I first realized there was something off with Keith Olbermann when he attacked 24 and Jack Bauer as agents of the Bush administration last year.
I know, that's a minor thing, but that's the point. Why go after a television show when there is so much else you can lambaste when it comes to Bush administration policy?
I admit to having mostly enjoyed a lot of Olbermann's other ticks and gimmicks, including his relentless attacks on Bill O'Reilly. They may not have been completely fair, but media personality wars are irresistible to students of the genre.
In the past few months, though, Olbermann has branched out to the other targets. He histrionically announced his support of Barack Obama and disappointment in Hillary Clinton. Now, I support Barack Obama, too, and have found fault in Hillary Clinton's campaign (such as its "logic" that votes for Hillary in Michigan, where hers was the only name on the ballot, should count), but to hold up Hillary Clinton and her campaign as some kind of devil in democratic politics is just ridiculous.
And Olbermann's gotten worse. Bill O'Reilly's two-part interview with Hillary Clinton, as I mentioned here the other day, was a fine job on both Hillary and O'Reilly's parts. O'Reilly asked tough questions, but was courteous and engaging throughout. Clinton responded with substance and style. All and all, one of the best political interviews I've seen this season.
But Olbermann, almost taking it as a personal insult that Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be interviewed by O'Reilly (after a much weaker interview - because of Olbermann's questions - on Countdown several weeks ago), has been doing nothing but denouncing Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly the past two nights.
Enough is a enough. Intolerance in the media is just as bad if it comes from the left as from the right. I think I'll stay on my computer and skip Olbermann from now on, and wait until Abrams comes on 9pm.
15 comments:
Er, actually, Jack Bauer was a legit target, and Olbermann wasn't the only person calling the writers of 24 out on their crap. Even West Point asked the show to tone down the torture.
I remember having David Gregory's show on earlier this week being hosted by David Shuster where the usual band of MSNBC contributors(Maddow, Eugene Robinson, I think Richard Wolfe as well) were all roundly criticizing Obama for agreeing to appear on Fox News. I mean, they were rather mean spirited about things. Basically the only thing I am really interested in on Countdown is the Worst Person in the World.
Marc: Keith Olbermann began attacking 24 because they had a nuclear explosion in Los Angeles and that somehow played into the hands of right wingers and the Republican party... and that the entire show was a platform for the views of Fox News which any long time viewer would be able to tell you is patently untrue... especially during the show's second and fifth seasons that featured storylines which were I would say thinly veiled indictments of the way the current administration operates.
Joel Surnow created 24 for Fox TV, expressed his conservative views for years, and then went on to do a weird 'Daily Show' knock-off for Fox News. I don't think it's far-fetched to suggest that the show trumpeted right-wing views.
Oh crap. You just roped me in to a flame-war.
marc - thanks for the sophisticated rhetorical style - "er, actually" - but your simply saying that Jack Bauer was a legitimate target doesn't make it so ...
You have any evidence that the producers of 24 were doing Bush's bidding?
Meanwhile, do have a response to MC's points about what actually was portrayed on 24, or are you just going to tell us what doesn't seem far-fetched to you?
No one "roped" you into flamewar - you just started one, all by yourself, with your intemperate language .... enjoy :)
Bush's bidding? No, I have no evidence. I do make a pretty good argument for the whole "24/Fox News" connection. I didn't realize Bush's bidding was the subject.
You didn't? Hmmm ... it's in the very first paragraph of my post, as in, at the very top ... and, you somehow missed it? :)
My point, since you seemed to have skipped over it in your rush to be an asshole, is that Olbermann had every right to question Jack Bauer and the motives of his creators. It is not beyond the realm of reason to suggest that Surnow and company use '24' as a Fox News wetdream.
As for the Bush thing, it has been noted in numerous places that the show's ratings are tied very closely to Bush's ratings--when Bush is popular, the show is popular; when Bush is down, the show's down.
I'm leaving your comment, marc, just as an example of the kind of vulgar support that Keith Olbermann apparently engenders... :)
Though, on the other hand, I guess it's not fair to blame Olbermann for you.
I do find it always interesting, though, how people with a lack of logic and evidence - such as you - so quickly resort to name-calling.... Have fun...
I agree that Olbermann is a bit over exuberant in his criticism of Hillary Clinton, but there is a very serious battle going on behind the scenes for control of the Democratic agenda and he has set himself clearly on one side.
Olbermann is a progressive and as such he operates under the belief that Fox isn't a legitimate news organization, but rather the propaganda machine for the extreme right wing. Appearing on Fox, be it Hillary or Obama, lends a credibility to their operation that undermines the struggle for a free and accountable news media.
