Network Execs v. Talking Heads

Olbermann’s Monday-night diatribe betrays a confession he made in the Times story—that his aim was to “get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air.” If this is really the case, shouldn’t he be cheering Murdoch’s censure of O’Reilly?

An apoplectic Keith Olbermann concluded Monday night’s “Countdown” with a fiery segment on Brian Stelter’s front-page story in last Saturday’s New York Times.

In case you missed it, Stelter broke news of an apparent deal between GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt and News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch intended to defuse ongoing hostilities between MSNBC’s Olbermann and his more popular, ideological rival on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly. Immelt and Murdoch, whose companies own MSNBC and Fox News, respectively, shook hands to seal an armistice arranged at an off-the-record corporate summit in mid-May, according to Stelter.

Olbermann, who was quoted in the story as saying he was “party to no deal,” reiterated that claim on Monday’s show.  Besides denying participation in a cease-fire, though, Olbermann went on to blast Murdoch’s attempts to soften the rhetoric of Bill O’Reilly—an act, he claims, of corporate intervention that would disrupt the unfettered exchange of ideas.

If Olbermann really objects to the principle of such intervention, though, it’s problematic that he would go after the other guy’s chairman without leveling an assault on Immelt.  Furthermore, Olbermann’s Monday-night diatribe betrays a confession he made in the Times story—that his aim was to “get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air.” If this is really the case, shouldn’t he be cheering Murdoch’s censure of O’Reilly?

Yet despite the inconsistency of his statements, Olbermann’s closing argument merits consideration.  To what extent should a corporate executive intervene to shape the style or content of an editorial broadcast, even when the show adopts an unapologetically bellicose and ad hominem approach to political debate?

To anyone hoping for a more elevated, productive public policy dialogue than that currently cultivated by the likes of Olbermann and O’Reilly, executive intervention is warranted insofar as corporate self-interest does not overwhelm the less profitable motive of generating civil, thoughtful commentary that advances the public dialogue rather than capitalizing on the prejudices of a viewing audience.

Of course, Olbermann has yet to acknowledge any official or unofficial truce with O’Reilly.  But if Stelter’s report is accurate, then for once at least, the more noble motivations of corporate executives have prevailed.  The contentious back-and-forth between commentators had served as a major ratings-booster for the networks, and it appears as if both companies still would have much to gain from a sustained feud. But by forcefully and publicly demanding that Olbermann and O’Reilly abstain from petty bickering and malicious personal attacks, Murdoch and Immelt would be taking a great stride toward moderating the bombastic, deeply partisan political commentary disseminated by Fox News and MSNBC.  Though such measures can hurt the bottom line, they can also, over time, generate a different culture of intellectual political exchange in which pundits, rather than merely strengthening the intransigence and hostility of their homogeneous audience, instead examine opposing arguments within a more fair-minded context—a context that ultimately fosters informed dialogue and effective legislation, rather than closed minds and higher ratings.