Tom Perriello always knew it would be hard to hold his seat in Congress. The progressive Democrat from Albemarle County, Va. represents a district designed to nullify liberal votes with a wide swath of conservative countryside. He was elected in 2008, riding President Obama’s coattails to victory by just 727 votes. He does not represent a swing district--he is a committed progressive in a solidly Republican district. But unlike his Blue Dog contemporaries, Perriello has voted like a progressive for the past two years. And unlike many Blue Dogs, he might actually pull out a victory tomorrow night, even in the face of a Republican wave fueled by double-digit unemployment. The mere fact that he’s in the running is a stunning accomplishment.
I lived in Perriello’s district for eight years before moving to Washington, D.C. this summer. For mountains, majesty, and rock ‘n roll, it simply can’t be beat. But there were problems, namely persistent racial tensions, a lousy economy and politicians who perpetuated these two troubles. For all but the last two years we were represented by Virgil Goode, a conservative Republican and unabashed bigot. Years before Fox News made Islamophobia a mainstream political view, Goode was openly attacking Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on the grounds that he was – gasp!—a Muslim. Goode cruised to re-election every cycle, easily surviving the 2006 Democratic wave, despite being a Bush-backing war-monger in a year when voters were rejecting both Bush and his war in Iraq.
I lived in Charlottesville, a tiny outcropping of progressive politics at the northern tip of the Fifth District. From Charlottesville, the district fans out directly to the rural south, extending all the way to the North Carolina border. It’s a two-and-a-half hour drive straight south from Charlottesville to Danville, three hours southwest to Collinsville or southeast to Brunswick. All four towns are in the same district. Just 40,000 people live in Charlottesville—120,000 if you include Albemarle County (which is not as progressive as “the city”). But the district as a whole includes nearly 650,000 people, most of it tiny towns and farmland, and most of its inhabitants Republicans. Jerry Falwell’s right-wing conservative Christian enclave Liberty University is smack in the middle of Perriello country.
Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic politicians in such districts vote like Republicans. Otherwise, a Republican runs against you, points out that you’re not a Republican, and beats you.
But Perriello decided to take a different tack when he was elected. Instead of capitulating to policies and votes he didn’t believe in, he would do what he thought was right, and make an aggressive case to voters that he was, in fact, right.
On every major vote in the past two years, Perriello voted with progressives, at times even voting against President Obama on the grounds that his policies were not progressive enough. He voted for healthcare reform and the stimulus package, but he voted against Wall Street reform because it didn’t hit the big banks hard enough, and he voted against disbursing the second round of bailout money to the banks (he wasn’t in office when the bank bailout was approved).
He never apologized for these votes or caved to right-wing rhetorical frames, and he hit the road to campaign on his record, explaining his positions directly to voters. This was old-school campaigning, and it wasn’t glamorous—trekking from Danville to Martinsville to Charlottesville every week, making speeches, shaking hands and answering questions in town-hall meetings. But Perriello is not your standard politician waiting for a cushy lobbyist job. He has a deep background in social justice work—he’s in Congress because he wants to make a difference, not to score a sweet paycheck.
All of that campaigning has paid off. Voters are pissed off this year. They’ve watched Wall Street profits soar on the back of a taxpayer-financed bailout, even as ordinary Americans have been laid off by the millions. Whether Republicans take control of the House tomorrow night or not, they will certainly make big gains as voters reject policymakers who cater to big banks while failing to tackle the jobs problem—either out of political cowardice or ideological blindness.
But Perriello is holding even with Republican challenger Robert Hurt. The fact that Perriello even has a chance in this election ought to be viewed as something of a miracle. Or maybe it’s just good governing, combined with good politics.
Tim Fernholz almost gets it right in his profile of Perriello for The American Prospect. But he misses the mark with this comment, which is going to be echoed by the Beltway establishment on Wednesday morning, however the race turns out:
“If Perriello can beat the odds tomorrow, it is not only his reputation, and the president's, that will be burnished . . . . Should he lose, the voices who call for a more timid Democratic Party will have a point in their favor.”
This is wrong. Perriello won in 2008 by just 727 votes. Any Democrat who entered office by so slim a margin is almost certain to lose this year. By any conventional political analysis, Perriello should be getting trounced He faces a massive voter registration disadvantage, representing a district that is designed to crush progressive voices during what is expected to be a wave election for Republicans, amid strong anti-incumbent attitudes sparked by high unemployment. But he’s holding even. That’s incredible. Even if things go well for Democrats tomorrow, and they hold the House, candidates in much safer districts than Perreillo’s are going to lose.
