Responding To Criticism

Many of us do not respond well to criticism.

Yesterday, Rachel Sklar criticized Keith Olbermann's denial of sexism in the Media. It seemed to me Sklar made a good case.

When asked about it in his daily kos Special Comment diary, Olbermann responded:

Don't know what to think about Ms. Sklar

Actually, I'm mildly alarmed, but not because of the criticism. She - let me phrase this gently - attended the Countdown 5th Anniversary Party in April, even though she had been denied an invitation and was not accompanying a guest. . .

Perhaps I am misinterpreting his comment, but it seems to me that Olbermann is accusing Ms. Sklar of having a "fatal attraction" for him. If I am right, I think we can stop wondering about whether Olbermann is a sexist.

Speaking for me only

< Demanding Respect | Legal Realism: Roberts Style >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    KO is such an ego trip (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:50:13 AM EST
    honestly, his trips to visit his adoring fans at dKos prove that.

    Doesn't he have better things to do? Oh, I forgot, most of his news stories actually COME from dKos.

    actually COME from dKos (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:56:24 AM EST
    and vice versa.  its like that creepy old woodcut of a snake eating its tail.

    yes, exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:59:47 AM EST
    and not QUITE how journalism is supposed to work.

    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Faust on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    That is precisely how it works. At least now.

    Let me add though (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Faust on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    that the symbol of the Uroboros as mentioned above is an excellent metaphor for the mass media. I think I may steal that moving foreward :)

    Now we know (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    it's his ego that's big.

    Heh. Maybe he's lacking size elsewhere. (none / 0) (#108)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    Speaking as a reverse sexist only. :-)

    Any chance of me being nominated as the "Worse person in the world"?


    Can someone give me a synopsis (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by differnet on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
    I refuse to visit DailyKos, AmericaBlog or Atrio ever again.  What did Mr. Olbermann say that would even be of interest to a woman now.

    Or a man. nt (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    KO hasn't said (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by mikeyleigh on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    anything that would interest me for two months or so.  That's when I turned him off and I don't feel like I've missed a thing.

    Oh yeah, Keith needs to ditch the Murrow sign-off.  He dishonors a great journalist by using it.


    What gets me is (none / 0) (#110)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    he picks an icon from a rival network.

    Frank Blair, John Chancellor, Huntley-Brinkley, Edwin Newman, Frank McGee and Olberman chooses a CBS guy.  



    Sklar's post was well-reasoned and fair (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    I don't go to HuffPo any more. The snotty, hateful  posts defending Olbermann and attacking Sklar remind me of why that is.

    Yup. (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    If you support Obama, you can simply do no wrong.

    The guarantee of hero worship must be too much for large-headed types like KO. No wonder he was assimilated so quickly into the OBorg.


    To expound on my interpretation (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:00:43 AM EST
    It is based on his use of the phrase "mildly alarmed." He says it is not due to the criticism and then tells a story about how Ms. Sklar crashed his party.

    I believe my interpretation is a fair inference. Perhaps there is another more reasonable interpretation. I can not think of one myself.

    At the very least, he cannot address the (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM EST
    criticism on its merits, apparently.  He has to pass  on some unseemly (who hasn't crashed a party, though?) detail about his critic.

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    I found the reference weird. Not even unseemly. she crashed a party - so what?

    Kind of an elitist attitude to think of it as some great sin.


    Right, and then to use that "great sin" (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    to dismiss her opinions because she is not a member of the "club of invitees"

    Well, "unseemly" is a pretty elitist (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    way of describing anything.  

    I'm Shocked, Shocked (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by The Maven on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    to hear that one of the media's biggest Clinton haters might display "an elitist attitude"!

    This kind of dismissal of the well-documented criticisms regarding coverage of the campaign is a dangerous sign that the media hasn't learned its lesson at all about the dangers to our nation in becoming too chummy with (or, on the obverse, consistently adversarial to) the political figures they're supposed to cover.  By all appearances, this trend will continue with either Obama or McCain, as they both have that media darling status and Teflon® coating.


    Ms. Sklar is apparently a Glenn Close (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by litigatormom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    "Fatal Attraction" type stalker, just like Clinton (supposedly) is, therefore lacking in credibility.  

    KO was harumphing the other night about the "ridiculous" notion that there was any sexism in the media, or that it affected Clinton's campaign in any way.


