The Left’s Limbaugh
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in MediaA surprising number of people have sent me links to this Keith Olbermann commentary that is one part defense of John Kerry and four parts skewering of President Bush. I suppose the fascination with this video is Olbermann’s seething outrage and rhetorical gymnastics. No one who sent this to me quite knew what to make of it, but they all kind of wanted to like it.
I will say up front that I don’t like Olbermann, just as I don’t like Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh (Olbermann’s inverted doppelgangers on the right). At their best, they are harmless windbags, but at their worst they are the band leaders of partisan spite and anger. These newsmen/pundits are the manufacturers of outrage, the knives dividing America.
This commentary by Olbermann, which has a few good points, is rotten at its core. In about eleven minutes of commentary, Olbermann manages to touch upon every failing of the Bush administration and make them sound like a coordinated, well-executed attempt to destroy the Republic. He speaks quickly and plays loose with logic. In the moment, it all sounds splendidly rousing�as if it someone is finally putting into words all that is bothersome with the Bush presidency.
But the speech is ultimately hollow, hung upon careless hyperbole and overwrought angst. It is, like so much of what these newsmen/pundits say, fast food oratory�tasty but unfilling and unhealthy to ingest. Because, really, Olbermann doesn’t have a point outside of the basic “Bush is a lying incompetent� refrain repeated ad nauseam by his critics. The rest is window dressing meant to incite rather than inform.
And that’s the problem. Olbermann incites and then signs off, leaving sympathetic listeners filled with outrage but possessing no outlet. He doesn’t ask anything of his viewers except for them to be angry. And where does this anger go? Hard to know. But it is rare that anger is well-focused. And rarer still that it helps heal rifts or solve problems.
I’m sure there are those who are glad Olbermann is around�he really is the first leftwinger who can match the oratorical skills of the Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s. But he also matches their self-indulgence, their hubris, their false outrage and their divisiveness. Americans listen to these guys because they appear to be speaking a beautiful truth. But they are merely modern day sirens luring us onto the rocks.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 3rd, 2006 and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Alan:
Some of us don’t immediately recognise your acute wisdom. Can you enlighten us with some thoughful analysis concerning why you think Keith Olberman’s commentary is lacking logic and rotten at the core? Or is not liking him proof enough for you?
I have attempted to glean something useful from your commentary but instead the best you have to offer are some hollow generalizations that Keith Olbermann is the Lefts Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reily.
Lastly, most of the moderates today such as Webb, Ford and others are running as democrats while moderate conservatives are often losing to hard right conservatives in Republican primarys. There is no place for moderation or Liberatrianism in the Republican party. The demonization of all who disagree with the Bush administration through lies, distortions and character asassinations have largely gone unpunished up to now. You say that Olbermann leaves his audience with angst and no outlet. However, Keith Olbermann’s point seems obvious to me. We’re voting on tuesday, get out and vote and send these destructive fools a message, the GOP must go!
Rick
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Olbermann does go over the top quite a bit, and it’s unfortunate because he could be so much more. In other words, you don’t have to be bombastic to be relevant, but that’s what these pundits think they have to be.
Oh well.
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Rick,
As I said, he makes some good points, but could have done so in about a fifth of the time without all the ranting. Much of my problem is not with what he says but the way that he says it.
As for his logic, he begins with the silly claim that it was obvious to everyone but the stupid or dishonest that Kerry was making a joke. Really? Maybe I just didn’t get my copy of the Kerry-to-English dictionary but I mistook him. As did many not just on the right but on the center and the left too. So, it’s dishonest for Olbermann to start with such an accusation.
When you get further into the meat of it he really lets it fly about Bush owing an apology for Iraq. That makes good oratory but bad logic. What would an apology achieve? What precedent is there for a President apologizing for military or strategic mistakes (Generals maybe, but Presidents?)? Olbermann’s cry for apology only makes sense if you believe we’re already defeated in Iraq and even attempting to change that country was wrongheaded. Otherwise, a call for apology is just whipping up the anger for the sake of whipping up the anger.
