In view of the MSNBC Shuster suspension flap, I'm relinking to this old thread

[Berry Cool]

Normally, I would not pimp...er, I mean, plug, my own ancient threads...but, having been reminded for the past day or so about this one, I'm posting a link back to it:

Olbermann defends himself re Imus; says Imus staff harassed women, others at MSNBC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x653129

This is the thread from last April in which I transcribed what Keith Olbermann said on Dan Patrick's ESPN radio show about the firing of Don Imus, after it had happened, and explained why he had said so little about it publicly before it happened.

I'm very glad now that I had recorded it all from XM Radio and transcribed it at that time, because unfortunately, the audio link to the program posted by someone else in the comments no longer works--most likely because, since then, Patrick has left ESPN, and thus its Web site no longer archives his old programs.

It provides some good insight, I think, into how decisions get made at MSNBC when someone says something offensive on air.

Rereading it also clarifies, for me, the reason I think the Imus situation and the Shuster situation are different.

Imus's was a case of repeat offenses (both verbal and otherwise) building up over a long period of time, during which nothing was done, until finally one of them got enough attention to break the camel's back. Shuster's was a case of a single stupid, ill-phrased statement from someone without a well-established reputation (from what I can see, anyway) of making such statements OR of exhibiting other obnoxious behavior in the workplace.

It also underscores why I, and some other DU'ers, have become so annoyed to the point of exasperation with people who now regard MSNBC as a cesspool of racism and sexism, and want to rope Olbermann and throw him on the same pile of offenders on which they are tossing Shuster, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough (and, in some cases, even Lester Holt). I think Olbermann deserves better...WAY better...than to be considered just one of a "Murderer's Row" of MSNBC racist/sexist good ol' boys. This is why.

(It isn't spelled out in the thread, but one of the reasons Olbermann had job problems in the past was that, while still employed at ESPN, he was interviewed by the author of a book on ESPN, and talked the sexual harassment suffered by the women who worked there, and about having frequently testified in harassment cases, and the author quoted him in the book. As you might imagine, ESPN wasn't thrilled with him for this. He eventually left ESPN by his own choice, but by that time, they had additional beefs with him, so it was a good time to leave.)

Maybe MSNBC/NBC have institutional problems with racism and sexism on the job that they have to come to terms with...but tarring the whole network with that brush just because of some of the more vocal bad apples is wrong. I think it's better to target the anger at those most responsible for it--the Tweetys, the Tuckers and the Joes. Aiming so much of it at Shuster, especially given his overall record of doing decent and responsible reportage, is just not worth it, IMO.

And Olbermann? Taking offense every time he opens his mouth and says something about the Clintons or Obama and their respective positions in the campaign is just, IMO, being shortsighted and stupid. So, for that matter, is being pissed at him because he didn't put his job on the line to protest MSNBC's excluding Kucinich from the last debate.

He's one of the good guys. And he continues to be one of the good guys, even if you don't like everything he says, or he has a policy about not naming his coworkers or his employer Worst Person in the World no matter what stupid stuff they do.

In short, when you think about media bias and whom to target with your displeasure, don't just get angry. Think. And choose your targets carefully before you shoot. Pick targets who really deserve it--focus on those targets--THEN fire away.

[noamnety]

1. Olbermann says his share of sexist shit.

And this quote applies to him as well: "he ... said many things that were ... sexist, homophobic, mean, petty, personal and hateful; they said them about the powerless as well as the powerful; "

It's not a matter of "taking offense" when he criticizes Obama or Clinton. It's that he makes fun of women's weight, women's looks, violence against women, and it's done consistently and without regard to whether his target is powerful or powerless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/10/10/todays-worst-person-in-t_e_31430.html

"Occasionally, a particular photograph a family releases of a missing relative will not be especially flattering. But all the images of this woman were identical: her eyes were so impossibly wide open that in each, it looked like she was either headed to, or just back from, extreme electrolysis. I said it to my staffers. I said it on the air: This woman looks like she’s about to flee, run, book, or start screaming hysterically." --Olbermann, discussing a woman whose eyes are widely open, possibly indicative of a thyroid condition, but anyway clearly just how she looks. This is not a woman who asked for fame or has any power. Just someone who he decided to use as a running joke on his show to make fun of her looks.

"OLBERMANN: The Britney Spears video, a few mysteries here. She says she feels ugly and says her jaw hurts. The connection there is never explained, never resolved. Do you have a suggestion?

MUSTO: Well, ugly girls have to do things with there mouths to stay popular that pretty girls don‘t have to do and that‘s really all I‘m going to say about that. I want to stay tasteful (INAUDIBLE). ...Maybe he doesn‘t want to be saddled with the contentious, yet kind of likable cow. He could have just had the boozey milk. "

Or this exchange: "

OLBERMANN The hair dresser, Miss Tognozzi, also asked if Britney Spears appeared to be under the influence. She said no, but she did use the word trance to describe her. A trance.

MUSTO: No, she actually said the tramp dropped her pants, and it got reported as trance, but it works anyway."

Or there was the ever-popular exchange with his guest where they are laughing at how "fat" she is (never mind that she's a healthy weight - the problem apparently is that she wasn't suitable anorexic.

I did like Olberman at one point, and still sometimes watch him. That doesn't negate that his show - particularly the second half, IS a cesspool of sexism. Sorry.

[Berry Cool]

2. It figures that someone would drop in here and call Olbermann a misogynist

AGAIN, just because he's had Michael Musto on his show saying trashy things about female celebrity idiots like Britney Spears.