    Seriously.....when would Hillary have had (none / 0) (#134)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:21:20 PM EST
    time to stalk anyone...  Maybe she is catching up on her stalking time, as it seems no one knows where she is... :)

    Well, just like others in this primary (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:04:58 AM EST
    season, don't talk yourself and your imperfections, talk about others and their imperfections. KO etal should have been taken to task way before this. The whole network s/b fired and hung by their......

    How about "denied an invitation" (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    Does that mean she asked for an invitation and they refused, or just that she wasn't on the list?  His implication that they were actively trying to keep her out does tell me he is trying to say she is a stalker or a pest of some sort - someone with an ax to grind.

    He didn't like what she had to say, so of course her motives are suspect.


    Yeah, what's really (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    slimy about KO's post is how he readily he crosses the bright line between anything resembling professional objectivity and his own personal grievance and/or vendetta.

    Really, I've never seen a more out-of-control "journalist".


    the higher they try to climb, the faster (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    these folks fall. if ko was any student of journalism history or history in general as he so often puts himself to be, then he'd know that.

    Keith Obamann is a tacky shameless hack (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    Planting this insider dish about Sklar "crashing" a Countdown party makes me wonder about Obamann's cheesy attempt to use the Cheetoh blog for his own ego-based purposes.

    Even granting that he honestly determined that Sklar's presence at a Countdown social event was illicit -- that she didn't come with any invited individual or group -- it's plain tacky to plant this information on a busy blog.

    The implication that she was circling the event like a some kind of bird of prey is just weird.

    By his own actions and deeds he's shown himself to be a sexist pig, a shameless hack and an all-around jerk.


    I would have thought they (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    would have picked up on that especially after the O'Reilly Clinton interviews. Nothing says "I got buried in the ratings" more than writing a weird diary minutes after they hand you the Nielsen stat sheet.    

    Planting this insider dish about Sklar "crashing" a Countdown party makes me wonder about Obamann's cheesy attempt to use the Cheetoh blog for his own ego-based purposes.

    And the type of party is hardly super-exclusive (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    Obamann's attempt to impress his short-pants devotees by implying that the precious, 'crashed' event was sooooo exclusive that he personally would have been alerted to :: shockers :: a CRASHER is laughable.

    YMMV but by my estimation these events are comprised mostly of crashers, moochers, hangers-on and, like myself, salt of the earth people in search of a good honest cup of suds. ;-)

    What a pompous self-aggrandizing hack. Him, not me. [/heh]


    Is Rachel Sklar that desperate that she (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:24:34 PM EST
    would have to crash a party?  Did KO ask everyone attending if Rachel was with them?  I doubt it...it's easy to just drop a little tidbit in the news and then wait to see if it catches fire or not.

    And what a petty jerk IMO fomenting a blogswarm (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:54:03 PM EST
    Whether he did get the Sklar dish accidentally or by keeping tabs -- it strikes me more as a deliberately crafted, planted item on his part -- I have a hard time believing that a blogswarm wasn't his main intention by posting at Cheetoh's.

    Seems everyone's got a lever to pull these days to unleash the Pester Power of iBots.

    Finally, something positive in my realization that I can barely get my cats to come to me without waving a can opener at them. If I could get them to go after people who were irritating me it would be sweet cause those kitties can be mean (and I suspect one of them already logs in to Expedia.com).


    I dislike KO (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Leisa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM EST
    I would say that his reference to her "crashing the party" is a way of saying he doesn't like to be criticized.  It makes him think too hard, it is akin to an intrusive thought that nags at you, thinking that maybe, possibly one should think before one speaks because he may possibly be wrong (Oh the outrage!).

    His disclosure of her crashing the party was tacky and classless. I doubt that is even true as I trust very little of what KO says.


    BTD, very good catch on this. T/U. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    Your follow this gunk so we don't have to muck up our screens. It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.

    "mildly alarmed" (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    implies something sinister on her part...stalking comes to mind for me.

    He probably does have reason to be 'afraid' of women now that his misogyny has been revealed...if I were Keith, I wouldn't go into a room alone with Hillary...or with any number of women I can think of...


    Your interpretation is reasonable (none / 0) (#58)
    by angie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    but your still wondering if KO is a sexist -- not so much.

    I really enjoyed this: (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:03:23 AM EST
    Sigh - another drive-by KO diary (0+ / 0-)
    Keith, everyone here already watches your show, you know?
    But as long as there is a comment section, can I say that while I still really enjoy your show, you risk becoming a parody of yourself at times.
    Please, when a small voice inside you urges you to restraint and humility, listen....

