I have only 4 hours left to get up for a new week. Yet, the only thing I can do at 1 A.M is to listen to John Coltrane. Am I trying to run away from reality?

Opinionated Journalism

I will start this post with two things: I like the show of Keith Olbermann, I have always enjoyed watching his show on MSNBC, and I respect his journalism. Secondly, this post is not a comment on whether it was fair for MSNBC to suspend Keith for his political donations, or should it be legal to stop your employees from political donations. That would be totally different discussions, and as usual I have strong opinions on that issue. Work contracts are always specific to employers and one is almost always aware of the terms when signing the contract.

My opinion on this issue is on a different level. The question for me is what happens when a journalist of a major media house aligns with a political party, or donates to a candidate’s campaign? Nothing wrong if you see this in isolation; it is different if you see in context of MSNBC and transparency. There are media channels which are unbiased, non-aligned and then there are ones that are opinionated, partisan, or ideological. It will again be a different issue to discuss, which one is better? What matters in context of Keith is transparency. It goes against the public face of objective journalism of NBC. It makes NBC say one thing and do exactly opposite. This is the issue here, and this is what concerns me.

It is totally wrong for any channel to say one thing and do another. A popular media channel has a huge potential to influence opinions and it should be rather transparent in what way it does that. Many times people develop their opinions on the facts presented by media, facts that are already influenced by the ideological bent of that media channel. If the channel had a disclaimer then may be some of us would not take the facts at face value and use our own judgment. I have come across many passionate debates where facts from media channel are cited. It is sad to say the least that the debater putting colored facts think they are objective. This is what Keith Olbermann has to understand and I am sure then he will agree with me on this. I am not siding with NBC, but I am putting transparency above everything.

I am happy to see him back on air, and as usual totally enjoyed his ‘comeback’ show.

Sleepless thoughts

Someone recently asked me why I don’t like right wing politics? I thought it would be tough to articulate. I did try to answer – Right wing politics always try to negate an individual, it sums up your existence upon your past, it denies the value of your achievement, does not believe in your own destiny, power to create your own order, and respect you deserve for yourself, and not what your forefathers deserved. Now when I think, would my answer would have been same if I was born in an aristocratic family of Britain?

Brings me to my second thought – I am not supporting Christine O’Donell, my view is not different from the majority, but for the first time I liked her interview with Meredith Vieira. She talks about bruised egos for her defeat. I felt pity for her, and I liked the lines she used. Change the context, and the lines would still fit. Excuses they still would be, but I have always craved for formal occasions and formal lines. Check the interview on this link (video)

'Decision Points' seems to be an interesting book from the previews and the excerpts. Bush didn’t seem that erudite in his interview with Matt Lauer. It would still be insightful to read the book.

We all find so easy to accuse someone on the first pretext on the pattern that is evident on the first glance. Easiest things are mostly wrong – be the easiest conclusion, easiest analysis, easiest judgement, and easiest decision. Kanye West found it too easy to accuse Bush, and when he is himself getting accused, he knows how it feels? Some poetic justice.