See him here, on The View…
…claiming he didn’t vote in the recent election as a symbolic gesture. And he went on to admit he never votes.
Is his position that of an asshole, a sainted journalist, or what?
I can respect his reasoning, but I still think he’s wrong. He has a duty to vote, as every person does. Olbermann has no more obligation to be nonpartisan in his private life, which voting certainly is, than anybody else does, especially considering he’s blatantly partisan in his public life.
This is an ongoing issue for journalists, particularly the ones who cover politics, and Olbermann is not alone in refusing to vote. I think the notion of anybody having a duty or obligation to vote is silly, but for journalists I think refusing to vote is an empty and ineffectual gesture. Voting is done in private anyway and refusing to vote does not ensure your work will be unbiased. If you do the work, you’re sure to have an opinion on which candidate is better. Refusing to act on that opinion does not mean you don’t have it, and pretending to only be some kind of pure journalist and not a citizen doesn’t make it so. In other words it proves nothing to nobody if a journalist doesn’t vote, and it doesn’t accomplish anything.
There’s nothing assholish about the gesture itself. Although the idea of Olbermann as an objective journalist, which he furnishes with his occasional references to Edward R. Murrow, is pretty ridiculous. He is not a journalist. He is a commentator.
That’s ridiculous. You don’t have a duty to vote. That’s what freedom means. If you had a duty, you wouldn’t be free.
Well said.
That’s the position of a lazy conceited idiot. Everyone knows he’s a liberal and he accomplishes othing b not voting, except setting a bad example for anyone who actually cares about what he does.
A duty does not necessarily mean you aren’t free. Duties can be moral or ethical, not just legal. I have a duty to be a good husband and father, but that doesn’t mean I’m not free. I could ignore those duties if I wished. I have a duty to my employer to provide them with work; I’m free to ignore that duty, too, and they’re free to fire me and not pay me anymore.
I would agree a citizen has a duty to be politically aware and to vote. They are free to disregard this duty, but it remains a duty.
Well said, and I agree.
So long as there’s a possibility that someone’s going to come back with, “Oh, yeah? Well, who did you vote for?,” I believe that high-profile journalists are perfectly justified in refusing to vote.
Nobody’s required to answer that question.
So what? It still makes you look stupid. Look at what a moron Sarah Palin looked like when she refused to say whom she voted for.
If you’re a high-profile political commentator addressing policy issues that you believe are important, so far as I am concerned, you’re doing enough of your civic duty to give voting a pass.
It’s a petty question and I don’t think it makes the journalist look stupid. Anyway, one of the reasons I said it’s an ineffective gesture is that nobody knows if you’re telling the truth. Whether you answer “I voted for ” or say you didn’t vote, nobody actually knows. So, while I think Olbermann was telling the truth, saying you didn’t vote is not really an effective way to deflect the question. And it doesn’t resolve an accusation of bias because you can be biased without voting- as Olbermann’s example proves.
Why the hell was anyone asking Palin who she voted for? She was the freaking Republican candidate for Vice President!
I disagree, but I think that’s a reasonable view.
While I understand this line of thought, I can’t say I necessarily agree with it. Objectivity in journalism went out the window when 24 hour news services came in; it’s nigh impossible to find although there are those who try very hard to maintain it. Keith Olbermann is not one of those journalists. I would think a simple “I choose not to reveal my private vote.” would suffice.
It isn’t occasional, it’s nightly. “Good night, and good luck” was Murrow’s sign-off phrase. His hubris offends me no end. He’s entertaining certainly and I enjoy some of his [patently biased] rants, but he’s no Murrow.
Silence and a change of subject are all a snoopy question deserves, other than “none of your damn business.”
I disagree. The length of the news cycle has no relationship with objectivity, although there is a greater focus on candidate gaffes and slip-ups, which has made the relationship between politicians and the press increasingly adversarial. What’s happened is that the line between journalist and commentator has been blurred as the networks try to fill up all their airtime- the commentary now outweighs the actual news, and more and more Democratic and Republican party workers are invited to give pat, useless “perspective” on the developments. An event happens, it’s discussed for three minutes, and then for the next 10 minutes, Paul Begala and Karl Rove pretend a set of talking points are their own opinions.
He’s not a journalist at all. He does not report the news, he comments on it. And he’s rather entertaining, in a conceited way. But he should not be called a journalist. He probably believes he’s being objective, but anybody can see he is nothing of the kind.
Just being understated. 
I don’t understand the devotion he gets from his fans, because to me he comes off as a smug, self-righteous dick. This just confirms that impression. There are plenty of commentators out there who take on the administration and whom I can listen to without having to put put with their inflated ego. I suspect his days in the sun will be diminished once Bush is gone.
I’ms getting more and more tired of Olbermann, too, especially, his
Nielson triumphs over Fox. Who but he and MSNBC gives a shit
Billo bullshit.
smarmy, ham-handed commentary in general
utterly futile attempts to be clever, witty
This guy needs writers in a big way.
How about… “Well who would you have voted for?” For most it’s pretty obvious so why not vote?
It’s a trend among my brethren in political journalism to ostentatiously ‘not vote’ but I think it’s crap.
I am one of those who DO cover politics most days of my life and I vote. And people ask me opinions and advice on politics almost every day. I’ll spout off on positions privately but when asked as Publisher of two newspapers who I voted for I always say ‘That would be an endorsement and neither I, nor my papers, will ever endorse any candidate or voting habit.’
So far people have taken it at face value. Which is good, because I mean it that way. I will NOT discuss my vote with anyone.
As for Olberman and other journalists not voting? I’ve always thought of that as saying ‘I’m smarter and more plugged in. So I’m not voting to show I won’t choose sides because I’m smarter and more plugged in than you are.’ It’s pretentious and foolish and you wouldn’t see Murrow or Cronkite or Brinkley doing so.
Your mileage obviously varies, but I see it more as an emulation of someone who was a very courageous figure in his day. I believe when Olbermann started, he was one of the only people in the news business to say that Bush was not, in fact, doing a heckuva job.