"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"

Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?

The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.

First of all, eff Tony Baloney.

Secondly, I LOVE how much the last segué sounds just like all the fake segués used in The Onion's Today Now videos.

"Stay with us because up next we'll be telling you how to keep your risky teens from having sex by spreading nasty rumors about them."
"Still ahead here: Fox News reveals that #OCCUPY is being run by Acorn, even though last month Fox News revealed that Acorn doesn't exist any more."
"Coming up we'll show you how to previve cancer by removing your organs now!"

Reality imitating art, surely. Well done, Mr. Olbermann.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Funny how this is so much more effective than the over blown theatrics of his "worst person" segments.
Olbermann really wants to be Murrow's spiritual successor, and just occasionally, he could be.
Well done, sir.

"Worst person" is usually semi tongue-in-cheek, and meant to be used for situations where the person has merely said something unconscionable.
Special Comments are for when people have committed some sort of real injustice in both word and deed.
For the former he tends to be humorous and sometimes uses salty language. For the latter he keeps it serious and clean, but really unleashes the righteous fury.


fair point.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Funny how this is so much more effective than the over blown theatrics of his "worst person" segments.
Olbermann really wants to be Murrow's spiritual successor, and just occasionally, he could be.
Well done, sir.


"Worst person" is usually semi tongue-in-cheek, and meant to be used for situations where the person has merely said something unconscionable.

Special Comments are for when people have committed some sort of real injustice in both word and deed.

For the former he tends to be humorous and sometimes uses salty language. For the latter he keeps it serious and clean, but really unleashes the righteous fury.

Funny how this is so much more effective than the over blown theatrics of his "worst person" segments.
Olbermann really wants to be Murrow's spiritual successor, and just occasionally, he could be.

Well done, sir.

>> ^bareboards2:

Man, a simple upvote is not enough for this comment.
Two upvotes. Four. A dozen.
>> ^Phreezdryd:
Corporate media, and their well paid "reporters" should be shot.
Breaking News:
Mother away from her kids for more than five minutes, and probably shacking up with fellow protestors! Shame shame, everybody knows your name!
Meanwhile the wealthy hire people to look after their kids, and who knows how much time they actually spend with them.


You're too kind. I just can't get over how they've zeroed in on this one person and gotten super petty about it. And as Olbermann mentions in another video, the usual right wing suspects are trying a number of discrediting tactics, all lame of course.

i saw the pinheads and patriots book burning on reddit. I immediately thought: Olbermann would love this!

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Boise_Lib. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

I thought I'd seen this, but couldn't find it. Sorry joedirt.
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermann-Reads-the-Occupy-Wall-Streets-Special-Comment

Pretty much a dupe of this: http://videosift.com/video/Olbermann-Reads-the-Occupy-Wall-Streets-Special-Comment

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

>> ^ghark:

Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.

I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.

Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?

Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?

Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?

I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.

Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.

As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"

Look, I get that Olbermann is annoyed and that he wants to counter fox news, but for christs sake, try and act like a professional.

The cheap theatrics and name calling are the domain of fox.

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

>> ^NetRunner:

Proper title: Keith Olbermann calls Glenn Beck an ASSHOLE!


Gets my upvote

Your video, Olbermann Reads Occupy Wall Street's Special Comment, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.