Keith Olbermann's Special Comment 5-23-08

[Diane L]

I love Keith Olbermann and believe he can do no wrong.

Seriously, the man is highly intelligent and suffers no fools. He's not a left-wing hack...if a liberal was doing something stupid he'd call them out on it too. I'm concerned that people here whose opinions I respect think he's too loud or obnoxious or whatever...I think the man is a genius, the nearest thing we have to an Edward R. Murrow and his thoughtful commentaries are Must-See TV, IMHO.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Far smarter, but still just an O'Reilly mirror, from what I've seen of these clips (we don't have MSNBC here in Australia, do have Fox though). His transcripts read okay, but then with the footage, he just looks and sounds stupid. WHY SO MUCH SHOUTING ON US NEWS!

 

[maycocksean]

I just want to take a moment to point out that many of the "left-leaning" folks here in FYM have managed to make a nuanced and thoughtful criticism of "one of our own." What I'd like to see is a similar kind of thoughtful criticism by our conservative friends here on the forum of THEIR own.

 

[yolland]

I'm concerned that people here whose opinions I respect think he's too loud or obnoxious or whatever...I think the man is a genius, the nearest thing we have to an Edward R. Murrow

Why is it your concern who likes or dislikes his speaking style? What I basically got out of the clip (and I'm an Obama supporter who's never watched Olbermann before) was 'here's some blowhard yelling for 10 minutes straight in the tone of an authoritarian-windbag dad who just caught his daughter in bed with her boyfriend'. Edward R. Murrow? No way. Check out this famous CBS reel from 1954 in which Murrow responds to Senator Joseph McCarthy's charges against him. No histrionics, no shouting, no jerky agitated body language, no snarling the word 'Senator' as if it were a racial epithet...just concise, stick-to-the-facts rebuttal of McCarthy's charges, delivered with calm, dignified conviction. That's not a matter of 'genius,' it's just plain old journalistic professionalism and integrity. (And this despite the fact that McCarthy was openly seeking to get Murrow himself blacklisted at the time...and afterwards Murrow even invited McCarthy onto the show to do a counter-rebuttal--which he did, incompetently). If you enjoy Olbermann's style, fine, that's your right, but obviously quite a few of us found this segment a complete turnoff, regardless of our opinions on the topic of his 'commentary.' I think it's a shame the Obama campaign thought this screed was a good thing to send a transcript of to all the reporters on their contact list.

 

[Dreadsox]

I just want to take a moment to point out that many of the "left-leaning" folks here in FYM have managed to make a nuanced and thoughtful criticism of "one of our own." What I'd like to see is a similar kind of thoughtful criticism by our conservative friends here on the forum of THEIR own.

This is my sixth year here. Most of the conservatives who would criticize their own, have left, do to the inability of some to be able to accept any conservative into this community.

Or the inability to have a dialogue without labeling people homophobic, mysogonistic, racist, ect.

Flame on.

 

[2861U2]

What I'd like to see is a similar kind of thoughtful criticism by our conservative friends here on the forum of THEIR own.

First of all, why?

Second, is that even necessary? I mean, we conservatives are stuck with McCain as the nominee. I could spend all day writing about what I don't like about him.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I love Keith Olbermann and believe he can do no wrong.

Seriously, the man is highly intelligent and suffers no fools. He's not a left-wing hack...if a liberal was doing something stupid he'd call them out on it too. I'm concerned that people here whose opinions I respect think he's too loud or obnoxious or whatever...I think the man is a genius, the nearest thing we have to an Edward R. Murrow and his thoughtful commentaries are Must-See TV, IMHO.

funny, republicans say the same thing about bill o'reilly.

this entire thing is silly... i'm the last person to defend hill hill on anything. i despise the woman. but logical people can see her comments, see the explanation and go "oh, okay... yea, i guess that makes sense. still pretty stupid to say, but eh, whatever... no need to have a hissy fit over it." and move on.

she didn't say that obama could get assasinated, and to jump to that conclusion is a rather large stretch.

i will now bath myself for actually defending this woman.

 

[Irvine511]

This is my sixth year here. Most of the conservatives who would criticize their own, have left, do to the inability of some to be able to accept any conservative into this community.

Or the inability to have a dialogue without labeling people homophobic, mysogonistic, racist, ect.

