I don't get the sudden dumping on Keith Olbermann (not here at DU)

[HardWorkingDem]

I'm kind of confused at the recent dumping on of Keith Olbermann. Time magazine had a graph of who is up and down in the media and him down. Then the recent panel where a bunch of media people were yakking away, they were dumping on Olbermann and linking him in similarity to O'Lielly.

What baffles me is this guy does his research, shows his sources and evidence and is passionate about things in his Special Comments. He is actually saying things and I think this is where the others are actually coming from. I think they are bitterly envious of a person that has a show and who gets to say exactly what he or she wants to say.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. Isn't he and Maddow beating O'Liely in the ratings?

Maybe that is what's pissing them off? :evilgrin: I don't know how anyone can compare Olbermann to O'Liely and get away with it.

[fed_up_mother]

47. He's the left's O'Reilly

There's nothing wrong with that, but he's not a real tv journalist (on THIS program, anyway), which is what offends some people. He's a liberal commentator, and if you like screaming, he's very good.

I prefer Rachel Maddow, because I "don't" like screaming!

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. I stopped watching Keith Olbermann when he was bashing Hillary and I didn't even support her.

I've caught his "show" a few times recently. He does have a flair for the dramatic but in no way would I compare him to O'Liely. :shrug:

[HardWorkingDem]

52. Don't see him as that way...

We must be watching a different Olberman. I see him "yell" for dramatic reasons and then show anger when appropriate. There is nothing wrong with that. But I've never seen him "scream" or go over board.

[silverojo]

66. I prefer KO, because I don't like smirking - n/t

[Fearless]

2. Well you can't make everyone happy.

[Believing Is Art]

3. Trying to be "balanced"

Who is O'Reilly's counterpart on the left? Unfortunately, that would be Olbermann. Never mind that Olbermann uses sources and doesn't just spout off ridiculous vitriol. Time just wants the entity of a crazy, but still popular, left wing pundit.

[aquart]

4. Boggles my mind that they consider Olbermann left wing.

Shows how frighteningly far to the right they are.

[LisaLynne]

15. Yes, I agree.

Olbermann is not "far left" by any stretch of the imagination. The Bushies and Republicans have pushed us so far to the right that we don't even know what the "far left" is anymore.

[Believing Is Art]

42. Seconded n/t

[fed_up_mother]

48. He's "left" in that he supports the democratic party

I don't know what's so hard to figure out about that!

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Ummmmm

I quit watching KO during the primaries.

My preferred candidate was somebody other than Hillary or Obama.

Still, I thought his repeated hatchet jobs on Hillary were plainly unwarranted. And hypocritical. How dare KO complain about Faux News when his own journalistic "standards" (and I use the term loosley) allow him to engage in similar conduct.

[LiberalHeart]

8. Same here. His schtick has worn on me. Used to like him, but now he's a parody of himself.

[question everything]

11. Same here

He and his guests were openly hostile toward Hillary and were adoring Obama. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, especially, used the primary to vent his long suffering of being a "step generation" to the baby boomers, being born in the mid 50s and used the primaries to crap on the Clintons and on the boomers, while adoring Reagan and Obama. Did not renew my subscription to Newsweek, either.

And, yes, Olbermann is the mirror image of Orally, just as, too often, DU is the mirror image of freeperland, echoing Bush: you are either with us or against us.

I watched him during the Republican convention because I wanted to get a partisan view.

[question everything]

12. delete, dupe. What will happen here on Tuesday? (nt)

[HardWorkingDem]

18. I don't want to re-hash the primaries...however....

if I have to, I could do some simple searching on the internet to bring back the many instances where the HRC campaign sank to new lows in their battle against Obama. And from what I recall, this is what KO, and many others, called her on. And frankly, for her to have automatically hide behind the cloak of sexism was disingenuous (now, I'm not saying sexism did not exist, but for her to throw all sorts of mud and then when the mud was returned, for her to pull that cloak up for protection, was her bad).

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. It's not just about

the Hillary bashing.

KO did not give the remaining Dem candidates equal positive coverage.

KO supported a single Dem candidate, he relentlessly attacked another and he failed to give the remaining viable candidates the same positive coverage he gave to his chosen candidate.

He had an agenda.

That's the problem.

[LiberalHeart]

28. My negative reaction to him isn't related to the primaries. There was a time when....

....his special comments were scathing and moving, but after a while they got to be so regular that they lost their punch. And his delivery (in general, not just in special comments) grew tiring. I can take him in small doses, but he used to be must-see TV for me. No more.

