims; there's no way he can buy the business and even if he did, it's worth less than $250,000 a year; and Joe would actually benefit more from Obama's tax plan than McCain's. It's mainly a pretty cynical examination of McCain's campaign strategy -- Chris Hayes says that the campaign "excels at throwing chum in the water" for the press, and calls the JTP phenomenon "transparently absurd," and says that Joe "perfectly sums up the entire mythos that this conservative populism functions on." He also refers to Joe as "another gimmick." It's fairly journalistically biased, all in all.
Next Olbermann gives a list of things McCain said during the debate with questionable truth. Obama is not featured. Olbermann only talks about the mistakes McCain made. This is clearly political bias at work.
The next segment is a "horse race" segment about whether or not Obama could possibly win the election in a landslide. Chris Kofinis joins the show to analyze what is happening -- that is, to speculate -- is complacency a factor for Obama voters? Can Obama really realign the electoral map?
"Worst Persons" is next, with honors going to "Fixed News" for odd racial comments about Colin Powell, "Bill-O the Clown" for claiming that the Sarah Palin porn movie is essentially the same as people yelling "kill him" about Obama, and Diane Fedele for putting Obama's face (along with fried chicken, watermelon, ribs and Kool-Aid) on food stamps. As usual, all three are Republican-related.
Finally, Olbermann talks about John McCain's second effort at making an appearance on David Letterman's show. There's not a lot here, either in terms of positives or negatives. It's just not really news, either.
The show opens with a story about two men being beaten at a Sarah Palin rally because they were chanting Barack Obama's name. Their alleged assaulters were a group of 65-year-old women. This story is coupled with a quote from Palin at another rally, where she said that some protesters should be allowed to stay so that they could "learn a lesson." This becomes a larger question about the tone of the campaign, as McCain's debate performance and robocalls are also discussed. Richard Wolffe analyzes what is happening, with Olbermann asking him whether he thinks the beating actually happened, and whether it's McCain's responsibility to curb this violence. This is all speculation and analysis, but on the positive side there's not a lot of bias or game schema involved here.
The next segment is a discussion of Joe the Plumber, both as a person and as a campaign strategy. The discussion's centered on the disconnect between what McCain uses Joe for and what he really is -- he's not making as much money as he claims; there's no way he can buy the business and even if he did, it's worth less than $250,000 a year; and Joe would actually benefit more from Obama's tax plan than McCain's. It's mainly a pretty cynical examination of McCain's campaign strategy -- Chris Hayes says that the campaign "excels at throwing chum in the water" for the press, and calls the JTP phenomenon "transparently absurd," and says that Joe "perfectly sums up the entire mythos that this conservative populism functions on." He also refers to Joe as "another gimmick." It's fairly journalistically biased, all in all.
Next Olbermann gives a list of things McCain said during the debate with questionable truth. Obama is not featured. Olbermann only talks about the mistakes McCain made. This is clearly political bias at work.
The next segment is a "horse race" segment about whether or not Obama could possibly win the election in a landslide. Chris Kofinis joins the show to analyze what is happening -- that is, to speculate -- is complacency a factor for Obama voters? Can Obama really realign the electoral map?
"Worst Persons" is next, with honors going to "Fixed News" for odd racial comments about Colin Powell, "Bill-O the Clown" for claiming that the Sarah Palin porn movie is essentially the same as people yelling "kill him" about Obama, and Diane Fedele for putting Obama's face (along with fried chicken, watermelon, ribs and Kool-Aid) on food stamps. As usual, all three are Republican-related.
Finally, Olbermann talks about John McCain's second effort at making an appearance on David Letterman's show. There's not a lot here, either in terms of positives or negatives. It's just not really news, either.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Day 11: October 15
20 days to Election Day
Once again, due to the debate, the format of the show was significantly different.
Much like the debate itself, the show was dominated by the Everyman avatar of Joe the Plumber. The show opened with a montage of the candidates repeating his name and addressing answers to him, which was reused later at the start of an entire segment that was dedicated to him and whether McCain's use of him actually helped him at all. This was one part interpretive journalism and two parts implication of manipulation -- and all journalistic bias.
There was also heavy discussion of McCain's attacks, which Obama essentially forced him into re-making in person during the debate to attempt to defend against them. The discussion centered mostly on whether or not it was a good strategic move for Obama to press the issue and make McCain attack him -- classically interpretive journalism.
The emphasis on the gimmick of Joe the Plumber and the attacks on Obama's associations is mildly journalistically biased, because it casts the election in terms of attacks and negativity and manipulation rather than issues. However, it's not perfectly biased because, as anyone who watched the debate could affirm, that actually was the preponderance of what was discussed (or at least it seemed like it). To dwell on Joe the Plumber isn't disingenuous, it's a fairly accurate representation of what actually happened.