    Madness in great ones must not unwatched go. - Claudius, in Hamlet (Shakespeare) -8.13, -7.74

    by AWhitneyBrown on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:36 PM PDT

    Someone who should know something about NBC, no?

    Whitney is one of the good ones (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:15 AM EST
    Always has been.

    I suppose we can disagree (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:24 AM EST
    A "good one", to my way of thinking, would have said, "No, Keith, you are guilty of rank sexism, the sooner you own up to it, the sooner others can get over it."

    So. OK.  AWB is a mild "good one", a Miss Manners of DailyKos who doesn't really agree with you, BTD, in the long run, on the main point.


    the main point of the diary (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    was Olbermann's Special Comment on McCain, not Rachel Sklar's post.

    Your criticism of Whitney is unfair.


    I defined what I think (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    makes a person a "good one" in the context of the things that we are discussing on this blog.

    AWB always gets an insane number of (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:07:49 AM EST
    uprates.  I wonder if that (0/0) will change.

    THey're ok (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:08:55 AM EST
    with a gentle rebuke that does NOTHING AT ALL to refute the main point.

    Who's left to? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:10:12 AM EST
    I'm frankly surprised he's even still there.

    I'm surprised you were there (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    to see the comment. :-)

    BTD sent me off to skim (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    Thanks for taking one for the team (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:21:31 AM EST
    I can't read the comments over there, or most places other than here, anymore. I'm beyond being insulted, but I have no patience for the stupidity anymore.

    He got a recipe instead. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    For calling it a drive by diary.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:36:38 AM EST
    That (none / 0) (#79)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    was freaking hilarious! Thank you!

    Whitney wrote that? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:35:51 AM EST
    I adore it. Whitney and I have exchanged differing viewpoints in the past about whether or not our troops are war criminals but he is a brilliant dude.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    I think we can stop wondering about that a long time ago.

    I am beyond depressed. This is where we are in 2008. It is cause for celebration on 'progressive blogs' (not this one, true) to cheer on a pig like Olbermann. I don't think things will ever get any better for women, I really don't. I think they have gotten much, much worse. When the left can pile on pretty much as gleefully as the right, it's really kind of hopeless isn't it?

    Never give up hope, Dr. Molly. (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:09:40 AM EST
    I do think that HRC's campaign has ripped the cover off one of the last safe havens of bigotry in our culture - hatred and fear of women.

    Let's face it, womens' rights have been receding, legally and culturally, since the Gingrich Revolution. He11, since the Raygun era stopped the momentum of the 70's. Many of us of the female persuasion (and the male, no doubt) have been laboring under the false impression that women were getting closer to being treated as equals in America.

    No more. We know what's happening now and we will be demanding respect, legally and culturally.

    This state of affairs will not stand.


    I love your optimism madamab (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    But I do not share it.

    That's okay, Dr. Molly. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:36:13 AM EST
    I'm just kind of an optimistic gal by nature. :-)

    But...I also plan on doing something about it. I'm not sure what I'll do, but I'm getting more and more convinced that getting involved in politics at the local level would be a good idea.


    Good for you madamab! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:30:15 PM EST
    yeah, I looked at ACT BLUE today, we do need more and better Democrats in both the House and the Senate: I am thinking of creating an ACTBLUE page like this one a siegel made for eco candidates to replace all the flatearthers we have...I like Andrew Rice (to oust Inohofe) and Debbie Cook (Rohrabacher) from this group, dont know enough about the others...starting to research

    Me either (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    I feel like we're right back where we were after the Anita Hill hearings.  Maybe worse, because while the spinelessness of Democratic leaders is the same, I don't remember the massive MSM pile-on.  Or the disingenuous calls from Howard Dean to have a 'national conversation'.

    Btw, when's that going to start?  Did I miss it?


    How? (none / 0) (#42)
    by bocajeff on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    In the matter of access to education, employment, financial matters, etc...how are we moving backwards...just curious

    In all those ways you mentioned. (5.00 / 11) (#45)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    Legislatively, they have eroded Roe v. Wade to the point where it barely exists. Educationally, abstinence-only emphasis has added exponentially to unwanted pregnancies and venereal disease. In terms of career choices, the ranks of the Fortune 500 remain largely populated by men. And look at how few women are in national government. Financially, women do not get equal pay for equal work. Congress recently tried to do something about that with the Fair Pay Act, but the Republicans stopped it.

    Any more questions?


    Title IX also (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Nike on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    is under constant threat of being done away with, despite its stunning success in the past thirty years.

