Keith Olbermann is not good for the news industry.
Such was the opinion of former Los Angeles Times television critic and Pulitzer Prize winner Howard Rosenberg in a rather scathing article published Saturday.
Adding delicious insult to injury, Rosenberg didn't have very nice things to say about Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, MSNBC, or that network's obvious love affair with Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama either.
Here were some of his candid observations (emphasis added, h/t TVNewser):
"Countdown With Keith Olbermann" is the bean ball between "Hardball With Chris Matthews" and "Verdict With Dan Abrams" in MSNBC's weekday lineup. This trio has spent the election season heckling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton from deep inside Sen. Barack Obama's hip pocket and hammering Sen. John McCain since Day One.
Olbermann and Matthews co-anchored MSNBC's coverage of this year's party caucuses and primaries, and when Obama clinched the Democratic nomination this week, calming down these guys would have required a defibrillator. But the low point was New Hampshire, when they spent probably 15 minutes giggling at and making fun of the speech McCain gave after topping that primary's GOP field.
All right, McCain couldn't give a good speech even if he were lip-syncing Obama. Yet inept as he was, the news nihilism of Olbermann and Matthews was worse. And Olbermann hasn't let up; he's now attacking McCain's grammar.
We worried in Walter Cronkite's day in the '60s and '70s that a news anchor would sway public opinion merely by raising a brow in subtle response to a story. Oh the horror.
Some difference in just a few decades, wouldn't you agree? Yet, Rosenberg wasn't done:
But is his ends-justifies-means credo good for the news biz? The answer is no, even if you dislike the president and his policies as much as Olbermann does. I do, and can still testify that watching Olbermann collect Republican scalps like baseball cards is only marginally more rewarding than watching his favorite foil, O'Reilly, batter guests who don't share his wacky views. [...]
But at least O'Reilly invites dissenters to his lair (if only to disembowel them), whereas "Countdown" is more or less an echo chamber in which Olbermann and like-minded bobbleheads nod at each other.
Exactly. And, for the most part, so is Abrams's "Verdict," which is why both are obvious advocacy programs with no place on a cable news network.
Fortunately, more and more people in the media are beginning to not only recognize the lack of real journalism emanating from MSNBC, but are also willing to voice such opinions.
Maybe NBC will eventually get this point despite the million some-odd extreme-liberals that never will.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MSNBC
June 8, 2008 - 10:38 ET by BlondeIt's not just Olbermann...the entire network is more or less an echo chamber in which [name MSNBC host of your choice here] and like-minded bobbleheads nod at each other.
Delicious indeed, NS.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
An invidious comparison that
June 8, 2008 - 11:29 ET by zhombreAn invidious comparison that slanders all bobbleheads. Bobbleheads are innocuous, innocent creatures. Most of the MSM on the other hand are pestilential. Like cicadas or locusts.
Ach! ... you are correct, z.
June 8, 2008 - 11:40 ET by BlondeMy apologies to all bobbleheads (except the MSNBC ones, natch).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Bobbleheads
June 8, 2008 - 12:58 ET by KC MulvilleAgreed, Blonde.
The contradiction is that if you already agree with Olbermann, you think he's a breath of fresh air. If you don't already agree with him, Olbermann is a narcissistic, self-important prima donna. He's a media vampire (i.e., he has no reflection). But no matter how you feel about Olbermann, one thing is consistent ... he never changes minds. Nothing he broadcasts will ever change anyone's mind. That's because he never faces any challenge, and every guest in his program is picked precisely to reinforce his prejudices.
Every Olbermann interview is exactly the same. Olbermann suggests the most liberal spin on any issue. He always offers the Democrat party line, at which point every guest begins their reply with "Yes, you're exactly right, Keith." McLuhan was right - the media is the message. The whole point of an Olbermann interview is not to enjoy any unique insights from the guest, but to prompt the guest to compliment Keith on being so insightful. Every guest is just a Keith bobblehead.
More bobbleheads
June 8, 2008 - 13:05 ET by BlondeMorning Joe was without Joe for the last few weeks. Talk about a convention of pathetic bobbleheads.
