This quote is from Alan Simpson, a former Senator from Wyoming and co-chair of President Obama’s debt reduction commission:
"You don't want to listen to the right and the left -- the extremes," he said. "You don't want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe [Limbaugh] and Rachel Madow [sic] or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They're entertainers. They couldn't govern their way out of a paper sack -- from the right or the left. But they get paid a lot of money from you and advertisers -- thirty, fifty million a year -- to work you over and get you juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.”
Anyone who has watched or listened to these shows knows there is no comparing what Limbaugh and Beck do to what Olberman and Madow do. Limbaugh and Beck explicitly and defiantly exploit fear and racism to juice people up. That is their strategy. Their conspiracy rants are premised on fact free hysterical descriptions of their opponents’ allegedly dark motives. Think about it. They call our President, whose actions regarding our investment banks and auto industry saved millions of American jobs, and probably saved modern capitalism, a socialist! Beck called our first mix raced president, a man who was raised by a white mother and grand mother, a racist. Both men have accused Obama of plotting to destroy America from within.
Olberman and Madow offer searing criticism, to be sure. But their criticisms are based on facts. They point to the actual behaviors and utterances of those they criticize – not to their alleged dark motives or conspiratorial purposes. The only similarity between Limbaugh and Beck and Olberman and Madow is that their criticisms tend to be partisan. But even here, the order of magnitude is remarkably different. Lumping these four together under the label “partisan” would be like lumping me and a 600 lb. man together under the label “overweight.” True, but misleading to the point of duplicity.
Alan Simpson is no dunce. He knows the difference between Limbaugh and Beck and Olberman and Madow. His conflation of these figures is intentional. He wants to discredit substantive criticism by conflating fact based critics with radical partisan ideologues. That should tell you something about his proposals right off the bat.
Joe H.
Posts
It Is Accomplished
8 years ago
10 comments:
Hmmm...I tend to think the difference in magnitude between Maddow/Olberman and Limbaugh/Beck is more mirrored by lumping ME and a 350lb. man together, and calling us overweight. Olberman especially is not beyond bending the truth to make the right look bad.
Not that I don't think Limbaugh and Beck are mind-poison; they very clearly are.
Jim, do you know any examples of Olberman "bending a fact?"
I've never seen it?
Joe
Hey Joe!
There are a few items in this that are just political wrangling...and several that actually have meat to them:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/
Wow Jim, there’s six minutes of my life I’ll never get back!
I think this type of sneering, mocking, question-begging political discourse does tremendous damage to the reflective capacity of our fellow citizens. The panel members’ remarks were juvenile and substance free.
That said, I saw the Olberman Special Comment, and I didn’t see any “bent” facts. Everything Olberman said about what Obama did was true. Obama had long championed ending the tax cuts for the rich. Yet, Obama failed and/or refused to use his considerable leverage to put up a fight (see my post for 11/13/2010). He instead appeased an insatiable opponent whose primary goal, according to that opponent’s own words, is to destroy his presidency.
Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler by conceding the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany is the quintessential example of a failed appeasement of an aggressive, implacable foe. If Olberman drew any (implicit) comparison between Republicans and Nazis, it is that Nazis, like current Republicans, can’t be appeased, and it is a mistake to try – especially when the stakes are so high and you must abandon long stated principles to accommodate your opponent.
I suppose Olberman should have been more careful. But to intentionally misunderstand Olberman in order to conclude that he’s “hateful,” is shameless and stupid. It’s like my criticizing the Sienfeld cast for comparing an unfortunately rigid soup entrepreneur to the “Nazis,” and then concluding that they are “hateful.” We’ve long teased out certain aspects of perceived Nazi character – their intense, rigid, determination, their inability to be appeased, etc. – when jokingly referring to “soup Nazis” or “parking Nazis.” No one thinks that such comparisons suggest that overzealous parking enforcement officials are evil, like the Nazis.
