Bill Moyers speaks with Keith Olbermann, part 2
By scarce Friday Dec 14, 2007 6:47pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Continuing Bill Moyers' interview last night with host of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann about the relationships between politics and journalism, fielding questions from Moyers' own staff on how Olbermann perceives his particular style of journalism.
It is-- it becomes a nation of screechers. It's never a good thing. But emergency rules do apply. I would like nothing better than to go back and do maybe a sportscast every night. But I think the stuff that I'm talking about is so obvious and will be viewed in such terms of certainty by history that this era will be looked at the way we look now at the-- at the presidents and the-- the leaders of this country who rolled back reconstruction // I think it's that obvious. And I think only under those circumstances would I go this far out on a limb and be this vociferous about it.
Transcripts below the fold; The entire interview up at YouTube
BILL MOYERS: Quote, "I have long had mixed feelings about Keith Olbermann. While it's nice to have a cable anchor how doesn't obsequiously parrot Republican National Committee talking points, I struggle with the fear that angry histrionics on both sides create more of the ugly polarization that paralyzes our institutions and prevents Americans finding common ground. How does Mr. Olbermann differentiate his ad hominem attacks from those we see on the other side?" What do you say to Jesse?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Well, they're better written. The first-- no, I hate to-- I-- it's the most vulnerable point because it bothers me, too. It do-- it's the one criticism that I think is absolutely fair. We're doing the same thing. It is-- it becomes a nation of screechers. It's never a good thing. But emergency rules do apply. I would like nothing better than to go back and do maybe a sportscast every night. But I think the stuff that I'm talking about is so obvious and will be viewed in such terms of certainty by history that this era will be looked at the way we look now at the-- at the presidents and the-- the leaders of this country who rolled back reconstruction // I think it's that obvious. And I think only under those circumstances would I go this far out on a limb and be this vociferous about it.
BILL MOYERS: Another question from Gloria. "Yesterday I was scanning some of Mr. Olbermann's clips and I found one especially striking. He was calling Bush a war profiteer, more concerned about the profits of the defense industry than the lives of the soldiers. Right after he was done speaking, an ad came up for Boeing. Does Mr. Olbermann feel his credibility is at all undermined by the fact that his network is financed by some of the very industries he decries in his commentary?"
KEITH OLBERMANN: Yeah. If we're going to try to go corporation-free in any regard, I'm afraid everybody watching would just be prepared for that, you know that old test pattern with the Native American head appearing in the middle of it. 'Cause we're all, to some degree, involved in it. It's a nation of corporations, whether we like it or not. As I said earlier, the fortunate part about broadcasting is if I'm making them money, it doesn't make a difference to them and I'm on the air, how I'm doing it. And to be fair, many of these people on an individual basis have consciences that cannot be expressed in a corporate sense. Many of the people for whom I work-- say, "You are saying things that I cannot say." So I get support in a different way entirely from my bosses.
BILL MOYERS: Follow-up from Reniqua. And this could be to me, too. "You're a middle-aged white man who works for GE. What's so different from you sitting at the news desk than Walter Cronkite 40 years ago? Why should people listen to you?"
KEITH OLBERMANN: I can't personally do anything about my-- about my racial background. I'm not going to wake up tomorrow anything other than what I am. I just-- I'm just taken, though, by the Cronkite analogy because, of course, it was Cronkite who did exactly what we're talking about in a very focused way--
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, when he--
KEITH OLBERMANN: --on Vietnam.
BILL MOYERS: --when he came back from Vietnam and said-- the war has been lost. And Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
KEITH OLBERMANN: But the point being that there was-- there were emergency circumstances that he saw, too.
BILL MOYERS: Emergency?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: You keep using that word. Are we in an emergency?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Well, we're being-- what-- here-- this is one thing with which I agree with George Bush. We're in an emergency. He and I could just sit there-- we just talked about what an emergency we were in and never went into details, we'd have a great time.
BILL MOYERS: What is it, as you see it?
