Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is Keith Olbermann changing TV news?
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Media
sky of mind
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06...23fa_fact_boyer



One Angry Man
Is Keith Olbermann changing TV news?

by Peter J. Boyer
June 23, 200


It was nearly midnight before Keith Olbermann left the NBC News election studio on May 13th, having spent five hours on the air, co-anchoring coverage of the West Virginia Democratic primary. Olbermann had a short ride home from Rockefeller Plaza to his condominium on the Upper East Side, and he was in bed by 2 A.M. But he lay wide awake, overcome by an urge to get up and move about. He has been given a diagnosis of Wittmaack-Ekbom’s syndrome, also known as “restless-legs syndrome” (and also “the kicks,” “Jimmy legs,” and “jitters”), a neurological disorder that produces a prickling, itching, or crawling feeling in the legs, profoundly disturbing sleep. Reclining exacerbates the condition, so Olbermann got out of bed, took a pill for the ailment, and, while waiting for the drug to kick in, scrolled through his BlackBerry, scanning recent messages. One arrested his attention. It was a link to the Web site Politico, which featured an interview conducted that day with President Bush. Olbermann was struck by two questions from the interview, and by Bush’s answers to them:


Q: Mr. President, turning to the biggest issue of all, Iraq. Various people and various candidates talk about pulling out next year. If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?

BUSH: Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is—it’s bigger than Iraq—it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives. Iraq just happens to be a part of this global war. . . .

Q: Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

BUSH: Yes, it really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as—to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.


Olbermann suddenly had another sensation, unrelated to neurology—a feeling, he later recalled, that was “like being hit by lightning.” He sat down at his computer and began to write. After an hour, he had the first draft of a lacerating indictment of Bush, a twelve-minute-long (eighteen pages in teleprompter script) j ’accuse, addressed personally to the President.

“Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created includes ‘cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives’?” Olbermann wrote. “They are those in—or formerly in—your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.”

The denunciation hit the high notes of the most fevered antiwar rhetoric, accusing Bush (he of the “addled brain”), his alleged puppet master (“the American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney”), and the “tragically know-it-all minions,” “sycophants,” and “mental dwarves” who serve them in the Administration of perpetrating a “panoramic and murderous deceit” on America and the world. Intelligence was faked, W.M.D.s were imagined, Iraq was laid waste, and American freedoms were trashed.

Olbermann turned to Bush’s golf remark, which he called the “final blow to our nation’s solar plexus.” He wrote:


Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you six and a half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you. . . . It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next January 20th will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heartfelt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice . . . when somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead. This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!


Olbermann finished the script shortly after 3 A.M. He e-mailed copies to his producers, and then he went to bed.

The jeremiad against Bush was a signature Olbermann effort, the sort of stylized, mocking tirade that has lately made him a cable-news sensation, the Edward R. Murrow of the Angry Left. Olbermann was pleased with the script, and the next day, before going on the air with it, he posted excerpts on the liberal blog Daily Kos, which is a fairly good representation of the Olbermann fan base. The Kossacks wholly approved. (“You excoriated the bloodyhanded, warmongering imbecile.” “This country cannot survive without you.” “Dude, you’ve got a pair of steel ones!” “I’m gonna print it out, hang it up and memorize it.”)

At MSNBC, the feedback was slightly more cautious. Olbermann’s original script identified the “cold-blooded killers” as everyone at the Pentagon and in the Bush Cabinet; when a colleague noted that that would include such relative moderates as Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Olbermann modified the line. Phil Griffin, the senior vice-president in charge of MSNBC (“Phil thinks he’s my boss,” Olbermann says), raised the matter of tone. Why did Olbermann need to end his commentary by telling the President of the United States to “shut the hell up”?

Eric Salinger
Keith Olbermann is a goon. Perhaps if he would stop trying to be like Edward R. Murrow and start acting like a real journalist I would respect him, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

sky of mind
QUOTE (Eric Salinger @ Saturday, 21 June 2008, 8:58 am) *
Keith Olbermann is a goon. Perhaps if he would stop trying to be like Edward R. Murrow and start acting like a real journalist I would respect him, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.




