Greatest speech of the decade: Olbermann, says speech guru

[carolinayellowdog]

Hey,

Many of us would agree, but it is great that an expert on political speeches says so:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/the-greatest-speech-of-th_b_28573.html

excerpt:
Perhaps because the void has been so deep and for so long you, Keith, may be unaware that you have stepped, firmly, into it. Your words, not in a thousand years, but in 6 minutes, stirred the soul of a nation thirsty for the courage and brilliance of Mr. Murrow and were hardly distinguishable from his. You have earned the right to quote the great Edward R. Murrow on television. And you have earned the respect of those who have longed for a real journalist . . . and a real speechwriter and speech giver to step up for America and against those who might have forgotten what we are, indeed, fighting for.

May your courage be rewarded by ratings that rival those of John Mark Karr's.

huffpo bio info:

Richard Greene is an attorney, political and communication strategist and author of the Prentice Hall coffee table book, “Words That Shook The World: 100 Years of Unforgettable Speeches and Events”.

For 22 years Richard has taught Presidents, Prime Ministers, U.S. Senators, Governors, CEOs, Royalty (Princess Diana), Actors and others, in 26 countries around the world, how to give presentations and speeches with comfort and “Authentic Passion”.

[Catshrink]

1. "...stirred the soul of a nation thirsty for the courage and brilliance

of Edward R. Murrow..."

No kidding! KO's rant touched everyone who heard it by it's eloquent statement of what many of us were thinking and feeling but couldn't find the words to express. Rock on, Keith!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Prediction:

Sadly, there is more to come from this pack of pirates, brigands and thieves who presently run this country. By the time they come to their just rewards, Keith Olbermann will be the most important journalist in American TV. He will be the Murrow of our time, but without losing his intelligent whimsy and his well-timed barbs. Or his ability to call a sporting event.

Watch and see. I just hope that MSNBC has people smart enough to recognize that he is their franchise player.

[goclark]

3. Where is the link to the complete text ~

I want to read it with new eyes since this WORTHY praise was received by our hero KEITH O.

[mcscajun]

5. The speech or Green's praise of it?

Follow the OP's link and you'll get to both.

Greene's article provides a link to the video, and the page with the video also provides a complete transcript of K.O.'s outstanding speech.

[goclark]

6. Thanks ~ I just woke up nt

[mcscajun]

4. Wow!!! Thanks SO Much for sharing this. Olbermann is fanTAStic!

And Richard Greene is dead on the mark.

This speech (which loses much in the translation from speech to transcript) gave me chills, and repeatedly so.

[garybeck]

7. It was good but Rocky Anderson's was better. Just my opinion. n/t

[alvarezadams]

8. Best speech of the decade?

What a sad state of affairs.

He said some truths that were needed to be said but he really reached for it with Chamberlain (aping the RW's take on Chamberlain and appeasement as opposed to the truth). He also left a lot of things unsaid.

Eloquent? Judging from Dubya standards, of course. Best speech of the DECADE? No way in hell. Of the last 10 days perhaps.

Robin Cook's resignation speech went further, said more and said it more eloquently. And it was the best speech of that particular month.

[fooj]

9. Keith speaks for many of us whose voices have been silenced.

BTW- it is a "sad state of affairs"...when a fellow American doesn't understand just HOW IMPORTANT that speech was. I teach English and Speech Comm-----

You are entitled to your opinion. From a professional standpoint, however, you have completely missed the mark.

[alvarezadams]

10. Deep breath

Firstly you can stick your tone where the sun don't shine.

I can appreciate that you teach English - I write history. So before you put the speech on a pedestal, read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2806981&mesg_id=2808074

[fooj]

11. My tone? Please refer to your initial post for an "authentic" example.

My tone? That's laughable.

Have a nice day.

[alvarezadams]

13. Yes, your tone

I too can be arrogant and dismiss other's thoughts/posts with disdain - and then appeal to a putative authority to justify such a dismissal. Ignoring content doesn't exactly help your "case".

FWIW, look up Olbermann in Yahoo, under news. Around 50% of the sites cited are against his speech which shows the relative importance of the speech. In fact there's an "Olberman Watch" site that is cited by a local teevee station or two (here's the braindead rebuttal: http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/08/a_few_words_on.html#more ).

What is more important is the actual role of Olbermann. He's a newscaster in an environment that has been rarified by decades of spin regarding "liberal press bias".

