Olbermann on Milbank
<blockquote>"Number 3; best timing. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who notified us today that after four years of appearing with us he had accepted another television offer.
This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision. For nearly a week we have been waiting for him to offer a correction or an explanation for his column from last week in which he apparently reported an Obama quote without the full context that turned the meaning of the quote inside-out. Then he called criticisms of his column 'whines', even though the dispute was over whether Obama had said the self-deprecating, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions..." or if he had just said the part about, "I have just become a symbol..."
We had decided not to have Dana on this news hour again until this was cleared up, and sadly after some very happy years, he has chosen apparently to make that cloud permanant. Good luck, Dana."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26015724
</blockquote>
During a commercial break on Countdown, I just happened to flip over to CNN. To my surprise, there was Dana Milbank on CNN Election Center with Campbell Brown. Yuck. After years of appearing on Countdown, Milbank shows up on CNN the same day that he notifies Olbermann and the Countdown staff that he's accepted another television offer.
This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision. For nearly a week we have been waiting for him to offer a correction or an explanation for his column from last week in which he apparently reported an Obama quote without the full context that turned the meaning of the quote inside-out. Then he called criticisms of his column 'whines', even though the dispute was over whether Obama had said the self-deprecating, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions..." or if he had just said the part about, "I have just become a symbol..."
We had decided not to have Dana on this news hour again until this was cleared up, and sadly after some very happy years, he has chosen apparently to make that cloud permanant. Good luck, Dana."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26015724
</blockquote>
During a commercial break on Countdown, I just happened to flip over to CNN. To my surprise, there was Dana Milbank on CNN Election Center with Campbell Brown. Yuck. After years of appearing on Countdown, Milbank shows up on CNN the same day that he notifies Olbermann and the Countdown staff that he's accepted another television offer.
Advertisement
He'd rather let his blatantly slanted views stand than to do the honorable thing and bring the true facts to light.
August 5, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correctamundo!
August 5, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame. I liked Dana. I like the truth far more.
August 5, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did too except sometimes his snarkiness mixed with KO's ironic prompts were just too much on the irony and humor meters. The main point could sometimes get obscured by their penchant for trying to be snarky.
August 5, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. How difficult would it have been for Milbank to say, I got the quote wrong. He's not the first person in the media to get something wrong, nor would he have been the first to admit an error. Such a statement by Milbank would have showed character, and it would have been a reassuring sign to his readers that he puts truth and accuracy of his reporting above all else.
August 5, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a case of Milbank having to admit a mistake. Because it wasn't a mistake. He presented a narrative with the intent of creating a message. I would consider that article an audition for his new position. I'd say he passed - he's now moved on to transparent partisan TV talking head.
Congrats on exiting the career move, Milbank!
August 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to say, "Congrats on the exciting career move, Milbank!"
August 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a shame to see him rewarded, in a way, for being a bad journalist.
August 5, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well...there's always Karma, I suppose.
August 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reward him by changing the channel. CNN blows anyway.
August 6, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, CarolBG, it is a mistake and he does need to admit it.
If you misquote someone -- accidentally or intentionally -- you need to correct the record. That is why newspapers have corrections in varying locations in the newspaper. Not only did Milbank misquote Obama, and was called on it by his journalistic peers, his misquotation was spun into a narrative that did not have legs. That is, it is impossible to claim with any credibility that Obama is self-centered if the ENTIRE quote is self-deprecating.
There is a difference in suggesting someone said, "It's all about me," when what they actually said was, "It's not all about me."
Apology and the admittance of a mistake is the LEAST Milbank can do.
August 5, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Milbank selectively quoted what Obama said in order to create a narrative of his choosing - one that is contrary to that portrayed by the full Obama quote. Thus, Milbank misquoted Obama. His use of Obama's statements were wrong and he should acknowledge that.
When I say that it wasn't a mistake on Milbank's part, I'm saying that I don't believe that he simply went with a partial quote and misinterpreted Obama's meaning without having full information. If he had, and then had to revise what he said later after receiving more information, I would consider that a mistake.
