Am I the only progressive who finds Keith Olbermann annoying?

71 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2008-11-02 20:27

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
[b]
You've made your points about why you think he isn't progressive. As I said in previous comment, I get what you are saying on that reasoning. I have no interest in debating beyond that, especially if it has to do with any sort of discussion about sexism which will just completely derail this thread if it hasn't already been.[/b]

This is a discussion about Keith Olberman. I introduced a clip of Olberman pretending to know something about WWII in response to some statements made by Condeleeza Rice on how congress funds its wars. I charachterized those comments as sexist, in the way that he used them to dismissed Rice's academic achievements, and repeatedly refer to her as having high school qualifications. Both the presumption of superiority, and he manner were sexist, imo.

I also said its possible, but I thought unlikely, that he would have said such things, and been so sure about his "facts" had Rice not been female. But that was an aside to the main issue. The main issue was how Olberman used his false premise to smear Rice, in what I thought was a sexist manner.

I found this annoying on three counts:

1 The manner in which he presented his case was sexist, imo.

2 He presumed a position of authority and shot his mouth off about something that he was wrong about.

3) He was trying to assert that Rice was an idiot. Rice, may be a lot of things, but she is not dumb.

I found all of those things annoying, and in the case of the first it was annoying because it was sexist. And his sexism led to the other two which I also found annoying.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Sun, 2008-11-02 20:36

#53

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]
Sorry, again, you've probably never said "everyone". Nice deflection.[/b]

What the fuck is going on here? This is friggin thread about Keith Olberman. I don't think anyone here actually thinks that Olberman is any kind of leftist.

Somehow, in the middle of all this, my assertion that Olberman is not a leftist is being translated into my saying that everyone here is not a lefitst.

And now the thread is about me. Wow? I someone going to come out of the woodwork and call me a Liberal poodle because I don't think Keith Olberman is entertainig, or funny or progressive.

Bizarre.

Sun, 2008-11-02 21:08

#54

Polly B

Cue, I think the thread is becoming [i]about[/i] you only because every second post is [i]by[/i] you. Michelle asked if anyone else found Keith Olbermann annoying. Some babblers answered that they don't find him annoying and it really sounds like you don't want to accept that.

Some of us like him. Some don't. Nothing you say or do or post is going to change what junk tv we watch before bed. It's seriously not that important.

Sun, 2008-11-02 21:11

#55

Cueball

Try reading the last few posts for content.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mon, 2008-11-03 04:42

#56

Michelle

Okay folks, enough bickering. Cueball, you've made your point. I agree with it, but I think ElizaQ has the right idea about moving on.

It really doesn't have to be like this on babble. We don't have to turn everything into a fight.

Mon, 2008-11-03 04:45

#57

Slumberjack

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]What the fuck is going on here? This is friggin thread about Keith Olberman.....
And now the thread is about me. Wow?
Bizarre.[/b]

I'll take a stab at it, if only for my own amusement. Earlier in this thread you said this:

quote:

I am pointing out the connection between modes of behaviour and progressiveness. In a word: "Process." His sneering, hazing, abusive personality is not progresssive. His sneering, hazing, abusive (not to mention ignorant) personality is what is annoying about him.

Which I thought was interesting, because I recalled that the term 'sneering,' had taken on a life it's own in this [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=001313]t... That, in turn, was a reminder of Michelle's comment in the [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=001311]T... For Nothing[/url] thread, where in part she stated:

quote:

We're getting dragged into conversational patterns that are shaped by our past interactions.

Admittedly of course, this observation was slow to take form over the morning coffee, so I might have missed the point entirely in responding to your question.

Mon, 2008-11-03 07:15

#58

enemy_of_capital

Keith Olberman blows. There I feel better. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

Mon, 2008-11-03 17:02

#59

babblerwannabe

Yes, I dont like him. I love the SNL Skit

Tue, 2008-11-04 05:51

#60

Mojoroad1

quote:

I agree especially on the Maddow part. Love or hate Olbermann his success in the antidote department paved the way for Maddow to come on board, the station being more willing to take a chance on an even more unabashedly liberal/lefter leaning/intelligent/non-ranting (however one wants to define it) person.
What's interesting about this move was that it was predicted to fail, the general feeling (don't know from where) that there just wouldn't be a big enough audience on the 'liberal' side of the spectrum, in relation to the Fox News realm of the media spectrum

Agreed. But unlike some I think Olbermann IS a good journalist as well as pundit. Yes, he "Special Comments" are over the top, and that's precisely the point. As for "he who shall not be named" mention of "sexism", by cherry picking some old clip, I've cherry picked one of my own. ...

I defy anyone NOT to call this real hard nosed journalism, and to call him sexist after (while talking about Palin) watching this clip.....

And finally yesterday's responce to him and McCain on SNL..... (I'll just link it, but it's funny, and affleck sent him a card thanking him.)

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27525426]Laugh so you don't cry Olbermann on SNL[/url]

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]

Tue, 2008-11-04 06:56

#61

aka Mycroft

Is MSNBC available in Canada?

