Unhinged Newsman: The Crazy World of Keith Olbermann

Posted: Jul 27, 2010 12:21 PM
Keith Olbermann has spewed anti-Republican, anti-conservative rhetoric for years.

He's biased, arrogant, ignorant, foul-mouthed, boorish and nasty.

Is he alone in his craziness?

Is his behavior unique to him?

Or does he represent a larger movement on the Left?

Can MSNBC afford to keep broadcasting his lunacy?

We dig into the crazy world of Keith Olbermann in our August cover story, "Unhinged Newsman."

He hates, well, everybody in public life who leans to the right and/or has the letter "R" after his name.

He hates average Americans who are obviously too stupid to understand both his brilliance and that of The One.

And, in case you hadn't heard, he really, really hates Fox News.

He goes into apoplectic fits at the mere mention of Fox, claiming they're a right-wing, Republican mouthpiece (a point that's debatable, but not the subject of this post) while, of course, ignoring the obvious left-wing, Democratic biases of his employer -- though, maybe, he's just ticked that he gets his rear-end handed to him every night in the rating.

Those good ratings for Fox, though, in the mind of the unhinged, highlight Olbermann's point that millions of stupid Americans have been brainwashed by the Right and are serving their evil GOP masters by watching Fox News (and buying gold from their advertisers).

Not that you need it, but here's a taste of Keith's ever-so-mearsured comments about the dangers of Fox News, which were spouted to Playboy:
"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
But his smear of Fox News is just a small, small, small part of this in-depth examination of the being who is Keith Olbermann -- unmasking his real personality, detailing his agenda and revealing who at NBC has been willing to take him to task.

What readers will discover is that it's really no wonder that the Right -- and pretty much the rest of America's TV-viewing audience -- doesn't like him.

In fact, we found out last week, via the leaked Journolist messages, that many on the Left, particularly in the media, personally dislike him, too:
For this installment, Jonathan Strong gathers the collected Journolist wisdom about Keith Olbermann — and finds that this group doesn’t like him much more than the Right does:
“[Olbermann's] become O’Reilly on the left– completely predictable, unfunny, and arrogant,” said Georgetown University Professor Michael Kazin in May 2009. “To my mind, what they do is no different form Hannity and O’Reilly,” said the New America Foundation’s Michael Cohen, “At least Hannity and O’Reilly engage with the other side (if mainly just to yell at them). Olbermann is just an echo chamber.”
Actually, that comparison has a meaning that goes beyond mere insult. Neither Hannity nor O’Reilly maintain a pretense of being their network’s anchor, as Olbermann does. Both clearly position themselves as opinion journalists doing a talk show, whether mainstream conservative in Hannity’s case or populist in O’Reilly’s. Olbermann does a pompous, self-congratulatory schtick as a modern Edward R. Murrow, which apparently grates on the nerves of both the Right and the Left.

A University of Chicago professor has had enough of it: ““KO can be smart and funny, but I’ve basically had my fill. My life is full of shtiky [sic] and rude blowhards already. Why add another?”
His nastiness has been a sticking point that not only has the Left noticed, but ol' Keithy boy has noticed it, too. From the Townhall Magazine August cover story:
On Dec. 14, 2007, Olbermann was a guest on Bill Moyers’ “Journal” on PBS, and Moyers read from a viewer who wondered how Olbermann could “differentiate his ad hominem attacks from those we see on the other side?”

Olbermann joked, “Well, they’re better written.” Then he suggested the nastiness “bothers me, too. It’s the one criticism that I think is absolutely fair.” But Olbermann claimed that “emergency rules apply” under Bush and that it is “so obvious” that historians will document that the Bush era “looked at the way we look now at the presidents and 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.” The Bush administration was “so obviously” like the men who installed segregation in the Solid South.

This underlined why liberals are so reluctant to quibble with Olbermann. In their heart, they think he is right, and his truth hurts. They think his passion was crucial in motivating protest and political organizing to elect Democratic majorities in Congress and then President Obama. Their opinion of conservatives is really that low. But they, like Olbermann, want to pretend that they believe in fairness -- just not when history is on the line.
Isn't it interesting that most liberals who publicly complain about the reckless "food fight" talk shows and the "meanness" of political discourse often skip over the meanness and recklessness of Keith Olbermann?

To get the full cover story and the rest of the powerful reporting in the August issue, subscribe today.