But, in this case, given the nature of the quote that he claims he received, it seems clear to me that it was missing context. Milbank's decision to either not seek the full context, or to not provide it, is willfully misleading on his part. I see that as being more than a mistake. It's deceitful, it's bad journalism, it's unethical, and it's unbecoming of a journalist from a major newspaper.
August 6, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dana Milbank demonstrates the "trickle-down" theory, not of economics, but of professional responsibility. Neither Bush nor Cheney has apologized, nor has the Congress, nor has the MSM in general...why, then, should he?
This trickle down refusal to take responsibility for what one asserts to be factual will now be observed as a lesson in "how it's done" -- without repercussion, but rather with a simple switch to another well-paid job -- by broadcast and print journalism students everywhere. And so Fourth Estate integrity may erode, well into the future. Older journalists everywhere are stifling Munsch screams.
August 5, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, the networks seem to be falling all over themselves to get the most partisan and unrepentant talking heads possible. Now CNN is looking for more of these kinds of talking points regurgitators to compete with Fox, who, after all, has Rove.
Wow! What a testament to today's so-called news organizations that they let people like Rove pretend to report or comment on the news instead of making it by going to jail.
August 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched the segment and Keith said nothing until the kos kooks tossed him under the bus.
Dana was an Obama hack during the primary but dared to talk about the one in a negative way.
Now Keith will never talk bad about the one and be tossed under the bus like Dana.
Keith is now a forever Obama hack.
No credibility.
None.
August 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Milbank practiced poor journalism, then called us whiners for calling him on it. That's a bad thing?
August 5, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo: Intended to say: "That's a good thing?"
gotalife, the whole thing had little to do with Obama and everything to do with journalistic standards. If you're for yellow journalism, just say so.
August 5, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either way, goatlife doesn't give a damn.
August 5, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to refer to gotalife as a TPM Kook from now on.
August 5, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good job, gotalife.
Keith Olbermann is as much the "Ed Murrow of our times" as Britney Spears is the Billie Holiday of our time. He's the safety value that corporate vampires allow in their midst so people won't wander over to truly journalistic shows such as "Democracy Now". Just as Barack Obama is a safety value preventing this dying corporate empire from having to deal with a true progressive leader.
And I must say I'm shocked, but boy this campaign has really proved it: liberals really don't have a sense of humor. And neither does Obatman.
(And no, I'm a McCain clone. As if the beginning and end of political action is McCain and Uncle O.)
August 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should read: "And no, I'm NOT a McCain clone."
August 5, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I guess cutting off your nose to spite your face provides you with the benefit of not being able to smell with your head shoved so far up your ass mitchum22. ya got that goin for ya.
August 6, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess I'm not the only one with a typo issue. Or should we reference Dr. Freud?
August 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're one to talk about credibility, aren't you?
Some people...
August 5, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milbank proved himself a coward by not correcting his intial report and then "running away" to CNN.
August 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good, he can argue against Jack the Obama hack Cafferty.
August 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, the problem was not that he said something negative about Obama. I have said many negative things about his position on the FISA compromise, for example. But that Milbank breached his journalistic standards by misleading the public when failing to supply a sufficient amount of a quote to give it its true meaning. Later the text of Milbank's piece got shuttled around to other shows essentially polluting the arena of discourse.
August 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck trying to explain that to someone who has no desire to understand what truth is. As long as someone is speaking badly about Obama, getalife is good with it.
Truth be damned.
August 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A troll needs no explanations.
August 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Olbermann demanding an apology for lack of journalistic standards from Milbank? After his special comment on Hillary's RFK quote? After Hillary was eviscerated for acknowledging the role LBJ played in getting Civil Rights legislation passed? Give me a break. He's the last person to be giving advice on journalistic standards. Heal thyself before you go shouting other people out for their supposed infractions.
August 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This constant carping is not helping the candidate you supported in the primaries and caucuses. In fact, collectively it probably significantly harmed whatever chance she had of becoming VP.
I'd say whatever chance remained Bill pretty much did in yesterday.
August 5, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's already been made clear way before yesterday Hillary will not be VP. Must everything be blamed on Bill? And it's not carping - it's pointing out a reality. The media is nor supposed to be an extension of any candidate's campaign. Keith Olbermann has not a shred of credibility left. So for him to attack Dana Milbank for his moderate criticism (compared to the flogging Hillary got from Olbermann throughout the campaign) is just beyond the pale.
