Keith Olberman's Jaundiced Rant

http://counterpunch.com/ross11232007.html

Keith Olberman's Jaundiced Rant
Trashing Chavez


I don't know why I was so shocked listening to Keith Olbermann's insulting, degrading and uninformed remarks about President Hugo Chavez yesterday. Perhaps because Olbermann is the only man on commercial television who has so far had the guts to make a frontal attack on Bush and his coterie of war criminals. I suppose I thought his articulate and courageous stand against the Republicans, his criticism of their comrades, the spineless Democrats and other collaborators with the Bush regime, indicated a superior knowledge, analysis and understanding of politics in general. I hoped that his bold commentary indicated a suspicion of a system glued together by massive lies. Sadly, it appears that I was wrong.

On his November 20th program Keith Olbermann referred to a "news" story in which Chavez, trying to make his way to the bathroom past a reporter, reportedly said, "I have to go. Do you want me to pee on you?"

First of all, it's a tragic commentary on the state of "news" and journalism that bodily functions become major news stories, be they sexual or excretory, especially when people like Chávez have so many more interesting features worthy of discussion, most notably, ideas. That Olbermann would stoop to the news cycle at its most base level is, itself, a disappointment. But his comment after the reference to "peeing on" someone was more so: "Maybe you should have asked that before you started doing that to your own country's laws and citizens."

-snip-

Mr. Olbermann needs to get his facts straight and he could start off by reading Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval's study published in July of this year by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, entitled, "The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years" (http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1248/8/ ) wherein they show that "Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has grown by 76 percent since the bottom of the recession in 2003." Indeed, once the pressures of a U.S. inspired coup, U.S.-backed oil strike and Referendum (all funded by Olbermann's and our local nemesis, Bush) were soundly defeated by Chávez and his supporters, Weisbrot and Sandoval agree that "it appears that the Venezuelan economy was hit hard by political instability prior to 2003, but has grown steadily and quite rapidly since political stability began improving in that year."

-snip-

Given these facts, and your absence of them, Mr. Olbermann, could you explain exactly on whom Chávez has been pissing? If not, perhaps in the future you could drop the subject or deal with something a bit more substantial when talking about Chávez than urine.

In other words, put up or piss off.
----------------------


Olberman surprised me too

There simply can't be another answer in this purely black and white world.

nt

Methinks the black and white thinking here is not by the OP, neither by the linked article.

that Olbermann was questioning. It is some questionable laws including those enacted that extend both his unilateral powers and his term of governance. I think we have to look at Chavez as a populist (and that is very good), an annoying counter to Bush* interference in Latin America (and that, I believe is very, very good), but a question mark when it comes to his long term protection of democracy in his country. I think that is all Olbermann was saying, but relaying the "peeing" comment was a little ridiculous-- I would agree..

Olbermann's comment was uncharacteristically simplistic. But he has a tendency towards "polarization" which I guess appeals to a wider range of viewers.

where that question mark comes from because his government has, despite provocation at every step, been pretty meticulous about operating well within the law.

To my mind, it's not so much that there's a question mark about Chavez but about the success of the whole project in three areas: in building leadership and that is the responsibility of the entire political "class", not only Chavez's, in dealing the the corruption that the revolution inherited but that is still very much with them, and in dealing with crime, and ditto.

:popcorn: :hide: :popcorn: :hide: :popcorn: :hide: :popcorn: :hide: :popcorn: :hide:

nt

:rofl:

This time is no exception.

He hates facism, and isn't afraid to point it out when he sees it.

nt

He's been elected several times. He got elected under the old constitution, the new one, survived a recall referendum handily (not to mention a military coup), and if he amends the constitution, he can probably get elected until he's dead. He's their version of FDR. That a good thing? Not necessarily, but that's whom they decided to elect.

it was a very uninformed commentary re: chavez -- it resembles too closely the standard cry -- he's a leftist therefore he's bad.

yeah -- whatever.

Remember the saying friends, if it looks too good to be true, it is.

