Tuesday, August 4, 2009

God Grant You Many Years, Mr. Olbermann

As I noted before, I tend to dither over topics. With all the general bad news, doom and gloom, unemployment, the general state of affairs in our Republic ( that is, if you still think it is one ), there certainly are many choices to select from and chew on for a while.

Right now, for me, the top 2, and I can't decide which is number 1, are our foreign wars and health care reform. And to be honest, it does not matter which one is tops.

Then there's the sad state of our "independent press", which was orginally enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect us against abuse from our government. A task which it has failed to do in my opinion, because of the lack of independence due to the corporate powers behind all our media.

I was planning to write on our media, and I was mulling all I wanted to write about that topic over the past week. Maybe later, and maybe someone else can take that up.

But our national "dicussion" ( if you wish to call it that ) over health care has been a constant voice in both ears. One voice is the debate itself and the politics surrounding it and the other voice is the manner in which our news media are handling it.

I have been following the stories about health care reform, especially at FDL which has been tirelessly working on Congress and its reading public to fire up support for reform and to poll individual members of Congress to make pledges for reform or at least to hear what they say about it.

And then Jane Hamsher wrote this:

The progressive caucus is being laughed at by Nancy Pelosi, who joined with Rahm Emanuel to give the Blue Dogs everything they want:
.
.
Nobody takes the progressive caucus seriously, and rightfully so. They do nothing but make idle threats that they don't follow through on.

If people in their districts don't start screaming and demanding that they stand up, we're looking at a health care bill with "co-ops" that will be nothing but a bail out of the insurance industry.

They're pathetic.


Well, that certainly popped my bubble of enthusiasm. Then there was the news of the organized disruption of town-hall meetings and the usual Republican and WingNut stupidity and lies about everything, from Cash for Clunkers to Obama's birth and everything between.

I was beginning to feel like Marvin the Robot.

Now, I won't go into the mangy mess of the now doubted story in the New York Times about the secret deal between Murdoch and GE to shut down the "feud" between Olbermann and O'Reilly, because that IS another story.

Plus it's in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, I'm tired, can't sleep, and if I don't get this out, I'll fret about it all night, and I do not want that. Writing is cathartic; I'm sure most will agree to that.

So, to wind this up, I was looking forward to watch Countdown yesterday evening, as I usually do, to see what KO's response to the NYT story would be. He put the reporter who wrote the story on his 3 worst persons list for, in brief, not getting the story right.

What blew me out of the water, however, was his Special Comment broadside against Congressional opposition to health care reform with a strong public option.

Here's the MSNBC link to the video.

I'm aware of the criticism some have for CountDown, but I've always liked his show, and try to catch it whenever I can. The greatest point in his favor is that he does present the best possible reporting of a story and does not hesitate to name the people behind the story, which he most certainly does in the video I linked to. Best because, I believe he's honest about his work and has passion for dealing with this country's problems. Next to that is that there is no hesitation to make time for corrections when needed. For me, his show is a bright streak of color set against the bland, superficial, "he said/he said" of the rest.

You know, like normal intelligent conversation compared to this:



This Special Comment could be the spark for a regeneration of the effort to carry health care reform, with a strong public option ( I prefer a single-payer system, if you want to know ) through the next couple of months.

And do call your Representative and Senators to push them to support this benefit to our country.

bb

33 comments:

  1. Ugh, Olbermann. Just a left-wing Bill O'Reilly with a better demeanor.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When Olbermann starts calling up ladies to shower with him, and suggests terrorists should bomb major American cities, refuses to correct misreporting about Malmedy, goes ballistic with more than several guests, etc., you might have a point.

    Other than that, how ya doin' these days, Andy?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  3. BB,

    I'm fine, you?

    Like I said, their demeanor is different. Olbermann has his share of outrageous and idiotic comments, should one care to look. In the end I don't see much difference between them besides politics. They are both blathering, loudmouth idiots who don't have a clue what they're talking about 90% of the time (like most of the talking heads on TV) and who are purposely pushing an agenda while wrapping themselves in a cloak of objectivity. What about that am I supposed to like? Just because Olbermann's kool-aid is a tad sweeter doesn't mean one should drink heartily.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Likewise.

    Since you wrote "most", I'd be interested to know if there is any news/commentary on radio or TV that you believe is good.

    This is as much a post about news reporting in general as it is about Olbermann's bit on the health care issue.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andy-

    What exactly makes Olbermann "left wing"?

    After eight years of Bush radicalism just about anyone could seem "left wing", that is from the perspective of someone who had drifted along with Bush, had found what Bush was doing over time as "normal" . . . I never did.

    From my conservative perspective, Bush was always a radical, and a dangerous one at that. Olbermann called him on it numerous times whereas BillO never did . . . that makes Olbermann an asset no matter what his actual political views, something BillO never even approached.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Personally, I have NPR almost all day, so I listen to most of their shows. Most of my informational news comes from the morning and evening news shows. Of course, they are not perfect and the way they frame issues sometimes is pretty annoying, but for the most part I think NPR is one of the better neutral news outlets there is. We are big public radio supporters and contribute every year to our local station. I don't think they slant left as much as they used to, while almost everyone else has run toward the extreme IMO. The only NPR show I don't really like is "Fresh Air," but that's not really news - its a culture and opinion show.