    The main opposition (none / 0) (#117)
    by bocajeff on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    To Title IX is not the advances of women, it's the cutbacks of men's sports programs. Women are more representative on college campuses than men are so to say things are worse than before is just wrong.

    don't forget that men get help with (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    medication and women are not helped with birth control pills. that one alone makes me do a slow burn.

    So it's pretty much about Choice then? (3.00 / 0) (#116)
    by bocajeff on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:45:20 PM EST
    Roe v. Wade barely exists? Hmmm. Last number I saw was around 800,000 abortions per year. Roughly the size of Detroit or Indianapolis. Hard to agree with your assumption that it barely exists.

    The ranks of the Fortune 500 remain larglely populated by men. True. But the ranks are growing - not decreasing! Same thing with governments. In just  20 years the ranks of women in all levels of government have increased. Look at the governors and senators alone.

    Define equal pay for equal work please.


    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    Define equal pay for equal work please.

    The party receives equal pay for equal work.


    Obviously, the comment to which (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    you reply was about much more than choice.

    Next, the number of times a medical right is exercised has nothing to do with it being a right.  Men have the right to have their prostates removed, but they seem to want to keep them, after all.  

    Access to abortions is extremely limited in many states, including mine.  Do you know its status in your state?  If not, why not?  Do you know where you can look it up?  If you'd like to know, reply so, and you will be informed.

    Your numerical argument also is not persuasive in the business and government sectors.  I've seen the stats.  But again, even if there had been the great improvement you erroneously think occurred -- you cannot seriously claim that we have reached equality, which would mean numbers representative of the population, which would mean 51% of Fortune 500 CEOS, of elected officials, etc.

    So then the question becomes, how long do you think it ought to take?  Another generation, i.e., another 20 years?   Two more generations?  Why?  Why not now?  


    perhaps (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    if Woman's Groups (or large groups of women, perhaps) were to effectively boycott the sponsors of KO's show, it might be a loud, first step to letting KO and his Masters know that, hey, it IS sexism, you WERE and still ARE guilty of it and we'll hit you where it hurts:  the advertisers who pay your inflated salary.

    Just let him try to brush women off his shoulder or wipe them off his shoe after that!

    Becoming involved in local level politics is a fantastic idea, btw.


    dKos has never been good for women (5.00 / 10) (#33)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:17:25 AM EST
    as long as I have been there (almost 4 years now). THere have been numerous incidents that pissed women off enough to have mass exodus'. Such as....an ad depicting two women wrestling in pie, and the treatment of Hillary supporters and Hillary herself. I left because of the Hil-hate.

    Every pro-women, andti-sexism diary is visited by clueless men, eager to flaunt their cluelessness (you know what I mean, right? Those guys who jump on you whenever you point out sexism...saying whetever it was was an "innocent comment").

    It was actually a big loss for the women of dKos when Armando left, because he was (at the time) one of the few big posters who addressed women's issues.


    Oh, I agree (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    But it is much much larger than DKOS world. It is now progressive world that has become complicit.

    Dkos posters come from the world (none / 0) (#89)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    true, they are self-selected and an unrepresentative sample, but still. If all women were unified on this issue it would be a lot easier to fight it...I recall a certain article comparing attitudes of middle aged and younger women.

    I thought the tirade (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    about "Women's Studies" was a hoot.

    Did you ever see a man become so livid about women and history?



    I missed that one (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:30 AM EST
    For the record (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    I did not object to the pie ad and stand by my view that to ask a publisher to extremely censor ads is not a progressive view.

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    what? I thought that the whole pie thing was overwrought and I generally stayed out of that argument. I remember thinking that the people who left were really oversensitive about things. I've thought back to those days over the last few months and think maybe those female posters were picking up on something that I missed because of everything else that has happened during the primary campaign. Perhaps they were more right than wrong.

    Well (5.00 / 8) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    In the end, "the pie thing" was less about the pie ad, and more about the dismissive reaction to those who criticized the pie ad.

    exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    correct. Back then, we felt (whether true or not) like we were a community not a hierarchy.

    Yes, the pie ad discussion was (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    interesting and the sort of topic that deserves debate.

    But thin-skinned Markos derailed it when he denounced critics of the ad as "the women's studies set," with more nastiness about them, and for that he deserved all the opprobrium heaped upon him.  Of course, that and his responses only revealed how woefully uneducated he is about what women's studies is, about women's history, etc. -- not that he would admit it, so he just made it worse and worse, while all the boyz types had the go-ahead to pile on.

