Harry's Place

Jesus fucking christ, that was the most nauseatingly sentimental, self-regarding, cringeworthy piece of crap I’ve ever seen.

His point is absolutely correct, but his method of delivering it is horrible. He sounded like he was about to break into tears most of the way through with the sheer beauty of his own speech.

Didn’t Ben Affleck do a parody of Olbermann on SNL a few weeks back?

Here it is

“Jesus fucking christ, that was the most nauseatingly sentimental, self-regarding, cringeworthy piece of crap I’ve ever seen.”

Har!

These people?

These People have names Mr. Olbermann. Names like Bruce and Lance and Julien. Our bestest names.

I generally like Keith. He’s been channeling Edward R. Murrow since “Good Night and Good Luck” was released. A whole lot of “Have you no decency” for his closing piece. Sometimes he’s a little over the top.

He’s been channeling Edward R. Murrow since “Good Night and Good Luck” was released.

Another leftist who thinks his job as a journalist is not to be an impartial reporter of the facts but rather to promulate Soviet apologetica?

“Jesus fucking christ, that was the most nauseatingly sentimental, self-regarding, cringeworthy piece of crap I’ve ever seen.”

I think what is nausiating is the way people think playing with the hopes and dreams of real people is just ‘politics’. He certainly summed up the way I feel about the issue. It *is* something to get emotional about. It *is* something to get angry about.

Olbermann’s analysis is completely right.

He’s also fab. I kept expecting him to pull out a rapier and challenge someone to a duel.

I can stand the occasional being on the verge of tears stuff because what he says is absolutely right. As is Brett – it is something to get emotional and passionate about. More power to him.

“Another leftist who thinks his job as a journalist is not to be an impartial reporter of the facts but rather to promulate Soviet apologetica?”

Speaking of over the top.

I presume he’s doing ok in the ratings, as he’s just signed a new $7.5 million per annum contract.

Strangely, he claims he doesn’t vote.

Keith appears opposite O’Reilly and provides a competent alternative. He claims he is competitive. I haven’t seen the numbers.

“He sounded like he was about to break into tears most of the way through with the sheer beauty of his own speech.”

You have never cared for nothing in your life, asshole.

Keith, apparently, was one of primary movers behind Rachel Maddow getting her own hour. Maddow is an outright sensation at 9 p.m. Eastern.

excellent!!!

I loved it because it’s a matter of principle.

and the man is using a passionate tone, so what? this is basically about rights, but it’s not only about rights and emotions count, the defence of human dignity is both rationally and emotionally demanding, and I always am disturbed when people avoid to take a stand by saying ‘this is not a priority, there are other more urgent problems to tackle…’

Keith appears opposite O’Reilly and provides a competent alternative. He claims he is competitive. I haven’t seen the numbers.

Last week’s ratings

If I’m reading this chart correctly:

1. O’Reilly slaughters Olbermann in total viewership. However…

2. In the 25-54 age group (the one that matters to advertisers), they are practically tied.

“it is something to get emotional and passionate about. More power to him.”

I agree with that in general, but when a jouranist does so, he/she stops being a jouranist, and becomes a propagandist – just like Lou Dobbs and Bill Riley.

There is no such thing as truely objective journalism – any reporting carries with it some set of assumptions. However, good journalism seeks to be as objective as reasonably possible, and goes out of it’s way to seek out different perspectives.

However, good journalism seeks to be as objective as reasonably possible, and goes out of it’s way to seek out different perspectives.

I agree, but the above clip is the TV equivalent of an op-ed. It isn’t a news report and doesn’t try to be

“I agree, but the above clip is the TV equivalent of an op-ed. It isn’t a news report and doesn’t try to be”

While it is in a “comment slot”, I don’t think it is viable for one individual to have separate identities – as both propagandist and journalist. This is why the WSJ has a completely separate staff (including editors) for the news and editorial pages.

If the WSJ had a single staff, I would not trust it as a news source; as it is, by some measures the news pages lean more left than the NYT’s news pages.

Journalists should stick to journalism, and leave propaganda to editorialists. Otherwise you get “campaingning journalism”(sic) like the Mail or the Guardian where the editorializing begins on the front page and ends on the back cover.

Like they say, never try to teach calculus to snails. Snails don’t get it. So arguing for humility among the PsychotardChristians is generally a waste of your time.

And for the record, the entirety of the Guardian is one big glorified blogorrific Op-Ed column.

So Olbermann can do “serious”. Who’da thunk it? His points are right on, but the heavy sighs and lip-trembling were so out of character, I kept waiting for the surprise punch line.

Would it have been so hard to just say “Their marriage is none of your business” ? Could it be that there’s some entitlement at stake in the difference between “marriage” and “civil union”? Just asking; I don’t really know, but it almost seems that must be the case.

Do not pay any attention to Morgoth. He keeps a pin up of Senator Joseph McCarthy on the inside of his clothes closet.

Whatever you feel about this commentary… bad, good, indifferent… I was left with one overwhelming question: how does a man like Keith Olberman live more than 49 years without knowing at least one gay couple that is/wants to be married? How??

His circle of friends must be mighty small.