Clinton on Countdown…
Olbermann Watch thinks MSNBC should be charged with False Advertising over its billing tonight’s Bill Clinton interview on Countdown as “Asking Tough Questions”…
September 23, 2006
22 Comments »
TrackBack: http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/09/23/clinton-on-countdown-2/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
And how unbelievably tacky of Olbermann to give Clinton a donation for the “Clinton Global Initiative” ON camera. He should have waited until the interview was over and the cameras were off. It wasn’t a telethon.
Comment by Jackie — September 23, 2006 @ 9:03 am
His questions were softballs. I didn’t say they were terrible questions, but they were not hard-hitting. KO seemed to fawn over the president. The check was generous but he should have donated it in private. Does anyone know if the donation came from MSNBC or from Keith personally?
Comment by Goldfish — September 23, 2006 @ 10:27 am
Oh, I just KNEW someone from here was going to complain about Olbermann making his donation on camera! Well then, I guess all those people at the event itself should have signed their commitment statements offstage in some private, quiet area, instead of signing BIG DOCUMENTS ONSTAGE with CAMERAS on them. I mean, it wasn’t a telethon!! And Keith’s attended the Global Initiative himself–for days–he heard all the stories about what good it was doing–do any of you honestly think he then went begging to MSNBC to give him a donation for it rather than reaching into his own considerable funds? I think it’s safe to assume that when he said “Here’s eight more schools in Kenya ON ME,” he meant “ON ME”–not “on MSNBC.”
Oh, but I can just see Olbermann Watch now, gearing up to investigate. Did he LIE? Did he get a check from MSNBC and PRETEND it was all from HIM?? Ooh, the SCANDAL!!
And Goldfish, you wouldn’t have been happy with Olbermann’s questions unless he cornered Clinton like that idiot at Fox and blamed him for not preventing 9/11. What a joke.
Really. Even when Olbermann does something good, you people have to bash it and accuse him of self-aggrandizement, or of pretending someone else’s donation was his donation.
You disgust me.
Comment by tanne — September 23, 2006 @ 11:04 am
Tanne, if I disgust you by asking simple questions, then maybe you’re not very fair-minded. First, anchors should not be handing interview subjects checks while on air unless explaining who is donating the money and the circumstances that led to the donation. If the money came from MSNBC, I think the network owes its viewers the courtesy of saying so if they plan to acknowledge the gift during a presidential interview. If the money came from Olbermann, perhaps he should donate it privately as opposed to on MSNBC airtime where that contribution or its motives could be questioned. Second, that act took the focus away from the guest as the subject of the interview. Third, don’t say you’re going to ask hard-hitting questions when you don’t. Tanne, I think your blind devotion to Olbermann clouds your objectivity. I can enjoy his shows and exercise my right as a view to question the content presented. I am a viewer, not a devotee.
Comment by Goldfish — September 23, 2006 @ 11:29 am
a viewer not a view, I meant. Sorry.
Comment by Goldfish — September 23, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Olbermann “attended the Global Initiative himself–for days” - he attended the press reception at the Papillon Bistro & Bar (see the Tara Weiss blog at forbes.com). Are you sure he attended the actual Initiative meetings?
Comment by Char — September 23, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Hahahaha, tanne talking about other posters having imaginary meltdowns. # 3 post is what you call a meltdown. Long whiny rant with CAPITAL words thrown in and exclamation marks to boot. I saw a clip of the interview when I was watching MSNBC this morning. Did anybody see that giddy doofy looking Dobermann? Look’s like he was enjoying Clintons, up his * LOL
Comment by Lurker — September 23, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Could anyone imagine the outrage if it were O’Reilly that made this very public donation right there on TV? tanne, DU and the whole left-wing blogosphere would be going absolutely INSANE!!!!!
tanne, for years I’ve been giving to causes in Africa via conservative preachers James Robison and Rod Parsley. These two have been on top of the plight of the people in Africa for a very long time, whether it be the total lack of resources over there (water, food, clothing, housing, etc.), their many diseases or the genocide that’s occured in the region. Are you going to laud my humanitarian actions, those of other conservatives or those of those two preachers? I won’t hold my breath!
Comment by Missy — September 23, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
I apologize to the board for writing that I donated to those groups, because I’m sure we ALL give to several causes. I just brought it up to point out that the majority of the world probably supports people, animals and other issues all over the face of the earth while neither receiving or expecting any recognition whatsoever. But now that Clinton, Keith and Richard Branson have contributed to these efforts, we are forced to hear about it!
If anyone wonders why this just doesn’t set well with many of us, I have a Scripture!