In addition, Olbermann continued his mocking of McCain, once making reference to a verbal slip-up McCain made when calling Sarah Palin a "bresh of freth air." However, this was somewhat downplayed compared to a typical show, and Olbermann even actually complimented McCain for his attempted powerhouse line "I'm not George Bush." However, Olbermann's assessment skewed toward McCain bashing (and political bias).
A fairly blatant case of political bias came in a sort of innocuous way, when Tom Daschle, Obama campaign co-chair, was a guest on the show. This wouldn't really have been an issue except that McCain didn't also have a representative on the program, and there was no mention made of any attempt to have one. Essentially Daschle was given an opportunity to disseminate Obama campaign talking points on the debate without any similar opportunity for the opposition. This, of course, doesn't even take into account the fact that little to no news value can come of having a card-carrying member of a campaign speak on a show -- all he or she will provide is largely useless spin, so unless the audience is really interested to know what Obama thought about his own performance, the appearance was largely useless.
All in all, the show, like the other post-debate shows, was pretty low-key. It had healthy amounts of the Olbermann standards -- journalistic bias, and comparatively more political bias. It wasn't particularly informative in terms of real news, but was less combative than a typical show, as all of the other post-debate shows have been.
Once again, due to the debate, the format of the show was significantly different.
Much like the debate itself, the show was dominated by the Everyman avatar of Joe the Plumber. The show opened with a montage of the candidates repeating his name and addressing answers to him, which was reused later at the start of an entire segment that was dedicated to him and whether McCain's use of him actually helped him at all. This was one part interpretive journalism and two parts implication of manipulation -- and all journalistic bias.
There was also heavy discussion of McCain's attacks, which Obama essentially forced him into re-making in person during the debate to attempt to defend against them. The discussion centered mostly on whether or not it was a good strategic move for Obama to press the issue and make McCain attack him -- classically interpretive journalism.
The emphasis on the gimmick of Joe the Plumber and the attacks on Obama's associations is mildly journalistically biased, because it casts the election in terms of attacks and negativity and manipulation rather than issues. However, it's not perfectly biased because, as anyone who watched the debate could affirm, that actually was the preponderance of what was discussed (or at least it seemed like it). To dwell on Joe the Plumber isn't disingenuous, it's a fairly accurate representation of what actually happened.
In addition, Olbermann continued his mocking of McCain, once making reference to a verbal slip-up McCain made when calling Sarah Palin a "bresh of freth air." However, this was somewhat downplayed compared to a typical show, and Olbermann even actually complimented McCain for his attempted powerhouse line "I'm not George Bush." However, Olbermann's assessment skewed toward McCain bashing (and political bias).
A fairly blatant case of political bias came in a sort of innocuous way, when Tom Daschle, Obama campaign co-chair, was a guest on the show. This wouldn't really have been an issue except that McCain didn't also have a representative on the program, and there was no mention made of any attempt to have one. Essentially Daschle was given an opportunity to disseminate Obama campaign talking points on the debate without any similar opportunity for the opposition. This, of course, doesn't even take into account the fact that little to no news value can come of having a card-carrying member of a campaign speak on a show -- all he or she will provide is largely useless spin, so unless the audience is really interested to know what Obama thought about his own performance, the appearance was largely useless.
All in all, the show, like the other post-debate shows, was pretty low-key. It had healthy amounts of the Olbermann standards -- journalistic bias, and comparatively more political bias. It wasn't particularly informative in terms of real news, but was less combative than a typical show, as all of the other post-debate shows have been.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Day 10: October 14
21 days to Election Day
The show opens with a dual discussion of the tone of McCain's campaign and whether the campaign's rollout of a new economic plan is a pandering move (since it caters mostly to the rich and elderly). While talking about McCain's denouncement of Congressman John Lewis -- an attempt to turn the blame for the campaign's ugliness on Obama -- as well as his claim that he's learned the lessons of history in a way Obama hasn't, Olbermann refers to McCain as "Senator Keating Five." This is blatant political bias, as he's making an effort to repudiate McCain's claim to help Obama. Howard Fineman then enters the fray to talk about some less related issues: he's asked whether the new polling showing that Obama's pulling away from McCain is that important, whether Rush Limbaugh's question to Sarah Palin about her political future is indicative of a feeling that the election is over, and whether McCain's comment that the next debate won't be a game-changer is just usual lowered expectations. This segment is full of references to the horse race analogy, with a lot of talk about McCain falling behind Obama and whether the election is already over.
