Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: A Tribute to Olbermann: Why He Is Different From the Pundits at Fox News
Source:
huffingtonpost.com
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch ... -to-olbermann-wh_b_812770.html
Published: Jan 24, 2011
Author: Mitchell Bard
Post Date: 2011-01-24 12:08:44 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 9445
Comments: 24
Black and white is easy; nuance is hard. Which is why it's much easier to just lump media outlets and personalities into simple boxes: left v. right, or partisan v. objective, for example. So if you want to play that game, it's easy to dismiss Keith Olbermann, who broadcast his final episode of Countdown on MSNBC Friday. It's simple to dash off a hack piece (like this one in the Daily Beast, which revealed its simple-minded bona fides by invoking the right's favorite jab at Olbermann: he used to work in -- gasp! -- sports) that lumps Olbermann in with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, as if they all do the same thing just because they are all loud and aggressive. I know nuance is less popular, but I feel compelled to try and give Olbermann his due. An analysis of how MSNBC (which uses a traditional journalistic approach to report facts, but then, ditching objectivity, critically assesses how the facts compare with the progressive take on issues) differs from Fox News (essentially a right-wing propaganda operation pretending to practice journalism, with no allegiance to facts) is a book-length endeavor and beyond the scope of a blog piece. But Olbermann's approach reflects the difference between the two networks. Anyone charging that Olbermann's show was equivalent to Beck's clearly hasn't watched either of them. Olbermann wasn't objective, but he was honest about it, not disingenuously claiming to be "fair and balanced." But his shows were well-researched and relied on facts to make his progressive points. To be sure, Olbermann used inflammatory language, and he wasn't always as respectful as some thought he should be. But when he railed about something, he relied on quotes, polls, statistics and history (unlike the concocted charges offered by Beck as facts) to make his points. One (of many) examples was his 2008 response to statements made by President George W. Bush about terrorism and Iraq (with its much-discussed concluding line that Bush should "shut the hell up"). Does Olbermann use harsh language? Yes. Was he blunt and combative? Yes. But in doing so, did he use real evidence (facts) to refute the Bush statements that were getting heavy play in the news at the time? Yes. Consistently (including producing a photo of Bush playing golf months after the date he claimed to have given up the game as a symbolic sacrifice to support the troops). To me, that was what made Olbermann such an essentially important commentator, especially during the Bush administration. Much focus is directed at how Olbermann made his points (his combative tone, his aggressive language, etc.), but it was the fact-based content that really mattered and separated him from his right-wing counterparts. The reason the founders accorded the press the protections of the First Amendment was under the belief that the press was, as Jeffery Smith described it, "A lash for government and a prod for the people." Under this point of view, government was rendered more stable by a free press, since it exposed problems (and allowed for reform), preserving the liberties of the people. What Olbermann did on his show, day in and day out, was to carry out that function, shining a light on elected officials (of both parties). That's the difference between Olbermann and his Fox News counterparts. When Beck claims that radicals in the Obama administration want to kill 10 percent of the American population and overthrow the U.S. government, or Sean Hannity uses bogus footage to exaggerate attendance at a Tea Party event, or Fox News hosts give credibility to those claiming that the health care reform law included "death panels" or that the president wasn't born in the United States, they are not shining a light on anything. Instead, they are using the cloak of "the press" to lie, exaggerate and use innuendo as a way of promoting an agenda. And one of the strengths of Olbermann's show was that he didn't only take on government officials, but he devoted part of nearly every program to fact-checking the lies being spewed by major right-wing media figures like Palin, Beck, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Again, Olbermann was consistently looking to shine a light on the facts. With Olbermann's departure, commentators will be going for the easy story, lumping him in with other pundits who shared a combative tone, without going the next step to describe the very different content of their shows. These writers will simplistically decry "hyperpartisanship" (as the Daily Beast