Mike linked to this but I thought it was worthy of its own post. Glenn looks at the snowballing fuss over the Right's fear of Olbermann:
On Friday, the Associated Press -- in the course of reporting that the Giuliani campaign complained to NBC News that Keith Olbermann was assigned to cover the GOP presidential debate -- made certain statements which brightly reveal the current state of our political press. Think Progress has highlighted several misleading aspects of the AP story, and Joan Walsh today dissects several other glaring flaws with the story. I want to focus on what this episode so potently demonstrates about modern "journalism."
The AP article said this:
Olbermann's popularity and evolving image as an idealogue (sic) has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity. . . .
Having Olbermann anchor -- as he will continue, with Matthews, for big political nights throughout the campaign -- is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox News Channel assigning the same duties to O'Reilly.
Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result. Fox has tried to differentiate between its news operation and its prime-time opinion shows, even as its critics believe strongly that's bunk.[..]
No, Fox has "never" put an ideological figure like Keith Olbermann -- or his supposed equivalent, Bill O'Reilly -- in a position of news anchor. Instead, Fox diligently and impressively ensures that such important news positions are filled by objective, non-partisan, Real Reporters . . . like "news anchor" Brit Hume.