What? Do we have our first troll in many weeks?


Real journalist? Would you care to name a few names?
Or is this your one and only post on the POAC?
Eric Salinger
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Saturday, 21 June 2008, 10:06 am) *
What? Do we have our first troll in many weeks?


Real journalist? Would you care to name a few names?
Or is this your one and only post on the POAC?



How am I a troll? I haven't made a disruptive post. Am I not allowed to express an opinion?

I would name some real journalists, but…there are none. Not anymore.
sky of mind
QUOTE (Eric Salinger @ Saturday, 21 June 2008, 9:09 am) *
How am I a troll? I haven't made a disruptive post. Am I not allowed to express an opinion?

I would name some real journalists, but…there are none. Not anymore.




So then, you don't watch or listen to or read any news from any "journalists"?
You don't have any of these people you don't watch that you consider to be close to acceptable?
Eric Salinger
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Saturday, 21 June 2008, 10:11 am) *
So then, you don't watch or listen to or read any news from any "journalists"?
You don't have any of these people you don't watch that you consider to be close to acceptable?


I like Lou Dobbs. That’s about it.

sky of mind
QUOTE (Eric Salinger @ Saturday, 21 June 2008, 9:15 am) *
I like Lou Dobbs. That’s about it.




OK, other than Lou on CNN, where do you get your news?
Libertas
QUOTE
Perhaps if he would stop trying to be like Edward R. Murrow and start acting like a real journalist


QUOTE
I like Lou Dobbs. That’s about it.


Does not compute.

What is it exactly that you think "journalism" is? And for the record, I don't think Olbermann is much of a journalist, either. He is a commentator. Lou Dobbs ain't no journalist, though.
sky of mind
The question wasn't, is Olbermann a journalist. It's, Is Olbermann changing Journalism?
Libertas
If he is, it's not for the better IMO. As much as I enjoy his lambasting of Bush, his bombastic style is cast in the same angry, ill-tempered manner as the rightist noise machine. The traditional difference between responsible journalism and the FOX freak show (which now infects all cable networks) is that journalism presents a case in light of evidence, even if that is colored by the journalist's worldview (indeed, people are mistaken if they think it's the journalists job simply to list facts) in a reasonable manner, while the other crap offers opinions as fact, shouts down opposition, and generally uses entertainment as a distraction for real issues facing the public.

I don't think anyone would argue that Bill Moyers is presenting his case with a certain bias, but he is certainly a responsible journalist.

60 Minutes is an example of reasonably responsible journalism, minus Andy Rooney's old man rantings.

Hell, even The Daily Show demonstrates considerably more concern for journalism than CNN and FOX, and they don't even have any pretenses about being legitimate journalists.

There is nothing wrong with commentary, or editorializing. It simply must be made clear when a broadcaster is giving his opinion, and when he is presenting a piece of journalism. Newspapers are generally good at this, as they have specific sections dedicated to editorial pieces (I don't think anyone would call George Will's or Maureen Dowd's weekly columns unbiased). TV news networks are notoriously bad at this, with FOX being the worst offender, with CNN and MSNBC behind. It is entirely possible to examine an issue critically without being acerbic; there are plenty of reasons to be mad as hell at the current administration, but it is not the place of a news network to put someone up to yell about every night. Granted, there are significant differences between someone like Olbermann and someone like O'Reilly in their integrity and, well, truthfullness. But I don't think Olbermann is what we should be striving for in journalistic integrity.
sky of mind
Most of what Olbermann does that gets noticed is stated during a segment called "special comments".
That has to be assumed as comments, that it's an editorial. Responsible journalism INCLUDES editorials and always has.

Ask Walter Cronkite and his editorializing about the Veitnam war, and how RMN considered the war lost when he lost Cronkite.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.