I think that should be considered as well when watching Keith Olbermann. Sure does he have moments. Absolutely and he should be credited for those.

However, I cannot help but bring up the other while male commentators like Joe Scarborogh, the one who had the intern Lori Klausitis found dead in his office.

He has his own show on MSNBC. Why?

Better yet, he was given his show after Lori was found dead in his office in Florida.

What is wrong with that picture?

Especially when there has been so much silence around that death.

In addition, I think it bears noting that most of the individuals who have their own shows are almost all white males from upper class backgrounds. That is yet another similarity.

Where are the educated women who aren't the likes of Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin?

Why are they invisible from networks like MSNBC and CNN and CBS? Or where are the African Americans with their political show on Sunday morning, heck where are the Native Americans, the orignial "citizens" of the US? The Asian Americans? But I digress....

Yes individuals like Keith Olbermann have their moments, but only if they are approved by the Executive division/staff.

Chavez is a peoples leader. That is what makes him dangerous to the war machine and those who run it.

Mr. Chavez and others who are brave enough to confront the oil interests, who along with their governmental factions including some within the CIA and FBI who most likely killed John F. Kennedy, and the war interests who have killed millions through the years are going to target Mr. Chavez as well.

Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.

In addition, Mr. Chavez is going to be demonized by the American propaganda machine whether it be George Will or Keith Olbermann.

Different side of the same coin.

The military has taken over our "mainstream media".

That would include Mr. Olbermann as well, despite his wonderful segments now and then.

"Where are the educated women who aren't the likes of Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin?"

Rachel Maddow seems to being doing a pretty good job intelligently expressing the progressive viewpoint.

n/t

so he could insult Hugo Chavez without suspicion. :eyes:

Jon Stewart has called him a "dictator". Bill Maher has insulted and ridiculed him. Now it's Olberman, who I always considered the smartest of the three. How is it possible that these smart, intelligent people, who see through all the right-wing lies and spin from both the media and the White House, somehow all get mislead when it comes to Chávez?

My thoughts and feelings, exactly.

Oh, and btw, KO's obsessive pounding on Barry Bonds is another real issue to me. I don't expect to agree with anyone ALL the time, but, the continual character assassination of Bonds makes me more than a bit angry and confused about my feelings for KO.

Can you please explain to me who he is and what he has done to get Olberman so upset?

Also, as much as he deserves it, I also get tired of KO's constant pounding on Bill O'Reilly. Sure, when he says something totally disgusting (like his comments upon having dinner in Harlem), he deserves it, but KO shouldn't spend attention to every time Billo farts. It has become a childish fight between two supposedly grown men.

And for the many of us that are baseball fans as well, Barry Bonds is a stain upon the game who holds homerun records that he got by cheating and defaming the game. Bonds deserves to be scorned, and it's not character assassination if it is true.

And FWIW, he was bashing him when he was a sportscaster on the local news 20 years ago...long before steroids.

are marching. How does that add up to clampiing down?

They own numerous tv-stations, they run approximately 80 newspapers, they have demonstrations against Chávez almost every week, without interruption from the police or army. The one time a demonstration got out of hand was when students protesting against Chávez resorted to violent means, and even then accounts of the way the police reacted differ from source to source.

He's not Putin, you know, and it's not Russia.

(But all this is besides the point Olberman made and besides the point I was making.)

a traitor. Almost sounded like repuke-like when they were calling us traitors for protesting the war.

Dear Mr (or Professor?) ROSS:

Your item faulting OLBERMANN for his criticism of Hugo CHAVEZ was posted on DemocraticUnderground.com, where we have furious attacks and counter-attacks on the topic of Mister Hugo (as diferentiated from "discussions") .

I'm with OLBERMANN, before and now.

