Olbermann gave Rodgers "bronze" in "Worst Person" segment for likening Rice to S&M hostess
On the June 6 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann honored Lee Rodgers, co-host of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program, with the "bronze" in his "Worst Person in the World" segment for asserting on KSFO the previous night that, "in those spike-heeled boots of hers," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice " looks like the hostess at an S&M parlor," as Media Matters for America documented. On Countdown, Olbermann quoted Rodgers -- who, Olbermann said, is "best known as the flunky for the infamous San Francisco right-wing water carrier Melanie Morgan" -- and concluded, "[A] right-wing host is trashing a right-wing secretary of State."
From the June 6 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: First, time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for Worst Person in the World: the bronze to Lee Rodgers, best known as the flunky for the infamous San Francisco right-wing water carrier Melanie Morgan. You want to know who the far right is next throwing under the bus? Simply identify whom Mr. Rodgers was talking about when he said, quote, "the woman has morphed into Madeleine Halfbright, and in those spike-heeled boots of hers, she looks like the hostess at an S&M parlor."
Correct: Condoleezza Rice -- a right-wing host is trashing a right-wing secretary of State.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Rice must be wandering too far off the NeoClown War-For-Profit Reservation.
Rice has been actually using diplomacy lately, which is why now, she's free game for the right wing pundits to try and tear down. I mean, after all, how DARE she talk with Iran about nuclear proliferation. She should just call for a bombing of Tehran and be done with it. Jeesh.. Imagine, the top diplomat in the current administration actually doing her job? Unbelievable almost.
I didn't think this site covered smears against conservatives. I guess they are moving the goalposts again. Anyway, I thought that's why the Scarborough comment against Thompsons wife wasn't covered.
Olbey must have needed a plug.
Fair point, Bruce, but I think its up because it was made by a conservative radio host which makes it a "conservative" smear job even if its against another conservative. Its probably also the level of the smear too, but who knows.
There is also the pattern. MMFA loves the conservate media spin patterns. This one where women get held to a different standard is one of those. Something like this would never be said about a man. This what do they do in the bedroom speculation (other than fanning the flames of homophobia) would rightly be seen as beyond the pale if Bush were seen wearing a leather vest.
Well I think Scarborugh is now protected by many of the establishment, since he turned on Bush. I for one do not like him and find him not funny or not amusing.
Scarborough does go after O Reilly quite a bit and I like his politics better than KO's so I like his program better than most of the Cable talkers.
Well it is obvious why he goes after BO, because MSNBC I believe has a policy to attack FOX at all costs. That is there policy that is fine, it does not change the fact that Scarborugh when he started on MSNBC was one of the leading cheerleaders of this immoral war.
I should add that I don't watch any of the shows much at all. I get my highlights right here on this website and fill in the blanks from there.
I like your posts, Bruce... But, with all due respect, we hear a lot of complaining from the conservative-leaning posters on this site about MMFA's boundries, etc... and a purported set of rules that MMFA is supposed to abide by. Tommy is the founder of this pursuit - that is, nit-picking to catch MMFA in some sort of technicality. Does it really matter? I don't get it. This piece seems reasonable... in fact, adds credence to the notion that MMFA is more 'equal opportunity' than most give them credit for.
There's a first time for everything! ;-)
...and, I do agree about the somewhat 'shameless' Olbermann plug. That should be added to the by-laws...
#34d) MMFA shall promote Keith Olbermann -- whenever, whereever.
What can you do? :)
I am not sure this is a first time. MMFA has stood up in a couple of articles for Ron Paul of all people in his little spat with Julie-Annie.
If MMFA didn't welcome the "nit-picking" and the dissenting opinions they would say so, or ban all opposing voices. They have no problem with the scrutiny and they criticism given them by some.
Why do you?
I don't really... but, it borders on excessive at times (IMO)...at least on the slow-days. Nit-pick away, my friend. Always good for entertainment value :)
How about we make a deal? I will continue to "nitpick" if you continue to rubberstamp?
Come on! That's a low-blow. I'll keep an eye on that...try to lock down the rubber-stamping ;)
Fortunately, this site isn't like many, OK, make that ALL conservative sites where if you do actually post a coherent, and well reasoned argument supported by actual facts that goes against what they posted, you are immediately banned. At least here, it takes A LOT for some "seagulls" to get banned, and usually, it's not for well reasoned and thought out arguments.
Mag,
I would agree with you, this site is one of the best for intelligent and reasoned conversation. They don't allow profanity, etc. They do a very good job in keeping this site respectful......my hat has always been off to the folks here.
