From time totime for various reasons, I think lots of people get tired of DailyKos.com. Often, it can be a result of our favored candidate not being supported, our favorite issue being ignored, or for various other reasons. So, I don't fault Keith Olbermann for deciding to leave Daily Kos for any of those reasons; however, I would have expected a bit more salient reason than this:
"can't verify, of course... (2+ / 0-)
but a friend in the news biz tells me he got a damaging e-mail from one of his pals at NBC. something to the effect that their anger was pre-planned because "beating up on the President has been good for ratings."
I haven't checked but I'm hearing that Olbermann slammed the speech on Twitter before it even started. "
- This commenter got 2 votes up.
- I seriously doubt anyone paid much attention to the comment among thousands yesterday, until K.O. decided to bring it to the forefront with the instant bully pulpit he enjoys on Daily Kos.
Here's K.O.'s twitter announcement:
I gather this may not be the big picture broad canvas "never again" speech redefining our nation's energy addiction that many are expecting
K.O. paraphrase of the commenter
Now I get to read how we pre-planned our anger because 'beating up on the President has been good for ratings'.
Um... sorry Mr. Olbermann but it seems like the commenter has a valid opinion about how the cable news 24/7 15 minute news cycle works. Just as politicians bend their goals, ideals and around getting elected and campaign dollars -- so to do news casters and television networks.
So, it seems you are unwilling to examine the role that money and ratings have in television (unless it is Fox News) ? Please...
However, this really took the cake:
You don't agree with me, fine. You don't want to watch because you don't agree with me, fine. But to accuse me, after five years of risking what I have to present the truth as I see it, of staging something for effect, is deeply offensive to me and is an indication of what has happened here.
In fairness "risk" implies that you have something to lose by giving what you feel is an accurate assessment of a situation. If that is to be believed, then it seems the commenter has a point about media and political criticism that in general the media does not want people to take risks. So, by taking these "risks," you might lose your job...
Sorry, even if that's the case, the "risks" a newscaster takes, while making millions I might add, are simply miniscule in comparison to other agents of change -- like door to door activists, union organizers, teachers in rough areas, community service workers, police officers, fire men and women etc.. etc.. etc... that's not even getting to the cliched "think of the troops line." Not to mention the creature comforts that come along with being in the media, great salaries, access to governmental "sources," and dinners with the president etc...
Opinion "Newscasters/Journalists" on both sides of the spectrum consistenly get access to presidents, senators, congressional members and staff...
BTW a real tell it like he sees consistent critic is Glennwald ( among others)...I wonder how many times he's got to meet with the prez.
In fact, I think your "Goodbye Cruel Kos" over a +2 upvote comment on a diary implies there maybe a bit more to the "trashing the prez" for ratings story (we know fox does it network wide, and plenty of pundits, host and celebs do it, we know plenty of pundits get talking points during campaigns).
Sanctinoumous dairies like "check please" over such a small item lessens your credibility, and removing yourself from Daily Kos shows you can go after the president with your show on MSNBC; yet, on DailyKos a anonymous 2 upvote commenter forces you to leave?
Is K.O. going to leave "the twitter" too if I make a snide remake and include an @keitho?
(ventilation break)
Since I rarely diary -- I thought I'd also bring up the fact that pundits such as Keith Olberman and even Rachel Maddow (although she's my favorite pundit/host) often get perceptions of the median general voter have on issues, and median voters in democratic, republican and unaffiliated positions dreadfully wrong.
For great examples, one only needs to go back to the debates in 2008.
Pundit after pundit declared McCain the winner, only to see both insta-poll voters and demographic panels chose Obama as the winner -- despite Obama being seen as not doggedly going after issues in order to score real debate points. My guess, is that is the real reason why networks have eschewed using real ratings systems to rate how large demographic panels feel -- it shows how horribly out of touch pundits are...
Which leads me to Maddow's "Fake President" speech -- which was fiery, cathartic and great; however, it was designed solely for an audience of believers, and therefore fairly useless... worse it reminded me of George Bush's speech writers who chose to write speech after speech to believers and gradually created a more and more isolated and divisive atmosphere.
As opposed to Keith Olbermann's "check please" and ranting about the President's speech often a little humility is needed in order to realize the combination of symbolism, comprise and activism that is needed in order to execute the most viable compromise when you simply do not hold all the cards...As much as people hate to be reminded non-military or paramilitary leadership is much more "how to win friends and influence people" than "Machiavelli"
A leader figures out a way to work with BP to expedite the process of helping the coastal United States in the medium term, and as Obama announced, and few followed up on. In the longer term, spills will absolutely happen again, it's foolish to say or believe otherwise.
The media seems to still be fixated on some b.s. "emotional" response necessary -- KO and Maddow have fallen into the same trap, and that's unfortunate.