Matt (I think) has cast aspersions on Maddow and Olbermann, and I wanted to provide a counter-argument here. I listen to both regularly; Maddow I probably get 75% of her shows on audio podcast, and Olbermann maybe a quarter of his shows. I've defended them on the basis of being an effective counterbalance of Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck/Scarborough/Savage/Wallace/Hume etc. But I don't think that's fair, damning as it is with faint praise and false equivalence.
First of all: Olbermann.
I won't defend him much. He's fun for me in the same way I suspect Rush is fun for the right. Over-the-top, pompous, preachy, and good for a rousing Amen. His shows are almost completely partisan affairs. He has an obsession with O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Fox News. Seriously half of his air time seems to be spent attacking those guys. Which is fine, someone needs to call them on their BS, and Olbermann's record seems reasonably sound in terms of keeping his facts right. But it's boring and repetitive and the most significant reason I listen to him infrequently. When Olbermann addresses news, it's almost always through the prism of political implications and positioning. His guests skew towards the political analyst/pundit set. The best, most redeeming quality I find in Olbermann is his intense, continuing focus on the crimes of the Bush era and his refusal to let them fade quietly into history.
Maddow:
She differs from KO in that she is refreshingly and unashamedly wonky. She has a partisan perspective and her pet issues such as gay marriage and DADT. But her guests skew more towards the technocratic -- policy directors and people who are engaged in decision-making; she's happy to spend a lot of time talking about the details of policy issues. She's incredibly facile with explaining really complex issues such as the Glass-Steagal Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the derivatives markets, military procurement procedures, congressional appropriations and the budget process, etc. She gets excited when she hears the word "infrastructure." She is thrilled to have guests like OMB director Orzag on.
I like this because I'm the same way in being a details guy, and I think it is distinctly different from the KO/Rush brand of bloviators. Yeah, it's political, and she has a clear perspective from the left. But she's more of a "good government" liberal as opposed to the "winning elections" partisan that KO is.
Another difference is that she has guests not infrequently who are conservative or otherwise in "the opposition." She treats them with respect and lets them fairly summarize their positions before entering into a dialogue on their issues. She always gets the last word, of course -- that's the home-field advantage -- but there's never shouting or ad hominem stuff.
She's not perfect. She can be preachy too, and though sometimes her mocking of the right is on target, it's often cringe-worthy. Sometimes she gets ahead of the facts. I won't pretend otherwise. My only point here is that I think that, of political shows with a clear ideological position, hers is not one I would lump in with the demagogues and blowhards. It's something different, and I think better.
First of all: Olbermann.
I won't defend him much. He's fun for me in the same way I suspect Rush is fun for the right. Over-the-top, pompous, preachy, and good for a rousing Amen. His shows are almost completely partisan affairs. He has an obsession with O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Fox News. Seriously half of his air time seems to be spent attacking those guys. Which is fine, someone needs to call them on their BS, and Olbermann's record seems reasonably sound in terms of keeping his facts right. But it's boring and repetitive and the most significant reason I listen to him infrequently. When Olbermann addresses news, it's almost always through the prism of political implications and positioning. His guests skew towards the political analyst/pundit set. The best, most redeeming quality I find in Olbermann is his intense, continuing focus on the crimes of the Bush era and his refusal to let them fade quietly into history.
Maddow:
She differs from KO in that she is refreshingly and unashamedly wonky. She has a partisan perspective and her pet issues such as gay marriage and DADT. But her guests skew more towards the technocratic -- policy directors and people who are engaged in decision-making; she's happy to spend a lot of time talking about the details of policy issues. She's incredibly facile with explaining really complex issues such as the Glass-Steagal Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the derivatives markets, military procurement procedures, congressional appropriations and the budget process, etc. She gets excited when she hears the word "infrastructure." She is thrilled to have guests like OMB director Orzag on.
I like this because I'm the same way in being a details guy, and I think it is distinctly different from the KO/Rush brand of bloviators. Yeah, it's political, and she has a clear perspective from the left. But she's more of a "good government" liberal as opposed to the "winning elections" partisan that KO is.
Another difference is that she has guests not infrequently who are conservative or otherwise in "the opposition." She treats them with respect and lets them fairly summarize their positions before entering into a dialogue on their issues. She always gets the last word, of course -- that's the home-field advantage -- but there's never shouting or ad hominem stuff.
She's not perfect. She can be preachy too, and though sometimes her mocking of the right is on target, it's often cringe-worthy. Sometimes she gets ahead of the facts. I won't pretend otherwise. My only point here is that I think that, of political shows with a clear ideological position, hers is not one I would lump in with the demagogues and blowhards. It's something different, and I think better.
6 comments:
"Matt (I think) has cast aspersions on Maddow and Olbermann, and I wanted to provide a counter-argument here."
OMG, this made me laugh. "I've been having this argument in my head for the last three weeks. I bet Matt said something to start it."
Awesome. God Bless us, everyone.
ha ha ha ha ha.
Totally true.
I can't find (and am too lazy to really look for) the original quote. Matt and I *have* talked at some length about Olbermann, so this isn't entirely dredged up out of my paranoiac imagination. The most explicit recollection I have about Maddow is Matt saying something to the fact that he "just can't listen to Olbermann and Maddow" due to their stridency or some such. I just wanted to make the distinction...
It's a fine distinction.
so this isn't entirely dredged up out of my paranoiac imagination.
No it's not, and I think you pretty faithfully represented me here. I go back to MSNBC pretty frequently and I just can't land there long. It's an enormous frustration to me as they are the closest thing to a 24-hour Sunday morning talking head show. I want them to be fair and listenable. I want them to be This Week Without David Brinkley. But alas.
Olbermann.
I won't defend him much. He's fun for me in the same way I suspect Rush is fun for the right.
I think this is fair enough. I suspect Limbaugh is more of a liar than Olbermann, but maybe Limbaugh's not a liar and I only see cherry-picked and contextless quotes from him. I know for a fact that the world worked hard to make sure they were *only* interpreting Limbaugh in the worst possible light with his hoping that Obama fails line. Given that, I think it's possible Limbaugh is a bombastic fucktard, but not evil. I see Olbermann in this light, as frustrating as that is for me, since I was a fan.
Maddow:
She differs from KO in that she is refreshingly and unashamedly wonky.
No question she is studiously wonky instead of bombastic, but I also think she is disingenuous when it suits her. She's as willing in her own way to interpret her enemies uncharitably as anyone, I just don't think she's generally lying.
She treats them with respect and lets them fairly summarize their positions before entering into a dialogue on their issues.
Yes, she's not an in-your-face asshole. This is why she's not Bill O'Reilly, who will interrupt his guests to make his own point ten times in three minutes. She waits until they are gone to smirk and call them stupid. This is way better but still hard for me to watch.
sometimes her mocking of the right is on target, it's often cringe-worthy.
I think this is a good description. The big difference is that you probably agree with her opinion 90% of the time and I'm down around 60%. The 40% is a big chunk to swallow when I disagree and she's *so* mocking.
What the hell is up with the comments? I can't seem to use html tags anymore and the formatting is removing blank lines, even after I preview them and use br to make it look good. It publishes to total crap.
Post a Comment