Glenn Greenwald, the Salon columnist, is usually scribbling down attacks on the GOP. But not always. Greenwald, who often gets trashed talked in pundit circles and at media parties, has a history of taking a break from Bush mudslinging to go on a tear against one media outlet or another.
Last year he did it to Time columnist Joe Klein ("For the sake of its own credibility, Time Magazine needs immediately to prohibit Joe Klein from uttering another word about the eavesdropping and FISA controversy."). He's also spit blood with Politico, criticizing its overly cozy relationship with the Drudge Report (perhaps because he covets it?) and effectively labeled it a "gossip rag masquerading as news organization." (Us too!)
To be sure, Greenwald's media crits are often based on his original premise: Playing nice with the right-wing makes you the devil. So anytime a media outlet violates this treatise, they're fair targets.
And so too, then, is Greenwald's latest victim: Keith Olbermann. The MSNBC host who was once a liberal hero is now — to Greenwald at least, though also to many others we've spoke with inside the industry — a double-talking liar. Worse: a centrist! And Greenwald has some pretty damning evidence.
Keith Olbermann, you might have noticed, has made quite the name for himself blasting George Bush while upholding left-y principles. One of those left-y principles used to be battling against the Bush White House's warrantless wiretapping and, later, the decision to grant telecom companies blanket immunity under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for working with the government to spy on suspected terrorists.
On Jan. 31, Olbermann so famously delivered that 10-minute "Special Comment," deriding Bush for, among other things, trying to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals": "There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco."
A one Barack Obama, currently the Democratic hope for president, but back in January still battling against Hillary Clinton for that honor, was on the same plane as Olbermann. That was then, when he was telling a crowd in South Carolina about FISA, "This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security he demands."
But this is now: "The issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security of the American people," Obama said Wednesday, indicating he would now support the Bush administration's immunity for the telecom industry.
Allies like Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut are pissed — they oppose the bill and thought they had Obama on their side.
So, too, perhaps, they thought Olbermann was on their side.
Remember what Olbermann said back in January, about how FISA was terrible and granting immunity was basically a violation of our Fourth Amendment? Compare that to Wednesday's Countdown, where he flip-flopped from lambasting the Bush administration for this type of measure to supporting Obama's own change of heart, and championing the candidate for "refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping" when he switched his view.
Yes, kids, refusing to cower even to the left. You remember the left, don't you? It's the same affiliation Olbermann once belonged to, calling bullshit on FISA.
What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama — rather than George Bush — supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.
Is that really what anyone wants — transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?
Update: Olbermann and Greenwald face off again. [FDL]
[Photo: Flickr]
Editorial Director
Well it's hardly a secret that Olbermann has been in the tank for Obama for the past year - he should be getting royalty checks. He's gone off the deep end - I used to recommend people to watch his show, now I'm embarassed I ever was able to sit thru his rants.
He truly is one of the biggest dicks on TV - fortunately for him, his is the only show that makes money on MSNBC so he's safe…….
As a long time fan and watcher of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, I agree that his stances are sometimes hypocritical, he is a one man campaigner for Obama. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I quit watching Keith and figured after the nomination was completed, I would start watching him again…but nothing has changed…he is still on his campaign rampages for Obama and I find much of his program unwatchable so I am kinda drifting away from him completely. He's becoming the Bill O'Reilley of MSNBC.
