Legal Commentary

Kinsley v. Maddow

By Big Tent Democrat

Michael Kinsley beats Rachel Maddow in a 1 round KO (pun intended). Here's Kinsley:

MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann, which started out as “indefinite” and ended as two days, for making a few political campaign contributions is absurd in so many ways that it’s hard to keep track. If Olbermann had merely put these politicians on his show, representing a viewpoint he obviously shares, that would have been worth more than a campaign contribution of a few thousand dollars, but Olbermann would be considered blameless. Does anyone think that by suppressing the expression of his views (via these donations), Olbermann would have stopped having them? Does anyone doubt what Olbermann’s views are on politics in general and these races in particular? Most journalists try to suppress their biases — Olbermann gets paid to flaunt his biases. On a crude political scale, Olbermann is a left-wing liberal. MSNBC hired him to be a liberal and last week suspended him for the same thing. Or rather, not for being a liberal but for revealing it.

Maddow's position was that what makes MSNBC different than Fox is these absurd rules:

Keith is a liberal, so am I. There are other people on this network whose political views are shared openly with our viewers. We are not a political operation. FOX is. We are a news operation. The rules around here are part how you know. Keith Olbermann attracted the ire of the right-wing and raged against what he saw as the errors and sins of the previous administration. Keith was also the one who brought to light FOX News' water-carrying role for the Bush administration," Rachel Maddow said in defense of her MSNBC colleague on her show Friday night.

(Emphasis supplied.) The "rule" tells us nothing, as Kinsley ably demonstrates. If MSNBC wants to be different than Fox, what it needs to do is what Fox does not - stick to the facts. Sure, MSNBC will stick to facts favorable to Democrats, but if they stick to the facts, that will make them better than Fox, which does not stick to the facts.

Kinsley recalls the philosophy of Charlie Peters and it is one well worth following for everybody who writes about politics and policy:

Charlie Peters, had firm views about the difference between fact and opinion. (As about most other matters. We called them, collectively, “the gospel.”) The gospel on fact versus opinion was that there is no such distinction. Our job was to seek the truth and publish it, and the truth included both facts and the conclusions you drew from them. Suppose you’d written about some wasteful government agency. And say a senator was saying it should be abolished. Either it should be abolished or it shouldn’t, and after a month of research and reporting, you should have some idea about the correct answer. You should state and defend your view. (And if you can’t make up your mind, you should find something else to write about. Or possibly go into another line of work.)

(Emphasis supplied.) This.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on November 09, 2010 (boomark / email).