The Perriello lesson, in other words, is already clear. Whether he wins or loses on November 2, having the courage to govern by his convictions and do real work to sell those policies has paid off. It might not get him re-elected. But in an all-but-impossible district, losing close sends a clear signal to actual swing districts. Governing like a pretend-Republican only reinforces the Republican world-view and aligns voters against you. If you want to have a chance, you have to stand for something. Tom Perriello stood for something these past two years, and even if it can’t overcome a terrible economy to win him two more years, the political establishment should take heart.
Keith Olbermann broke his non-Twitter silence last night on the matter of his suspension, alleging that he “knew nothing about” the NBC policy requiring approval for personal campaign donations from MSNBC anchors. His note was as candidly appreciative to fans as it was backhandedly scathing to those permitting him to return to air tonight, but rings inconsistent with the some of the anchor’s previous statements.
The Olbermann version of why he was suspended goes something like this: Olbermann decided to make some political contributions directly to candidates this year. He had no intention of keeping those donations secret. When asked about them, he was eager to answer any questions as to the legality of the matter. At the time, he “knew nothing about” the fact that his employer had certain rules about donations and that the process by which he donated violated their policy. That policy, he further explains, is “inconsistently applied”– making it even more difficult for him to know how to follow it. Despite being willing to publicly explain himself, and being “assured that no suspension was contemplated,” he was suspended– news broken to him by the media.
Olbermann’s detractors, especially those within the confines of NBC, will probably have much to parse in this statement. There are three allegations in it, at least, that fall within the scope of the outrageous if true: that MSNBC selectively applies ethics policies, that Olbermann had no idea he was violating a rule, and that he was suspended after being promised he wouldn’t be while the media was told he would.
Network politics aside, Olbermann’s expression of assertive comfort with what he did appears particularly inconsistent with what he has held to be his own brand of personal ethics. There were his lashings of Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez for allegedly violating their company policies (or, in the latter case, finding a really weird way to be offensive). There were his myriad railings against Fox News for allegedly having a political agenda, one that rendered their news reporting worthless. And, of course, there was his claim on The View in 2008 that he didn’t vote because doing so would compromise his journalistic integrity. Even if political donations were allowed by his employer, and even if he did nothing outside the realm of the law– public or private– he violated rules he personally applies hard and fast to his political enemies and, two years ago, was apparently quite proud to apply to himself. Unless he can come up with a good reason why someone would donate to the campaign of someone they politically disagreed with, it’s hard to find any distinction between the message sent by a vote for a candidate in a voting booth and money sent to that candidate’s campaign.
It is important to note that it is not a possible inconsistency within his ideology that is in dispute here. One would be hard-pressed to find ideological inconsistencies within the public scope of Olbermann’s political personality, nor do the donations belie them. In fact, if anything, that he donated to candidates that share his views is a sign that he believes what he says, and that sincerity has garnered him praise on both sides of the aisle, from MSNBC regular Ezra Klein (“There’s no evidence that he’s not playing straight with us”) to right-wing analysts like Big Hollywood’s John Nolte (“Olbermann deserve credit for not hiding behind the cloak of lies found in the words ‘objectivity’”).
It is not belief but behavior which is in question here. Actively engaging in politics contradicts a consistently exhibited belief that actively engaging in politics poses an ethical threat for newspeople. Few are likely to agree with Olbermann that a pundit who votes is untrustworthy, but if he chooses to believe and promote that notion, it is hypocritical for him to donate to any campaign and claim journalistic integrity. His subjective ethical views, far from any generally recognized beliefs– or even NBC company policies– should have tipped him off that, perhaps, donating to a campaign is at the very least as biased an act as pulling a lever in a voting booth. And it’s precisely that which makes his claim of ignorance so difficult to believe.