Keith Olbermann: the overdue New York State Tax Warrant, Chinese American Trading Company the buyers of his real estate, the corporation
Keith Olbermann: the address from 2001 of his, the parents of Katy Tur and the civil actions
http://www.webofdeception.com
I recently read an article on Olbermann who said he he used the words, "Shut up" to Bush because he couldn't say the words, "Shut the Fuck Up". These days all I want to do is scream "Shut the Fuck Up" at Keith. He's jumped the shark, took a dive off the cliff, any all the other cliches you could ever think of bunched together. How did he go from being so great to being so awful?
something is terribly amiss at MSNBC ; they just go from lame to lamer - yeah, Keith really does present as Obama's lackey/pimp + whatev B does is totally right on in Keith's books . …it is beyond credulity that suddenly Keith would be on-board w the facist FISA bill cuz B is . . ..talk about blind faith lol . . .however, for a true glimpse into the lameass network MSNBC has become for want of infotainment, Michael 'Shirkonish'the what's his face from Philly with the dazed, deer-in-the-headlights look with the "I can't believe I am here" subdued excitement seemingly because he was tapped to fill in last night for Abram's with those 3 'panellists', namely that O'Neil character who can't seem to take the smirk off his face what the fuck ever he is talking about, the blond, bimbo 'comedienne' from San Fran + the black dude 'comic' who so is not funny on whatever he comments on . . .truly 3rd rate local community channel production standard not to mention an insult to the collective intelligence whoever surfed by to witness that mess
"Greenwald, who often gets trashed talked in pundit circles and at media parties,"
So "pundits" and media talking heads really *are* dumber than a bag of hammers.
Um…when did "Glenn Greenwald" become a bad word?
His articles on Salon.com are essential daily reading. They are thoughtful, well-researched and spot on.
The fact that this line is uttered, "He's also spit blood with Politico, criticizing its overly cozy relationship with the Drudge Report (perhaps because he covets it?)" demonstrates that Jossip doesn't get Greenwald.
GG doesn't "covet" those relationships - you might want to read one or three of his books for confirmation.
That's the thing, avoidslwork: being right is but a technicality. Who cares about doing all of the research and the details and what's true or not - BORING!
It's all about the sizzle and the spin and BS, BS, BS. That's why "Glenn Greenwald" is a dirty word, becasue he isn't FOS and actually looks at the details behind all of the issues logically. Alot of people - on the left and right - can't stand that sort of thing.
I would like to emphatically second avoidswork's comments. Glenn Greenwald is hands down one of the best American columnists writing at this time. I check for a column every single day, and am disappointed when there isn't one. It is a damning indictment of the sad, sad state of affairs in today's media culture that Greenwald is a bad word.
#7 #8 #9 +1.
Righties are good at the ad hominem attacks and snide asides, and this commentary's no different. At least some of those leaving comments have their heads on straight. Let's see if 50.5% of the electorate does on 11/4. I'm not optimistic.
…Glenn Greenwald is hands down one of the best American columnists writing at this time…
Yup. I have various problems with Greenwald but I do think he's one of the best political writers around. He's more consistent than the old Hitchens, he does better research, and he's less self absorbed. He's not a great writer. Sometimes he over reaches. Once in a while, he attacks things in a lawyerly fashion and he loses the big picture. But, that said, no one I can think of, not even the breathtakingly prolific Scott Horton, covers as much important ground as Greenwald.
It's worth noting that his most serious spats have been with lefties. Sure, lots of right wing blogs hate Greenwald and try to, oh, fisk him and such but, with very few exceptions, their criticisms aren't even in Greenwald's ball park. I think what they don't get–and also what burns them up–is that Greenwald is, essentially, an old skool conservative. He's not much of a progressive and he's barely liberal. Of course, he's no supporter of Bush but when Obama takes office, Greenwald's going to go after him.
Oh, I had to laugh at this: "Greenwald, who often gets trashed talked in pundit circles and at media parties, has a history of taking a break from Bush mudslinging to go on a tear against one media outlet or another." Dude. Do you even read Greenwald? He's harshed on Obama, as well as most of the Dem Congress. And a good part of his shtick is that "pundit circles" and "media parties" don't make for good journalism.
"One of those left-y principles used to be battling against the Bush White House's warrantless wiretapping and, later, the decision to grant telecom companies blanket immunity under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for working with the government to spy on suspected terrorists."
At what point did it become widely accepted to label opposition to such skullduggery as a left-y principles?