Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Daily Show had a brilliant lampooning of Keith Olbermann for his over the top attacks on Scott Brown. It was particularly absurd how he accused Brown of agreeing with a guy who shouted something about shoving a curling iron up Coakley's butt. For crying out loud, you could barely make it out on the tape unless you were listening for it. It was obvious that Brown never heard it and he was just going on delivering his usual stump speech.
If a conservative had made such a ridiculous attack on a liberal candidate, Olbermann would have called him the worst person in the world that night. I still find Olbermann entertaining much of the time, but he still has a tendency to jump the shark and veer into self-righteous ranting. And last week was perhaps the worst example of that, as Stewart so deftly spanks him over.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling | ||||
| ||||
Politics
Comments
Still at least Olbermann played the Stewart clip last night admitted he over did it.
Posted by: Rob Jase | January 23, 2010 9:32 AM
I wonder how much Fox News' ratings and financial success plays into our seeing MSNBC's moving from news analysis/opinion with a liberal-spin to something that can no longer always be defined as journalism like we encounter with Mr. Olbermann's dishonest representation of Senator-elect Brown and Ed Schultz's advocacy that MA voters should commit fraud to help the Democrats win an election.
Certainly MSNBC has held the moral high-ground relative to Fox News, yet it has not brought them the ratings or financial success Fox enjoys. I'd argue this is indicative of a failing of Americans, that far more would seek to have their biases reinforced and enjoy the drama of news as a reality TV show as presented by Fox rather than sound analysis from a specific point of view that MSNBC presents, at least recently as exhibited by these two afore-mentioned episodes.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 23, 2010 9:36 AM
@Rob: Yeah, that's the difference between Olbermann and Beck et al. At least Olbermann is capable of admitting that he might be wrong.
I agree that Olbermann overdoes it a lot, although I do understand the sentiment behind it. But he's capable of accepting occasional criticism and I think he's also somewhat less insane ;)
Posted by: Mara | January 23, 2010 9:37 AM
"Certainly MSNBC has held the moral high-ground relative to Fox News, yet it has not brought them the ratings or financial success Fox enjoys. I'd argue this is indicative of a failing of Americans,"
Or it's reflection of the fact that MSNBC viewers watch less TV. I love Olbermann, but between thesis research, work, and now Caprica, I catch him and Maddow twice or thrice a week.
Comparing MSNBC and Fox's rating is dangerous because they similar but distinctly different products. Would you claim that Kroger's or Piggly Wiggly is doing poorly because they are doing far less business than McDonald's?
Posted by: History Punk | January 23, 2010 10:02 AM
Here's the Olbermann clip that Rob @ 1 is referencing. While Olbermann is classy enough to present Stewart's criticisms in their entire context, I was disappointed Olbermann merely conceded his criticisms of Mr. Brown and ad hominems against others like Michelle Malkin were merely 'over the top' while not conceding the specifics, at least those related to Senator-elect Brown. Better than the talking heads at Fox yes, but I think MSNBC's viewers demand a far higher standard (which is perhaps why their ratings are so low).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 23, 2010 10:05 AM
History Punk @ 4 - excellent point regarding the demographics attracted to MSNBC watch less TV. I watch Olbermann and Maddow more from clips like the one linked above than I do on TV myself. I do watch parts of Hardball a couple of times a week on TV and that's the lowest rated prime-time MSNBC show of all.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 23, 2010 10:10 AM
Olbermann is a fool these days. Last year, he was played for a fool by the anti-vaccine movement:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/keith_olbermann_played_for_a_fool.php
Apparently, all you have to do is to wave Rupert Murdoch in front of Olbermann like a cape in front of a bull, and he will mindlessly charge.
Posted by: Orac | January 23, 2010 10:56 AM
Stewart's parody was good, but Ben Affleck's parody on SNL was better:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/42024/saturday-night-live-countdown-with-keith-olbermann
Posted by: Mr. Upright | January 23, 2010 1:08 PM
"It was obvious that Brown never heard it and he was just going on delivering his usual stump speech."
