.jpg)
This is a Doberman-It Rhymes With Olbermann
I have a confession to make. I find Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's "Countdown" highly amusing. I thought he was great on Sports Center with Dan Patrick. He is bright, articulate and very witty. I get a kick whenever he throws his papers in the air as he goes to a commercial. The finish to his "Worst Person in the World" piece is funny. The problem is, Keith is biased to the point of sheer hatred toward George Bush and all things Republican/conservative. Not only is his "Worst Person in the World" uniformly a conservative or Republican, but he can't put two sentences together without crucifying his enemies.
Once you get past Keith's partisan rhetoric, the next thing you notice about him is that he has a regular stable of left-wing commentators, many of whom are on his show almost every night. Folks like Rachel Maddow of Air America and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post must sleep at the MSNBC studio. Other regulars are Lawrence O'Donnell, Dana Milbank (Washington Post) Howard Kurtz and Jonathan Alter, smug liberals all. Tonight he even had on Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos for some "impartial" analysis.
Sometimes, Keith gets so emotionally involved with his editorial pieces, usually calling Bush every name in the book that doesn't have 4 letters, that one fears he is about to put a gun to his head and declare,"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" It wouldn't surprise me if someday Keith walks into the MSNBC studio and takes hostages.
If you look into Olbermann's bio, it seems he has a habit of burning bridges, such as he did with the Sports Center Show. The man comes across as angry, with a host of issues. He also seems to relish collecting enemies. The most prominent is undoubtedly, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly (no shrinking violet himself), who Keith now attacks on an almost nightly basis. O'Reilly must hold the record for most "Worst Person in the World" awards. As for his part, O'Reilly treats Olbermann as a non-person, never mentioning his name-perhaps out of deference to Keith's non-existent ratings.
To be fair, Fox News has its Hannity's America show, which gives a one-sided conservative viewpoint (with which I agree). Olbermann, however, mixes his humor with genuine anger toward those with whom he disagrees.
I am not trying to make the point that Olbermann should balance his show with more conservative viewpoints. MSNBC is what it is. It is completely liberal, and I am not arguing for a fairness doctrine. We conservatives have our Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys, and we will defend their right to say what they want on the airwaves. Olbermann can say what he wants about whomever he wants. That is his right. It is also my right to critique him. In my view, this is a pretty poor example of news analysis.
In addition, I have one final observation that both liberals and conservatives should consider. Keith Olbermann was the moderator on a recent MSNBC-held Democratic debate. Could we all not agree that such moderators at least have a modicum of impartiality? Keith Olbermann hardly fits that bill.
But I have to give credit to Olbermann. When I grow up, I want to be his "Worst Person in the Wooorld".
8 comments:
I agree with your point on debates and impartiality on the part of the moderators.
As I wrote in my own blog, I don't really watch Olbermann's show, but I find the clips on YouTube to be amusing. I honestly don't think he's as angry as you think he is though, as that's just all part of his persona.
Again though, I'd say that if all these conservatives want to stop being the "worst person in the world" they should stop saying things that are completely devoid of any factual basis. Sure, there are probably some liberals that Olbermann could single out on that basis as well, but it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of conservatives (especially O'Reilly) frequently say things that simply AREN'T TRUE. Is it Olbermann's fault that they keep giving him so much material?
I've listened to Sean Hannity's radio show, and I'll admit that he can make some good points. Still, I was probably shaking my head in disbelief three times for every one time I thought he was being rational, as he'd frequently completely distort something that a democract/liberal said in order to make his point. Master of the Strawman Argument, that's Sean Hannity for you. His callers (who are obviously prompted to do so) start off with, "Sean, you're a great American." Geez. Again, there's a smudge on the line between satire and reality.
