Last Friday, MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann indefinitely for his contributions of $2,400 to three Democratic political candidates. The network claims the donations are in conflict with their news policies and that Olbermann's contributions could jeopardize both his and the network's neutrality. The unpaid suspension has caused quite a bit of debate over whether cable news anchors should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns and whether the suspension was a just punishment for the breach in policy.
Should a journalist be able to exercise his or her right to participate in politics through campaign donations? Does a financial contribution to a political candidate prevent a journalist from remaining impartial? Does pure neutrality even exist in the human conscience?
These are all valid questions, but perhaps we're missing the point. Issues of this nature are only relevant under the assumption that cable news networks are truly news organizations, and that the talking heads fighting for your mind every night are really journalists.
Anyone who's seen an episode of Olbermann's ""Countdown"" should not be surprised by his monetary contributions. His program has established a crystal-clear liberal favoritism, and MSNBC as a whole has hardly hidden that it favors Democrats.
At the opposite end of the spectrum lies FOX News, whose ""Fair and Balanced"" slogan contradicts the onslaught of conservative rhetoric spewed by Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on a regular basis. Ultimately, MSNBC's greatest mistake is pretending that ""Countdown"" and ""The Rachel Maddow Show"" are neutral. The network has drawn an imaginary line in which financial contributions cross the threshold of what's acceptable. But this is a veiled attempt to claim impartiality. Why is a campaign contribution so taboo when it's perfectly acceptable for Olbermann to spend the entirety of his program attacking Republicans and FOX News?
Both MSNBC and FOX need interventions, because they're clearly in denial. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and both networks need to recognize that through their choice of anchors and the content of their programs, they are biased agencies telling their viewers how to interpret events. Let's imagine how each network would describe their programming after having realized their errors:
""Hello from MSNBC! After much thought, we've realized that our suspension of Keith Olbermann is really just a weak attempt to pretend we have no political bias. I mean have you seen a recent show of Rachel Maddow? She is a brilliant young woman who knows how to do her research, but she's about as partisan as Steve Colbert. And Olbermann! His regular segment, ""Worst Person In The World"" is pretty much guaranteed to include Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham or Bill O'Reilly.
""The majority of his show is committed to calling out FOX, but we gladly support this childish back-and-forth instead of actually covering the news. Need more evidence? Take a look at our 2008 election coverage in which Chris Matthews described the ‘thrill going up [his] leg' every time he heard Barack Obama speak. What's that you say? President Obama has introduced legislation to make the donkey the official state mammal of New York? Call Olbermann, the second coming of Christ has done it again.""
""Not so fast MSNBC. We here at FOX News taught you everything you know. We're owned by News Corporation, whose chairman, Rupert Murdoch, approved a donation of $1 million to Republican candidates in 2010. Sean Hannity donated $5,000 to Michele Bachman's political action campaign and $2,400 to the campaign of Republican Sean Gomez before having both on his show. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, also hosts of our regular-running FOX programs, led multiple Republican fundraisers across the country. Fair and Balanced? Hah! We're really not even trying to pretend anymore. Bill O'Reilly used to be our least-neutral figurehead, but with the additions of Palin and Hannity, he's probably our most reasonable news anchor.
""I mean, just look at our golden child, Glenn Beck. Yes, he appears mildly insane. Sure, our choice to give him a show is an irresponsible abuse of our power as a prominent news network, but damn he gets good ratings. There's something about those accusations of socialism and racism, the crying on camera and the absurdity of his arguments that really seems to connect with the American people. Did you know that if you take the first letter of every Democratic candidate's name it spells ‘SATAN'! Are you scared yet? We need you to stay scared so we can keep you misinformed.""
While these portrayals describe exaggerated biases of both FOX News and MSNBC, the slants communicated through either network are undeniable. The only viable question left to raise in light of Keith Olbermann's suspension is why these two networks continue to hide their obvious favoritism.
When the American public surf news channels and come across the anchors of both networks, we're putting our opinions up for auction. Hannity, Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, O'Reilly—they have an agenda, and no matter how they spin it, they're trying to convince you to think like them. Next time you come across one of these talking heads, turn off your television and make your own conclusions. Better yet, just read The Cardinal.
Miles Kellerman is a sophomore with an undecided major. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