I don't know about that. After the idiot shouted the "curling iron" comment, Brown pauses for a few seconds (i.e. the opposite of him "going on delivering his usual stump speech) as if he was "taking in" the comment, and then smiles.
"If a conservative had made such a ridiculous attack on a liberal candidate, Olbermann would have called him the worst person in the world that night."
And Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly and the Three Stooges of "Fox and Friends" (Carlson, Doocy and Kilmeade) and the Gateway Pundit and Erick Erikson would probably chastise Olbermann for "supporting a guy who smiled at the mention of a physical assault on his opponent." "Hypothetical hypocrisy" can be a two-way street.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 23, 2010 2:08 PM
Olbermann's conduct was beyond ridiculous. He seriously needs to chill the fuck out.
Posted by: CHV | January 23, 2010 2:37 PM
daniel rotter:
You must have watched a different tape than I saw. There was no such pause.
Of course it is. And of course his opposites on the other side would be equally hypocritical. I bash those people for hypocrisy all the time. I can't imagine why this is even worth mentioning. Did you think I would excuse the hypocrisy of right wing pundits on this?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 23, 2010 2:53 PM
Did you see Olbermann's commentary on the recent SCOTUS ruling on corporate rights?
He compares it, unfavorably, to the Dred Scott decision and basically pronounces the death of freedom in America.
Posted by: Troy Britain | January 23, 2010 4:53 PM
Troy @ 12 - I knew there was another Olbermann absurdity lurking in the back of the mind. Thanks for reminding us.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 23, 2010 6:00 PM
@Troy, yes, I saw it and found it upsetting. I am sorry, whatever you think of the recent decision, it is nothing compared to Dred Scott, slavery or the Civil War. Corporations could already buy issue ads. Now they can directly fund candidates. Big whoop. Dred Scott? Said slaves and descendants of slaves could never be citizens and were not protected by the constitution.
Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, did a brilliant job discussing the recent SCOTUS case, without downplaying or appropriating the anger against slavery.
Posted by: MomTFH | January 23, 2010 6:15 PM
MomTFH @ 14:
Actually, the high court left in place restrictions on corporations directly donating to candidates. Just don't hold your breath over said regulations remaining in place for long because they are already being challenged in court.
To be perfectly blunt, the only thing that's going to stop the court's current hard right turn is for one of its conservative jurists to retire or die suddenly. And at age 73, that would make Scalia and Kennedy the most likely ones to go next.
At age 61, Thomas (arguably the court's hardest right-winger) is a relative youngster who will probably be around for another 10-15 years. So don't expect him to depart anytime soon.
On the other side of the aisle, I expect this to be J.P. Stevens' last year (he will be 90 in April). But replacing a liberal judge with another one obviously does nothing to change the court's overall spectrum.
Posted by: CHV | January 23, 2010 6:31 PM
"You must have watched a different tape than I saw."
Nope, watched the same tape. Something I forgot to mention is that Brown actually responds to the "curling iron" comment with "We can do this." You're right, Mr. Brayton, it's absolutely "obvious" that Brown "never heard it" (rolls eyes).
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 23, 2010 7:22 PM
As I remember, Olbermann accused Brown of either (1) agreeing with a guy who shouted something about shoving a curling iron up Coakley's butt, or (2) not repudiating this comment after it was pointed out.
This is a little different than what you are complaining about, Ed.
Posted by: Alan | January 23, 2010 8:04 PM
Here's a link to a video of the incident in question. You have to turn the volume up to hear the curling iron remark. (It comes right after someone says something about "suicide". There is definitely a pause, and it could be inferred that Brown was responding to that remark.
Posted by: Taz | January 23, 2010 8:34 PM
Taz is right. Ed has it backwards, it's obvious that Brown DID hear the remark, or he wouldn't have a. paused and b. responded to the remark with "We can do this" (by definition, if you're responding to a comment, that means that you've heard the comment).
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 23, 2010 8:47 PM
daniel rotter @ 19 states:
Come on. "We can do this" is standard political rhetoric at a stump speech and not even a very pointed response if one were agreeing they put a curling iron up her butt. Far more reasonable explanations is that Sen.-elect Brown either (in no particular order):
a) didn't hear the remark or,
b) heard it but didn't process what was stated, hesitated, and then reengaged.
c) heard it, processed it, considered it absurd, and reengaged in his stump speech.
While Mr. Olbermann's criticism of Mr. Brown for not speaking out after the speech condemning the comment is certainly a valid arguable criticism, his non-response is no way equivalent to advocating rape. We can find plenty of instances of non-conservatives also not responding to hate speech so let's be sure we advocate for transparency and fair play for all public speakers, not two different standards to measure our guys vs. their guys.
I used to do a fair amount of public speaking and I was so focused I rarely processed off-hand remarks unless someone was requesting I stop to ask a question, at which point they normally had to re-ask the question. My sense of it was Mr. Brown heard something, didn't process what was actually stated, and re-engaged in his speech with a typical line.
We should be far better than this.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 23, 2010 9:29 PM
I agree with Mr. Heath. And the options he labeled b) and c) are more likely to be true than one might think. After all, the best way to encourage interruptions like that sometimes are to acknowledge them.
By quickly reengaging his stump speech, he was just merely discouraging further disruptive behavior.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 23, 2010 9:37 PM
Michael Heath - Or
d.) heard it, processed it, considered it mildly amusing, and reengaged in his stump speech.
It's likely that "we can do this" was the line he was planning to say regardless of the remark. It's also likely from watching that clip that he did hear and process it. I don't think the incident is very important one way or the other.
Posted by: Taz | January 23, 2010 9:41 PM
What I find ironic about the comment is that it was a reference to a rare instance of Coakley not showing prosecutorial zeal bordering on psychopathy. Of all the things Coakley deserves an ass-kicking for...
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 23, 2010 10:43 PM
"...considered it mildly amusing..."
It that supposed to be a DEFENSE of Brown (shakes head)?!
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 23, 2010 11:46 PM
Troy,
Yeah, I saw Keith's parsimonious apocryphal pronouncement of the end of our republic due to the recent SCOTUS decision on corporately funded speech. It was about an eight on the Olberman outrage scale.
I get all giddy and reach for the popcorn when I see that Keith has a “Special Comment” coming up.
The first one I remember was about a typical Dick Cheney “If we don’t get to trample the constitution the terrorists win” type remark. I can’t remember which of the many of these statements was the focus of Keith’s lugubrious derision that evening, but it wasn’t anything out of the ordinary as far as Dick Cheney remarks go. I have no love for the creepy old tyrant but I thought Olberman had lost his mind and said things that no rational “journalist” could defend.
Then I caught his tempestuous tirade over the admittedly tasteless remarks made by Hillary Clinton about Bobby Kenedy ‘s assassination during her presidential campaign. I was pulling for Obama and have never been fond of Hillary, detest her actually, but I found his attack on her to be outlandish, mean-spirited and despicable.
I think he has blown right past self-parody and into self-mockery with these spluttering jeremiads. He is obviously an intelligent and talented man, but he has allows his hair trigger sense of personal outrage overcome his intellect and journalistic integrity.
Then again, I find these “Special Comments” immensely entertaining and I suspect that Keith is aware that MSNBC is more interested in his entertainment ratings than his journalistic integrity.
Posted by: Lance | January 24, 2010 1:34 AM
"...but I thought Olbermann had lost his mind and said things that no rational 'journalist' could defend."
Like what?
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 24, 2010 3:29 AM
No, it isn't. I thought Michael Heath was too quick in assuming a "good" reaction by Brown. I was pointing out that might not be the case. But we have no real way of knowing, which is why the whole incident isn't very noteworthy.
Posted by: Taz | January 24, 2010 12:48 PM