The next topic of discussion is McCain's new accusation that Obama has ties with ACORN, a voter registration group that has supposedly engaged in registration fraud, according to the McCain campaign. He claims that the fraudulent registration forms are in an effort to drum up fake support for Obama. Obama is shown explaining his admittedly small connection with the group, and what the charges actually mean (that is, that ACORN is actually the victim of the fraud, and not the perpetrator). It's also claimed that similar, but more nefarious tactics have been used in the past by Karl Rove and his disciples. Olbermann uses some sarcasm here to make his point: he yells "That's telling 'em!" at a tape of McCain speaking in a complimentary way about ACORN two years ago, and says that the move to have U.S. attorneys in the past try to prosecute these cases "smacks of -- GOSH! -- politics!" The sarcasm is evidence of Olbermann's political bias. He then talks to author Allen Raymond about the issue, as Raymond had in the past been a party to voter fraud. Olbermann asks whether the claim is a legitimate fear or a talking point, what the point of the talking point is (Raymond says it's a distraction from the economy), and whether McCain and Palin are actually uninformed enough to believe their claim or if it's just a bald-faced lie. He's then asked to explain the mechanics of voter suppression in detail, which is a good move -- it takes him from speculation into the area of his expertise, and is actually descriptive journalism. There's some journalistic bias in here as well, though.
"McCain in the Membrane," the "the most outrageous or untrue things said by or on behalf of Republican presidential nominee," is the fourth item on the countdown today, so it will actually be covered. Honorees include the campaign, for inflating attendance numbers at a rally; and the campaign again, for rushing out an economic plan without giving specific data to spokespeople, so that when asked how much the plan would cost, Nancy Pfotenhauer was forced to say, "some amount of money over that period of time." Finally, though, the third item on the "Membrane" list is a passionate Special Comment concerning McCain's failure to exert control over the violence of his crowds; instead, trying to claim that the remarks of Congressman John Lewis are "the worst and most utmost unacceptable statement a couple of days ago that [he had] ever heard." As usual, this is a politically biased statement; however, it's under the placard of an editorial comment, so it is a less egregious failure of Patterson's values.
The next segment is calmer and mostly without bias -- author Melissa Harris-Lacewell is brought in to discuss whether the Bradley Effect will come into play in the 2008 election. Her expert opinion is brought to bear on several speculative questions: Is the effect real, and can it exist on a national level? Does Obama need an extra-large polling lead in states with larger white populations to overcome the effect? Is it possible that the effect existed in the case of Tom Bradley, but that the nation has grown out of it? And could there be a reverse Bradley Effect: white people unwilling to say they will vote for a black man, but willing to actually do it? This is obviously interpretive journalism, with some elements of game schema mixed in -- but at least there's little to no bias.
"Worst Persons" is next, with the big winners today being Jonah Goldman, David Frum, and Bill O'Reilly. Goldman makes the list for claiming that if Obama were white, the Republican Party would be attacking him twice as hard. Frum is cited for claiming that in an unflattering interview with Rachel Maddow, he was sandbagged and asked about McCain when he was expecting questions about Afghanistan -- something Olbermann says is a lie. "Bill-O the Clown" is the day's grand champion, for claiming that the violent comments by McCain supporters about Obama were in some way related to supposedly similar posts on the Daily Kos website. As per usual, this segment is based on liberal political bias.
In the final segment, Olbermann and Craig Crawford talk about McCain's upcoming second attempt at going on David Letterman's show. There's a lot of humor in this segment, as there often is in the last segment of the show when it's not a Special Comment. It's mostly derogatory towards McCain, though -- Crawford says that to save his public image, McCain would have to "strap Karl Rove to a bulldozer with a jet engine powering it...to dig out of this one." Olbermann at the end joins in, saying that he thinks McCain will "wind up either blaming me or Congressman Lewis." Crawford is also asked to give his opinion on whether he thinks appearances on shows like Letterman's matter in elections, and why McCain is trying to go back on when Olbermann says that it "looks like it‘s got disaster written all over it." This is typical interpretive journalism.
The show opens with a dual discussion of the tone of McCain's campaign and whether the campaign's rollout of a new economic plan is a pandering move (since it caters mostly to the rich and elderly). While talking about McCain's denouncement of Congressman John Lewis -- an attempt to turn the blame for the campaign's ugliness on Obama -- as well as his claim that he's learned the lessons of history in a way Obama hasn't, Olbermann refers to McCain as "Senator Keating Five." This is blatant political bias, as he's making an effort to repudiate McCain's claim to help Obama. Howard Fineman then enters the fray to talk about some less related issues: he's asked whether the new polling showing that Obama's pulling away from McCain is that important, whether Rush Limbaugh's question to Sarah Palin about her political future is indicative of a feeling that the election is over, and whether McCain's comment that the next debate won't be a game-changer is just usual lowered expectations. This segment is full of references to the horse race analogy, with a lot of talk about McCain falling behind Obama and whether the election is already over.
