Keith Olbermann’s Outrage
Jul 5th, 2007 | 39 responses
His toughest, angriest comment yet on the Bush/Libby decision. Increasingly, people either love Olbermann or hate him. Must viewing no matter what you think of him.
The one problem he now faces as a broadcaster: there is only so much outrage and anger you can display before it doesn’t have an impact on audiences and some begin to perceive it as schtick.
On the other hand, this IS an administration that seemingly prides itself on decisions that are made that fly in the face of consensus, bipartisanship and popular opinion and caters mostly to its own party’s hard-right base.
That is bound to provoke outrage not just among Democrats but also independent “swing” voters, who have broken with this administration in huge numbers, if you look at the polls. So dismissing Olbermann’s outrage as mere showcraft would not be accurate. He is not the only person in the nation to react this way to Bush’s decision (although Rush and Sean and Bill Kristol are very happy).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “Keith Olbermann’s Outrage”
After 2 mins. it became schtick. Uncle Walter never went over that mark, and was far more devastating- even if Olbermann is correct.
Cosmo-Olbermann is part entertainer and part comedian, part news broadcaster. Uncle Walt never had to contend with the corporate media’s insatiable thirst for ratings either. Straight news doesn’t survive any more on cable. That’s why Bill’o does so wel. He’s over the top like Keith.
Keith Olbermann melts down again
I subscribe to most major news feeds. I do it because some media like to report some things, others will report other things. It’s just the nature of the beast of trying to stay somewhat informed. Because of this, I subscribe to MSNBC. They&#…
One can think that Bush was completely wrong to commute Libby’s sentence (and I will not fall into the trap of calling it a pardon, until and unless it DOES become a pardon), and still think Olbermann is a complete horse’s ass.
More Outrage! [tm] from a loud-mouthed blabber-beast following the far-left goosestep-reflex PC talking-point checklist? *yawn*
Must viewing
I’ve never bothered to watch or listen to him be a playpen lefty. Back when I still glanced at or listened to teevee once in a rare while, his loud-mouth style was worthless on ESPN.
Left-wing activist talk radio is more loud and less intelligent than activist right-wing talk radio, and both are less loud and more intelligent than … sports talk radio or the equivalent blabbering on the teevee. We even see — as I’ve seen on TV screens at some restaurants, which also broadcast sports on the walls — the people making stupid animated gestures the way political hacks do and nitwits on feel-good, social-or-leftie teevee variety or guest shows. Olbermann’s style was poor way back on ESPN. (Now, Linda Cohn, I’ll still watch to this day…)
It is schtick, and where the hell were you ignorant people who never saw and realized this years ago, when Olbermann was guilty of this? You are just beginning to perceive the obvious? (OK, I find sports a joke these days as well as corrupt and worse — and many of you may have avoided them more than I ever did, which has been greatly. Still, you’re to be ashamed of yourselves if you find Olbermann a current celebrity and know nothing about why he was well-known in the first place, many years ago.)
I don’t know why everyone jumps and attacks Keith when he only speaks the truth. O’Reilly can make racist/sexist/bigoted/false statements and is ignored. Keith uses the platform which he has earned to make a point and all of a sudden the right is up in arms calling these infrequent special comments of his ‘schtick’ and referring to him to any other name without addressing the substance of the points which he makes.
It is refreshing in the media to see someone calling this administration out on its mistakes, even its criminality. Even more so since Keith does not make these comments lightly and has great skill not only making points clear, but supporting them with both fact and his true feeling about where this country is headed under this administration, and those Republicans who have chosen to put on their brown uniforms and goosestep behind said administration. Not to mention his ability to insert (especially) historical allusions in his comments.
I am also one who is unsure of Olbermann’s actual politics. Is he truly a ‘leftist Democrat’ as many on the right try to claim? Or is he an independent/moderate who is fed up with this administration and where they have taken our country? Frankly, I don’t care about his politics, and neither should anyone else here who cares about this country, its laws and its traditions. As long as he raises his voice to defend and support our nation he deserves the respect of his fellow Americans, not partisan ridicule and smearing.
Please find ways of expressing your opinions about issues that avoid profanity or attacks on persons.
Ashen, I don”t know what you are talking about. I’ve seen FAR more criticisms directed towards O’Reilly than towards Olbermann.
“out of touch”
I can see lack of sympathy toward the partisan Dems and ideological libs who would hate Bush for doing anything, period. But most non-liberals are not happy or excited about what Bush did. It has boosted the Dems’ and reduced the GOP’s chances in 2008.