Finally, Olbermann touches on every thing that’s ever gone wrong for Bush and conflates them as if Bush were not merely incompetent but purposefully destructive — that he wants to hurt America. It’s just too much. It jumps the shark.
Look, I want the Democrats to win this election and think Bush is a piss-poor president. I’m not trying to minimize Olbermann’s words as some kind of partisan trick. I’m trying to point out that THIS is not the way. Copying the outrage machine of the right is not how progress is achieved. Bar-room style rants are fun but shouldn’t be aplauded when they come from media members.
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Haggard’s denial collapsing… Wizbang continues to ignore!
Hehe… Sorry Kevin, had to take a shot… I mean this is the biggest story on the internet today, besides conservatives trying to resurrect the ghost of non-existent WMD’s while ignoring why the Bush administration published nuclear bomb manuals on…
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Rush is an “Entertainer”. Not real “News”. Olberman is quite the same. I like NPR and the blogs.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Huh. Isn’t this the same Kieth Olberman who was such an unmitigated ass on ESPN Sports Center for so long?
Doesn’t give me much interest in listening to rants from him now, whether I think Bush et al are wonderful (I don’t) or not.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Self-Indulgence is an interesting and apropos word to use.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Even John Derbyshire, Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan agree that
And obviously you are just being dishonest if you want to compare Olberman to Limbaugh. Do I really need to pull out all the quotes from Rush that makes what Olberman said look like Miss Manners.
You discribe his commentary as hyperbole and overwrought angst; look in the mirror.
I suprised Justin didn’t yank this amateurish tripe.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Hmm. I suppose that those who have tolerated the insufferable Bush and that bully Cheney these past 6 years must continue rolling over and offering the olive branch like later day Jesuses, even at the cost of our not-so-slow slide into presidential absoluteism (does that sound like “dictatorship,” well, to some of us, it feels like it, too) and international disgrace.
Olbermann is more like a pissed off moderate than a leftwing windbag. Indeed, some think he was just another apologist for Bush for FAR TOO LONG.
Standing up to bullies, especially such dangerous ones, is not a mere rhetorical exercise. And smacking down the person who will voice the strongly held belief that certain people are just a little too confused about their own importance and, perhaps, their access to god, is — on your part — mighty damn arrogant.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
“When you get further into the meat of it he really lets it fly about Bush owing an apology for Iraq. That makes good oratory but bad logic. What would an apology achieve? What precedent is there for a President apologizing for military or strategic mistakes (Generals maybe, but Presidents?)? Olbermann’s cry for apology only makes sense if you believe we’re already defeated in Iraq and even attempting to change that country was wrongheaded. Otherwise, a call for apology is just whipping up the anger for the sake of whipping up the anger.”
Call me crazy, but the president apologizing for mistakes would actually be the president admitting mistakes. Admitting mistakes and taking responsibility is the first step in not repeating them.
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Because he’s become an ideologue, Olberman is predictable and tiresome (just like Limbaugh). When Keith opens his mouth, you know what he’ll deliver (just like Rush). If sneering Bush hatred is your thing, Keith’s your man. It’s become his brand… don’t expect anything else. (Bill Maher has gone down a similar path, although ever now and then, he surprises.) Predictability is death for a humorist or comedian. Olberman’s there.
November 4th, 2006 at 1:26 am
Alan:
>>
I like most people work durring the day but by early tues evening I had read Kerry’s transcript and had seen the video and therefore understood Kerry’s mistake to be a botched joke directed at the president. There is no excuse for the Media including Lou Dobbs along with bloggers such as yourself and Sullivan to misunderstand this story. The information was there on tues for anyone who cared to do minimal research. Therefore, Olbermann’s criticism of those who should have taken the time to know better is spot on.