    It was disgusting.  And seeing the pile-on by the media in this campaign was just deja vu.  So I was not at all surprised to see Markos flip flop on Clinton and to see the boyz types there just take their cues as usual -- but again taking it to extremes.

    There is so little mature thought at that blog or many others now, and so little moderation by the so-called community, that they have shown themselves to be worse than the mainstream media.  And that is saying something.


    thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:13:18 AM EST
    on that point, but you still were one of the few high-profile diarists (ex-FP) who wrote on women's issues....and got plenty of nay-saying comments IIRC

    Certainly (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    One current FPer was livid when I criticized Lawrence Summers for his sexist statements.

    It was not a bastion of concern for women's rights or for women's issues.


    nope. quite the opposite, I am afraid. (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    Objectively pro-Saddam, Clintons are racists n/t (none / 0) (#105)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM EST
    Hey BTD (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by david mizner on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:11 AM EST
    That is great. Thanks for the link. (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    (paraphrase:) Media painted Hillary as a racist in much the same way it painted Al Gore as a congenital liar in 2000.

    That's a dead-on comparison.  

    It's ironic that the false media narratives were one of the touchstones of the left blogosphere's critique of the mainstream media.  But, many of them fell for it when it was directed at Hillary.

    These blogger boys have no credibility when it comes to criticizing the media.  A shame, because it will be needed in the months to come to defend Obama.


    Krugman is in the Bob Somerby loop (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:31 AM EST
    You can tell that other people have stopped reading Bob.

    What a terrific writing from Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    Makes me sad though.  He can really cut to the chase in very few words and the loss of the Liberal innocence gets right to the damage.

    the left i am afraid are botching their (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    chance to take over the reins of power for a generation or two. the absolute arrogance, ignorance(yes ignorance), distain, dismissal, dismal, hubris that i see leaves me no other conclusion.

    Not to nitpick but (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    I sure wish this sentence:

    "there are huge substantive issues at stake"

    had been written this way:

    "there are other huge substantive issues at stake"

    'Cuz to me, the sexism thing is pretty substantive.


    That's it? I'm disappointed (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    in Krugman.  He doesn't have a word limit there, and there is much more to say -- and he does have a bully pulpit, so he would be heard.

    Two paragraphs or so to sum up a travesty committed against the political system by which we pick a president.  Gosh.  Don't put yourself, prof.


    K.O. has sold out (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    the progressive party for short term rating boost. Any reference to the journalist Edward R. Murrow should be deleted from his show. He has no integrity now. I'm curious as to how he's going to maintain his audience if Obama does get elected. Can he really continue to be the cheerleader? Is MSNBC planning to become the new FAUX network, dancing to the tunes of the new admin?

    ko stopped having integrity when he (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    jumped in the tank for obama. no staying power, ko. you have to have the ability to look clearly at yourself and see your own flaws. that this the only way to correct something. but you fell in love with your so called media image and hence adulation for yourself ensued.

    In all fairness (none / 0) (#114)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:36:41 PM EST
    I have to say we should not tolerate sexist comments toward men either.  

    no staying power, ko.

    This is not a fair standard by which men should be valued.  

    (total snark in case I was not clear)


    your eye caught what mine didn't. (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    cracker crumbs all over my computer when i laughed. i love good snark on friday. er, any day will do however.

    The Comments to Sklar's HP article... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by northeast73 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:05 AM EST
    ...typical Obama cult hate-filled response, are they no?.

    Do they even THINK about the issue?  NO.  Its attack attack attack ANYONE who DARES to defend Hillary or critisize Obama or any of his cheerleaders.

    HuffBlow really is a hate site.  Obots make me ill.

    Keith doesn't take criticism well (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:29 AM EST
    Keith is non-confrontational.

    This is why he never has anyone on his show who disagrees with him.

    Keith is not only everything everyone has said about him above, he is also a coward.

    he is non-confrontational, like O'Reilley is (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    he likes to talk on his show about people when they aren't there to defend themselves.

    Not at all honorable...so sad, I used to love his anti-Rumsfeld "special comments"


    O'Reilly (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:19:38 AM EST
    Has people on his show who disagree with O'Reilly.

    Could be a setup.  But he does do it.


    Damn (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    I was hoping i'd get away with that, since I don't actually watch O'Reilley.



    They say he's an O'Reilly clone (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    From the left.

    To a certain degree.   One main difference.  O'Reilly loves confrontation.

