European Tribune

Olbermann: Retire the "Special Comment"

by Maryscott OConnor
Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 02:35:43 PM EST


Crossposted from MY LEFT WING



Keith Olbermann is very good at soundbite polemic; the rise in popularity of Countdown has as least as much to do with his inarguably charming personality as with Olbermann's ability to transform complex issues of modern political science into televised Reader's Digest versions both palatable and comprehensible to today's harried and confused American citizen.

Olbermann's genuinely outraged Special Comments -- the ones he aimed at Bush when he first started offering them on Countdown -- were things of beauty.

Lately, however, they've lost their impact. It started with the one he aimed at Hillary Clinton. They have become, successively, less effective with each attempt.

If he wishes to preserve the power of this particular element in his arsenal, if indeed it remains salvageable, Keith Olbermann ought to retire the "Special Comment." He must reserve its use for the truly heinous, the truly momentous, the truly "Special" -- or risk its becoming yet another Countdown number, no more nor less notable or effective a propaganda tool than the "Worst Persons" or "Bushed."






 Those of us on the left and even many  "in the middle" rightly applaud Countdown's consistent provision of much-needed balance and correction to the onslaught of misinformation from the rest of corporate news networks' baffling combination of reciting dictation from the GOP and constant omission of basic facts and glaring errors and missteps of the Bush Administration and, more recently, the McCain campaign for the Presidency.

The outrage Olbermann felt as he read aloud his very first Special Comment was palpable. And I shared it; we all did. Thus was born the Special Comment.

If it has lost its initial, undeniable potency (and I would argue it has and that, moreover, Olbermann risks transforming this now semi-regular editorial commentary into a merely erudite version of the Andy Rooney screed), it is because Olbermann has begun using these polemics as political weapons -- trying, that is, to use them as such -- instead of presenting them as he did in the beginning -- as the infuriated remonstrances of a man who had, to that point, endeavoured desperately to maintain equanimity in the face of increasing insanity and finally refused to continue even bothering to pretend to pretend that ANYTHING sane remained in the world about which he gave his nightly reports.

Perhaps, spurred by the liberal and well-deserved praise his righteous and eloquent indignation elicited, Keith got carried away. After a few more Special Comments aimed at "Still President" Bush, Olbermann found other targets in Clinton and McCain... and his prose gradually became more prosaic and less puissant.

Case in point: His latest, regarding John McCain, while as always a well-constructed diatribe, might very well have been written by any number of Obama supporters. It lacks nothing in the way of facts, passion or a genuine basis for indignation; McCain has behaved abominably and Olbermann is correct in his analysis and disparagement of the candidate and the man.

Nevertheless, the frequency of these "Special" Comments and the essentially de rigueur character of the behaviour for which Olbermann takes McCain to task in this latest philippic combine to transform what began as a savagely incisive and dynamic rhetorical instrument into mere soothing anodyne to the liberal viewer -- and perhaps a guarantor of said viewer's patronage.

If Mr. Olbermann wishes to maintain his position as an editorialist on a news network whose commentary occasionally reaches Olympian heights of elocutionary brilliance, he should consider giving his Special Comments a hiatus for the duration of the Presidential campaign and perhaps hand the baton of daily expostulation to CNN's Jack Cafferty, whose most recent commentary may be a smoke signal to MSNBC communicating his willingness to jump ship:



Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

. . .

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.

Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?

John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.

A disingenuous display of objectivity is not the point of shelving the Special Commentary for the duration of the Presidential Campaign. Only a fool would believe Keith Olbermann a neutral observer of these political proceedings. No, my suggestion is in service of preserving the "specialness" of the Special Comment itself. Frankly, there is nothing Special enough about John McCain to warrant another epistle written directly to him. Olbermann's viewers are all too aware of McCain's pernicious failings and the ills that would befall this nation should his campaign and the right wing succeed in torturing the electoral system sufficiently to guarantee a McCain victory in November. Let the facts, as illuminated so expertly in the Countdown format, speak for themselves. Do not waste another Special moment on the venial sins of John McCain.

If Mr. Olbermann does feel moved to create another of his incandescent jeremiads, perhaps he ought to let the unsparing glare of light and righteous rage fall upon someone who truly deserves to hear the unvarnished truth about the damage caused by her actions -- and inactions: Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:


since it isn't posted at Daily Kos... but there it is.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution
by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
If you describe yourself as a "conservative," how can you be on the left? "We on the left," your diary said.

by shergald on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry: "Those of us on the left," is what you said, I meant to say. The meaning is the same.

by shergald on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

We don't need flame wars brought in from elsewhere, thanks, shergald.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just figured this out.  Shergald and Maryscott have (apparently) gone at each other elsewhere.  "I am a liberal, you idiot." "Are you going to follow me around the internet calling me a conservative fascist ..." "Grow up, shergald. grow up."

I was thinking, "Where is this stuff coming from?"  It's like a bar fight that began next door.  Not attractive.

Welcome to ET, Paul Krugman

by THE Twank (paszeski__aaaaaaatttttt__yahoo.com) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Should have followed my first instinct, which was to ignore.

More and more, my first instinct is turning out to be the better one.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 at 04:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm new to blogging and therefore not in a position to either comment or recommend.  Apparently there are different levels of civility depending upon which blog you choose.  I was lost there until I figured out what was going on.  Next time, I'll make some microwave popcorn and spectate the action.  I've heard the terminology "flame war" before and I think I just experienced a whiff of one.  Could be a new form of non-contact sport actually.  Will have to think about that.  Could be money in it.  People will watch all sorts of things these days.

Welcome to ET, Paul Krugman
by THE Twank (paszeski__aaaaaaatttttt__yahoo.com) on Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 at 07:06:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Are you going to follow me around the internet calling me a conservative fascist because I disagree with the way you behave in discussions on I/P now?

Grow up, shergald. grow up.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 02:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where does she describe herself as "conservative"?

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<br<br> About the older definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," as defined by the Supreme Court.

Under which, I would actually be considered a "conservative."

Naturally, shergald has chosen to use this cherry-picked nugget to claim I call myself a conservative.

Context may not be EVERYTHING, but it sure as hell helps.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 09:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cafferty.  Hmm.  Cafferty could take Tweety's spot when Tweet's contract is up.  Wow.  That'd be brilliant.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How about Cafferty and Mika? She surely well deserves to be reprieved from the Siberia of Morning in Scarborough Country.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 06:32:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I always thought that Cafferty was wasted on CNN and would be great on MSNBC.  Let's do a trade.  Joe Scarborrough and that twit who used to wear a bow-tie for Cafferty and a future draft pick.

Welcome to ET, Paul Krugman
by THE Twank (paszeski__aaaaaaatttttt__yahoo.com) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no idea what this diary is about. Who are those people, and how do they relate to an European site ?

Mary, you should write up some background as an introduction to your diaries, for us clueless Europeans.

by balbuz on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST
by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really don't know, cos I only get to see these if they're highlighted on dKos or somewhere else. That said, I have felt that some of his special comments needed a little tightening. Sometimes he is too fond of a biting phrase that's fun but doesn't really contribute and a better writer would reluctantly leave it on the cutting room floor. The Hilary one you mentioned was a classic case. I'm no media maven, but even I could see there were two superfluous minutes right in the middle.

But Keith has mentioned that he gets pressure from upstairs to do more SCs, cos they're ratings hits. So maybe he lets his trigger threshold drop a bit.

And yea. Pleeeaaase take out Nancy P, Harry R, Rahm E and Harold F. and give Barney Frank and the HRC a good tranny-dumping-enda kicking from me while you're at it.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 at 03:55:55 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]