KEITH OLBERMANN: Well, it is the question of the future of the nation. It's one of those pivotal times in our history. And I don't know that necessarily everybody sees it in those terms because it is, once again, an opportunity not merely for any external threat but for internal threat. Governments exist based on power that is taken from people. It is-- they are necessary. I'm not an anarchist. I believe in government. But there is-- there's no-- no possible interpretation other than to say that this administration and the Republican Party, to some degree the Democratic Party, have taken advantage of fear, of the unprecedented, nearly unprecedented attack that we saw in 2001, to expand their powers on the premise always of security, which is, you know, the famous Franklin, Jefferson warning about that is it's never been more applicable. So it is, yeah, it is emergency circumstances as Walter Cronkite saw it. I mean, here-- objective Uncle Walter, most trusted man in America. When I have an opinion on the most important political issue of the day, I'm gonna sink a president and maybe throw the election to the other guy right now. And he said, well, you know, the chips have to fall in this direction because people are dying and our country is, to some degree, wounded and bleeding. And our country is wounded and bleeding now if we don't know whether or not habeas corpus exists.
Login or Register to post comments.
I enjoy Keith, but I thought the question about how is he different from O'Reilly was spot-on, and I think his answer was a bit lame, sad to say.
Keith can't do anything for people who don't have big financial cushions. Or whats soon to be left of the so called middle class barring a miracle.
Keith Olbermann is the only talking head on cable television with a brain. Nobody on FAUXNOIZ can hold a candle to him. Reality and truth always trumps lies.
Personally, I think Keith could bring it back down a couple of notches. His constant sarchasm (jesus I'm a crappy speller) reminds me of the hyperbolic screeching of the right wing. It's as if his volumn knob got stuck after one of those special comments about Bush. (god knows we needed them) but, as a professional musician, and a closet speech writer, (speach? oh, hell) I can't help but be turned off by the monotonal approach to his newscasts, of late.
I thought we were the voice of reason, not the bull-horns. (bullhorns?)
And, couldn't we have a little variety in the "worst person" segment. Just create a permenant display for Billo and let's have a look at the new breed. (maybe Tucker and Joe are a little too close to home, but they're certainly no less deserving.)
But, I admit, there's absolutely nothing Keith could do or not do to get me to shut him off. As far as I'm concerned, he's the Vin Scully of my news world.
(Go Dogers. Joe Torre! Obama in '08)
kasinca @ 3:
I's all about economics. Keith even basically admits it.
But the standards are low anymore. Most younger people it seems would be perfectly happy and even thrilled if they had just a warm room or cave and internet access.
I don't see where high standards of achievement and our long term concerns are being promoted anymore.
It's all instant gratification. Cheap thrills, sensationalism, celebrities, and hype.
One big difference between Keith and O'Really is that Keith tells the truth, and tho angry, is sane. BOR is or acts insane, and would run screaming from even a small truth.
If i could make one person on the planet 21 years old again without removing his experience or wisdom it would be Bill Moyers.
L.A. Confidential @ 5:
The best quote on the "economics" of "instant gratification" I've ever heard was from playwright David Mamet:
“We live in oppressive times. We have, as a nation, become our own thought police; but instead of calling the process by which we limit our expression of dissent and wonder "censorship," we call it "concern for commercial viability."
Honest and smart answers to tough questions. Can you imagine O'Reilly in this situation?
Keith Olbermann has class.
I thought we were the voice of reason, not the bull-horns...
That's all well and nice.
But when someone is kicking you in the nuts repeatedly, the time for civility is over.
coleshack @ 9:
O'Rielly extricates himself from tough questions as he did when he walked out on Terry Gross.
