KRUGMAN NAMES NAMES/QUOTES QUOTES! Our guess: The new Miss Cal isnt pretty enough to make Keith Olbermann mad: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2009
Krugman names names/quotes quotes: Gene Robinson and Paul Krugman wrote the same column today. Except they actually didnt.
In our view, Robinson wrote the appropriate column for hima fairly Standard Tribal Tract. Our tribes the good tribeand their tribe isnt, the broad-brushed gentleman says:
Theres a great deal to discuss in all this, as Krugmans piece makes much more clear. But heres a question: Is anti-Semitic activity somehow right-wing? Obviously not, though you might get that impression from Robinsons broadly-brushed work. (Reverend Wright piped up this week, presumably not from the right.) And how about this: If the number of hate groups has increased, are those groups necessarily conservative? In various ways, that aint obvious either. Except in the vague and broad-bushed logic of this particular column.
Its interesting to see Robinson complain about infotainers, because hes becoming a bit of a tainer himself. Many nights, he pockets his three hundred bucks from MSNBC, having inspired us rubes a bit more. On the programs where he stars, we rubes always belong to the good and true tribe. And then too, theres always The Other.
Krugman discusses the same topic today (just click here). But where he goes, rubber meets road. He largely skips blanket statements about conservatives and the right-wing (though he uses the latter term more directly than we would). Instead, he names the names of actual people and quotes the actual things they have said. No one can do justice to these critical topics in just 700 words, of course. But Krugman quotes actual statements by OReilly, Beck and Limbaughand by the Washington Times. For our money, hes a bit too fair to OReilly today (more below)and a bit too hard on Mitch McConnell. But he largely moves past sweeping tribal portrayals. He lays the groundwork for a long-delayed discussion of the specific irresponsible, crackpot claims which have infested our discourse.
Crackpot claims have infested our culture for the past two decades. Citizens deserve to be told that this is happeningdeserve to be put on alert. Citizens need to hear these actual statements quoted; they need to read the actual names of the actual people who have made the claims. No one can do this in 700 wordsbut Krugman makes the start.
In our view, Robinson gets us pretty much nowhere today. Naming names and quoting their quotes, Krugman gives readers a start.
Infotainment kills: For our money, Krugman is a bit too kind to Bill OReilly today. This is what he wrote:
We know of no evidence that OReilly (or anyone else) directly incited recent violence. On the other hand, OReilly sometimes called Dr. Tiller the baby killer in his own voicenot that such legalistic distinctions make much actual difference. OReilly is sometimes over-accused by liberalsby liberals who rarely show much sign of having actually watched his show. In this case, wed say that Krugman has under-charged.
But then, so did Keith Olbermann, on the infotainment show which frequently stars Gene Robinson. Whats the downside to infotainment? Consider Olbermann and Dr. Tiller.
As noted, we think OReilly is sometimes over-charged by excitable liberals. But anyone who watches his show (we watch intermittently) would have known that hed gone over the line in his ongoing treatment of Tiller. Calling someone a baby killer is dangerous work, whether you do so in your own voice or in somebody elses. OReilly played this card, and others like it, too many times in the past several years.
KeithO runs an infotainment show on which he pillories BillO almost nightly. In all honesty, he sometimes stretches and strains a bit to generate the type of outrage with which he favors us rubes. But guess what? In all those years of banging BillO, KeithO never mentioned his trashing of Tiller (Nexis archives). KeithO was full of outrageafter the murder. Before that, nary a word.
Why wasnt Tiller mentioned on Countdown, despite OReillys risky behavior? Despite the programs obsessive focus on BillO? We dont knowbut were willing to guess. Mentioning Tiller would have been slightly hardit would have taken a bit of effort. KeithO would have been forced to explain who Tiller was. He would have had to take some time explain the relevant issues.
This would have been very informative, of course. In the past two weeks, Rachel Maddow has done superlative, deeply informative work about the issues surrounding the abortion services Tiller provided. But KeithO runs an entertainment program. Information is rarely allowed to intrude. Its all about pleasing us rubes.
Our guess: Olbermanns staff knew there were simpler, sometimes-inaccurate ways to bang away at BillO. Despite Olbermanns constant, rube-running focus on BillO, Tiller was never mentioned.
But then, how dumb a program is Olbermanns Countdown? Consider one short, semi-remarkable segment on last evenings show.