You don't even quote, above, anything offensive that Olbermann himself says. You quote Musto, and use it against him. You appear not to realize that Musto has been appearing less and less on the show, and that it may just be because his comments are getting trashier and trashier, and they're crossing the line for some viewers who are saying so. Nah, can't credit Olbermann with that. It doesn't fit the portrait of a misogynist that you're trying to create.

As for Jennifer Wilbanks, criticizing the looks of a woman in the news to attempt (if at all possible) to discern what her emotions may have been at any given time is sexism? Really? He analyzed her eyes and, right or wrong, thought they were the eyes of a terrified person looking for an escape route. THAT's sexist?

Not very good straws to grasp at.

[noamnety]

3. It's continual, and it's wrong to excuse it.

I hold him responsible if he has a guest who spews sexist slurs, and laughs about it, rather than apologizing for it. I would do the same if he had a guest who spewed racist comments, and he didn't apologize for his guest's words, and continued to have to guest return to the show.

And I hold other people accountable for the same actions. I did not think it was acceptable for McCain to laugh - in much the same way as Olbermann did - when asked about how to beat "the bitch" - meaning Clinton. That would have been the time for McCain, if he had any integrity, to say that while Clinton was an opponent and he vehemently opposes her policies, sexist slurs were inappropriate, and he wasn't going to respond to the question as asked. It was a time for him to make a stand, and he failed.

As for Wilbanks, I quoted one comment, but it was a running joke on multiple shows, inserted into every story about her, with comments like it was an "eye-opening experience" or calling her the "wide-eyed wanderer." That is not news analysis. It's dense to believe comments like she looked like she was coming from or going to "extreme electrolysis" or on the verge of "screaming hysterically" aren't gendered, and are somehow newsworthy. "Analysis of her eyes"? Please. Let's be real, and just call it mocking the woman for her looks.

Thank you at any rate for not attempting a defense of using the caption "A slut and battery." The history of women being considered "unrapable" because of their past sexual history is a painful one. Captions that make light of that, which excuse violence as somehow funny if it's against "a slut" are indefensible.

[Berry Cool]

4. It is not continual, and I am not excusing it.

Lately, to me, he seems to have been more and more uncomfortable with what Musto has been saying, and I think that's why we're seeing less of him on the show. Laugh? Yes, sometimes he has--the way all of us may find ourselves laughing out of shock at someone who is witty, even when he transcends the boundaries.

I, too, did not think it was acceptable for McCain to laugh when asked about how to beat "the bitch," meaning Clinton. But we're talking about Olbermann here, not McCain.

As for Wilbanks, why are you holding Olbermann responsible for "a running joke on multiple shows" about her eyes? And why do remarks about "extreme electrolysis" and "screaming hysterically" have to be, by definition, gendered? They're not gendered unless the speaker meant for them to be gendered. And I don't think Olbermann meant them to be gendered because he could, and I believe would, have said them just as readily about any man who struck him the same way. As for newsworthiness, to him, analysis of her eyes WAS newsworthy. He felt he was reading a clue from them that no one else at the time had yet perceived--i.e., that maybe she hadn't been kidnapped, that maybe she was running away from her own volition from an unwanted marriage. I fail to see how that constitutes "mocking the woman for her looks."

At the time, I also recall him looking up her and her fiance's online wedding gift registry, and making jokes about how many of the items on it appeared to be connected, for some reason with cheese. Now I suppose THAT was sexist, too? I doubt it. He just thought it was bizarre.

And Keith didn't write the caption "A slut and battery." I assume his staff wrote it. He's been known to apologize for dumb things his staff has done before. I'm surprised that one got by him. But it's one miss in what has otherwise been a damn good record of decency. I don't suppose it'll stop those who want to draw and quarter him, but it's the impression I have.

I like to think that my overall impression and judgment of people as sexist or nonsexist will be based on an overall track record of their behavior more lengthy and sturdy that your accusations about Olbermann. Maybe, just maybe, his reputation for going to bat for harassed women at ESPN carries more weight to me than a few tacky giggles over the antics of trashy rich celebrities--female or male--or a poorly chosen caption by one of his staffers. But then again, that's me. I'm ideologically flawed that way.

[noamnety]

5. I'm not buying it, sorry.

Having a sexist asshole on "less" still is a decision to give him airtime. Is it enough to have a racist asshole on "less"? No, no it's not.

"why are you holding Olbermann responsible for "a running joke on multiple shows""

What? I'm talking about HIM making running jokes about it on multiple shows of Countdown - HIS show. Of course he's responsible for that. Who should be held accountable for his actions, Santa? And no, I don't think he honestly believed her wide eyes had anything to do with her status as kidnapped or not kidnapped - he himself said she looked the same in every photo. It's kind of clear it's just how she looked, not a one time expression of immediate fear. Again, get real. Your excuse here just isn't believable. The continual jokes about her eyes that HE made on HIS show multiple times were all about mocking her for her looks.

And I think given the outcry about the caption - which aired for 20 seconds, which is a LONG time on a news show for a caption, he is well aware of it. It "got by him" is a bs explanation, as far as I am concerned. It was a decision, and whether or not his staff made the initial decision to air it, it was his decision NOT to apologize for it.

If O'Reilly had aired that identical caption, I bet Olbermann would have used it as a worst person in the world segment. But what you wrote here sums up the left's reaction really well: "we're talking about Olbermann here, not McCain."

We on the left excuse the left when they make sexist slurs, objectify women, joke about violence against women. And we are OUTRAGED when the right does it.

I believe that makes us hypocrites.