Olbermann believes that he has gone "this far out on a limb and be this vociferous about it." It is a sad commentary upon the state of affairs in this country when a person who is paid to be in the public eye believes that he is committing a radical act, i.e. by going "out on a limb", by simply criticizing the government. Olbermann of all people should realize that a document called the U.S. Constitution allows him to say these things, just as it allows me to wear a shirt which calls for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. If Olbermann lived in a place like Syria or Egypt or North Korea or Red China, then his point would be valid. The hope is that he is not allowing himself to believe what his nemesis O'Reilly keeps inferring, that anyone who questions the government is then considered to be unamerican or unpatriotic. One wonders what Olbermann thinks of Democracy Now!, the program that realizes that dissent should be considered the highest form of patriotism in this country. Olbermann would probably think that Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez are two very shrill individuals indeed [and thankfully so]. And Howard Zinn probably the most shrill of them all.
Moyer employee:
Ad Hominem attacks are when your argument itself is strictly "against the man", without any other substance. An argument whose core is valid in attacking another person's position is NOT an Ad Hominem attack.
K.O. is one of the most disciplined people I have seen in this respect - one of the least likely to resort to nonsubstantive arguments.
Otay @ 13:
An exception would be when he attacked Hugo Chavez with an off target crack accusing him of pissing all over Venezuela-with a smirk on his face.
Countdown’s Worst Persons: Newsmax, Hugo & Fawning Fran
Keith Olberman's Jaundiced Rant: Trashing Chavez
#14-Miss Kitty
Good rebuttal.
Meanwhile the graft and corruption continues
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-13-Iraqcontract_N.htm
Erroll @ 15:
No. Not so "good". If trying to change your constitution so you can be re-elected forever (Presidente for Life) isn't "pissing on your laws and citizens", then what is? Chavez ain't all bad but that one, he deserved.
Of course there are exceptions.
Which is why I stated "one of the least likely".
But for anyone (like Underdog) to compare K.O. with Bill Orally (or many others in the MSM) since he has not had a perfect record in this regard is rather unfair.
You can also find Bill Moyers Journal as a podcast on I-Tunes.
I have been listening to Moyers on podcast since it showed up on I-Tunes and the way he conducts an interview with his guests is very professional.
He gives his guest plenty of time to make his or her point, and his questions get to the genesis of ideas and thought and the history of why this guest arrived at their opinion.
You will not find this type of journalism on Faux Noise. I would encourage any young person who is interested in being a Journalist or anyone who wishes to conduct a proper interview to watch Bill Moyers work his guests. He may not agree with that guest, but he will not go out of his way to ridicule or put down that guest, he will allow the guest the opportunity through their own words and thoughts to trip themselves.
BTW Mr. Olberman you give me reasons to continue to be hopeful about our nation........keep on doing what you do..............
Johnny2Bad @ 17:
Get it right. He wanted to ban term limits, not ban elections. 'Presidente for Life' implies 'No More Elections,' and is a US MSM term. Watch out-they slip the Kool-Aid in EVERYWHERE, and the best of us get tripped up by it.
And he wasn't refering to just that. It was obvious Keith has sipped the 'Hate Chavez' Kool-Aid himself.
So it was Good.
Otay @ 18:
You're right.
For the folks that think Olbermann is too far out on a limb or "screeching" in league with the rightwing wurlitzer, I can only say this: we have so few members of what passes as media today that face the camera and tell America the truth, that quibbling about how he relays his message strikes me as ignorant. This guy, in the face of the war crimes and the horror that's been wrought by these bastards, has taken a stand. He has a powerful vehicle to call out the wingnut machinery of Fox, et. al.. Olbermann is nothing less than a hero in my opinion. If we had a few more KO's we wouldn't have fallen so far to the gutter as a nation.
BTW Keith Olberman has a chin.........the Frank Burns of journalism has no chin............just sharing.........
Moyers and Olbermann.
Titans of real Journalism.
Jay @ 22:
Exactly. Well said.
Jay @ 22:
Jay
I am not sure if you are referring to me when you write that "For the folks that think that Olbermann is too far out on a limb...". If you read my comments at # 12, you will find that I am quoting Olbermann describing himself as supposedly being too far out on that limb by criticizing the Bush administration. As I tried to point out, criticizing the government should not be considered that radical an act in this country, considering that that right is given to everyone in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Erroll,
No, I was responding more to comments 1, 4, and the questions from Moyers staffers. It reminds me of how frequently over the last 6 or so years that I have turned off the TV in disgust. So many smart people still don't understand how dangerously close we are to the brink of fascism, they think it's the same old tit-for-tat game of political one-upsmanship, and that manners and etiquette still have meaning in the face of war criminals running the country. Meanwhile, America bleeds.