Flame on.

this is my 4th year here. with the exception of a few, conservative posters are simply out-argued here. some of it might have to do with numbers, much of it has to do with the fact that many (not all) conservative posters in here aren't as skilled at making arguments as their left wing counter parts. there are some in here who sometimes fall on the left, and often on the right, and are still in here because of the quality of their arguments.

in a forum with discussion and debate, where ideas are regularly challenged, it does strike me as unfortunate that some conservatives over the years can't stand by their arguments. and given how reactionary this country has been from 2001-2006, perhaps the fact that FYM *isn't* a right-wing echo chamber like the news and the blogosphere was for the first 2/3rds of the Bush presidency simply caused some to feel uncomfortable. some liberal posters are out of line, but most are not. it has little to do with the accepting of conservative arguments and much to do with the non-acceptance of poorly constructed arguments.

i think everyone who's been around here long enough can think of two conservative posters in particular who were strong, valued members of this community -- they seem to have left the website in general, and not so much due to FYM. and the reason they were so valued was because their arguments were thought provoking. i am sorry they have moved on, but i won't apologize for a moment when a thoughtless conservative argument is shot down in here, and if someone wants to take their bat and ball and run home, that's their right, but it's not my problem or fault.

 

[Jeannieco]

Why is it your concern who likes or dislikes his speaking style? What I basically got out of the clip (and I'm an Obama supporter who's never watched Olbermann before) was 'here's some blowhard yelling for 10 minutes straight in the tone of an authoritarian-windbag dad who just caught his daughter in bed with her boyfriend'. Edward R. Murrow? No way. Check out this famous CBS reel from 1954 in which Murrow responds to Senator Joseph McCarthy's charges against him. No histrionics, no shouting, no jerky agitated body language, no snarling the word 'Senator' as if it were a racial epithet...just concise, stick-to-the-facts rebuttal of McCarthy's charges, delivered with calm, dignified conviction. That's not a matter of 'genius,' it's just plain old journalistic professionalism and integrity. (And this despite the fact that McCarthy was openly seeking to get Murrow himself blacklisted at the time...and afterwards Murrow even invited McCarthy onto the show to do a counter-rebuttal--which he did, incompetently). If you enjoy Olbermann's style, fine, that's your right, but obviously quite a few of us found this segment a complete turnoff, regardless of our opinions on the topic of his 'commentary.' I think it's a shame the Obama campaign thought this screed was a good thing to send a transcript of to all the reporters on their contact list.

Yes, his commentary on Friday was especially passionate, but to judge Keith based on that one "special comment" is not fair either. He has done several commentaries prior with a much more level headed demeanor. I think this was the straw that broke it. His frustration with Hillary is something that has been building up not only in him but in a large number of us I suspect.
Did you see his special commentary on Hillary months ago?
He totally gave her the benefit of the doubt, defending her and then proceeded to say why he couldn't that particular time.
Friday was the definitely the last straw. This wasn't
so much an uncontrolled tantrum, it was a loooooooog time coming...
Watch this one:
YouTube - Keith Olbermann Special Comment On Hillary and Ferraro

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i miss the keith who'd just make witty comments about putting the biscuit in the basket

 

[corianderstem]

Believe me, I've had these feelings about Olbermann for some time now. It's not just this rant I'm judging him on.

 

[BonosSaint]

The danger in a partisan commentator and a highly partisan listener/viewer is that objectivity can get skewed. It becomes just another version of truthiness, just one this time you happen to agree with. Looking for the "gotcha", what suits your wish list.

This piece was ranting opinion, not news. Opinion has become news apparently, but it's not. Everyone agrees with the facts in this situation--she said what she said. Unless there are more facts brought out, everything else is just spin--his side and her side. And everybody gets to play with the spin they like best. Spin is just a game even if it has consequences.

 

[randhail]

i miss the keith who'd just make witty comments about putting the biscuit in the basket

Agreed.

Sigh for the good old days beside his tag team partner.

From way downtown, BANG.

 

[financeguy]

This is my sixth year here. Most of the conservatives who would criticize their own, have left, do to the inability of some to be able to accept any conservative into this community.

Or the inability to have a dialogue without labeling people homophobic, mysogonistic, racist, ect.

Flame on.

I would agree with this.