    So he can cut people off, and tell them to shut up, sure, but he invites people on who disagree with him.


    KO won't even have Froomkin on! Of course, after (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    appearing once, iirc, on MessNBC, he hasn't been on at all.

    But, you're right. Has John Dean been on lately? He might say some things which KO might not agree with--but I haven't watched since KO went over the top for Obama.

    Gives me an extra hour a day! Well, more actually, since I rarely go to MessNBC anymore to watch anyone. Even checking in on breaking news is too unrewarding.


    You could tell (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    he really enjoyed those Hillary interviews. I'm no fan of O'Reilly's but that was a pretty good back and forth.  

    I think more videos like this one (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    s/b distributed to MSNBC and the msm.


    Well, watching that made me really miss Hillary-- (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    Oh, my, I do wish she were the Dem nom. Bcz the second half of the video showed how she could overcome all that thrown at her--with grace and humor.

    The picture of KO (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    with Sklar's post is worth giving HuffPo a click.  Captures him in perfect full bloviation.

    How will the MCM (and subsets) cover Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:27:14 AM EST
    Has anyone noticed that the Obama anti-rumor move, recently announced, is being covered all over the MCM as if his were the first site to ever think of posting rumors and the candidate's version, denial, facts on a web site? On WNYC, they said the cool new thing is that they're "going viral" by asking all BO supporters to email the rumor denials to everyone on their email list.

    Michelle was mentioned as someone who is getting some sexist treatment--and also being painted as an "angry black woman." Thus the first major denial was of the purported racial rant tape.

    Oooooooh!!! Who ever thought of immediate rumor denial or set up a site for it before? Now, maybe bcz he's got so many younger and blogger supporters, it's news, but is it really new?

    WNYC noted that the site knocked down the Michelle tape rumor with the approving comment that since the web site is denying it, Obama won't have to respond to a Sunday talk show host and deny it in the fall.

    Huh? Well, maybe, but does not work for candidates the MCM is out to kick out of the race or to cause to lose. So, maybe Obama is going to get the MCM fluff and boost this election....

    Or not. Depends on what the C part of the MCM wants.

    (Think this fits post bcz it's about the way MCM is handling candidates and how BO camp is responding to criticism.)

    Did you also hear (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Iphie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    a few minutes later how surprised Andrea Bernstein was about the video she saw at an Emily's List function with blatant examples of sexism directed at Hillary? Really, she'd never seen this stuff before? What did she think the outrage about the misogyny was about?

    As a journalist covering the race, shouldn't she have at least looked into it? I say this as someone who has demanded my last WNYC contribution back because of the dismissive and belittling tone that Brian Lehrer has used when discussing Hillary, especially in the past month or so. I've emailed them and commented on their website, so it's not like Andrea had to go far to find examples -- one of the emails was specifically about Ken Rudin's statements -- you know, the political director at NPR? And she was surprised by the video?


    isn't that the same video (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    that Howard Dean supposedly finally saw AFTER the primary ended and he claimed to be so shocked at finally be made aware of this?

    The Chicago (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:42:26 AM EST
    papers certainly did him no favors here. The whole rumor mill thing was on the front cover of the Sun Times putting the denial of the rumor on the front page. I frankly don't think this helps them. There's a rumor, then a denial of the rumor, then claims that the rumor alone is the story.

    BTW, I didn't even bother (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    watching the McCain special comment. Whatever potency Keith's diatribes might have had before has been lost. He essentially cried "wolf" too many times, and now there's no value to any of his opinions.

    He will not have a serious impact on this race, because only Obama maniacs watch him now.

    Me neither (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    His Special Comments now have the effect of making me defend the person he is criticizing.  I would lose my precarious perch on the Unity Pony if I were to watch him attack McCain.

    Reading so many posts of the past (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    here and the perceived "young" posters say so much about society today. Girls sending nude pics on cell phones, dirty, dirty, dancing and gyrations, the disrespect for others that shows in actions and words. If girls/guys don't demand respect and denounce disrespect due to sex, then it will never change. We are all a product of where we come from and unless we change the atsmosphere of that place and how we parent, then we are doomed to more of this. Why is it coming out now, why not during the primaries????

    And of course this gets 30+ rating (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    And of course the Daily Trolls at Daily KOs rated this comment, as of my reading, with 30 positives and 0 negatives. So he ignore the substance of the criticism, and personally smears the critic with an anecdote that questions her mental or emotional stability, and the Kossacks go wild with glee.

