Glenn Greenwald takes KO to task on FISA:

What’s much more notable is Olbermann’s full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama — rather than George Bush — supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it’s proof that Obama won’t “cower.” Grave warning on Olbermann’s show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

I’ve been an Obama supporter since the day John Edwards dropped out of the race. I understand that candidates are flawed people and that I will not agree with everything my candidate does. I do not agree with Senator Obama on his FISA stand. I think, as Mr. Greenwald does, that the entirety of the #5 story last night was an exercise in pandering to the candidate.

People change their minds on issues all the time and Keith Olbermann is certainly no exception. But sir, when you do so in the way you did last night, refuting the passionate stance you took in a Special Comment by meekly agreeing with a guest in what appears as a slavish devotion to a candidate, you lose your credibility. You lose respect. You become that which you loathe - a partisan shill like those on Fox.

The Story of Robert Cox, World’s Most Important Blogger

I left off on posting about the most recent media type to join the “Pile On Olbermann” movement for no other reason than it was a beautiful sunny weekend and dammit, my feathers didn’t need ruffling. Not like there was anything new or interesting there.

Fortunately (?) for us, Danny Shea at HuffPo has gathered up all of the recent backlash in a single column! One stop shopping for all your indignant needs! This roundup was apparently spurred by last night’s choice of Katic Couric as Worst Person. Let’s look at some of what he’s rounded up, shall we?

From Rachel Sklar:

I find it a bit rich that Keith Olbermann would chastise anyone on the subject of “separating the hype from the news” or “the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism.” And yet he did just that last night in naming Katie Couric his “Worst Person in the World” for speaking out about the sexism evidenced in some of the media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Ms. Sklar, no KO fan she, cherry picks the one line about sexism missing the actual point Keith was making: Ms. Couric’s lack of fact checking regarding her words about Lee Cowan.

I actually flinched last night when I heard Keith denigrate the idea of rampant sexism against Hillary. While I did not see it lurking in every negative phrase uttered against her as some did, it was there and it was obvious. Keith apparently needs to get a 16 ton clue dropped on him on that count. But that was a footnote to the larger issue.

Next up, that paragon of truthful journalism, Jossip:

How did we go from naming Rupert Murdoch the “Worst Person in the World” to adding America’s sweetheart Katie Couric to that list? Ah, right: Because Keith Olbermann’s popular segment is as much a place to criticize world leaders guilty of human rights violations as it is for him to defend his own. And thanks to Couric aiming some “anonymous” critical comments at the NBC family, there she is, Keith’s No. 1 target.

“America’s sweetheart?” Really? Have you seen her ratings? While we’re at it, have you actually seen more than one segment of Worsts? When was the last time a “world leader” was nominated for “human rights violations?”

It’s not a secret that KO deserves some of the criticism leveled at him. We aren’t here to hold him up as a shining example of perfection. But I think it not too much to ask that his critics stay on point.

Please stop creating controversies involving the subject of my blog (one Mr. K. Olbermann) on days when I am away from the tubes. I am but halfway through the 500+ items collected by Google Reader in my absence, but can see that the more “righteous” and colorful among you have characterized recent remarks thusly: “openly calls for physical attack, if not murder,” “solution … is to kill Hillary and it’s unmitigated hate speech.” And then there’s this:

We need to say this. It does not preclude talking about the other elements that may be subsumed under that final act, that she would also be battered and raped, but the clear message sent out by Keith Olbermann is he wants someone to murder this woman.

Murder? Hate speech? Really? Are you people fucking stupid?

What amuses me about this is that none of you had anything to say about these remarks on Thursday, the day after they aired. No, nobody got their knickers in a twist until Rachel Sklar at HuffPo said:

What does that mean? Really, it can only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out. At minimum.

Fortunately for me Pale Rider at Blue Girl, Red State (quite unknowingly, I’m sure) picked up my slack:

In order for what Sklar is saying to be true, you would have to believe that Olbermann is the problem. Not Rush Limbaugh, who is calling for riots and chaos in Denver. Not the likes of Michael Savage, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, those idiots we told you about at any number of hate-oriented blogs in recent weeks. or even our old pal Roger Stone. Yes, Olbermann. Wow. Sorry, but I’m not gonna go there.

Yep–the only man who has kept us sane, who has given us a goddamned voice–the only man who, by dint of his Special Comments, endless efforts at reminding people about Mission Accomplished, The US Attorney Scandal, Plame Gate and a whole host of things that the regular media would just as soon sweep under the rug–yes, Olbermann’s the problem! Poor Keith has to be saying to himself, sheesh–what does a guy have to do to operate around here without taking fire from people who are 90% in agreement with him on the important issues?

Jesus Christ on a fucking spoon. I cannot wait for this primary to be over so I can stop reading about how anyone with a disparaging remark against Hilary Clinton is a hateful misogynist. Maybe then we can focus some attention on actual hateful misogynists.

No love,

Becky

On my regular search of the web for all things KO this past week I saw not one but two separate posts where Keith and Countdown have been taken to task. In “‘Countdown’ with Keith Olbermann Turns Five: Hurting Democrats November Chances?” Jackson Williams’ complaints are more partisan in nature. Regardless of which side of the Democratic contest you’re on, there’s nothing here that you haven’t read elsewhere (and probably in much harsher language):

…everyone has friends in each camp. We can’t “subtract the humanity from the equation,” as Olbermann eloquently agreed in his 2002 Salon essay “Mea Culpa”. If the goal is unity and high turnout in the general election, how does demonizing the choice made by much of his own fan base do the trick?

In “The Problem With ‘Countdown’” Rick Ellis’ complaints are more general:

I genuinely like the guy, and “Countdown” continues to be one of the bright spots of cable news.The problem for me is that “Countdown” is rapidly becoming predictable and generic; a distressing development for a show that really has its own internal vibe and attitude. I still watch the show every night, but there are times when my interest fades, and I find myself hitting the fast forward button to get through a segment.

I do admit that I’m not enjoying the show as much these days as I did in he past. A more general mix of news and features has given way to a near steady diet of politics. I am what you’d call a kind of politics junkie, but even people like me have a saturation point. As near to fed up as I am now of all-politics-all-the-time, I can’t imagine what I’ll feel like come October. And honestly, I miss the days when the show didn’t take itself quite so seriously all the time (especially after watching some of Keith’s Greatest Hits).

What say you, dear readers? How do you all feel about the evolution of Countdown?

Apparently the folks over at Daily Kos did what I could not in last night’s recap. KO responds:

Forgive the fairly minor focus here but I spot at least three diaries on [Lawrence O’Donnell’s] appearance on Countdown last night to discuss Obama, Reagan, and Edwards.

Those of you complaining about it are right.

His HuffPo piece was news to me.

Shouldn’t have been, obviously, but it was.
…

But even with these caveats, the point about this appearance, especially in the wake of such a freshly-written piece, is well-taken and I’m very sorry.

It will be addressed tonight on the show.

Thanks.

Thank you, KO, for standing up and being accountable.

(I only saw one of the three diaries he mentions; I posted it on the tumbleog this morning.)

Chip Rowe on the Playboy Blog:

Two quick points: (1) I didn’t tell her to make her letter “gushing.” In fact, she wrote a smart response and we were glad to have it. I try to include a variety of views in the letters pages because I know from experience that people who agree with something are less likely to write–and this is born out by the fact we have since gotten letters from K.O. lovers who can’t believe all the K.O. haters who wrote. (2) Anyone who actually reads Playboy–rather than just posting snide comments about it (that “for the articles” joke is so clever! More, please)–can’t be too surprised. We have invited experts who might not otherwise see the magazine to comment, in whatever way they see fit, in our letters pages since the 1960s. It makes for a more spirited debate.

There you have it.

Boy, these past two days have made me weary. I mentioned to Stef that it might fall under “Be careful what you wish for,” but she thought “OH GOD WTF NO SRSLY EVERYONE, WTF” suited the situation better. I think she’s right.

Well that was fun, wasn’t it? I’m not exactly sure what the point of it all was except, of course, to once again paint Our Mr. Olbermann with the brush of negativity. As I mentioned earlier, it also accomplished some nice things for our little blog here including some attention from big media blogs and a fourfold increase in site traffic for the day. And it was certainly more pleasant all the way around than the last time his name was linked to a blogger!

If you’re scoring at home, here’s where we appeared: Jossip, TVNewser (who put up my reaction), Gawker, Inside Cable News, The Huffington Post (who merely reproduced the blog post, but under a lurid headline), Chickaboomer (who think I’m Miss Katy), and the pièce de résistance, this morning’s Page Six!

(Oh, and we were Stumble Uponed, too!)

Thank you all who stopped, commented, and said kind things about my letter. I hope some of you will stick around.

Now let’s get back to the business of blogging, shall we? Our new recapper, Arrow, does her first of hopefully many Tuesday night gigs tonight. For you late-nighters and West Coasters, Gilbert is on for the post-debate, Michigan primary political coverage. And with any luck, I’ll have the time and energy to actually do some tumblelogging today!

ETA: And Huffington Post readers and Stumblers! This has been an interesting afternoon!

ETA2: And readers of Gawker and Inside Cable News…

Welcome to our humble fan blog. For those of you too lazy to read the comments on the Playboy post: When I inquired about disclosing my dealings with Mr. Rowe he replied, “You are welcome to mention that you were asked to respond, sure. I enjoyed reading the blog and was interested in your take on the Interview.” I doubt if this was a lynching offense he’d be so cavalier about it.

As for where the aforementioned blogs picked up on this relatively obscure little fan site, I assure you their editors aren’t regular readers of Either Relevant or True. If you compare their pieces to what’s published on OlbermannWatch (no link, look it up yourself) you’ll find amazing similarities. So much for TVN’s emailer being “anonymous.”

My own anonymity is a non-issue. This is not my job, this is my hobby. I don’t need a small handful of anti-Olbermann jihadists making my life hell. (And sorry, no, I am not Katy Tur. I’ve been doing this blog since she was still in diapers college.)

I’m sure you all remember the Playboy interview back in September. Shortly after the release of the magazine (and after a couple of discussions of it here on ERT) I was contacted by Playboy editor Chip Rowe via the site’s contact form.

He said that they were getting overwhelmingly negative response on the interview* - mostly for the Fox Noise remarks, though some were just general anti-KO sentiment - and that he’d like to balance that with something positive from someone with my “expertise.” (No, really, that’s the word he used. I quickly denied being an expert on a man I’d never met.) After exchanging several emails, I wrote up a couple of hundred words for him to use on the “Letters to Playboy” page. The letter appears in the January issue, along with this blog’s address.

A page scan of my inconveniently separated letter and the text thereof after the jump!

*I’ve made a game of counting the factual and logical errors in the other letters!

(more…)