Jason,
I was a bit hasty in that comment. I think is that there are more partisan attacks against Keith. What I mean by that, is the right attacks the messenger rather than the substance of his message. O’Reilly, the outrage against the substance of his message. Keith has a message that is more unifying than O’Reilly who chooses to be a banner carrier for the right. Sure, his message has been pushed to the left, but that is the fault of a large segment of the right who have decided to take a partisan stance on every issue and define any point that is not in agreement with theirs as a member of the great leftist conspiracy (even if its from someone who is traditionally to the right of politics). Does that make more sense?
I think everyone (including me) is prone to see more “partisanship” when it is coming at people they agree with than when it is coming from people they agree with.
I think neither O’Reilly or Olbermann have any kind of claim to possess “the truth”. Both are attack dogs, partially as an expression of their own views and partially as a market-based pander to a market segment that values them as opponents of each other. I think if I did a survey about which was more legitimate and which was more “partisan”, I would find a near 100% correlation between the respondent’s partisan identity and their answer to the question.
The real challenge for those who try to be moderates is to try to see both sides, even when our personal impulses are to disagree with one more than the other. That’s why a lot of our posts are filled with sentences of the “on the other hand” type.
[chuckle]
Please find ways of expressing your opinions about issues that avoid profanity or attacks on persons.
“begin to perceive it as schtick” implies ignorance.
[chuckle]
Honestly, any commentary at this point on the Bush regime that has fewer than 10 curse words per minute and maybe a few guns fired into the air isn’t nearly outraged enough.
Come to think of it, I would probably watch a news show anchored by Yosemite Sam. If you’re going to go over the top, go all the way.
Until now I’d always thought that a ‘ignorant person’ was merely a person that didn’t have a particular knowledge or fact. (i.e. I’m ignorant about anything having to do with New Zealand.) and would never have looked at it as a *personal attack*. Now had he said, “You’re stupid”… THAT could very easily been construed as a *personal attack* but we all know better than to say “You’re stupid”.
With Keith my guess is part schtick, part thats-just-what-he-believes. But I love him dearly. He is the voice of the “other side” to combat the Mainstream Conservative Media bias I have had to live through for years. His best service is the fact checking he does on the crud the right spews. I have never seen people so footloose and fancy free with the facts. It seems to be part of the right’s playbook to just say whatever sounds like it will support your argument at the time regardless of whether its true or 180 degrees the opposite. Thats really unique to the right, I would suggest.
Here’s some highlights of Keith’s remarks… You may not like what he’s saying but what “IS”… “IS”.
Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign
‘I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.’
Jason: The real challenge for those who try to be moderates is to try to see both sides, even when our personal impulses are to disagree with one more than the other. That’s why a lot of our posts are filled with sentences of the “on the other hand†type.
That’s why I like TMV. You and I may not always agree Jason, but I respect your reasoned arguments.
I think this is partly schtick but mostly what rings true. Just one example: How many times did we hear them elude that Iraq and 911 were linked? Well, they never were.
I’m sick of seeing this administration flip-flop when they are called to task on their statements. Even Mr Snow flip-flopped on the USA firings.
The conservatives coined the term to attack Kerry, but this Administration is bringing it to new heights.
I have just been notified by email that my posting (comment 20) of select portions of the Keith Olbermann comment that we are discussing goes against TMV posting policy.
I apologize to any who may have been offended, confused, or lead off track by my inappropriate post.
Jason -
The real challenge for those who try to be moderates is to try to see both sides
Really? I thought being moderate was “not extreme, excessive, or intense…in opinion or opposed to extreme views”.
I think your definition is more that of ‘non-partisan’, which is something different.
One can be, after all, a moderate partisan. It used to be a very common designation, until differing of opinions came to mean that the other person must be a moron, or evil.
Maybe the quote was too long SteveK? Did it say which rule was violated?
???
Are you at the far left (who wrongly refer to the true “mainstream” media as “right-wing corporate emdia”), like FAIR (whose name is a lie) or their show “CounterSpin” [sic; additional leftist spin]?
ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and other major newspapers, CNN, Time, Newsweek, etc., have always been correctly criticized for their obvious liberal bias. Only those on the true far left, or those already far to the left but also more comfortable with frequently-more-leftist foreign media would call our obviously left-wing media “conservative” or “right wing.”