piece did), as if Olbermann and Beck (and the others) were interchangeable. I'm here to say they are not. Instead, I will pay tribute to Olbermann for the important role he played over the last eight years. Really, I want to use this space to say "thank you" to Olbermann. Thank you for your humor and insight, which was consistently smart and observant. Thank you for giving voice to the anger so many of us felt during the Bush presidency, when few on television would do so. People accuse you of being "over the top," but when bad things are happening in the government or media, and too many are ignoring them, I don't want political commentators to be subtle. Thank you for talking about the lies and fake journalism at Fox News when so many of us knew it was going on, but few on television would talk about it. Thank you for always backing up your charges with facts, at a time when so many television news personalities, especially at Fox News, don't care about facts. Thank you for having the guts to share your experiences navigating the health care system with your dying father, despite the personal pain doing so must have caused, all so you could educate viewers about the real experiences of those interacting with the system. And thank you for regularly standing up for what was right, regardless of the consequences. You may not carry the objective legacy of Edward R. Murrow (whose "Good night and good luck" you borrowed for your sign-off line) into the 21st century, but you certainly embody his commitment to journalists playing the role of shining a light on the workings of government to ensure the American people have the information they need to be informed citizens. You consistently labored to urge politicians to act for the betterment of the country, adhering to longstanding American values of justice, equality and fairness. Thank you. The cartoon version of Keith Olbermann as a Beck-like screaming partisan will get a lot of play in the coming days. Sure, from time to time, Olbermann might have gone too far, but that's going to happen when you push the barriers of your field. I urge anyone who buys the caricature of Olbermann to go back and watch some of his Special Comments (a bunch of them are collected here) and see past the bluster to the facts and logic at the heart of his words. The difference between Olbermann and his counterparts at Fox News will quickly become apparent. The news media and our democracy will be much poorer without Olbermann's daily reports. I hope he surfaces back on the air sooner rather than later.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
The pundits at Fox News are employable. Olbershit is a self-absorbed asshole who has pissed everyone off evrywhere he's been.
Maddow says the break from MSNBC was mutually acceptable when he decided to call it a day there. No doubt because Comcast's purchase of that venue has been approved. He is a savvy newsman with a huge following. He'll be around long after you have been banned from the last forum that will tire of your egotistical nonsense as usually happens with you, Gnu. How many forums have given a boot to your butt now? I know it's more than eLPee and the Nest.
He's an asshole and a nutjob. Review his history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann If he works again at all, it will be for some fringe radical bunch of assholes like he is, and, they too, will probably end up firing his goofy ass.
Read the piece I posted. You were so quick to snarl with a post I know you didn't. I know his history, and have deeply enjoyed his show for years. He is a class act. And he'll be working for himself in a venue that will be on the Internet with a huge following. ;-D
Olbermann was a fucking liar who regularly brought on far left nutjobs to tell further lies with Olbershit's blessing. You article was horseshit.
He checked his facts, and was devastatingly effective because he was always insightful and on point. As far as your editorializing of this piece; 'horse shit' is the way you go for re-writing what you post to get your viewpoint where it will be in everyone's face instead of putting it in a post like everyone else. You just don't respect those who own the pieces you post, or those who use a forum. That's an obvious fact. You are a legend in your own mind, and you have no good sense of proper ethical conduct in any forum you are in. Thus I consider the source when I see you whining about this piece. If you want to be taken seriously, grow up. As usual, you are being hypocritical here.
Bull http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG78oNxj1Nsh0AEV5XNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&p=%2B%22olbermann%27s+lies%22&fr2=sp-qrw-orig-top&norw=1
Channeling Mad Dog and doing spam are you? I am amused you can't and won't admit you are an attention whore and disrespectful of others in forum with the way you re-write the property of others.