When others sat in for him, it became clear that much of his wise-cracking was the product of the writers. They wrote the same for him as they did for the guest hosts. I see a bit of it in what Rachel does as well, when she's cracking wise. That entertained me when they were our only resource, but I guess I'm just tired of it. There's a predictability that just doesn't wear well, at least for me.

I did not appreciate the Hillary and Bill trashing. It was over the top and a turn off. But that's not really why I got fed up with him. It's just him and his tired routine.

[misanthrope]

45. Hear, hear!!...

...He's no different than O' Reilly.

[HardWorkingDem]

53. If you can't tell the difference between him and O'Lielly, then...

you must also think Dems and Rethugs are pretty close, too.

I can sit for just a few minutes and pick out numerous lies, misconceptions and fabrications when O'Lielly is on. Olbermann does not do this.

[immoderate]

6. He's the most handy target.

He has distinguished himself and that is enough. It's bad to be good.


--IMM

[IndianaJones]

7. Maddow is much better and will go further. nt.

[LiberalHeart]

9. Agreed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Maddow sucks! Keith took a courageous stand during the primaries,

because his values lined up more closely with those of Obama, rather than Clinton. Deal with it.

[IndianaJones]

14. Olbermann is O'Reilly for the left. Maddow is intelligent and can speak without a script. nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. From the ratings, it doesn't appear that he's missing your viewership.

You guys pouted and protested during the primaries, and if anything, it steeled his resolve & increased his ratings. Obama has brought a lot of people into the process who now appreciate Keith, and they're obviously tuning in.

Rachel may be a Rhoades Scholar, but her Debbie Downer, Nervous Nellie "schtick" has also worn pretty thin with those of us who wanted her to be a success. I give her a year.

[IndianaJones]

19. who's you guys? are you one of the idiots that is still fighting the primary wars? bwaaaahahaha.nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Nope, but it sure sounds like the anti KO brigade are. Just look up and

down this thread to see how many of your compadres mention Hillary & primaries, and then go on to bash Keith. I'm over it, but apparently most of you guys aren't.

[IndianaJones]

39. keep on truckin' PUMA. nt.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

71. uh-she uses a script too. Saw her flub the lines the other night

I think BOTH are great-and have helped our cause immensely. I didnt like K.O's stance on Hillary, so didn't watch then, and I agree he seems at times to be a parody of himself, but don't throw that baby out with the bathwater!

[Coyote_Bandit]

20. That's just it

KO had an agenda.

That is hardly good journalism. And it is certainly no more fair and balanced than Faux Noise.

Same sh*t. Different agenda.

Apparently the ratings took notice. Oh well. Whatever. I have better things to do with my time than invest it in watching or caring about KO.

[IndianaJones]

21. watch out...you have a PUMA on your hands there. lol. nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Not a PUMA, but I suspect you would know one. (nt)

L=Losers

[IndianaJones]

38. Joe Momma? nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Joe Momma? Well so much for that amazing intellect I was sure you had...

:eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. His "agenda" was just like most good Democrats. He deplored the

hateful and divisive Rovian style tactics employed by the Clinton campaign. Perhaps it didn't bother you that another Democrat was being savaged by one of our own? That Hillary was saying things on the campaign trail that have been used by the McCain campaign? I'm sorry if you're one of those win at any costs types, but some of us have principles. And Hillary didn't run a very principled campaign, and KO called her on it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

55. Ummmm

No.

If KO's agenda was to support the party then he would not have undermined any of the candidates that might have become the party nominee. He did. Repeatedly.

The work of government is inherently practical. I don't give a damn about ideology. I just want a government - and a political party - that works. Anybody who is more interested in prevailing in an idealogical battle is part of the problem IMHO.

The Democratic party is diverse. Those Dems that do not share your particular beliefs and methods are not inferior to you. Get over it.

Politics is a rough sport. Always has been. Back in 1804 the sitting vice president had a duel with the former secretary of state and shot him. The secretary died the following day. Perhaps you should consider that politics have become considerably more pleasant and genteel in comparison.

Pot meet kettle. You are guilty of the same offense about which you complain. Give me a frickin' break.

I can turn KO off. Thankfully, DU gives me the ability to do the same to you. Welcome to my ignore list. I will not entertain commentary here at DU which I believe undermines party unity.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. Well aren't you special. It's folks like you that tests my gag reflex,

bitching about Keith, while totally dismissing the valid concerns of REAL Democrats who were appalled at the tactics employed during the primaries. You have no honor, and apparently NO shame.

p.s.: and as for your Ignore List, ignore this.....

