Did Olbermann jump the shark last night?

[Political Tiger]

I've been a fan of Keith Olbermann for some time now, but lately I've become disillusioned with him. His show last night has really got me thinking that as far as Olbermann is concerned, it's all about him, not the truth, but about him. His ego seems to have grown to the size of, well, BillO's.

I say this because recently, as we all probably know, he threw a hissy fit on DKos because some poster on DKos made a comment regarding Olbermann's (IMO) dreadful performance after the President's Oval Office speech about how this poster supposedly had inside info that NBC brass have encouraged Olbermann to bash the President because it's good for ratings, to which, IMO, Olbermann made an ass out of himself by writing this "goodbye cruel world" post deriding how some unsourced, anonymous person would dare question his integrity.

But then last night, Olbermann did the same thing he whined about this DKos poster doing...he used an unsourced, anonymous person who posted something on a message board to make the argument that the seaboard in the gulf may be "failing."

From the show last night: "But what if the well beneath the seafloor is itself failing? The warning was posted on the Oil Drum, an Internet sounding board for petroleum geologists and oil industry professionals. Someone identifying himself as DougR wrote lengthy piece, a caveat that we cannot identify DougR."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37895473/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

Is this what has become of journalism? Olbermann couldn't find a real, live scientist with a name and with verifiable credentials to come on his show to make this claim? He decides instead to use "DougR" from a message board as a source?

But what makes it worse to me is the apparent hypocrisy. Olbermann gets upset when a message board poster makes a claim about him but then turns around and does the same thing....uses a message board poster to make a claim, but since this "DougR" wasn't questioning Olbermann, I guess then it's okay!

And before someone says 'well Olbermann did say "we cannot identify DougR" I must point out that the person on DKos that infuriated Olbermann added his (or her) own caveat by saying "can't verify, of course."

Olbermann even bitched about that by saying ""Can't verify"... "haven't checked"...It can't be verified because it's nonsense, and it wasn't checked because nobody bothered. Unfortunately there's been a lot of this here lately."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/17/876760/-Check,-Please

Yet here he is, just a few days later, using "DougR" from a message board as a source, without bothering to check or verify that anything "DougR" said has any factual basis or even if "DougR" is a scientist or just some run of the mill message board poster.

Now, I know a lot of people are going to get pissed at me for bringing this up, but in the very least, I think this shows poor judgment on Olbermann's side, and makes me question whether Olbermann's head had gotten just a little too big and whether he is serious or not when making claims such as he has been "risking what I have to present the truth."

[rsmith6621]

1. LEAVE KEITH ALONE.....

[HomerRamone]

29. Yeah!

[The Magistrate]

2. This One, Sir, He Should Have Looked Into a Bit More....

There is some reasonable speculation in the piece he cited, but the people running the Oil Drum have tagged with post with a number of caveats, and it seems to connect back to a site called 'godlike productions', which is far from a bastion of good sense and reliable information....

[REP]

72. He strikes me as a bit naive about Internet message boards etc

In many ways, he strikes me as a September Wunderkid - he's not an idiot, but plays one on the web convincingly. His flameTweets - many of which are spelling flames - to detractors; his willingness to accept "it says it's for insiders, so it must be!" when reading anonymous, unsourced posts and being unaware or unable to do the minimal work to find out that a well-known troll was a well-known troll ... Maybe he'll learn.

[POAS]

3. IIRC he did have an "expert" on to comment

on the anonymous internet posting and that "expert" concurred with "DougR's" assessment.

[WeDidIt]

4. Jumping the shark has jumped the shark

I'd say he choked on the pretzel on this one.

[treestar]

51. Did fonzie really jump the shark?

That should be required viewing! :rofl:

[demmiblue]

5. No

But then again, I didn't read anything you had to say.

Bad me. :spank:

[JuniperLea]

6. Yes, I do believe he did...

Makes me sad that "one of the good ones" is clearly going all tabloidy on our asses.

[truedelphi]

7. Our household has nights when we cannot bring ourselves to watch

KO.

Sometimes it is something like the two incidents you are mentioning. Or else a night when once again "Bill O" is once again, "the worst person in the world."

But we still extend a lot of credit to Keith for being the only person to take on "You're either with us or against us" Adolf H. Bush at a time when no one else in the TV realm would do that.

[ShamelessHussy]

8. No. Including the Internet in the discussion is just a sign of the times

And a smart move if you want to stay relavent considering how many use it today.