You say you can't believe that somebody like OLBERMANN, whose other opinions regarding the Shrub mal-administration are aggreeable, can turn around regarding CHAVEZ. That is the pattern that CHAVEZ supporters at DU start out with, citing tons of articles sympathetic to him while ripping apart ANY item that criticizes him--- claiming that the NYT and Associated Press, for example, are CIA conduits, that anybody else (like little old nobody-me) is a "corporate shill," a "capitalist shill," a spouter of "White House talking points" and of "M$M talking points." The image of me supposedly staying up all night, rapaciously ingesting talking points from ANYBODY never fails to amuse me. The irony is lost on them, that the SAME, RECURRENT PHRASES invariably pop up in their swarms of posts.

You list CHAVEZ's supposed achievements as justification for everything-ELSE-Chavez, and I submit that this is missing the point. MUSSOLINI ran the trains on time, HITLER loved dogs and was a vegetarian, and LIMBAUGH loves Christmas. Besides that, Shrub himself said from the get-go that he envied tyranny on the grounds that it was a lot easier to get things done. Logically, democratic adherents ought to despise even beneficent tyrants.


I didn't hear OLBERMANN's speech, but I suspect his views are like mine, a detestation of authoritarianism BOTH of the Right AND of the Left. As for the supporters' rationale repeated ad nauseum that CHAVEZ was ELECTED, I say fine. Somebody else can determine whether the system was stacked. I don't care whether the Venezuelans choose him for life, any more than I was willing to violate Iraq's sovereignty, but I am relieved I myself am not saddled with him. Believe me, I have railed against Shrub as a scoundrel and a criminal since way before 2000. Shrub would do every democracy curbing thing CHAVEZ has done if he could. Shrub has done AS MUCH as he has gotten away with as it is.

But like DU's CHAVEZ supporters, you castigate OLBERMANN--- now that he disagrees with you, that is. That's the core problem with CHAVEZ's version of democracy, that all is hunky dory so long as the opinions expressed are in conformity to his. And your list of credits accompanying your piece really ought to address whether the CHAVEZ government edits their publications of your products, or, perhaps they don't need to because of your conformity?

Gotta drop that in there, just in case anybody was getting all sentimental for that party. Editors won't run it without it. Third sentence, in this case.

references. The net is overflowing with them as the smearing gets more silly and more transparent.

If 'they' like him, then for all intents and purposes beware, if they don't then he, or she must be doing something right.

a more fair and balanced view of Chavez and the December 2 election than one is likely to see in corporate media. We may be looking at another coup attempt soon. Venezuala has more oil reserves that the USA and the Maracaibo Basin is the richest oil patch in the western hemisphere. Aruba sits less that 20 miles from the mouth of Maracaibo This is a fairly long read.

Monday, November 19, 2007
Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela

Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela - by Stephen Lendman

The Bush administration tried and failed three prior times to oust Hugo Chavez since its first aborted two-day coup attempt in April, 2002. Through FOIA requests, lawyer, activist and author Eva Golinger uncovered top secret CIA documents of US involvement that included an intricate financing scheme involving the quasi-governmental agency, National Endowment of Democracy (NED), and US Agency for International Development (USAID). The documents also showed the White House, State Department and National Security Agency had full knowledge of the scheme, had to have approved it, and there's little doubt of CIA involvement as it's always part of this kind of dirty business. What's worrying now is what went on then may be happening again in what looks like a prelude to a fourth made-in-Washington attempt to oust the Venezuelan leader that must be monitored closely as events develop.

Since he took office in February, 1999, and especially after George Bush's election, Chavez has been a US target, and this time he believes credible sources point to a plot to assassinate him. To finish:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

Chavez's government poses a threat to American capitalism. So he's gotta go. How anyone doubts the CIA wasn't behind the last coup, is beyond me.

Sadly, many people seem to believe that anything socialism is evil.

And a few of you Chavez lovers just don't seem to get he's not running a Utopian society down there.

I never thought he was "running a Utopian society down there". What is scary is the CIA trying to overthrow a Democratically elected leader. Or are you okay with that?

:eyes:

I so loved him when he bashed bush, cheney, repukes and neocons, but now that he spoke a negative word agaisnt the beloved Chavez, he's owned...bought and paid for...

:sarcasm:

blah, blah, blah, blah...

:eyes:

My, my, my...look how quickly folks have turned.