Countdown Welcomes Back Richard Wolffe, With A Slight Modification In Title
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Oct 06, 2009 1:00pm
Richard Wolffe returned to Countdown this week, absent from MSNBC airwaves for only a month after Glenn Greenwald pointed out that his full time employer was no longer Newsweek, but a lobbying firm:
Having Richard Wolffe host an MSNBC program -- or serving as an almost daily "political analyst" -- is exactly tantamount to MSNBC's just turning over an hour every night to a corporate lobbyist. Wolffe's role in life is to advance the P.R. interests of the corporations that pay him, including corporations with substantial interests in virtually every political issue that MSNBC and Countdown cover. Yet MSNBC is putting him on as a guest-host and "political analyst" on one of its prime-time political shows. What makes that even more appalling is that, as Ana Marie Cox first noted, neither MSNBC nor Wolffe even disclose any of this.
This is a conflict so severe that it's incurable by disclosure: who wouldn't realize that you can't present paid corporate hacks as objective political commentators? But the fact that they don't even bother to disclose that just serves to illustrate how non-existent is the line between corporate interests and "news reporting" in the United States. Then again, Wolffe himself -- when it was previously revealed that he was exploiting his position as a Newsweek reporter covering the Obama campaign to leverage access to Obama in order to write a glowing book about him -- said this:
And [Wolffe] suggested he’s not that different from other reporters in an era in which the business and the profession of journalism have gotten closer and closer.
"The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what's going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers," he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers.
"You tell me where the line is between business and journalism," he said.
And yet, he's back...with nary a word about his absence, still as an MSNBC political analyst.
Don't get me wrong, I like Richard Wolffe in general, and appreciated his appearances on Countdown in the past, but to name him as a "Senior Strategist at Public Strategies" is truly the sparest way to describe him as a lobbyist and really blurs the lines between journalism and promotion/propaganda beyond what should be acceptable. How can we ever know if Wolffe's analysis is truly what he believes or if it's what he's been paid to promote by a client?
And frankly, I'm tired of the insular nature of these broadcasts, when the same predictable people show up day after day after day. To be fair to Keith, Olbermann is not the only news anchor with a retinue of guests they stick with over and over. They all do it. Even Rachel Maddow brings on "Uncle Pat" Buchanan, whose views are generally factually wrong or so far outside the mainstream, you can't but wonder why he's still on television. Wolffe isn't like that. But as I've documented before on media balance and biases, so much critical information is withheld from we viewers already that we generally don't get a fair view of the issues of the day, I really do have to ask if there are no other voices that Olbermann can turn to that he has to bring back a DC lobbyist?
Login or Register to post comments.
Don't worry. When GE sells NBC to Comcast, I'm sure all these concerns will quickly become irrelevant...
While it's sad that Wolfe is now in the lobbying business (ho's in Beamers) I have yet to see anything but an honest analysis on the two shows I've seen since his return. I find his insight top notch, and I'm enough of a linguist to know when I being shucked. Hope he stays on point.
Integrity is what the left has and the right does not.
Even though most of us on the left agree with Wolffe most of the time, we don't agree with this. We don't make excuses or say it doesn't matter because the ends (getting his views into the media) justify the means (ignoring this clear conflict of a lobbyist being portrayed as a journalist)
We have the integrity to call him and Olbermann on this.
It doesn't matter if he is factually correct. And it doesn't matter if MSNBC were to truly disclose he is a lobbyist. So long as he is a lobbyist(+5 years imho), it is wrong to have him appear as any sort of analyst, much less, a guest host.
So...I guess we know the answer to..."Richard, if I pay you $1 million can I fuck your wife?"
You need to hold yourself to a higher standard. This stuff kills me.
Here beneath my rock I had not heard any of this. Thanks for keeping me informed, Nicole. I appreciate it. I seldom watch keith or rachael because by that time of night I am all politic-ed out.
EVEN Rachel Maddow?
Boy, it sucks to click in at Crooks and Liars and read a line like that. Another E-word would have been good: ESPECIALLY. I'll just have to pick and choose my articles better. :) I will.
I have to disagree here entirely.
