Olbermann Overload

Yesterday I reported courtesy of boldprogressives.org that Rachel Maddow brought up the issue of her partner Keith Olbermann and his suspension from MSNBC for making campaign donations. What boldprogressives.org didn't tell us, though, is what Maddow actually said. In a story where Olbermann is drawing a lot of support for his principled actions, Maddow was, how shall we say, more admonitory. She pointed out that Fox News is notorious for donating money to politicians as Olbermann had done but that Fox News has different rules than MSNBC. Fox, she said, is a political outlet, while MSNBC is a news outlet with different standards and thus has different rules.

If so, that doesn't make Olbermann's infraction all that serious. All he did is what he does in his commentary on "Countdown" - support liberal causes. At the crux of the onion ring in this issue, though, is MSNBC's identity. However much the network positions itself as a liberal alternative to Fox, they also try to adhere to standards of impartial journalism. They have to. They share resources and on-air talent with its sibling broadcast news organization, NBC's obviously nonpartisan news department. And msnbc.com, a separate company altogether, wants to maintain an impartial bent as well. That MSNBC could go ahead with a politically liberal ad campaign and yet try to maintain a sense of impartiality makes a lot of people at the cable news operation uncomfortable. But then, as MSNBC has more viewers and initials in its name than CNN has, it's a problem CNN would gladly take on. (Anyone watching "Parker/Spitzer?" Anyone?)

The one thing that hurts Olbermann in all this is that he rails against Fox News's owner Rupert Murdoch doing what he himself just did, giving money to politicians. But $7200 in campaign donations from a private citizen working for the press compared to the millions given by someone who owns the damn press seems to be an unfair comparison. Some have said that MSNBC can only be hurt by all of this incoherent brand positioning and the fact that its most highly rated on-air talent has been benched. Actually, I think it could help them, because this is all generating controversy, and controversy is what drives ratings and interest. As the Rolling Stones proved forty-five years ago, any press - even bad press - is good press.

I hope Keith comes back on. Because, quite frankly, I don't want to watch "Parker/Spitzer."