Everyone Loves Keith Olbermann—Except Me
|
Posted by Guest Blogger February 26th, 2007 |
By Guest Blogger Sandi Burtseva
I got hooked on Keith Olbermann after coming upon a clip of his in October 2005. He was using Michael Chertoff’s slip of the tongue Chertoff had called Louisiana a city as a jumping-off point for a magnificently righteous tirade about the Bush administration’s mishandling of Katrina. “…The current administration,” he said, “did not merely damage itself it damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever is in the White House.” By the end of it, my respect for this man was cemented.
Well, no longer. Regardless of how astute his political criticism is, I am no longer willing to tolerate Keith Olbermann’s misogyny. Olbermann has a nasty habit of making sexist, derogatory statements about female celebrities. The things he’s said are shameful and should never have been uttered, let alone on television. While he is certainly not alone in his reprehensible treatment of women, Olbermann is widely admired by progressives; unlike other trashy gossip commentators, he must be held to progressive standards.
In case you missed it, Olbermanntook some heat back in October, 2006 for some choice remarks about Paris Hilton. Now, I’m lost as to what would motivate anyone to pay any attention to Hilton or her affairs, but then I’ve always been alienated by “celeb” culture. What I do know is that there is no sliding scale of how sexist you can be based on your feelings about a particular woman, celebrity or not: Quoth Olbermann, of Hilton, ” … she’s had worse things happen to her face” than being punched in it.
If that’s not enough for you, note the caption Olbermann devised to go with his report: “A Slut and Battery.”
Bloggers pointed out that he kept this on the screen for 20 seconds of a 32-second clip, but I don’t see the relevance. Even if he’d only thrown it up long enough to read, this caption (coupled with the vitriol he spewed) tells us everything we need to know about Olbermann’s attitude toward women:
- He thinks it is acceptable to judge women for their sexual choices.
- He thinks women who make particular sexual choices are to be taken less seriously when they claim to have been assaulted.
- He thinks it’s amusing to, um “cleverly” invert a phrase often associated with domestic violence and use it to belittle women.
My former admiration notwithstanding, I dismissed Olbermann then and there, but it seems many others have been willing to give him a second chance. It is my unfortunate duty to note that Olbermann persists in his misogyny.
On Monday, Olbermann devoted some airtime to that most important of world events: Britney Spears’ hairstyle choice. (Story number two, for anyone keeping track, was a similarly distasteful, if slightly more reserved, bashing of the late Anna Nicole Smith. He began his coverage by calling Spears a “pop tart and went on to opine that “… the question now turns to what was she thinking, if not what was she on…”
In the eyes of Olbermann and his ilk, Spears made two mistakes: She dared to be overtly sexual and she dared to shed one of the defining markers of her femininity. I neither know nor care how much sex Spears has and with whom, or why she shaved her head, but I have this radical proposition: In spite of the fact that she’s made sexy music videos, Spears’ body is her own and should not be subjected to Olbermann’s disgusting views.
Olbermann went further. He invited Michael Musto, the smarmy Village Voice columnist for, I suppose, expert testimony. (Pause for a moment to consider this scenario: The man who has been called the Edward R. Murrow of our time has a gossip columnist on his show to discuss a pop singer’s hairstyle.) Among many other hateful comments that Musto and Olbermann smugly batted back and forth was this gem:
OLBERMANN The hair dresser, Miss Tognozzi, also asked if Britney Spears appeared to be under the influence. She said no, but she did use the word trance to describe her. A trance.
MUSTO: No, she actually said the tramp dropped her pants, and it got reported as trance, but it works anyway.
Olbermann elected not to take issue with the crude commentary of his guest. I’m not shocked.
Finally, we turn to TheNewsHole, the official blog of Olbermann’s show, Countdown. The blog is said to be authored by “the cast and crew” of Countdown, but this doesn’t mean Olbermann isn’t responsible for its content. The blog, of course, has an entry about Spears’ shaved head, because how could it not? An excerpt:
“A bystander says Britney told reporters she did it because ’she didn’t want people touching her anymore.’
“You’re getting there, sweetheart.”
Twisting a woman’s stated desire to exert agency over her own body into an implicit swipe at her appearance is an old and common patriarchal trope, never so disgusting as when it is garnished with the ubiquitous, belittling “sweetheart.”
So, to Keith Olbermann who will be sternly moralizing into the camera for at least another four years, I have this to say:
There is no excuse for how irresponsibly you are using your position of influence. The fact that you are a petty, disrespectful misogynist discredits you. You are not a progressive and you never will be, unless you drastically alter your attitude toward women. All of the brutally honest political criticism in the world does not make up for the shallow, sexist tripe you use to boost ratings. You, sir, are no Edward R. Murrow.
Guest blogger Sandi Burtseva is an editorial contractor at TomPaine.com and director of communications for The Carefree Foundation. She has held editorial positions on several scholastic literary magazines, internships at the Smithsonian Institution and the Grosvenor Literary Agency. She recently earned a bachelor’s degree in English and art history at the University of Maryland, College Park. This post originally appeared on TomPaine, and is reprinted by permission of the author.
February 26th, 2007 16:57
I hope you sent a copy of this to Olbermann. I’ve admired him in regards to his taking Bush to task on the Iraq war, but now that I know about his extreme sexism it’s KEITH NO MORE for me, as well.