Olbermann the Model (of a liar) There are lots of ways to lie and Keith Olbermann is an expert in just about all of them - the prevarication, the fib, the whopper, the white lie, misleading through omission, manufacturing quotations, deceit, dishonesty, the "bait and switch", evasion, euphemism, exaggeration, changing the subject, leading astray, silence, false empathy, pretense, pomposity, pretense. If it's a form of lying Keith has done it and his expertise in the finer points is on full display each night on Countdown. It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel to take the time to point out ALL of Keith's lies. The simplest way to understand Olbermann is to realize that he does not tell lies on Countdown. ALL he does on Countdown is tell lies. Every sentence is a carefully woven piece of propaganda that is infested with lies. The entire presentation of information by Keith is one big lie tied to together by lots of little ones with the fig leaf that he is just presenting a "snarky" take on the events of the day. By the time one would be able to pick apart the totality of the lies broadcast on MSNBC by Olbermann another show would be airing. There is no good way to keep up. But that does not mean one should never take the time to explore Olbermann's words and dissect the lies embedded in his show. The most instructive lessons can be gleaned from exploring Keith's "layered lies", a special form of Olbfuscation that operates in multiple dimensions and on multiple levels all while relying on the willful ignorance of his viewers who do not know or care to know where the truth ends and the lies begin. You could build a RICO case around just one sentence in an Olbermann script. Last night on Countdown, Olbermann led off his show claiming the President has resorted to citing anonymous Iraqi bloggers in a speech at a hotel near Capitol Hill. He went on to claim that the President had "descended" into a defense of the entire war by quoting two dentists. Fortunately, for those seeking the truth, the White House publishes all of Bush's speeches on the White House web site and the one cited by Olbermann is no different. If Keith had bothered to read the speech he would have known that the speech was well over 5,000 words, lasting three-quarters of an hour and contained precisely two sentences from the bloggers delivered in just 70 words. I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers -- they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here -- (laughter) -- "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve. 99% of the speech had nothing to do with bloggers except on Countdown where bloggers made up 100% of what Keith aired. What about that "anonymous" part? The two bloggers, Mohammed Fadhil and Omar Fadhil, are hardly anonymous. They are easily the two most famous Iraqi bloggers in the world. They have been feted here in the states by American bloggers, foremost among them the well-known American blogger Jeff Jarvis. They have given numerous media interviews and even visited with President Bush at the White House. There names and email addresses are on the home page of their blogs. Their blog, Iraq the Model, was one of the earliest and most well known blogs from Iraq. About the only thing Olbermann got right was that the speech was given at the Holiday Inn near Capitol Hill. But Keith is not done - not by a long shot. He continues: The Internet mavens at Google recently reported that the average blog is read by an average of exactly one person. Tonight, somewhere in Baghdad, two bloggers are boasting, We found our reader. Amusing. And entirely irrelevant. While it may true that of the 100,000,000 blogs cited by Google the AVERAGE is one reader a day per blog, Iraq the Model is one of the most widely read blogs in the world. Got that? Not out of Iraqi blogs but of out of ALL blogs in the entire world. According to Sitemeter, Iraq the Model gets about 5,500 readers a day. There are over eleven hundred blogs that link to Iraq the Model. In the TTLB Ecosystem rankings they are currently ranked #51 worldwide. Technorati lists them among the Top 1000 most influential blogs in the world. So much for applying the Google survey data to the Iraq the Model blog. Is Olbermann done? Nope. Keith goes on to argue that the President quoting these two bloggers is an indication that he is getting out of touch with reality or in denial or maybe it's something clinical, something that might be like Nixon talking to the paintings. For Olbermann, the President quoting these two "anonymous" bloggers with "one reader" is a form of insanity. After mocking the President through several segments, Olbermann gets around to discussing the President's speech with Rajiv Chandrasekaran from the Washington Post and, for the first time all night, reveals something kinda important. He has known all along who the two blogger are but withheld that information for almost half the show while playing up the "President is so desperate he's taken to quoting random, anonymous bloggers to make his case" angle. But to fully appreciate the artful blend of ignorance, arrogance and deception that defines Keith Olbermann look at the way he tees up his question about the bloggers to Chandrasekaran: I must ask you about the blog that the president cited today. It's now been identified. It's IraqTheModel.com. There's a pair of dentists who've generally been sympathetic to the American mission. They met with the president in the Oval Office three years ago... It would be to fail to appreciation the subtlety of Olbermann's mastery of deception, to note simply that Keith is here admitting that he has known the identity of the bloggers all along. Nor that he even knew that the President met with the pair