Mika, Chris Mathews, Mike Barnicle, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, and alternating Clintonistas and BHO campaign folks. All nodding and agreeing over talking points, pretending to be dispensing insightful perception(s), all the while Mika "he, he, he" heing like a drunken parrot.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The actual phrase is
June 8, 2008 - 17:02 ET by DEVILDOCMOM"The medium is the message", tho' he was discussing the media and its effects. The media is enforcing McLuhan's belief "we become what we behold" with the bho campaign, isn't it?
You are correct
June 8, 2008 - 18:59 ET by KC MulvilleMy bad. McLuhan was an icon at St. Louis University, where I did my postgraduate work in philosophy, so I'm a little embarrassed here. It's like a philosopher missing an Aristotle question on Jeopardy.
Anyway, for anyone who wants to go deeper into the subjects of the media and their social role, McLuhan and Bernard Lonergan are required reading. They were prescient in many ways, weren't they?
Howard Rosenberg is spot on.
June 8, 2008 - 10:54 ET by SupermanI'm glad that more and more people are catching on to the disgraceful behavior going on at MSNBC. I applaud Howard Rosenberg for saying something that was long overdue by the MSM.
Well, I don't know that he
June 8, 2008 - 13:03 ET by motherbeltWell, I don't know that he is right in saying calming them down would have required a defibrillator.....
Maybe just a cigarette.
Goobermann...part of the news industry?
June 8, 2008 - 15:00 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasMy first surprise was learning that Keith "Goobermann" was part of the news industry. But that aside, it is interesting to see members of the "MsM" and "oM" being forced to admit to the figurative stench coming from MSNBC. But it appears that at least a few members of these two media forms still experience shame.
Next Please! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
MSNBC is definitely the tabloid unprofessional network
June 8, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Dee Bunkand NBC isn't far behind anymore. They are a tabloid (as in sleazy) but they are also advocates. A normal tabloid will report any sleazy thing irrespective of who it damages.
FOX is tabloid when it comes to their non political programs and will report sleazy stuff no matter who it applies to, but their News (Brit Hume) and Political Programs (H&C, O'Reilly, Chris Wallace) all have balance. The least balanced one (O'Reilly) has some positions that are Republican and some that are Dem so his badgering can happen to either side and does, but only the liberal guests whine about it.
O'Reilly is pretty squarely with the Dems on economic issues (except for tax cuts) and he's also against the Death penalty and supports a guest worker type solution to illegal immigration. He believes in man made Global warming also. He's only with Republicans on the War on Terror and supporting non activist judges and I think he's against expanding or adding huge new Government bureaucracies but I'm not sure.
Olberman has the far left position on everything and purposefully takes people out of context and offers no one to give their side. He is as unprofessional and trashy as a person can be. He's full of hate for people just for disagreeing with his positions. O'Reilly isn't like that. He only gets personal with them after being attacked by them, as anyone would.
Plus
June 8, 2008 - 11:49 ET by VonuBilly O always prefaces is slam on free speech by saying he is a big advocate of free speech, BUT not in this case...
Very much like a liberal.
Vonu - I don't agree that O'Reilly is against free speech ever
June 8, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Dee BunkFree speech is only about Government control of speech. Liberals are the only ones that want that. I've never heard O'Reilly advocate for that. O'Reilly is liberal on some issues, but I've never seen it on limiting free speech. I think that's another place he's with conservatives.
Dee, O'Reilly is also a
June 9, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Chris NormanDee,
O'Reilly is also a liberal in the sense that in so many instances, he thinks there ought to be a federal law to solve a problem.
I agree Chris
June 9, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Dee BunkHe is regulation happy like the Dems.
I guess there is always
June 8, 2008 - 11:30 ET by MidAmericaI guess there is always hope that someday journalism schools will start to turn out real journalists again, writers who value the story more than an agenda.