All but the most fervent Obama-fans looking at the situation from a media-fairness perspective will likely feel the same way. I believe it was Obama who complained Hillary was trying to work the refs by attacking media bias after the SNL skit. What would you call this? Some consistency and intellectual honesty would be nice. Quit the whining and campaign on real issues.
August 5, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hear Obama complain once. I'd love for you to provide some proof of that.
August 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say Obama was complaining directly. But his supporters (who criticized Hillary for confronting media bias)are now doing the same thing Obama whenever Obama gets unfavorable coverage. I see nothing wrong with confronting truly biased incorrect reporting, but Milbank's is an opinion piece based on interpretation of a quote. Critique his analysis if you think he's wrong, but don't punish him by withholding airtime like Olbermann did. That is the worst form of censorship and Milbank was right to walk away from an anchor who considers using the no airtime until you apologize/retract tactic "journalism."
August 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, whatever. You act like Milbank taking the CNN gig is some heroic act of defiance, meant for Olbermann personally. He seemed to cower until his new gig was sewn up and still has yet to explain himself. That's not courage, and I'm astonished that, your hatred for Olbermann aside, you're defending this guy. You're siding with yellow journalism. That where you want to be?
August 5, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not, it's your constant carping that is literally pushing Obama up in the polls, screaming and kicking, right into the White House.
So while you're high on your Hope Dope, I hope both Clintons stay as far away from Obama as possible, once they did whatever is required from them.
He don't need them. They can certainly get by on their own, once they get out from under the Obama bus.
August 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, this particular issue is not about what has been said by whom about whom; rather, it is about journalistic ethics. No matter who the journalist is -- Milbank, Olbermann, etc. -- if he (or she) misquotes, he (or she) is bound by ethics to print (broadcast) a simple acknowledgment of that, correcting his (or her) statement to reflect the facts. You do it, I do it. National figures in the MSM need to do it as well.
August 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no misquote. It was a difference of interpretation. Even using the full quote does not negate the point of Milbank's original piece. Olbermann is not entitled to demand that Milbank interpret the full quote exactly as Olbermann does or not appear on the air. People are entitled to different perspectives, regardless of how much you may disagree with them. Olbermann ends up looking like a hack for the Obama campaign rather than a real journalist.
August 5, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read Olbermann's piece on dKos, and I didn't get that out of it at all.
What I read was that Olbermann wanted Milbank to give the full quote - which goes like this:
What Milbank actually quoted was this:
I may not be the brightest porch light on the block, but even with my rudimentary understanding of English, I believe the two immediately preceding quotes read completely different from one another, even though both contain the same wording.
Specifically, the first quote completely goes against Milbank's premise in his article. Now, he could've left it out and still written the same article. What he did was snip the beginning of the quote - ostensibly to allow a completely different interpretation.
How else to explain omitting the part about "...is not about me at all" from a piece deriding Obama as presumptuous and arrogant?
This quote was a major part of Milbank's article and argument. I don't think Olbermann has a problem with criticizing Obama, but Milbank's piece was unethical because he took a partial quote to fit into his narrative, when he had to know that the full quote went totally against the narrative.
(And, if Milbank didn't know the first part of the quote - which certainly is possible - he could've said so and been done with it, without even explicitly admitting that the original quote was out of context.)
If the first part of the Obama quote was a minute or two before the "I have just become a symbol" part, there'd be no argument here. But the part Milbank quote was NOT a stand-alone statement, and reporting it as such is dishonest.
August 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add the fact that the quote was second-hand, and wasn't heard by Milbank's own ears when it was said. The whole thing stunk.
August 5, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, reading the full quote it does not automatically negate Milbank's interpretation. Some people look at the full quote and see modesty. Some people look at the full quote and see false modesty followed by self-aggrandizement. There is no requirement that people in the media MUST interpret things to our satisfaction. There was a factual incorrection in Milbank's skecth and that was corrected. This quote was not and doesn't need to be.
And after seeing how selective quoting was used to bash about Hillary during the campaign, I cannot believe Obama supporters are actually griping about this of all things. You can't use media bias to your advantage and then turn around and cry about it later because it's unfair when your candidate is the target. It is intellectually dishonest and looks, much like Milbank said, whiny.
