Editor’s note: This was written on July 6, 2007. It has sat in reserve awaiting an opportunity for publication, such as the establishment of this blog. So, as a declaration of independence of sort, let’s christen this space with the missive below.
On the eve of the July 4th holiday, an occasion in which Americans recall the Declaration of Independence, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann issued a declaration of his own. In doing so, he declared his own independence from impartiality.
In a commentary at the end of his program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which is MSNBC’s flagship newscast, Olbermann lambasted U.S. President George W. Bush for his pardon of Lewis “Scooter” Libby. His commentary soon extended far beyond Libby alone, and became a general criticism of the current Bush Administration. During the crescendo of his commentary, Olbermann remarked:
“I accuse you Mr. Bush of lying this country into war. I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people a false, implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient. I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons and sisters and daughters and friends and neighbours. I accuse you of subverting the constitution… to stifle descent.”
Olbermann went on to accuse President Bush of exploiting fear to slander his opponents. He concluded with a call for President Bush’s resignation.
Through YouTube and blogs, Olbermann’s comments have been widely distributed and broadly discussed. Almost immediately however, partisan rancour infected the debate. This is ironic given that one of Olbermann’s major criticisms is the perceived partisanship that led to President Bush’s pardon of Libby. What is less considered are journalism ethics. Is it appropriate for the anchor of a news program to offer what was a very personal, partial and passionate commentary?
Perhaps the lack of a discussion on this topic is rooted in the fact that Olbermann didn’t do anything new. A growing trend in cable news is the “anchor-pundit”, best represented by CNN’s Lou Dobbs. On the topic of immigration, Dobbs is not simply an interested observer of the debate, but now the leading spokesperson against amnesty for illegal immigrants. His program, Lou Dobbs Tonight, does not only offer him a forum to express his point of view. Instead, the program has adopted his perspective in a continuing series of stories entitled “Broken Boarders.” The program’s heavy bias has been rewarded by viewers with increased ratings. “The passions of the country have aligned with Lou’s passions for subjects like broken borders,” CNN/U.S. president Jonathan Klein told the Philadelphia Inquirer.”The rest of the nation is awakening.”
One needn’t draw only from present examples alone. It is interesting that Olbermann signs off with a borrowed phrase from Edward R. Murrow: “Good night and good luck.” Murrow stands as an archetype both for anchors and for journalist-advocates. Murrow passionately and powerfully took on the McCarthy Red Scare and later, the plight of migrant agricultural workers in his groundbreaking report, “Harvest of Shame.”
The same level of personal commentary from an average journalist would not be accepted. So what lessons can we draw from these examples in order to understand the ethical framework of an anchor in contrast from that of a reporter?
I would suggest that while a reporter is expected to provide information largely free of bias or an individual perspective, an anchor is expected to provide a broader context to the information and continuity between stories. To accomplish this, anchors needs to provide a perspective that extends beyond bare facts to help the audience comprehend the “big picture.” That bias may encroach upon an anchor’s interpretation is not a danger to be feared. Instead, it can be a useful mechanism. A bias in this instance establishes a consistent framework in which the context can be viewed. This is invaluable for the audience in evaluating the information being received; so long as the bias is clearly stated. The biggest failing of an anchor or his/her program is attempting to mask bias or endeavouring to hold to the same standard as journalists. This result is either a failure to establish the relevant context for stories or deny the inherent bias of ones perspective.
Do anchors exist in an ethics-free zone? Certainly not. Instead, their ethical imperative is to wear their personal perspective on their sleeve. It establishes transparency, as anchors select the stories, establish the context and knit together the larger point of view on their programs. I doubt that audiences will be alienated by a unique outlook. As the ratings bump enjoyed by Lou Dobbs for his push against illegal immigration suggests, opinionated anchors are appreciated by today’s viewers as they seek context to the sea of information provided by reports through the television, radio and online sources.
Keith Olbermann’s commentary can’t be seen only as a strike against President George W. Bush. Instead, it is a clear declaration of Countdown’s ideological perspective and how reports from that program should be understood by its audience.