"How can we ever know if Wolffe's analysis is truly what he believes or if it's what he's been paid to promote by a client?"
This is a silly question from my point of view. If he is stating the truth, then it doesn't matter who he works for. If he were to come on and give false facts and misinformation, it might matter more. I would wager than the majority of Olbermann's audience are able to make up their own minds. I do not agree with everything said on his show, but that doesn't diminish its worth.
You should be posing this question to Fox News shows which are notoriously misleading and factualy incoherent.
First, the Corporate media cannot tell you WHAT to think. But they can tell you what to think is IMPORTANT to think about.
Any time there is a conflict of interest, red flags should go up.
With the Corporate Media you will never see those red flags, because they will not work against their own interest.
Corporations are totalitarian regimes. Purported journalists who work for them, even those you think are amenable to your cause, work within the parameters defined by the Corporation, never outside.
You will not hear a campaign against Corporate totalitarianism.
Consider Orwell rolls in his grave here
Download here
The dominant Corporations are the Media Conglomerates. They OWN the country.
That is problem number one.
So for example Mr. Wolfe's new firm represents Diebold Elections Systems. Are you telling me that Mr. Wolfe, who is to represent a company who has several allegations of election fraud has no conflict of interest in talking about, say elections??
You can't hold the Right accountable for wrongdoings, and then say it's ok to do it on the left, since were the good guys. The confluence of journalism and corporate America is a systemic, institutional issue in which people who care about democracy need to fight against. Let's not make this a Right vs Left issue.
The validity of his commentary has little to do with who he works for. Should his commentary become less valid and more shill, then yes, the relationship could become relevant.
When shills for the insurance companies whine about “Death Panels” and such, they are not wrong because they are being paid by those insurance companies. They’re wrong because it’s not true. At that point it is fair to ask WHY they are selling such nonsense. Prior to that analysis it becomes Circumstantial ad Hominem– and that is worthless.
credibility.
One can be correct, and yet still be incredibly hypocritical. This is the case with Mr. Wolfe.
You assume something that is beyond human nature.
If someone is presented as a political analyst, then their background and bearing should be an open book.
This is on Wolffe's Lobbying firm from the Greenwald piece cited above:
This, in one word, is about PROPAGANDA.
It should be of great concern to anyone listening to Wolffe as an 'ANALYST'.
In my opinion, anyone in the Corporate Media is suspect.
I don’t like illogical thinking. It is fair to say Wolf is wrong AND he works for a political lobby group, but it is not fair to say Wolf is wrong BECAUSE he works for a political lobby group.
The best way to fight propaganda is to point out the truth, or lack thereof, of the propaganda material. Illogical arguments don’t help.
I understand what you are saying.
Wolffe works for a firm that specializes in Corporate propaganda.
Is any analysis of his going to deviate from what would be acceptable to his firm.
I don't know, but I am not willing to accept the risk. He is disqualified in my opinion.
Propaganda in this context is not merely about demonstrable facts, but about general attitudes. Something that is highly pernicious in this setting. They want to establish a MINDSET. That is something difficult to combat on a merely factual basis.
So you are basically arguing that money does not cause corruption and that we should give people who have vested interests the benefit of the doubt.
Hank Paulson and his Wall Street cronies LOVE people like you.
No that is not my argument. I argue that just because you are given money does not immediately mean you are corrupt.
The converse is also true. Just because you are NOT given money does not mean you are honest.
But, the tentacles of Public Strategies run deep through DC and it's difficult not to see potential conflicts.
I just think that Keith needs to expand his pundit pool.
Hi Nicole.
I too wish Keith would have a better selection of guests rather than the same revolving door of characters.
libertarian mumbo jumbo. It's petri-dish analysis and like Randian libertarianism has no value in real world application and misses the point entirely.
If you want to do a real journalism, especially in the realm of politics, the mere connection of vested interests delegitimizes one's comments regardless of it's "truth".
This is about integrity, not about uncovering the meaning of "truth".
Whoa!
"...mere connection of vested interests delegitimizes one's comments regardless of it's 'truth'."
That is exactly why I caution against illogical arguments. You see, it does not reduce the validity of comment in any way. It may give an insight into why the comment is being made, but not its legitimacy.
