Keith Olberman - Essay Example

MSNBC Focus: Keith Olberman Position: Anti-Administration Keith Olberman, the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown,” is uncompromisingly against both the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. This is amply evidenced in both his closing commentaries and some of his weekly features, such as “Worst Person in the World.” In order to illustrate this, it is necessary to discuss both of the mentioned and provide evidence, both in the form of quotes and figures. Worst Person in the World Were we to look at those selected for the position of Worst person in the World since 2007, we will find that besides naming every member of the Bush Administration and bush family members such as the former first lady, Barbara Bush, Olberman has named a host of Republican senators and numerous Conservatives and pro-Bush reporters and media personalities, such as Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. He has, furthermore, repeatedly included Fox New Channel, which he dubs, Fox Nothing Channel and Fox Noise Channel, in his worst person of the world list, as well as conservative pro-Bush preachers, such as Pat Robertson. The above-stated, which was concluded after thorough review of Countdown transcripts at MSNBC, is indicative of an overt bias against the Bush Administration, Republicans and neoconservatives. Further solidifying this claim of bias is that rarely, if ever, is a Democrat included in that list, unless they have voted in support of the Iraq War, or who have expressed any type of support for Bush’s policies, such as Hilary Clinton. The fact that the number of Republicans, Conservatives and Bush Administration members included in the Worst Person in the World spot overwhelms the number of Democrats and Iraq war opponents included, may reflect bias but it does not reflect the extent of the bias involved. Bias is best determined through quotes: 1. Anne Coulter (Conservative, Pro-War Activist, Republican, Bush supporter); When awarding Coulter the Worst Person in the World Award just last week, for having called John Edwards feminine, Olberman said: “Calling John Edwards that name, I mean, Annie, just because you’re more mannish looking, hell, you’re more mannish looking than every man on the planet” (Olberman, 2007, “Ann Coulter”). What should be emphasised about this quote is that it descends into personal and subjective attacks; it is not an objective and critical response to Coulter’s statements, or her political position but, an attack upon her own person. In so doing, Olberman does not just reveal his own personal bias but, seems to suggest that Coulter’s remarks are not worthy of any thinking person’s response. 2. Tom DeLay (former majority house leader, republican, pro-war, Bush supporter): When awarding DeLay the Worst Persin in the World Award, Olbermann, said: `DeLay told a small audience at a community college on Long Island New York, “I don’t think waterboarding is torture... My definition of torture is you physically harm someone by cutting them, by cutting their fingers, and sticking things in their eyes, sticking their fingers in electric sockets.  Waterboard is a frightening experience, but the person does not have any physical damage.’  Well, there it is, he is the bug killer after all”  (Olberman, 2006, “DeLay”). Again, and as the case with Coulter, Olberman descends into personal attacks; he does not respond to what DeLay said but, rather, goes beyond ht to present DeLay as a `bug-killer,’ for having said what he said. The suggestion here is that DeLay is not worthy of an intellectual and reasoned response. An analysis therefore of his Worst person in the World spot, reveals the following: Winner are invariably Republicans, members of te Bush Administration, members of the Bush family, Bush Administration supporters, pro-Iraq war activist and neoconservatives. Olberman reengages in such personal attacks as which portray the person in question as unthinking, unfeeling and unworthy of being taken seriously. Indeed, he portrays them as jokes. Olberman is uncompromisingly and consistently anti-Administration Special Commentary At the closure of his shows, Olberman quite often makes a Special Commentary. These commentaries, very well-thought out and effective, are invariably directed against members of the Bush administration and/or their policies. Rarely, if ever, was a commentary directed against a Democrat, unless that Democrat favored the War In Iraq. 1. In reaction to he Military Commission Act, Olberman said of the Bush Administration, “a government more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it seeks to protect us from” (Olberman, 2006, `Beginning of the End of America.”). Without being qualified, or the claim it makes fully supported, Olberman’s remark emerges as unadulterated bias. 2. In one of his numerous Special commentaries on Bush, Olberman asked the following questions: “Is the conviction of Saddam Hussein the reason you went to war in Iraq? Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist? Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida that did not exist? Or did you go to war in Iraq to break the bonds of tyranny there, while installing the mechanisms of tyranny here? Or did you go to war in Iraq because you felt the need to wreak vengeance against somebody, anybody? Or did you go to war in Iraq to contain a rogue state which, months earlier, your own administration had declared had been fully contained by sanctions? Or did you go to war in Iraq to keep gas prices down?” (Olberman, 2006, “Where are the Checks”). Few can argue that these questions are unreasonable or that all Americans, not just Olberman, have a very valid reason to ask them. The way, however, they are said – the manner in which these questions are strung together, one after the other, is intended to provoke antagonism towards the President who “lied,” the President who sacrificed American live for nothing other than oil. Bias is further established by the fact that he allows for no concession, no acknowledgement of the possibility that Bush ma have acted out of national security interests. Following the analysis of Keith Olberman’s Special Commentary, the findings arrived at so far are: Keith Olberman is uncompromisingly opposed to Bush, his Administration and policies and is completely unwilling to concede to any positive effects/consequences their policies may have had; Keith Olberman portrays Bush, not simply as a liar but, worse, an unthinking liar; Bush and members of his Administration ultimately emerge as men and women who have led the country to war to serve their own nefarious purposes and, more so, to profit (oil). Fox Focus: Sean Hannity Position: Pro-Administration Sean Hannity is a Conservative, pro-Bush, pro Iraq war Fox news caster. He has been awarded the Worst Person in the World title by Olberman numerous times. Hannity’s weekday commentary, “The State of America,” indicates not only a pro-Administration stance but a deep-set adversity to Democrats and Liberals, compounded with a refusal to admit that they Bush Administration could ever be wrong and the Democrats and Liberals ever right. Examples and quotes from his “The State of America,” amply evidences this: 1. In reaction to the recent scandal over the firing of U.S. Attorneys, Hannity first claims that the scandal is completely fabricated by Liberals consequent to the fact that they can find nothing of value to criticise the Administration over and then, quite ironically, he concedes to the factual nature of the scandal. As he says: David Iglesias “was replaced because there was someone else that the administration wanted to give that job. None of that was illegal, but you wouldnt know it listening to the liberal virile this week. Their hatred of all things George Bush runs so deep that they even have to manufacturer scandals where there arent any” (Hannity, 2007, “Sean’s State of America.”). There is something so blatantly self-contradictory in this quote so as to give the impression of unmitigated bias. On the one hand, he admits that Attorney Generals were fired, not because they performed badly n the job but because the Administration wanted to replace them with their own people. On the other hand, however, and without offering any explanations or justifications, he insists that there is nothing wrong with their doing so and, subsequently accuses the Liberals of lying for saying precisely he same thing (Attorney Generals were replaced in favour of others), but critically. 2. In reaction to the criticisms which Ann Coulter generated from among the Democrats and Liberals, Hannity insists that this is just another example of liberal bias and their determination to misrepresent the Conservative stance, even if it includes fabrication (Hannity, “Vicious Double Standards,” 2007). The point here is that Hannity does not tell his audience precisely what it is that Coulter said nor does he attempts the rational defence of her statement. Indeed, he completely leaves her comments out but, nevertheless, attacks liberals for criticising her. There is no logic to this and, in fact, it is expressive of a mindset which is thoroughly anti-Liberal and pro-Conservative. It is, in other words, expressive of a prejudiced and biased mindset. Findings On the basis of a review of Hannity’s webpage and articles on Fox.com, two of which were held as examples in the preceding, one can confirm the extent of his bias. 1. Completely supportive of the war on Iraq and maintains belief in Weapons of mass Destruction and Liberation/Freedom justifications of the war 2. Believes that the united States is winning the war 3. Completely opposed to any and all liberals and Democrats. 4. Intolerant of criticisms against the war, the Bush Administration or any conservatives. Hannity is, in a word, utterly biased in favour of the war, Conservatives, Bush and the Bush Administration. Conclusion Indeed, both Hannity and Olberman occupying completely opposite ends of the political spectrum and in their inability to see the middle position, ultimately loose rationality. In other words, their criticisms are often not rational responses to facts on the ground but well-designed in order to provoke either pro-Bush or anti-Bush sentiments, References Olbermann, K. (2006, Oct 16). World’s worst; A five-way tie. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15252736/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Oct. 19). Beginning of the end of America. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17483030/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Nov 3). Worst person in the world: Tom DeLay. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15545559/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Nov. 7). Where are the checks and balances? MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/ Olbermann, K. (2007, March 7). Worst person in the world: Ann Coulter. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17483030/ Olbermann, K. (2007, Jan. 3). Worst person in the world: Pat Robertson. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16469531/ Hannity, S. (2007, March 20) Sean’s state of America. Fox News State of America. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259978,00.html Hannity, S. (2007, March 12) Viscous double standards. Fox News State of America. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258334,00.html Hannity, S. (2007, March 5) The state of America is one viscous double standards. Fox News State of America. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256625,00.html Read More