Random Rant
This has nothing to do with anything, but I came across this site the other day, and it struck me as one of the more pathetic things I've ever seen. It's an entire blog devoted solely to fisking Keith Olbermann's every word.
You know what it reminds me of? Have you ever played a game of pick-up basketball where some guy on the other team insists on calling every little ticky-tack foul despite the fact that just about everyone on his own team is traveling, double-dribbling, and committing flagrant fouls every time down the court? Well, Olbermann Watch is like that guy.
I mean, seriously. Have these guys ever bothered to fact-check a typical episode of, say, the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes? Now, I'm all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found--on the right or left--but there's just no way that any reasonable person can believe that Olbermann is a worse offender in this regard than his more famous conservative counterparts. The folks at Olbermann Watch must know that they're attempting to hold Olbermann to a standard of conduct that no conservative television or radio personality even comes close to attaining. And in light of that manifestly obvious fact, how can these guys not feel pathetic devoting so much time to fisking the one left-of-center voice on television? Talk about selective outrage. Sheesh.
Anyway, I apologize for the detour to nowhere. I promise to return to more important matters soon.
UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long. I've managed to provoke an entirely predictable response from the folks at Olbermann Watch. Here's a snippet:
Yeah, nice try. Like I said, I don't have any problem with people criticizing Olbermann when he veers into the realm of truthiness (and he does sometimes). The pathetic part is myopically focusing on Olbermann when he is not even close to the worst offender. Bob Somerby, for instance, does a good job criticizing media figures from across the political spectrum when they play fast and loose with the facts. And he has focused his fire on Olbermann more than once. I applaud that type of media criticism.
But it's pretty hard to be taken seriously as a concerned consumer of the news when you select Keith Olbermann as your public enemy #1.
You know what it reminds me of? Have you ever played a game of pick-up basketball where some guy on the other team insists on calling every little ticky-tack foul despite the fact that just about everyone on his own team is traveling, double-dribbling, and committing flagrant fouls every time down the court? Well, Olbermann Watch is like that guy.
I mean, seriously. Have these guys ever bothered to fact-check a typical episode of, say, the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes? Now, I'm all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found--on the right or left--but there's just no way that any reasonable person can believe that Olbermann is a worse offender in this regard than his more famous conservative counterparts. The folks at Olbermann Watch must know that they're attempting to hold Olbermann to a standard of conduct that no conservative television or radio personality even comes close to attaining. And in light of that manifestly obvious fact, how can these guys not feel pathetic devoting so much time to fisking the one left-of-center voice on television? Talk about selective outrage. Sheesh.
Anyway, I apologize for the detour to nowhere. I promise to return to more important matters soon.
UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long. I've managed to provoke an entirely predictable response from the folks at Olbermann Watch. Here's a snippet:
Got that? He's "all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found -- on the right or left"...EXCEPT when the spotlight is turned on poor Keith.
Ironically this guy quotes Bertrand Russell and describes himself as "someone who tries hard to approach issues with an open mind and to rely on empirical evidence and logical analysis (not rigid ideology) to guide my thinking." Yeah! He sounds REAL open-minded...so long as you don't criticize someone whose ideogology conforms to his.
Yeah, nice try. Like I said, I don't have any problem with people criticizing Olbermann when he veers into the realm of truthiness (and he does sometimes). The pathetic part is myopically focusing on Olbermann when he is not even close to the worst offender. Bob Somerby, for instance, does a good job criticizing media figures from across the political spectrum when they play fast and loose with the facts. And he has focused his fire on Olbermann more than once. I applaud that type of media criticism.
But it's pretty hard to be taken seriously as a concerned consumer of the news when you select Keith Olbermann as your public enemy #1.
21 Comments:
Well, if it is any consolation, I found this:
http://www.dukesounds.com/
It’s a Website and blog devoted to what is recognized as one of the LAMEST TV and moronic show of all times - THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!
We need to better understand the kool-aiders and the core group of supporters of this administration. To repugs/neocons - contradictions in their ideology, irrational assumptions, and outright lying are all matters of pride.