    I don't watch news on the TV much anymore since "news" has been largely replaced with people like O'Reilly and Olbermann. I used to religiously watch the Sunday news shows and some of the evening "talking head" shows, but I simply can't take them anymore. I've never been able to stand the morning shows (Today, GMA, Fox & Friends, etc.) On the rare occasions when I do watch TV news, it is usually Shep Smith on Fox (who I really like. Shep's program is the about the only real "news" broadcast on Fox.) or CNN headline news. I like the News Hour on PBS but its on at an inconvenient time for me so I don't get to watch much. In general, though, I don't really like TV. If it weren't for the wife, I would ditch our satellite service.

    Of course I get a lot of news on the internet through various blogs (across the political spectrum) and specialist sites covering topics I'm most interested in.

    Compared to what is available, people like Oblermann and O'Reilly don't offer much of substance and simply can't be trusted to provide anything close to unbiased information and therefore aren't worth my time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seydlitz,

    Are you suggesting Olbermann is a traditional conservative and was simply criticizing Bush as a radical? I don't think that's the case at all. I haven't watched him in quite a long time, but what I remember is that he was the frequent media mouth for the left-wing blogosphere and even went so far to to promote some of the more batty blog-generated conspiracy theories on his "news" show. In between, of course, his obsessive feud with Fox and O'Reilly.

    In short, I don't think criticizing Bush is enough to make one an "asset" for much of anything when one's criticism resorts to hyperbole, conspiracy and outright dishonesty. Credibility matters for criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andy-

    Sorry, but you didn't really answer my question and continue to simply lump Olbermann and BillO together without giving any real reason why.

    Would you describe Bush's actions and policies as president "radical"? If not, how would you describe them? Did not Olbermann call Bush on his radicalism repeatedly and consistently? Did not BillO essentially do the opposite? Who else in the US main stream print or broadcast media did as Olbermann did, well besides Paul Krugman?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Andy-

    Reading your last post I think you miss Basil's point on this thread which is Olbermann's quality as a journalist, as in fulfilling the duty of the press in a democratic country, that is challenging power and speaking the truth to power. Every time Olbermann said "Mr President you are a liar" he echoed the thoughts and feelings of tens of millions of Americans who rejected Bush's radicalism. Nobody else of anything approaching Olbermann's stature was doing this, unless one considers comedy journalism . . .

    Olbermann's politics are irrelevant, what is important is his function as a journalist which has made him a national asset . . .

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seydlitz,

    How is lying, conspiracy-mongering, pandering and engaging in pointless personal attacks (and not just against Bush) "speaking truth to power" and what does that say about the "quality" of his "journalism?" Maybe you are able look past all that shit see something shiny but I am not.

    Politics are completely relevant if one is pushing an agenda. We don't call Hannity or Rush or Beck or O'Reilly journalists because they are pushing agendas. Guess what, Olbermann is pushing one too. That it is a left-wing agenda is immaterial to the fact that he's pushing one.

    Olbermann is not a journalist IMO. His news shows (which I have admittedly not seen in probably a year) is an opinion show disguised as news. A real journalist doesn't spend air time talking about how much he hates a rival news network and a rival anchor. A real journalist doesn't make fatty jokes everytime he mentions two other people he hates, Limbaugh and Aisles.

    Yeah, got a few truths in there along the way, but then all the partisan hacks get a truth now and again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You know, there is a body of literature, usually oriented towards educators, that focuses on differences in learning styles between those most comfortable with garnering knowledge through reading texts, and those who, as the theory goes, do better when presented with information presented through audio-visual media. Teachers are accordingly expected to revise presentation methods to accommodate those less comfortable with text-based presentations. Personally, I think a lot of this is horseshit, intended more to paper over the fact that "Johnny can't read," than to actually convey oftentimes difficult concepts as effectively through audio-visual media as through written texts.

    Unfortunately, the reality is that many millions of Americans are not readers—either because they are actually functionally illiterate or because they just can't be bothered to do what I guess is tedious and boring to them, but is second nature to me. I get my news the old-fashioned way, through reading. I've also got a refined BS detector, developed through the years, and enhanced by my intuitive habit of tapping several different sources, so I like to think that I'm usually being intellectually honest when I arrive at a position. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for a whole lot of my fellow Americans, who are seemingly content with getting all of their information from a talking head at Fox or MSNBC. IMO, such folks are dangerous to the body politic, but it is what it is.

    I rarely watch anything presented as "news" on television. I suppose if I were sentenced to watch one of these cable shows and had to choose between Olbermann and O'Reilly, I would choose Olbermann. O'Reilly is just beyond the pale, to the point where I feel dirty if I happen to be somewhere and have to sit through his crap. Olbermann is tolerable, although the bombast is wearing. In Olbermann's defense, however, I think Seydlitz makes a good point: Olbermann did in fact call Bush a liar and worse; inasmuch as I agree with that characterization, I'm obviously going to be more sympathetic towards him.