August 5, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading those two quotes, and applying Justice Brennan's "reasonable observer" standard, I fail to fathom a scenario in which more than 1 out of 10 reasonable, neutral observers would say that the full quote is somehow Obama being self-aggrandizing.
This is not about interpretation. Milbank - or you, or I - can interpret anything any way we like. However, there's a HUGE difference between interpreting a full quote and interpreting part of a quote. I'm going to blog about this in a moment; I'd be happy to continue this discussion there, as long as it doesn't degenerate into sarcasm and epithet-tossing.
August 5, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, I respect your opinion, but I will just say that a quote out of context is a quote that does not allow for people to interpret in its original intention. I'm not saying that someone reasonable couldn't get some arrogance out of this quote in its entirety, but I would be willing to bet that a lot more people would interpret it differently than they would the short version Milbank offered.
Taking things out of context is what the Republicans do all the time. They take part of what someone said and they turn it into an accusation. You can argue all day long about how the quote would be interpreted, but you can't argue that it was taken out of context. And, to me, the context was significant.
August 6, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you can't argue that it wasn't taken out of context. Sorry for the typo. And no, this wasn't a Freudian slip. It clearly wasn't in context.
August 6, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. thats the truth of it.
August 5, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Difference of interpretation . . ."
What a juvenile cop-out. If something is literally true, but false in context, it is false. Truth in context is the only meaningful truth.
By your standard, then, was McCain's campaign ad savaging Obama for skipping the troop visit in Landstuhl because he couldn't bring cameras (what the Rovoids said was "seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow cameras") hunky-dory, because in isolation, each separate utterance in the ad was true?
August 5, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never seen "Lalo" admit to any of his numerous errors. Or apologize for any of his equally numerous falsehoods.
August 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope Dope...cute. That's really helping.
August 5, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Olbermann's assessment of Hillary's gaffe 100%, and with that, we'll agree to disagree. Please, let's not fight old wars.
While Olbermann ain't Edward R. Murrow (and never claimed to be, despite paying homage to him with his sign-off each night), I've never seen him present quotes out of context. He seems to take pains to read everything in context. And Olbermann never demanded an apology (sheesh) - he hadn't spoken a word about the guy personally until he brought up Milbank's move to CNN, and in that he said that he wasn't going to have him on as a guest unless he issued a correction. It's not a debate program - Olbermann interviews reporters and needs those reporters to have credibility (especially with his audience, which I'd presume runs to the left). Milbank wasn't going to have that unless he corrected his egregious error. Ego and a new deal prevented that, and Olbermann wished him good luck. Nothing more.
August 5, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - rehashing old battles is not helpful. But Olbermann was not a neutral party in this primary by any account and he often took quotes out of context against Hillary particularly with the "fairy tale" reference by Bill Clinton. So for him to punish Dana Milbank for issuing his opinions (which were not favorable to Obama in this instance) by not having him on the air without an apology or correction is beyond hypocritical.
Milbank did the right thing by walking away and Countdown will be a worse show for it. And I say this as someone who vehemently disagrees with Milbank often and he certainly was not friendly to Hillary either. Olbermann looks like he wants to be the liberal Rush Limbaugh unwilling to have anything but ditto-heads on his show. Olbermann is the last person who should be criticizing someone else on journalistic integrity.
August 5, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the version of the quote someone gave Milbank and he published:
Milbank says that this is a sign of hubris and presumptuousness. I am sure you are aware of the meanings of both words. Obama is self-aggrandising. The quote, as he gave it, would certainly bolster that case.
Actual Obama statement, emphasis mine:
This statement is the opposite of personal hubris (in particular if we consider the point that he has often stated that it is not about him before.)
This is not an issue of opinion.
Now, we can allow that Milbank was given a false or incorrect quote by a source he trusted and he ran with it. This is not the issue, things happen. We could even say that even without the quote, Milbank's column was accurate* or that it was merely snark or whatever, and that he needed to make no apology. Fine. We can give him that even. But Milbank never issued any type of correction, and went so far as to call requests for it "whining." How hard would it have been to say that "the quote was wrong, sorry, but hey, I am sticking by my story otherwise" or "the quote was wrong, sorry, but it is all just satire anyway" or something? This would be the ethical thing to do.