    Eggsactly! (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MonaL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    As far as they're concerned Rachel is no longer a serious critic, but a KO-stalking weirdo, who will she stalk next?!  No need to pay attention to her because now she's just a Glenn Close/Hillary Clinton freak.

    My KO blinders fell off soon after he started channeling Edward R. Murrow. What an ass.  He's spent so much time watching Bill-o, he's turned into him.


    Kos? (none / 0) (#109)
    by zebedee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    I've always wondered what the Kos in Daily Kos meant (I know it's a Greek island). Does anyone know if it stands for something? I've hardly even visited it but looking at some of the comments and the adulation for him, it might be "Keith Olbermann Site"

    Short for Markos (none / 0) (#113)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    I just thought that he originally named the blog after himself.

    Kos (none / 0) (#115)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    is a diminutive of Markos, for Markos Moulitsas, founder of DK.

    KO is a cartoon... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by jb64 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    It was fun for a while back there in the Scooter Libby days (seems like an eon ago) but it soon became pretty clear the KO peddles the same kind of celebrity garbage that you can see anytime on E!. Oh, and it almost always is about some dumb star chick like Brittney Spears or Lindsay Lohan. Not that he's sexist or anything.

    Also, it is apparently verboten to disagree with Keith, evah. It's a tired act frankly, and I would expect Progressives to be smart enough to figure out when they are being played, but maybe I'm wrong.

    Keith is irresistible (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    Girls who are unable to them some Keith O must then resort to getting them some Keith O.  Honestly though, he has graduated himself to the class of arrogant pig.

    Yes, that's what (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MonaL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    I got out of his post too BTD.  He, in his inartful way said,  "Rachel is stalking me."  None of his admirers seemed to get it though. A couple of them asked if she crashed the party.

    The scary part is that these people are of the "creative" class and have chosen our nominee. Yikes.

    Katie Couric must do this. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by rbecki225 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    In her next Notebook, she should make a "SPECIAL COMMENT" response to Keith Olbermann. KO's comment that there was no sexism in the primary is such a strawman and the rebuttal would make Couric's point. It would make me so happy.

    One of the main things (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by mkevinf on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    that the NY Times article and Olbmerman's ilk are using as a part of their denial system is the notion that their critics are blaming a misogynistic, sexist narrative for Hillary's loss.

    I, for one, am not doing that, although I certainly believe it was a factor, along with the drumbeat to drop out.

    We are, I think, stating that there has been a "meme" tarring Hillary Clinton as the stereotypical powerful, castrating, nagging, cackling "witchy woman".  And further, that the DNC, Obama and the so-called liberal repositories of objectivity stood by and said nothing.

    Would it have made a difference if the "not THIS woman" narrative hadn't existed?  I don't know, because I must concede that, rumors of intimidation notwithstanding, Obama's campaign was better organized in the caucus states.  

    Having said that, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that had Hillary been treated respectfully, which includes standing up by Obama and the DNC to the willful "assassination" distortion (exacerbated by Oblerman himself), then we would now be much further down the road to party unity than we are.

    I do not agree with those Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain in the fall, but I sure understand their anger.

    Goodbe KO (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by yourkidding on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    Olberman is but one of the reasons I no longer read Kos or HuffPost.
       I think that Olbermann will eventually be seen as a loser in this whole election travesty. He's riding high among like minded Hilary haters, but Hilary is a true historic figure who has & will rise above all the pathetic rantings of people like Olbermann.
      Before the primaries I used to be a big KO fan, encouraging friends to watch him. I was stunned when he joined the other losers on MSNBC in their school-yard sniveling criticisms of a woman whose accomplishments are far beyond anthing those misognyists will ever achieve.

    their narrative (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by isaac on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    seems to be: they say, hillary lost due to sexism, hillary didnt lose due to sexism, therefore, there is no sexism.  typical bush straw man argument (how dare they accuse us of knowing about the 9-11 attacks, etc ad nauseum), they have all truly come to be what they started out to oppose.  i spit on them

    Sklar said she never (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:26:55 PM EST
    attended Olbermann's party...


    Here's the Mediabistro item on Obamann in full (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    (It's short, so I don't think I'm violating any copyrights.)

    Reaction to MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann naming CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric "Worst Person in the World" Tuesday night continues across the blogosphere. Olbermann has now called out Huffington Post media editor Rachel Sklar for her criticism of him. It comes in the wake of this post Sklar wrote yesterday.