Please do a search on Circumstantial ad Hominem logical fallacies. You are falling into a logic hole here.
On the other hand I can appreciate the importance for the "appearance" of impropriety, and how that effects the political landscape.
I can't stand when libertarians get on their perch and the condescension starts pouring out and they gloss over words like "truth" like it's a math formula. If somebody is truthful but also a racist should we give them a forum too? My comments are in context to discussing journalistic integrity so stop talking nonsense from your sophomore year debate class. This is not the LSAT's. This is a discussion on the impact of corporations on journalism. And if you don't think that's an issue, than you can keep reading The Fountainhead.
“If somebody is truthful but also a racist should we give them a forum too?”
Yes. Absolutely. Perhaps not about race and gender per se, but if they are truthful and willing to teach/listen/learn – you bet. Just because someone is a racist (or republican, or libertarian, or whatever), does not make them wrong on every point and every issue. Many times listening with an ear toward silly things like “truth” and validity can help in understanding – and learning. Immediately dismissing someone because of your own preconceived notions is also silly.
As far as your other labels – they are yours, not mine.
There is nothing more pointless than arguing with a dogmatic libertarian. Everything is a petri dish in which we can apply sweeping generalizations to everything else. Get outside more, there is a world out there.
We are not talking about a court of law, we are not talking about social policy, resource distribution, or epistemology. We are talking about journalism. J-O-U-R-N-A-L-I-S-M! Look up the meaning. Ask a Vietnamese, or a Mother of the Disappeared, or a dissident of Stalinist Russia, a Palestinian, or a Iraqi about conflicts of interest in the media, tell them we shouldn't be discerning, and see what kind of response you get.
Also, go rent Manufacturing Consent, and when that doesn't change your mind, get to work on that instant truth syrum that we can all use so we know the exact intentions of every person immediately so we can apply all of your ad nauseam theories.
I see you didn't do that search. Pity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oahDaWJkJsM
Good night and good luck. (Search for that while your at it.).
Y'all are both marginally right. But are both missing points. Taarak, especially in the format of the corporate media, saying accurate vs. inaccurate things is only part of the bias. The issue is also the selection of the subject; for example, see the thread below about how in the context of two wars, record unemployment, wholesale violations of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, and major changes in our country's healthcare system, Nobel laureat, Paul Krugman is asked about Obama's "mojo".
And Teddy, you make a compelling argument about how fundamentalist Randians are annoying, but what does that have to do with Taarak and Richard Wolffe? What you have done is created a straw enemy named "typical libertarian" and then proceeded to define its characteristics and its flaws. Congratulations on the dismantling, but it might help to elucidate the context you think is missing in Taarak's argument.
Thanks Old Billy.
Your point is acknowledged and accepted. My seemingly stubborn adherence to the soundness of the logical argument was intentional. It was to point out the necessity of adhering to non-specious reasoning – regardless of the venue or focus.
As other’s have pointed out, there is reason to suspect Wolffe’s credibility now. Of course. That suspicion should never go away (even if his lobbyist ties were not revealed). The specious reasoning is when you declare he is wrong based on nothing but suspicion. In that case you miss the argument (comments, analysis, etc.) all together because you have dismissed it entirely on false grounds.
And thanks as well Old Billy.
To be honest, I'm so sick and tired of the modern libertarians that at times I assume the context is already known. If my remarks seemed to personal to Taarak or Richard Wolfe I apologize and admit it is distracting.
However I don't know how I could be any more clear. Taarak insists that we should not prejudge due to any underlining factors, in essence making an argument to remove any context from any analysis. It's like saying history does not exist, it's a tabula rasa ground hog day. Not only is this an inefficient way to go through life, but it is amazingly disrespectful for those who have suffered at the hands of repressive elitists. It's all about the context, the context, the context. We are talking about Olbermann. He has championed campaign finance reform and rallied us against the influence of corporate lobbyists on a daily basis. So when he has a corporate lobbyist on his program you better damn believe he's gonna get called out on it no matter who it is. And to have to listen to some libertarian-fueled defense of such corporate influence, well it just makes me sick to my stomach. Again, no matter what Wolffe's views are, once he becomes gainfully employed by special interests he no longer can claim to have "objective" analysis. That is pure fact. That is at the essence of journalism. He may still be a great person and have great things to say and speak eternal truth on every subject, but those views are going to be tainted by his decision to be an employee of a company whose mission statement explicitly states it's goals are to win favor for it's clients regardless of outcome. He can go on being Buddha for all I care, he just shouldn't be a talking head on a show that purports itself to be solid journalism.
