If possible, would Keith Olbermann have Barack Obama's baby?

A question to ponder:

If it were physically possible, would MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann allow himself to be impregnated by Barack Obama so he could deliver the president's child?

I know this is one of those hypothetical questions for which we will never know the answer, but I think he would.

In fact, I think Olbermann would be downright giddy at the opportunity to do so.

It would give a whole new meaning to the term 'public service.'

MSNBC clueless during Iranian protests, riots on Saturday

For those interested in global politics, last Saturday was a memorable day. The unrest and riots in Iran made for fascinating watching on the 24-hour television news networks.

FOX and CNN found themselves in difficult situations because Iran was actively trying to censor any images coming out of its country. Because of this, verifying information had to have been difficult. However, they both did commendable jobs in a challenging situation. They served the public very well.

On the other hand, MSNBC came off looking like a laughingstock. They did not re-arrange their normal programming schedule. Therefore, viewers who watched that network were left with a steady diet of programs about prison life and murder mysteries (most of which had already been shown multiple times).

Whatever remaining credibility the network had was lost on Saturday. I guess the "stars" of the network like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow couldn't be bothered to cover such an important story.

If you are watching this network to get news and commentary, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Find something better to watch. Like watching paint dry.

If you think taxes are too high, then Janeane Garofalo says you're a racist

On April 15, demonstrators around the nation protested our country's current tax system by participating in gatherings called "tea parties." I did not participate in one, but I have plenty of problems with our current tax structure. The Internal Revenue Service's tax code is way too complex, and many people are taxed so much that it creates legitimate hardship in their lives.

I thought the "tea parties" were an interesting way to express displeasure, and the first amendment certainly protects the rights of the protesters to state their points. There were plenty of comments after these rallies, but the most laughable ones were made by actress/comedian Janeane Garofalo.

She said this on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC:

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Those are pretty remarkable comments. First of all, when did Garofalo gain the track record and credentials to be taken seriously as a pundit about taxes and race relations? I know she did some talk radio stuff, but there is no way she should be a credible resource for a news program that airs during prime time.

Of course, we are talking about Keith Olbermann's program. Though I enjoy his writings on baseball, he has no business hosting a news program. He does not attempt to present impartial discussions regarding the issues of the day. It has been embarrassing watching him sell out to the Obama administration. If it was physically possible for him to get pregnant and deliver a child with the president as the father, I am convinced he would do it.

As for Garofalo, the most damaging thing she said in her comments was to play the race card. There were scores of different ways to critique the demonstrations, but she took an amateurish approach and blamed it on race.

Her comments are exactly why many people are hesitant to enter into meaningful discussions about the racial climate in America. People are afraid they will be branded a racist if the people they are having the dialogue with do not agree with their comments.

And that is a crying shame.

For a family friend

At various stages of my life, I have been told that it is always important to be nice to people.

There are a lot of reasons to do that, but a common reason I always hear is that one act of kindness may be the very gesture that gets another person through the day.

Of course, we usually do not realize when we do that because it is impossible to look inside another person's heart. However, there are times when a life dedicated to niceness can be measured.

I thought of that recently when WSMV's Dan Miller died of an apparent heart attack. For people my age, Miller had been a presence in our lives since we were in kindergarten. Except for a few years when he worked in California, he was always waiting for us in our living room each weeknight.

Like many of you, I watched and read the dozens of tributes dedicated to him. However, there was one in particular that stands out in my mind.

Retired WTVF anchorman Chris Clark said that Miller was a genuinely nice man and that came through to viewers.

Keep in mind that Clark and Miller were rivals for decades when it came to local news. Broadcast journalism (and all journalism for that matter) is a fiercely competitive business and can be quite cut throat. If Miller's rivals can say that about him, what should it tell us as well? Maybe nice guys can finish first.

As I discussed his death with a friend, he related that as a boy the world's bad news was a little easier to swallow because it was reported by Miller. He could not explain why. It just had that impact on him.

I wish that I could say that the warmth and niceness of Miller was a common trait in broadcast journalism, but I cannot. It seems that a lot of the current leaders in the field depend too much on smarminess and confrontation.

While I agree that confrontation is sometimes a necessary weapon when reporting the truth, much of it these days is misused as blatant grandstanding. It is used as a cheap trick to gain our attention for a few seconds. It is all a bunch of noise.

Unfortunately, these people do not understand what it takes to have a meaningful impact on people's lives. Most people want hardworking broadcasters and journalists that care enough about them to tell the truth.

I think that was a key in Miller's success. Because of this, he was a person that we welcomed into our living rooms in the evening and into our bedrooms when we watched the late news. He was a member of our extended family.

The grandstanders will never enjoy this intimacy, and when they die, I doubt it will touch their viewers the way Miller's death impacted his. I know that sounds harsh, but just because something is harsh, it does not mean it is untrue.

How would people react if Bill O'Reilly suddenly died? Or Keith Olbermann?

They would be missed, but viewers would move on to the next big thing. Their lasting impact would be minimal.

I never met Dan Miller and that is too bad. It is not every day that a 35-year relationship ends even if it was an indirect one.

I would not want to be the one who replaces Miller at WSMV. Whoever it is, I hope he took plenty of notes about the man who just left.

The shoes are enormous.

Civil war at MSNBC

The media is one of the most important elements of any election season, especially when we are electing a president.

Its primary role is to act as an advocate for the people. After all, none of us will likely have access to any of the major players as we approach the election.

Some forums do provide citizens the chance to ask questions to candidates, but those events are usually tightly controlled and don't allow any significant give and take.

Therefore, the media's responsibility should be to ask the questions we would ask if we had the opportunity.

While that seems pretty clear cut, it is not always that easy because many voters believe certain media outlets have a bias against certain candidates.

For example, conservatives often complain about newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post as examples in the media that present news with a liberal slant.

Conversely, most liberals will express similar frustrations against a news outlet like Fox News. Such criticisms from both sides are pretty common during elections.

However, voters very rarely get a glimpse inside a news organization as it develops its strategy to cover a campaign. We got that glimpse recently when MSNBC demoted Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage.

Both will remain as commentators, but their roles have been diminished.

Most who follow politics know Olbermann and Matthews from the shows they host each weeknight on MSNBC. Both shows are commentary shows meaning that very little actual news reporting is done. Basically, both men provide their points of view on the issues of the day.

Both (but especially Olbermann) have recently enjoyed a surge in popularity from liberals because of their criticism of the Bush administration. In watching both men perform, it is pretty clear that their political ideology leans to the left.

Within the context of their shows, there is nothing wrong with that. They are paid to present opinions, and they both do so with passion and flair.

However, things went wrong when both were awarded anchoring duties during the recent national political conventions. Basically, MSNBC put commentators into a situation best handled by a news reporter, and as most understand, there is a big difference between being a reporter and a commentator.

The situation reached a low point when Olbermann made several sarcastic comments at the Republican convention. For example, after vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin made her acceptance speech, Olbermann compared her to Reese Witherspoon's character 'Tracy Flick' in the film Election.

If you didn't see that film, trust me, the comment was not intended as a compliment.

MSNBC made a big mistake by putting these men into these roles. However, what is perhaps even more puzzling is that there wasn't much of an outcry when they were first chosen.

If ABC had assigned a conservative pundit like Rush Limbaugh to anchor its coverage at the conventions, criticism would have been loud and long. However, the selection of Olbermann and Matthews caused little criticism.

Based on published reports, it took an internal rebellion from within NBC's news division to get Olbermann and Matthews demoted.

Now, newsman David Gregory will handle anchoring duties for upcoming events.

One has to wonder whether this problem would have occurred if Tim Russert were still alive. Russert was known for his ability to remain impartial and had the most clout within both the NBC and MSNBC news divisions.

My guess is this never would have happened.

Chalk this up to growing pains caused by Russert's loss. However, it couldn't have occurred at a worse time.

MSNBC: The ‘Life in Prison’ Documentary All the Time Channel

As I have been settling in for the evening lately, I've noticed that the MSNBC news channel has been airing a lot of documentaries about life in prison.

Every night last week, it seemed there were two hours of prison documentaries followed by Keith Olbermann’s nightly attack on the Bush administration. Then after Olbermann, they went right back to the prison documentaries.

Don't get me wrong. Studying life in prison can be informative. For example, Johnny Cash's concert albums made at Folsom and San Quentin prisons are lively documents about life there.

However, MSNBC seems to have opened the floodgates when it comes to prison programming.

Am I missing something here? Is the demand for these shows that great? Or has MSNBC thrown in the towel when it comes to programming and has decided to show the same type of programs over and over again.