I bring these points up because one of the most important aspects of a political speech is its impact. Thousands of speeches are "lost" because they are delivered to few people, are not covered - or are delivered in the wrong place or time. Considering the above, the only true measure of the speech is "he articulated what a lot of like-thinking people have been thinking for a long time". This can only lead to re-energizing those that already had such thoughts - and re-energizing those that oppose them.

Do you think that he's convinced any of the opposition to drop the GOP misadmin? Do you think that his speech has pushed a fence-sitter over the edge? I doubt that you can objectively claim either (especially with regards to "fence-sitters" - who could sit on the fence after 6 years of Dubya?).

I think that Robin Cook's speech was far better, had far more impact, and will stand the test of time long after a newscaster's diatribe is forgotten: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm

[Berry Cool]

16. If you think "Olbermann Watch" is any measure of anything...come on!

I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but I wouldn't measure the success of ANY of Olbermann's commentaries by what Olbermann Watch has to say about it...they're an Olbermann hate site, whose express reason for existence has always been to belittle and deride the man and get him off the air. They must have been beside themselves to see the way this commentary was received. Of course they are going to jump on any criticism of it that they can possibly find.

Second of all, when you say "Around 50% of the sites cited are against his speech," doesn't that tell you something right there? Which 50%? The conservative, far-right sites, right? OF COURSE they're against it...because it was so powerful it scared the crap out of them, and they had to denounce it immediately!

Third of all, Olbermann has largely not been active as a newscaster in the era in which it has been truly effective to accuse the media of "liberal bias and spin." Most of his news career has been during the Fox News era--that is, during the presence of a conservative media behemoth whose success on cable news has dwarfed that of any other type of news. For that reason, his statement is significant.

I have read all kinds of comments all over the Internet from people who were truly moved by this speech. Whether it changed the minds of any fencesitters or will cause anyone on the GOP side to change his or her mind, only time will tell. It's been less than a week. I think that while it may be too soon to call this the speech of the decade, it's also too soon to say it will quickly be forgotten.

[alvarezadams]

20. Of course not

I don't think that "Olbermann Watch" means much of anything. It is symbolic, however, of the rw machine and the cognitive dissonance that a good part of the electorate suffers from. We have the DU's, the Kos' and a plethora of sites that, for the most part, rely on actual information as opposed to disinformation (although we too have the "vote the shirt" folks) - but in politics perception is all.

I agree with you 100% that it is the rw that is against Olbermann's speech, just as they are against everything from national health to higher corporate taxes, etc. But that's the point; as perception is all, Olbermann's speech is only weighty amongst those who already knew, with those that agree with him. The problem is the rest - and "Olbermann Watch" (etc.) reflects how the other half perceives the current situation.

Where I disagree with you is in thinking that the speech "scared the hell out of them". Cognitive dissonance doesn't work this way - and the very basis of "conservative" "thought" is not conducive to "fear" but of "hatred" of dissonant POV's (this might be of interest: http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%20&%20Hunyady%20(2005)%20Antecedents%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Syste.pdf).

You say that it is not "effective" to accuse the media of LW bias in this day and age. Once again I appeal to perception: you and I certainly see the media as being RW but the Faux crowd certainly does not.

You're right in observing that the speech is only a week old and it is early to tell if it will have impact. I live abroad though - and from my media access it is already forgotten (not that it made many waves here). What should be asked, however, is "what kind of demographics does Olbermann's show have" when considering the effect of his speech. I'd wager that most "fence sitters" and "GOPers" are not Olbermann fans or spectators and that they're far more likely to learn of the speech from the likes of "Olbermann Watch".

[alvarezadams]

21. A repost

in order to save people the bother of hitting the link:

As of just a couple of weeks ago

51% of Americans still thought that WMD's had been found in Iraq. I don't even want to speculate as to how many swallowed the adminspin tying (through non-sequitor caveats) Saddam and 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

We who lurk the web (and don't do so to read Town Hall) are simply more aware than the "Deep America" voters, the one-issue voters, the fundie-voters and the cogdis brigade. And we're a minority that an Olbermann speech isn't going to make any bigger. Olbermann said it once, Faux, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC et al say the opposite every single fucking day.

I don't mean to be pessimistic. But what we cannot expect is to change the minds of the cretinous rubes who swallow talkingpoint pablum memes as ideology and take their news in 20 minute-a-day servings (written for 14 year-olds). It ain't gonna happen - you can't speak to children as if they were adults. And you can't deprogram cultists with a pamphlet.