As for HANNITY and colmes, I've seen plenty of bits on YouTube to know that to call it a "debate" show is to call Pro Wrestling Shakespearean Tragedy. Whenever Hannity has somebody on who he disagrees with, he asks his "When did you stop beating your wife" types of questions, which derails any sort of useful debate on the actual issue. He's good at doing that, but I feel like I'm a dumber person for it whenever I see it.
I would recommend that you invest a little time and watch a few entire segments of Keith's show. Along with his wit, there is some genuine anger there.
Same suggestion with Hannity and Colmes. If you find yourself screaming at Hannity, I do the same with Colmes, though I think he is reasonable and intellectually honest-just naive.
(You'll have to refresh my memory on what the strawman argument is.)
The strawman is when you basically put words in your oponent's mouth and argue a point that they're not even trying to make. Instead of arguing their actual point, you create a "straw man" that's easy to knock down. I noticed Hannity doing this every time I'd see clips of the show.
What really clinched it for me is one year when I had a very outspoken conservative student who was a fan of the conservative pundits. When we went over my lesson on logical fallacies, and I got to the definition of strawman, he said, with absolutely no prompting or suggestion from me, "That's what Sean Hannity does all the time." Mind you, this was from a Hannity fan. All I did was give the definition, and I hadn't yet gotten to any examples. (I alternate between liberal and conservative fallacies when I do - that way I can offend everybody.)
Again though, I still can't find instances of Olbermann blatantly lying, whereas there seems to be many examples of O'Reilly doing just that. (Sometimes he's not lying - he's just making stuff up.)
I might take your advice, but those shows seem to be more theater than news/debate. I'll keep reading the newspaper and online news services and get my "spin" from the comedy shows.
Well, I have seen Hannity lead interviewees down the primrose path on occasion, quite effectively.
I don't know if OReilly lies or makes it up, but he does shoot from the hip on issues he does not know as much as he thinks he does.
(like the law).
I think all Americans have to expand their sources for news-mainly because we can't trust the mainstream news media these days. They are too busy injecting their liberal bias into what should be straight reporting. Examples are virtually all the TV news networks and most of the major newspapers. (NY Times, LA Times and on and on)
But you know, there is one big difference between someone like Hannity and Keith Olbermann. Hannity spends a lot of his time debating folks on the left, whereas Olbermann only has people on his show that agree with him. I have never heard Olbermann debate anyone who disagrees with him. Most of the conservative talk show hosts encourage folks who disagree to call in. That includes Limbaugh, Medved, Larry Elder and many others.
Forgive me, but "shooting from the hip" sounds a bit like "spin" to me. That can maybe account for some of the things he says, but even when he gets called on his misinformation, he'll continue to repeat it. (Like the "stoned slackers" thing, for instance.)
And sure, Olbermann doesn't debate, but I think that you give Hannity too much credit when you say that he debates. That's not really debate that he's doing; it's theater. And if Limbaugh encourages callers who disagree with him, then he has completely changed the format of his show from the last time I heard him. It's pretty clear to me that he (and Hannity) have their calls screened, and when they DO allow somebody who disagrees, they make sure that it's some inarticulate buffoon - either that, or they'll use the strawman or complex question. (When I listened over the summer, Hannity kept saying that Obama wanted to "bomb our allies" and "make peace" with our enemies - which was a distortion of what he said, but Hannity kept repeating it. His grasp on the truth is about as tentative as O'Reilly.)
So yeah, people might call who disagree with them, but it's disingenuous to imply that they're somehow encouraging intelligent discourse. Sure, maybe Olbermann doesn't do it either, but at least he doesn't pretend to do it, so at least he's not hypocritical.
I hope you'll forgive me, but accusations of "liberal bias" in the media is getting parroted too much. The media is corporate, and they'll do whatever they need to do to 1) get ratings and 2) keep their corporate owners happy. I'd be more impressed with the media if some tough questions were asked about Iraq BEFORE we went in, rather than a couple of years after. I'd also be impressed if I at least heard some of them discuss the role of the oil companies in all this. Now, you're probably going to dismiss me as one of those people who want to say it's all about oil, but it would be naive to dismiss the fact that there ARE people making money off of this war, just as there always are in every war, but nobody even seems to want to talk about that (except Michael Moore, but he's more interested in self promotion and distorting the truth to make his comments useful.)