I am amazed every day that THE SAME CORPORATE parent can offer a broadcast "home" to political/journalism HACKS like Morning Joe and Tucker Carlson... then turn on the lights for Keith O.
COUNTDOWN is like a Crown Jewel mounted below two scuffed cubic zircons.
#27 " close to the Brink of fascism" ????hmmm, ...I hate to tell you we are Way Past The Brink...we are THERE...100,000's of citizens illegally spied on, and Blacklisted as potential " terra" suspects/contacts. ( yeah , right they must have rushed in after 911), No FLY Lists, being being denied the right to travel, Propaganda daily on our TV and in our papers,A Leader that says God told "him" what to do , and an illegal war and War Profiteering Companies ( Paid Mercernaries of the White House).....
Fired Justice Officials, White House deciding WHO and HOW people are to be tortured, ordering it taped, then destroying the War Crime Evidence,
Renditioning to Black prisons, and Gitmo....( does anyone really want to hear more or need to ?????).......
We are a Stone Throw away from Detainment Camps ( Concentration) Camps...but they are already built, Texas and Alaska....and Bush has Blackwater- Prince's "Boys" at the ready- Just like they were for NOLA....
And sadly it really has come down to a very small number of people saving this country- Bloggers, Internet Online Mags and Papers, and yes, KeithO, Bill Moyers..even John Stewart,Comedians and others...the TruthTellers are a very small Group of Patriots...fighting the Criminals in the WhiteHouse and DC....and Us.....the Midnight Bloggers....we are the Underground...the Resistance...
sorry...got carried away....
With all due respect to Moyers and Olbermann, I wish they'd stop talking about the "problem" and focus on the solutions: there are ways to enforce the law against the President and VP, outside Congerss outside impeachment.
It's a shame the legal community isn't contacting the MSM, and letting them know the options. What's worse: People like Turley have a solution, but keep whining like Moyers and Olbermann.
If it were possible, I would like to see this solution discussed; and there be a open discussion in the MSM: "What's the reason the AGs and legal community are not discussing prosecuting a sitting President or VP outside COngerss, outside impeachment? This should not require the "leadership" of the electorate; it should be something the "leadership" leads with. Indeed, they have a mandate, and took an aoth: To use all lawful options to fully defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.
Inaction in the wake of these options suggests the MSM and lawyers like Turley are less Patriots, but more of the "we're not sure whether we're supporters or not"-group. That's not cutting it. Please consider the link. Thank you.
Kieth is a good man.
enigma4ever @ 29:
Enigma, you got it right: BLoggers are making this happen. Could you consider this link and raise this with your friends as an option? It's a way of enforcing the law against the VP and President, without going through Congress or impeachment. (Not saying to avoid impeachment; just saying this option needs to be discussed, and implemented as long as Concgress refuses to defend the Constitution.)
Thank you for your support.
chorocardium @ 24:
Please contact their offices and encourage Oblermann and Moyers to discuss this option to defend the Constitution. Thank you.
Jay @ 22:
Jay, could you raise this solution as an option for you, your friends, and others to share with the MSM, Moyers, and Olbermann? Thank you. Please post the responses you get.
Otay @ 13:
Otay, it seems like you have the logical arguments down very well. Thank you. Could you do me a favor: consider this link and raise the option with your friends, MSM, Moyers, and Olbermann?
Thank you, and please share the reaction you get. Good luck.