To interpret Olberman as suggesting that Republicans are Nazis in any meaningful sense is just stupid.
Joe H.
Hey Joe,
I am no fan of the "sneering, mocking", etc., as you well know. However, the web page points out far more than just the "Nazi" comment to show where Olbermann told half-truths. Why choose to focus on the Nazi comment? Why not the Post from Nov. 17th - where Olbermann was show to actually be lying...
...and to be fair, you were only asking for a single example ; )
I'm not trying to be dense, Jim, but I didn't see any dates on the entries. What was the lie Olberman told? Was it that he was unfamiliar with the rules (NBC's rules) regarding political donations? If so, then the retort that he was quoting them chapter and verse to chastise Roger Ailes is ludicrous - Ailes is not employed by NSNBC.
Was it another lie? Let me know.
By the way, I'm confident that you can tell the difference between this blogger's style of criticising Olberman (sneering, distorting, name calling and being generally unfair), and Andrew Sullivan's criticisms of Sarah Palin. That is what I'm talking about.
Joe
Of course I can tell the difference! I HATE snottiness when it comes from either side...as it very clearly does. However, you asked me for an example of Olberman lying, and he very clearly has, on many occasions. So we can leave the question of the tone of this particular website aside now, no?
The olbermanwatch web site is laid out just like a blog...the NAZI entry was just the first entry, and I didn't even look at it. All the entries are dated, at the upper right of each entry. Look at the one dated Nov. 17th.
If you can't find that one, just do a web search on "Olberman lies". There are a bunch of partisan, snotty sites listed there, but a lot of them have teeth about untruths. And there are your examples.
I don't see any reason why you'd need to protect Olberman. That would take a little teeth out of your blog post that we're addressing, but so be it.
Jim,
I found the post you cited. I also did an “Olberman lies” google search and opened approximately a dozen links. I am quite underwhelmed by the evidence. As you know, “lying” is to:
1. Intentionally;
2. Make a claim or state an assertion;
3. That one knows to be false or misleading;
4. For the express purpose of deceiving or misleading the person or persons with whom you are communicating.
What I saw on these links, including the one you pointed me to, were persons eager to characterize any statement by Olberman that they deemed to be untrue, as a lie. In all of the examples I reviewed, the truth of Olberman’s statement was itself debatable, not demonstrably false. Moreover, even assuming that Olberman’s statements were false, none of the bloggers provided any evidence that Olberman knew his assertions were false or misleading, or that he made them with the intent to deceive.
As you know, I’m not a hero worshiper. I have called Obama a liar numerous times – but only when there was no more charitable explanation of his behavior. I like Keith Olberman, just like I liked President Obama. But if I were presented with clear evidence that Olberman lied, I would call him a liar.
I’m not interested in protecting Keith Olberman. What I am interested in is exposing the myth that what Beck/Limbaugh/Hanity do is remotely similar to what Olberman and Maddow do. We agree that Beck and Limbaugh spew mind poison. I said that Olberman and Maddow’s criticisms are fact based - and they are. Maddow, in fact, delivers her criticisms with a disarming politeness, humor, and charm. Olberman, while far more biting, sticks with what the person he is criticizing actually did or said. I have watched him many times and have not seen a single exception.
I said that to lump all these figures into the same category (as Alan Simpson did) is equivalent to lumping me (30 lbs. overweight) into the same category as a 600 lb. guy (presumably 400 lbs. overweight) and calling us both “overweight.”
You adjusted my analogy. You put the difference at 250 lbs (your presumed weight) to 350 lbs. To my mind, if “mind poison” weighs 350 lbs., 250 lbs is still pretty bad. I think you ought to justify your adjustment with evidence.
You said Olberman "very clearly" lied. Point me to one example where there is evidence of all four elements of a lie.
Joe H.