    The last "news" program I watched fairly regularly was "Nightline" when Ted Koppell ran it. He left, and I left. I may check in on the late local news a couple of times a week, just to get "local" news, including weather, and I'll listen to NPR while in the car. But that's about it on the A-V side. I do newspapers, magazines, books, and, of course, blogs. I do not watch the network national news.

    Incidentally, on a related front, I suggest checking out the growing concern in military circles about the ubiqitous use of "Power Point" slide shows to prompt major and far-reaching decisions from various uniformed heavyweights. A lot of people, myself included, think General Halftrack might do a better job if he actually had to read some well-reasoned position papers, outlining pros and cons of a proposed action, rather than idling through a pretty bulletized visual presentation. A lot of people think this practice, which has apparently taken over the military, has led to some seriously half-assed decisions. Makes sense to me, especially when I think of some of the half-assed courses of action we've seen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I did a bit of research tonight, comparing the news stories presented by ABC World News Tonight with what CountDown had.

    Certainly, it's not entirely a fair comparison, because CountDown has an hour but WNT has half that, and both times are cut down by the necessary advertizing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/wn

    The top story at ABC was the 2 US journalists who work for Al Gore's "Current TV" brought out of North Korea by Bill Clinton. There was an interview of Hillary and George Stephanopoulos offered his assessment and he and Charlie Gibson wondered about other nations getting what they want by grabbing US citizens, like Iran has done recently.

    Next the disrupted town-halls story, "some", as it was reported, of which may have been groups organized by the Republican party and other conservative groups. Dick Armey's group was mentioned and a congressman from Texas whose meeting was hit was interviewed and a Republican operative as well.

    Next, Obama and Helen Thomas celebrating their birthdays and a report on swine flu as it relates to schools opening soon.

    Cash for Clunkers and whether it will be continued and what happens to the Clunkers.

    Post Office closings and Louisville KY floods.

    Anti-depressants and are Americans using them too much and are they prescribe correctly.

    The last story was the cost of raising kids.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

    CountDown led off with the town hall story with some video examples of protest actions. Chris van Hollen, Dem. congressman is interviewed and talk steers to health care reform legislation.

    Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos, where Olbermann has written diaries, gives his opinion of the town hall story.

    The 2 journalists out of NK story. Steve Clemons is interviewed, who gives some history of the Clinton presidency and NK.

    Oddball and best persons segment, including stories about a famous British carp and Bush's dog Barney.

    Eric Prince and Blackwater investigated for the murder of witnesses who were to give info to the gov't about Blackwater in Iraq. Jeremy Scahill interviewed.

    Worst persons segment, Congr. Peter King caught distorting a poll, Chuck Norris and the worst Lou Dobbs on the "birther" conspiracies.

    Last story, the fake Kenyan birth certificate with a comedian interviewed.

    Andy sez:

    They are both blathering, loudmouth idiots who don't have a clue what they're talking about 90% of the time
    &
    How is lying, conspiracy-mongering, pandering and engaging in pointless personal attacks (and not just against Bush) "speaking truth to power" and what does that say about the "quality" of his "journalism?"


    So where in this particular episode is the "lying, conspiracy, not knowing 90% of the time"?

    Now I'm not picking on you in particular, Andy, but to put it bluntly, your statements are vague and without any merit to evaluate the effectiveness or degree of journalistic quality in CountDown.

    And yes, there is bombast and blow-hardedness too. But I'll damned if I know how to emotionally get through the reports that an American security company in Iraq murdered Iraqis and allegedly murdered their own employees to prevent their testimony, without some sort of bombast and blow-hardedness, odd balls and worst persons thrown in.

    And most of the worst persons ( not all and I've seen ones that were taken back and corrected ), including Olbermann, deserved it.

    As for the print media, Publius, stinkers, liars and bombast abound there too.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  13. Publius,

    Great comment, as usual! I used to be a paper reader, but my daily reading is now done online and I usually get to the stories of the day through links.

    You're spot-on about Powerpoint. I take it you've read the recent TX Hammes article in AFJ?
    http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/07/4061641

    Anyway, I agree with pretty much the entire article and I think our profession - intel- is dumber because of powerpoint.

    You also made a good point on O'Reilly vs Olbermann. If captured by the North Koreans and forced to watch one or the other, I would pick Olbermann. Fortunately, that is a choice I don't have to make. Picking between O'Reilly and Olbermann is, for me, kind of like deciding who the "best" dictator is. Whatever their relative merits a dictator is still a dictator and a hack is still a hack.

    And yes, Olby was, on occasion, right about GWB. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't see much evidence Olbermann did much analysis to find the truth - rather he threw everything he could about GWB against the wall and some of it managed to stick. A lot of it turned out to be rumormongering and deception.