The wealthy elite KNOW that this administration's policies, while making them wealthy beyond avarice, are detrimental to the well being of most American's - they believe they need to lie, cheat, and steal NOW while the "gittin' is good." They have a sense of entitlement feel that if the rest of us are stupid enough to vote for them, we get what we deserve. This is the smallest group of chimpy's supporters, no more than 2%
Then there's the group that is not part of the wealthy-elite, but they fantasize that it’s "just around the corner." For now, they believe that their loyalty to chimpy and gang will eventually result in them being "admitted to the club." It's a lie, but they will do everything they can to behave like and support the wealthy elite. Again, this means they see themselves as having a license to lie, cheat, and steal and they also wear the hypocrisy on their sleeves like a badge of pride. This is a larger group - perhaps representing 10-25% of chimpy's base.
Then largest group of chimpy's supporters are the kool-aiders. They put their self-interest aside. There is absolutely no reason for this group to think that they will ever get any meaningful economic reward from this administration. It is this group that most of the propaganda is targeted to. This group is ignorant and likes it that way. They are essentially innumerate. They want to be part of the "winning team" even though they don't have the assets or education to be part of the club.
This group can be freely lied to and manipulated. Because they don't understand or refuse to accept the economic underpinnings of this administration's policies and larger criminality, they are swayed by the wedge issues. This is the group that does the "yellow ribbon" thing, thinks gay marriage is the biggest problem facing the country. They are racist, but know that its not “polite” to be open about it. They also may understand that their racism is more effective when it is subtle and not open.
The success of the neocon/republican agenda is that they have convinced this group that their economic problems are the result of everyone BELOW them on the socio-economic ladder. When chimpy and gang talk about "compassionate conservatism", democratic ideals, immigration, or "values" too - they are speaking to this group, which is the largest - perhaps 20-25 percent of supporters.
If we had honest, free, verifiable elections - there would be no problem. There is no way that the neocon's/repugs can stay in power, but our elections have been compromised and the set of voters I have described can be used to rig elections.
The MSM uses polling firms to manipulate us - adjusting results to consistently over sample chimpy's base (though in 2004, we did see the polls gradually corrected as election-time drew nearer. They steal elections by disenfranchising voters and manipulating the results - that is the whole point of electronic voting.
After the elections, we are distracted by major attacks such as the Social Security Bamboozle Tour of early 2005. Instead of talking about the elections itself, the MSM distracts us with lies about "Value Voters" and chimpy's "energized base."
We cannot change this without honest elections because the repug/neocon "base" is a solid 30-40% - a large enough group that election fraud will work.
In other words - most of the blogs and virtually ALL of the superblogs are enabling this administration by refusing to encourage a dialog about our elections. It's just another version the ol' "its close enough" argument and it plays directly into the hands of karl rove and those that create the propaganda and distractions.
Wow Anonymous, some really interesting points in your comment. Uh, do you happen to have any facts to back up your statements? You know, like
"but our elections have been compromised and the set of voters I have described can be used to rig elections"
-- or --
"They steal elections by disenfranchising voters and manipulating the results - that is the whole point of electronic voting"
-- or --
"The wealthy elite KNOW that this administration's policies, while making them wealthy beyond avarice, are detrimental to the well being of most American's"
Honestly, any facts to back up your statements would be great!
Anon:
Well, we can debate forever who is more "sinned against than sinner" on the issue of whether media figures on the left or those on the right have more, let us say, trouble (ahem) with the truth.
Mistakes were made, as a President once admitted (double ahem).
But the fundamental difference between a Hannity/O'Reilly and Olbermann is that neither Hannity or O'Reilly claim to be an impartial or objective host.
Hannity comes from the right. O'Reilly says he engages in news analysis (nearly always from the right as well).
Both, of course, are indeed biased and say inaccurate or erroneous things.
However, Olbermann repeatedly - and heatedly - claims to have no agenda on his show and that, instead, he just wants to challenge those in power.
