Question of the Weekend…
Normally, I would just pop off a question but this is going to be a statement first and then a question…
Watching what happened with Olbermann this week I was struck by the marked difference in the way the MSM reacted to the story vs. the way they’ve reacted to the times O’Reilly has been called on the carpet for something by Olbermann and O’Reilly’s response. How many papers wrote about Olbermann this week? A handfull? How many have noted Olbermann’s taunting of O’Reilly and O’Reilly’s subsequent reaction? Lots.
I don’t draw a distinction between what happened to Olbermann and what happened to O’Reilly. To me they are one and the same. In both cases there was an instigator and a victim. In both cases the instigator got to the victim. In both cases the victim reacted. But the similarities stop there because one gets lots of publicity and the other doesn’t. The Grove story got some play but what happened with the far more damaging Olbermannwatch emails did not.
I generally believe that the idea that FNC is held to a higher level of scrutiny than the other networks is mostly hogwash. I find that CNN (and to a lesser extent MSNBC because of its lower ratings…which translates into fewer people being aware of what goes on there) is held to just as much scrutiny by its enemies as FNC is held by its enemies. That Chris Matthews boycott is still going on y’know. But incidents like this give the proponents of that argument real ammunition to use.
So the question of the weekend will be thus:
Is there a double standard at work here with how Olbermann was treated and how O’Reilly is treated?
I expect I’ll have to monitor the comments very closely…so behave yourselves… :P
Provocative question! In a way I think there are reasons for all the O’Reilly publicity: there was, after, a lawsuit, or the threat of one, and an out-of-court settlement. That automatically ratchets up the publicity to another level.
However, lawsuit aside, I think I agree with your premise somewhat that there is a double standard here. Olbermann himself is evidence of it. Care to guess how many times he has mentioned “loofah” or “falafel” on Countdown? Just that show alone has given the O’Reilly kerfuffle more publicity than all the other shows combined will give to the Olbermann Letters. And it needs to be said, more reporters agree politically with KO than with O’Reilly. They will cut their buddy some slack.
Comment by johnny dollar — June 17, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
I think comparing the O’Reilly/KO situations are like comparing apples and oranges. No lawsuits have been filed in the KO incident (so far), so there is less publicity. The KO story is hot in the blogosphere because a lot of newspapers won’t touch it because of the obscene references (even veiled). And I do think politics has a part in the fact that MSM hasn’t touched this story. This has turned out to be a publicity-maker for MSNBC (unintentionally).
Comment by Goldfish — June 17, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
I meant “comparing…is like.” Duh.
Comment by Goldfish — June 17, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
And it needs to be said, more reporters agree politically with KO than with O’Reilly.
That’s not saying much because O’Reilly swings between Libertarianism and Social Conservatism…not exactly two ideologies that go hand in hand…or that most people follow simultaneously. The two are usually at odds with one another. So it’s not like there are lots of people who agree politically with O’Reilly overall to begin with, let alone a sub group like reporters. They cherry pick what to agree with and what not to agree with. You never see reporters take O’Reilly on over his Libertarian issues. And you never see Conservative reporters go after his Social Conservative issues…but will attack him for his Libertarian stances.
Comment by Spud — June 18, 2006 @ 1:09 am
I disagree with the libertarian thing. O’Reilly is not a libertarian. Tucker Carlson is more of a libertarian. O’Reilly seems to be a conservative, and then every once in a while he throws out some whacko view about some issue that doesn’t seem to jibe with the rest. But the libertarian label doesn’t fit most of the time. Enough said..
Those who are more in the spotlight are held to a higher standard. That’s just the way it is. More in the spotlight=more scrutiny. One of life’s little unfair twists. FNC is held to a higher standard for two reasons: it’s number 1, and it’s less liberal (or more conservative) than everyone else. We are currently living in a time of 85% Democrat journalists and 15% Republican journalists. And 50% of those Democrat journalists are far left loony bleeding heart whacko liberal quasi-communist Michael Moore Democrats. (For proof see the commencement speech by the New York Times’ chief editor - help me out JD!!!) Anyhow that’s the way it is, and if the conservatives want that to change they need to convince their kids and their friends’ kids to first be conservative, and second go to journalism school. If they do that, maybe 50 years from now conservatives and Republicans won’t be held to a higher standard. Until then, they need to get over it.
To all the whiners out there: 20 years ago I couldn’t get into Pharmacy school with a 3.8 GPA, but I had female friends (including my future wife) with GPAs as low as 2.8 that got in. I got over it! Now they don’t even let men in… do they?
Then there’s this thing about CNN having ememies??? What enemies are we talking about?
What else is there? Oh, yeah, the Chris Matthews boycott. What a joke. I don’t think it’s working.