It's not a question of whether Keith is increasing the "polarization." When someone is running over you with a bulldozer, you don't reach out to shake their hand. This is the lesson that the Democrats in Congress need to learn. We are not the ones who began this obscene hyperpartisanship--no compromise, childish obstructionism, opposition for oppositions' sake, eliminationist rhetoric--it was the Repub party. And though not afraid to express his anger, Keith does not lie, pander, treat his guests rudely, or otherwise display the lack of humanity that is evidenced by O'Reilly and his ilk. And you know what? He's getting viewers--lots of them. Obviously, many citizens of this country feel the same way he does. I'm damned if I can figure out what is wrong with a man calling a spade a spade on national television. I find it refreshing, which is, I'm sure, part of his appeal.
Erroll @ 12:
Erroll,
It sounds like some in the MSM are getting frustrated. Perhaps they need to consider this option as a means to raise the issue: If Congress will not do it, then the States have the power to defend the Constitution with direct prosecutions of the >o?sitting President and VP. Thank you for your support.
14All @ 36:
14All, I appreciate your hoping to "teach" the DNC in COngress a lesson. A way to do that is to show they are not relevant: There's an effort underway to organize the State AGs -- outside Congress, outside impeachment -- to prosecute the President and VP. The DNC has had their chance to collect evidence, but have refused. Please share with your friends this link to help get the word out: Time for We the People to direct the State AGs to organize themselves, start the investigations at the State level, and let's get this going outside Congress. Thank you for your support.
xoites defends Constitution @ 11:
Xoites, thank you for your diligence in defending the Constitution. Please consider this option, and let's get this going outside COngress: Direct prosecution of the VP and President outside impeachment, outside Congress. Time to stop waiting for COngress to get it. They aren't. They're run out of time. We can do this. Thanks.
...Just create a permenant display for Billo and let's have a look at the new breed... now.that's.a.great.idea...sorta.like.what.Wheel.of.fortune.did.with:r,s,t,l,n,e...
xoites defends Constitution @ 7:
...and Keith, his able apprentice.
...
Is there anything we haven't heard from Olberman at this point?
polarization is the beltway bumpkins favorite word for "let republicans get their way"
jr @ 43:
I concur.
...
I understand that people may be offended by his passion at times, and maybe I just happen to believe what Keith believes, but I think he's absolutely correct in saying that this country is in an emergency. A constitutional one. In the 60's the country was very polarized but at least there were people marching in the streets demonstrating. Today people are too jaded or are too inundated with toys and misinformation to be unified enough to rally. We need passionate voices from the left to speak what isn't being spoken about. I think if people understand the gravity of the situation this country is in, then Olberman's "rants" would seem less hysterical and more of a plea to see and hear what is plain and obvious if you use common sense.
where is part one?
i know the youtube url is supposed to show the whole interview, but here i've got the WMV file on part two and would like to see the part one article regardless.
i've looked through the tags and categories and such and just about conclude there isn't any part one article to be found.
so why call this part two without some explanation or disclaimer or something.... sheesh...
(& nobody else here is asking, so i feel as dumb as i must look.)
Graham @ 10:
A.
Freaking.
Men.
I like Keith's show, but I am also concerned about the theatrics and histrionic comments. Maybe Keith needs to wear that reporters hat that Steve Allen used to wear as the angry man in the street. Steve got his points across and did not take himself too seriously. Maybe that's why I like Keith, he looks like Steve Allen.
I agree with Keith that someone has to stand up and tell the truth against the cacophony of crap that has been going on for years. With the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., and their poison going 24/7, someone must speak up with truth and passion. Keith does that. Bushco depends on repeating crap over and over in hopes it becomes truth. So we have idiots in our country that still believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11. I recently was talking to someone about Iraq and she actually quoted that pithy pile of shit about "if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here". I was astonished that I was personally acquainted to someone so stupid and so influenced by a stupid neo-con commercial for war. Of course, I don't speak to that person about anything more complicated than weather anymore.
To Jesse and some of the commenters: please read history, especially the history of the founding of this nation and government. Those men, Jefferson, Adams, et al., would have been roundly denounced for their "screeching" - politics is not like an after-dinner party. It is rough, sometimes ugly, and above all passionate.
