Keith Olbermann is No Edward R. Murrow

Actual shot of Olbermann, via Gawker.

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." - Edward R. Murrow

Keith Olbermann's special comment was something else. As if this race needed more stoking of the fires, Olbermann did not miss his chance to chime in with an anti-Clinton crowd pleaser. He started by thanking the Clintons, then ripped the scab off of every primary wound that's come before today. At one point the pompous anchorman actually squealed "David Duke," while doing the Obama camp's greatest hits, resurrecting them all, including Bill Clinton in South Carolina. The delivery was so overwrought and dramatic at one point I was almost convinced he was going to start talking about Jesus, then ask for cash. But what exactly does his opinion mean anymore?

"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow

Countdown long ago became The Obama Hour, and Mr. Olbermann's protestations to the contrary are ridiculous. Keith Olbermann is simply carrying the candidate's anti-Clinton message openly on cable. But the anchorman's rhetoric has now reached screech:

OLBERMANN: I'm sorry to sound speechless. It seems remarkable to me that a campaign being run in the 21st century or even the second half of the 20th century would allow itself to be associated in any kind of way and not step back. If it was two African Americans running against each other, and one of them had somebody say this on behalf of their candidate, that the other guy is only in there because he's equal opportunity, or there's been some sort of quota system, or that he's a black man--does it not have disaster written all over it, or are we living in South Africa? (via "Countdown" transcript)

South Africa? Using the apartheid card against Hillary Clinton. Mr. Olbermann evidently is taking his cue from Orlando Patterson. It would be nice if either of these men were correct on their facts.

Seriously, would Clinton have the female support she has today if she weren't a woman? Being African American is only part of the Obama quotient, however, it is part of it. In fact, for Clinton, being the first viable female for president is the driving force behind some voters, as no doubt being an African American first is for some Obama supporters. Is either side really going to deny these facts? Meanwhile one uses race as a bludgeon, while ignoring the gender prejudice running rampant in the anti Clinton media onslaught?

Evidently Mr. Olbermann can only see through his zipper.

However, the acrimony unleashed between Obama and Clinton supporters through Jesse Jackson Jr. or Geraldine Ferraro isn't so surprising if you consider American history. It's what makes Olbermann's "South Africa" slur even more insulting. Today's events resemble what happened almost one hundred-fifty years ago. Obviously, a simple sportscaster can't appreciate the history as America tries to break through yet another barrier thanks to the Democratic Party. But you'd think someone in the network would remind Mr. Olbermann that the woman he's been bashing for weeks and announced he would take out after tonight is breaking yet another barrier, as is her opponent, with the acrimonies of this battle actually having roots in American history:

During the years before the Civil War, Douglass was a close friend of Susan B. Anthony and her family, and often visited the Anthony home. He delivered a eulogy upon the death of Anthony's father Daniel in November 1862. However, during the years from 1865 to 1870, Douglass split from many women's rights activists over the issue of passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Anthony and Stanton refused to support the Fifteenth Amendment because it excluded women. Douglass, on the other hand, believed with many abolitionists that it was important to secure the rights of African-American males before working to achieve the rights of women. Their argument was both public and private, and there was resentment and hurt on both sides. (source)

Douglas later rejoined the women's rights movement, and along with Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was hailed for being a women's rights pioneer, with Anthony singing Douglas's praises after the rift had healed. We do get over these things, especially if left to fight them through organically, without a cable carnival barker pushing both sides on. So what we're living through today is not without it's historical foundations, as well as built in biases, though as we hit the ground fighting in the 21st century, sexism is still seen as something much more acceptable than perceived racism, which includes any attempt to right its wrong by pointing out that prejudice goes both ways. When trying to make that argument a witch hunt inevitably ensues.

In today's American politics free speech has become a myth.

But censorship screams should not rise up when asking for fair treatment for femmes.

For months and months we worked to get Chris Matthews to back off of his horrendous sexism. Eventually, at long last, he apologized. Shortly thereafter came David Shuster, whose remark about Chelsea working for her mother was so over the top anyone could appreciate it was a slur. But not David Shuster, who basically believed he was punished and suspended because Chris Matthews wasn't. Since Shuster's suspension, however, Matthews has been fairer to Clinton, and is also one of the only people to handle the issue of race and the campaign even remotely fairly.

No network has been more tone deaf on Clinton sexism than MSNBC, championed by the boyz club that hails from Keith Olbermann's Countdown, who now leads the cable rat pack, with the help of his male cheerleaders Eugene Robinson and Howard Fineman.

Tonight, however, Keith Olbermann is going to do something no other anchor could dare try. He's going to go on the air to single out Hillary Clinton's campaign, which is being hailed as the first ever special comment to target a Democrat. If Mr. Olbermann really was trying to live up to his sign off, which steals from Edward R. Murrow, he would also include in his special comment a word about Obama's camp and their continual sexism, starting with Jesse Jackson Jr. way back in New Hampshire, or Obama's "hoodwink -- okey-doke" talking points, which I assure you Mr. Obama will not drag out for Pennsylvania, as well as the threats and robo-calls against African American congressmen who were threatened and called "uncle Tom" for supporting Clinton. Can you remember the last time Olbermann had balance on his show; invited a pro Clinton surrogate on to balance his All Obama All the Time mantra? Fairness is not part of the "news" on Countdown.

Keith Olbermann is no Edward R. Murrow.

He's become what he has railed against. Olbermann is now the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC. A big giant head railing against the first viable female candidate in U.S. history. Sports fans, it's the latest craze. Get yer popcorn, before "Countdown" starts. Beer will be a buck.

Edward R. Murrow was respected by Americans because he kept his biases in check and no one was off limits.

The other issue is that Keith Olbermann has no idea what he's begun to unleash in Clinton supporters who are as outraged by the one sided coverage of what's happening to Clinton on race v. sexism, which is getting worse by the day. Olbermann doesn't care, because he doesn't care about the Democratic party. He's now proved he's simply a showman, through yet a preview of a special comment that will bring anti Clinton haters into the arena to see her mocked, though it's hard to see where Keith will go from his "South Africa" query from two nights ago.

Edward R. Murrow's sign off belongs to one man, someone who in no way resembles the MSNBC sportscaster who now holds anti Clinton court on MSNBC every night of the week.

But no doubt Olbermann's coverage delights Tim Russert, because the only thing it will accomplish is to aid John McCain.

Comments

[elleard]

Terrific review. Thank you so much. It hurt me so much when I found the initial reaction on the internet was that Olbermann's words were "powerful" and poignant, because the substance behind them was completely lacking. Why is Clinton's reaction to Ferraro's comment - saying she disagreed and allowing Ferraro to politely step down from her compaign - so inappropriate relative to Barack Obama's identical reaction to the "monster" comment? Both candidates have acted completely honorably about such matters.

Olbermann's reference to the 3 am ad, which I don't think you mention in this article, was presented as though it was a mainstream view. The notion that it was all racist actually came out in a New York Times Op-Ed written by a man who's spent his life finding racism in every corner of everyday speech. For Olbermann to treat it as though it was a mainstream view (or as though it had any validity - Clinton's ad was simply trying to point out that she'd developed acquaintanceships with the international community and would thus be a safer person to be answering the "red phone" call) was completely distasteful.

[lisakaz]

Not surprised you're whining about HRC being dissed for her lame inability to address Ferraro's comments.

[elleard]

She addressed Ferraro's comments identically to how Barack addressed the "monster" comment, saying she disagreed with the statement and allowing her friend to resign in her own time, much as Barack did with his advisor who made the "monster" comment.

I've had friends who support Barack Obama - because of his policies, not because of his rhetoric - state that they agree that Obama and Clinton both have handled such issues very reasonably.

Olbermann's statement was making this contest less about policy and more about campaigning techniques. This is supposed to be an interview for who will make the better President with the better policies, not an audition to be the next star of "The West Wing."

[BetterAmerica]

It's hard to believe how lame NBC is. They don't even realize that they lose credibility as a news organization when their coverage is so one-sided. They should at least try to look fair when covering elections.

[auntiecairo]

Just saw this blog - the reason people watch Olbermann is because he's outspoken. And something needed to be said -- despite what people say Ferraro was out of bounds. She was PICKED as a candidate. Obama is being elected - big difference. Keith was just talking about Ferarro - it's about the relentless negativity of Clinton. Unfortunately now it's biting her back because she has exaggerated her own qualifications and by raising issues about Obama has only hurt her own chances in a general election. Her experience isn't that much greater than his - so she's better off just sticking to her details and knowledge and let people decide who they want. By staying on issues against the Republicans the Dems can succeed. Bill Clinton says it's a mild race but that's not true -- maybe it's the availability of the media but reactions are swift and over the top. Both she and Obama are good candidates - neither perfect - both with strenghts and weaknesses. Clinton is more effective being herself and not playing the victim. Hopefully Obama's speech on racism will be applied across the board to any discrimination - people need to weigh both sides of issues and not overreact. This is a country of free speech and the discourse is healthy.

[Suprshrink]

I wish I had seen this blog last week. I have turned off Olbermann for the last 3 months. I used to DVR his show everyday and talk about it to my friends. Now I not only avoid it, I will never again be fooled into watching it. Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, and many others have been a great disappointment. I have turned off progressive talk radio too. There is no place in my democratic party for my brethren to attack one democratic candidate to promote another. Every miserable insult imaginable has been hurled at Clinton, and the reporting is so distorted that I can only scream at the host who cannot hear my dissent. It is an extraordinarily painful time for me and I have lost all my interest in helping any other democrat to the White House.

[JonStewart4President]

And you Taylor, are no journalist, forget about Murrow. You aren't even worthy to touch the shoes of the likes of Katie Couric with your level of "reasoning" and journalistic skills.

So your dissing Olbermann remains, an interesting exercise. Like a blind person trying to describe the colour orange.

[Ratprick]

Hillary ain't nothin but trash.

[delphillips]

Damn you people are a bunch of whiners! No wonder why the Republicans find us to be such easy targets. So Olbermann pokes Clinton a little today. I'm sure he'll be poking at Obama some other time. Stop whining. Would you rather turn to the ever-more-boring CNN and Wolf Borzer? And while we're on the topic...let's stop hating one another within our own camp. Look, Hillary and Barack have both admitted that they don't differ than greatly with their policies. Further, if you're going to hate someone (like both camps are beginning to do with the other candidate), you should ask yourself if you'd feel the same way about your friends. Do you agree with friends on EVERY issue? If not, do you chose to hate them, scold them and wish to have them fired from their job? Get over it. The media is the media. I'll take Keith anyday over slimeballs like O'Really? and Hannity.

[scottmp]

Here's a letter I wrote to Keith-O the day after his "commentary" on Mrs. Clinton. Every possible variation of the NBC/MSNBC/NBC Universal e-mail nomenclature bounced back (David Shuster received his and a previous letter I wrote about Keith-O's shameless shoving of Mr. Shuster under the bridge for daring to ask a QUESTION about the "P" word.)

So if you know Keith-O's e-mail, send it my way ([e-mail]) or forward this post to him.

Mike Scott

---


Mr. Olbermann,

You've had too many people writing to you about last night's 'commentary' on the Clinton camp's campaign tactics, so I'll avoid the acrimony and just tell you that the moment I heard you say you were going to do one of your "commentaries," about Senator Clinton, her family and her campaign, I reprogrammed the TiVo and won't be watching your program any more.

I'm really sad about this -- when I first became a fan, it was refreshing to see news about our world and our government presented with an obvious point of view that matched mine. It was a wonderful contrast to the faux news presented by your nemesis, Mr. O'Reilly.

But with time, your 'commentaries,' and your deportment became more theatrical, less well-reasoned, less useful and increasingly irrelevant.

I think you've become a bit too much like the little boy who cried wolf. You bluster too much and by doing so, the effect is numbingly dull and unproductive, not to mention, maybe, counterproductive.

You seem to imagine yourself as a successor to Ed Murrow and his role in bringing Senator McCarthy to heel. "Good night and good luck" as a sign-off to your broadcasts makes some of us who heard it the first time around roll our eyes. I only wish Lloyd Bentsen was around to respond.

Murrow's commentaries had real gravitas because he used his pulpit and his position judiciously. He never harangued, he never sniped, and above all he never was a poseur. When Murrow spoke, we listened. We learned. We had opinions formed and changed and reinforced.

One thing Ed Murrow NEVER did was become a parody of himself. An iconic image of another shameful time in our history, yes. A joke, no. Not ever.

Your attacks on George Bush were fun, at first. It was nice to see somebody give that man "what for." You were amusing in doing it and your points were usually well taken.

But after a while, it dawned on me that nobody much was paying attention to you. Yours was not a lone voice, but it was just one of many whisked away in the whirlwind of the Bush propaganda machine. You were marginalized and ineffective.

Time passed; the campaign for Bush's replacement began and you were moderate in your coverage when there were many. I continued to watch.

Then came the inexcusable lashing out by you and your employer against David Shuster for his QUESTION -- not a statement -- about the use of Chelsea Clinton by the Clinton Campaign.

The righteous indignation and backhanded damning with faint praise of your "friend," was, frankly, disgusting. Suffice it to say that Mr. Shuster was using common parlance and a word SO UTTERLY redefined by popular culture that you -- and all of NBC/MSNBC -- look downright silly up there on your high, but shaky, moral pulpit.

It was tacky.

When the Democrats were clearly down to two, your personal bias -- coupled with the gut gnawing NEED to create controversy and fuel the fires of faux controversy -- have come to the fore.

My bias: I think Mr. Obama is a bright, capable, man. I don't think he's proved himself to be a leader. He is a great orator.

Mrs. Clinton has faults aplenty, but she too is bright and capable. I don't believe she's demonstrated any real leadership, but all the qualities that make one think another person is capable of leadership are there, including the very fact that she's standing after the past 16 years. Only a resolute leader would still be in the game.

And you, Mr. Olbermann, ought to be ashamed to cast aspersions of racism against her, President Clinton and, most recently, Mrs. Ferraro. Where HAVE you been lo these many decades not to have missed these honorable Americans' stand for and with minorities?

Countdown has become a parody -- in these trying days, who needs your constant harangue against FOX news and your stalking horse, Bill O'Reilly? Who needs the "Worst Person in the World" segment? Who needs your over-attention to the goings on of Hollywood celebrities and the endless parade of second-rate comics and lesser known commentators who pontificate on the goings on of the glitterati?

And who needs yet another pompous windbag attempting to deliver the news -- especially a self-righteous one who goes to bed at night hoping against hope that the dawn will bring Morrow.

I'll keep an open mind about my decision to pay no attention to you henceforth. When I start to see the New York Times laud your performance and your effectiveness, I'll admit the error of my ways and return to the fold.

I ain't holding my breath, however.

Sincerely,

Michael P. Scott

Indianapolis, IN
[e-mail]

[Suprshrink]

Bravo! I too wrote a similar but perhaps shorter version of this letter to MSNBC. I do not watch that station at all anymore. It was just too painful to hear people presumably of like mind belittle and demean a woman who has only had the tenacity to think she could be president and run against 15 men for the position. These commentators appear to resent the fact that she thinks and she says she is the best candidate. Would anyone running for office run on the slogan, I MIGHT BE GOOD!

I truly appreciate your articulation on this post.

[Comedyjc]

"Edward R. Murrow was respected by Americans because he kept his biases in check and no one was off limits."

"Olbermann doesn't care, because he doesn't care about the Democratic party."

Make up your mind. Either you want Olberman to show bias, or you don't. I don't know that the Ferraro incident warranted a Special Comment, but everyone throws an air ball now and then. I got ten bucks says you were cheering him on when he went after the administration, but now he's rubbed you the wrong way because he's criticizing someone you like. Name one other mainstream media figure of the past seven years who has been as powerful a voice amidst a sea of cowards and right-wing enablers in the press. I'll wait...

[KLRinLA]

"Seriously, would Clinton have the female support she has today if she weren't a woman?"

-Funny, Ferraro didn't say "Obama sure has a lot of african-american supporters, that is why he is doing well" No, she said he would not be where he is today if he was not black. That means several things, a few of them being 1) Aff Action got him here and/or 2) Only Black people vote for him. Now we know Ferraro is not a racist, she just said something reeeeaaaal dumb.

It seems that you, Taylor Marsh, are pulling the "sex" card while trying to manipulate what Ferraro said into this "oh its not that bad of a statement, really, honest" .

Criticism and observations of a disastrous campaign is not bashing, nor is it sexist. By attempting to label all criticisms as "bashing", and all "bashing" as Sexist, you are really no better than any other Fox News anchor that appeals to the lowest common denominator, people incapable of critical thought and only using inflammatory issues to rile up the goons.

And your rat pack/zipper comment, now you promote "reverse sexism"?

[Suprshrink]

The need to attack Clinton through Ferraro is de ja vu all over again. Ferraro was making a comment that compared her experience with Obama's. She said that she was basically in the right place at the right time for a woman to have a legitimate chance of being a vice president, and that Obama is in the right place at the right time to be considered the first legitimate Black president. There was nothing racist about her comment, but those who want to attack Clinton will twist and distort anything real or imagined to try to destroy her. Believe me, you can vote for Obama without destroying his opponent. You don't have to justify your vote. You get to choose either candidate. And so do the rest of us.

[kirafa]

No, my dear, you just said something real dumb. She said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. You are trying to interpret what she said, dissect, make it something it isn't. If Hillary had been a man, if Obama had been white, the whole thread of the nomination would have been different. But this has been a different race, because he is black and she is a woman. Anyone, who fails to see that is wearing blinders.

You say Taylor Marsh is playing the sexist card. SO I ask you, is it okay to talk about Hillary's ankles and not mention that Barack is black? Is it okay for someone in Iowa to ask McCain, "How do we beat the bitch?", what would have happened if someone had asked McCain the same thing of Obama and substituted the word to something else.

Do not pretend that it is not happening, on this site, if you are for Hillary, you are reviled, no matter what the reason. I am one-half American Indian, have an amerasian grandson and two bi-racial (white-AA) grandsons, my grandfather was hispanic and yesterday, I was called a racist, because I am pulling for Hillary.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Boo Hoo Hoo!

Keith Olbermann is no Molly Ivins either, so I'll let Miz Molly speak for herself: MOLLY IVINS I WILL NOT SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT - http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

[BrooklynLager]

Hillary! is not the most important issue in the world. I find it fascinating that every person, place and issue is being judged lately through that lense. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Ehrenreich, John Kerry, and now Keith Olbermann have all criticized Hillary!, so off with their heads, despite anything good that they represent.

As for the Democratic party, we do not need your help.

[dajay]

Taylor Marsh is right on target about Mr. Keith Olbermann, the MNSBC buffoon.

Loved the cable news rat pack metaphor and Keith's cheerleaders, Eugene Robinson and Howard Fineman.

What a joke Keith Olbermann's show and MSNBC has become.

[Tsunami]

HA, it was Timid Russert who showed his racism (we are already familiar with his sexism) when he called South Carolina South Africa. Olbaaman is simply a buffoon who knows MSNBC is anti-Clinton. He is a suckup who wants to keep his job.