    In the comments section of a Daily Kos blog post he wrote, Olbermann responded to a commenter who questioned Sklar's criticism of MSNBC and Olbermann. Sklar "has it in for you big time," wrote the commenter. Olbermann responds:

    Don't know what to think about Ms. Sklar. Actually, I'm mildly alarmed, but not because of the criticism. She -- let me phrase this gently -- attended the Countdown 5th Anniversary Party in April, even though she had been denied an invitation and was not accompanying a guest.
    But Sklar tells TVNewser, "Keith is mistaken. I'm sorry he was alarmed, but I was not at the event."

    And this isn't the first time Sklar has taken on Olbermann...

    * In April, Sklar wrote about Olbermann suggesting Sen. Hillary Clinton should be beaten, when he said, "Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

    Calling it "much worse than Pimp-gate," she wrote, "I don't think that Olbermann meant it literally, but that's not the point. Words matter, and so do the images they evoke. This can't be ignored."

    Olbermann didn't ignore it -- he issued a written apology and did so on the air as well, although as part of his apology to Sklar he wrote, "You could've called for reaction first if your main motive had merely been criticism."

    * In October 2006, Sklar named Olbermann, "today's worst person in the world," for using the chyron, "A Slut and Battery," regarding a Paris Hilton segment.

    Mediabistro, Friday Jun 13, 2008, Couric v. Olbermann Morphs To Olbermann v. Sklar


    So he's a liar as well. (none / 0) (#126)
    by suki on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    Not surprised.

    What I find really egress is that (none / 0) (#7)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    Ms. Sklar sat there, being interviewed on various shows on MSNBC, and never said anything about sexism (at least that I can remember). Why now, why so many moons later?

    Now that Hillary is out of the race, seems lots of (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    MCMers and others finally realize there was sexism and they shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

    As I typed that, WNYC just played tape of various (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    sexist remarks made about Hillary. Some of them were beyond belief! But this was not discussed on this public radio station during during the campaign!

    Political reporter said she seldom watches cable TV and was shocked at how much misogny there was. Said she finally realized how the public is seeing how the campaign was covered.


    A political reporter (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:38:49 AM EST
    who does not watch cable TV?

    Seriously. Can I please have her job? I will just get paid to bloviate and never back anything I say up with any facts. I will be absolutely certain of my point of view without ever entertaining anyone else's. Most of all, I will be snug and secure in my little bubble while America crashes into recession and stagflation.

    [exits, cheerfully whistling "What a Wonderful World"]


    In defense of her, WNYC has a small staff and she (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:45:31 AM EST
    was on the road a lot. However, I find it difficult to think she hadn't heard reports of these sexist attacks. So, I think there was CYA going on here. Yes! Shocking, I know.

    I do not believe (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:53:26 AM EST
    any of these late converts to outrage against sexism when they claim to have only seen it NOW. They are just craven liars. It's safer to talk it about now, that's all that's changed.

    Actually, (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Iphie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    Andrea Bernstein is usually a very good and thoughtful journalist. That said, I was blown away that she was surprised at the blatant misogyny directed at Hillary. It's one thing if she doesn't watch cable news, but given that this issue (misogyny in this campaign) is a news story unto itself, shouldn't she have made a point of looking it?

    Not a bad idea, really. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Radix on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    Given Obama's following, amongst the tech savvy, this will probably be a good thing. I would expect many of us will start receiving these email update from Obama supporters we all know.

    and ko knows all this because? (none / 0) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    he called everyone at the party and asked them if she was unaccompanied. he checked to see if she was on the guest list? who is the stalker, ko? just because groupies act this way in sports doesn't mean everyone is that way. parties are most often fluid and it is difficult to know if she did or did not accompany anyone. hearsay you say, ko? thought so, since you are so good at that sort of thing.

    one final comment, get over yourself, ko. you are not all that.

    Drop and give me fifty or continue watching KO (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    ... and monitor the dreck for media watchdogs.

    No -- no, the latter is too horrible and I apologize for even suggesting it.

    I wish you'd write him (none / 0) (#127)
    by suki on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    and remind him of the event and how you feel about him now. Especially how you now feel about him adopting anything from Murrow as his own.

    You know, I tried to do just that (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by litigatormom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:58:44 PM EST
    right after his tirade against Clinton, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail on his website at the time.  I wondered  whether they'd removed it after a tsunami of angry viewer comments.  

    Or maybe he just doesn't give a frak any more about what his viewers think.

    I'll go try to see if they have the contact info back up.