On edit: plus his fast paced, jocular format, hasn't changed from day one, and a big part of why he is successful on cable.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bullwinkle428]

13. +1

[demmiblue]

18. Spot on.

[Subdivisions]

10. dougr is really SHR from GLP

That's Godlike Productions at http://www.godlikeproductions.com. The very same post that was cited as being written by dougr is posted here by SHR: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1097505/pg1. His admission that he is the same person is here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6594/649233

I have spoken to SHR personally during a live chat at GLP specifically covering his article and he admits he's not an oil industry insider and has no engineering experience with drilling for oil. The post was simply his opinion and there is ample skepticism over it on http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6611">The Oil Drum.

[Windy]

23. GLP is a nutty place full of conspiracy theorists. SHR is a frequent poster.

Wow, I am STUNNED that KO would reference something posted on GLP

[flamingdem]

65. I think he is a moderator at godlike and he makes $ when the site gets zillions of visits

as it has over his posts about BP.

[flamingdem]

64. SHR is not an engineer and many of his ideas come from other conspiracy type forums

Keith needs to do his research better.

[elocs]

11. Sacrilege and heresy! A DU god cannot jump the shark! n/t

[Organic Warrior]

12. Olbermann is a jackass.

No offense meant toward those who think otherwise, but he really is. He is no different (IMHO) than Limbaugh or Hannity in his glaringly "shock jock" approach to the political discussion in this country. This guy was a sportscaster for crying out loud, and we are supposed to take this dude seriously? He is a media whore, right up there with the best/worst of them. If you want to hear what you are thinking, listen to these clowns. If you want to know what is going on, look around, people.

[The Magistrate]

15. We Need Scrappers and Agitators On Our Side, Too, Sir

[Organic Warrior]

Scrappers, yes.

But I think we should take a higher road. That's just me.

[The Magistrate]

36. People Who take the High Road, Sir, Generally Get Cut off At the Knees....

[Donnachaidh]

47. that's some high road calling him a jackass

:eyes:

yeaahhhh......

[depakid]

17. That's not a very well thought out thing to say...

More of a reaction than a thought. And not an accurate one either.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Organic Warrior]

21. ???

Um, huh?

[Warpy]

24. Olberman has fact checkers.

The others you mention do not.

[Organic Warrior]

26. Fact checkers?

Unfortunately, these days facts are rather subjective. Nevertheless, Mr. Olbermann's tone smacks of self-aggrandizement more than real conviction. Hey, I could be wrong. It's just my opinion.

[depakid]

30. LOL Facts are subjective?

[Organic Warrior]

31. LOL Facts are subjective?

Unfortunately, yes. In this day and age "facts" are very much subjective.

[depakid]

33. err... no. Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective

That Americans have trouble with the difference is telling, and the source of a LOT of problems that have led to the nation's decline toward third world socioeconomic status.

[Raineyb]

60. Indeed.

I don't have high hopes for the future.

[Sparkly]

55. So that's why they have a well-known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert says.

:eyes:

[Donnachaidh]

48. 'facts are subjective'

wtf?

subjective meaning you don't agree with them? That's frighteningly repuke-like logic. :eyes:

[Raineyb]

59. No. Facts are facts. Opinions are subjective. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary

before you go on about Mr. Olbermann. If you're going to criticize at least do so something that has some basis in well fact, not your opinion that facts are subjective. An opinion I might add which is categorically, and emphatically, not to mention easily demonstrably false.

Facts are subjective? Only in bizarro world where words mean the opposite of what they mean.

[Atticus]

35. I'm glad you specified "IMHO". If equating KO with Limbaugh and Hannity is

the best you can do, you have much about which to be humble.

[Donnachaidh]

46. yeah right

you can find out what's going on by looking around.


:wow:


Yeah -- the truth is written on a rock in your line of sight :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

62. I never wanted a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

That's why I'm not a big fan of Olbermann.

I like Maddow and Olbermann is OK, but overall, watching too much MSNBC will give people a distorted worldview within the acceptable bounds set by their parent company.

[ginnyinWI]

71. there was a time I took all of them so seriously.

During the era of Bush, we were all so frustrated, and the lefty pundits said what we wanted to say so we tuned in faithfully. Olberman had his audience and he was more credible--seemed to have his integrity. Since then, he and all of them seem to have gotten more and more frantic for audience share--hence the shrillness, the media feuds, and the comedy. I don't watch anymore and I do go elsewhere for news and commentary.

[AngryOldDem]

79. Except for when he's beating up on OUR "enemies".

He was a god here when he was calling out Bush on his "Mission Accomplished" crap and other inanities. His Special Comments were treated like Sermons on the Mount and his one-liner zings were high-fived for days.