Matt 6:1, NIV:
1″Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”
Spud, pls. don’t delete. This concept is very appropriate here, and may prevent others from delusions of grandeur at some point in their lives!
Comment by Missy — September 23, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Giving an interview subject a donation for his cause during the interview completely crosses the line of journalistic ethics. Period.
If Olbermann wanted to make the donation, he should have done so after the interview was over, off-camera.
Olbermann wasn’t trying to promote or help Clinton’s cause. He was trying to promote his favorite person… himself.
Comment by Big Red — September 23, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
“But now that Clinton, Keith and Richard Branson have contributed to these efforts, we are forced to hear about it!”
Sorry, Missy, but there’s nothing wrong with publicizing NEED. If people remain in ignorance of true need, they do nothing. So I have no problem with people touting their favorite charities, as long as the focus is on what the need is.
Anderson Cooper (my own pet journalist) emcee-ed an event for Doctors Without Borders (MSF, or Medicin Sans Frontieres) a few days ago. One of the MSF doctors said that they had been the only aid organization in Niger prior to Anderson’s reporting last July, and it was his reporting that brought a huge upsurge in both donations AND other aid organizations to the area.
Publicity works.
Comment by Arthur — September 23, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
Nice comment, Arthur.
Comment by Goldfish — September 23, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
Arthur and Goldfish, you are both right; publicity works to generate money. I am glad that Clinton has been all over TV publicizing the needs of this endeavor. And I’m even happy that Olbermann donated to the cause. But there was no reason WHATSOEVER for Keith to present a check, and imply that it was a large one at that, on national TV. It seems too much like a publicity stunt, and should have been done in private.
Why could Keith not have just wrapped up the interview, saying something like “I’m certainly going to contribute to your very worthwhile cause” or something to that effect without bringing himself into the story, as usual. This was NOT about him, but about Clinton and his efforts to bring relief to Africa.
Comment by Missy — September 23, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
I should have said “worldwide efforts”.
Good night.
Comment by Missy — September 23, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
I agree, Missy. I think is generosity was ill-timed.
Comment by Goldfish — September 23, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
If anybody dosen’t believe that little stunt was for KO’s own ego and cheap P.R. for his pathic low rated “news” show then I got swamp land to sell you.
Comment by mlong — September 24, 2006 @ 2:41 am
his, not is.
Comment by Goldfish — September 24, 2006 @ 8:22 am
Again, you Olbermann bashers who are trying to make something vile, evil and self-serving out of what he did–obviously because you can’t stand knowing that he did something charitable–disgust me.
Lurker seems to think I am having a “meltdown” whenever I use capital words and exclamation marks, so I won’t. I will simply address everything that was said here.
Goldfish says “anchors should not be handing interview subjects checks while on air unless explaining who is donating the money and the circumstances that led to the donation.” I believe Olbermann did. He had attended the event and he said the donation was “on me.” In other words, it was his. Not MSNBC’s; his.
Goldfish also says “If the money came from Olbermann, perhaps he should donate it privately as opposed to on MSNBC airtime where that contribution or its motives could be questioned.” I see no reason why; it appears to me the only people who are “questioning” Olbermann’s motives are people who hate him anyway.
Goldfish says “that act took the focus away from the guest as the subject of the interview.” I disagree. It was done and then the focus went right to the subject.
Goldfish also says “don’t say you’re going to ask hard-hitting questions when you don’t.” I think Olbermann did, so my opinion differs from yours.
And Goldfish, I think I’m quite clear-eyed about this, and as capable of forming a judgment as anyone else. Perhaps your judgment is clouded, not mine.
Char, yes, I am sure that Olbermann attended the actual Global Initiative meetings. He said so on Dan Patrick’s radio show.
I did say I was going to reply to everyone’s statements, but I’m already done with saying anything useful about Lurker’s crass comments.
Missy, I’m afraid your hypocrisy has already escaped from the barn and there’s no way you can get it back. First, you announce the causes you donate to, and snark that I would never give you proper credit for this the way I would Olbermann (which, by the way, is not true at all); then you quote Scripture about how people should give in private rather than in public where it can be seen. Too late, Missy; you just broke that rule you hold so dear. “First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.” That’s what the Bible tells us. I’m sure I don’t follow that rule any better than you do, but, just a reminder: that’s what we’re told to do and that’s what we’re supposed to aim at.
