This article came out last Friday and the issue has since been resolved but I think it's a good read for our foray into the political framework. There are several issues surrounding the suspension of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC but I thought it would be interesting to look at the underlying power conflict between the anchor and his boss, Phil Griffin. Griffin has actually made this known. According to the article, Griffin said, "Keith doesn't run the show." The article doesn't really provide a background story to the conflict but it does imply a broader power struggle between the MSNBC anchors and Mr. Griffin.
The article states that, "In recent months, Griffin has taken several bold steps to declare his authority over the network and its sometimes unruly talent: he sent a stern memo warning hosts to not publicly fight with each other, he suspended David Shuster indefinitely for filming a CNN pilot, suspended Donny Deutsch, banned Markos Moulitsas from the network, and reprimanded Ed Schultz for threatening to "torch" the network." According to Bolman and Deal, "Authority is essential to anyone in a formal position because social control depends on it. Officeholders can exert control only so long as partisans respect or fear them enough that their authority remains intact." (p.202) There is clearly an effort on Griffin's part to exert his authority (coercive power) through various forms of punishment, though the article doesn't really explain how and why this is the case. We could make various assumptions based on what we've learned so far but I think the political framework is most relevant in this particular situation, where you have a divide between the person on the top who is trying to exert authority and the people below who are trying to assert their own influence within the organization.
Conchita Campos
This story was all over the news last Friday. Numerous media outlets had something to say about it as it pertained directly to them. Printed media such as the New York Times and the Journal covered it, and so did other television channels like CNN and, even ironically, FoxNews.
ReplyDeleteWhile, as Conchita mentions, the topic we covered today regarding authority could be directly applied to the boss-employee relationship within NBC, the element of managing responsible journalism becomes evident in this situation as well. MSNBC, in what seems an effort to make an example out of Mr. Olbermann, suspended the anchorman until further notice on Friday. They adhered to the strict rule the network has regarding political donations. Some could argue that Mr. Olbermann had been deprived of his freedom of speech, yet if the company where one works has a rule regarding political contributions it is only intelligent and ethical to respect it. As we discussed today in class as part of ethics and moral, we should act consciously and think out actions thoroughly. In this sense I agree with MSNBC's decision of reprimanding Mr. Olbermann; a company needs to conform to its established rules.
In a different aspect, us, the audience of television and its news anchors, deserve objectivity and a transparent delivery of information. If the people who deliver the news to us are potentially biased then we could be mere subject to their bias. It is up to the television network management and to its employees to practice and embrace responsible journalism. That is supposedly their mission. Otherwise if no one cared for it, all media outlets, journalists, and anchormen and women could very well be like FoxNews and its news personalities Hannity, Palin and Huckabee to name a few. Ethical management and leadership need to be exercised in media, as in any other industry, to ensure that their mission it being fulfilled.