[alarimer]

60. But that isn't what a true journalist is supposed to do.

They are supposed to be impartial. Not that many of them truly are but you can't really say that Olbermann is doing anything very different from O'Reilly or Hannity, except be on our side.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. Give me a fucking break. Keith is a sports journalist, with a passion

for politics, with his OWN show. I don't ever remember Keith claiming to be "fair & balanced". Keith knows exactly who and what he likes, and he promotes that. If you want "journalism" today, tune to the BBC.

[malaise]

13. Keith has done more than nearly everyone on M$M to open

people's eyes about the Bush regime. For that alone I will always respect him. So what if he's full of himself - so are all the useless hacks. He does his homework and he has been fearless when others remained silent. Bravo Keith :yourock:

[hisownpetard]

24. Amen to that! Keith is a hero and is THE person who championed Rachel and fought for her

to get her own show.

They are both invaluable, but I will always be indebted to Keith for speaking out when no one else did/would/could.
Keith rocks!!!!!

[renate]

77. ditto that amen

I can't watch his special comments any more (love the words, hate the delivery), but that's a drop in the bucket of my admiration and gratitude for him. He spoke out against the Bush administration when NOBODY else on TV was doing it. And he was instrumental in Rachel's getting her own show.

He's far from perfect, but I think we owe him a huge debt, because for a long time he was the only one criticizing Bush on TV, and he made it safe for others to do so too.

[hisownpetard]

79. ...

:pals:

[xochi]

16. His and Maddow's success exposes the hypocrisy

of more conservative, traditional big media outlets such as Time, CNN, FauxNews, etc. and it pisses them off. And he (and Rachel) crack me up! Catch Ben Affleck good-naturedly poking fun at him on SNL? Too funny!

[allthewaydem08]

23. I prefer Rachel

have to say that I am preferring Rachel Maddow to Keith. She just seems much more fun and interesting to watch.

[xochi]

44. So do I, but...

I like both of their distinctive styles. She's not as blustery and hyperbolic as Olbermann. But both are funny. And they obviously have a congenial relationship, mutual admiration for each other, and agree on a lot of issues. Compared to blowhards like O'Liely, or Pat Buchanan, they are tons easier to watch.

[malaise]

25. True but Rachel only got her show recently

Keith has been fighting for a long time.

[Nipper1959]

29. Without Keith

There would be no Rachel.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Ding! Ding! Ding!

If only the Keith hating idiots would acknowledge that. I'm not a big fan of Rachel's, but had it not been for Keith, there's no way in hell she would have gotten near her own cable show.

[dorkulon]

26. It means he's arrived.

Widespread criticism means widespread attention.

[submerged99]

27. Olbermann had the courage to speak out on TV

Olbermann had the courage to speak out on his show when a lot of people were still afraid to speak up. It's easy, now, to criticize Bush and the neocons, but to do it on a national platform a few years ago took some bravery. I will always be a viewer and supporter of Olbermann.

[yy4me]

41. You are right. Where would we be if KO never said anything?

America would never know the horror of the **** regime. It took courage on his part. Use the newspapers as an example. How many have pounded on **** and his gang with any results or continuity?

Rachel is great but if KO never made it big, she would still just have her radio show and we might be stuck with mcsame come Nov 4th.

He does sometimes protest too much but I think he earned the right.

Well done Keith, and thank you.

[kiva]

30. As several others have said above,

Olbermann is pretty much a mirror-image of the right-wing readers. He's not an unbiased journalist, nor does he pretend to be--he made choice.

[JJ]

36. Yeah he's biased.

Reality is a bias.

[HardWorkingDem]

54. Completely disagree....

I can't believe anyone would compare Olbermann to being the mirror image of other right wing news readers. For one thing, most of them claim to be unbiased and "fair and balanced." Olbermann does not make this claim. Nor does he lie or spread lies.

On top of that, he clearly uses video, documentation and actual evidence to make his points. When does the right do that?

They are not the same; nor even close.

[riverdeep]

32. He is a pundit, he never claimed to be a pure journalist.

As for why he's all of a sudden being attacked? Well, why were the blogs attacked as being hate filled and going after Sarah Palin. The right wing blogs have been doing that crap for years (not that that's what the left wing ones were doing). Little green footballs took down Dan Rather, and ignored Bush.

Whoever or whatever is making an impact, that's who they go after. Why does Bill O'Lielly go after George Soros, when the overwhelming amount of money and think tanks and media have been and continue to be supported by right wing tycoons?

"Sheriff john brown always hated me,
For what, I dont know:
Every time I plant a seed,
He said kill it before it grow -
He said kill them before they grow."