The segment involved Newt Gingrich, a major political figure. The segment was quite informativeremarkably so, wed assess. But KeithO doesnt run on informationand so, like many such segments on this dumb program, the segment got rather short shrift. It was crammed into the Best Persons feature, following short chunks about (1) a Simpsons episode come to life and (2) a stupid Connecticut criminal. Beyond that, Olbermanns copy was plainly bungled. Well try to help straighten that out. (To watch the segment, click here.)
Newt Gingrich had made two very dumb statements. This is what Olbermann read:
Good times! Olbermann threw his sheaf of papers at the screen. No loss, since the text on the papers was bungled. That said:
If Olbermanns facts are accurate here (theres rarely good reason to make such assumptions), this is a striking storya story which would make a strong supplement to todays Krugman column. Yes, Olbermann bungled the copy about Gingrich and Reagan; we wont waste our time explaining what he was trying to say, but it involved a thundering, foolish bungle by Gingrich earlier in the week. But if Olbermanns current facts are accurate, Gingrich has twice made comically ludicrous, thundering bungles in just this week alone. And yet, every mainstream scribeYou know? The people who get booked on Countdown?feels obliged to tell us, incessantly, how very smart Newt Gingrich is.
Plainly, its a Standard Script, endlessly recited by some of the people who guest-star on Olbermanns program. (Earlier Standard Scripts of this type: John McCains a straight-shooting straight-talker! Al Gore has a problem with the truth!) That said, the fact that Gingrich made two ridiculous statements this weekwell, on a real progressive news program, that could form the basis for a very interesting, and important, news segment. Why do mainstream scribes keep insisting Newts so smart, when he makes so many ridiculous statements? Isnt it time that progressives began to offer the public such essential frameworks? Isnt it time that Olbermann asked Howard Fineman and Jonathan Alter why they keep saying this thing?
(Does our own Richard Wolffe even say it? Please dont make us check.)
Of course, that wont happen on Olbermanns show, a program which is defiantly stupid. This program isnt about information and strong frameworks; Olbermanns show is about silly blather wrapped up with a nice music cut and a snowstorm of papers. For similar reasons, you never heard about OReillys trashing of Dr. Tiller, despite the programs focus on BillO. KeithO was filled with fury at his foilbut only after the murder.
Gingrich rated a very short segmenta very short segment with bungled copy. What was on Dumb Leaders mind? Drink in a great mans deathless focus:
Dumbest millionaire in the class: Is there a way to get dumber than KO? The naughty lad had big things on his mind as he skipped past Gingrich last night. As usual, his mind kept wandering to the Big Fun yet to come on the program. Right from the start, he promised us rubes. Wed get the sort of Big Treat we enjoyif wed just stay to the end:
Lets be honest. If Countdown was four hours long, KO could quit his viagra.
Thats right. The little guy was hard-on-hard for Carrie Prejean again last night. He kept telling us rubes that Michael Musto would take his second shot at her! You cant spell smut without Musto, of course. The idiot had trashed Prejean every way but blue in his first insult-laden session. Now, KO was telling us to please stick around. Wed get some similar action.
But then, a man like KO will almost always have more than one thing on his mind. He was also focused, for the second straight night, on that other dispute:
KO had a lot on his mind as the evening unfolded.
By the way, if its on-his-knees sex you most enjoy, you have to watch KO do Letterman. One things for certain: The mumble-mouthed star had his transcript straight when it came to this crucial topic! According to KO, Letterman apologized, atoned, said he was sorryhad done so Wednesday, for eight heartfelt minutes! Sorry! So youll see how Olbermanns limbic brain works, this is how Letterman actually apologized and atoned for the joke which said Palin looks slutty:
To KO, that sounded like an apology. Maybe he couldnt hear Daves words over his own noisy efforts.
Olbermann has played these games for years. Truly, we hadnt known there were still liberal men who had such demons in their heads about girls. But KO is one such fellowand Letterman is another. Maybe they should drive too fast up to Greenwich and rent themselves a room at the club. They could spend the rest of their lives with the Buckleys. Which is what such big losers deserve.
Sorry, rubes! You didnt hear about Tiller from KO, despite his flame wars with BillO. Nor did you get a serious treatment of Gingrichs comments last night. KOs program is about infotainment. And to KO, infotainment has always involved a big dose of disparaging girls. This may be a way of stalking the demo. But it seems dear to Olbermanns heart.
No, there wasnt any reason to waste time on Miss California last night. But this is where KOs mind always roams.
Always! On Wednesday, he had tried to assess those Letterman jokes. And ohourgod! Our analysts covered their ears and their eyes as our old pal Craig Crawford rode herd.
As we were saying: Honest to God, we just had to laugh when Olbermann set some aside time to talk about Lettermans jokes.
That same day, we had posted a fairly obvious comment, one well amplify now. Most American liberals have very refined senses of racial politics (thats good). Most people understand: There are painful, ugly ancestral insults which simply cant be tolerated.
Thats good! But when it comes to sexual politics, many folk lack the first earthly clue. (Truly, its quite remarkable.) Olbermann and Letterman keep raising their hands to let Teacher know that they qualify.
Olbermann has been comically awful in this realm for years. No one loves insulting and ridiculing womenpreferably, young womenquite the way this multimillionaire does. For our money, he maintained the cluelessness Wednesday night, even as he tried to showcase his lofty, high-minded good judgment.
This was Night 1 of his Letterman pondering. Our old pal Craig Crawford, a superlative person, was called in to ride herd.
Really, you just have to laugh when a fellow like KO tries to discuss such matters. Consider what happened when the lofty penseur assessed Daves slutty joke.
Asked about the quip on a radio show, Palin, maintaining good humor, had pretended to scold: Pretty pathetic, David Letterman! Might we say what is blindingly obvious? For once in her year-long national life, Palin had something right! But how does Ole Massah respond to such matters? Olbermann played tape of her comment, then (Howard) sternly opined:
Too perfect! According to Ole Massah, its a tin-ear response when Palin speaks up, even in a good-natured tone. But its A-OK when Ole Massah himself instantly states the same judgment! But then, boys like Olbermann have behaved this way all through the annals of time. In their heads, the little ladies simply mustnt complain. We Big Men will do all the talking.
How empty is this shows sexual politics? Soon, Crawford was teaching the ABCs of gender insult to his slow-as-molasses host. Poor KO! Puzzling hard about which words are fair, he asked the worlds dumbest question:
Poor Craig had to tell our slowest boy that no, you cant call women slutty. (Correcting Craig, who was probably trying to be polite: Since the whole point of the joke was to call Palin slutty, there really was no other word Letterman could have chosen.)
All this said, do you see what we meant in Wednesdays post about the lack of any sexual politics? By now, everyone knows that people simply cant toss racial insults around. Everyone knows what those words would be; for obvious reasons, liberals are quick to reject them. But Olbermann, dumb as a very cold rock, still doesnt know about gender-based insults. Is slutty a word we can use? He wondered, on Wednesday nights program.
Final point: On Wednesday, KO went on, at length, rebutting those who claimed that Dave told a joke about Palins 14-year-old daughter. But if language still has any meaning, Dave did tell a joke about her. Duh. Palin had attended a Yankees game with her 14-year-old daughter. In his joke, Dave imagined Palins daughter getting knocked up at that game. Maybe Dave and his sleepy staff didnt know which daughter attended the game. (Bill Scheft better not be tangled in this!) But thats the girl who was at the park. In the most obvious literal sense, that is who Dave jested about.
In the course of his eight-minute atonement, Letterman couldnt quite cop to that fact. With the slimy morals which drive his own program, Olbermann swallowed this for him that night. By the way: Each of the boys went out of his way to use the term knocked up again in talking about the older daughter. Each apologized for using the term, which he knew was just wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Naughty, naughty lads are like that. They just cant seem to help it.
Back to this mornings columns: Crackpot claims have driven our discourse for many years now. We need to name the people who make them. We need to name the major journalists who enable these dopes.
In a serious world, Olbermann would ask Howard Fineman why he keeps saying that Gingrich is smart. But GE and Newsweek are business partners. Olbermann is paid $5 million per year. Hes paid not to ask. And he wont.
Last night, Robinson appeared on Countdown, to talk about the killing at the Holocaust Museum. In the course of a long, largely unintelligent, two-guest segment, Robinson offered the leading grace note:
Keith is so daring, so bold! But who is von Brunn? Who was driving his world? Who else is tied up in the groups he inhabited? These may be very significant questions (or not). But in interviews with Robinson and Mark Potok, Olbermann mainly staged a childs discussion: Was von Brunn a man of the right? Or was he a man of the left?
Children live their lives that way. Limbaugh does itand so does KO. But then, the two men are a good deal alike. Each man is defiantly dumb. And each loves beating on girls.
Carrie Prejean has lost her crown? What could possibly make someone think that was a major news story last night? It takes a very dumb man to think thator a man who loves banging on girls.
By the way: The new Miss California refuses to say that she supports same-sex marriage. But heres our guess, and its an expert assessment: The new Miss California isnt pretty enough to make Keith Olbermann mad.