Olbermann will be back on the airwaves tonight, where he will surely speak in his defense and, perhaps, clarify his potentially problematic statements of past and present. Until then, based solely on last night’s statement, he has an uphill battle to wage if he wishes to regain the full trust of anyone but his most zealous fans.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Sasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
benchcraft company scam
Tom Perriello always knew it would be hard to hold his seat in Congress. The progressive Democrat from Albemarle County, Va. represents a district designed to nullify liberal votes with a wide swath of conservative countryside. He was elected in 2008, riding President Obama’s coattails to victory by just 727 votes. He does not represent a swing district--he is a committed progressive in a solidly Republican district. But unlike his Blue Dog contemporaries, Perriello has voted like a progressive for the past two years. And unlike many Blue Dogs, he might actually pull out a victory tomorrow night, even in the face of a Republican wave fueled by double-digit unemployment. The mere fact that he’s in the running is a stunning accomplishment.
I lived in Perriello’s district for eight years before moving to Washington, D.C. this summer. For mountains, majesty, and rock ‘n roll, it simply can’t be beat. But there were problems, namely persistent racial tensions, a lousy economy and politicians who perpetuated these two troubles. For all but the last two years we were represented by Virgil Goode, a conservative Republican and unabashed bigot. Years before Fox News made Islamophobia a mainstream political view, Goode was openly attacking Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on the grounds that he was – gasp!—a Muslim. Goode cruised to re-election every cycle, easily surviving the 2006 Democratic wave, despite being a Bush-backing war-monger in a year when voters were rejecting both Bush and his war in Iraq.
I lived in Charlottesville, a tiny outcropping of progressive politics at the northern tip of the Fifth District. From Charlottesville, the district fans out directly to the rural south, extending all the way to the North Carolina border. It’s a two-and-a-half hour drive straight south from Charlottesville to Danville, three hours southwest to Collinsville or southeast to Brunswick. All four towns are in the same district. Just 40,000 people live in Charlottesville—120,000 if you include Albemarle County (which is not as progressive as “the city”). But the district as a whole includes nearly 650,000 people, most of it tiny towns and farmland, and most of its inhabitants Republicans. Jerry Falwell’s right-wing conservative Christian enclave Liberty University is smack in the middle of Perriello country.
Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic politicians in such districts vote like Republicans. Otherwise, a Republican runs against you, points out that you’re not a Republican, and beats you.
But Perriello decided to take a different tack when he was elected. Instead of capitulating to policies and votes he didn’t believe in, he would do what he thought was right, and make an aggressive case to voters that he was, in fact, right.
On every major vote in the past two years, Perriello voted with progressives, at times even voting against President Obama on the grounds that his policies were not progressive enough. He voted for healthcare reform and the stimulus package, but he voted against Wall Street reform because it didn’t hit the big banks hard enough, and he voted against disbursing the second round of bailout money to the banks (he wasn’t in office when the bank bailout was approved).
He never apologized for these votes or caved to right-wing rhetorical frames, and he hit the road to campaign on his record, explaining his positions directly to voters. This was old-school campaigning, and it wasn’t glamorous—trekking from Danville to Martinsville to Charlottesville every week, making speeches, shaking hands and answering questions in town-hall meetings. But Perriello is not your standard politician waiting for a cushy lobbyist job. He has a deep background in social justice work—he’s in Congress because he wants to make a difference, not to score a sweet paycheck.
All of that campaigning has paid off. Voters are pissed off this year. They’ve watched Wall Street profits soar on the back of a taxpayer-financed bailout, even as ordinary Americans have been laid off by the millions. Whether Republicans take control of the House tomorrow night or not, they will certainly make big gains as voters reject policymakers who cater to big banks while failing to tackle the jobs problem—either out of political cowardice or ideological blindness.
But Perriello is holding even with Republican challenger Robert Hurt. The fact that Perriello even has a chance in this election ought to be viewed as something of a miracle. Or maybe it’s just good governing, combined with good politics.
Tim Fernholz almost gets it right in his profile of Perriello for The American Prospect. But he misses the mark with this comment, which is going to be echoed by the Beltway establishment on Wednesday morning, however the race turns out:
“If Perriello can beat the odds tomorrow, it is not only his reputation, and the president's, that will be burnished . . . . Should he lose, the voices who call for a more timid Democratic Party will have a point in their favor.”
This is wrong. Perriello won in 2008 by just 727 votes. Any Democrat who entered office by so slim a margin is almost certain to lose this year. By any conventional political analysis, Perriello should be getting trounced He faces a massive voter registration disadvantage, representing a district that is designed to crush progressive voices during what is expected to be a wave election for Republicans, amid strong anti-incumbent attitudes sparked by high unemployment. But he’s holding even. That’s incredible. Even if things go well for Democrats tomorrow, and they hold the House, candidates in much safer districts than Perreillo’s are going to lose.