Jim,
I found the post you cited. I also did an “Olberman lies” google search and opened approximately a dozen links. I am quite underwhelmed by the evidence. As you know, “lying” is to:
1. Intentionally;
2. Make a claim or state an assertion;
3. That one knows to be false or misleading;
4. For the express purpose of deceiving or misleading the person or persons with whom you are communicating.
What I saw on these links, including the one you pointed me to, were persons eager to characterize any statement by Olberman that they deemed to be untrue, as a lie. In all of the examples I reviewed, the truth of Olberman’s statement was itself debatable, not demonstrably false. Moreover, even assuming that Olberman’s statements were false, none of the bloggers provided any evidence that Olberman knew his assertions were false or misleading, or that he made them with the intent to deceive.
As you know, I’m not a hero worshiper. I have called Obama a liar numerous times – but only when there was no more charitable explanation of his behavior. I like Keith Olberman, just like I liked President Obama. But if I were presented with clear evidence that Olberman lied, I would call him a liar.
I’m not interested in protecting Keith Olberman. What I am interested in is exposing the myth that what Beck/Limbaugh/Hanity do is remotely similar to what Olberman and Maddow do. We agree that Beck and Limbaugh spew mind poison. I said that Olberman and Maddow’s criticisms are fact based - and they are. Maddow, in fact, delivers her criticisms with a disarming politeness, humor, and charm. Olberman, while far more biting, sticks with what the person he is criticizing actually did or said. I have watched him many times and have not seen a single exception.
I said that to lump all these figures into the same category (as Alan Simpson did) is equivalent to lumping me (30 lbs. overweight) into the same category as a 600 lb. guy (presumably 400 lbs. overweight) and calling us both “overweight.”
You adjusted my analogy. You put the difference at 250 lbs (your presumed weight) to 350 lbs. To my mind, if “mind poison” weighs 350 lbs., 250 lbs is still pretty bad. I think you ought to justify your adjustment with evidence.
You said Olberman "very clearly" lied. Point me to one example where there is evidence of all four elements of a lie.
Joe H.
Jim,
I found the post you cited. I also did an “Olberman lies” google search and opened approximately a dozen links. I am quite underwhelmed by the evidence. As you know, “lying” is to:
1. Intentionally;
2. Make a claim or state an assertion;
3. That one knows to be false or misleading;
4. For the express purpose of deceiving or misleading the person or persons with whom you are communicating.
What I saw on these links, including the one you pointed me to, were persons eager to characterize any statement by Olberman that they deemed to be untrue, as a lie. In all of the examples I reviewed, the truth of Olberman’s statement was itself debatable, not demonstrably false. Moreover, even assuming that Olberman’s statements were false, none of the bloggers provided any evidence that Olberman knew his assertions were false or misleading, or that he made them with the intent to deceive.
As you know, I’m not a hero worshiper. I have called Obama a liar numerous times – but only when there was no more charitable explanation of his behavior. I like Keith Olberman, just like I liked President Obama. But if I were presented with clear evidence that Olberman lied, I would call him a liar.
I’m not interested in protecting Keith Olberman. What I am interested in is exposing the myth that what Beck/Limbaugh/Hanity do is remotely similar to what Olberman and Maddow do. We agree that Beck and Limbaugh spew mind poison. I said that Olberman and Maddow’s criticisms are fact based - and they are. Maddow, in fact, delivers her criticisms with a disarming politeness, humor, and charm. Olberman, while far more biting, sticks with what the person he is criticizing actually did or said. I have watched him many times and have not seen a single exception.
I said that to lump all these figures into the same category (as Alan Simpson did) is equivalent to lumping me (30 lbs. overweight) into the same category as a 600 lb. guy (presumably 400 lbs. overweight) and calling us both “overweight.”
You adjusted my analogy. You put the difference at 250 lbs (your presumed weight) to 350 lbs. To my mind, if “mind poison” weighs 350 lbs., 250 lbs is still pretty bad. I think you ought to justify your adjustment with evidence.
You said Olberman "very clearly" lied. Point me to one example where there is evidence of all four elements of a lie.
Joe H.
Post a Comment