Keith Olbermann discovers previously unknown exceptions to the code of journalistic ethics. Updated!

It has been said that anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. The quote has been attributed to Eugene McCarthy, but whoever said it understood a greater truth. Often people are so blinded by their own light that they can't see when they engage in the very behavior they criticize in others. This includes politicians, bloggers, and--yes--journalists.

For months we have documented the attacks (and slanders) directed at Fox News. These are invariably launched with righteous allegations of inaccuracy (Fox gets it wrong; O'Reilly is a liar), as well as partisanship (the "propaganda arm of the GOP" mantra)--all presented in the context of other media outlets never making a mistake, never telling an untruth, never having any kind of ideological slant.

As FNC's popularity and influence increase, the naysayers become increasingly reckless. Standards of logic, journalistic ethics, and responsibility suddenly do not apply, as long as the purpose is to smear Fox News. Hatred of Fox is the new anti-Semitism of the "intellectual" class, and no holds are barred.

Mistakes. Everyone makes them; humanity is not perfectible. But when the target is Fox News, suddenly rules are inoperable. Salon.com publishes a factually incorrect article about FNC. There is no correction, nor any reply to email inquiries. The New Republic makes up a story about Fox News, easily demolished with just a few minutes of Lexis/Nexis research. Did they publish a retraction?

TVNewser prints an alleged quote from Bill O'Reilly, reported by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC using his typical bedsnide manner. Both parties are provided with proof they were wrong. No corrections. And this site is littered with scores of articles detailing doctored and fabricated quotes from the newshounds, in almost every case never retracted.

When O'Reilly said Peabody instead of Polk, he corrected it. On air. When Brit Hume got a statistic about Iraq wrong, he corrected it. On air. But the very people who sneer at Fox News, who demand retractions, are themselves above all that.

This is all permissible, in an ends-justifies-the-means sort of way, because Fox News only tells one side of a story, don't you know? And what could be more antithetical to honest, responsible journalism than just telling one side?

Follow: Keith Olbermann takes a shot at Bill O'Reilly. This particular example of Olbermann's Obsession deals with O'Reilly's college football career. Within four hours' time, TVNewser has posted the verbatim transcript of Olbermann's "report" for all to read. The next evening, as expected, Bill O'Reilly airs a response to Olbermann's report. That text will be up on TVNewser within a few hours, right? Well, then maybe the next day? Sorry, no. There is no need to present both sides of the story--it's Keith Olbermann attacking O'Reilly. That makes it gospel.

One more day passes, and there's another turn of events. The President of Marist College issues a press release: they checked with the 1970 football staff and verified that O'Reilly was right, and Olbermann was wrong. Surely this will be reported by TVNewser, since he thought Olbermann's original "news story" was so significant. But this development does not make Keith Olbermann look good, or Bill O'Reilly look bad. It does not appear in TVNewser's column.

Meanwhile, Olbermann continues to flog the story day after day. When Marist weighed in we wondered how he would handle it, because a responsible journalist would never deliberately tell just one side of a story. The answer is obvious: those pesky rules of journalistic ethics are inoperable--after all, it's an attack on Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. And he's Keith Olbermann, the man who doesn't have to correct false stories, and screens out news that makes him look bad. He doesn't report the Marist statement.

This is an issue that transcends the question of who is factually correct. It's basic fairness, journalistic equity, and balance. To report only one side of a controversy, and pretend like the other side doesn't even exist, is a lie--a lie of omission. It deceives readers and viewers; it misleads the public. And whether it's an ambitious blogger, or the host of a national "news" hour, it's flat out wrong.

Update: TVNewser put up a link to another Olbermann article, which according to TVN "wraps up" the story. A few hours later, citing reader responses, he did another follow up and reported the Marist College statement. Thanks! TVN's readers now know both sides of the story. When will Olbermann's viewers be granted the same privilege?