The Perriello lesson, in other words, is already clear. Whether he wins or loses on November 2, having the courage to govern by his convictions and do real work to sell those policies has paid off. It might not get him re-elected. But in an all-but-impossible district, losing close sends a clear signal to actual swing districts. Governing like a pretend-Republican only reinforces the Republican world-view and aligns voters against you. If you want to have a chance, you have to stand for something. Tom Perriello stood for something these past two years, and even if it can’t overcome a terrible economy to win him two more years, the political establishment should take heart.
Keith Olbermann broke his non-Twitter silence last night on the matter of his suspension, alleging that he “knew nothing about” the NBC policy requiring approval for personal campaign donations from MSNBC anchors. His note was as candidly appreciative to fans as it was backhandedly scathing to those permitting him to return to air tonight, but rings inconsistent with the some of the anchor’s previous statements.
The Olbermann version of why he was suspended goes something like this: Olbermann decided to make some political contributions directly to candidates this year. He had no intention of keeping those donations secret. When asked about them, he was eager to answer any questions as to the legality of the matter. At the time, he “knew nothing about” the fact that his employer had certain rules about donations and that the process by which he donated violated their policy. That policy, he further explains, is “inconsistently applied”– making it even more difficult for him to know how to follow it. Despite being willing to publicly explain himself, and being “assured that no suspension was contemplated,” he was suspended– news broken to him by the media.
Olbermann’s detractors, especially those within the confines of NBC, will probably have much to parse in this statement. There are three allegations in it, at least, that fall within the scope of the outrageous if true: that MSNBC selectively applies ethics policies, that Olbermann had no idea he was violating a rule, and that he was suspended after being promised he wouldn’t be while the media was told he would.
Network politics aside, Olbermann’s expression of assertive comfort with what he did appears particularly inconsistent with what he has held to be his own brand of personal ethics. There were his lashings of Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez for allegedly violating their company policies (or, in the latter case, finding a really weird way to be offensive). There were his myriad railings against Fox News for allegedly having a political agenda, one that rendered their news reporting worthless. And, of course, there was his claim on The View in 2008 that he didn’t vote because doing so would compromise his journalistic integrity. Even if political donations were allowed by his employer, and even if he did nothing outside the realm of the law– public or private– he violated rules he personally applies hard and fast to his political enemies and, two years ago, was apparently quite proud to apply to himself. Unless he can come up with a good reason why someone would donate to the campaign of someone they politically disagreed with, it’s hard to find any distinction between the message sent by a vote for a candidate in a voting booth and money sent to that candidate’s campaign.
It is important to note that it is not a possible inconsistency within his ideology that is in dispute here. One would be hard-pressed to find ideological inconsistencies within the public scope of Olbermann’s political personality, nor do the donations belie them. In fact, if anything, that he donated to candidates that share his views is a sign that he believes what he says, and that sincerity has garnered him praise on both sides of the aisle, from MSNBC regular Ezra Klein (“There’s no evidence that he’s not playing straight with us”) to right-wing analysts like Big Hollywood’s John Nolte (“Olbermann deserve credit for not hiding behind the cloak of lies found in the words ‘objectivity’”).
It is not belief but behavior which is in question here. Actively engaging in politics contradicts a consistently exhibited belief that actively engaging in politics poses an ethical threat for newspeople. Few are likely to agree with Olbermann that a pundit who votes is untrustworthy, but if he chooses to believe and promote that notion, it is hypocritical for him to donate to any campaign and claim journalistic integrity. His subjective ethical views, far from any generally recognized beliefs– or even NBC company policies– should have tipped him off that, perhaps, donating to a campaign is at the very least as biased an act as pulling a lever in a voting booth. And it’s precisely that which makes his claim of ignorance so difficult to believe.
Olbermann will be back on the airwaves tonight, where he will surely speak in his defense and, perhaps, clarify his potentially problematic statements of past and present. Until then, based solely on last night’s statement, he has an uphill battle to wage if he wishes to regain the full trust of anyone but his most zealous fans.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Sasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
benchcraft company scambenchcraft company scam
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
bench craft company scam
Tom Perriello always knew it would be hard to hold his seat in Congress. The progressive Democrat from Albemarle County, Va. represents a district designed to nullify liberal votes with a wide swath of conservative countryside. He was elected in 2008, riding President Obama’s coattails to victory by just 727 votes. He does not represent a swing district--he is a committed progressive in a solidly Republican district. But unlike his Blue Dog contemporaries, Perriello has voted like a progressive for the past two years. And unlike many Blue Dogs, he might actually pull out a victory tomorrow night, even in the face of a Republican wave fueled by double-digit unemployment. The mere fact that he’s in the running is a stunning accomplishment.