So, I agree that people should look for a variety of news sources - just not for the reasons that you think they should. I guess the end result is what matters though.
Lance,
You may not like the debating tactics of Limbaugh or Hannity, but they are debating with folks who disagree, and in my humble opinion, quite effectively. All talk shows have screeners, but I don't think that all of the "disagreers" I have heard are nitwits. You may not believe this, but talk radio has a pretty well-informed listenership.
Rightfully or wrongfully, Obama has raised some eyebrows with his attack Pakistan comment. (Actually, I have a somewhat open mind on that.)
Do you really believe that the oil companies had a hand in the decision to invade Iraq? Where did you get that- Air America? (where you won't hear disagreements). The fact is that we have not plundered Iraq's oil. It belongs to Iraq just as much now as before we invaded.
And if you don't see a left-wing bias in the mainstream media, then you are like the tobacco companies who state that nicotine isn't addictive. I will list them:
abc
cbs
nbc
msnbc
cnn
NY Times,
LA Times
USA Today
Atlanta Journal Const.
Boston Globe
Chicago Tribune
SF Chronicle
I could go on for an hour on the newspapers, but you get the point.
Remember, it's not always what the msm chooses to print, but what they choose not to print.
Aside from talk radio and Fox News, we conservatives have very little. And yet, look at all the attacks on Fox and talk radio ("Hate Radio")- Fairness doctrine, etc.
I think it would do you some good to spend some time actually listening to these shows and not rely on selected sound bites from YouTube, Jon Stewart, Colbert and Olbermann.
I have listened to them though - on a semi-regular basis during the summer even. Don't get me wrong, it's not like everything that comes out of their mouths is total drivel, it's just not really very honest and open discussion either.
I don't listen to Air America, so I didn't get the oil thing from them. I just know enough about history and wars to know that there's always some kind of profit motive. Otherwise, why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia? How many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi? Hmmm...it doesn't add up, does it? It's like if we attacked Thailand after getting bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Again though, I don't think that it's ALL about the profit motive, but nobody seems to want to talk about that. (Maybe Air America, but I wouldn't know.)
I probably didn't choose my words very carefully regarding the liberal media. My point was that whether it's liberal or conservative isn't the problem. The point is that it's corporate! Even O'Reilly comments on that issue. (See, there's that broken clock theory again!)
You may be right that I'm hardly getting a complete picture by only seeing clips of these shows, but I have given most of them a chance. For me, I prefer laughing at the absurdity of our world, so that's why I like the comedy shows. (And their audience members are well informed too, despite O'Reilly's bogus claims to the contrary. A study proved it! Oh, and a study proved what you said about talk radio listeners - fair and balanced, that's what I'm all about.)
As for the fairness doctrine, I think that we're eye-to-eye on that one. Hannity was talking about it one of the times I listened to him. That was the time when I couldn't find anything to disagree with him about. It's an absurd idea at best.
I can't even find Air America. The only times I can pick it up is driving to Vegas-you can find it around Barstow. Why? because they are bankrupt. Nobody listens. My reaction is that this is real hate radio. Everything is negative-kind of a mirror image of Michael Savage.
So we fight wars over profit motive for our corporations?
If you bring up oil, I would say that it is not because we want to keep Exxon alive but because without oil, our enemies can strangle us to death.
As for the corporate news media, don't they generally reflect the views of their owners? Look at the NYT and Arthur Sulzberger or CNN under Ted Turner. The president of Fox is Roger Ailes, a conservative Republican activist. There is a bit of a contradiction as to talk radio because conservative talk radio is very successful as to listenership. Liberal talk radio consistently fails with the listeners.
Post a Comment