Emergency Rules Do Apply
Keith Olbermann of Countdown was on Bill Moyers Journal this week. Two of my favorites together, sharing a table and a conversation about journalism and politics. A fascinating interview of Olbermann and his evolution from a sportscaster to a political commentator.
The above video is a segment of the interview from the latter part of the show, when Bill Moyers posed questions from younger journalists on his staff. The question that struck me was from Jesse:
BILL MOYERS: Quote, “I have long had mixed feelings about Keith Olbermann. While it’s nice to have a cable anchor how doesn’t obsequiously parrot Republican National Committee talking points, I struggle with the fear that angry histrionics on both sides create more of the ugly polarization that paralyzes our institutions and prevents Americans finding common ground. How does Mr. Olbermann differentiate his ad hominem attacks from those we see on the other side?” What do you say to Jesse?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Well, they’re better written. The first– no, I hate to– I– it’s the most vulnerable point because it bothers me, too. It do– it’s the one criticism that I think is absolutely fair. We’re doing the same thing. It is– it becomes a nation of screechers. It’s never a good thing. But emergency rules do apply. I would like nothing better than to go back and do maybe a sportscast every night. But I think the stuff that I’m talking about is so obvious and will be viewed in such terms of certainty by history that this era will be looked at the way we look now at the– at the presidents and the– the leaders of this country who rolled back reconstruction. I think it’s that obvious. And I think only under those circumstances would I go this far out on a limb and be this vociferous about it.
Of course, the full interview is a must see. The complete video (and transcript) is available at PBS, Keith Olbermann Interview.
The video is also available at Crooks & Liars, Bill Moyers Journal: Part 1 and Bill Moyers Journal, Part 2.
During the interview, Olbermann discusses a new feature on his Countdown show called "Bushed," that "that goes beyond just skepticism" as Moyers said, where he provides a list of the various Bush scandals. As they discussed:
BILL MOYERS: What inspired that? You're doing it every night.
KEITH OLBERMANN: Yeah, well, I seriously, it was-- when the NIE about Iran, the National Intelligence Estimate, was this overarching story consuming almost every news organization, left, right, and middle, for two or three days. And then, bang, here comes the water-boarding tapes, or if you prefer, Water-boarding Gate, out of nowhere. And no one mentioned the NIE again. Just-- it just vanished. And it occurred to me that this had been bothering me for some time, that we had had so many scandals, so much scandal fatigue that literally people were going, "What was the name of that attorney general who was-- who was-- who was-- what was-- didn't he get fired? Did he fire somebody? What was his name? What-- I can't remember. Who was it? Was it Ashcroft? But after Ashcroft? Who was it?" I said, "Well, look, this is-- this is-- this is literally a problem." I began to ask friends and people that I work with: How many scandals have we covered in this administration?
BILL MOYERS: It all happened so fast. Amnesia sets in immediately.
KEITH OLBERMANN: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: What does it mean for journalism?
KEITH OLBERMANN: It means you have to do something like that. That part of the news is not just saying, "Well, this happened in the last 24 hours," but here's something that happened six weeks. There's been a development in it. You're just not reading about it, you're not hearing about it because there's so much else to worry about. The list, Bill, of things that we could attach the word "gate" to in the Bush administration is now 50 items long.
The Bushed videos can be found at OneGoodMove. See Bushed Part 1 and More Bushed.
3 comments:
Along these lines here is a link to an article, The Polarization of Extremes by law prof Cass Sunstein, http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=w218t7yc6kv2lhqvrq4450bllm36hgjc.
Interesting article. I had read a snippet of it somewhere earlier.
I'm not sure that I completely agree with his view (which could be said to disprove his point??). I agree that the "Daily Me" concept can be limiting in many regards, but contrarian that I am, I'm not sure that I would shift my view when reading/hearing similar opinions.
P.S. You know who he's related to, don't you?
I think so, generally, but the particulars are not clear. I'll run it by you in the flesh.
Post a Comment