I lived in Perriello’s district for eight years before moving to Washington, D.C. this summer. For mountains, majesty, and rock ‘n roll, it simply can’t be beat. But there were problems, namely persistent racial tensions, a lousy economy and politicians who perpetuated these two troubles. For all but the last two years we were represented by Virgil Goode, a conservative Republican and unabashed bigot. Years before Fox News made Islamophobia a mainstream political view, Goode was openly attacking Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on the grounds that he was – gasp!—a Muslim. Goode cruised to re-election every cycle, easily surviving the 2006 Democratic wave, despite being a Bush-backing war-monger in a year when voters were rejecting both Bush and his war in Iraq.
I lived in Charlottesville, a tiny outcropping of progressive politics at the northern tip of the Fifth District. From Charlottesville, the district fans out directly to the rural south, extending all the way to the North Carolina border. It’s a two-and-a-half hour drive straight south from Charlottesville to Danville, three hours southwest to Collinsville or southeast to Brunswick. All four towns are in the same district. Just 40,000 people live in Charlottesville—120,000 if you include Albemarle County (which is not as progressive as “the city”). But the district as a whole includes nearly 650,000 people, most of it tiny towns and farmland, and most of its inhabitants Republicans. Jerry Falwell’s right-wing conservative Christian enclave Liberty University is smack in the middle of Perriello country.
Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic politicians in such districts vote like Republicans. Otherwise, a Republican runs against you, points out that you’re not a Republican, and beats you.
But Perriello decided to take a different tack when he was elected. Instead of capitulating to policies and votes he didn’t believe in, he would do what he thought was right, and make an aggressive case to voters that he was, in fact, right.
On every major vote in the past two years, Perriello voted with progressives, at times even voting against President Obama on the grounds that his policies were not progressive enough. He voted for healthcare reform and the stimulus package, but he voted against Wall Street reform because it didn’t hit the big banks hard enough, and he voted against disbursing the second round of bailout money to the banks (he wasn’t in office when the bank bailout was approved).
He never apologized for these votes or caved to right-wing rhetorical frames, and he hit the road to campaign on his record, explaining his positions directly to voters. This was old-school campaigning, and it wasn’t glamorous—trekking from Danville to Martinsville to Charlottesville every week, making speeches, shaking hands and answering questions in town-hall meetings. But Perriello is not your standard politician waiting for a cushy lobbyist job. He has a deep background in social justice work—he’s in Congress because he wants to make a difference, not to score a sweet paycheck.
All of that campaigning has paid off. Voters are pissed off this year. They’ve watched Wall Street profits soar on the back of a taxpayer-financed bailout, even as ordinary Americans have been laid off by the millions. Whether Republicans take control of the House tomorrow night or not, they will certainly make big gains as voters reject policymakers who cater to big banks while failing to tackle the jobs problem—either out of political cowardice or ideological blindness.
But Perriello is holding even with Republican challenger Robert Hurt. The fact that Perriello even has a chance in this election ought to be viewed as something of a miracle. Or maybe it’s just good governing, combined with good politics.
Tim Fernholz almost gets it right in his profile of Perriello for The American Prospect. But he misses the mark with this comment, which is going to be echoed by the Beltway establishment on Wednesday morning, however the race turns out:
“If Perriello can beat the odds tomorrow, it is not only his reputation, and the president's, that will be burnished . . . . Should he lose, the voices who call for a more timid Democratic Party will have a point in their favor.”
This is wrong. Perriello won in 2008 by just 727 votes. Any Democrat who entered office by so slim a margin is almost certain to lose this year. By any conventional political analysis, Perriello should be getting trounced He faces a massive voter registration disadvantage, representing a district that is designed to crush progressive voices during what is expected to be a wave election for Republicans, amid strong anti-incumbent attitudes sparked by high unemployment. But he’s holding even. That’s incredible. Even if things go well for Democrats tomorrow, and they hold the House, candidates in much safer districts than Perreillo’s are going to lose.