[EGNY]

I agree that Olbermann"s tone is at times better suited to the soap box than the anchor"s desk. Maybe he is a little drunk on some combination of adrenaline, sleep deprivation and too much time reading his own press clippings. With that said, he has been an effective, desperately needed and shamefully rare source of unvarnished truth in the MSM about the criminal presidency of "W" Bush and Co. That he also gives voice to the outrage and frustration many of us feel is, to me, very welcome.

I started this primary season without a "favorite" among the Democratic field. I am now fully committed to supporting Obama -- because I"m at once drawn to his message AND repulsed by her tactics. Tone aside, the substance of what KO said is spot on.

If anyone wonders whether Clinton"s tacit acceptance of Ferraro"s remarks is "working" for her, go read the comments section under this topic on a more "mass" site like AOL. The results of one of those little "Vote" polls on AOL is telling -- upwards of 50% of that audience"s responders clicked their AGREEMENT with Ferraro"s comments.

Hilary is known for being extremely deliberate. Her handling of Ferraro"s thinly veiled hate-mongering has tapped into a huge "underground" reservoir of white disdain for people of color. Together, Clinton and Ferraro poked at a festering boil of white resentment over anything that smacks of affirmative action, in hopes that a bunch of votes would leak out in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

And THAT is why Olbermann is right. Hilary Clinton has shown that she"ll put her own short-sighted self interest above the good of her party and her country. This is the same morally bankrupt motivation -- the same defective (or total lack of) character -- that is evident in the Bush Republicans.

I don"t think Hilary is a racist. Not for a second. I do think she is possessed of a driving, blind ambition. Ambition that, in its blindness, is without the guidance of a moral compass that this country desperately needs (and currently lacks) in its leaders.

Obama rightfully emphasizes that he has the superior judgment to lead. But, right how, possessing the CHARACTER to lead is more salient than even superior judgment when assessing who should be our next president. And right now, it seems clear that when it comes to character, Obama is the only choice we have.

[Suprshrink]

The fact that you can describe Ferraro as having anything resembling blind hatred tells me that you have no idea what is going on in this election. No Hillary is not a racist. Nor is Bill, or Geraldine or any other Clinton supporter or surrogate. That is simply what the Obama camp wants you to believe because they gain votes by exploting the issue of racism. What benefit has Clinton gained from this issue. I will tell you: NONE. It is not conceivable as a strategy but you are willing to believe that because you have been swayed by a biased media of which Keith Olbermann is a part.

If you think Hillary has a driving ambition, what do you think of Obama? This is a man who has not completed his commitment to the people he serves before he jumps into a race for the highest office in the land. Does that not seem like ambition to you? Do you think he took this on with humility, without regard for his own ego, without an intense desire to win? There must be some kind of cognitive dissonance at work here that you feel you must slap down one candidate for doing what any candidate would do, including your candidate.

[MixMasterMax]

Taylor Marsh, like Geraldine Ferraro before here, is deigning to grace us with her patrician presence and explain how anyone who "rail[s] against the first viable female candidate in U.S. history" is guilty of ignorance and bigotry. She peppered her response with baseless invective at every turn while claiming to be the one vessel holy enough to carry the memory of Edward R Murrow. She even put some of Murrow's words into the article, one of them saying that to be credible, you have to be truthful. I've yet to find one place in her article that points out a false statement by Keith Olbermann in his Special Comment and I don't expect to find one.

[StephenJK]

I loved him when he was an ESPN anchor. Maybe he should stick to the stuff that doesn't matter much. Because he really has sullied his own name along with those other's you mentioned. Fineman is so unapologetic in his bashing of Clinton (just like the rest of them). I'd like to see Fineman on the street so I could give him a piece of mind. Olbermann, too. These people have become the filth they deplore so much. Rat Pack? No, no, no. These people are the "Sewer Rat Pack".

[Chip1222]

I looked forward to the show every night, but got tired of Bill O and Rush. Enough. I'd take some of that back if he'd be less critical of Hillary. I'm not a big fan of hers either, but he's over the top with this self-important, bordering on pompous, pronouncements. Too bad.