The only thing approaching "self-parody" are these endless attacks on Olbermann

It has been a needlessly bruising week for MSNBC and its most popular anchor, Keith Olbermann. The usual suspects once again screamed about whether it was fair that Olbermann be allowed to attack President Bush on his show. What's different this week is that the screamers drew solace and support from an unlikely corner of the news media establishment: Time Magazine. Its TV critic Jamie Poniewozik, a self-declared Obama supporter, decided that an old-fashioned GOP Keithbash was the perfect time to pile on with his own grievance, and thus, intentionally or not, allow himself to be used as firewood to bring some long-smoldering embers of resentment and partisan hatred roaring back to life.

"Keith Olbermann Blows Last Remaining Gasket" is the headline accompanying Poniewozik's piece on the Tuned In blog this week. Poniewozik observes, as many did, the passion and fury that Olbermann put into his "Special Comment" last week regarding Hillary Clinton's ridiculous referencing of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in defending her decision to campaign until June.

Poniewozik's critique was followed by a longer observation about the left-of-center media splintering into various camps. Unfortunately, no one cared about that part of his blog post. It was this single observation that jumped off the screen: "Olbermann is edging ever-closer to self-parody, or, worse, predictability."

That quote ricocheted around the web. Some observers, like

Posted on May 29, 2008 at 06:23 AM | Permalink

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Comments

[James Poniewozik]

I won’t put us both through the ordeal of re-arguing my points about Olbermann on which we clearly disagree, nor the large portion of the post that had to do with other people’s criticisms of MSNBC, not mine. But a couple arguments of yours (or the same one, rephrased) really struck, and I have to say, surprised me:

“Its TV critic Jamie Poniewozik, a self-declared Obama supporter, decided that an old-fashioned GOP Keithbash was the perfect time to pile on with his own grievance, and thus, intentionally or not, allow himself to be used as firewood to bring some long-smoldering embers of resentment and partisan hatred roaring back to life....”

For starters, and you can believe this or not, I wasn’t so much as thinking of the GOP criticisms when I wrote the post, they didn’t enter into my decision to write nor the timing, nor should they have, one way or another. (Also, as you’re probably aware, by far the greatest force publicizing my post was its having been picked up by the not-exactly-anti-Olbermann HuffPo.)

And:

“Anyway, the larger point is that Poniewozik's critique, unintentionally or not, reinforces one made a few days earlier of MSNBC in an open letter by Republican honcho Ed Gillespie to Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, and in the future is likely to be lumped with that piece of red meat the RNC threw at the talkradioblogobrothersphere.”

Because I also said unflattering things about Keith Olbermann? I wasn’t exactly criticizing Olbermann, much less MSNBC as a whole, for its coverage of Bush.

Which brings us to:

“I realize he blogs a lot, more than I do at this point, but perhaps he should've thought twice about this one, especially since he knew (or should've) that his criticism of Olbermann would land right in the teeth of a huge brouhaha between the White House and NBC News, ginned up by the RNC and shaken, not stirred, by Fox News.”

I guess we fundamentally disagree about this, and in a way that surprises me since I’ve always thought of you as a particularly independent thinker. Should a critic, before writing a critique like this, ask himself: “But is this the wrong time to criticize KO [or anyone else]? Will it give comfort to the wrong people? Should I not suppress this opinion, because people I disagree with in other ways will be glad to see me express it? Should I not write this thing that I believe, for the greater good?”

I can categorically say that no critic should ever do this, never. When I do that, become not a critic but a partisan—not necessarily a political partisan but at least a partisan of ideas, more concerned with whether my opinions will please the wrong people than with whether I actually believe them.

As you observed, I was making two points in my post: one about Olbermann’s over-the-top delivery and proportionality, with which you obviously disagree but c’est la guerre. [The one thing I’d probably change, in retrospect, is to mention a little more of why I like Olbermann in the first place—the fact that as I said, he was, and hopefully still can be, a corrective to the knee-jerk fulminating on much of cable.]

The second—more interesting to me but closely connected—is this really fascinating phenomenon of partisans having to confront people who they have “ditto”ed for years suddenly disagreeing with them. (See Wolcott’s piece on Daily Kos in Vanity Fair. Wolcott never seemed to have this kind of problem with the left blogosphere until they started attacking the primary candidate that he preferred.)

Now, as you note, most of the people who linked my post cared about the Olbermann critique. (Tho actually I was surprised how many thoughtfully picked up on the second half, and blogged about it intelligently.) I mean, if all I cared about was driving traffic to my blog, every post I wrote from here on in would read: “Olbermann Olbermann O’Reilly Bush Obama Clinton Olbermann.” But that’s the Web—people are going to focus on what they care about, and I’m not about to start strategizing my criticism in terms of how it will be linked in the blogosphere; as long as I stand behind what I actually wrote, that’s fine by me.

I also realize, unfortunately, that if I criticize one aspect of MSNBC, some people will assume I therefore agree with every other criticism of MSNBC—though I would not think Aaron Barnhart would be among them.

My point? God, I can hardly keep track at this point. I guess simply that I would hope that you would find it at least remotely possible that I wrote what I wrote simply because I actually believed it and found it worth writing.

(Thanks for a thoughtful reply, James. I still don't see what was all that different about this Special Comment, except that it goring a new ox. Uh, analogies are not my strong suit.--AB)

[Jon Delfin]

It's unfortunate that the brouhaha over Senator Clinton's heedless remark about Bobby Kennedy's assassination has overshadowed something she said which was even more stupid (though less inflammatory): She suggested that the third week of May is too soon to draw conclusions about the ultimate disposition of the process, and compared the timetable to Kennedy turning the momentum in his favor in June. True enough, but the 1968 primary season was only three months old at that point. How long has Clinton been running now?

[jeff prescott]

If it weren't for guys like Keith.....
guys like McClellan would continue to be taken at their word!

[Blake]

Olberman presents himself as objective and without an agenda, and cries about other media members who he perceives to have agendas, but how can he not see that he clearly has one himself?

[SteveMG]

Keith Olbermann is successful because he's very, and often hilariously funny, writes well and say outrageous and over-the-top things that we've never (or rarely) seen on television. He is also very smooth doing live coverage of events, juggling guests and stories impressively.

But, he is not a news anchor. He has a clear agenda (for good or bad) and cares not a whit about balance and objectivity and fairness. He has little if any knowledge of politics, government, foreign policy or other substantive issues. He's a lousy interviewer, his depth of understanding on topics is superficial at best. He relies on liberal/left blogs for stories, stories that he and his staff do not check or verify for accuracy.

That he is considered by some to the "future of news" should be disheartening.

Once Obama is elected and a liberal government is in place, Olbermann will disappear along with Bush and his team.

Ironic isn't it?

[Charity]

I doubt that Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert will just fade away when the Democrats get into office. They will hold the administration and Congress to the high standards they ought to be meeting... just... kinda like now...

[Karla]

SteveMG says "Once Obama is elected and a liberal government is in place, Olbermann will disappear along with Bush and his team."

Two words: You. Wish.

Congratulations to Mr. Barnhart for writing the most cogent assessment of this sudden meme-du-jour case of mass blogopshere "concern" that Keith Olbermann is "going overboard." It can hardly be a coincidence that he's being selected for especial criticism now, as the curtains come down on the nightmarish Bush Administration and the literal and moral bankruptcy that has been the Hillary Clinton campaign slowly limps toward the finish line.

Sorry, Mr. Poniewozik. I don't particularly care whether the timing of your remarks was chosen to ride a wave or not. Your Keith-bashing just doesn't work, and neither does that of the easy snark potshotters who followed in your footsteps. Real journalism and real integrity can't be shot down that easily.

After so many years of being force-fed bull by just about everyone in the media except Olbermann, we're all being treated to a fresh breeze of reality from a number of quarters. I have to believe a large part of this is due to the trail Olbermann blazed, proving you could not only speak the truth but get ratings with it. No one feels obligated to buy, or parrot, the old right-wing spin anymore, no matter how much the White House or Fox News jump up and down and yell "No fair!"

It's also high time someone blasted Howie Kurtz for what he is — a guy who has no damn business pretending to be cool and impartial about his commentary on the media when it's so obviously compromised. And for pointing out that the so-called "old school" journalists whom Olbermann presumaby isn't fit to untie the shoes of (I guess he's too "funny" or something) aren't nearly as pure and high-minded as they are sometimes credited to be. Nor are many bloggers, who so often seem to aim their commentary toward maintaining that a man paid millions of dollars per year to opine on national TV is a mere hack while they and they alone, tapping away from their mothers' basements, are the acolytes of modern journalistic purity.

If there is any cogent point Poniewozik made in all this, it's in what he calls "this really fascinating phenomenon of partisans having to confront people who they have 'ditto'ed for years suddenly disagreeing with them." Now there you have something, Mr. P. Yeah, there does indeed seem to be a large contingent of "I used to love him, but then he changed and now I can't watch him" Olbermann haters out there. Ask them what happened, and most will tell you to a man (woman): He started "bashing" Hillary Clinton. In other words, he said things about their preferred candidate that they found unflattering; he experienced and expressed very genuine disappointment about her; and they couldn't stand having to listen to it. So, now, they dismiss it by telling themselves Olbermann is unreasonably biased, that he has an irrational "love" of Barack Obama, that it has "deranged" him, and that he is no longer the man he was.

This, of course, is ridiculous. Olbermann didn't change; Clinton did. Or, perhaps, she merely revealed her true colors.

The funny thing is, as Olbermann loses these fair-weather fans, others jump on board...so his ratings really don't seem to be suffering any. If anything, they're still increasing.

Andy Rose's concern about "a cable network having their most openly partisan host 'anchor' their election coverage" has been voiced many times before, but it's really a toothless argument. Olbermann doesn't display partisan leanings on his election coverage, any more than he does when he appears on NBC's "Football Night in America." Seems to me that before he appeared on the latter, many people were upset and afraid that he was going to provide unwanted liberal commentary along with his football comments, and some even tried to imply he was doing so. Their accusations turned out to be absurd, and so is the idea that Olbermann can't cover elections in a nonpartisan manner.

I hope to see Olbermann continue his work, with its balance, objectivity and fairness, considerable knowledge of politics, government, foreign policy and other substantive issues, excellen interviewing, and deep understanding of topics for a long time to come.

[Allan]

When I first read Mr. Poniewozik's article I was struck by the amusing irony that the phenomena he describes in its second-half (the odd feeling one gets when you suddenly see a former hero through the eyes of their detractors) is exactly the same one currently being experienced by those of us who have "turned-against" the Clintons.

Where once we marveled at the ferocity of the hatred leveled at them from the most-rabid corners of the conservative right and wondered what could have possibly engendered it, the current campaign has given us our first glimpse at the folks who inspired so much venom during their two terms in the White House.

Hillary's now infamous RFK quote is simply the most recent of a disheartening number of incidents that belie the brazen win-at-all-costs mentality of the Clinton machine, which has turned so many once-neutral liberals into pro-Obama acolytes. Yes, many of us were charmed by Obama's famous eloquence, but I suspect the true turning point came with the epiphany that the Clintons--while not the murderers described by their most vehement detractors--actually resembled the power-hungry liars we had so often denied them to be.

One could argue that it is this disillusionment that helped to fuel the "self-parodic" fury of Olbermann's special comment. His passionate rebuke, it might seem, came from the same place as the criticisms those who once revered him now lay at his feet.

And, Mr. Poniewozik, it should be said that when anyone makes a passionate argument regarding the true role of "the critic" in today's society, they invariably come across as an egomaniacal and borderline-delusional jerk.

[Carol Anne]

I used to watch "Countdown" every evening, enjoying Keith Olbermann's humor and style. Then he started issuing "special comments." After a few of those, I stopped tuning in.

Keith, you are not the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow! Go back to covering the news.

[SaveFarris]

For those who think Olbermann will go after Obama and the Democratics in 2009, on what evidence are you basing this? Olbermann stopped going after Congress right around ... 2006 as I recall. And though Obama has been gaffe-a-minute for the past couple of weeks (57 states, meeting unconditionally with Iran, we should send all our Arab Translators to Afghanistan, not knowing the difference between Memorial Day & Veteran's Day), Olbermann has said Zilcho. But if McCain accidently flip-flops Shia and Sunni, Katie Bar the Door!!!

For the ultimate example of Olbermann's bias, look no further than Scott McClellan. He was the WPITW countless times and called an outright liar numerous others. And yet last night, Keith conducted as non-threatening and non-combative an interview as you'll ever see. Why? Because McClellan had changed his tune and was agreeing with Olbermann's side now. Hypocracy at it's finest...

[Mark Anderson]

My only problem with Olbermann, and with MSNBC, is that Olbermann should NOT be doing straight news. I have no problem with his show, his tone, his views. But you can't then take that and have him hosting election coverage or live news events.

I know he wants to do it, and he is basically the only thing on MSNBC that people watch (sorry, Chris Matthews), so they have to let him do it. But I seriously doubt any journalism professor worth their salt would think that was right.

[katiec Pekin, IL]

I was elated with Keith's comments.
The fact that Hillary calculates very carefully everything she says leaves no doubt
in my mind what her insinuations were.
Unfortunately, we still have many radical,
racial people in the U.S.
We have a man, who, when his opponent goes
overboard, makes excuses for her.
We have a female that trounces on everthing
her opponent says.
Who has the most intregity? Who do you want
leading our country?
Obama 08/09/10/11/12/13/14!!!!

[psemerson]

I've followed Keith from ESPN to The Big Show (MSNBC) to The Keith Olbermann Evening News (Fox) to Speaking of Sports (ABC Radio) to his CNN Commentaries to Countdown (MSNBC). And, I've stopped; I quit watching somewhere in 2006. I'm sorry, Aaron, but I think the comments made by others are coming close to the target. What once was someone with a skeptical point of observation about anything and everything has turned into a kind of arbiter of moral outrage, with a viewpoint that tends to get narrower with each day. (I've checked in occasionally since 2006 and, sadly, haven't been proven wrong, either.)

In short, Keith's full of himself, in a cable-news version of, frankly, Lonesome Rhodes. The problem today is that, in A Face In The Crowd, this kind of behavior ultimately had you tossed out in the street. Today, it gets you great ratings.

[Aaron]

That's a great reference, to Lonesome Rhodes. However, at the heart of A Face in the Crowd was the idea that Lonesome was someone with a childlike understanding of power, knowing only how to seize it and use it. He did not know how to maintain it. And while there is a bit of the self-destructive in KO, there is also a grown-up's comprehension of the power he holds and how to keep and even increase it (admittedly he's learned the hard way, but even Howard Stern once got fired from the biggest AM station in America). Plus, he's not an empty vessel into which powerful people's ideas are poured, as in the movie. KO has strong opinions and realizes that with this TV show a platform to promote them, whether a one-man crusade against FISA or a wonderful documentary about a Hollywood blacklist victim or amateur video of his visit to the new Yankee Stadium.

Btw, people looking for the comment by Andy Rose that Karla had replied to ... sorry, but I inadvertently posted that from an email Andy sent to my PRIVATE mailbox. As I sheepishly told Andy later, it's not often that a reader sends me a 500-word opinion piece marked NFP!

[Wayne Beamer]

Hi Aaron,

Is it possible to agree with bits from your column and Poniewozik's about KO? I was drawn to Poniewozik's piece due to his comments about "the phenomenon of partisans having to confront people who they have “ditto”ed for years suddenly disagreeing with them." Occasionally, I've come away from the SCs scratching my head, disagreeing with the message, but not the messenger.

On the other hand, like Karla above, my family has been watching Countdown from the beginning, so we've seen the emergence of KO as a welcome and necessary counterbalance on the news to the likes of Fox, Limbaugh and other panderers of neo-con propaganda.

We saw KO's latest Special Comment, as we did all the rest that came before it, as less manufactured Limbaugh/Boortz/O'Reilly/Hannity bluster and more genuine outrage at the latest antics of the Clintons, people he had openly admired on his program and other places before the latest Democratic primary.

[Kathy]

Just wanted to add my thoughts on Keith Olbermann..I have wtched his show from the first day it was on..I USED to really love ole Keith..but Holy Moly he has gone nuts it seems..His special comments are so over the top as to be almost parodies of his pal Billo..I have been a lefty democrat all my life and I am now pushing 60..Keith is not a good spokesperson for the left in my opinion..and frankly I think Keith is helping pave the way for McCain to waltz right into the white house!

[Jason]

I love Keith in general, but find it funny that he's being so criticized for his Special Comments. They don't bother me, honestly. It's his endless banging of the Bill O'Reilly drum that kills me.

Bill O'Reilly isn't news. Mocking the competition is the antithesis of news. I don't want to watch Bill O'Reilly, nor do I want to watch reports about what dumb things he says.

If someone wants to criticize Keith, his O'Reilly hang-up is where they should start. It's rendered the show almost unwatchable for me.

[DAve]

Just as an alternate view...
If you don't like the KEITH OLBERMANN SHOW then watch someting else.
If you don't like Bill O'Reilly - watch something else.
If I read the discussion correctly - and I may not be - there's something here to do with journalism?
Does anyone think that Olbermann, Tom Bergeron, Bill O'Reilly, Mary Hart matter?
(BTW, which of these did NOT host a NBC NEWS program?)

[JJ]

Hey Aaron,
Believe it or not, I watch O'Reilly AND Olbermann. Both have great points in my opinion when it comes to life in America today. Both should be allowed to say whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. The key difference though is that O'Reilly's show is not even advertised as news most of the time. It's Bill. Period. Olbermann's show is spun by the PT Barnums of MSNBC as a news source. Couldn't be farther from the truth most of the time and using him as a news anchor on election night is outright wrong. Come in, give your comments on it, and then go home or stay the whole night for all I care, but give us someone who's a real news anchor as the anchor. Eventually MSNBC will dig itself a large enough hole that it won't be able to get back out of it. I'm sure some will simply say, look at Fox. Well, that argument doesn't stick because the people who do their news coverage are not their opinion people and when opinion people do get to anchor coverage (at times Hannity and Colmes handle late night election coverage), it's split down the middle.

Glad to see the comments back.
-JJ

[Karla]

JJ, the idea that MSNBC is somehow singularly guilty of "mixing news and opinion" and that Fox News never does this is patently ridiculous. NO network is more guilty of presenting opinion AS news than Fox.