    BB,

    Covering the same or similar stories doesn't say anything by itself because everyone covers the news of the day, even people like Rush. The difference between "news" and propaganda is in the packaging and what is left out. I actually watched the video of that first piece on the tea-parties online. It was pure propaganda even without Olbermann's slanted commentary like "why do these people hate democracy?" He goes on to rail against Max Baucus and the "lies of bipartisanship." Then he brings on the DCCC chair to provide "context." In closing that segment, Olbermann helpfully tells us that the GOP, Blue dogs and the "lemmings" at the tea parties all "evolved" out "greed" and "single-cell slime."

    And then KOS himself comes on for more of the same.

    Seriously, you buy into all of that? You think Olbermann isn't pushing an agenda? You think he's not an advocate? You think he's not a hatchetman for that advocacy? God, man, open your eyes!

    ReplyDelete
  14. A step in the right direction to actually see that piece, Andy, but the segment you viewed is pure propaganda because . . .?

    "why do these people hate democracy?"

    Well, why do they, or do you think that disrupting a Congressman's meeting with his constituents as the videos show, shouting down Specter and Sebelius, and other instances so those who came to hear could not, how are those tactics the proper method to foster our democratic process?

    This "teabagging" at townhalls is intimidation and obstruction. It may or may not happen, but the next step down is physical intimidation and violence.

    Do you agree or disagree with the Democrats who claim that these disruptions are orchestrated and supported by the Republican party and their supporters among advocacy groups and monied interests, like Lloyd Doggett of Texas has claimed?

    Max Baucus and bipartisanship? Go through the video in my article here which describes Baucus' version of that term.

    TPM gives a history:

    http://tinyurl.com/m5p4aj

    Baucus' history of bipartisanship with his constituents

    http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=410917

    http://tinyurl.com/la6csx

    So, the question remains, who is it that Max Baucus serves?

    Your mischaracterization of KOS' interview bewilders me.

    Here it is for anyone to see and hear that it's nothing but a discussion of money in politics and how to beat back anti-reform propaganda.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32291502

    Seriously, you buy into all of that? You think Olbermann isn't pushing an agenda? You think he's not an advocate? You think he's not a hatchetman for that advocacy? God, man, open your eyes!

    #1. Yes. #2. Agreed. #3. Agreed.
    #4. Hatchetman? If that's the term you like, agreed.
    #5. I have. You might try the same.

    I could wish we could eliminate insults like "lemmings", "greed", "single-celled slime" from our national discourse, but I see you conveniently left off Olbermann's reasoning for using those terms. But what do you think might have been the turn of history if such terminology were used against Tailgunner Joe instead of politely letting him ruin lives and reputations with polite thumbs securely up civil asses?

    How would you describe the behavior of corporate interests whose bottom line is much more important than people's lives, as illustrated by Olbermann's use of the Shirtwaist story?

    Personally, I prefer rational discourse, but sometimes "Fuck the murderous bastards" makes better sense.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andy-

    Who has argued that Olbermann didn't have a political perspective? This is a strawman.

    When exactly did Olbermann call Bush a liar and it failed to "stick"? Concerning Torture? FISA? Telecomm immunity? Iran policy? Valerie Plame? All the lies spun about Iraq?

    In fact as time goes on we are finding out that situation during Bush's time in office was worse than we could have imagined.

    I suppose for some it is more reassuring to attempt to convince themselves that Bush "wasn't so bad", not really "that radical", that he had "good intentions" regardless of his criminal actions . . . an effort to revert back to that late 1990s relativistic mindset that everybody's opinion is equally valid and that the same facts be seen from different perspectives and different conclusions drawn, that one has to thus be "balanced" which means in effect never taking a stand or choosing a side (or seeming not to) since those damn facts are always subjective. That we must avoid "partisanship" and "work together".

    To me that was always a sucker's game when it came to the NeoCons. Compromise only works if the other side is operating with the same value set, sees compromise as necessary, not a weakness to be exploited. Should the other side will to radically change the entire structure of the government and carry it out under a cloak of fear and secrecy, then the opposition has but two options: Submit or resist.

    Olbermann essentially told tens of millions of Americans, "you're not insane, I see the same thing going on and I'm calling Bush on it!". So I agree with Basil on this and on the title of his post.

    In the end will it make any difference? Does what's left of the Republic have a chance in hell against the Empire? Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From:

    http://tinyurl.com/l4858v

    and a commenter:

    Stupid is now a REQUIREMENT for publication. I spent 30 years as a professional writer and editor. Earlier this year, I submitted a freelance piece on a fairly technical aspect of proposed aviation rulemaking. The magazine’s editor kicked it back with a page of notes of things he wanted removed from the article because he felt the details of the story would just be too much for his (highly technically literate) audience to deal with. In subsequent conversations, it turned out he really wanted a piece about how the proposed new rules “felt” and he did not want to discuss the technical aspects or the possible operational impacts because he did not understand the issue.

    So, yeah, McMegan is right in the groove for the new wave of “journalism” that abjures facts. Colbert’s satirical “truthiness” is now the gold standard of editorial accuracy.


    This crap is the fertilizer Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert thrive on.