The commentary of Wolffe has not changed one bit between two years ago and today. As long as this remains the case, I don't see an issue.
If Wolffee went on today and said something that I know to be wrong, I wouldn't suddenly believe it just because it came from his mouth.
Comparing Wolffe (who provides analysis) to Paulson (who dished out billions) is idiotic.
Rachel is not as bad as Keith although I have noticed they rotate some of the commentors between them. Wolfe seems about the same as he always was even if he is an official lobbying shill now.
goes up BECAUSE she invites a card-carrying conservative like Buchanan on her show, complete ass though he is. Who is the last real and credible liberal that has appeared on Faux (hint: not Williams)?
Yeah, good to point this out C & L. As much as Keith does a great job in pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the Right, that's no excuse for not only distancing himself from blurring the lines, it's, well..., hypocritical.
And Mr. Wolfe, I'll tell you where the line between business and journalism should be. It should be tattooed on your forehead that you are a corporate lobbyist. If that sounds a bit intrusive, than maybe we should just bug your telephones (the telecoms you lobby for already have a database for that).
gee -- if it's so acceptable and commonly done, then why did he need to bow out for a month?
i hold keith olbermann responsible for not informing his viewers of the blatant conflict of interest.
why not tell his viewers the FACTS OF THE MATTER and then let the viewers decide (through a vote).
but in this day of egregious media deception, Wolffe's conflict is a pile of beans. (Look at the other fraudulent/criminally irresponsible "news" broadcasters--promoting ideas such as that the recently elected President should be lynched if he doesn't serve the Neo-con agenda. WTF? i mean, why have an election if you just get the same malodorous policies and practices?)
The show was fine without Wolffe and in fact I totally forgot about him. Still using him is a stain on Keith who should practice what he preaches and not use these corporate tools. It diminishes his arguments.
Keith has generally become a lot more predictable and it's starting to bore the crap out of me. It seems like there are about 8 people on rotation and they're all seem to be about agreeing with everything that comes out of Keith's mouth. It must work on Fox, but I believe we on the left need a little spice, something, anything? Thom Hartmann was on once and he was great... never to be seen again. How about more actual politicians? Keith, bro, please! Something/anything!
Liked. Had he said he was a lobbyist, I could have at leats taken that into account when I listened to him. It's as bad as Stossel not telling anyone he was Con. Once I had that information about him I was able to see that his stories were more like propaganda than journalism.
Keith did address Richard Wolffe's return to countdown in a full diary on Kos... "Thus will his appearances be limited to areas that don't overlap with his non-journalistic work. Those that could even seem to present a conflict of interest will also be off-limits. Each of his appearances will mention his private work and viewers will be directed to the web for fuller elucidation of what he does - and doesn't - do there. " There is much more that I feel is very worth reading
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/1/77787...
My husband doesn't. He had no idea about Wolffe's move to Public Strategies, but when I told him, he was really indignant that Keith would compromise the appearance of integrity by having a lobbyist on as an analyst.
This is the kind of conflict that we nail others on. I hate to see Keith fall prey to it as well.
All Corporate Media is highly suspect.
You might like Keith and Rachel, but they only work within the parameters that are allowed them.
No more than that. Your concept of reality is manipulated even with them.
I actually have a fairly good working relationship with both shows, because obviously, we show a lot of their clips.
They have more freedom I think than you would suspect, but imparting information to their viewers is all about how the issue is framed. As much as I like Richard Wolffe, his appearances are now suspect because I know where he works.
But I'm immersed in this stuff every day. How fair is it to viewers who aren't and simply want to rely on Keith giving the information without worrying about the taint of lobbyists?
aren't ALL of the hosts and guests on these so-called 'news' shows
bought and paid for corporate shills???