My complaint - a small one given the stakes involved (after all, it's Keith Olbermann for 12th Imam''s sake!) is that his show covers issues in an extremely tendentious manner. It's an advocacy show and not a news or impartial one. Had Olbermann acknowledged this, many of the complaints on the web would dissipate.
SMG
But the fundamental difference between a Hannity/O'Reilly and Olbermann is that neither Hannity or O'Reilly claim to be an impartial or objective host.
Really? Doesn't O'Reilly claim to broadcast from the heart of the "no spin zone."
And when has Olbermann ever claimed to be doing straight news? He's clearly expressing his opinions, and I don't think he denies that. How is his show any different, in style, than any of the multitude of conservative cable news shows?
Who's more pathetic? The "fisker" or the "fisker" fisking the fisker.
(My apologies to George Lucas and his work from STAR WARS)
Who's more pathetic? The "fisker" or the "fisker" fisking the fisker.
Ouch. That stung.
Seriously, though, I supppose if I changed my blog name to "anti-Olbermann watch" and did nothing from here on out but comment on their misguided quest, then maybe you'd have a point. But I wouldn't count on that happening. One post on the topic was more than enough.
The encyclopedic aspect of the Olbermann Watch certainly must be more entertaining than stamp collecting. It has crossed the line it seems from a mere hobby to become a fetish, something a voodoo practitioner would understand.
Anon, so sorry you have incurred the wrath of this hateful group. They aren't a reasonable lot. Actually they are quite frightening and are only serving to prove to the rest of us that are walking down the center that we don't want to go anywhere near them. Hang in there.
These shills are well paid to distort anyone that disagrees with the Republican agenda...confuse the masses...Karl Rove knows how easily this can be done.
Anon:
Re Olbermann's stated objectivity or non-partisanship.
He's done a number of interviews over the past two years or so professing to have no agenda and to having no personal political ideology. He's repeated this as well on the Dan Patrick radio show that he's on for a hour daily.
There's an interview in Salon for example (Link) where he says there was no effort on the program's part to appeal to a liberal audience.
I personally don't mind, although I disagree with his political views, that MSNBC (or any network) has a news-type program with an outwardly liberal point of view. It's perfectly fine with me and, in this era of niche-marketing, there must be an audience for it.
But all I would like from Mr. Olbermann is an admission that, no, he's not a news anchor delivering unvarnished news and yes, this show has a pro-Democratic/anti-Republican agenda.
Too much time on this topic, I know.
Thanks.
SMG
He's done a number of interviews over the past two years or so professing to have no agenda and to having no personal political ideology. He's repeated this as well on the Dan Patrick radio show that he's on for a hour daily.
It's probably true that he's not a liberal, at least as the term was commonly defined before the Bush era. There's nothing inherently liberal about thinking that Bush's presidency has been a class-A disaster. In the Salon interview Olbermann said this:
I also, I don't think in these issues that I'm a liberal; I think that I'm an American.
This is a point made by a lot of people. There's nothing inherently liberal about being opposed to the Iraq war or opposed to unprecedent executive branch power grabs or opposed to the politization of 9/11 and the war on terror. Many of Bush's harshest critics are people who always considered themselves to be middle of the road or independent (or even conservative).
Moreover, I doubt Olbermann made a conscious decision one day to cater to lefties. He's always been outspoken. But as he got progressively more upset with the Bush administration, his ratings started to pick up. I'm sure he noticed this uptick in ratings and it encouraged him to keep sharing his feelings, to not hold back.
But it's not like he's suddenly advocating for Democratic policies or something, he's just a very vocal critic of the Bush administration, which obviously lefties appreciate.
And it's not like he doesn't acknowledge who his new viewers are. It's obvious that they are mostly young, mostly left-leaning types. But that doesn't mean he's suddenly transformed himself into a partisan liberal.
But all I would like from Mr. Olbermann is an admission that, no, he's not a news anchor delivering unvarnished news and yes, this show has a pro-Democratic/anti-Republican agenda.
He calls the segment at the end of his show "commentary". He's not pretending to delivered the "unvarnished news." He's delivering his opinion. And you can have very negative opinions of the Bush administration and its policies without sharing Nancy Pelosi's agenda. The world isn't divided into two "teams". Just because he strongly dislikes Bush (and therefore attracts lefty viewers) doesn't mean he shares their "agenda."
Finally, even if everything you allege about Olbermann is true, and he does have a strictly pro-Democrat agenda, is he really being any more dishonest that the folks on the right? Does O'Reilly really admit openly that he's a partisan hack? Does Hannity? How about John Gibson or Brit Hume?
So again, why all the fuss about Olbermann?
"But the fundamental difference between a Hannity/O'Reilly and Olbermann is that neither Hannity or O'Reilly claim to be an impartial or objective host." -- Anon.
Holy crap. Are you kidding? O'Reilly, from "fair and balanced" FOX "news"? And Hannity, whose foil on the left is about as representative of liberal perspective as Ann Coulter's? Please, don't bogart the weed, dude! You are high!!
And Hannity, whose foil on the left is about as representative of liberal perspective as Ann Coulter's? Please, don't bogart the weed, dude! You are high!!
Sorry, dude, you've got some bad stuff in you already.
When has Hannity ever claimed to be an impartial commentator? The show is called "Hannity & Colmes".
At least on Fox, we've got liberal guests and commentators on. Olbermann rarely has a conservative guest on unless they are there to criticize other conservatives.
Like, dude, get a life.
Anon:
There's nothing inherently liberal about thinking that Bush's presidency has been a class-A disaster
No, that's a fair point. One can critique the Administration from all points on the political spectrum.
But the point is, again, that Olbermann's criticism of the Administration almost always (as far as I can tell; I haven't watched every show) from a liberal perspective.
One could, for example, criticize the Adminstration's policies on illegal immigration and border control. This would be, broadly speaking, a critique from a right-of-center view. Has Olbermann criticized the Administration's border policies? No.
Whether Olbermann himself is a liberal Democrat is ancillary to whether his show has a liberal tilt.
It does.
Thanks.
TMA, have you checked out BRADBLOG (www.bradblog.com) - I guess I can't blame you for being dumb about this or snarky, because not even the self-proclaimed "advertise liberally" circle of links allows a dialog on this.
The information is yout there - brad has reports and updates several times a day - virtually ALWAYS providing extensive documentation of these facts.
Of course, given the tone of your remarks, I am pretty sure that you don't want any "facts" - you are just part of the "close enough" crowd.
Oh - and chimpy himself has proclaimed that the "superrich" are his "base," but I can see that TMA has never let a few facts get in his/her way.
As to who benefits from this administration - are you a lazy fool, TMA? There are any number of resources that address socio-economic issues, wealth distribution, income patterns, and education.
I AM NOT YOUR MONKEY! If you choose to be ignorant, demanding facts, that is your own damn fault.
But it does tell us which of chimpy's supporter you are - certainly not the "super rich".
I used figures like these in a class I was teaching today on Emerson's essay, "The Poet." It is interesting how common it is to conflate the word "news" with the word "commentary." The 24-hour "news" channels are big facilitators of this confusion -- since there is very little of what we could honestly call "news" on any of them. Each channel delivers "news" through "personalities." Is Wolf Blitzer doing the news? I guess so, at least by comparison, but a lot of what he does is to ask for comments from "experts" or other journalists who report the news somewhere else. Olbermann is obviously not a "news" show -- and perhaps the greatest irony is that this former Sportscenter host, who deliberately delivers the news in a non-newsy format, and features a "worst-person" award, happens to deliver, in a segment clearly marked as such, some of the best (and best written) commentary available on television. One of my blog contributors had a good post about this today: http://www.tragos.org/2006/09/olbermanns-scathing-911-commentary-and.html
At any rate, A.L.'s point is clearly right. Discerning things for ourselves (as we must do with "commentary" from anywhere), as Emerson recommends, we can clearly discern the worst offenders -- and Olbermann is not amongst them.
Best,
JLB
Well it looks like some of my Olbermann Watch readers have weighed in and mixed it up a bit here. :-)
I don't see much reason to bother with the "Is KO a Liberal"" or "Is Countdown biased to the Left?" questions. He and It is. KO's claims that this is not the case is just mimicry of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News saying they are "fair and balanced". It just a schtick and not worth worrying about. I will correct one thing though, officially MSNBC lists Countdown as "news programming" and Keith's title is "news anchor"; neither O'Reilly or Hannity carry that title at Fox News. So Keith is not the one being disingenuous here, it is really MSNBC. They could solve that problem by changing how they list the show and the title Keith carries but that is up to them. The broader issue goes to credibility for NBC News. They would be doing themselves a favor and simply listing Keith as a "show host" or "commentator" (it did not harm Murrow to have a similar title).
The part of your rant that caught my attention - and that you reacted to in my post - was the idea that it is somehow a waste of time or obsessive or misdirected to spend time criticizing Keith Olbermann when there are worse offenders. If define "worse" in terms of some formula that adjusts for viewership then you might have a point. But there ARE sites that cover/criticize the network news broadcasts, Air America Radio, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio shows. We have Media Matters, Radio Equalizer, Newbusters, Newshounds, Media Research Center and many, many more.
Instead of asking WHY? have a site dedicated to Keith Olbermann the question is WHY NOT? It's not my job to tilt at every windmill I picked one and I stick to it. There are other people who are running sites that do exactly what you want - hold O'Reilly and Hannity and others on the right to account.
I have heard this same WHY PICK ON KEITH? line from so many OlbyLoons over the years that I generally don't bother but sometimes - as is the case here - that complaint is wrapped in the guise of "concern" that our time and effort at Olbermann Watch would be better spent frying bigger fish. And somehow those "fish" are always the same people - O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh. In other words, you are attempting to pass off your criticism as concern for intgerity in the media when all you are really doing is expressing outrage that Keith Olbermann be held to account for his own words.
Olbermann Watch is just one little corner of the blogosphere. It's not my job to tilt at every windmill. I have picked Keith as my subject. If you don't like it or feel that there are "worse" offenders then by all means feel free to start your own O'Reilly Watch or Hannity Watch. But do me a favor, don't try to act is if you actually believe that KO is guilty of "truthiness" as a cover for advancing your liberal agenda.
If you support what KO stands for and says then just say. If you don't or agree that he puts out a lot of false information then say that too. But if you want to be credible you are going to need to cite some examples of how KO is propagandizing before you say "but there are others that are worse".
Start with the matter at hand: Keith. Where do YOU think he has lied or twisted the truth?
I can save you the trouble: you can't or won't say.
oops, that was Robert Cox at Olbermann Watch - if that was not obvious.
Robert,
As to your "it's not my job to tilt at every windmill", fair enough.
But I think of the rest of your comment puts words in my mouth or ignores what I actually said. For instance, at the end you write:
Start with the matter at hand: Keith. Where do YOU think he has lied or twisted the truth?
I can save you the trouble: you can't or won't say.
I actually provided three links in my post to Bob Somerby posts pointing out specific examples of distortion by Olbermann. I think Olbermann regularly bends the truth. I just don't think he does so any more than any other cable news host (indeed probably less so than most). That's part of the reason I hate cable news shows.
And I don't think, as you suggest, that only right wing pontificators should be scrutinized. My point was that you seem to have fixated on KO solely because he's popular with the left, not because he's more dishonest than his competition.
I also think you offer up a rather crude right/left dichotomy. How would you classify Chris Matthews, for instance? He's much more sloppy with the facts than Olbermann, but one day he'll be abusive to Democrats and the next day he'll be ranting about the neocons. Olbermann has, without question, been throwing red meat to his growing liberal audience. But he's not some Democratic aparatchik. He just knows that some of his views (particularly his dislike of the Bush administration) play well in certain circles, so he has chosen to showcase them. His "agenda" to the extent he has one, is to increase his ratings.