    "Truthiness".

    For example. The disruptions at townhalls reported by ABC in my post above. A decent report of the incidents, with 2 separate interviews giving their thoughts with no investigation as to the quality of evidence presented. Who's behind these disruptions, why do they do it, who supports them, what kind of support is provided?

    Countdown did that.

    Now ABC does good for the country, like the report on swine flu in schools. But then again, who's against stopping swine flu, as opposed to who's against health care reform?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  17. BB,

    #1. Yes. #2. Agreed. #3. Agreed.
    #4. Hatchetman? If that's the term you like, agreed.


    I don't understand. You agree that he is or isn't pushing an agenda?

    Well, why do they, or do you think that disrupting a Congressman's meeting with his constituents as the videos show, shouting down Specter and Sebelius, and other instances so those who came to hear could not, how are those tactics the proper method to foster our democratic process?

    Oh please. "Disrupting" a public meeting is proof that one hates democracy? Gimme a break. Do you even know if those actions are representative of what actually occurred at those meetings? Or were you presented with carefully selected bits of video and led to assume the protesters were all like those showcased?
    And tell me, what did we learn about the relative merits of the various reform bills before Congress? Nothing! Instead we get political theater where the "good guys" are for reform and "bad guys" are against reform. You see, people like Olbermann and O'Reilly don't like to talk about the details and look deeply into the issues because that would distract from their coverage (such as it is) of the political combat that lies on the periphery of what's really important.
    I could wish we could eliminate insults like "lemmings", "greed", "single-celled slime" from our national discourse
    It's actually quite easy to do, should one care to try. Maybe could explain what utility insults provide?
    Look, Olbermann, like anyone else, is free to express his views and express them in the manner he wishes. But don't call what he does "news.”

    Seydlitz,

    Who has argued that Olbermann didn't have a political perspective? This is a strawman.

    The issue for me isn't that Olbermann has a political "perspective," the issue is that he pushes that perspective and calls it "news." Well, if he's a journalist, then so is O'Reilly because he has a "political perspective" too and his show is has content that covers the issues of the day and therefore resembles “news.” IMO they both use the same basic TTP in pushing their different agendas. That Olbermann was right about Bush or is less onerous that O'Reilly doesn't change the fact that neither is interested in a fair examination of the facts. Both purposely craft narratives which leave out relevant information in order to lead viewers to the single conclusion they support.
    BB, it seems, agrees with Olbermann's arguments. Nothing wrong with that, but one should at least realize that Olbermann is going to leave out anything that might conflict with his chosen narrative and agenda.

    I suppose for some it is more reassuring to attempt to convince themselves that Bush "wasn't so bad", not really "that radical", that he had "good intentions" regardless of his criminal actions . . . an effort to revert back to that late 1990s relativistic mindset that everybody's opinion is equally valid and that the same facts be seen from different perspectives and different conclusions drawn, that one has to thus be "balanced" which means in effect never taking a stand or choosing a side (or seeming not to) since those damn facts are always subjective. That we must avoid "partisanship" and "work together".

    Heh. Talk about a strawman!

    Compromise only works if the other side is operating with the same value set, sees compromise as necessary, not a weakness to be exploited. Should the other side will to radically change the entire structure of the government and carry it out under a cloak of fear and secrecy, then the opposition has but two options: Submit or resist.

    Ah, the old "compromise is useless because the other side won't compromise" argument. The neo-cons got a lot of mileage out of that one. No point in engaging or compromising with the evil commie leftists or the axis of evil - they have different values and see compromise as weakness, right? I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think disruption of public meetings convened and run by politicians is always a good idea. As the wheel's gone round in my life, I've pretty much concluded that there ain't a whole lot of politicians at any level that have my best interests at heart. So I say, "Fuck 'em," let 'em deal with disruptions while they're selling us out. The unfortunate reality is that politics is really only about money at every level, which means that he with the deepest pockets will invariably win. And inasmuch as the guy with the deepest pockets never seems to care much about the interests of us commoners, ISTM the least we can do is reciprocate by not caring about him or his political lackeys. IMO, the time for being respectful to those in political office is gone.

    Which leads me to O'Reilly and Olbermann. I used to watch O'Reilly occasionally some ten or more years ago. At the time, he struck a populist chord. He adeptly exploited the "give 'em hell" streak in me and I often enjoyed his work. But O'Reilly changed significantly—I've heard it said that 9/11 made him bonkers—to the point where I think many of his deepseated prejudices against foreigners and minorities (look at his background and where he comes from) and now he's comes across as just a pathetic, grouchy old man. The old saw about power corrupting and absolute power, etc., applies to O'Reilly. As he became more powerful, he was given free rein to let loose his inner demons. O'Reilly has become just another rightwing rich guy, who, unfortunately, along with his sidekick Limbaugh, has lost any trace of common humanity. I suspect that both of these obviously fearful men are unhappy.