I blame a lot of this on the young 60's leftists. They are the activists who feel their future was stolen from them by assassination and 'dirty tricks right-wingers'. These people now infect editorial boards and professorships nationwide. Obama gives them thrills because they think they can make a kennedy out of him and Camelot can be restored. They, along with the current college kids who want to emulate the 'impassioned' youth of the 60's, are propelling a candidate whose only marketable skill would be as a motivational speaker.
The first Camelot was
June 8, 2008 - 11:37 ET by zhombreThe first Camelot was largely a mirage. The second Camelot, of Barack and Michelle, will be even less substantive. A mirage of a mirage, to dissolve into sand and heat. The media have become simply another professional class with their own agenda and their own unstated rules of conformity, like trial attorneys or realtors, only the media having First Amendment protection delude themselves into thinking they are endowed with some automatic elevation.
MidAmerica
June 8, 2008 - 11:56 ET by okiehawk44You put this so well. Think I'll show it to my wife who believes we early babyboomers are the Worst Generation and have thoroughly indoctrinated (ruined) younger generations like Obama's.
The political activists,
June 8, 2008 - 12:59 ET by MidAmericaThe political activists, who were a minority even in the sixties, got the microphone and have never given it up. I tell people, who were not there in the sixties, that it was different than what you read and hear. Take brokaw's book '68. It's fairly accurate but incomplete and his conclusions and exclusions are from a leftward tilt. I mean c'mon, the country elected Nixon in a landslide in '72 and that's after all the riots and protests and hostile press that he received. Leftists will never give up. They have an inner psychological need to control destiny. Free markets and free choice cause them panic. They must have predictability. ...at any cost. This is why they feel they are essential to government. Because without them the world descends into chaos.
KOSNBC...
June 9, 2008 - 08:41 ET by danybhoyokiehawk44,
I did'nt think I was the only person who believed the "Boomers" were the wosrt generation we have put out, thanks for helping me out with that. They have produced so many people who feel entitled to everything without earning it, the bleeding heart liberal ideal, that this country is paying for it with interest. If Obama wins The White House, wait 'til you see the ballon payment that we will be in for. Ughhh!!
As for the headline about BathTubBoy being bad for the industry, look at MSNBC as a whole, it's basically a hard left wing blog on television. Keith has people from Kos(he is a Kos kid now) his go to guy is the ever so sexy Rachel Maddow from Error Amerika, & staffers from Newsweak, which has turned hard left. Plus all of the stories from the NYSlimes & Media Matters that are so one sided it's not funny. MSNBC, not just Olbermann are a disaster.
If there is an honest study of this era in media in the future, these people will be held in very low regard. This should be a golden era of news media, but instead this era will be remembered for blatent bias & the likely attempts to shut down the new media.
"Countdown" is more or
June 8, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Blazer"Countdown" is more or less an echo chamber in which Olbermann and like-minded bobbleheads nod at each other. "
LOL ! Well said and very true. Keiths fragile ego and ever more fragile debating skills would never let him be confronted with an opposing viewpoint. One minute debating even the most demure conservative on "Countdown" and Keith would end up huddled under his desk, sucking his thumb and begging Abrams to " make the bad, bad conservative man go away".
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Conflicted
June 8, 2008 - 11:40 ET by Jonah JohansenNormal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
Whenever I criticize liberals in the media directly (send E-mails
protesting some outrage or post something online that liberals might read) I worry about violating 'bigtimer's' tag line ["Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson]
I have to believe that for every undecided or independent who
Olberman converts or influences, there are 5 he alienates and if he influences them at all, it is to be less sympathetic to the left.
The real value of the left wing blogs, Michael Moore\Barbra Streisand types, Bill Marr and Olberman is that they give the loony
left the illusion of being mainstream or of making sense. It blurs and conceals the reality that a majority of Americans see such views as bizarre and extreme.
I absolutely guarantee you that if you were to randomly select
a thousand truly undecided neutral independent voters and place them in an auditorium and have them listen too an hour of Olberman and an hour of Rush Limbaugh trying to persuade them to vote one way or the other or to adopt a liberal or conservative position on some issue; that, of those who were persuaded the ratio of people persuaded by Limbaugh to Olberman would be a minimum of 5 to 1.
