Author: Jim Eltringham
Wait – Keith Olbermann made donations in money, too?
Former ESPN SportsCenter anchor Keith Olbermann’s suspension from his MSNBC post due to political donations has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. In fact, neither does the policy NBC News has against political donations.
First, it’s worth mentioning that Olbermann giving coverage to people he donated to isn’t a conflict of interest. These are donations, and not investments – he really had nothing to gain from two Congressional races and a Senate race in states where he presumably doesn’t live. Arguably, the money he gave was insignificant compared to the airtime allotted. If NBC wants to suspend him, or any host, it should be for the in-kind donations of coverage.
Olbermann admitted to making the financial donations, but he didn’t have to – after all, political donations are public record. So the FEC can tell us exactly who Olbermann wanted to win. Do we know that about Olbermann’s NBC colleague Brian Williams, or Katie Couric, or Anderson Cooper, or anyone else who say they’re giving us “objective” coverage of national issues? The NBC ban on donations means they never have to answer those types of question – which is too bad, because they are worth asking.
You may not like Keith Olbermann, but you know where he stands – and if you tune in, you can take what he says with a grain of salt. It might be nice to have that luxury with other news personalities.
Effect and cause: social campaign strategy and election victories
Facebook pointed out yesterday that House candidates with more popular Facebook pages won 74% of the time, while Senate candidates with more likes winning at an 81% clip. This is quite a trend, but the metric goes a bit deeper than clicking a like button on a politicians Facebook page. It means very little to have thousands of Facebook fans, given how inexpensive Facebook advertising is.
It’s just a hunch, but I bet an evaluation of other online metrics would indicate the same thing. The winning candidates probably had more Twitter followers, YouTube subscribers, and email list members, too. People joining these lists involve self-identifying as a supporter of a candidate. It doesn’t lead directly to victory, but it’s a good indication that a campaign is doing the right things that will lead to victory, such as reaching out to people and getting them involved.
Having a horde of Facebook fans is the symptom – not a goal – of a well-run campaign.
Jon Stewart vs. the Internet
One interesting sub-plot to come out of Saturday’s Rally for Sanity is a minor feud between online communities who carried the torch for the rally and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who are decidedly apathetic about the role online organizing had in making their rally a success.
Much of this may stem from some rally-goers/rally-supporters misunderstanding that, although event was politically-themed, it was essentially a free concert featuring comedy and music. The message Stewart delivered in his self-important address at the end was more critical of the media than any other institution, and attempted to be inclusive of all political leanings in urging respect and courtesy. Sure, it probably would have gone over better if it had come from someone who doesn’t make a living ridiculing other people, but that’s another topic.
The point is that despite Stewart’s 12-minute rant at the end, this was not an important event. It was a fun event. There was no call for participation, and many of the signs in the audience were more political satire than political commentary.
Despite the idea of some on the progressive side that this was a call to action and the flash point of a counter to the Tea Party, it really was the Million Meh March for people who just wanted to have a good time. Online communities may have helped advertise for it, but Stewart and Colbert’s lack of gushing thanks is not worth getting worked up over.
Election day is here!
In case you forgot how this works, check this out: