Political Culture: Keith Olbermann — As Bad as Bill-o?

Jon Cummings May 15, 2008 32

It happened again last night, a sight that many liberals have come to love. Veins a-poppin’, eyes a-bulgin’, ears a-steamin’, limbs a-twitchin’, looking generally like his head was about to blow right off his shoulders in a mushroom cloud of outrage, Keith Olbermann unloaded on President Bush again in one of his Countdown “Special Comments.”

Bush’s crime this time? Giving an interview to the Politico website in which he said he gave up golf in August 2003 because “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf.” Bush also absolved himself of blame once again for the “flawed intelligence” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion, and he said that the scariest result of an American pullout from Iraq might be “that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”

All of this was standard-issue Bush bullshit, hardly a sign of the apocalypse (or even front-page news, for that matter, compared to the devastation of a Chinese earthquake and the race-hatred that seems to have fueled Hillary Clinton’s blowout in West Virginia on Tuesday). Yet Olbermann clearly viewed Bush’s most recent ridiculousness as grist for another YouTube-bound explosion, another ratings-boosting rant that might goose him a point or two closer to his arch-rival, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

Keith OlbermannSo Olbermann ignored the fact that Bush was responding to a rather leading question when he warned of another al Qaeda attack: “If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?” Lobbed a softball, Bush drove it out of the park in tried-and-true “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” fashion. What else was he supposed to do? Yet Olbermann chose to attack Bush’s statement for all the “vote Democratic and your children will die” innuendo he could wring out of it – at the same time shoving Bush’s golf comment into the same rhetorical box that already brimmed with statements like “if you want to do something for your country, go shopping” and Laura’s “No one suffers more than the president and I do.”

Olbermann was quite literally spitting with righteous venom as he vented: “Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you six and a half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you.” Never mind that he had spent the previous 11 minutes pointing out all the ways in which the war was, in fact, all about Bush – how he had cooked the books on intelligence, how he had sold the war like soap and vilified anyone who opposed it, how he had allowed many thousands of Muslim extremists to enter Iraq through shoddy postwar planning and inflamed anti-American sentiment via “war crimes” and “merciless mercenaries…who hide behind your skirts.”

Now, I don’t often find myself defending George Bush – and in fact, you might want to mark down the date and time, because it’s the first and last time you’ll find me doing so – but while I believe quite strongly that everything Olbermann said is true, I don’t believe that Bush’s latest comments were any more of a legitimate provocation for Keith’s latest vituperative outburst than any other event in Bush’s day-to-day life. (I generally feel that Bush commits a crime against humanity every day when he lifts his head off the pillow, but I try not to comment on it every time it happens.)

This, however, is what Olbermann does on a daily basis. He latches onto the worst possible reading of the latest minute comment or action by one of his favorite targets – be it Bush, “Bill-o,” or more recently Hillary Clinton or John McCain or their surrogates and supporters – and he weaves it into a tale of conspiratorial plotting or nefarious chicanery. And once he’s found a story he can pump full of moralistic rage, be it bigoted preacher John Hagee’s endorsement of McCain or Wal-Mart’s attempt to reclaim a disability payout, he’ll ride that horse until it suffers a Barbaro-like breakdown.

In this, of course, Olbermann is quite indistinguishable from his nemeses, O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and “comedian Rush Limbaugh.” In fact, Countdown often seems like little more than a clone of The O’Reilly Factor, except with a leftward tilt, far better writing, and a sense of humor that those right-wing blowhards seem to lack entirely.

Full disclosure: Despite my distaste for Olbermann’s tendency to magnify political molehills into Mount Vesuvius, I find myself addicted to Countdown. In this tense-yet-hopeful election season, I cannot bring myself to heed the warnings of folks like author Susan Jacoby, whose brilliant book The Age of American Unreason disparages our growing tendency to seek out news media that validates our own views. I’m in the tank for Obama, and so is Olbermann – and so is every single one of his regular contributors, from Richard Wolffe to Rachel Maddow to the irrepressible Dana Milbank (whose most recent dissection of Hillary can be found here).

Chuck ToddCountdown is also where I get my almost-daily fix of my current hero, NBC political director Chuck Todd, who has almost single-handedly kept a nation of political junkies sane through four months of exit polls, delegate counts, superdelegate shifts and primary-night results. (I believe I have my first-ever man-crush on this guy; don’t tell my wife.)

Still, I hate to think that Olbermann and O’Reilly represent the future of American political discourse. There’s nothing wrong with venting a little good-old-fashioned indignation – but for crying out loud, guys, save it for a moment when it’s truly deserved! Last night it seemed Olbermann was mad-as-hell like he’s never been before, but it also seemed like he was looking for an excuse to launch his next volume of hardbound ravings (following his New York Times sorta-bestseller Truth and Consequences).

When he names McCain the “Worst Person in the World” twice a week because Hagee won’t apologize for his despicable New Orleans comments, and because McCain won’t apologize for soliciting Hagee’s endorsement, Olbermann is just rolling around in the same muck that Bill-o and Hannity wallow in when they obsess over Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers or flag pins. Such one-upmanship in the game of “guilt by association” isn’t going to help Obama win over the working-class white guys who are supposedly so important this year; it’s not even going to convince the vast majority of Democrats that McCain is a bad guy deserving of scorn.

Now that the media (and, apparently, John Edwards) have declared the primary season finis and moved on to the general, it ought to be enough to pit Obama’s ideas against McCain’s, point to the disaster of the past eight years, and simply command: “Figure it out, America!” That seems to have worked in traditionally Republican districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi this spring; there’s no real reason to believe it won’t work across the nation this fall…

Except, that is, if those West Virginia exit polls reflect a revenge-of-the-crackers mentality that could bring down the Democratic candidate in a Democratic year just because he’s black. You can bet that O’Reilly, Hannity and the other right-wing bloviaters will be stoking bigotry and intolerance for the next six months, because they’ve got nothing else to help McCain run on. Unfortunately, you can also bet that Olbermann will counter not with policy differences and principles, but with the same sort of drag-the-other-side-down shenanigans.

And, dammit, I’ll probably be right there watching him, wincing through the demagoguery…and waiting patiently for my man Chuck Todd to reappear, put his magic pen to the big map, and telestrate Obama to victory.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    I feel the same way you do on pretty much every count here, Jon — except for the slight dig at Richard Wolffe, who I think always does a pretty good job of tempering Olbermann's hysterical pronouncements.

  • JonCummings

    Oh, don't get me wrong–one of the reasons I stay tuned in is because I think Wolffe–and Maddow–and Jonathan Alter–and especially Howard Fineman–are amazingly good at what they do. What I DON'T particularly like is that most of their appearances start with Olbermann posing one of his ridiculously trivial (or overbaked) premises and then saying, “Am I right?” And so the first thing each of these folks will usually do is say, “Yeah, you're right, Keith…” and then they'll go on to say something astute that has little to do with his premise.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Maddow bugs the hell out of me. But what I'm saying is that I think Wolffe actually spends much of his time politely telling Olbermann he's wrong. I wish Keith was right more often — and, to his credit, he's been one of the only pundits expressing the appropriate level of outrage at the disgusting Clinton campaign — but like you said, the show really shines because of his peanut gallery.

  • steve

    Olbermann and O'reilly are both blow-hard j***asses, but they can be fun to watch for the entertainment value. What I do find telling though is that Olbermann is absolutely obsessed with O'Reilly and mentions him every show without fail. O'Reilly ignores Keith for the most part. Why? Easy – O'reilly still destroys him in ratings and it gets Olbermann so mad he can't see straight. So he's obsessed. And jealous. I'd be willing to bet that Olbermann has posters of O'Reilly hanging all over his house and O'Reilly is probably the last thing he thinks of before he goes to bed every night. What a sad person. He should just go back to ESPN or start his own O'Reilly fan club.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    As a more modern descendant of Chauncey Gardner, “I like to watch DVD.” I don't have cable TV, and in that I consider myself infinitely blessed. You must have a stronger stomach than I, Jon. I don't think I could handle this stuff. I go apoplectic just watching Meet The Press, thinking of all the questions Russert ought to be asking, instead of the inevitable waste of most of the interview time on political horse race/strategery questions. *sigh*

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    I think their ratings are actually pretty similar now, Steve…

  • http://www.popdose.com Zack

    The few times I've seen Chuck Todd I actually thought he kind of sucked.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Sadly, this ain't Murrow's news show. Now that advertisers can find a profit thru-line in the news division, ratings are as important (maybe more so) than the dissemination of current events… Meaning you'll end up with more a Simon Cowell sort of presenter than a Walter Cronkite type… Because it sells, and in the end, that seems to be the only news.

  • steve

    not true jefit, here's just one day in May – Oreilly had almost 3X the viewers in the main age group.

    http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/04/cable-news…

    Yes, Olbermann has caught up some – it used to be far worse. I'm not defending Oreilly, just giving the facts. The main point of my post is the weird obsession Olbermann has with Oreilly. He can't seem to figure out that he's not doing himself much good by giving Oreilly attention every show. If he stopped I bet he may overtake him because besides the fact that they are both biased idiots, he's at least funnier.

  • Eric

    I disagree about O'Reilly ignoring Keith. He may not directly mention him much these days, but Keith clearly gets under his skin. That's why he takes potshots at GE and NBC all the time.

    I also disagree about him being jealous, at least to a point. Early on, Keith was goading O'Reilly into complaining about him on the Factor to draw more attention to himself as well as get a bump in ratings. And it worked. Now it doesn't have the same effect as it used to, but it's become a running gag for him. And why not? Bill gives him plenty of material.

    Also keep in mind that Keith goes after Limbaugh quite a bit and there's no direct competition there.

    I do think that Keith has an incredible ego and can be a bit of a blow-hard. But it's nice to see someone like that on the opposite side of Bill and Rush for once.

  • JonCummings

    I think Keith has spent the last three years establishing himself as the anti-Billo, expecting that he can attract an audience that way among left-wingers who want their own outlet for partisan venting. Calling O'Reilly out every night is a natural–though I agree, obsessive–way to do that.

    Plus, it's a standard trope among us liberals to point out, constantly, how very WRONG conservatives are about everything…remember that Al Franken came to political prominence doing precisely the same thing, with “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot” and “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.”

    O'Reilly believes he can ignore Olbermann personally on the air, while attacking NBC to get at him, and then sit back and continue to revel in his higher ratings. That's fine for him, as long as everyone recognizes that there are simply more conservative dittohead types than there are liberal dittohead types.

    By the way, my self-rationalization goes like this: while I can't stomach conservatives on TV or radio, I do read Novak and Jonah Goldberg and Kristol and Krauthammer as often as I can, just to see how the other half lies…I mean lives.

  • JonCummings

    Eric, I'm shocked to find such points of agreement…though I don't understand how you live a life without cable. Russert infuriates me–though I watch that, too, in bed with the wife, ignoring the kids until 9 a.m.

  • Maria

    Keith O is horrid. He distorts reality for his whacko agenda all the time. He is less impartial than Bill O and is not even funny. He has a right to be the worst person in the world, and I exercise my right to speak out about him.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    I exercise my right to call you a hateful troll. Isn't America great?

  • steve

    Your correct Jon, Olbermann is obsessive, in a very creepy, man-crush-kinda way It's weird and I think he needs help. The first words outta his mouth on tonights show were – you guessed it – Bill Oreilly. Now Oreilly is no-doubt a bloated idiot, but Olbermann is too. They're both blindly biased, and indoctrinated by big-party same-old-same-old piss-politics. Extreme left and extreme right – like mindless robots who can't think for themselves. Both of their shows do provide me with good laughs, after I get the real news of the day from legitimate outlets. But in the contest between them, O'reilly is licking Olbermann in not only ratings, but in the fact that Olbermann dreams about Oreilly and wakes up in the middle of the night filled with hate. It's clear to see that. He'll want all those wasted hours spent fretting about the guy and hating him back one day when he's ready to check out of the world. He just needs to let it go.

  • Gary Lucy

    Olbermann is brilliant. That was a GREAT segment. I appreciate your thoughtful essay, but your basic premise is flawed: it is IMPOSSIBLE to overreact to these villains. Chuck Todd needs to catch some rays. I admire his expertise, but is there anybody pastier on television?

  • hagen

    Seems to me that the left needs their own version of O'Reilly and Rush. Since Al Franken's taking himself out of the game for a while, Olbermann's stepping up to pick up the slack. I do my part, too… I turn the Ann Coulter books around when I pass by the right-wing dogma section at Barnes & Noble.

  • steve

    Eric – Keith got a small bump in rating, but see my comment below, Oreilly still kills him in ratings and Olbermann internally rages about it. You don't have to be Freudian to see that. He literally mentions Oreilly every single show. He's beyond obsessed, and akin to Hillary, he seems to be a very sore loser.

  • JonCummings

    Don't get me wrong–I thoroughly believe in going apoplectic when the Bush administration commits one of its many crimes–of word or of deed. Take today, for example–Bush's speech in front of the Knesset was inexcusable, unforgiveable. Fortunately, it may go some distance toward propelling Obama into the White House, by contrasting his ideas with the utterly disastrous foreign policies of the last eight years–and by draping those policies around John McCain's neck, if Bush is going to wade into partisan waters during the campaign season.

    However, today's atrocities merely illustrate my point about Olbermann–that he needs to pick his spots. He went nuclear yesterday, over a relatively minor and stupid Bush interview, and therefore had already shot his wad when it came time to write today's show. The Knesset speech really WAS worthy of a dyspeptic “Special Comment,” where the BS about giving up golf decidedly was not.