Sorry, I wanted to bring this over from the "Part 1" interview comments in hopes of getting some feedback:
Doug @ 50 said:
Doug, you fail to note that there is a current need to dispell with “objectivity”–constant lying coming from one side. To present “news” given this fact, it would be virtually impossible for citizens to discern the truth. It is the job of a journalist to sift through the BS presented by power structures and present us with reality. That in essence is what Keith does. You may disagree with his presentation, which is fine. I find his rants much too caustic and lengthy. I would keep them much shorter, 2 minutes tops, and ease up on the anger. The fact is though, NO ONE ELSE is doing this on MSM.
Your comment on extolling KO as pargagon of ethical journalism speaks much more to the state of MSM journalism (lack of) than it does Moyers.
Two Questions which I hope you will respond to Doug:
1. What do you think is the job of a journalist?
2. who would you consider a real, ethical journalist? (are there ANY on the Right? Who are they??? I have been looking, am I missing someone? seriously???)
To be fair, here are my tops, although Keith may not make my top 10 favorites, as an essayist, I think he can hold his own with this group.
1. Studs Terkel
2. John Pilger
3. Amy Goodman
4. Robert Fisk
5. Glenn Greenwald
6. Norman Solomon
7. Jonathan Schell
8. Christophper Hedges
9. Bill Moyers
10. Juan Cole
Notice, not one mainstreamer…!!!!
Now, imagine Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, or Glenn Greenwald hosting a daily 1 hour program on a network/newschannel
I have sometimes felt that Olbermann is over-the-top and I'm particularly not fond of the sarcasm. I think that this is reflection of the discomfort thinking people have with extremes. However, thoughtful, direct, polite and insightful commentary has been ineffective at countering the constant noise coming from the right. Let's be brutally honest; the vast majority of Americans are not looking for nuanced and reasonable discourse from which they can draw their own conclusions. They want to be told what to think and they respond to ad hominem appeals to their emotions to prove the statements--however outrageous--must be true. I wish this were not the case, but it is and it explains why Olbermann's ratings have been going up. From that standpoint, he is an effective counterbalance to the bloated right.
It's a sad state of American affairs when a media personality is considered almost hero worshipped because he dares to point out lies and corruption in the government of the day. What is worse, the fact that he is one of few media personalities doing this. Whatever happened to journalism? But, and it's a big one, constantly pointing this stuff out, with no solutions suggested by anybody even in the media, is like p*ssing into the wind and does indeed make the media personality either look nutty, or the American populace as a complete bunch of retards. Which would be considered the worst case scenario at this point in time?
Give $100 to Kucinich today: https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=aDlDFFT...
miss_kitty @ 20:
If banning term-limits is achieved by altering the constitution, then the example is valid and your refutation is not. That is what the poster stated, and that was what Chavez was doing. They also said re-elected. This implies that there is an electoral process, so not banning elections. The comment was clarified by the perceived intent of Chavez in doing so. Similar to your presumption that Olbermann was meaning more than just that issue. Both, or neither, of you may be right on that.
So, on balance, it was not good.
Chavez does many good things, but top-down systems don't work, whether they are "left" or "right". Different captains, same ship. It may change what's on the menu, but the destination remains the same.
OT
Regardless of political direction, your country is toast. By association - financially, ideologically, or simply because of being scared of you - most others are too, including mine. The sooner you tank the better for us all in the long run. I speak of the USA as an entity, not Americans as individuals. I've met some cool yanks, but I think that entity needs to be broken as a functioning power (I'm not implying by violence) before the rest of the world starts appreciating the millions of decent individuals you have. The by-product is pain for us all, but you get that.
Good luck.
Bill Moyers and Keith Olberman are two jounalists who give a damn about the America and its future and tell the truth. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert two people who give a damn about this country and have to point out its hypocrisy and lies on the comedy channel. Truth has been relegated to the comedy channel and very few journalists (two and moyers doesn't get much play in the mainstream) in mainstream media.
The country is in constitutional crisis. And the rest of Mainstream media is all bread and circuses and distraction from the truth.
Name not Earl @ 56:
Amen! Pray the strike ends soon.
television is dead.
Login or Register to post comments.