I mostly watch MSNBC and think they do a better job of approaching the truth/facts, but Keith, Rachel et al are paid by MSNBC/GE, no??
And, everything in media is paid for by advertisements - corporate sponsors... duh.
Which is why I don't watch any corporate media.
Although, some internet sites are corporations, I imagine. Either that or LLC.
Well, heavens to Murgatroyd, a broadcast television station giving airtime over to corporations! I'm shocked.
In other news, the sky is reportedly blue, and water may in fact be wet.
Richard Wolffe:
I will know at your funeral by who shows up.
You perfectly described the dilemma. He's a fine guy, but he needs to change careers or get lost.
Alert and Knowledgeable Citizenry require a grain of salt with everything?
Thankyou for confirming that, Nicole.
machines. It is the only reason the corps were interested in TV and the MSM in general. It is all part of keeping the mesage simple enough for the idiots to pick up and run with.
republicanism is a mental illness!
So I wish KO and Rachel would shake up the formula a little. Keith definitely needs to address these concerns. I would point out that Rachel has semi-frequently either had people on her show who she disagreed with, or has invited them on the show. But with all the voices available to them, they could be doing a much better job.
I watch both shows online every night, but I've had to start skipping through my favorite part (Worst Persons) because of Keith's obnoxious "impressions." He already had some credibility issues with me and it's painful when he indulges in this childish behavior. Thank god he at least stopped using the bouncing Rush thing.
I give him credit for having steered away from the Keeping Tabs stuff, which I could tell he loathed doing, but I'm continuously aware that he's working for GE and as mentioned above, the grain of salt rule applies.
I haven't watched MSNBC or any television news outlet, save for Democracy Now!, for a long time. The way MSNBC favorably covered the bailout was probably the final straw for me. Both Keith and Rachel were in favor of the bailout which coincidentally allowed GE to get a lot of taxpayer money. So, they lost a lot of credibility with me.
TwoThree questions that I always ask myself when reading or watching the news are:1. Why are they covering what they are covering?
2. Why are they saying what they are saying?
3. Who is cutting their paycheck?
I'm sure there are more.
Thanks, Nicole, for the update on this situation.
It's all a kabuki show, even Keith. Turn off your TV. Think. Follow money trails.
We have to hold ourselves accountable... and to a higher standard.
No one gets a free ride.
There is no "news" organization in the United States. Period. None. The "news" organizations are owned by the plutocrats and the oligarchy.
This is not new news, this has been this way for a long time.
I just want to take anyone that has half of a brain and keep slapping them in the face until they admit reality. There are no "news" organizations in the United States.
I quit watching TV in the early 70s, I quit reading "news" magazines in the mid 70s, and I haven't read a "news"paper in, at least, 25 years.
Unfortunately as my memory continues to deteriorate, I'm forced into reading short articles on the internet. The amount of actual knowledge displayed is less than IF Stone provided in his articles in the 1950s.
Turn on a TV, you just voted against democracy. Read a "news"paper, another vote against democracy. Read a "news" magazine another vote against democracy. Buy some impulse purchase from an ad, another nail in democracy's coffin.
Don't vote. Voting is antidemocratic. However you vote does not matter as much as one drop of sweat from some poor guy walking the boonies on a tour in Afghanistan. Your "elected" representatives are bought and paid for, not one, not two, all of them.
Those that aren't bought are blackmailed. Ever see any question raised about how much the FB lying I gets in appropriations? Ever see an audit of the CI lying A? What was it a couple of years ago? Oh, yeah, the military could not account for several trillion dollars. Trillion here, trillion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.
How many "news" people have looked into the crime wave associated with the DE thieving A? Ever been a witness at a public destruction of drugs? No, nor has anyone else. Ever hear of a test of drugs for purity and a match up with what was stolen at the time of arrest? The best way to describe the drug situation is armed robbery by badge carrying thugs.
thank you, I am glad I am not the only one.
He has yet to clearly state his independence from present or past fealty to the Windsor clan.
Login or Register to post comments.