In a way we should all be happy about the left
ward and downward spiral of MSNBC. Consider the alternative. What if they went out of their way to create an atmosphere of balance and fairness. What if they made every effort to appear to give both sides a fair shake but very cleverly and subtly inserted things which made you question or doubt the conservative side.
What if instead of bludgeoning viewers with the pro-left pro-Obama anti-bush derangement syndrome bias they kind of snuck it in under the radar. If they did that, then their is a real danger they might influence undecideds and independents.
One question. What would be
June 8, 2008 - 12:11 ET by jrockbgOne question. What would be the difference then between Hannity and Olbermann? Hannity has been the lead election coverage moderator for Fox News.
Granted, Alan Colmes is also there which provides balance. And having both Matthews and Olbermann moderate election coverage is basically having two people on the same side of a see-saw.
But is there impropriety with Fox News as well?
I'm certainly no liberal, just trying to get a good answer to that question
JR
June 8, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Noel SheppardJR,
Because Hannity HASN'T been the lead election coverage moderator for Fox. That would be Brit Hume with a panel comprised of two liberals and two conservatives. When not Hume, it's been Chris Wallace with a panel comprised of two liberals and two conservatives.
That's called balance, and is in stark contrast to MSNBC's Matthews and Olbermann, both Bush haters and Obama lovers.
Any other questions? ns
And Hannity has never
June 8, 2008 - 13:08 ET by motherbeltAnd Hannity has never claimed that what he does is "really journalism" as KO has.
Good points. Thank you.
June 8, 2008 - 13:20 ET by jrockbgGood points. Thank you.
----
June 8, 2008 - 19:25 ET by dahliatravershas never claimed that what he does is "really journalism" as KO has
What?? Olbermann claims to conduct real journalism? Jumping up and down and vocalizing on air like a monkey on a triple expresso? Ridiculous.
To Research, or not to Research, that is the Question
June 8, 2008 - 12:18 ET by JayTeeA Truly descriptive Term for MSNBC so called journalism, or News Reporting, News COmmentary, is "Drive By Media". Olbermanic just reads/views/observes an Event, and 5 minutes later he's ready to go on the Airways and exfoliate and pontificate on the Subject based upon his personal "emotional" reaction, not based upon any Research of his own.
That is called entertainment, and his ratings show it has a rather shallow appeal. He's basically an "Emotional Outburst" posing as a Thoughtful News commentator.
O'Reilly at least gives the impression he has done Research and applied Thought to the Process of Reporting the News, and/or brings in Experts to confirm/counter his discussion.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
MSNBC
June 8, 2008 - 13:02 ET by ammo johnMedia
Suppressing
Negative
Barack
Controversy
Olbermann's not alone
June 8, 2008 - 14:14 ET by williamkingOlbermann is not the only bad journalist at MSNBC...Andrea Mitchell (aka Mrs. Alan Greenspan), when covering Obama's visit to Bristol, Virginia this week, mentioned the "rednecks" of Appalachia. As a resident of nearby Kentucky, this is yet another example of MSNBC's hypocrisy.
The Bristol (VA) Herald-Courier had a great editorial about it on Friday. Google it.
What kinda etiquette is
June 8, 2008 - 14:30 ET by general companyWhat kinda etiquette is that, leaving the link to this tidbit on google, know wonder they call you rednecks up there.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
link was too long
June 8, 2008 - 17:06 ET by williamkingWhen I was editing, the link was too long.
Keith Olbermann = Max
June 8, 2008 - 14:37 ET by The Central ScrutinizerKeith Olbermann = Max Headroom
Max Voltage
June 8, 2008 - 23:59 ET by Uncle JohnOlbermann is Max Headroom, minus the hipness and the audience.
"disembowel"
June 8, 2008 - 14:44 ET by sarcasmoRead: "repeatedly interrupt."
Let's all face a couple of tough but true facts: They both suck & they're both paid WAAAAY too-much.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Well this is refreshing for
June 8, 2008 - 14:58 ET by bigtimerWell this is refreshing for a change...Howard Rosenberg is right....I will wait patiently for others to join him....and eventually the demise of Olbie and possibly others on msnbc.
What a glorious day that would be...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt,Apparently you have to
June 8, 2008 - 15:11 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Apparently you have to be an "ex"-whatever in the media to begin to see clearly and be more honest. At least he revealed his clearer view in a major newspaper. Usually, when we read that an ex-reporter (for example) is honest about bias, they are writing on a blog or a little-known journal, etc.
Afternoon Chris... Well
June 8, 2008 - 15:19 ET by bigtimerAfternoon Chris...
Well as far as being an "ex"-whatever in the media to begin to see clearly and be more honest...
...now that would leave poor Dan Rather out though...and heck, I'll throw in Brokaw to-boot, he is always on msnbc...same ol' same ol'....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Rather is an ex-sane person.
June 8, 2008 - 16:39 ET by Chris NormanRather is an ex-sane person. I was just recalling reading on NBs, in the past, that such and such ex-reporter would admit that the media may be biased (sorta, kinda, on occasions, etc).
"...I accuse you of
June 8, 2008 - 15:06 ET by Chris Norman"...I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. . . ."
For the life of me, I do not recall the president, or any major figure in his administration, of ever suggesting there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, other than responding in the negative when questioned about it. The only ones who bring this fallacy up are the ones who created and maintain the myth - like Olbermann. He is a charlatan, who warps the news and uses twisted "facts" and deliberate misinterpretations to attack and mock those he hates.
The hypocrisy of all
June 8, 2008 - 15:45 ET by nicksmith112The hypocrisy of all hypocrisies is the loons at MSNBC hanging on every word Scott McClellan had to say about the run up to the war never do they mention that Scotty was NOT the press secretary and according to Ari, Scotty had very little to do with the run up to war . The incompetent press wasn't agressive on the run up to the war.....bla bla bla....thanks Scotty.
NOW the loony media failed to tell the folks up front early on about all the unsavory, questionable, racist, and anti-American Obama buddies.
How will the corrupt media handle things when the Michelle Obama wailing and flailing to a racist Wright rant video hits the internet???
The good guys just might win this election...lol.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
You know, Keith Olbermann
June 8, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Cureboy675You know, Keith Olbermann actually has more of my respect than Chris Matthews or Dan Abrams.
Now before you start pelting me with bricks, let me explain why. Because, to me at least, it seems that Keith Olbermann firmly believes in what he is saying (no matter how nuts he sounds). But there is at least some sort of principle at work (even though his "principle" makes himself out to be a moron).
Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams on the other hand, they have found that Olbermann's tactics brings a larger audience than the usually receieve. So they are merely copying his mentality in the hopes that it will bring them higher ratings. I don't think Chris Matthews has always been as transparent and non-credible as he has become for the sake of ratings.
And Dan Abrams is especially tacky. He not only takes the Olbermann route, but he sandwiches his program between two airings of Olbermann's show, hoping it will bump up his ratings. The man is desperate to have a successful show on MSNBC since so many of his previous programs failed miserably.
Basically what I mean is, I respect somebody who fervently follows what they believe (no matter how much I disagree with their beliefs) much more than I would respect somebody who spouts convenient beliefs to get themselves some attention.
Olbermann's Day Is Coming
June 9, 2008 - 01:03 ET by rammingspeedBeing so off the hook - so angry and bitter and unable to control himself - Olbermann is quickly marginalizing himself. Adults can only allow the two-year-old in a temper tantrum to dominate the room for so long.
Olbermann
June 9, 2008 - 10:52 ET by reunionpiKeith Olbermann: the overdue New York State Tax Warrant, Chinese American Trading Company the buyers of his real estate, the corporation
Keith Olbermann: the address from 2001 of his, the parents of Katy Tur and the civil actions
www.webofdeception.com
"Countdown With Keith
July 26, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Jack BauerI prefer: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann. Noballs With Chris Matthews. Veer Left With Dan Abrams
If...
August 26, 2008 - 20:11 ET by cest moiIf Keith Olbermann ever took a dose of Beano, he would disappear.
Ditto Chris Matthews.