Olbermann and the new news

Good stuff.

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…

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.

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”? “Because I can’t say, ‘Shut the fuck up,’ that’s why, frankly,” Olbermann responded. The line stayed in.

I guess this would be definitive that he was talking about political appointees as cold-blooded killers, Jeff! :)

The rest of the article is an interesting overview on the more-ideological cable news networks and how Tom Brokaw is kind of the hall monitor over at MSNBC.

It will be interesting to me what kind of Olbmermann we get if, as I expect, Obama becomes the next president. I like Olbermann, but he’s essentially becoming the left wing version of O’Reilly.

Except that Olbermann bases his outrage on facts, and O’Reilly on fiction.

Well “snake oil salesman,” “sycophant,” and “mental dwarves” aren’t facts. They’re debasing and dehumanizing, and are more illustrative of the worst of American political discourse than they are of any particular person in the White House. You’re not going to convince anyone using words like these.

Of course, I don’t think Olbermann is trying to change anything in America, any more than O’Reilly or any other loudmouth is. And it’s equally fun to listen to someone you basically agree with as it is to listen to someone you couldn’t disagree with more, as long as that person is entertaining enough to get your blood boiling.

All the same, I’m hoping someone will come along and change the news, too, but my vision is one with fewer Olbermanns and O’Reillys.

If ‘sycophant’ doesn’t apply to Alberto Gonzales, I’m not sure it’s even got a meaning.

The question isn’t about whether Olbermann is being factual, it’s about whether his desire to be factual is motivated by truth or his own political feelings. Olbermann clearly has liberal views and has no problem expressing them in his program, which if fine with me. O’Reilly is also expressing a lot of opinion, regardless of whether he has facts or not to back him up.

I’m just saying that I’m not sure I see Olbermann acting the same way under a new administration if it’s Democratic, even if it has its own legitimate issues to be criticized about.

You’re going to be waiting for quite a while, then. The market for non-ideological political commentary is pretty thin.

He’s great when he goes off against Habeas Corpus or something else really important – I feel like the over the top rhetoric is justified. But then he it goes off again, sounding just as mad, on Clinton’s RFK line or whatever else he’s tick about that day. He needs to save up it for the most important things.

In other words, everyone in the Pentagon and everyone in the Cabinet is a cold blooded killer.

If you find that reasonable, then we’re just not anywhere near the same place in our ways of thinking. (Not such a surprise, though. ;) )

I’m guessing if they get anywhere near to Bush level he’ll be on them for it. But what he won’t be doing is conflating unimportant BS to OMG BLOWJOBS! levels.

There will be some kind of Whitewater nonsense thrown at Obama I’m sure. Hopefully we won’t have to endure the same kind of trolling from the MSM we did under Clinton.

If you read the article you’ll note he adjusted it when the MSNBC executives pointed out he was implicitly including Colin Powell and the like, so as to end up pointing the finger at Rice, Rumsfeld, and the other crazy civilian leaders.

This. I have very high hopes for an Obama administration (not being elected, but what he/they do), and I do really wonder what the left-left wing (i.e. Olbermann, dKos, etc) has to say about it.

I do truly hope that those left-left wing folks stay true to their mores and don’t give a pass because he’s “our candidate.” Which, based on their track record (see dKos’ excoriation of Pelosi re: FISA) they won’t, but I’m curious.

Also, please let McCain take (MN gov) Pawlenty for a running mate. Let his political career die in obscurity like Edwards’ is like to do.

The left-left wing? Daily Kos? Has it really come to this?

I actually thought this piece was pretty uncharitable. Olbermann = O’Reilly? Yeah… not likely. The author seems to have fallen into the trap that the right has been using for the past six or so years, and assumed that opposition to Bush is a defining liberal value, and therefore that the more vehement one is in their opposition to Bush, the farther left they are.

I’d love to see examples of Olbermann showing what a left-wing ideologue he actually is.

Glenn Greenwald has an appropriate take on it, i think.

At first I was pretty annoyed at Obama for that, but I thought about it a bit, and Obama is reasonably likely to be President. He is probably thinking about those Executive Powers as his. It’s probably a bit too much to ask that he be instrumental in preventing their undue expansion.

So I assume you’re also not annoyed at Bush about it.

I don’t want to go through this again, but since you say it clears things up, how did he modify the line? I listened to what he said, and listened to his explanation after he said it, and he simply says he was talking about the Pentagon and Bush’s cabinet. I never heard him say “I’m talking about the head of the Air Force, and the head of the Army, the head of the Navy, he’s OK, and in the cabinet Rice is a cold blooded killer, and the Sec of HUD is a cold blooded killer, but the Sec of the Interior is OK.”

Who do you consider the cold blooded killers in the Pentagon? and on Bush’s staff?

Well, so far Obama is supporting making it legal, not doing it anyway even though it’s illegal, so it’s not quite the same.

But I don’t blame Bush for pushing for power, it’s something politicians do. There are enough things to blame Bush for.

Somethings about this whole tempest doesn’t make sense to me.

What does cold blooded killer mean? At first I thought it meant a person who kills while not enraged, but that doesn’t seem to be what people mean by it.