The Perriello lesson, in other words, is already clear. Whether he wins or loses on November 2, having the courage to govern by his convictions and do real work to sell those policies has paid off. It might not get him re-elected. But in an all-but-impossible district, losing close sends a clear signal to actual swing districts. Governing like a pretend-Republican only reinforces the Republican world-view and aligns voters against you. If you want to have a chance, you have to stand for something. Tom Perriello stood for something these past two years, and even if it can’t overcome a terrible economy to win him two more years, the political establishment should take heart.
Keith Olbermann broke his non-Twitter silence last night on the matter of his suspension, alleging that he “knew nothing about” the NBC policy requiring approval for personal campaign donations from MSNBC anchors. His note was as candidly appreciative to fans as it was backhandedly scathing to those permitting him to return to air tonight, but rings inconsistent with the some of the anchor’s previous statements.
The Olbermann version of why he was suspended goes something like this: Olbermann decided to make some political contributions directly to candidates this year. He had no intention of keeping those donations secret. When asked about them, he was eager to answer any questions as to the legality of the matter. At the time, he “knew nothing about” the fact that his employer had certain rules about donations and that the process by which he donated violated their policy. That policy, he further explains, is “inconsistently applied”– making it even more difficult for him to know how to follow it. Despite being willing to publicly explain himself, and being “assured that no suspension was contemplated,” he was suspended– news broken to him by the media.
Olbermann’s detractors, especially those within the confines of NBC, will probably have much to parse in this statement. There are three allegations in it, at least, that fall within the scope of the outrageous if true: that MSNBC selectively applies ethics policies, that Olbermann had no idea he was violating a rule, and that he was suspended after being promised he wouldn’t be while the media was told he would.
Network politics aside, Olbermann’s expression of assertive comfort with what he did appears particularly inconsistent with what he has held to be his own brand of personal ethics. There were his lashings of Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez for allegedly violating their company policies (or, in the latter case, finding a really weird way to be offensive). There were his myriad railings against Fox News for allegedly having a political agenda, one that rendered their news reporting worthless. And, of course, there was his claim on The View in 2008 that he didn’t vote because doing so would compromise his journalistic integrity. Even if political donations were allowed by his employer, and even if he did nothing outside the realm of the law– public or private– he violated rules he personally applies hard and fast to his political enemies and, two years ago, was apparently quite proud to apply to himself. Unless he can come up with a good reason why someone would donate to the campaign of someone they politically disagreed with, it’s hard to find any distinction between the message sent by a vote for a candidate in a voting booth and money sent to that candidate’s campaign.
It is important to note that it is not a possible inconsistency within his ideology that is in dispute here. One would be hard-pressed to find ideological inconsistencies within the public scope of Olbermann’s political personality, nor do the donations belie them. In fact, if anything, that he donated to candidates that share his views is a sign that he believes what he says, and that sincerity has garnered him praise on both sides of the aisle, from MSNBC regular Ezra Klein (“There’s no evidence that he’s not playing straight with us”) to right-wing analysts like Big Hollywood’s John Nolte (“Olbermann deserve credit for not hiding behind the cloak of lies found in the words ‘objectivity’”).
It is not belief but behavior which is in question here. Actively engaging in politics contradicts a consistently exhibited belief that actively engaging in politics poses an ethical threat for newspeople. Few are likely to agree with Olbermann that a pundit who votes is untrustworthy, but if he chooses to believe and promote that notion, it is hypocritical for him to donate to any campaign and claim journalistic integrity. His subjective ethical views, far from any generally recognized beliefs– or even NBC company policies– should have tipped him off that, perhaps, donating to a campaign is at the very least as biased an act as pulling a lever in a voting booth. And it’s precisely that which makes his claim of ignorance so difficult to believe.
Olbermann will be back on the airwaves tonight, where he will surely speak in his defense and, perhaps, clarify his potentially problematic statements of past and present. Until then, based solely on last night’s statement, he has an uphill battle to wage if he wishes to regain the full trust of anyone but his most zealous fans.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
benchcraft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Another day, another hire at News Corp.'s super-duper secret iPad venture dubbed The Daily—and another reason to question whether this is going to be yet another wobbly Rupert Murdoch digital-news enterprise. ...
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
how to lose weight fast benchcraft company scam benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