Big Red says “Giving an interview subject a donation for his cause during the interview completely crosses the line of journalistic ethics. Period.” Well, maybe that would be the case if the donation were being used as a bribe to get the interview. I think it’s pretty obvious to me that that was not the case here. Clinton’s eyes welled up with tears when he found out Olbermann was making a donation. I’m sure he didn’t even know it was going to happen. Of course, those of you who believe Clinton is a liar and an actor who can produce tears on cue will never believe that, so it’s probably useless arguing with you. But what I want to know is this: If Olbermann bribed Clinton for the interview, wouldn’t it have been just as bad to do it off camera? The point is silly. This had nothing to do with ethics violations of any kind.
Anyway, Big Red also says “Olbermann wasn’t trying to promote or help Clinton’s cause. He was trying to promote his favorite person… himself.” Big Red, no one can see into anyone’s heart. If someone gives a donation, is it so terrible to assume the best–that the person does it out of a sincere wish to give? Or is it that only the people we personally like can possibly be giving out of the goodness of our hearts, and the people we hate, well, we know they’re only giving to self-aggrandize? Doesn’t that asumption say more about you than it does about Olbermann? I think so.
Arthur’s right: Publicity works. To me, that was all that was happening here. Missy makes it sound as if it would somehow have been better if Olbermann gave off camera and if he wanted to give, he should have said he was going to rather than making a preseentation on camera. You know what? I’d like to have seen the comments that would have been posted here if he had. I’m sure they would have run along the lines of “Oh, yeah, I’ll bet he will. Ha!” “I won’t believe Olbermann actually gave to the cause until I see the check.” “Oh, yeah, he can say he’s giving, but will he really give? I bet he won’t. Talk is cheap.” “He shouldn’t have said anything about intending to give to the cause himself. That was just crass and inserting himself into the story like he always does.” And, of course, “How do we know he isn’t giving to the cause as a bribe to get this big interview?”
What it all boils down to is this: There is simply no way, no means, no possibility, in this world by which Keith Olbermann can do anything good and unselfish that people like you can actually see, without having the facts questioned (”I bet that wasn’t all his money, it was MSNBC’s and he’s just trying to steal all the credit”), or the circumstances questioned (”He shouldn’t have done it on camera, he was just self-aggrandizing”), or have his motives questioned (”He was just self-aggrandizing,” “He bribed Clinton to get the interview”).
For the record, Olbermann has frequently told the story about running into Bill O’Reilly in person for the first time at a charity event–namely, for the Joe Torre Safe at Home Foundation, which helps families suffering from abuse. You want to know what I think of Bill O’Reilly participating in such an event and supporting such a cause? Bill O’Reilly, whom I dislike and think is nuts?
Three words: Good for him.
That’s all.
Would that some of you could say the same words about something good that Olbermann does, before returning to your regularly scheduled rants against him.
Comment by tanne — September 24, 2006 @ 9:10 am
Journalists (such as those who work for NBC) do not pay for interviews or access to news, nor should they appear to have done so. No one disputes his generosity. Donating to Clinton’s cause was a kind gesture. The problem was the manner by which he did so, which probably rankled some folks over at 30 Rock and Secaucus. I found his actions to be disturbing for a number of reasons and I doubt that I am the only one who feels this way.
Comment by Goldfish — September 24, 2006 @ 9:30 am
And did I forget to mention that this on-air donation undermines objectivity? How can one believe that NBC presents objective and fair news reporting when they would allow news anchors to present personal checks on air to their interview subjects? This is an isolated incident, I know, but NBC needs to address it.
Comment by Goldfish — September 24, 2006 @ 11:31 am
Tanne, you need to chill. He said he attended an event, not necessarily the Initiative meetings. I can’t believe he didn’t do on air reports from there and didn’t mention it on Countdown if he sat in on the actual meetings and it moved him so much to make a sizeable donation. Instead he casually mentioned it with DP on a sports/entertainent show. And you don’t need to fight with me, I watch CD but I’m just a viewer. There was not one reference to his attendance during CD, and that’s just odd for him. Go back to your transcripts or audio tapes of DP’s show; for some strange reason I have a feeling you’ll be able to quote me the exact wording.
By the way, the donation needed to be done in private to preserve an appearance of objectivity. End of that discussion. To quote Joe Welch, …”I will not discuss this further with you”
Comment by Char — September 24, 2006 @ 11:52 am
tanne, don’t you dare call me out on something for which I immediately apologized and denounced. That’s repentance, Miss Bible expert!
And you totally ignored the Scripture I cited that states that we are to do our charitable acts in secret. It is frightening to think that you actually value Keith’s “wisdom” over that of God!
Comment by Missy — September 24, 2006 @ 12:07 pm