The next topic of discussion is McCain's new accusation that Obama has ties with ACORN, a voter registration group that has supposedly engaged in registration fraud, according to the McCain campaign. He claims that the fraudulent registration forms are in an effort to drum up fake support for Obama. Obama is shown explaining his admittedly small connection with the group, and what the charges actually mean (that is, that ACORN is actually the victim of the fraud, and not the perpetrator). It's also claimed that similar, but more nefarious tactics have been used in the past by Karl Rove and his disciples. Olbermann uses some sarcasm here to make his point: he yells "That's telling 'em!" at a tape of McCain speaking in a complimentary way about ACORN two years ago, and says that the move to have U.S. attorneys in the past try to prosecute these cases "smacks of -- GOSH! -- politics!" The sarcasm is evidence of Olbermann's political bias. He then talks to author Allen Raymond about the issue, as Raymond had in the past been a party to voter fraud. Olbermann asks whether the claim is a legitimate fear or a talking point, what the point of the talking point is (Raymond says it's a distraction from the economy), and whether McCain and Palin are actually uninformed enough to believe their claim or if it's just a bald-faced lie. He's then asked to explain the mechanics of voter suppression in detail, which is a good move -- it takes him from speculation into the area of his expertise, and is actually descriptive journalism. There's some journalistic bias in here as well, though.
"McCain in the Membrane," the "the most outrageous or untrue things said by or on behalf of Republican presidential nominee," is the fourth item on the countdown today, so it will actually be covered. Honorees include the campaign, for inflating attendance numbers at a rally; and the campaign again, for rushing out an economic plan without giving specific data to spokespeople, so that when asked how much the plan would cost, Nancy Pfotenhauer was forced to say, "some amount of money over that period of time." Finally, though, the third item on the "Membrane" list is a passionate Special Comment concerning McCain's failure to exert control over the violence of his crowds; instead, trying to claim that the remarks of Congressman John Lewis are "the worst and most utmost unacceptable statement a couple of days ago that [he had] ever heard." As usual, this is a politically biased statement; however, it's under the placard of an editorial comment, so it is a less egregious failure of Patterson's values.
The next segment is calmer and mostly without bias -- author Melissa Harris-Lacewell is brought in to discuss whether the Bradley Effect will come into play in the 2008 election. Her expert opinion is brought to bear on several speculative questions: Is the effect real, and can it exist on a national level? Does Obama need an extra-large polling lead in states with larger white populations to overcome the effect? Is it possible that the effect existed in the case of Tom Bradley, but that the nation has grown out of it? And could there be a reverse Bradley Effect: white people unwilling to say they will vote for a black man, but willing to actually do it? This is obviously interpretive journalism, with some elements of game schema mixed in -- but at least there's little to no bias.
"Worst Persons" is next, with the big winners today being Jonah Goldman, David Frum, and Bill O'Reilly. Goldman makes the list for claiming that if Obama were white, the Republican Party would be attacking him twice as hard. Frum is cited for claiming that in an unflattering interview with Rachel Maddow, he was sandbagged and asked about McCain when he was expecting questions about Afghanistan -- something Olbermann says is a lie. "Bill-O the Clown" is the day's grand champion, for claiming that the violent comments by McCain supporters about Obama were in some way related to supposedly similar posts on the Daily Kos website. As per usual, this segment is based on liberal political bias.
In the final segment, Olbermann and Craig Crawford talk about McCain's upcoming second attempt at going on David Letterman's show. There's a lot of humor in this segment, as there often is in the last segment of the show when it's not a Special Comment. It's mostly derogatory towards McCain, though -- Crawford says that to save his public image, McCain would have to "strap Karl Rove to a bulldozer with a jet engine powering it...to dig out of this one." Olbermann at the end joins in, saying that he thinks McCain will "wind up either blaming me or Congressman Lewis." Crawford is also asked to give his opinion on whether he thinks appearances on shows like Letterman's matter in elections, and why McCain is trying to go back on when Olbermann says that it "looks like it‘s got disaster written all over it." This is typical interpretive journalism.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Day 9: October 13
22 days to Election Day
The show opens with implications that the McCain campaign is collapsing around them. Sarah Palin is made to look foolish; she scolds supporters asking her to speak up when she thinks they're protesters, and she's booed at a Philadelphia Flyers game. Olbermann jokes about this, saying that "They went to an anti-Palin rally and a hockey game broke out." Funny, but the mocking shows political bias.
He next talks about McCain's claims that with all the hardship the campaign has seen, and with the media writing him off, he has them right where he wants them. Again, Olbermann mocks the statement, saying, "But don't worry, Senator McCain claiming he's got his opponent and the media, if not the electorate necessarily, right where he wants them."
Richard Wolffe joins in at this point, saying of the Palin incidents that "when things go wrong, they tend to go very, very wrong." The dominant theme of the segment is speculation: Why does McCain claim that he has "them" right where he wants them? Is the conflict over the unveiling of McCain's new economic plan indicative in some way of turmoil in the campaign? Are we moving into a point in the campaign where Obama is more easily trusted to handle crisis than McCain? Wolffe's interpretations gain little ground.