A double standard? Yes. And Olbermann and O’Reilly both know about it. Olbermann is currently gloating about it. And O’Reilly better keep his mouth shut, or he will be the one who suffers for Olbermann’s sins.
Comment by erljr — June 18, 2006 @ 7:09 am
I applaud Spud for even posing the question, because I think he’s a fan of Olbermann, and am surprised that he’d take note that the story wasn’t carried more by the MSM.
But I discount the view that a lawsuit has anything to do with the publicity generated in either case. I think the shocking language present in each men’s situation is the big story here. O’Reilly’s story got huge coverage, I believe, because of the language he used when talking with the girl. Olbermann used even more shocking, vile language (IMO), and was vitriolic to boot. But besides Lloyd Grove, I don’t think anyone in the MSM touched it.
I do think Olbermann’s many fans in the print media who’ve written about him on a regular basis owe it to their readers to publish something about this debacle. And I am surprised that they aren’t more concerned about his over-reaction to goading from viewers and the lengths he went to to respond to their tauntings.
Comment by Missy — June 18, 2006 @ 11:03 am
O’Reilly is a bigger target by a factor of what - five or six?
The “build-em-up-to-tear-em-down” narrative turns neatly on a dime. So long as he’s unwatched, Glenn Beck’s bombast goes unmentioned.
Comment by steve — June 18, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Simple. Fewer people know or care about Olbermann or what he has to say.
Comment by Real Thing — June 18, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Two points here: firstly, O’Reilly is far, far, far better known than Olbermann is. His ratings alone prove that. He’s also written several best-sellers. Olbermann’s ESPN SportsCenter glory days are long behind him. And his show is usually fourth in a five-way race at 8pm So naturally I think O’Reilly got more publicity for his mishap than Olbermann. And yes, there was also a lawsuit involved, and sexual harassment at that. Sex + Fame = big headlines.
I do think a larger question about the surfacing of these emails went largely unanswered however. Did Olbermann get preferential treatment because of his status at MSNBC? I believe that a behind-the-scenes person would have been immediately fired for these kinds of emails. Olbermann wasn’t.
and heck, I’ll add in a #3 just for good measure. I was truly shocked when I saw the full text of those emails. They were very disturbing to me on any number of levels because it revealed someone who seems to have some mental problems or at the very least, some serious anger control issues at play. I hope that part of any punishment MSNBC doles out to him is some sort of required anger management therapy.
Did the media give him a pass? Yes, I think they did. But did this come as a surprise to anyone who knows him or has worked with him? I don’t think so. The bigger question here is why does he keep getting hired when his issues are so well known and that there is always a vapor trail that follows him with one controversy after another?
Comment by MGM — June 18, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
I’m an Olbermann fan - despite the past week. Frankly, working a newsroom… I see the vitriol that people will write in. Sometimes it can get pretty out of hand. Should he have gone off half-cocked? Probably not.
But on the other side of the token - I don’t like O’Reilly — and my disdain has nothing to do with the Mackris incident. All this extra-curricular stuff just doesn’t matter.
Now — as a “member” of the MSM — no one cares about this little Olbermann flap. He didn’t break any laws… he didn’t destroy any reputations… he just wrote some nasty e-mails. I think if we were all judged on what was in our e-mail outbox, many of us would be in trouble.
Comment by WestCoastBlogger — June 18, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
I should have been more clear in what I referred to at the “MSM”…I was speaking of the media critics. Where was Kurtz? Shales? Where was Variety? The Hollywood Reporter? Where were the media sites?
And even Grove cut Olbermann some major slack by selectively quoting Olbermann’s emails. It’s like Grove was trying to make Olbermann look only a little bit pregnant.
I frame the story as thus…One guy spent months trying to get under his competition’s skin and it worked and the media critics loved it. However some of said host’s detractors tried to get under his skin and it worked and now people are making excuses how it’s a totally different scenario and doesn’t deserve coverage.
Frankly, I just don’t see it.
Comment by Spud — June 18, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
Real Thing has a very good point, “fewer people know or care” about Olbermann.
However, it seems to me that Mr. Olbermann always been a media darling without the audience to back up the fawning press. Most of them are (Anderson Cooper comes to mind, but he at least can write.)
And Mr. Olbermann has been treated differently than a non-anchor/reporter at NBC’s cable station. Anyone else sending that many caustic email messages to viewers would have been fired.
Comment by Jon — June 18, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Howard Kurtz made a very brief mention of it on Reliable Sources, maybe under a minute, with a few quotes from the censored Lloyd Grove versions of the emails.
Comment by johnny dollar — June 18, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
I agree with Real Thing - KO’s lack of audience and fame as compared to O’Reilly has a lot to do with the amount of MSM coverage. If Brian Williams did this, the MSM coverage would be unbelievable.