Or is this just a question of nomenclature? Right-wing media have been alternative, not mainstream, media. The only network that is properly accused of being conservative is Fox (and treated with total hostility by the rest of the media as well as by liberals in the lay population because it is not liberal like the rest), and even Fox isn’t that far right. The well-known alternative conservative media are so well-known they form what may be caonsidered an alternative, right-side “mainstream” dwarf counterpart to the true, and truly liberal, mainstream media that everyone knows, but those outlets with the commonly accepted name “mainstream” are indisputably liberal (despite failed attempt after failed attempt to dishonestly deny the obvious).
The “right-wing corporate media” lie and myth has never been accepted by those familar with the media.
Keith is a little over the top, but he’s the only one on cable news that will call a spade a spade- at least for those of us who are more than tired of this administrations’ antics. I don’t see that he’s that extreme- he’s not advocating Communism, dissolving Congress or putting Christians in an arena to fight hungry lions, lol. And I haven’t seen that what he says on his show is false or misleading like Oreilly’s show.
I guess you forgot about the run up to the war in Iraq.
It’s entirely expected that large media conglomerates are going to be conservative. It’s the name of the game when you have to cater to the needs of advertisers.
Judith Miller was not an aberration.
Rambie, #4…
kritter,
You touched on all the reasons I watch him. Funny world… Pay $50/mo to watch an hour and a half of TV a day!
“Countdown” at 5pm (we best coasters get it during the dinner hour instead of in prime time) and day old “The Daily Show” at 8pm.
The only thing else worth a damn IMO is 1,000 Places to See Before You Die on the Travel Channel.
And, speak of the Devil… it’s ten to five I gotta go turn on the TV.
Steve K
You turn off the Comedy Channel without watching the Colbert Report? I’ve gotta watch the fake O’Reilly once or twice a week.
I have been a Chris Matthews fan, but lately his questions have been more like volleyball than hardball, and he seems to be slacking. He had terrific coverage last year on the CIA Leak case, but then tonight sounded like he knew little or nothing about it?? Cheney’s office complained to NBC- when he got too close to the truth, but could they make him back off?
DLS: Do you have any non-anecdotal empirical data to support the oft-repeated claim that the media is liberally biased? Certainly for every rightie asserting left-bias, Media Matters is asserting the contrary. To quote Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits in “Industrial Disease”
“Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong”
The few studies I’ve seen that actually look at numerical data e.g. the number of conservative versus liberal guests on talk shows, show a marked republican tilt.
That the media are left-leaning is just one of those talking points that has been repeated so often that some people have gullibly come to actually believe it.
There was a report released recently that swept the right-wing blogosphere like wild fire. It showed that by a big margin journalists have donated to Democrats more than Republicans. Nobody mentioned that only 10-12 % of journalists donated to political parties or candidates at all.
Nobody mentioned that there was no corrolation shown or even looked for between their donations and what the donors actually wrote as news copy.
It was a good talking point. They ran with it and are still running with it.
News outlets are biased primarily in favor of raising viewer ratings, by any means. Everything is geared to satisfying the hunger for profit at HQ.
There was a time when news was less focused on Wall St. and politics and more focused on human interest stories.
Now, business activities and poliitcs drive a huge share of news coverage,. Since the Republican party is associated with promoting business interests, it’s only logical that it has gained new stature in the HQ of those looking out for the bottom line of media corporations.
The ground has shifted.
Calling something a “talking point” doesn’t refute the point except for people that believe that “left” or “right” are always wrong, 100% of the time, without exception. If such beliefs are in play in a particular conversation, well, there’s not much conversation to be had.
Anyway, sometimes “talking points” are based on underlying truth. Repeated studies of the political affiliations of reporters and editors, the money they donate, AND the content analysis of their stories have shown a strong skew towards leftist social views and, to a lesser extent, national security views. The mixture is much less clear on economic issues. Coverage of political candidates is very strongly skewed against Republicans on most media outlets and endorsements of candidates by major newspapers skew very strongly towards Democrats in most recent elections.
FoxNews and talk radio are, of course, high profile exceptions to most of these trends, but they are exceptions that provide contrast and highlight against which much of the rest of the media can be seen to be so clearer skewed. And FoxNews and talk radio have tiny audiences compared to the broadcast and newspaper outlets that are dominated by the left.
Jason,
You are, of course, expressing your personal opinion, and I don’t agree with it. Every study I’ve seen raises more questions than answers.
Fundamental questions in methodology are not even settled.
For example, negative statements about Bush are usually classfied as party bias. This is very questionable, because by that logic, when Clinton was being pilloried by all the media, we would have to conclude that the media were right-wing.at hte time.
Bias is like pornography, impossible to define, but everyone thinks they know it when they see it.