 

[deep]

Yes, his commentary on Friday was especially passionate, but to judge Keith based on that one "special comment" is not fair either. He has done several commentaries prior with a much more level headed demeanor. I think this was the straw that broke it. His frustration with Hillary is something that has been building up not only in him but in a large number of us I suspect.
Did you see his special commentary on Hillary months ago?
He totally gave her the benefit of the doubt, defending her and then proceeded to say why he couldn't that particular time.
Friday was the definitely the last straw. This wasn't
so much an uncontrolled tantrum, it was a loooooooog time coming...
Watch this one:
YouTube - Keith Olbermann Special Comment On Hillary and Ferraro

It is not the viewer's job

to get where he is coming from

and have a "complete" understanding of how he got to this point


if he is going to do
a dally show

he and his producers should understand that each piece should be able to stand on it's own

Murrow got this

His commentaries seemed measured and respectful

Kieth's style is exaggerated and disrespectful



Keith really should stop using the
"Good luck and Good Night"
sign off.


the first commentary
calling Bush out
on all the lies and distortions about the Iraq War
was good

and it got everybody's attention

Because it seemed like the mainstream media
had failed us
by letting the Bush admin, set and control all the talking points.

but , with that success, He has just continued to amp it up!

he has painted himself into a corner where only the extreme left like his stuff
and listening to that "echo chamber" has made him lose any credibility he had with independents and moderates

 

[Diemen]

Deep, I agree with everything you just wrote.





What is this world coming to?

 

[corianderstem]

Ditto that. His appropriating Murrow's sign-off just reeks of arrogance. Where does he get off, declaring himself the heir to Murrow's newsanchor throne?

It's actually part of the reason I dislike him so much as a TV talking head.

 

[Diemen]

It's actually part of the reason I dislike him so much as a TV talking head.

Likewise. It just comes off as "and if I say this, then it automatically gives my statements more merit." Especially after he just spent the last 10 minutes ranting and raving, something you'd never see Murrow do.

 

[Dreadsox]

this is my 4th year here. with the exception of a few, conservative posters are simply out-argued here. some of it might have to do with numbers, much of it has to do with the fact that many (not all) conservative posters in here aren't as skilled at making arguments as their left wing counter parts. there are some in here who sometimes fall on the left, and often on the right, and are still in here because of the quality of their arguments.

I would disagree. The ones who were the best at debate, when it boiled down to it, were accused of being homophobic ect. There was no polite debate on the bulk of the liberal side in this forum.

[Q]it has little to do with the accepting of conservative arguments and much to do with the non-acceptance of poorly constructed arguments.[/Q]

If you go back to 2002-2003 there were liberals and conservatives who in this very forum, stood up for each other when people got out of line in here. AS long as there was debate, dialogue, and good arguments, there were people in here standing up for good debate and dare I say, freeing ones mind. That distinctly changed with the 2004 election. It has not recovered.

And no matter how well the two posters you are referring to debated, made points, there were no people on the left in this forum jumping to defend them when the racist or homophobic accusations were thrown their way.

[Q]i think everyone who's been around here long enough can think of two conservative posters in particular who were strong, valued members of this community -- they seem to have left the website in general, and not so much due to FYM. and the reason they were so valued was because their arguments were thought provoking. i am sorry they have moved on, but i won't apologize for a moment when a thoughtless conservative argument is shot down in here, and if someone wants to take their bat and ball and run home, that's their right, but it's not my problem or fault.[/Q]

I do not believe either of them left due thoughtless arguments. I know for a fact that one of them left because of FYM. PERIOD. If they were so valued, where was the outcry when the left leaning members of this forum labeled them. Sorry, but there is a difference between conviction and racism or homophobia. I disagreed with them on some issues, but, I completely hated the way people treated them at times.

It may not be your problem, or fault......but this forum, has lost because they are gone. This forum, is not even close to a free mind any more. It is not close to balanced.

The remark about it would be nice to see the right criticize their own the way the left does in here , is just REDICULOUS. I find it laughable, in a forum where if you can name ten conservatives, it would be a miracle.

Finance Guy and Wanderer are the posters who I see standing up for things, popular or not. I am thankful they are here to at least bring some balance.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Score for contrarianism

 

[Dreadsox]

I think I may make that my political party!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Agreed.

Sigh for the good old days beside his tag team partner.

From way downtown, BANG.

golf shots... nothing but golf shots

 

[Irvine511]

I would disagree. The ones who were the best at debate, when it boiled down to it, were accused of being homophobic ect. There was no polite debate on the bulk of the liberal side in this forum.

when you have to live with racism or homophobia, it's hard to be polite about it. i'm sorry, but that's 100% true. i have never, ever seen an argument about "disagreeing" with homosexuality that wasn't homophobic at it's core, and i wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't say so out of politeness.