  • Dan

    I think he did this in part because he believed it, but also to show that he is trying to pull the focus back on Bush, Iraq, etc. after spending a lot of air on Hillary's quixotic quest.
    And no one can say that anyone else in the media spends ANY time on Bush/Iraq, especially during the Democratic primary nonsense.

    And he is opinionated but Hannity and O'Reilly will flat out lie without compunction, so that is kind of a difference.

  • Dan

    Olberman was great on ESPN.

    I can't figure out if he believes any of what he says.

    He seemed pretty intelligent on ESPN.

    So perhaps it's all a ruse – since O'Reilly's already got the
    right and center sewed up, Keith can only target what's left.

  • JonCummings

    Well, I don't think that's an issue–Olbermann obviously is highly intelligent and holds very passionate left-wing beliefs–it's more a matter of which issues (or pseudo-issues) he chooses to emphasize. His show is definitely aimed at viewers with more education (or at least a much higher GPA) than the Fox shows. I still, after all these years, find it unbelieveable that O'Reilly puts his “talking points” on the screen even as he's saying THE EXACT SAME WORDS!! Is it that he believes half his viewers are either deaf or blind, or that they need the dual visual-aural stimuli in order to process his lies?

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    I can’t watch these shows anymore – not even for the political porn they are. Rarely is anything of substance said, and the whole “angry host” thing is so transparent as a rating grabber that you can almost set your watch to the angry outbursts. Also, I think I could probably appreciate Chuck Todd more, but the only time I’ve seen him was during the Indiana primary where he and Wolf Blitzer were trying so hard to add some analysis to the vote count as it was happening. Wolf, in his usual stumbling manner, would say something stupid, and then toss to Chuck who looked like he was supposed to comment on the sinking of the Titanic as it was happening — and say something analytical at the same time.

  • JonCummings

    You're talking two different networks, dude. Wolf is on CNN, Todd is on MSNBC. On primary nights, John King has been doing the same sort of thing as Todd, but King's a douchebag and CNN's technology is too clunky.

    Todd is an amazing source of knowledge about counties and congressional districts that, if you read that Post story I linked to, it seems he just has in his head permanently.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    It could have been the a conflation of talking heads on 24 hour cable news and my inability to distinguish them after 2 1/2 hours of watching, but I could have sworn Chuck was doing some analysis on CNN that night. It really doesn't matter, though. Most of what I saw that night was not that amazing from Todd. It's possible he wasn't on his game during the segments I watched (about an hour), but he really had nothing of substance to say. His analysis amounted to a recitation of data flashed on the screen. But to be fair, he was given some pretty inane questions from the hosts to answer, so he was probably just responding to the level of intelligence of who was asking the questions.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    He thinks it's classy. Akira Kurosawa did it and everybody loved him!

  • dean van wart

    What show are you watching? It isn't funny, or even remotely clever. Olbermann
    has half the viewership that O”Reilly has. If he were that great, wouldn't more people tune in to hear what he has to say? He is all about hatred, and never says anything slightly positive. He is joined on the show by yes men and women who are also haters, and washed up hosts of failed Air America. He is a complete hack, and his low ratings compared to his competition gives us the proof.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Most of what you said could be just as easily applied to O'Reilly's show, or Limbaugh's show, or any other right-wing gabfest on the dial. The only difference is that Olbermann's ratings are on the rise, and the shrieking right's are on the wane. Enjoy your last few moments of relevance, dittohead.

  • dean van wart

    Conservative shows always have someone representing the Left's views. Olbermann does not. When you say his ratings are on the rise, what are you referring to? No matter how you slice it, 50% fewer people watch his show compared to O'Reilly's in the same time slot. Period. MSNBC's highest rated show attracts HALF the audience of Fox' show in the same time slot. People don't want to watch incredibly negative views. Plus, as a jounalist, one should be objective. Olbermann clearly is not.

  • dean van wart

    Conservative shows always have someone representing the Left's views. Olbermann does not. When you say his ratings are on the rise, what are you referring to? No matter how you slice it, 50% fewer people watch his show compared to O'Reilly's in the same time slot. Period. MSNBC's highest rated show attracts HALF the audience of Fox' show in the same time slot. People don't want to watch incredibly negative views. Plus, as a jounalist, one should be objective. Olbermann clearly is not.

  • dean van wart

    Conservative shows always have someone representing the Left's views. Olbermann does not. When you say his ratings are on the rise, what are you referring to? No matter how you slice it, 50% fewer people watch his show compared to O'Reilly's in the same time slot. Period. MSNBC's highest rated show attracts HALF the audience of Fox' show in the same time slot. People don't want to watch incredibly negative views. Plus, as a jounalist, one should be objective. Olbermann clearly is not.

  • Pingback: Acai Berry select reviews