Next, Olbermann discusses the now not-so-latent racism that's infusing the Republican base in its attacks on Obama. After McCain briefly tried to stop his supporters from attacking Obama on racial/religious terms, as Olbermann says, "McCain Classic is back." McCain, in an interview, didn't take an offered opportunity to repudiate a claim made by the GOP chair in Virginia that Obama and Osama bin Laden "both had friends that bombed the Pentagon," referring to Bill Ayres. Chris Hayes of The Nation joins the segment, and he and Olbermann appear quite angry at the supposed race-baiting and attack the McCain campaign on the issue. Hayes calls the campaign "gross." Olbermann asks why McCain doesn't "have the stones" to confront Obama directly on the Ayres issue. The segment sounds a bit like two people gossiping about a friend who'd been insulted; it's pretty clear political bias.
Chris Kofinis is the next guest; he comes on the show to talk about disarray between McCain specifically and his base, surrogates, and the rest of the Republican Party. Olbermann asks, "What does it mean when the Republican governor of Florida decides he is too busy to help the GOP nominee get in the White House?" Charlie Crist, evidently, skipped a McCain event in Florida in order to go to Disneyworld instead, and even Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are giving advice on how to save the supposedly sinking ship. Kofinis speculates that the reason this is happening is because "McCain's campaign has the stink of loserdom on it," and that these events are feeding a perception that McCain cannot win. There's a sense of glee between the two, especially when Kofinis says that Palin "is a disaster" and Olbermann asks if she could somehow secretly be working for the Democratic Party. There's also some speculation on what McCain's campaign should do to try to fix their issues, but mostly this segment is just schadenfreude about the Republicans' problems -- more political bias.
The next segment is probably one of the better ones I've seen on this show in terms of real reporting. Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice comes on to talk about reporting he has done as to whether Sarah Palin committed an ethical violation by having the subcontractor who built a sports complex in Wasilla (a project commissioned by Palin) pay for and build her new family home in the same area. There's some inappropriate snark -- he asks "isn't it odd..." that the house and complex were built at the same general time by the same people -- but aside from that, there's no political bias or speculation here.
"Worst Persons" involves "Bill-O the Clown," who's mocked for calling out Obama on not voting for an amendment to a bill so as to avoid alienating MoveOn, when Obama actually did vote for the amendment (and McCain didn't). The winner is Rev. Arnie Conrad, who Olbermann claims committed blasphemy by claiming that God should make McCain win so that people of other religions (supposedly praying for an Obama win) wouldn't think their gods were better than the Christian God. Olbermann responds with biting wit: "In other words, Lord, if McCain loses, it's your ass. " As usual, his targets are all Republicans; thus, the segment is politically biased.
Finally, comedian Richard Lewis appears to essentially spend six minutes riffing on John McCain. This segment is not even remotely unbiased. The two men spend the entire segment just making fun of the Republican ticket. Lewis even compares suicide bombers in the Middle East to the extreme right wing (specifically, racists). In terms of journalistic value, there's nothing in the final segment.
The show opens with implications that the McCain campaign is collapsing around them. Sarah Palin is made to look foolish; she scolds supporters asking her to speak up when she thinks they're protesters, and she's booed at a Philadelphia Flyers game. Olbermann jokes about this, saying that "They went to an anti-Palin rally and a hockey game broke out." Funny, but the mocking shows political bias.
He next talks about McCain's claims that with all the hardship the campaign has seen, and with the media writing him off, he has them right where he wants them. Again, Olbermann mocks the statement, saying, "But don't worry, Senator McCain claiming he's got his opponent and the media, if not the electorate necessarily, right where he wants them."
Richard Wolffe joins in at this point, saying of the Palin incidents that "when things go wrong, they tend to go very, very wrong." The dominant theme of the segment is speculation: Why does McCain claim that he has "them" right where he wants them? Is the conflict over the unveiling of McCain's new economic plan indicative in some way of turmoil in the campaign? Are we moving into a point in the campaign where Obama is more easily trusted to handle crisis than McCain? Wolffe's interpretations gain little ground.
Next, Olbermann discusses the now not-so-latent racism that's infusing the Republican base in its attacks on Obama. After McCain briefly tried to stop his supporters from attacking Obama on racial/religious terms, as Olbermann says, "McCain Classic is back." McCain, in an interview, didn't take an offered opportunity to repudiate a claim made by the GOP chair in Virginia that Obama and Osama bin Laden "both had friends that bombed the Pentagon," referring to Bill Ayres. Chris Hayes of The Nation joins the segment, and he and Olbermann appear quite angry at the supposed race-baiting and attack the McCain campaign on the issue. Hayes calls the campaign "gross." Olbermann asks why McCain doesn't "have the stones" to confront Obama directly on the Ayres issue. The segment sounds a bit like two people gossiping about a friend who'd been insulted; it's pretty clear political bias.
Chris Kofinis is the next guest; he comes on the show to talk about disarray between McCain specifically and his base, surrogates, and the rest of the Republican Party. Olbermann asks, "What does it mean when the Republican governor of Florida decides he is too busy to help the GOP nominee get in the White House?" Charlie Crist, evidently, skipped a McCain event in Florida in order to go to Disneyworld instead, and even Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are giving advice on how to save the supposedly sinking ship. Kofinis speculates that the reason this is happening is because "McCain's campaign has the stink of loserdom on it," and that these events are feeding a perception that McCain cannot win. There's a sense of glee between the two, especially when Kofinis says that Palin "is a disaster" and Olbermann asks if she could somehow secretly be working for the Democratic Party. There's also some speculation on what McCain's campaign should do to try to fix their issues, but mostly this segment is just schadenfreude about the Republicans' problems -- more political bias.
The next segment is probably one of the better ones I've seen on this show in terms of real reporting. Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice comes on to talk about reporting he has done as to whether Sarah Palin committed an ethical violation by having the subcontractor who built a sports complex in Wasilla (a project commissioned by Palin) pay for and build her new family home in the same area. There's some inappropriate snark -- he asks "isn't it odd..." that the house and complex were built at the same general time by the same people -- but aside from that, there's no political bias or speculation here.
"Worst Persons" involves "Bill-O the Clown," who's mocked for calling out Obama on not voting for an amendment to a bill so as to avoid alienating MoveOn, when Obama actually did vote for the amendment (and McCain didn't). The winner is Rev. Arnie Conrad, who Olbermann claims committed blasphemy by claiming that God should make McCain win so that people of other religions (supposedly praying for an Obama win) wouldn't think their gods were better than the Christian God. Olbermann responds with biting wit: "In other words, Lord, if McCain loses, it's your ass. " As usual, his targets are all Republicans; thus, the segment is politically biased.
Finally, comedian Richard Lewis appears to essentially spend six minutes riffing on John McCain. This segment is not even remotely unbiased. The two men spend the entire segment just making fun of the Republican ticket. Lewis even compares suicide bombers in the Middle East to the extreme right wing (specifically, racists). In terms of journalistic value, there's nothing in the final segment.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Day 8: October 10
25 days to Election Day
The show opens with a report of some breaking news: John McCain has been forced to "tamp down the fear and anger of his supporters," and allay suspicions fueled supposedly by McCain's campaign that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist. Guest host David Shuster shows a relevant McCain ad which claims that Obama "worked with terrorist Bill Ayres," then lied about it. He says that Obama called a Philadelphia radio station to explain his supposed relationship with Ayres, and that Obama holds McCain responsible for the tone of the campaign; meanwhile, McCain's staff say that Obama is attacking his supporters. Shuster says that McCain has been "forced to reap what he has sown," and has had to reassure his supporters that they have nothing to fear if Obama becomes president and that he is not an Arab. Shuster's reporting is somewhat politically biased, mostly in his reactions to the information he's given.
Here Jonathan Alter joins in, to analyze the effect that this will have on the McCain campaign. He's asked whether this is "a campaign's worst nightmare," where the campaign can go now that the strategy of smearing Obama is failing, whether the McCain campaign is "in free fall," whether the strategy would have been effective even if it hadn't turned so ugly, and if more Republicans are embarrassed by the tactic or more believe the claims McCain has made. The second half of this segment is rife with interpretive journalism, though the first half has some pretty good descriptive journalism (though it's from a weak liberal slant).
In the next segment, Lawrence O'Donnell does more analysis of what this switch in tactics will do to the McCain campaign. He's asked where McCain should go now, and what McCain's new "presidential argument" will consist of tomorrow since he's giving up such a large part of his strategy, whether this pivot will alienate the far right, and whether it will play into Obama's hands by showing him to be erratic. This is more interpretation, though O'Donnell is able to mix in some political bias when he says that predicting McCain's actions "is the most difficult job I've been given on this show," with a laugh.
Next a columnist from the Anchorage Daily News, Michael Carey, comes on the show to analyze the findings of the Alaska Troopergate commission, news which Shuster breaks at the beginning of the segment. However, Carey says that he hasn't actually seen the report, so he's purely speculating based on what Shuster reported. He's asked what he's been able to figure out so far about the report, whether it can open the door to prosecution or to a civil suit, where the case will go next, and if the fact that she supposedly lied about the firing of the trooper not being related to family issues is the reason it has become such a huge deal legally. Again, though, Carey is purely speculating.
Lawrence O'Donnell returns now to give his reaction to the Troopergate report. He's also asked to speculate on whether there's any defense for the action that voters would be willing to accept, as well as whether the damage to her credibility as a "moral authority" is the biggest problem from this report. Again, this is all speculation and interpretive journalism.
Finally, Savannah Guthrie joins in, to similarly assess what her thoughts are on the scandal and the investigation, She's asked whether Palin has had a reaction yet (she hasn't since the release, but she's done a "preemptive attack" on the allegations), and whether Democrats can claim that she's cherry-picking the investigations that she will cooperate with (since the only one she's approved is one where some of the members of the investigative board were chosen by her). This is really half interpretive, half descriptive, and since Guthrie has been covering the issue for some time, her interpretations are a bit more acceptable.
