Olbermann now "Go To Guy" for anti-war Republicans

Discussion in 'Military' started by Psychoblues, Jan 20, 2007.

  1. Psychoblues

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Nov 30, 2003
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    North Missisippi
    Olbermann is not anti-war. He is anti-ill-advised war. Figure it out for yourself and get back with me.

    If he didn't make so much as host of MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann might be asking some very prominent lawmakers for speechwriting fees. That's because he's becoming the go-to guy for antiwar rhetoric. And, we're told, Olbermann's show-ending "special comments" have been entered into the Congressional Record at least twice. The last time occurred this month when West Virginia Democrat Nick Rahall, wowed by Olbermann's hit on President Bush's troop surge, called to get permission to include Olbermann's comments in Rahall's own House floor speech.

    More: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/070114/msnbc_host_now_playing_in_cong.htm


  2. red states rule

    red states rule Senior Member

    May 30, 2006
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Why would anyone listen to this loser?

    Now, Keith sees a vast right wing conspiracy in the TV show '24'

    Olbermann Hates ‘24’, NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism
    Posted by Noel Sheppard on January 18, 2007 - 00:27.
    So Keith Olbermann doesn’t like the hit television series “24” or the hit conservative media blog NewsBusters. Somebody knock me over with a feather.

    Considerably more shocking is KO wasting airtime offering these opinions to his viewers as if they’d be at all surprised by his feelings on these subjects. Oh, that’s right – that’s what he does five nights a week for MSNBC. And they pay him for it.

    Potentially just as comical is someone wasting bandwidth pointing out somebody pointing out what is obvious? I feel your pain, but would like to ameliorate it by suggesting that Olbermann’s distaste for an award-winning television program might give us great insight into how the media clearly don’t believe that terrorism is a threat to this nation.

    Maybe more importantly, their goal is to diminish the country’s perception that such a threat exists so the citizenry will end up viewing the Bush administration and conservatives as being the real enemy thereby making Democrat successes at the polls more likely.

    To achieve this, press representatives such as Olbermann dutifully challenge all references to terrorism, belittling not only those making them but those foolish enough to believe them, and, whenever possible, tying their origin to the Administration regardless of how tangentially or speciously.

    To examine the viability of this premise, let’s analyze some key statements and questions uttered by Olbermann on Tuesday’s “Countdown” as reported by the MRC’s Brent Baker:

    Is 24 just entertainment or is it propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared?
    Fox portrays a fictionalized America riddled with terrorists, which helps keep part of the real America convinced we might really be riddled with terrorists…Gripping drama or thinly veiled propaganda?
    The fear is fictional on the series 24, but is the intent to spark real fear among real Americans? Fear that can be turned into political gain.
    It's a familiar tactic for grabbing and holding the public's attention beloved by both the Bush administration and, just as another example, Fox News Channel.
    Is 24 propaganda? Is it fearmongering? Or is it a program-length commercial for one political party?
    But if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying 24 should be taken off of TV because it's naked brainwashing?
    Is there some tangible way that this could actually help a President who has relied, who has campaigned on, you know, our party will protect you and the other guys, well, you're on your own?
    Fascinating stuff, wouldn’t you agree? Makes you wonder if KO is seeing a psychiatrist for this obvious paranoia that he’s suffering from.

    Yet, within the delusions that a television drama is being used as a tool to brainwash the population is a deplorable cynicism concerning that population’s lack of intellectual capacity. After all, Olbermann is suggesting that the public doesn’t understand the difference between a news program and a weekly TV show with Hollywood actors in it.

    Though it is never surprising when liberals put themselves above average citizens, in this case even KO’s devotees should be offended by the suggestion.

    Regardless, in the midst of Olby’s paranoia concerning this grand Rupert Murdoch cabal to brainwash the public into believing that a terrorist threat exists is a deliciously paradoxical effort to persuade his viewers that one doesn’t. And, it seems that this is by no means a newly-found objective on KO’s part.

    Consider for example this article written by Olby and published by Salon on September 5, 2002, just prior to the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks (emphasis mine):

    Responsibility to its consumers and a dedication to accuracy exist at only two measurements in broadcasting: all or nothing. Which underscores a final point about the tube, and a warning that if you have kids, or grandchildren, under the age of 5, you may want to go unplug your cable right now and not reattach it until Sept. 12th.

    A psychologist hired by NBC startled its news executives last month by telling them that young children watching reports of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks will not be able to comprehend that the calamities they see are on videotape. Their brains just are not yet sufficiently developed to discern between "live" and "taped." They are likely to think it is happening all over again.

    This invitation to new trauma and sadness often extends in lesser degrees, the psychologist pointed out, to children as old as 12 or 13. These older kids may be able to intellectualize the difference, but emotionally they may be just as vulnerable.

    Truthfully, I was amazed and proud of the generalized restraint in my industry about showing the video of the attacks, certainly after the first few days last September. The problem that now arises is that the full range of information organizations -- from PBS to "Entertainment Tonight" -- are now adjusting their self-imposed embargoes and the results are unpredictable. They are as likely to be fueled by the desire to accurately retell the story of the horror, as by any understanding that a large part of their audience may not have either the ability to avoid watching the screen, nor the capacity to understand what's on it. Some at the low end will simply think you can't not show "great video."

    Consider "Opie & Anthony," and the sportscasters and their strike stories, and remember, whether it has planned to do it, or has merely slipped up in doing it, broadcasting can damage you directly and has no foolproof capacity to protect you from itself.

    Fascinating stuff, yes? Here’s a sportscaster celebrating the media’s decision in September 2001 to not show all the gory details concerning the first attacks on this country in sixty years while suggesting that folks should protect children and teenagers from such images twelve months later.
  3. theHawk

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Sep 20, 2005
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    I listened to Olbermann for about 5 minutes last night. He sounded like a liberal to me. He had nothing but cudos for Jim Webb's speech.

Share This Page