Mag, I've never tried to post on a conservative site but they lose a lot of credibility in my book by not accepting differing viewpoints. If ones viewpoint cannot withstand scrutiny, then it isn't a very valid viewpoint in my book. One should always have their ideas challenged by others and continue refining ones own opinions on issues. (IMO)!!
I agree fully, and a lot of times, I more than welcome listening to well reasoned viewpoints, or something backed with good information is definitely worth listening to. Is it going to change my mind on some certain things? Possibly, quite possibly. I've found myself having my mind changed by some arguments posted before on this, and other websites out there.
I have tried to post on conservative sites before, and tried to lay out a case that was well reasoned, and backed with information, and what happened shortly after I posted were a number of things.
1. I got called un-Patriotic for not supporting all out war on the entire middle east.
2. I got called a terrorist sympathizer because I posted something about trying to understand the underlying reasons of terrorism, because a lot of conservatives on this particular site seemed to think that terrorists were just un-thinking and non-intelligent animals. Which, is actually far from the truth.
3. And then the actual real name calling came. Lots of getting cussed out, and other various sundry items.
4. Then I got banned by the moderator. The reason (because I asked why)? They answered; Thoughts and opinions not consistent with the point of view of the website.
I think they should just amend the mission statement to include "lowering of the public discourse", at this point. That way they can cover stories like this, and about Thompson's wife, and any future people like Imus, since the lowering of discourse is important no matter who is doing it. It can't possibly take much effort to change it, and it kills off all the "why is this here" talk once and for all.
The best way to kill off the "why is this here" is by not commenting. Normally when posts do not receive a response, they die a quick death.
So, who is really to blame for these pesky anti-thread posts that so many of you liberals despise so much? The originator/contrarian, or the responders? (feed the beast)
I really won't belabor the point... but, that is a great (classic) response. Love ya Tom!
In other words, if you make a questionable comment, people should just let it slide because otherwise there will be a long exchange about it?
I don't see anything objectionable in my post there. It seems like if they make that simple change, then that eliminates a lot of "why is this here". It would at least reduce it to debates over the misinformation pieces, which is more worthwhile to examine anyway.
Brab,
One of the most frequent reasons for the "WITH" here comment is because a thread addresses some idiotic comment or an insult by a radio shock jock or commentator/pundit.......to me, that is just silly. To spend time refuting some dumb thing out of one of these screamer's mouths is basically a waste of time, it's their personal opinion, so what?
More substantive pieces of information that really matter from people whom we elect to serve us, or a media mistake that has relevance is far more important than another of Rush's blubberings.
The lowering of and the poisoning of the discourse are extremely important aspects of the media as well. We hold these people to standards, whether they're shock jocks or not, whether it's their opinion or not.
Just a suspicion, but I think that if someone on the radio was calling Bush a traitor and calling for him to be shot, you might find that objectionable. It's just an opinion and all, but surely you wouldn't think it's silly that people take the time to criticize it, would you?
Brab,
You say you hold these people to standards? Do you think they really give a damn, with all due respect? Do you think the coarsening of the culture regarding these talk shows has gotten better or worse since they've been "taken to task and held accountable" by this website and others? Or are they just countered with more gotcha sites like MRC and others who go back and forth all day long?
The fact is you can highlight it, vilify it, condemn it, call them on it, whatever you want to......but if you think it's really having a positive affect, then I would like to see the data to support that. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's hideous just like you do - but we differ on the responses to it apparently......you and others want to highlight it, I prefer to ignore it. Considering your way is far more prevalent these days than ignoring it, then why is it worse now than ever?
"Do you think they really give a damn, with all due respect?"
See, this is the problem with your entire framework. It has nothing to do with what the shock jocks care about. It has to do with pointing it out, so that people know what these people are saying.
"Do you think the coarsening of the culture regarding these talk shows has gotten better or worse since they've been "taken to task and held accountable" by this website and others?"
Worse, but the political climate has also gotten much worse, obviously. The problem is that when people push the boundaries, all that leads to is more pushing. Until there are consequences, it will always get worse. Who's really paid for what they've said besides Imus, so far?
"The fact is you can highlight it, vilify it, condemn it, call them on it, whatever you want to......but if you think it's really having a positive affect, then I would like to see the data to support that."