If bias is to be examined, it can be examined only within very narrow limits and narrow definitions How would you classify a conservative criticizing the current GOP?
I’m not aware of any studies with sufficiently strict criteria that support your view. At best, they raise questions to ponder.
A talking point is something repeatedly and mindlessly brought up for effect, whether it is true or not. It can be either, BTW.
Well, by that definition, most of the accusations of “repeating talking points” are themselves “repeating talking points” since the accusation appears to arise automatically (and pretty mindlessly) nearly every time certain opinions are perceived to have been posted.
Maybe it would be better for everyone if people’s opinions were addressed based on their content and not based on an accusation that they are just “talking points”. After all, how would you feel if you were accused of “repeating talking points” nearly every time you commented? I expect that you would resent it and I’m asking that you understand that others react in exactly the same way to that accusation.
Jason,
Sorry, but I disagree about talking points.
When a talking point is repeated too many times, you can be pretty sure those resorting to it are doing so on automatic pilot, without caring a hoot about whether there’s any truth to it or not. So, even those talking points that reffect the truth become valueless in an argument.
Anyway, they just annoy me.
I guess you forgot about the run up to the war in Iraq.
Not at all. Nearly everyone agreed Hussein was a threat totally aside from what outlandish claims were made. He had already demonstrated himself to be an active threat to the region and our interests (oil more than Israel, but obviously to both), had attacked his neighbors, had possessed and used WMDs already, etc..
It’s no surprise Bush’s ratings went as high as they did at the start of the war.
No need. Most learned Americans versus a tiny cottage Denial Industry makes “two” and its implied equality vanish.
The journalists’ own voting records and record of being positive toward liberals versus negative toward conservatives is all I need refer to. For those who want just one example, a good two-part writeup, this (which the Cottage Denial Industry has hated), look here and here:
The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, “the pattern of results is compelling.” The percentage of journalists who were classified as “liberals” were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as “conservative,” survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9. Voting patterns and findings on specific issues (for instance, regarding abortion, gun control or taxes) have consistently mirrored these general attitudes.
Surveys since have shown no overall change in this dynamic. A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as “Democrat or liberal” or “lean to Democrat or liberal,” vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican. A 2001 survey of 301 “media professionals” by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as “liberal,” 59 percent as “moderate” and only 6 percent as “conservative.”
o In the 2000 presidential election, both candidates received mostly negative press, and largely to the same degree: George W. Bush received only 37 percent positive coverage; Al Gore, only 40 percent. By contrast, Bill Clinton received far more positive coverage than his Republican opponents in 1996 and 1992 (in ’96, 50 percent positive to Bob Dole’s 33 percent; in ’92, 52 percent to George H.W. Bush’s 29 percent). In the past six presidential elections, coverage favored the Democrat in three, and both the Democrat and the Republican received negative coverage in three (’80, ’88 and ’00). In none did the coverage favor the Republican.
o “Only 43 percent of all on-air evaluations of George W. Bush were favorable” in Bush’s first 100 days in office (compared with a similarly negative 40 percent for Clinton in his first 100). In his first 50 days, Bush received 48 percent positive coverage, but only 36 percent was positive in his second 50. Only 29 percent of on-air evaluations from nonpartisan sources (anchors, reporters, experts, citizens) were positive to Bush.
o Bush did get a terrific bounce from the rallying effect of Sept. 11. From that day through Nov. 19, 2001, Bush “received the most positive coverage ever measured for a president over an extended period of time” — 64 percent positive to 36 percent negative. But Bush’s high of 77 percent positive that September was down to 59 percent within two months.
o Coverage of the Bush administration’s consideration of a military strike against Iraq, as seen in the network newscasts and in front-page New York Times stories from this July 1 through Aug. 25, was 72 percent negative.
To those long used to a media controlled by, and “news” defined by, their own largely liberal and establishmentarian views, this can seem unfair and wrong — but this is a case of “been up so long, it seems like down to me,” as Lichter puts it. I think to most people it seems more like democracy.
I’ve repeated nothing “too many” times. If the fact were to change someday, then I would change my statement about the fact.
In a number of Pew surveys and reports, media bias is discussed; where there is bias, it’s normally liberal bias; Fox stands out in a number of reports because it is so different than the other sources.
Just this survey alone is interesting. Fox earns the word “conservative” to describe it, unlike the other sources.
Here’s how people feel about the media currently.
Page 1
[RAMDOM] Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of X. And And what one word best describes your impression of…
Pew — good one not only on bias but journalist gripes about the changes in the industry