Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Huh? Olbermann Thanks Loesch

Just when I thought I'd seen it all (at about the 2:19 mark):

I guess the following is what he was referring to. On Anderson Cooper 360, with Randi Kaye filling in for Cooper:
KAYE: And, Dana, we know you don't see eye to eye with Keith on many things, so it may come as a surprise to people that you actually don't agree with the decision to suspend him.

LOESCH: Well, I think as -- honestly, I'm trying to figure out what all the drama's about. For anyone to be surprised that Keith Olbermann would donate to -- to congressional Democratic campaigns is -- if you're shocked, I have a bridge to sell you.

And, plus, GE owns NBC, and I know that they contribute to organizations and causes and campaigns and all of that nature. But, at the same time, to me, I kind of side with Paul on this, in that this seems to be a rule that a private business had, and, if anything, it would be insubordination, if that.

I think the thing that -- I don't know -- I don't really understand why anyone's shocked over this, unless they think it's a credibility thing. But I don't look at Keith Olbermann as a news anchor. I look at him as sort of an editorial-like figure. And, so, I think, because of that, I don't understand the drama. I just don't see the need for it.
I suppose it's a good thing that Loesch's first instinct was to defend Olbermann from censorship. But then her inner opportunist kicked in and told her it'd be better for her career to attack Olbermann. Just like when she decided it'd be better for her career to blame the woman who was stomped on by a Rand Paul supporter and demand that she apologize. Here's what Loesch's inner opportunist had to say about Olbermann:
Those attacking Olbermann do so for two reasons:

1. He’s a hypocrite. Maddow notes this but then tries to come out with a long list of people she claims have done the same thing – but no, they haven’t, because they haven’t been critical of the practice like Olbermann who once famously stated:

“I don’t vote,” Olbermann said, saying it is the only thing he can do to suggest journalistic objectivity. “It’s a symbolic gesture.”
There is no analogy to make to lessen the criticism of Olbermann’s insubordination because he hung himself with a failed Alinsky tactic (Doing Alinsky Wrong 101), that is, the standard he presumed others held and thus used as a weapon against opponents. The problem is that weapon becomes a weapon against self when the target doesn’t assign to it equal value.
He tarnished his (theirs) credibility. This criticism only works on the left because these are the only people who truly believe that Olbermann actually had credibility with which to begin. They honestly think that his donations were worse than his televised bias on any given night of the week – or the election coverage they giggled through like freshman swigging Zima at a frat party. That Maddow thought her announcement “Yes Keith’s a liberal and so am I” was news shows that she apparently has no idea how she is perceived.
If Maddow doesn’t have a conservative bogeyman for her show how will she ever be able to attract ratings on one of the most ridiculed networks ever? Perhaps this is why she refuses to place blame where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of one Keith Olbermann for not following workplace rules.
Loesch seemed shocked by the thanks (as she should be), and tweeted the following:

But actually, Olbermann didn't call her that; he just referred to the Breitbart sites pushing the Gladney story:

In fact, he didn't even know who she was:

Well, let's hope Loesch enjoys the media ride while she can. Getting thanked when she eventually attacked Olbermann and agreed with his suspension? Pretty bizarre.


  1. I'm glad you caught the Alinsky part. And the twitter deception on her part. She'll lie about anything to make herself look good, won't she?