in the White House. It's better (or worse) than that. Notice how Keith says "it's now been identified". Like all of Keith Olbermann's best lies this one works at multiple levels. First, he conveys the sense that either the President was intentionally withholding this information or that perhaps the President did not know who he was quoting, that maybe he just picked a couple of random bloggers off the web who happened to say something that supported his case for the war. Either way he gets across his point (Bush=idiot) to his blissfully gullible readers. More to the point, by claiming that the blog has "now been identified" Keith R. Olbermann can suggest that he (or his pals in the MSM) ferreted out this information after diligently working the phones or otherwise acting like real reporters. Of course this is Keith Olbermann whose idea of journalism, famously, is making up catch phrases for when a basketball player makes a shot from beyond the three point line. He can't even get the name right. While the URL "iraqthemodel.com" does redirect to the site, the blog is called simply "Iraq the Model" not "Iraq the Model dot com", the URL is iraqthemodel.blogspot.com. When he says "now been identified" does he mean that he is reporting breaking news? Recall that at the top of the show he claimed to know nothing at all about the two "anonymous" bloggers. Now he knows that three years ago they visited with the President in the Oval Office. Did something just comes across the wire? Hardly. Keith knew full well who these bloggers were before he ever went on the air. But the President briefly quoting the two most well-known Iraqi bloggers (the truth) did not have the entertainment value of asserting that the President of the United States was so desperate for good news from Iraq that he had taken to poking around in the blogosphere (the lie). In the world of comedy this is known as a "callback" and God knows Keith is far more concerned with finding a good callback that he can work into the show than actually reporting the news so when the news does not work comedically Keith makes it work through the most reliable of journalistic techniques - making shit up. For the uninitiated, callbacks are a staple of stand-up comedy. Anyone who stays up past 11 PM has seen Jay Leno or David Letterman use a punch line from a previous joke and apply it to a later joke in the set. Often a comic will use a callback with a joke that bombed and keep circling back to it, creating a sense of intimacy with the audience, as if they are the comedian's friend. Done right it is a very powerful comedic tool. By the time Keith gets around to letting the audience in on the gag (that's he's been bullshitting them for the entire show) they no longer care - they got their fill of "Bush as idiot" for the day - and after all what's a few hundred lies between friends. But I digress. Keith continues his questioning of Chandrasekaran: We're down to the president quoting a couple of dentists to prove that the surge is working? Dang! Keith still can't seem to get it quite right now can he? While the President was quoting Mohammed Fadhil and Omar Fadhil and they are bloggers from Iraq the Model, President Bush was not quoting from their blog. It is ironic that Keith cited a study by those "Internet mavens" at Google (is that what they are? mavens?). Keith cited Google just the other day in his Special Comment on Tom Delay. Maybe Keith should spend less time Googling for porn and more time using it to prepare for his show. Had he bothered to type in the quote he ran from President Bush at the top of the hour he might have found this: Notes From Baghdad Open liquor stores and other signs of the surge's success. OpinionJournal.com BY MOHAMMED FADHIL AND OMAR FADHIL Wednesday, March 7, 2007 Whoops! Turns out the President was not quoting from some random, anonymous blog. He was actually quoting from a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed written by the two most famous Iraqi journalists in the world. Two men who have been reporting from the trenches, literally, since the days when Saddam was still on the loose in Iraq. Like most Olbermann efforts, he labors to arrive at the big moment and when the time comes he disappoints. After thirty minutes of hype the best he can do is unload on Chandrasekaran with... on the same blog, they said...the administration, quote, "needs to revise the way it's been handling and planning for this critical war." Imagine that? Bush is actually quoting someone who does not agree with him on every point - and even invited them to the White House. No surprise that Olbermann is flabbergasted to hear of something like that. Scary! Anxious to please and determined to be "great thanksed" by Olby, Chandrasekaran laps up Keith's nonsense with an eager smile. Well, you know, there are dozens of Iraqi bloggers. And I dare say IraqTheModel is one of very, very few to be as rosy as it is, just notwithstanding some of their own skepticism about things and some of their own critical comments. I mean, those guys aren't idiots. But, you know, if we do a more representative sample of what Iraqis are writing in their blogs, and I read a lot of them, you won't find as optimistic of a portrait as IraqTheModel portrays. And there you have it. Olbermann has spent half his show implying the President is insane because he spent a few seconds in a 40 minute speech quoting from an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal. And Bush's "crime" in this case? Among the "dozens" of relatively unknown Iraqi bloggers his guest says he reads, the two bloggers Bush quoted are not sufficiently pessimistic to suit the tastes of a reporter from the Washington Post. Another scoop for the Edward R. Murrow of our time.