February 27th, 2007 06:44
I have been watching Keith since his Lewinski days and have always been a fan….but my admiration was always tempered by exactly what you describe in this article. This nasty streak of his is nothing new and I doubt if it will go away. It is coupled with an ego so large it boggles the mind. He once wrote a blog entry wherein he described how he keeps tapes of every moment he has ever been on television (this fact was not the point of the blog entry, but it points to an aspect of his character that one can clearly see during any of the moments which he records).
February 28th, 2007 10:43
Thanks for this great - and saddening - post. Like many, I’ve been a fan of Olbermann’s and am recognizing his misogyny now that you’ve pointed it out. I think the issue is larger that Olbermann - though certainly he needs to be held accountable for what he says - and that is that women’s rights and a very basic respect for women is still seen as “separate” from every other human right and injustice. As throughout history, many so-called progressives force women into having to choose between articulating “larger” (namely patriarchal) concerns in OPPOSITION to concerns that impact women most directly.
And finally, Olbermann is widely admired for “saying what everyone is thinking but afraid to say” - which just points to how deep-rooted misogyny is. But wait, we already knew that.
February 28th, 2007 10:44
Thanks for taking a stand on Olbermann.
I have become so used to misogyny in the MSM that I had stopped hearing it from him, perhaps because I am so relieved that someone is talking back to the Bush administration on a major station. I’ve always thought Olbermann was full of himself, with the “good night and good luck” sign-off suggesting where he thinks he fits in the history of journalism. Randi Rhodes of Air America once mentioned that he had a problem with women though she admires his work otherwise.
Another case is Bill Maher. On the one hand, he clearly admires the female guests he has (sometimes one, sometimes none on a panel of 3). On the other hand, his monologues and “new rules” are full of sexist (and homophobic) put-downs.
Humor and good political commentary are so important to the national conversation, but why can’t it be done without being stupid about women?
March 1st, 2007 11:19
Maybe there’s one other take, or at least one other consideration; Olbermann makes it very clear that he doesn’t want to cover tabloid “news” & thus he does it with a certain acidity that belittles its newsworthiness. And some of what he’s forced to cover isn’t news at all. Newsy, maybe, but not NEWS.
March 9th, 2007 05:25
I am with Sarah. I couldn’t disagree with the rest of you more about Keith’s supposed “misogyny.” From what I have seen of him, he has long been a respecter and defender of women and women’s rights, from way back in his ESPN days. And when he has ridiculed celebrities, the men have always had equal time with the women. If you don’t realize that, you obviously haven’t seen him go after Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise or Kevin Federline, and that’s just to name a few.
The militant nature of some of the other comments here also suggests that the individuals posting them have some kind of agenda–i.e., convincing others that Keith Olbermann hates women, is full of himself, etc. The vitriol is just too bitter to believe otherwise. The “I used to watch him, but I don’t anymore” is very much spurned-lover rhetoric, and I can’t help but wonder why it is so strong.
March 26th, 2007 00:16
Olbermann gave yet another “Worst Person” award the other night to the downright IMBECELIC Glenn Beck for constantly verbally beating up on Rosie O’Donnell on his radio show (calling her a “Fat Witch”). Misogynist? I think not. (Please…go easy on Rosie. I’m a fan who defends her vigorously–despite her mocking Asians a few months ago–hopefully she’s learning from that experience. Feminists can make mistakes, too.)
How about a piece on this blog about Beck and why he should be barred from the airwaves? He’s the worst of them all next to O’Reilly, Hannity, and Michael Savage. Beck’s asking an US magazine reporter out on a date right on the air of his CNN show was a BONAFIDE LOW for journalism, and a news channel I quit watching cold turkey the second Beck’s face appeared on it. Never mind that she was a tabloid reporter. That’s asking for a lawsuit without any question. She was on the job and that kind of conduct is a violation of the journalism ethics that I am familiar with.
March 26th, 2007 00:34
Another thing.
What’s with the defenses of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in these blogs?? Sure, they’re women and they are people, but they are clueless of any feminist theories…let alone feminist behaviors…whatsoever. Until they express themselves in ways which are truely feminist (and not for just showing-off to score points satisfying publicists and corporate sponsors) they should be dismissed as part of our movement. I’m sorry, but there is way too much stupidity in our society and culture. It’s time for intelligent, learned people to take it back emphasizing creative intelligence. (There is a clear-cut correllation with regard to the declining of funding for education and the “dumbing down” of our culture in-general).
Please…more pieces criticizing these kinds of women (who are portrayed in our media 24/7) instead of defenses of them because they are merely women. Thank you.
March 26th, 2007 01:11
riotwoman, thanks for the heads up about olbermann’s worst person nod to beck - beck is an abysmal hack, and i’ve been collecting video and audio clips of his disparaging and factually inaccurate, not to mention biogted, comments about women amd people of color for a while now.
as for Sandi’s comments about Olbermann’s misogyny, just because he defends one woman from attack, doesn’t mean he can have free reign to bash others based solely on gender-stereotypes and discussions about controlling women’s sexuality, appearance and basis freedom of motion. he doesn’t get a free pass. saying he should be held to task for his crass-at-best language is not the same as defending or claiming Spears or Lohan or Hilton as feminists. i don’t think anyone, Sandi or anyone else on this blog, would consider those women feminists, or part of any movement. but regardless of their inanity, they don’t deserve to be attacked based on their gender. Sandi’s post wasn’t about defending these women, it was about holding Olbermann accountable.
December 15th, 2007 05:41
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
November 5th, 2008 16:12
I like people notice all the details and minutiae of everyday little thing could find something attractive and imperceptible to most. Super!
August 6th, 2009 16:26
Good information to me.
September 19th, 2009 14:35
Stunning blog and good article. High 5 for u man !