[q]If you go back to 2002-2003 there were liberals and conservatives who in this very forum, stood up for each other when people got out of line in here.[/q]

i've gone back and read some of the threads, and i was honestly aghast at the level of homophobia back then. i have no idea how Melon kept it together. AchtungBubba ... please. had i been around then, i see no way that i could have honestly kept things polite. it would have been the wrong thing to do.



[q]And no matter how well the two posters you are referring to debated, made points, there were no people on the left in this forum jumping to defend them when the racist or homophobic accusations were thrown their way.[/q]


do you remember the countless times liberal posters went out of their way to stop and thank NBC for all of his posts? myself included? i don't see the same level of appreciation for, say, Melon on the part of the conservative kids in here.


[q]I do not believe either of them left due thoughtless arguments. I know for a fact that one of them left because of FYM. PERIOD. If they were so valued, where was the outcry when the left leaning members of this forum labeled them. Sorry, but there is a difference between conviction and racism or homophobia. I disagreed with them on some issues, but, I completely hated the way people treated them at times.[/q]

i hate the way some were treated at times as well, but when people source the Bible as their reference point for myriad different political stances, sorry, but you open yourself up to such criticism, and to me, and many others, that's not conviction, that's cowardice.


[q]It may not be your problem, or fault......but this forum, has lost because they are gone. This forum, is not even close to a free mind any more. It is not close to balanced.[/q]

i agree that this forum is not what it was in 2004/5, and i agree that we aren't as good as we used to be, but i don't think identifying a single source of blame is correct, or productive. maybe if U2 would put out an album more than once every 4 years than we'd have more traffic on this website.



[q]The remark about it would be nice to see the right criticize their own the way the left does in here , is just REDICULOUS. I find it laughable, in a forum where if you can name ten conservatives, it would be a miracle.[/q]

go read this thread again, and look at how many "liberal" posters are criticizing Olbermann.

Finance Guy and Wanderer are the posters who I see standing up for things, popular or not. I am thankful they are here to at least bring some balance.

i agree. but, as much as i generally like FG, i have yet to see him put forth a single defensible argument in regards to homosexuality.

but, obviously, that's my pet issue.

the other issue i have in here is the woe-is-me feeling of some conservatives in here. being outnumbered is one thing, being outargued is something else, and i think we've right now got the single best moderator we've ever had, and were the conservatives to show up and post in a substansive manner -- unlike the drive-bys we occasionally get, or the angry Limbaugh quotes we get as well -- and if those conservative were attacked in the manner in which you described, i feel fully confident that Yolland would call such people out on that. i wish she had been around in 2004/5 because it would have then been a much richer forum.

 

[BVS]

I don't want to get into the specifics of what Irvine and Dreadsox are talking about, for I understand and have been guilty of what both of these posters are talking about...

I am completely capable of having heated discussions with conservatives that I respect and not let it get personal, for I have had many in the past.

My biggest concern with FYM conservatives today is what they consider legitimate "sources". The "32,000 Scientist" thread being a perfect example. The quality has dropped... and it's sad.

 

[BonosSaint]

I can think of four general environments here when the discussions were productive:

1. When each side (or at least one) was curious about the other's viewpoint,
not in a way to hammer them down or make them justify their position, but
in a open way that truly sought understanding of the other.

2. When each side got off a dogma high-horse and gave a little. "OK, that was
a good point, how about this?" The heavy-handed dogma of both sides just
kept everybody in their respective corners. When the dogma slipped, the
conversation improved. The less we label ourselves as the good guy, the less
inclined we are to label others as the bad guy and we don't push them into a corner
they can no longer retreat from. And we don't get pushed into a corner we can't
retreat from.

3. When the numbers on each side of a discussion were relatively even.

4. When somebody brought in a new perspective we didn't have talking points for yet.

I've seen important conversations occur, say between Irvine and someone else, when it wasn't important just to hammer the point home not to make the other person cry uncle, but to really make him understand. And because of the perspective, it seemed during the course of the discussion that it was really important to Irvine that he understand where the other person was coming from because it wasn't just an abstract concept to him, it was personal. "Why am I, just because of my orientation, so abhorrent to you?"

