How has Lawrence O'Donnell been criticized for partisanship or commentary?
Executive summary
Lawrence O’Donnell has been repeatedly criticized for overt partisanship and for commentary that blurs opinion and journalism, with critics pointing to specific on-air remarks, contentious interviews, and a body of work that some independent media analysts classify as strongly left-leaning [1] [2]. Defenders counter that O’Donnell is an opinion host who owns mistakes and delivers forceful, evidence-based monologues; the dispute therefore reflects broader debates about the role of cable opinion shows in political polarization [3].
1. High‑profile on‑air gaffes cited as evidence of bias
Critics point to incidents where O’Donnell’s phrasing drew accusations of racial insensitivity and partisan attack, notably his introduction to a taped interview in which he suggested Michael Steele was “dancing” to please the Republican National Committee—a remark that Steele and talk-radio host Larry Elder characterized as racially insensitive and that prompted an apology from O’Donnell [4]. Commentators use episodes like that apology to argue O’Donnell lets partisan zeal override care in phrasing and sourcing, a pattern they say undermines his credibility [4].
2. Interview conduct and alleged unfair questioning
O’Donnell has faced criticism for the conduct of interviews that opponents call ambush-style or misleading, including an October 2010 exchange with Rep. Ron Paul in which Paul accused him of breaking an agreement not to ask about other candidates, and other segments—such as questions to Herman Cain—where commentators judged his approach aggressive and partisan rather than neutral [4] [5]. Detractors argue these episodes show a tendency to frame conversations to damage conservative figures rather than to neutrally probe policy or record.
3. Strong anti‑Trump rhetoric as proof of partisan orientation
O’Donnell’s intense, insult‑laden monologues about Donald Trump have been widely documented and cited as emblematic of his partisan posture, with media reports quoting him calling Trump “madman” and accusing him of fabricating conversations with foreign leaders, and with HuffPost highlighting excoriating segments on specific incidents such as the Renee Good case [6] [7]. Opponents describe such rhetoric as “Trump‑Derangement” and an ethics problem; supporters say the forceful tone is a legitimate form of opinion journalism aimed at holding power to account [8] [7].
4. Independent ratings and the “hyper‑partisan” label
Media‑assessment firms have classified The Last Word’s editorial stance as left‑leaning; for example, Ad Fontes Media places O’Donnell’s program in a hyper‑partisan left category with mixed reliability, a designation critics use to argue the show traffics more in advocacy than in rigorous reporting [2]. Backers of O’Donnell respond that opinion shows are not intended to be neutral news reports and that such ratings capture style more than factuality, pointing to instances where O’Donnell has corrected or retracted errors [3].
5. Opinion‑page and conservative outlets’ sustained critiques
Right‑leaning commentators and niche ethics blogs have produced long critiques portraying O’Donnell as emblematic of MSNBC’s partisan tilt, some escalating to personal attacks and accusations of ethical corruption tied to his rhetorical choices [8] [9]. These critiques often carry an explicit agenda—pushing back against MSNBC’s ideological positioning—and should be read with that context in mind [8] [9].
6. Defenses: acknowledged mistakes, style as function, and audience expectations
Defenders argue O’Donnell’s role is opinion host rather than straight reporter, that his monologues are intentionally partisan, and that he has a record of retracting and owning errors which bolsters rather than undermines credibility for his viewers [3]. Admirers and some media analysts note his measured preparation and willingness to frame sustained arguments as evidence his commentary is substantive rather than mere partisan hectoring [3].
7. Bottom line: criticism reflects substantive incidents and partisan media ecology
There is documented evidence of moments that fuel accusations of partisanship—offensive phrasing, contentious interviews, and fierce anti‑Trump monologues—and independent ratings that categorize the program as strongly left‑leaning [4] [5] [6] [2] [7]. At the same time, defenders point to corrections and argue his format is intentionally opinionated; the enduring debate about O’Donnell therefore mirrors broader conflicts over the norms for opinion hosts in American cable news [3] [1].