The only thing that can be done, IMHO, is to reframe arguments, values and platforms to fit the reduced cerebral capacity of the rubes. 'Cos against the $billion/year rw indoctrination machine a speech isn't going to cut it, no matter how many letters to the editor are written and even (in a moment of editorial weakness) published.

Ultimately, who reads the papers? Just look at any given local rag and international news is in section D (occupying a half page above the mattress sale advert), US news little more, community news even more, sports one helluva lot, and a whole funny page section (plus the help wanted ads with piss-poor jobs).

Message? Any marketer knows that you need to adapt your message to your market, pick your media as per your segmentation, and go from there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2806981&mesg_id=2808074

[high density]

33. So basically what you're saying is that no speech is going to be useful

because the speaker will never reach the fence-sitters. Then you're implying that Olbermann's speech is not useful because of his status on TV and the fact that some right wing blogs don't like him. Well guess what, anybody that speaks like Olbermann will not be liked by the right wing blogs and half of the sites on Yahoo News will trash him or her for giving such a speech. Anybody who performs such a speech via TV is going to be grouped in by these people with the "liberal press."

It also seems you need to apply the same definition of impact to Robin Cook's speech. I don't know why you single that one out as being so great or having so much impact, when most in the USA didn't even hear it or have a clue who Robin Cook was.

[alvarezadams]

37. More or less

You seem to understand why I don't believe that Olbermann's speech can be considered "influential".

As for Robin Cook - his speech was delivered in Parliament and was hugely important in fomenting the anti-Blair, anti-"Third Way" movement in the Labour Party. I am not so parochial to judge political importance via impact on America.

[REP]

39. "Impact" Is Not a Synonym for "Effect"

Sorry; couldn't help but notice that you had used "impact" incorrectly at least twice. A lot of internet typists like the snazzy, bussiness-speak sound of "impact" for "effect," but it really is just the sign of sloppy writing. Just thought you'd like to know.

[alvarezadams]

42. Thanx but

Noun: impact
1. The striking of one body against another
2. A forceful consequence; a strong effect
- "the book had an important impact on my thinking"
3. Influencing strongly

Verb: impact
1. Press or wedge together; pack together
2. Have an effect upon

Anyways I probably chose the word because I live in Spain where the word is most commonly used as in "effect". It wasn't an affectation even if I was correct in using it.

[JanusAscending]

30. HISSSSSSSSSSSS !!

n/t

[Kurovski]

12. He's the first journalist to give the administration their proper title.

Not Neo-Cons, but fascists.

John Dean has said we are entering a neo-fascist stage, but Olbermann cut to the chase.

I believe that that will turn out to be an historic speech.

Edit: Olbermann was the first "Corporate media" journalist to have done so.

[MasonJar]

14. I think that both Keith and Mayor Anderson stood up to be

counted as great American patriots when they had the opportunity. For Keith it took immense courage, as he was banished tempoarily by his boss a few months back for speaking his mind. The beauty of the speech is that it was so needed and so timely as a rebuttal to the Frankenstein of the DOD. As to Anderson's speech, I do not know his standing in Utah, but I know that Utah is unbearably "red." I, therefore, assume that Anderson is also a man of great courage and conviction. I salute them both.
As to whose was better, I applaud them both. Both were effective. Old Rummy had to come back and repeat his absurdities...his way of countering, since no Bu--shit--e ever faces the reality of their primal existence...failure.
As to great and powerful speeches, Al Gore has given some of the most passionate and courageous speeches of the decade too. Thank God for each and every single one of our true PATRIOTS; may they continue to speak loud and often.
By the way Keith gave a shorter version of his speech last (Friday) night and said that NBC would be running the original several times over the Labor Day week-end.

[Berry Cool]

19. MasonJar, where did you get the information that Keith had ever been

"banished temporarily by his boss a few months back for speaking his mind"?

No such thing has happened. Not that this didn't take courage, but I think you are unwittingly misrepresenting something that happened a while back.

It seems that every time Keith says or does something that is powerful and opinionated, some people expect that MSNBC is going to suspend him or even fire him for it. At one point in 2004, he actually had to email viewers and explain to them that he was on vacation because he had jokingly gotten up and left the set just before the end of a newscast the day before he was scheduled to go on vacation. They flooded MSNBC with email protesting against his "on-air firing"!