Funny how the worm turns. :rofl:

I saw the segment at issue and I don't think he was treating it as the definitive word on the subject. That's why he had an expert -- one who has been on the television before talking about the Gulf, and not just on Countdown, if memory serves -- come on and give his take on it.

[sandnsea]

14. You're just noticing Keith has an ego??

It's what allowed him to step out against the Bushies when no one else would.

His show has always been part hard news, part tabloid. That's why it's successful. It appeals to all parts of the human condition.

Maybe you just noticed you've been on a shark ride. Keith is Keith. Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't. I say that with love.

[4dsc]

16. More people should be at theoildrum perhaps

it would behoove more people to expand their knowledge about this subject and visit theoildrum.com.

[Maru Kitteh]

20. No.

Fiat accompli long ago.

[Warpy]

22. The real scientists with the real names don't want to get fired

and/or mess up their chances for future employment with the oil companies. It's a major inducement to hide behind a blog. Even the ones in academia have to keep their options open since academia doesn't pay all that well.

Quoting an industry blog is appropriate because that's the only way information is getting out these days.

[eShirl]

25. The unfortunate truth is that, yes, Olbermann is merely a human being -- i.e., flawed.

[spanone]

27. k&r

[xchrom]

28. Didn't he have an expert on as well

Discussing the possible accuracies of dougr's
assertions?

You make it sound as if he came on without
any authority behind him.

[Hissyspit]

37. The removal of the context was deliberate.

[redqueen]

70. Yes, that is how it sounds based on the OP. Thanks for the info. (nt)

[Catherina]

32. Yes! Everyone knows it's 1000 barrels a day and BP has the expertise n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Your work, now that jumps the shark

Because your writing here is like Jeopardy, the answer came before your question. You wrote backwards, to uphold your premise. You are gunning for, framing up, affecting jargon, and it is so dull watching the endless swarm that uses these same dreadful techniques over and over again.
This is a discussion board. Those of you who 'ask a question' that is not a question but a statement are not good conversation. It is tricksterism and in my world, I think those who put a question mark at the end of a statement are telegraphing insecurity in their position, as well as being coy rather than direct, which is not respectful to the reader.
But that's just me.

[Marr]

38. He seems to have a big ego, yes.

So what? People who seek out jobs in front of microphones and cameras generally do.

I think we need a lot more people like Olbermann, and I wonder why anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan would want to tear him down.

[jwirr]

39. No, he very carefully noted that this piece of info was not verified.

Many of us have been wondering about this idea.

[golddigger]

40. Damnit...maybe they will give

Glenn Beck or RushAss his job.

:sarcasm:

[ladjf]

41. Keith isn't perfect. While I disagree with some of his positions from

time to time, I'm still believe that he is one of our best advocates for a Democratic America.

[SargeUNN]

42. K.O. is an egotist

so now he thinks he is God's right hand. Yes he is a jerk in real life.

[Berry Cool]

49. And you know he is a jerk in real life how?

Because envious Randi Rhodes keeps saying so?

[Liquorice]

43. I can't stand Olbermann. nt

[girl gone mad]

44. Yeah, no cognitive dissonance there..

"...as far as Olbermann is concerned, it's all about him, not the truth, but about him."

I can think of a more perfect intro to a pointless, menadering rant that's all about.. wait for it... Keith Olbermann. Um, yeah. You hate that it's all about him, that's why you make it all about him.

:eyes:

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

45. Only if your only standard of good

is whatever comes from the administration. If nothing matters other than being permanently and perpetually pro-Obama, regardless of the action or inaction, then Olbermann is now officially a bad guy. However, just as soon as he begins praising Obama again, he will be re-crowned.

Now. He can be wrong. And he can be right. But with many here on DU, right and wrong don't matter as much as orthodoxy.

[treestar]

54. I think it's fair enough when talking about TV performers

We did not like Bush. So making fun of Bush amused us.

Making fun of Obama would not amuse his supporters. That's the standard. We don't have to be loyal to a comedian - we can enjoy his schtick when it suits us and not when it doesn't. That's not a major character flaw or hypocrisy.

[treestar]

50. It's a charming part of the comedian schtick

to play about, for instance here getting a "source" from an anonymous internet poster.

I like it when he makes fun of the other comedians, like comedian rush limbaugh and glenn beck.

[bigwillq]

52. No (nt)

[joeybee12]

53. Oh honestly, like someone in TV DOESN'T have a big ego...leave him alone...

...this smacks of a coordinated effort to tarnish his reputation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Meh. Remember the Bill Sparkman fiasco?

Maddow really ran with that one.