Any analysis made in a blog post or comment is highly likely to be "crude" so chalk that up the limitations of the media and not my reasoning abilities.
As for the rest, you are only proving my point when I wrote "Where do YOU think he has lied or twisted the truth? I can save you the trouble: you can't or won't say."
You replied "I actually provided three links in my post to Bob Somerby posts pointing out specific examples of distortion by Olbermann"
Yes, you did but your statement here is disingenuous. First, the links to Somerby were not in the post I linked from Olbermann Watch; you added them later in an "update". Second, I asked if YOU would say where you think Keith has lied or twisted the truth not what Somerby would say. Your reply only APPEARS to be responsive; you praise Somerby, point out that Somerby has criticized Keith in the past and then link to three posts on Daily Howler.
You are not only being disingenuous but hypocritical. As I noted in my original post on OlbyWatch, you described yourself as someone who "tries hard to approach issues with an open mind and to rely on empirical evidence and logical analysis (not rigid ideology) to guide my thinking." I already know what Somerby thinks. I asked what YOU think. Since you are such a great "liberal" thinker why don't you demonstrate your open mind for us and do some original thinking.
"I think Olbermann regularly bends the truth. I just don't think he does so any more than any other cable news host"
Since you hate cable news, how much cable news do you watch? Olbermann Watch reports on Keith Olbermann every single day and I would argue that of all the hosts on cable news Keith IS the worst offender. Now, I know that O'Reilly plays fast and loose with quotes and video. And I know that Hannity tries to put words into people's mouths. And we never say that Keith is the ONLY offender. But Olbermann does all that every day in every political segment and then never has a single guest on who might challenge or dispute anything he says. That is what makes Olbermann worse; Countdown does not even make a pretense of presenting more than Keith's take on an issue.
"you seem to have fixated on KO solely because he's popular with the left, not because he's more dishonest than his competition."
Actually, I began writing about Keith three years ago and my major concern was that he was discrediting a new organization that I like very much - NBC News. I find him to be a complete disgrace. My original blog was a general media criticism site but when it started to become so KO centric I decided to carve out that piece into a separate site. That said, I like having pro-KO lefties come to the site and defend Keith. I think it makes the comments section interesting. I have also invited KO apologists to GUEST BLOG on the site but not a single one has ever accepted my offer. I do have fun arguing with the OlbyLoons who visit the site.
"Chris Matthews... [is] much more sloppy with the facts than Olbermann.
Many of my readers have asked for a "Matthews Watch" site. If I had the time or energy maybe. Yet, I don't think KO is "sloppy" with facts, I think he intentionally misleads his audience by lying, misquoting people, quoting people out of context, making up facts, or failing to present context. He lies in many different ways - some are lies of omission and some of commission. And he lies for a very simple reason - he, like many on the left, believe that Republican success at the polls has been a function of their ability to lie and spin. The lying is all justified because he has no choice since the "other guys" are doing it.
Christ Matthews has an entirely different problem - he gets an idea in his head and can't shake it not matter what facts are presented to him. Quite often this makes him look like a fool.
I agree that Keith's primary agenda is to boost his ratings. I am not aware of any reason you would know whether Keith has associated himself with the Democratic Party but he is not hanging out at CPAC (he's been known to "hang out" with Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc.). You have a point that Keith's playing to the blue blogs is calculated and he is often talking to them during his show but that does not speak to Keith's personal beliefs. As someone who has been watching Keith for a long time, it is pretty obvious to me that he is a liberal. But I'd be willing to consider that either he is using his show for the express purpose of promoting his agenda or that his personal (liberal) agenda also happens to coincide with an "unserved" market niche (the far-left, blue blog crows) and so he is happily playing up to this target group (as opposed to unhappily when he was being asked to play to the conservative anti-Clinton crowd during LewinskyGate). Maybe we can at least agree that KO is not a centrist.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home