* Each of the other pieces of evidence Milbank gives have been rebutted, or shown to be common behaviour for other presidential candidates, so I think the "presumptuousness" angle is false. You may disagree.
August 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just to be clear, lampooning is fine. Doing so based on false quotes and refusing to acknowledge this is not.
August 5, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In full context provided by the Obama campaign of a speech that was NOT recorded, a reasonable person could read that quote and still find it presumptuous. Some people may actually find it more presumptuous to say that rather than those people be there to see Obama, they are there because the Europeans see him as the hope of righting the ills of America.
Have you read the Audacity of Hope in particular the areas dealing with empathy and having an understanding of the perspective of those you disagree with? Reasonable people can and will disagree on interpretations of the same quote. Save the outrage for real bias and false coverage - not a snark sketch from Milbank. And it is not Milbank's job to stop the GOP from attacking Obama. Milbank's job is to call things as he sees them. The media is not an extension of the Obama campaign, nor should they be.
August 5, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get a job.
August 5, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not the same quote, for fuck's sake! That is the entire point.
Milbank is not allowing people to see that quote, only the falsified one that unequivocally does support his angle. That is what this "whining" is all about.
August 6, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to knock KO too much, but he does put himself on a bit of a pedestal with his "Good night and good luck" close. It rankled the first time I heard it; and yes he is ostensibly self-effacing about not being up to ERM's standard. At best, he delivers a mixed message with the sign off, though.
I remember KO from his early days in the L.A. market. This is a guy who has remade his image from a kind of arrogant dorky nerd (I wish I had his headshot from back then - weird hair, glasses askew -). He worked hard to present the package now delivered. There's more than a little ego rolling out of this guy and well considered contrivance for career advancement.
That said, he could've clobbered Milbank for being a jerk but I don't think it was only "class" that prevented him from doing so. His restraint was politic.
And I'll still catch "Countdown" whenever I can.
August 5, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann didn't demand an apology from Milbank. What Olbermann and the Countdown staff requested was "a correction or an explanation for his column".
If Milbank made an error in misquoting Obama, Olbermann was offering a forum for Milbank to make a correction. And if Milbank stood by the column in question, Olbermann was offering a forum for Milbank to explain.
Milbank declined on both offers.
August 5, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milbank did respond to criticism in an online forum that used humor to capture the essence of what is wrong with all this OUTRAGE from Obama supporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/25/DI2008072502073.html
You are fine with Milbank's scathing critiques of other candidates but when it is turned against Obama, it is somehow out of bounds. Where is it written that Obama cannot be lampooned or criticized? The unwillingness of Obama supporters to allow any criticism of him without getting OUTRAGED is not helpful to winning over new Obama voters. It just makes them wary that Obama's supporters have lost all sense of objectivity and are blind followers incapable of dealing with contrary opinions. The way to counter that is to focus on the issues not whine about every little bit of unfavorable coverage.
August 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That blog just shows what a jerk-off Milbank is.
This is as close as he gets to admitting the possibility of error:
"Evidently no recording was made, so we'll probably never know the exact wording."
"(It should be noted, if it hasn't already, that nobody is questioning the accuracy of the Obama quotes, only the context.)"
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
"ONLY THE CONTEXT."
August 5, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with lampooning or criticizing...would it be too much to ask that it be true? Taking a piece of a comment and deliberately twisting it so that it sounds the opposite of what it was is unfair. It's the unfairness of it all that makes me crazy. And I know, life isn't fair, but good God, can't we at least TRY to make it fair? Or at least have the intestinal fortitude to call people on their unfairness?
August 6, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still waiting for an explanation of what was wrong with K.O.'s "Hillary/RFK" Special Comment. It was no more off-base than his "George W. Bush: Shut the hell up."/I gave up golf to honor the troops Special Comment. People receive the level of scrutiny they seek. Bush told a lie that was easily, demonstrably false and got called on it. And worse, he said something that was offensively stupid and got called on it. He got what he deserved.