[SidDithers]

57. No. But he didn't exactly show the best judgement with the dougr stuff...nt

Sid

[Raineyb]

58. No, but the complaints of those who pitch a fit and threaten not to watch ever ever

again because he said something they disagreed with has.

Really, this is starting to become an echo chamber the way anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the president is suddenly persona non grata when they were such a breath of fresh air during the Bush administration. Olbermann hasn't changed. Apparently your ability to tolerate his style has.

[Radical Activist]

63. I haven't seen anyone write that.

Apparently someone, somewhere did because I've seen dozens of comments condemning them. But it takes more than a few isolated people to make an echo chamber.

[Raineyb]

68. Then you haven't been paying attention.

Because it's been said. The echo chamber will come when the only voices left are those who never have nary a negative word to say about how President Obama has done vis a vis (insert topic here)

Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, even Ed Schultz. The same people complaining about them now were not singing that tune when the complaints were directed at the Bush administration. Apparently people are only allowed to complain about policy when it's the Republicans in charge.

[Radical Activist]

74. Since there are tons of complaints here and on every corner of the progressive web

there doesn't appear to be a serious concern over critics being silenced. I'm sure people will continue to make themselves feel self-righteous by condemning this rumored echo chamber.

[Raineyb]

75. The appearance of complaints is not evidence that there is no echo chamber.

It is how the complaints are treated that would determine that. Thanks for so aptly demonstrating my point with your faux radical dogma and your disingenuousness. Your hostility is part of what people have been complaining about.

And to think all I did was suggest that perhaps it is not Olbermann who changed but the poster's tolerance for his style. Can't wait to see what kind of nastiness will come my way for actually disagreeing with policy.

[Radical Activist]

78. If you don't like nastiness

practice what you preach.

Isn't it possible that Olbermann got a negative response because his criticisms were weak, and not just because it was against Obama?

[AngryOldDem]

80. Here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8566559

Hope he likes watching Tom and Jerry on Cartoon Channel or, maybe, Fox.

[Radical Activist]

81. OK, one person who was recently banned.

There goes the idea that it's only Obama critics getting banned under the rules. By contrast, I've seen many more comments complaining about it and acting as though anyone who criticizes Obama is an oppressed outcast. It looks like an overreaction to me.

[Radical Activist]

61. We might as well skip Olbermann and get our news from internet message boards like he does.

Cut out the middle man.

[flamingdem]

66. ha! good point nt

[Duer 157099]

77. I think most of us do, anyway.

I watch Keith to see how much he knows about what the real stories of the day are. He and Rachel (and Amy Goodman) for the most part give a reasonable synopsis of what we on the net already know.

But we have to remember that there are millions others who aren't as mind-melded to the net as we are, so I like to know that someone is telling them what's up.

[Whisp]

67. he's not looking into a camera when he does his shows.

he's looking into a mirror.

never understood the adoration of him by some here, but thats ok, everyone sees things a bit differently.

he always turned me off enough not to be able to listen to a whole speech thingie of his. Always so self-important and pointing at his own brilliance and performance.

[truebrit71]

69. KO was right to be critical after the Oval Office debacle..

..and is right most often than not...

He was the ONLY one with balls big enough to stand up to and against the illegally installed country-bumpkin in the WH for the last 8 years..and yet he still can't please all of the people all of the time..

Imagine that..

Me? I love the man. Sure he gets a little verbose once in a while, but I'm glad he's there..doing what the rest of the whores in the media have long-since forgotten..be a journalist and tell the story..

Oh and your bullshit line doubting his claim about "risking what I have to present the truth", when was the last time you had an anthrax-like substance sent to your home just because you were doing your job..:eyes:

[tweeternik]

73. Also, have you seen Fishgrease rebuttal on this?

Fishgrease has been VERY accurate concerning this disaster ...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/24/878834/-Fishgrease:-Booming-The-Bullsh*t-

[Duer 157099]

76. When I saw this segment, I initially had the same reaction

And to some degree still do. In trying to figure out why Keith would have done that, the only rational explanation I came up with is that Keith knows that the net is well aware of DougR's posting at TOD and if Keith had done a segment on the possibility of the seafloor erupting and the potential damage to the underground structure, without referencing the TOD/GLP posting, then the net would be buzzing about how Keith "stole" the idea and didn't give credit.

Although if that were the case, it would have been better if he had started the segment with the expert he had on, and then made a reference to the posting rather than the other way around.

[AgadorSparticus]

82. pssst...they ALL have egos. They wouldn't be where they are without one. But for some perspective,

there ARE TONS of people who haven't accomplished 1/50th of what he's done and walk around with overpuffed egos. Keith has reason to have an ego. But, I disagree about KO jumping the shark. He's still the man for me.