Comment by Goldfish — June 18, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
I frame the story as thus…One guy spent months trying to get under his competition’s skin and it worked and the media critics loved it. However some of said host’s detractors tried to get under his skin and it worked and now people are making excuses how it’s a totally different scenario and doesn’t deserve coverage.
Well, they are kinda different. Feuds between famous people are a long-standing tradition (think Gore Vidal v. William F. Buckley), and this one is particularly amusing.
And consider the sourcing. O’Reilly’s said stuff on the air, so it’s easily verifiable. These e-mails aren’t as easily verified. I don’t think anyone would take Olbermannwatch as an unimpeachable source, considering the ********* they’ve got for the man. And I’ve seen the versions of the one series over at the anti-Semitic wack-a-loon’s site, so Mr. Dollar doesn’t need to be sniffin’ at any “censoring” on Lloyd Grove’s part.
It’s just really not that big of a deal. I’d bet plenty of journalists would react the same way, and have, but their “pen pals” didn’t run off to tell the teacher. The Olbermann-hatahs all clutch their pearls and wail about civility right after they’ve accused the man of sympathizing with a murderous nutbar. It is to laugh, really.
I know you aren’t equating this with the Mackris situation, because that’s completely different.
(comment edited for appropriateness - Spud)
Comment by hamletta — June 18, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
So here’s the million dollar question: Is the “incident” mentioned on Monday’s Countdown?
Comment by WestCoastBlogger — June 19, 2006 @ 3:15 am
Hamletta said it all so well that…for once, I can’t think of more to add. Thanks, Hamletta! You have probably put your finger right on the real reason that, much to the frustration of Olbermann’s enemies, he hasn’t been lynched in the media public square for his alleged “unforgivable sins.”
Comment by tanne — June 19, 2006 @ 7:16 am
To those of us who don’t get the “inside joke”, could hamletta and tanne please explain what is meant by: “And I’ve seen the versions of the one series over at the anti-Semitic wack-a-loon’s site, so Mr. Dollar doesn’t need to be sniffin’ at any “censoring” on Lloyd Grove’s part.”?
Maybe it’s just lack of sleep, but I have no clue as to what hamletta is talking about. But if tanne concurs, I’m sure I disagree.
Comment by Missy — June 19, 2006 @ 9:08 am
Missy, for your edification, and I say that seriously because we have actually had something approaching civilized conversations at times, so I assume you really do want to know:
There is a British message board called “War Without End” on which apparently various viewpoints about the “global war against terror from a British perspective” are explored. Well, one particular poster there, calling himself “Alpha,” has posted what he claims to be the content of an e-mail exchange between a James Morris and Keith Olbermann.
Morris is asking Olbermann why Countdown is not addressing a paper published in March 2006 that supposedly addresses the “pro-Israel lobby” (i.e., written by antiSemitic folks who blame everything, including 9/11 and the Iraq war, on Israel). Olbermann replies to him with a series of e-mails that is, well, the very soul of self-restraint. Not a four-letter word to be found in a one of them. Fun reading for the whole family! Yet he makes it very clear that he sees no value in this paper (Mearsheimer/Walt, as it’s called there), believes that it’s just anti-Semitic folderol, and he has no intention of giving it any time on his program.
At one point, he even says “Please keep your prejudice to yourself — don’t write to me again.” He doesn’t tell anyone to do anything to their mother or commit any physiologically impossible acts. He just says “don’t write me again.”
Does he keep responding when the guy writes him? Yes, but the debate never escalates into foul language, on either side.
Somehow, this doesn’t exactly strike me as the Keith Olbermann who is so quick to lose his temper and can’t respond to anyone who disagrees with him without typing out a string of cuss words. And the tone of the writing is very similar to what he uses on his blog, lending the exchange even more credibility.
So, the question some people have is this: if Keith Olbermann can have a civilized disagreement in e-mail with some loony tunes anti-Semitic jerk–at least, according to what the anti-Semitic jerk himself has posted–is he really as bad as some would have us think? Or is it (at worst, assuming what Grove posted is for real–I don’t take ANYTHING Olbermannwatch claims at face value) that his greatest crime was giving Heckle and Jeckle back as good as they got?
If so, it’s not something a whole lot of people are ready to hang him from the highest tree for. Maybe because, as his enemies comfort themselves thinking, he has such low, low ratings nobody cares. (In that case, why did those losers even make the effort? Nitwits.) Or maybe it’s because, well, hey, just about everybody has something in (or deleted from, but still on the system) their work mail outbox that they wish had never been there.
Oh, and that anti-Semitic guy’s posts are here: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=54300
Read them. You’ll find the Keith Olbermann you see here doesn’t quite jibe with the “hothead” image painted by others. And remember, the poster disagrees with him. A lot.
Comment by tanne — June 19, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
tanne, thanks for the background. I had not before heard of that website or his correspondence w/Keith.
Comment by Missy — June 20, 2006 @ 10:36 am