Sometimes a smackdown is needed. Just not nearly as often as we think it is.

A lot of that has been lacking on both sides lately. People are too often staying to script. Instead of dialogues, it's been competing monologues. Or name calling. Or simplistic pop psychologies to explain why people don't think exactly the same way you do.

To my shame, I've been guilty of it sometimes, this piling on. This lack of curiosity about the other side. This self-righteousness.
I'm trying to get beyond my ego and not ask so much what the other person did wrong, but what I did. Until I get that straightened out, I find myself posting less often.

 

[Harry Vest]

The real question is where the hell was he these past 7 years. Did he just start this "Bush Bashing" or was he a real voice when a voice was needed. Something tells me he's a bit of a johnny-come-lately with his "left leaning" rants. This tells me something about his character. Where was he all these years - especially the years where it was NOT in fashion to bash Bush. As far as Hillary goes...you know what I think about her already.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]i've gone back and read some of the threads, and i was honestly aghast at the level of homophobia back then. i have no idea how Melon kept it together. AchtungBubba ... please. had i been around then, i see no way that i could have honestly kept things polite. it would have been the wrong thing to do.[/Q]

An extreme chosen to represent conservatives. There are others who have come in here, and no matter how respectfull they are, they are eventually pushed out the door, when they do not move from their belief system.

Melon has pretty much always had my praise, and the level of debate between him and NBC was incredible in 2002-2003.

 

[maycocksean]

This is my sixth year here. Most of the conservatives who would criticize their own, have left, do to the inability of some to be able to accept any conservative into this community.

Or the inability to have a dialogue without labeling people homophobic, mysogonistic, racist, ect.

Flame on.

Well, I've only been here a little more than two years so I don't have the kind of history with FYM that you do.

I think I've said several times though that conservative voices in FYM are invaluable here and I definitely don't want them to leave. I also think I've been able to have a dialogue without lableing people.

I knew I was pushing it a little when I posted that, but it was not my intention to insult anyone.

 

[maycocksean]

First of all, why?

It's not all that vital really. . .I just personally respect it when people are independent-minded enough to "challenge their own." You certainly don't have to if you don't want to.

And if I'm really honest, I suppose I was perhaps hypothesizing about the nature of conservative and liberal thinking--that conservatives are perhaps more likely to stick to the "party line." But of course that may be unfair and inaccurate--if anything Olberman himself has proved that the left is equally adept at shallow bloviating!

 

[yolland]

The off-topic tangent of the last two pages kind of reminds me of this thread Dread posted a couple years back. (See, even then people were grumbling about the good old days pre-2004... )

I'm trying to think of what I can say concerning the two departed posters previously alluded to without being inappropriate...from private interactions with them at the time, I agree with Dread that yes, the tenor of FYM was their main motive for leaving. Neither of them ever explicitly cited 'racist/homophobic/misogynistic' labelling to me as a reason why they felt fed up, though, and I got the impression their gripes were much broader-based than that...more a combination of A) wearying of the frequent snideness and condescending tone of certain (liberal) regulars, and B) basically what BonosSaint just mentioned--an increasing collective slide towards lazy dogmatism, responding to attempts to problematize the expected (liberal) talking points on an issue by implicitly or openly attributing dishonorable intentions to the person doing the problematizing. One characteristically focused more on A), the other characteristically more on B), but basically that seemed to be it. I don't think they were entirely blameless themselves of contributing to the FYM 'climate' they complained about, but then that's true of all of us to varying degrees. I would love to be able to say I saw some effective way to address those problems and did it but I can't-- B) is really a function of how hard people are willing to try and how much benefit of the doubt they're prepared to extend one another, and as for A), that has been addressed with said individuals multiple times, they know who they are, but for better and for worse there's a difference between that and actual ban-worthy behavior. If you look at the thread I linked to above, an assertion was made that the forum membership used to collectively self-police that sort of thing more and that that was another casualty of increasing polarization post-2004.

It is true that when you're talking about a social and political discussion forum, the smaller the share of the total group comprised by some particular ideological subset, the more it becomes a problem for the overall caliber of debate if no one in that subset is strongly and consistently motivated to debate constructively and at length. On the other hand, if you're not in the minority, lucky you, because there's almost always at least someone around to do the heavy lifting. I would also point out that the more effort you're putting into it, the more it stings when you get facile putdowns in response.