Hillary made a remark that didn't require any great leap of logic to interpret as thoughtless and insensitive, and she did so at a time when the Kennedy family already had a lot to deal with. Her timing was awful regardless of what she meant. At best, her statement was in poor taste. A neutral reading would suggest worse than just poor taste. She compounded the situation politically speaking by issuing one of those awful "if I offended anyone" (when it is abundantly clear that you offended someone) apologies that was directed toward the Kennedy Family and not toward the candidate who her words my have indirectly endangered.
Keith didn't make her comments. He didn't make them out of bounds. He didn't bring scrutiny upon them that no one else bothered with. He didn't make the half-assed apology. He wasn't the only one who was outraged. He just had a platform to say what many people were thinking: After "Sniper Fire in Bosnia," "Kiss and make up with the vast right-wing conspiracy mongers," and "Jessay won down here in ettyfore and ettyett" and all the rest of what had taken place during the primary, the actions of Senator Clinton and those of her campaign surrogates could rightly be read as "We don't care. We'll destroy anyone to win this race." From someone who was supposed to be ready on day one and such a great candidate and politician, the best thing you could say for her was that she made an incredibly inartful reference to assassination in an incredibly heated political climate.
I'm all for unity and coming together as a party. I'm all for putting the primary behind us and focusing on strengthening the Democratic majority and taking back the White House. All for it. But I can't help but notice the number of seemingly still embittered Clinton supporters who can't seem to get it through their heads that "nah nah nanah nah, now you see what media bias is all about" and "18 million strong, we'll ditch you for McCain if you don't kiss our asses" isn't at all endearing. When this stuff comes up, it doesn't reflect on Barack Obama. He's not a member of the media. He doesn't determine whether his speeches are broadcast or how they are viewed. If he did, he probably wouldn't be in the box of "look presidential... but not TOO presidential..." or the box of "you haven't been in Washington forever, so you have no experience... but we want things in Washington to be different." For a while there, it seemed like you had turned the page on this crap...
August 5, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Olbermann is to the Left what Bill O'Reilly is to the Right.
He is a mirror image of O'Reilly in his style, delivery, tone and commentariat. Even his positions are a symmetrical opposite of Bill's.
If you like Olbermann, then your secret love for O'Reilly will break free the minute he starts saying things you like to hear.
Personally, I think anyone who likes Olbermann/O'Reilly basically admits they have no problem whatsoever with the fact that both are intolerant self-absorbed jerks, foaming at the mouth - just with the ideology of one of them.
They are the ying and yang of emotionally-charged, morally indignant and perpertually outraged propaganda, also known as American journalism.
It's pathetic that the Dems are so longing to be just like Republicans, as long as the "wrong" nouns and verbs are replaced with the "right" ones.
August 5, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your comment about Olbermann's style. It's hard not to - even Olbermann has acknowledged O'Reilly's influence on him.
But I completely disagree about content. I believe Olbermann's discussions are completely fact-based. I've also seen him apologize for an on-air error - which no one has EVER accused O'Reilly of doing.
August 5, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
commentariat??
That, if it's a word at all, is a collective noun referring to a set of individual human beings, did you mean "commentary"?
And "yin," not "ying." Or mebbe you like Jaegermeister?
August 5, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the difference - I vehemently disagreed with Olbermann's "Special Comment" and feel he deliberately interpreted Hillary's comments in the very worst way that could not be justified by her direct quote. But I would never deny Olbermann airtime as punishment until he retracted or apologized for said comments. That in essence is what Olbermann did by not allowing Milbank on the air without "clearing up" the dispute. That is NOT journalism - it is .
I support Obama but not so blindly that any criticism of him is cause to be OUTRAGED - especially criticism as tepid as Milbank's sketch of Obama as presumptuous especially compared to the treatment Hillary received. I didn't see Obama supporters crying out for media fairness then and so the outcries now ring hollow not just to Hillary supporters, but to reasonably minded people that know all presidential candidates will face this type of criticism.
August 5, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, bollocks. Didn't you just say this?