The show opens with a report of some breaking news: John McCain has been forced to "tamp down the fear and anger of his supporters," and allay suspicions fueled supposedly by McCain's campaign that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist. Guest host David Shuster shows a relevant McCain ad which claims that Obama "worked with terrorist Bill Ayres," then lied about it. He says that Obama called a Philadelphia radio station to explain his supposed relationship with Ayres, and that Obama holds McCain responsible for the tone of the campaign; meanwhile, McCain's staff say that Obama is attacking his supporters. Shuster says that McCain has been "forced to reap what he has sown," and has had to reassure his supporters that they have nothing to fear if Obama becomes president and that he is not an Arab. Shuster's reporting is somewhat politically biased, mostly in his reactions to the information he's given.
Here Jonathan Alter joins in, to analyze the effect that this will have on the McCain campaign. He's asked whether this is "a campaign's worst nightmare," where the campaign can go now that the strategy of smearing Obama is failing, whether the McCain campaign is "in free fall," whether the strategy would have been effective even if it hadn't turned so ugly, and if more Republicans are embarrassed by the tactic or more believe the claims McCain has made. The second half of this segment is rife with interpretive journalism, though the first half has some pretty good descriptive journalism (though it's from a weak liberal slant).
In the next segment, Lawrence O'Donnell does more analysis of what this switch in tactics will do to the McCain campaign. He's asked where McCain should go now, and what McCain's new "presidential argument" will consist of tomorrow since he's giving up such a large part of his strategy, whether this pivot will alienate the far right, and whether it will play into Obama's hands by showing him to be erratic. This is more interpretation, though O'Donnell is able to mix in some political bias when he says that predicting McCain's actions "is the most difficult job I've been given on this show," with a laugh.
Next a columnist from the Anchorage Daily News, Michael Carey, comes on the show to analyze the findings of the Alaska Troopergate commission, news which Shuster breaks at the beginning of the segment. However, Carey says that he hasn't actually seen the report, so he's purely speculating based on what Shuster reported. He's asked what he's been able to figure out so far about the report, whether it can open the door to prosecution or to a civil suit, where the case will go next, and if the fact that she supposedly lied about the firing of the trooper not being related to family issues is the reason it has become such a huge deal legally. Again, though, Carey is purely speculating.
Lawrence O'Donnell returns now to give his reaction to the Troopergate report. He's also asked to speculate on whether there's any defense for the action that voters would be willing to accept, as well as whether the damage to her credibility as a "moral authority" is the biggest problem from this report. Again, this is all speculation and interpretive journalism.
Finally, Savannah Guthrie joins in, to similarly assess what her thoughts are on the scandal and the investigation, She's asked whether Palin has had a reaction yet (she hasn't since the release, but she's done a "preemptive attack" on the allegations), and whether Democrats can claim that she's cherry-picking the investigations that she will cooperate with (since the only one she's approved is one where some of the members of the investigative board were chosen by her). This is really half interpretive, half descriptive, and since Guthrie has been covering the issue for some time, her interpretations are a bit more acceptable.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Day 7: October 9
26 days to Election Day
The show opens with a discussion of John McCain's new economic plan, based around the mortgaging industry. According to Olbermann, McCain is "cooking the books" on his proposal, by changing the proposal on his website. The campaign claims that the change was due to a typographical error, but Olbermann say that it's a fundamental change in the plan, going from buying mortgages at their current prices to buying them at their listed prices -- which would bring "windfalls" to the lenders and cost taxpayers money. He uses Obama's "(fill-in-the-blank) you can believe in" slogan several times in criticism of McCain, which is sort of a non-objective move. He then gives a quote from McCain, prefaced by him saying that McCain was "lying about his plan, and lying about Obama. Richard Wolffe then joins the show to talk about the issue -- Olbermann asks whether he thinks McCain has the goal of helping lenders over homeowners, and he responds that he thinks he is only doing this to try to power his campaign. He calls the move a "gimmick," in a rare instance of working political bias and journalistic bias into one question/answer combo.
He then greets Margaret Carlson with the question, "Big business benefiting ahead of the American middle class under a Republican would-be president. Who could have ever imagined that?" This is one of the more politically biased statements I've heard on the show so far. She seems to make an effort at being non-partisan, though, at one point mentioning that she didn't want to "repeat [Obama's] talking points," then later saying that in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess, "a lot of people have dirty hands in Washington on both sides of the aisle." She's asked to speculate on why McCain's economic attacks on Obama are not working, as well as whether his new plan is a good way to separate himself from the policies of George Bush.
Next Olbermann discusses conservative disapproval with John McCain, framed by George Will's column in which he quoted baseball's Earl Weaver: "Are you going to get any better, or is this it?" Conservative intellectuals are unhappy about the Bill Ayres attacks, as well as about McCain's support of the corporate bailout. Meanwhile, Obama and Joe Biden are essentially calling McCain a coward for being unwilling to bring the attacks to their faces. Howard Fineman comes in to talk; he's asked to speculate on why now is the time McCain has chosen to start focusing on Ayres, and why Obama and Biden would want McCain to attack them in person. This is an example of use of interpretive journalism.