Trading political expediency during a campaign battle for the larger war over truth in journalism is a serious mistake according to this line of thinking. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment, although I think there's a more constructive way of expressing it.
The DLC wing of the Democratic party uses triangulation as a strategy for governance, and as such uses Fox propaganda as much as the GOP. Fox is less a tool of GOP propaganda as it is a particular ideology that favors free markets, deregulation of media, and the pet cultural issues that keep these types in power. Since Clinton generally fits this bill, she draws the ire of progressives looking to discredit and destroy Fox.
To their credit, the progressives that have fallen in love with Obama roasted him for appearing on that network as well.
Thanks for leaving my comment--a braver man might've responded to it, and a weaker man would've deleted it.
I honestly don't understand your intent. I don't even watch Keith Olbermann--he's amusing at times, but I don't like that he's trying to ape Ed Murrow. Your reason for disliking him, so far as I can tell, is that he bitched about Jack Bauer, and I only wanted to point out that he's not the only person to complain about Jack Bauer OR the television show on which he appears. I hardly think you need to reprimand me for my rhetoric. If you'd like me to point you to some articles that deal with Surnow, 24, Fox, Bush and Olbermann, I'd be happy to do so; otherwise, use Google, and take it as a compliment that I cared enough to even respond to your blog entry.
marc - you're welcome, but I thought I did respond to your comment ...
And, as far as I can tell, my initial post is clear that Olbermann's take on 24 was just the tip of the iceberg for me...
So, when you say my "reason for disliking him [Olbermann], so far as I can tell, is that he bitched about Jack Bauer" I can only conclude that either you didn't read my post, or you can't read ... :)
Therefore, in any case, it's not that big of a compliment for me that you responded here, since you must have been responding to something in your head, other than my post ...
Mike P: Well, I can't let Olbermann off because he's a progressive. Honestly, civility, those kinds of virtues are as important for progressives as they are for conservatives, and Olbermann's, as I've indicated, seem in very short supply. His political views are no excuse.
Olbermann vehemently attacked Hillary before her interview with O'Reilly, so I don't see what changed. Her campaign opened itself up for attacks way back when Bill Clinton started race baiting Obama.
O'Reilly should be taken off the air anyway, he's an unethical liar and spews hatred. Maybe Olbermann feels obligated to try to rid the world of such venom. Maybe that's why he attacks him every night. No only do I think it's hilarious, but I applaud it.
http://djkonservo.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/olbermann-watch-msnbcs-countdown-with-keith-olbermann/
Craig and Cindy -
I hold news commentators, and people in general, to a higher standard: whether Hillary Clinton "opened herself up for attacks" or not has nothing to do with Olbermann's conduct - he still has no business nearly foaming at the mouth, and lecturing Hillary Clinton or anyone. (And, from what I saw, he did get more vitriolic about Hillary after she appeared on O'Reilly.)
As for Bill O'Reilly - nothing wrong at all with criticizing him - I just don't like the over-the-top
way that Olbermann does it. In fact, it's often hard to tell the difference between the two, in terms of tone.
So, feel free to applaud Olbermann all you like - but, from where I sit, that kind of applause is part of the problem. Olbermann seems to be playing for it, rather than giving us the kind of keen, penetrating commentary that we get from Chris Matthews, David Gregory, and Dan Abrams, to give but three examples.
I appreciate your response, but seriously Dan Abrams? All he does is cut people off with his loudness. Abrams invites debate and then doesn't really let people debate. Furhter, his analysis are barely legal even though his whole show is premised on the hype that he looks at events through the eyes of a lawyer. Honestly, his show is barely at the caliber of Olbermann's. At least Olbermann gives a good dose of intelligent discourse with all his guests. Just my humble opinion.
Cindy
Thanks for coming back with the response, Cindy.
We still disagree, though.
One of the things that most bothers me about Olbermann, for example, is that I don't think I've seen a guest on his show who substantially disagrees with Olbermann - rather, they seem to be there to provide extended confirmations of Olbermann's take on the world.
So, yeah, even though Abrams interrupts, we get much more dialogue on his show than on Olbermann's - indeed, one of the pluses of O'Reilly is that he has guests with whom he genuinely (and often ferociously) disagrees.
I've been on O'Reilly's show a few times - you can see the clips here, - and, sure, I was interrupted. But I did manage to get some contrary points across.
Meanwhile, just to be clear, I share most of Olbermann's political views, and welcome his attacks on the Bush admin, but think, again, that he goes overboard and works against himself in lots of other cases and segments of his show.
Post a Comment