That said, when I first heard Kerry’s comments on tues, I too assumed he was warning the students to study hard and be smart so they don’t end up in Iraq. For many, joining the armed forces is the only avenue available to young persons who don’t have the grades, scholarship, money or opportunity to go to college or trade school so study, work hard, get good grades so you’ll have other opportunities. Of course, there are many reasons to join the Armed Forces including wanting to serve our country but the vast majority of young people don’t want to serve in the Armed Forces. In truth, most parents don’t encourage their children to join the armed forces either, especially now. That is what I thought Kerry was referring to on first blush.
It’s ironic that Kerry was roasted on tues and weds for something most people in some form or fashion believe to be true. It turns out Kerry didn’t mean what we thought he meant. It’s all quite ridiculous.
What’s even more astounding is the sleeze of this president. With little or no positive record to run on his political operatives selected out what they felt were the most damming words and turned it into Kerry hates the troops and he thinks their stupid. They knew the context of Kerry’s comments. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.
And what’s your response? Lets criticize Keith Olberman because he isn’t more measured in his response. Where is your outrage? I guess he should be more thoughtful like you. To the unencumbered mind Keith Olberman is the same loud mouth you hear on the right.
November 4th, 2006 at 1:38 am
>
I don’t know why this isn’t more obvious. Keith Olbermann doesn’t expect an apology from the president. Are you crazy? He’s saying the president is a hypocrite. In essence, you’re criticizing John Kerry after all the mistakes you’ve made? Have you no conscience? The answers, no! That’s Keith’s message.
November 4th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Olbermann was the only television journalist who took the election corruption of 2004 seriously and reported on it. He was the only one who reported extensively on the damning Downing Street Minutes. He was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to pick up on the Jeff Gannon nonsense from the administration, a corruption of journalistic standards that the White House press corps let slide. Much of the rest of the “mainstream” TV news shows are only now catching up to what he has been covering now for two years plus now.
This was not one of the better commentaries by him, but to write it and him off with generalizations without recognizing what he has accomplished is not of much value.
November 4th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Rick: Your point appears to be that it was obvious (”there is no excuse … for misunderstanding this story”) that he didn’t mean to say what he actually said (and that therefore what he actually said isn’t important), but that everyone knows it’s true anyway. Is that about right? Can you see why someone in the army might be insulted by that? The army generally reflects the educational level of the country, not college campuses.
I thought the statement Kerry made was indicative of widespread attitudes on the left, and simultaneously not very important (because of who made it). His statement that he shouldn’t have to apologise for what he said because he ‘meant’ to say something else was a bit insulting to everyone’s intelligence, but whatever. The best thing to come out of this is that Kerry destroyed his chance to ruin another Democrat political campaign. But what the hell do I know, I’m in the army, so I probably didn’t have the “grades, scholarship, money or opportunity to go to college or trade school”.
Finally, Mr. Carl stated at the top of the post that he is posting on this because “a surprising number” of people are sending him the link. I think that’s a good reason.
Really finally, I’ll be leaving for Ft. Benning for basic training on Wednesday, so I won’t get to see how the attitudes change after the election. Keep in mind, while you’re watching that happen and/or yelling at each other, that you’re lucky to be able to take part in the conversation.
Best wishes, everyone.
November 4th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Seb: When I first heard Kerry’s quote, it was in his own words but a highlighted snippit and, therefore, out of context. I also, at first, thought it was meant towards the soldiers, but not as derogatgory as you took it. On second hearing I saw that he meant it towards the president, but felt almost embarrassed for how lame he sounded saying it. My point is, please don’t take any of this personally, he really didn’t mean it that way, as far as I could tell. We all appreciate immensely what you folks do. What makes me worry more about your occupation is our president and the way his rhetoric continues to embarrass us all. To carry on about this relatively trivial matter [I see why not so trivial for you] just to make political points is proof enough. Stop politicizing and get our guys the hell outa’ there. So many important things for you to learn and do in the world and I hope to God you’ll fullfill these goals. You deserve it, good luck.