    IMO, Olbermann is a distinct cut above either O'Reilly or Limbaugh. So I disagree with Andy in lumping him in with those two. I think Olbermann hasn't yet lost his way and is still essentially a decent human being, something I can't say for his rightwing counterparts. However, I also think Andy is making some valid points, most of which pretty much point me in the direction of not wanting to help the ratings for any of these types of programs.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Andy, I do not see a thing we can agree with each other on this matter.

    You see "white", I see "black", and that's pretty much that.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  20. Publius,

    I feel the exact same way about O'Reilly - I used to like him too and you're right, he went way off the deep end.

    I admit I have not watched Olbermann in a year or more until the few video's I watched last night. My perspective may be skewed because when I was watching, his soap-opera feud with O'Reilly and Fox was at its height and on those topics he was pretty unhinged. I read recently they supposedly negotiated a truce or something. That two anchors need to have a "truce" just demonstrates to me how pathetic most TV "news" has become.

    BB,

    Fair enough, but I don't think of things as "black" or "white". The overriding point I have in all this is that there are very few media sources where one can get something resembling the "whole story." If I see something on O'Reilly or Olbermann or in the right and left blogs I visit I know going in that I'm going to have to fact-check their allegations. I actually spent some time last night doing that with this "town hall" controversy and, unsurprisingly, discovered that neither the right or left-wing narratives (including Olbermann's, which mirrors the progressive liberal narrative) are accurate. That's to be expected, but the bigger issue I see is that these narratives, on both sides, are increasingly substituted for "news" when they are actually advocacy.

    I fear this nation is heading toward a political future where information technology enables a kind of tribalism or factionalism based on political philosophy an abetted by advocacy disguised as news. Geography no longer inhibits ike-minded people from organizing and "congregating" and the new America we seem to be heading towards is one where minority factions are able to leverage that technology to greatly increase their influence. Over the last eight years we saw what happens when one of those minority factions is able to wield some real power. So I'm not looking forward to a future where the extremes at each end of the spectrum are able to control the agenda, but ISTM that's where things are going thanks to new technology along with gerrymandering and the primary process. Anyway, just 2 more cents from a cynic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neither Olbermann nor O'Reilly claim to be journalists. In fact they both vehemently claim not to be, precisely so that they are free to express opinions, no matter how untruthful.

    But I make a distinction between bombast while lying and bombast while telling the truth. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone here point to any lies by Olbermann. The Media Matters website has documented many of O'Reilly's lies.

    Now, Media Matters has this terribly unfair practice of either showing videos or posting transcriptions of O'Reilly contradicting himself or just plain lying. In response, O'Reilly calls Media Matters "guttersnipes,” and said the organization “routinely assassinates the characters of conservatives and Republicans... hoping to harm people with whom they disagree.”

    So I can believe him or I can believe my eyes. I choose the latter.

    Speaking of showing videos to highlight the contradictions and untruths of politicians, That's what John Stewart does as well. And a Time Magazine poll shows him leading as "the most trusted newscaster in America."

    http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

    It's a sad state of affairs when a comedian actually deserves to have that label. Still, I call that progress.

    But in my mind, nothing will top Steven Colbert's appearance at the National Press Club, where he lampooned W with, "George W. Bush is the kind of man who believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday -- no matter what happened on Tuesday.

    I damn near swallowed my upper plate when I heard that.

    Cheers,

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fair enough, but I don't think of things as "black" or "white".

    That's not what I meant. I used those colors as an illustration that I completely do not agree with what you wrote, with the exception of the "5 remarks" I replied to above.

    Not "black and white" in terms of shades or degrees of quality or truth.

    I do hope we can leave it at that and that some mutual affection from our discourse remains.

    I fear this nation is heading toward a political future where information technology enables a kind of tribalism or factionalism based on political philosophy an abetted by advocacy disguised as news.

    On this point, we agree.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  23. BB,

    No worries. We may disagree on things, but that doesn't translate into anything resembling animosity. Agreeing to disagree on Olbermann is a perfectly acceptable outcome IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I fear this nation is heading toward a political future where information technology enables a kind of tribalism or factionalism based on political philosophy an abetted by advocacy disguised as news."

    Welcome back to 1844. We've been there, done that. It's not pretty, but it works under our system.

    I'm more worried about the creeping dysfunction of authoritarian capitalism and the influence of cronyism and cash. When the legislature is as dysfunctional as it is today, we're all in trouble; the Congress was envisioned as the center of government under the Constitution. When the center cannot hold...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Fortunately, we are spared US "News Outlets" on the TV here. Rarely if ever check one of the two subjects' rants when pointed to same on the web.

    However, after all is said and done, Bill O'Reilly offered a lie for which my tolerance level is ZERO and in a category for which I have to struggle to give forgiveness. During a discussion about LTC Allen West discharging a pistol to threaten an Iraqi prisoner to gain information, O'Reilly, in supporting West, claimed to have experienced combat first hand, thus giving him a "real" understanding of what West had to do to protect his troops. This from a typical Right Winger who had never worn a uniform. When this was subsequently challenged, O'Reilly offered his time covering the Faulklands War for CBS as "been there, done that". Of course, it turns out that Big Bill covered the war from Buenos Aires. So, he "First hand experience" with the rigors of combat is bullcrap. That was when my view of him went from benign indifference to absolute revulsion.

    Al

    ReplyDelete
  26. Basil-

    Thanks for this thread. It has got me to think a bit about Olbermann and the state of "news" or what passes for news in the states. I'll be traveling soon back home so that gets me ready a bit for that aspect of the trip . . . the inevitable political discussions.

    As far as "just the facts ma'am" news, I don't think it exists. Which news source doesn't have "an agenda"? Be it the interests of its advertisers, or the (corporate) ownership, or the government, or the political elite, every news source is going to have an agenda and interests to protect. I used to trust the BBC, but the BBC has proved itself to me to be essentially the mouth-piece of certain interests within the British "establishment". (Disclaimer: I work for a sister British institution to the BBC which has gone through a similar restructuring and reorientation).

    Not that all bias is necessarily intentional, they could also be cultural, historical . . . Chomsky, in spite of being a brilliant professor of linguistics and a bit of a crack pot political philosopher, had it pretty close to the mark in his concept of "media filters".

    Which brings us to Keith Olbermann. He is a journalist, he's been a sports reporter for years, has won awards in journalism, but then so has Bill O'Reilly. That they both have "agendas" which they promote in the process of their "commentary" is a given. The question then should be who is the more accurate with what they "report"? I think that answer's clear as well. O'Reilly has made a whole series of misleading statements about his background for instance (one of which Al mentions) and if you can't trust him on that . . . Olbermann to his credit - as you have pointed out repeatedly - has corrected himself when shown to have misspoken, which is what a journalist does.

    So, if one has a problem with Olbermann to me it can't be with the nature of news reporting (which is subjective) but with his politics. Using the same technique to attack Olbermann (hyperbole and unsubstantiated charges) as one charges Olbermann with doing is decidedly unconvincing.

    Which brings me to two conclusions: First, and I agree with Andy on this since he has mentioned in the past, about balancing news sources. He pointed out to me a questionable source of news on Afghanistan once and was correct. The best news source balance should include different cultural takes on specific items. This would ideally be in different languages. US and UK sources may be too close culturally, not to mention in economic interests and outlook to provide the intersubjectivity one hopes to attain. In ELT theory we talk about how certain values are inevitably attached to language so an English language news site from a foreign culture still needs to be approached in a certain way. Delving into this one starts to see how complex it all is, how close to how we perceive reality itself . . . which only indicates the inherent problems and the limited nature of whatever approach we devise.

    Second, from a Clausewitzian perspective (what else?) the running (?) feud between O'Reilly and Olbermann reflects accurately the current state of US political discourse which is not near any sort of compromise. The fissures dividing the "reality-based community" from the "faith-based community" are truly fundamental.

    Conflicts run along an extenstive spectrum from minor spat to total war. Compromise is only possible in a limited number of them, far from being limited to a specific historical case, the inability to compromise in political and even social relations is quite common, ask any couple involved in a messy divorce.

    Finally from my own perspective, Olbermann has provided the opposition with a rally point, someone with access to the media who said openly what we were all thinking, and this involves tens of millions. Undoubtedly the same holds true for those who watch Bill O'Reilly, which only reinforces what I have concluded about the state of political discourse in the US today . . .

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Seydlitz,

    Thanks for the good comment.

    Is Olbermann a journalist or isn't he? You and JP seem to disagree on this point and it seems that's a point of contention more generally. Personally, I think he's a journalist when covering sports, but on politics he is an advocate. O'Reilly used to be a journalist, but no more. I did some searching and read quotes where Olbermann at times says he's a journalist or does "journalism" and at other times he says he's a commentator. Maybe he's simply changed from one to the other over the years, I don't know.

    You're right that bias is everywhere and the "just the facts ma'am" ideal that journalism is supposed to aspire to can never be achieved. I think it's fair to say, however, that there is a big difference between bias and advocacy. As you mention, intentions matter. There is a big difference between trying to inform an audience and trying to persuade an audience. Advocates, like Olbermann, IMO, do the latter by intentionally providing a limited, single interpretation of facts/news/events in order to support a specific conclusion, even in cases where a lot of ambiguity and alternative opinions/interpretations exist. In fact, lack of any ambiguity in reporting is often a sign that advocacy is at work. If you listen to Olbermann or O'Reilly or the others, this is exactly what they do - they provide a narrative and then give you the single conclusion that narrative supports. No nuance, no consideration of alternatives, no possibility that the facts show anything but what the advocate tells you. Sometimes that narrative and conclusion turns out to be very close to the truth, but most often it is not or only partly so.

    There is a big difference between, for instance, the PBS Newshour which might lean slightly left at times, but endeavors to thoroughly and rigorously examine an issue, and Olbermann who consistently gives the progressive liberal interpretation of everything he covers. There's nothing wrong with getting the progressive liberal interpretation - in fact it's a valuable perspective to have - but it's not "news" or "journalism" IMO. Unless a listener makes an effort to fact-check and get other points of view after listening to an advocate, then one is missing much of the picture.