Next is a discussion on an interview Cindy McCain gave in which she says that John McCain hadn't had any post-traumatic stress disorder because he was well-trained, unlike the "the 18-year-olds who were drafted." Olbermann uses some questionable logic here to claim that this is an attack on the troops, by saying that if a soldier is well-trained, he shouldn't be suffering any ill effects of being in a war zone. Jon Soltz, a veteran, then joins the show to express indignation about her comments -- he calls it "absolutely offensive," and says that "it's just set this debate back 30 years." There's definitely some political bias in Olbermann's reasoning here, and in choosing a guest who will back him up.
"Worst Persons in the World" today honors Annie Carney of the New York Post for inventing a "crisis at MSNBC"; Ed Snider, owner of the Philadelphia Flyers, for using a game as a campaign event for Sarah Palin; and George W. Bush, as evidence has come out that the NSA has illegally been spying on the private phone calls of Americans, including military personnel, and including romantic communications. As usual, there is political bias all over this segment.
The show's final segment is an interview with comedian Sarah Silverman, who's the spokesperson for the Great Schlep, a program trying to get young Jewish people to travel to Florida to convince their grandparents to vote for Barack Obama. It's entertaining, but the journalism value is low, and there's a hefty political bias to the segment -- among other things, Silverman calls Sarah Palin "as off-putting and gross as a pageant contestant but without the desire for world peace. "
The show opens with a discussion of John McCain's new economic plan, based around the mortgaging industry. According to Olbermann, McCain is "cooking the books" on his proposal, by changing the proposal on his website. The campaign claims that the change was due to a typographical error, but Olbermann say that it's a fundamental change in the plan, going from buying mortgages at their current prices to buying them at their listed prices -- which would bring "windfalls" to the lenders and cost taxpayers money. He uses Obama's "(fill-in-the-blank) you can believe in" slogan several times in criticism of McCain, which is sort of a non-objective move. He then gives a quote from McCain, prefaced by him saying that McCain was "lying about his plan, and lying about Obama. Richard Wolffe then joins the show to talk about the issue -- Olbermann asks whether he thinks McCain has the goal of helping lenders over homeowners, and he responds that he thinks he is only doing this to try to power his campaign. He calls the move a "gimmick," in a rare instance of working political bias and journalistic bias into one question/answer combo.
He then greets Margaret Carlson with the question, "Big business benefiting ahead of the American middle class under a Republican would-be president. Who could have ever imagined that?" This is one of the more politically biased statements I've heard on the show so far. She seems to make an effort at being non-partisan, though, at one point mentioning that she didn't want to "repeat [Obama's] talking points," then later saying that in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess, "a lot of people have dirty hands in Washington on both sides of the aisle." She's asked to speculate on why McCain's economic attacks on Obama are not working, as well as whether his new plan is a good way to separate himself from the policies of George Bush.
Next Olbermann discusses conservative disapproval with John McCain, framed by George Will's column in which he quoted baseball's Earl Weaver: "Are you going to get any better, or is this it?" Conservative intellectuals are unhappy about the Bill Ayres attacks, as well as about McCain's support of the corporate bailout. Meanwhile, Obama and Joe Biden are essentially calling McCain a coward for being unwilling to bring the attacks to their faces. Howard Fineman comes in to talk; he's asked to speculate on why now is the time McCain has chosen to start focusing on Ayres, and why Obama and Biden would want McCain to attack them in person. This is an example of use of interpretive journalism.
Next is a discussion on an interview Cindy McCain gave in which she says that John McCain hadn't had any post-traumatic stress disorder because he was well-trained, unlike the "the 18-year-olds who were drafted." Olbermann uses some questionable logic here to claim that this is an attack on the troops, by saying that if a soldier is well-trained, he shouldn't be suffering any ill effects of being in a war zone. Jon Soltz, a veteran, then joins the show to express indignation about her comments -- he calls it "absolutely offensive," and says that "it's just set this debate back 30 years." There's definitely some political bias in Olbermann's reasoning here, and in choosing a guest who will back him up.
"Worst Persons in the World" today honors Annie Carney of the New York Post for inventing a "crisis at MSNBC"; Ed Snider, owner of the Philadelphia Flyers, for using a game as a campaign event for Sarah Palin; and George W. Bush, as evidence has come out that the NSA has illegally been spying on the private phone calls of Americans, including military personnel, and including romantic communications. As usual, there is political bias all over this segment.
The show's final segment is an interview with comedian Sarah Silverman, who's the spokesperson for the Great Schlep, a program trying to get young Jewish people to travel to Florida to convince their grandparents to vote for Barack Obama. It's entertaining, but the journalism value is low, and there's a hefty political bias to the segment -- among other things, Silverman calls Sarah Palin "as off-putting and gross as a pageant contestant but without the desire for world peace. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