Tue, 2008-11-04 08:26

#62

Mojoroad1

Yup, through satellite and digital cable in Canada. Me? I have bunny ears in Muskoka. (which atm means I get Global-clear as a bell, a fuzzzy (mostly) b&w CBC and an almost unwatchable CTV. That said I get all my U.S news from the net. (MSNBC.COM is streaming the election coverage tonight W Olbermann, Maddows etc. FYI).

Gonna go over to my partners moms (I hope) to watch the election (she has satelitte) cause one of the kiddies is having her room redone and is sleeping in our computer room [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

Sat, 2008-11-08 07:31

#63

TVParkdale

quote:

Originally posted by Sky Captain:
[b]
Oh yeah, The RNN....a so-called 'network' that couldn't even live up to its promises of being on television by 2007, and now is just a 'NET'work that's on the internet, living on the sufferance of YouTube-and all because it couldn't give up it's mantra of 'no ads'. Don't get me wrong-it's a good network, but is it where Tony Jay said it would be? [i]NO[/i]!!! how does being only on the Internet help Canadians unseat harper and the neocon cabal? At least Air America admitted that it needed advertising, and brought on ads to pay for its expansion. But RNN? Oh no, we Canadians have high ethical standards, and ads are evil!
Oh well, what else is new? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

If it was on "real" TV I wouldn't see it anyway since I don't own a television set. That aside...

I'm well aware how "behind the times" most activists are regarding the internet. Here's their best friend since the invention of the printing press and most of them are *clueless* how to use it to it's best advantage. I find them splintered all over the 'net.

The "right" has been much smarter about it for much longer.

And the intertube kittehs are even smarter about pushing their agendas to the top.

I like RNN. The internet is the new "cable". YouTube is prime internet real estate. 22% of internet users visit DAILY for an average of 17 minutes per day according to a survey someone sent me.

Now, whether RNN has a way to "up' their ratings remains to be seen. To do THAT they'd need to get enough internet savvy web-ites to push it up.

Sat, 2008-11-08 11:57

#64

Blairza

Michelle, I sense that lots of folks on the left find Olbermann bombastic, arrogant, shrill and sexist.
I however love the guy because I've been watching him since he was a sports director at a local station in la in the 80's. The same whithering sarcasm and hyperbole that he uses today in national politics he applied to LA Sports. Some got so angry that they tried to blackball him from press conferences. That backfired when he moved to the CBS affiliate which was to important to the NFL to cut out. When Magic Johnson announced he was Hiv positive Olbermann shocked viewers by weeping on the air. No one suspected the guy had a heart. He's a main stream star due to his years at ESPN, but still he got there by shoving his broadcast style down the throats of more timid broadcasters.

Tue, 2008-11-11 01:15

#65

Polly B

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermanns-prop-8-s_n_142...

"This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the
sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do
not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a
time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over
here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your
option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take
anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a
little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these
terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too
much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even
as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world
around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying,
no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you
couldn't marry?"

He's right it's corny, but I can live with that.

Tue, 2008-11-11 20:00

#66

Aristotleded24

I've seen Olberman, and there are fair grounds on which to criticise him (especially his "Worst Person In The World" scthick). In Olberman's defence, people are very frustrated not only with the state of affairs in the US, but also with the way they are portrayed and the way the corporate media marginalises anyone who doesn't march in lock-step. I read Olberman as giving voice to that frustration, so even if some of his methods are unacceptable, you can understand where he's coming from.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/watch.html Here he is talking with Bill Moyers

Tue, 2008-11-11 22:12

#67

remind

Watched Colbert last week with Rachel Maddow on it, she is pretty funny and sharp.

She did an interview last night with Steve Clemons about Lieberman that some may like to watch.

Quote:
Last night, I had a round with the smartest anchor on air, Rachel Maddow, about Joe Lieberman and what his future in the
Senate could look like.

I have heard Joe Lieberman state on many occasions that "our children's
education is a national security issue." I've heard him say the same about
technology policy in which he has been an outstanding leader. Let him show that
he cares about other arenas of national policy as much as he does about bombing
Iran.

The problem the Democratic caucus has with Lieberman stems from his
fear-mongering and his irresponsible posturing in matters of national security
-- and domestic security. He should not have a leadership role in those policy
arenas.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

___________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Tue, 2008-11-11 23:22

#68

ceti

Well, Olbermann is more progressive than a lot of politicians that rabble people have supported, so I wouldn't be the first to toss stones.

Sat, 2009-01-31 14:28

#69

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

quote:

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
[b] If you're serious, get on board with The Real News Network and put your money where your sarcasm is...[/b]

Oh yeah, The RNN....a so-called 'news channel' that couldn't even live up to its promises of being on television by 2007, and now is just a 'NET'work that's on the internet, living on the sufferance of YouTube-and all because it couldn't give up it's mantra of 'no ads'. Don't get me wrong-it's a good channel, but is it where Paul Jay said it would be? NO!!! How does being only on the Internet help Canadians unseat Harper and the neocon cabal? At least Air America admitted that it needed advertising, and brought on ads to pay for its expansion. But RNN? Oh no, we Canadians have high ethical standards, and ads are evil!

Oh well, what else is new?