I mean, damn. We get that you don't like Olbermann. But that isn't the point.. You're allowing your hatred (yes, hatred) for Olbermann to undermine your own morals. You're supporting yellow journalism, detailed so well by two posters above. Milbank took a quote out of context, trimmed it to fit his narrative and used it as if the context he was presenting was true. If I were the editor of the Washington Post, such behavior would've merited a suspension, certainly. It was irresponsible and beneath anyone in the profession.
Two separate issues, sistah.
August 5, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sci, I can't be mad at you because you got the Huey avatar back up, but I respectfully disagree. The full quote can be interpreted precisely as Milbank did. That's not yellow journalism. It is an opinion piece and he is free to comment on his interpretation. I didn't hear you or any other Obama supporters calling for Donna Brazile and others to issue corrections or retractions for ACTUAL substantive misquotes regarding Bill Clinton's remarks insinuating that he said Obama's campaign was a fairytale.
It is not helpful to rehash old battles, but neither is it helpful to pretend that there is any intellectual consistency being applied here. Like I said I will support Obama, but I think calling things as we see them is valuable. We need to show that Obama supporters can be balanced in their perspectives and deal with criticism in a fair manner, rather than just blindly defend him at every turn.
August 5, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm going to stake out the position in favor of rehashing old battles.
TPM: where the Left meets to eat itself.
August 5, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm I'm going to have to give this comment a Milbank Whine Factor of 38. Not enough shouty outrage.
August 6, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann seemed truly upset about the reference to RFK's assassination. Plus ever since then, his comments have been more measured. He is likely going through some trouble over it, as many Hill supporters stopped watching him, and his boss said those supporters thought he was brutal and a jerk.
i think he's paid more than enough dues, and we wouldn't have a chance in heck of winning this election if it wasn't for his courageous honesty. No one, no one, on the MSM was even saying Boo about Bush and all his criminal acts back then. When you hear that Comey in Justice was afraid for his physical safety, you can imagine that the dark sith lord has Keith in his sights, too.
August 6, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's been dead, really, for about 15 years. Wake up and smell the corpse.
August 5, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Milbank shows up on CNN the same day that he notifies Olbermann and the Countdown staff that he's accepted another television offer."
Maybe the CNN deal preceded the slanted story. Maybe he thinks Olbermann likes Barak too much, and him not enuf.
Maybe he's just a journalist without a spine.
August 5, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
dana was wrong to quote out of context. period.
he was a jerk.
keith was a jerk too by banning milbank.
hillary was a jerk for not releasing her delegates
barack was a jerk for not being so perfect no one could come up with misinterpretations of what he said.
TPmers are jerks for supporting these jerks
the gop are always jerks.
America is full of jerks who vote for jerks
Planet of the Jerks.
JERKS
JERKS
JERKS
JERKS
........
{error message 462, buffer overflow WKSSVC.DLL]
[bad sector/error 151]
{run as @runas/localhost/administrator/ regeditJERKS stop overwrite y/n?}
REBOOTING>>>>>>>>>>
Gee, What a beautiful day! I do hope everyone will just heal their trifling differences and all get behind our wonderful candid/FATAL ERROR SYSTEM FAILURE> CLOSE ALL PROGRAMS>
August 5, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a fan of Olbermann, but I'm not a fan of Milbank and never have been. He's too clever by half -- he so enjoys being witty and the sound of his own jokes, that truth sometimes gets obfuscated in his narcissim. He'd rather have the gotcha moment than report honestly. SO good riddance. He offends me.
August 6, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know...whatever you want to say about KO...I don't care...it's just REALLY refreshing to turn on the T.V. and listen to SOMEONE say something nice about Obama, and Keith does that...I need my daily dose.
August 6, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I find it refreshing to hear the occasional story about Barack Obama that doesn't follow the media narrative of seeing all things Obama as some kind of problem.
August 6, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. not sure if my other comment went thru. long story short: msm pushes how lib media favors obama. truth is the opposite.
thank heavens for Keith.
August 6, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I have a hard time imaging Dana playing nice with Beck, Dobbs and Grace. Wonder how long he'll last there?
August 6, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thats the thing. Obama is young and foolish (not a sin-just a truth about youth)I have loved KO in the past but me's afraid that BIRDS OF A FEATHER...
Obama supporters have your antidepressants set to expire no sooner than mid november
August 6, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the entire Milbank story!
August 6, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink