Either Relevant or True » “I mean, the guy is crazy, but he is made for this.”

“I mean, the guy is crazy, but he is made for this.”

The New Yorker has a new profile of Our Mr. Olbermann, “One Angry Man” by Peter J. Boyer:

But, just as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. “It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he’s funny and he’s clever and he’s witty, and he’s all these great things,” Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true.”

It is not a particularly flattering profile, but it doesn’t come off as so much trash talk. Anyone who has followed KO’s career like many of us here have will not find anything that’s surprising or revelatory. Keith Olbermann is a man with more issues than your average news stand, and Mr. Boyer lists them all here, one by one.

I liked it. It was a show of what makes Keith good while touching on his faults. I mean, any profile that paints him as anything but a normal (if erudite), flawed human is more than a little untruthful.

We do know this is a *broadcast* right? I think it’s funny to call Keith “my newscaster boyfriend” but I think comparing him to that one charming jerk-off everyone dates is Too Much. Especially from someone who says the comments are “overwrought” and what-have-you.
But I don’t think he hates women in general or Hillary in particular.
If I thought so, I might have to quit doing recaps, if not stop watching entirely.
Some of my friends have…I think they’re wrong, but they also don’t have a newspaper that is a constant McCain lovefest.

I only found one thing disturbing - he briefly dated laura ingraham (wtf?) I just threw up in my mouth a little…

Lola: Holy crap, I did the same thing. Ugh.

I liked the caricature that accompanied the article, but why is the cartoon Keith missing the middle finger on his left hand?

To Lola:

We all have our “youthful indiscretions,” I myself was a briefly a member of the College Republicans before I came to my senses.

And it could’ve been worse, he could’ve dated Coultergeist…;-)

rafismom: Overuse?

Ah, Stef, Brilliant one word solution.

golconda2 Wrote: “And it could’ve been worse, he could’ve dated Coultergeist…;-)”

Thanks for putting that horrific image in my head. EEEEWWWW!!!!

From the article:

In 1992, Olbermann joined ESPN, where his erudite, wise-guy style flowered into an artful, full-blown satire of the cliché-ridden form: “That’s a six-four-three double play if you’re scoring at home. Or if you’re by yourself.”

From page 20 of the trade paperback of “The Big Show”:

If your scoring at home, or even if you’re alone.

If an author can’t check something as simple as an ESPN catchphrase, it makes me question the validity of the whole article.

Picayune, perhaps. Just sayin’

The dangers of an article written by someone who is ignorant about the work and does not bother to see where it fits in context.

This Article also showed a lack of knowledge re its reference to the ad with Keith’s voice over followed by a big face of him and then the groupings of smaller faces of other people from the network.

The article made it sound as if this ad were somehow singular and special.

That is one of a series of ads. They usually play Keith’s during his show, Matthew’s during his show, etc. There was one for Russert, one for Jennings, I think ones for Brokaw and Gregory. I have never seen one for Morning Joe, but then I am never up early enough.

I still remember when Tucker disappeared from the following groupings of small faces.

And, pleased as I am to see Andrea Mitchell and Nora O’Donnell as part of that series, I am still waiting for the versions of the ads that will feature them. Or, perhaps I have just not heard them yet.

Olberfann54321, I distinctly remember him using the “or even if you’re by yourself” bit many, many times. Most likely he used both.

I think Keith did use both versions of the phrase.

But yeah, the article misconstrues the MSNBC ad, just as Rafismom says it does. There are several versions of it, featuring various members of the political team.

The guy who wrote the thing obviously doesn’t like Keith or liberals in general very much–his bias is clear. Still, it’s interesting.

But great God almighty, that quote from Griffin comparing Keith to a funny and charming, yet brutal and abusive, jerk of a boyfriend whom the Hillary-supporting women will have to come back to because they have “nowhere else to go” was singularly unwise and ill-spoken. Joan Walsh from Salon (as might be expected) is already all over it, outraged faux-feminists are expressing high dudgeon over it, and the “Keith is a sexist bastard” hatefest goes on in certain quarters because of it.

Of course, Page Six of the Post has already plucked the worst parts of it to twist and misconstrue so as to make KO sound like a psychotic nutbar.

Then again, that’s not difficult when his own current boss (not just Rupert Murdoch himself) calls him “crazy.”

Must be nice, going through life with even people who supposedly like and admire you telling other people that you’re whacked.

I didn’t think the article was that bad (until the Griffin quote). And as for the commercial passage, I think the author prefaced that by talking about how Keith is the face of MSNBC, which is connected to the NBC news brand. I did not see the need to mention the others who did those “big head” commercials (btw: Chris, Brian, Tim, Tom were the others). I forget that MSNBC is the only cable news channel with network connection. I think there are valid reasons for some concern. Although, I have to admit, I never was a big fan of Tom Brokaw, honestly, I’m kind of tired of hearing about the “greatest generation.” I think Keith is wading into new “news” coverage territory, the discussion was interesting and a bit less fawning than Kitman’s article (in The Nation) which actually started this conversation about the future of the nightly news.

The quote from Griffin is absolutely disgusting, disturbing and waaaaay beyond “ill-spoken”. I’m not a “faux-feminist” (and I certainly doubt that Joan Walsh is one either), but let us all agree that was a very terrible thing for him to say. It speaks volumes about the mindset at NBC/MSNBC, and maybe one of the reasons that MSNBC has white male anchors/pundits at 3pm, 4pm, 5pm, 6pm(repeat), 7pm, 8pm, 9pm(repeat), with very few women as guest commentators.

I think taking out the celebrity ‘keeping tabs” segment has negated most of the “sexist” trouble Keith got himself into. Also, it seems to me Keith’s ratings are better than ever, so either those “battered women” came back or he is attracting new viewers and growing his brand.

I do find it interesting that there was no mention of Keith’s relationship with a woman 26 years his junior, older than her actual age. Funny how that little tidbit was left out, considering Laura Ingraham gets a mention this time, and Katy has been included in 99% of his past print coverage, hmmm. (Did I miss it?) Although, I wish Keith didn’t offer comments about his short relationship with Laura Ingraham, (only because now I want to know the real reasons for the break up!) ;)

RSS feed for comments on this post.