    Interesting point on the fissures between the "reality-based" and "faith-based" communities. My sense is that these fissures have always been there - the difference is that now, through the media, they have the power and motivation to dominate the political debate. The fact is that the progressive liberals and the right-wing conservatives represent a minority in the United States, despite the fact that they dominate in the media. Both spend a lot of effort trying to convince everyone that they are mainstream and represent the view of a majority of Americans. Their bully pulpits are much bigger than their actual support and so they are able to intimidate our weak politicians in Congress and prevent them from compromsing as much as they otherwise might. Gerrymandering and a primary systems which favors those minority viewpoints doesn't help either. In short, politics in this country is increasingly controlled by the political fringes.

    FDChief is right about Congress as the center of government and I agree it isn't holding. I can only hope that at some point the great mass of Americans in the middle will end their apathy and put our country back on track.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Part One: ( darn the limit! )

    Last night's transcript from CountDown, Olbermann and Jonathan Alter listening to what the protesters at these townhall meetings are saying and then discussing the content.

    http://tinyurl.com/m4pyz7

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't believe sincerely-I don't believe that the Constitution of the United States of America is going to be upheld in this issue.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: We've seem to have come full circle here. Paranoia and anger and "My America"-what happened to the debate about health care? How did these people get convinced that they're going to be what, burned at the stake? Is that what they are expecting to have happen here?

    ALTER: Well, look, anytime you have wrenching social change, which this will bring-this is a big piece of legislation, you're going to have a lot of folks who are going to be anxious about it. So, in that sense, I'm sympathetic to this woman. But if you pay close attention, you recognize that all of this is very much alarmist, sort of median strip of American politics.

    It's not out to the left and it's certainly not out to the right. It's not going to make a huge difference in most people's lives. All it's going to do is give people more choice, hopefully lower costs over time-even though it will cost more initially-and end the fear that all of us should have of what happens to us should we lose our jobs and get sick.

    For us not to be addressing that, to just continue to discriminate against people who are ill is-that's the real outrage, and that, really, has to be ended this fall.

    OLBERMANN: And you used the phrase that perhaps should have been used all along. We are discriminating against people who are ill. Sell it that way and maybe that would have gotten across more easily.


    This is what I believe good journalism is: show us what is happening, show us the reasons or causes of what happened, and show us the relevance, why any incident should be worthy of our attention.

    This is just one example from the interview with Alter, so if you have a few minutes, either go to the video online or peruse the transcript further.

    I've always appreciated the value of posting on blogs or boards like this, if only for the "WTF!! YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!" moments one sometimes gets and which, I think Andy would agree, we all desperately need.

    Not to be confrontational, but to challenge one's own honesty and dearly held beliefs is the price one pays to find wisdom.

    seydlitz:

    As far as "just the facts ma'am" news, I don't think it exists. Which news source doesn't have "an agenda"?
    .
    .
    Not that all bias is necessarily intentional, they could also be cultural, historical . . . Chomsky, in spite of being a brilliant professor of linguistics and a bit of a crack pot political philosopher, had it pretty close to the mark in his concept of "media filters".


    And personal filters as well. Reality is what each one of us perceives it to be. One person laughs at someone falling to the ground, the other thinks that must have hurt.

    The major reason I latched onto Olbermann was that he very nearly was the only major TV personality taking on the tragedy of the Bush presidency and the failures of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, as you pointed out, seydlitz. Very nearly the only one with a media megaphone to stand up against the vast din of the drumbeats for war and to give those who did early and often to no avail oppose the wars a decent public platform to do so.

    Romantic, yes? 8-) But he found his niche, and it grew. MSNBE now has a stable of "liberal" thought, with Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  29. Part Two:

    One thing in my arsenal of argument that I failed to insert into my original post, but will do so now, is the value of "Satire".

    difficile est saturam non scribere

    and

    I get an itch to run off beyond the Sarmatians and the frozen sea,
    every time those men who pretend to be old-time paragons of virtue
    and live an orgy, dare to spout something about morals.


    Is "Satire" news?

    No, but it is the "crazy fool" who gets your attention to hear.

    Maybe Al could comment, since we share a bit of culture?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  30. I appreciate the "Fools for....." role in society, but there is a difference between a "Fool for..." and an outright liar.

    Al

    ReplyDelete
  31. And so we come to the main point.

    And it seems that, according to TPM, it may come to armed violence.

    http://tinyurl.com/no46jh

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  32. Andy-

    Nice comments.

    I think Olbermann provided a necessary balance, thus he is an asset, if only for that . . .

    Would you not agree?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Basil-

    Yes personal filters as well. What we each buy into, and also use as a sort of filter . . . like "that sort of thing simply isn't done" . . . as an excuse for not digging around in the Cheneybunker . . . that Olbermann piece about Blackwater . . . it was like their own "Verfuegungstruppe" if Scahill's right, and he's been following Eric Prince's legions for some time.

    ReplyDelete