Similarly, last August he delivered a passionate antismoking commentary that was (if the gossip is to be believed) met with immediate anger by Rick Kaplan, who was running MSNBC's programming at that time. He supposedly said to Keith "I don't care if you don't come in to work tomorrow." But Keith was never suspended and, if his side of the story is to be believed, the situation was caused more by Kaplan's concern that he would "gross out" the audience leading into a new show (Rita Cosby's if you want to talk gross) than anything else. (Keith had been describing spitting blood into a wastebasket after having a benign tumor removed--one he blamed on smoking, and which caused him to quit.)

Anyway, I think it's important to separate fact from myth when it comes to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. While many people have been concerned about how well they will support him when he makes strong statements, their record for doing so is actually quite good.

[Guaranteed]

15. It was a great speech.

I think that what Colbert did was better, though (not the speech, but what he did). Gore's speeches have been better, as well.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Its actually tough to make direct comparisons of all those speeches

What Colbert did was satirical humor. And it was memorable, to say the least. Some call it brave, and it may well have been.

Al Gore's speeches are either political or causational; I'll go with politcal.

Olbermann's was actually commentary. As a newsman, that's what he's expected to do and he did it better than any of us have seen in (for some perhaps, even) a lifetime.

Humor, politics and commentary.

Each should be rightly judged to different standards.

[buddhamama]

18. Olbermann's speech was stirring

was it the greatest speech of the decade, imho, no.

but, we cannot forget that this speech, unlike other great speeches, was actually aired on MSM.

[bleever]

22. An excellent look at what made this speech so powerful.

Reading his analysis made me appreciate KO's statement even more than I already had.

[Alizaryn]

23. His speech blew me away.

A painting that "speaks" to me and not someone else should not be dismissed because its of a different style or language. Keith's speech "spoke" to me and for me. His voice represented just exactly what many of us would have liked to say at that very moment in time. Its magic and power was not in his channeling of Mr Murrow but in his channeling millions of US.

[bleever]

24. Exactly.

Well said.

[Sydnie]

26. I agree with you 100%

He said exactly what many of us have said in our own living rooms across this country, only he said it out loud and on TV. He said it because it's what HE thought and felt. We were free to agree or disagree, watch or dismiss, but he had a mighty need to say it and say it he did.

I thank him for giving my anger and my passion for this country, our future, and our dire circumstances, as well as the idiocy of those that have the power a voice, loud and clear, for me and all that have cursed the darkness of this administration.

Saying it loud and often is welcome in my book.

[Catchawave]

27. Keith "spoke" for me and

Alizaryn does too :D

[Alizaryn]

28. Thank you!

:7

[Diane R]

25. kick and recommended n/t

[Generic Brad]

29. Olbermann is the real deal

The rest of the anchors are incompetent by comparison.

[bleever]

31. Remember Cronkite and Vietnam and metal TV trays that folded up?

Now it's the internet(s) and cable and Iraq and Olbermann.

Thanks, KO, for showing up, and doing your part so valiantly.

[longship]

32. Kicking for Monday.

Richard Greene's article on HuffPost needs to be widely read.

So, I'll rekick it.

[calimary]

36. So will I.

Interesting to read the comments. There actually are a few knuckledraggers in there, but the vast, vast majority, maybe 20 - 25 to one, are pro KO. As they should be. It was a humdinger of a commentary. More-ish, as we say around our house (as in, we want MORE of it).

[spooky3]

34. kick

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. It was "commentary" not a speech although it was thoughtful, brave

and brilliant. It really was "Murrowesque" - people do not refer to Murrow giving speeches - he was a reporter and commentator as is Olbermann.

In my opinion, the 2 best speeches of the decade so far have been Al Gore's MLK speech and Colbert's Press Club pastiche.

[135th]

38. I have to be honest,

this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say they like Keith Olbermann. His show is so bad it makes me long for a nice long night of the O'reilly Factor (I'll admit I watch Bill from time to time for a laugh). I never even realized he was a liberal, as I can't get through an episode of Countdown. Now I feel left out, like my friend who claimed not to like Seinfeld...

EDIT: (Hit post instead of preview) That was a good speech, maybe I'll give him another chance.

[annabanana]

40. welcome to DU

You will find some (a huge number) people who like Keith Olbermann here. You will not find many fans of the big giant head O'Reilly.

[135th]

43. Rest assured,

O'Reilly is comic relief for me. I watch him the way I watch the Colbert Report, just for fun.

[Red Right and BLUE]

41. Yeah,

Getting through a show and THEN making up your mind might be a good idea...