Again you prove my point. I always appreciate you proving my point and delivering an example of how with you it's never the facts; it's only about your ego. ;-D
You are ignoring the facts. You have been provided proof that Olbershit is a liar and just makes stuff, yet you still want to keep your head up his ass. Well, enjoy. You an that loser were obviously made for each other. -- Olbermann's Latest Lie In his zeal to smear Fox News, the clown prince of the Fox-haters has walked into another propellor. The fact that Keith Olbermann hates Fox is nothing new. His many attacks, often misleading or downright false, have been documented here and elsewhere. But we live for those nights when Olby makes a flat-out fool of himself. It takes a considerable quantity of arrogant hubris to think you can slander one of your competitors with a lie, and expect that no one will notice. But we did. Olbermann claims Hume referred to yesterday's protests as a "repellent spectacle". Unfortunately, the quote Mr Olbermann is referencing was not about yesterday's protests. It couldn't have been: it was spoken on April 2nd! When Olby adds, "Hey pal, I've seen your newscasts", he compounds an already embarrassing lie. (Not to mention the fact that this wasn't said on one of Mr Hume's newscasts at all, but part of a panel discussion on another program.) Perhaps if Keith Olbermann had seen Mr Hume's newscasts, he would have known that Hume said nothing of the sort about yesterday's protests. In fact, we just happen to have video of what Brit Hume said about those protests. Did he say they were "repellent"? No. Did he call them a "repellent spectacle"? No. Did he say anything even remotely similar to Keith Olbermann's smear? Err...no. The facts: the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann took a Brit Hume comment from over a week earlier, regarding the flying of Mexican flags, and cut-and-pasted it to claim falsely that Hume was talking about Monday's protests. As the video shows, Hume pointedly noted the absence of Mexican flags and the presence of American flags in Monday's demonstrations--just the opposite of the original context of Olby's fake quote. But none of that matters to Keith Olbermann, who can lift a quote from ten days earlier and apply it to anything he likes, as long as it makes Fox look bad. So what's the over/under on when Olbermann will retract this latest smear and apologize? Rhetorical question only, since there are no numbers lower than absolute zero. http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20060411220251/index.html
Hey buddy, address your own baggage if you want credibility. All you do in this post is spam again, but this time you frame with your comments as a vehicle to try to hide this fact. Again, I appreciate you proving my point that with you, it's all about you and your conviction no ethical forum behavior applies to you. ;-D
Spam? I'm pointing out where you are FOS when you say Obermann "checks his facts," and you can't deal with it.
I can handle the facts, and I understand you, Gnu. And you don't like that very much. Again, you refuse to be accountible for your own bad behavior. Why, that's not very conservative of you, is it? ;-D
Gnu of Ooze: "Yes, I will speak of my immaturities and vanity in forum, but first; BRING ME SARAH, THE WHINING WITCH OF THE NORTH'S BROOM!!"
There are no replies to Comment # 24. End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhy He Is Different From the Pundits at Fox News
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#1)
(Edited)
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
He is a savvy newsman with a huge following.
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#4)
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
(Edited)
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#7)
He checked his facts
#11. To: no gnu taxes (#10)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#15. To: no gnu taxes (#13)
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#15)
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#16)
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
All you do in this post is spam again
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#18)
#23. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
Replies to Comment # 24.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]