-Bob Marley

[arthritisR_US]

35. I think he makes them feel ashamed that they don't do their job and it's left to him to do it. n/t

[Forrest Greene]

37. He's Done A Great Job, But

...he over-indulges his penchant for polysyllabic utterances & florid hyperbole, all in the cause, maybe, of sounding all solemn & educated-like. The roaring outrage is a little old, too.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Yeah, it's atad much for me at times, but I love him and still watch him anyway

[Marie26]

75. Agree

I give him credit for speaking out against the Bush Ad. early on, but don't like him that much as a person.

[Cleita]

50. He's getting too much attention because of his fine journalism. When that happens

the hit squads come out in full array to discredit those who might get the truth out. Look what they did to Dan Rather. They also did it to Bill Moyers on PBS. Fortunately Bill Moyers, who is nothing more nor less than an old fashioned journalist, was able to get his voice back on PBS

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. Cleita, may I say that yours is one the best responses on this thread.

:toast:

[Cleita]

63. Thank you!

:toast:

[gingersnaps1]

51. I like Keith. I will continue to watch him after the election.

Yes, Keith is full of himself, but I like his fire. Rachel is okay, but honestly, if I don't catch Keith on tv I watch on the internet or the msnbc website. Rachel on the other hand I either turn off or she is just background sound that I may perk up to when something catches my interest. As a matter of fact I find myself turning her off when she brings on her "uncle" Pat Buchanan. I can't stand that Pat.

It is a fabulous thing that we have two voices that are giving us information on a nightly basis, we need more.

Personally, I say keep dumping on Keith, I am sure it will only boost his ratings.

My observations have been that on cable no one gives straight news, they want to make you laugh or "infotain" you for the hour. Keith has his on air persona that is off putting to some and great for others.

Campbell Brown, has taken to giving special comments and Fox News is advertising on MSNBC (I have no idea why MSNBC would agree to this). This suggests to me that Keith has now become a force and people are taking notice. When he was parodied on SNL, he said something to the effect of he doesn't have a problem with it because this means something good.

[drbtg1]

70. The Fox News ads on MSNBC may be just local ads purchased from your cable company, not MSNBC

MSNBC may not have any participation in the purchase.

[anigbrowl]

58. Because he's a loudmouth

I agree that his stuff is well researched and I generally agree with the substance of what he says...but I don't like his Angry Man routine. If you want to deliver the news, just deliver it; if you want to be a commentator, guest on other people's programs. I don't care for demagoguery, whether it's O'Reilly or Olberman. I think his 'worst person in the world' slot is childish and his special comments are basically just an excuse to vent.

American news does have a different tradition, going back through people like Edward Murrow and so on...but Murrow seemed to do fine without yelling at the camera.

[20score]

59. It is un-fucking-believable that people on this site would trash him.

If you don't like him, don't watch. But he was the lone voice for years on cable news for the left. Said what millions wanted said on the news, but never heard. Plus, he does uses facts. To compare him to O'Reilly is ignorant at best.

[upi402]

61. He is NOT the left's O'Liarly

He tells the truth and supports his opinions. He is a patriot and O'Liarly is a rightist propagandist.

It's not the other end of the teeter-totter. It's apples and oranges.

[CitizenPatriot]

62. you answered your own question

"this guy does his research, shows his sources and evidence and is passionate about things in his Special Comments. He is actually saying things and I think this is where the others are actually coming from. I think they are bitterly envious of a person that has a show and who gets to say exactly what he or she wants to say.
"

they are pissed that he is getting better ratings; that he has already established himself with US, the new big market.

They can't compete because they have established themselves as freepy idiots in some cases, and as hacks in others.

they only crap on you when you are important enough to be noticed. It's a compliment in that world in a backwards way.

[bridgit]

64. I see KO as a media concern, and so does he. Countdown was launched approx 1 month...

after the Iraq war. The format was still taking shape, percolating down round where it was for years & years; and KO wasn't about to choke his own goose by tearing into bush/cheney while they were busy getting 'the unpatriotic' shutdown for far less. KO's not a dumb guy so it was steady as she goes...for years! No poking no proding of the power system, no demanding questions, just entertainment: dumb criminals, santas falling off roofs, a little this & that, etc, that's what you do when you coddle a new project: you don't want to make waves, and you don't want to swamp your own canoe

But then it became more clear, that as bush began to smoke himself out and get himself run'in KO popped his head up and began to fill the gap between Countdown's rising demographics and bush's plummeting poll numbers; it much easier to push someone over when they're already falling, and he did. At least KO began to do so more often,

As his numbers began to rise, the very ones he cites lately/every night vis-a-vis O'Reilly's going down or flat-line; a completely reasonable, media presumption was made...