Thank you
November 4th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Seb:
>>
I too, misinterpreted Kerry’s comments but by tuesday night I had seen the video of Kerry’s speech. Context is extremly important. The media has no excuse for getting this story wrong. I also think that those with political web sites have a responsibility to their readers to get at the truth. That’s their function, at least I wish it was.
I can see why someone in the army might be upset with the way Kerry’s comments were being portrayed but I typically don’t trust what I read or hear without digging deeper into a story. And I don’t have a prejudicial view that all liberals hate the military and only stupid people join the military. If I were you I’ld be pissed at Bush and his cronies for manipulating the story for political gain but that may be a reality to disturbing for you to ponder.
November 4th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Just one last comment. Thanks for responding, BenG and Rick.
The thing is, I didn’t ‘misinterpret’ Kerry’s comments; I saw the whole video, although I’ll confess I stopped listening about a minute after the Iraq line (I kept listening that long to make sure that he didn’t say anything afterward that changed the meaning of the line as spoken).
I didn’t listen to George Bush’s comments, or see other people talking about it on TV. I was sent the link to the video from a friend in the Guard. I made up my mind about the meaning of what he said based on that video and especially his defence of what he had said. ‘Anyone basing their opinion on what I said instead of what I meant to say is obviously a right wing asshole’? Lame.
I know that all liberals don’t hate the military, since I am essentially a liberal and I don’t hate the military (only 1 data point but it’s a quality data point). However, many people on the left are very, very patronizing towards the army (some are just outright hostile, but that’s a separate case, and relatively less common), and I think that comes out of both Kerry’s comment and some defences of it that I’ve seen (”he didn’t mean it, but everyone knows it’s really true”). Look at it this way: if Kerry had said that black kids should work hard at their education or they’d end up dealing drugs, that would be offensive towards black people, whether he had a different comment in his notes or not (maybe ESPECIALLY then). Anyone defending his comment (”He didn’t mean it, but it’s really true”) would be seen as either overly partisan or a racist. Frankly, it’s the defences of the comment that get under my skin.
I think we probably agree, however, that this one comment doesn’t really matter. Kerry’s not the candidate and never will be again. I’ve already wasted more of your time on this than it’s worth, and I see that I’ve used “some” in a way that I’ve always disliked when I see other people do it. Sorry about both of those things. Best wishes,
Seb
November 5th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Frankly Olbermann in my opinion is nothing like Limbaugh or O’Reilly – because when he makes a point, he actually backs it up with logic and facts, rather than invented character slurs. Granted, he does the character slurs too, but BECAUSE of the facts and what they indicate, not merely as a means of hiding or twisting the facts.
November 5th, 2006 at 3:11 am
I completely agree that Keith Olbermann is nothing like Rush or Bill O’Reilly. Rush and Bill have absolutely no facts to back up they say. Keith Olbermann’s monologues are carefully researched, even with video to support what he has to say.
November 5th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Rob, don’t know if you’ll ever come back to this thread, but do me a favor: if you want to critique what I have to say then crtitique what I have to say in a mature and reasoned manner. Mischaracterizing my words and calling them amatuerish tripe is childish. You’re only seeking to silence debate rather than engage in it.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Why complain? All he’s doing is providing an accurate example of Limbaugh and O’Reilly’s methodologies.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I have no idea what you mean here. I didn’t mischaracterize you. You are claiming some sort of equivalence between Limbaugh and Olberman. That’s a laughable opinion. I stated that is dishonest. What’s your problem?
November 7th, 2006 at 3:23 am
I’ve watched his show a handful of times and once we more or less agreed on something. Having said that I am inclined to agree with you but I would like to give kudos to whoever writes his rants. They do a much better job than O’Limbaugh’s crews.