That KO's numbers were being enriched by way of whatever it was he was doing, doi! And I've posted this before; but that's when his stridency became elevated, his voice booming off the set behind him, and more to the point his verbosity became so impacted he became, imo, ever more hard-pressed to get all his lofty-what-some-call: passionate though what I refer to as emotionally involved verbiage out of his mouth without tripping on his tongue. Plus, I DVR him, and the comments run over nearly all the time and he cuts himself off. The mark of someone that feels he has very much to say, but clearly only so much time in which to say it = Cut! Wrap It! That's it kids, take five!

In addition, I recall nearer the beginning of this media curve I refer to; KO railing rather on & on against, and properly so otherwise: the bush/cheney/rove junta in a circus-like/mdiway barker pin strip suit, pink broadcast lipstick & pink tie. And I thought oh boy, he'll be too easy to dismiss as Max Headroom's press secretary oh well time marches on I hope...

As a poster mentioned above, I think KO and several others were no where near as journalistically balanced as they would have others believe during the primaries they were just not able to admit it propbably still unable to do so...but the primaries are over and I'm thankful for that.

[Berry Cool]

65. If Obama wins this election, and things change in this country,

he will have Keith in part to thank. He paved the way and made it safe for other pundits like him to speak their minds about what Bush was doing to the country and about how we needed a change. And he was criticizing Bush way back in 2004--something many of his viewers who believe he only did it after it became "safe" don't seem to realize. Uh-uh. He did it BEFORE it was "cool" and showed others how it could be done.

He also never said a damn thing about Hillary Clinton that she didn't fully earn. I think honestly he wanted to be supportive of her in the beginning, but she shocked and disappointed him with her campaign antics and that changed and hurt him deeply. As for Obama, Keith didn't really know him from Adam and had no reason to support him. But then he began to hear the man talk and he became naturally drawn to someone whose intelligence and erudition showed in every word. It's in his nature; he loves a fellow wordsmith.

Those who think he didn't support other Dem candidates or give them airtime have extremely poor memories. Hillary, Edwards (John and Elizabeth), Kucinich, Biden...he welcomed them all. It's just that many people with their noses put out of joint by him have conveniently "forgotten" these appearances.

Again, if Obama pulls this off--and there's every reason to think he will--it will be in no small part because of what Keith Olbermann did for the national discourse. But, like most people puffed up and put on a pedestal for a short time by the media, he probably enjoyed his peak of popularity in this career back in late 2006-early 2007 (just as he enjoyed his peak of popularity as a sportscaster back in '97), and from now on it'll be far more fashionable to rip him down as a pompous ass than to admit to being a fan. Oh well.

[bridgit]

67. Without doubt; memory would seem to be indeed selective

[eowyn_of_rohan]

72. Absolutely- Keith was the ONLY one speaking for the good side for a long time

[nugzie]

68. I agree with the OP

and I'm confused by some of the other comments. I see people on here complain when Rachel, for example, says something that's not 100& positive for Obama or the Democrats. but now we're getting complaints b/c Keith is too bias towards the Democrats? I'm confused. what do you guys want?! :shrug:

as many have pointed out, Keith never claimed to be a journalist, or "fair and balanced" like everyone on Fox does. therein lies the problem. Keith is who he is and he makes no apologies. Hannity and others get up there and try to convince us their made up stories are fact, and that they have no bias at all.

[MiniMe]

73. Because he is beating Faux in the ratings

[Marie26]

74. Oh, I do.

KO started to get on my nerves awhile ago, & the primaries were just the final straw. The self-righteousness, the pretentiousness, the egotism, the sexism, just got to be too much. I haven't watched his show in many months. But I did finally catch the SNL parody & laughed my ass off. OMG, they captured every annoying mannerism & blew it up into total outrageousness. It was a great parody! I especially liked the tortured grammar - "The banning of Ms. Precious Perfect is an outrage to which we will stand up!!" LOL.

[aikoaiko]

76. I admire KO a lot, but I realized something about him on the 5th aniversary of 9/11

That was when he tore into Bush because the World Trade Center site was still a gaping hole the ground. While I agree with KO that its a shame more progress hadn't (and still hasn't been made), Bush has nothing to do with the WTC and its rebuilding. Plus its NYC. Under the best circumstances, buildings take a long time to put up in NYC. There are way too many stake holders involved for this immense project to go fast.

Here is what I learned. KO is not above exploiting the 9/11 tragedy to take shots at a President. Bush is damned for many things, but the slow progress of the WTC site is not really one of them.

But hey, no one is perfect and I like 99.5% of his other work.

[AzDar]

78. KO rocks. He hated Bush (and was vocal about it ) before hating the fuckhead was cool.