Let's look at a couple of alternate viewpoints. What's the evidence that ignoring these people does anything either? And what's the evidence that highlighting these things has a negative effect? In other words, unless there's some harm to doing it, why not inform people, so that they are aware of the history of behavior? Isn't that part of what happened with Imus? It wasn't his first offense, by a long shot, and we all knew it! If it came off like he had never said anything similar before, surely there wouldn't be such an effective drive to hold him accountable.
"Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's hideous just like you do - but we differ on the responses to it apparently......you and others want to highlight it, I prefer to ignore it. Considering your way is far more prevalent these days than ignoring it, then why is it worse now than ever?"
Again, because it's incremental. They push the boundaries of what's acceptable, then they do it some more. Remember, you've argued before that it's in the hands of the people to hold people like this to standards. But if nobody reports it, who's going to know besides fans of the show? Those people will simply get more and more adjusted to that level of discourse, and think it's acceptable.
Let's say you have a seven year-old and a five year-old. The seven year-old picks up a dirty word and uses it in front of the five year-old, in your presence. Do you ignore it, signalling acceptance? Or do you tell the child not to use that word, letting both children know it's not acceptable? See, you're concerned with the effect on the seven year-old here. You may or may not be able to change his behavior. What you can do is try to make sure that the five year-old knows better.
Brab,
You make good points, we just disagree apparently. I think issues that really affect people's lives, and shape and formulate opinions that affect our policymakers in government, is far more important to cover than whether Michael Savage says a certain liberal is a Nazi. Obviously they can do both, I am just talking priorities.
Thanks for your reasoned opinions, appreciated.
On a side note you both displayed an example of a civilized debate without the bitterness and hate that has been seen on here recently. I know I appreciate reading it and think highly of both of you.
Thank you Doris, I am as guilty of anyone of deteroriating a conversation on occasion, when passions and opinions run high, it happens.
Thanks again for reminding me there is a better way, especially when we are discussing the lowering of discourse.....oh, the irony.
Appreciated, Doris, thank you very much.
As far as priorities, absolutely. If they were to pass up a legitimate story on conservative misinformation because there were too many "Savage" or "Coulter" stories on the page, that would be ridiculous.
And as Jeter has noted, if MMfA is going to highlight people like Imus and this comment about Rice, then they might as well go all-out and declare a non-partisan committment to pointing out instances of "over-the-top" commentary from anyone. That would give them added credibility, as you've pointed out.
Apologies, that didn't come out right. Jeter has pointed out that Imus's politics don't qualify him under the current mission statement, not anything about the Rice comment.
And thanks to you as well, good discussion.
Two things first processes take time. Sometimes people hear things over and over it becomes backround the accept it then its pointed out to them and they have a little internal dialogue, you know thats true, others examples get pointed out and they begin to get the point. They talk about it to a friend and you have the rippling pond effect. It is a process however and that doesnt happen overnigh and TWO. You dont just fight the fights you can win, you fight the fights that need fighting
Oh...so you're really not arguing to ignore the WITH posts, but for everyone (and MMFA) to ignore the political shock jocks. Been tried. Didn't work.
Your argument really only holds if the poster is trolling, i.e., seeking a response. If they aren't, then there's no reason to assume that ignoring the post will lead to an end of the behavior. If your approach were always true, then shouldn't we have just ignored OBL after 9/11?
A lack of response is also ambiguous. It can represent either agreement or disagreement. Thus, I believe it's usually better to - succinctly and unemotionally - counter the fallacious arguments and false assertions.
"Kills off..."
Not likely ;)
Simple, it's one of the most popular moves in the RightWing Handbook - "If you can't argue the facts, work the ref."
Yes it must be time for another plug. This site is constantly pluging a man who is one of the most divisive figures on TV Today. I also love how Olbermann uses this material to name people "Worst Person in the World" . He is just another example of the glorification of hate on Cable News today.
I have to ask, what is it that makes him so divisive?
They can't tell you, because they can't come up with any examples. If they say, "Well, he Bush bashes." that's not divisive, that's actually on par with what the majority of America thinks about Bush. Same thing for KO railing against the war in Iraq as he often does, again, in line with the majority of America. So actually, instead of being divisive, I would even call him a populist in his nightly rantings.
Because he upsets the amen chorus. He connects the dots on stories that most people let go. He says things that many people want to, but fear. He shakes things up.
People who are supporting Bush seem to have no tolerance for dissent or reasoned disagreement such as KO. To some, disagreement and dissent=hate.
For starters he pits groups against groups. If someone has a different political opinion he lables them "Worst Person in the World'
His show is entirely based on being hyped up people who believe that America is a me vs. them society. I also think he is grandstanding despite his horrible ratings and after almost over 2 years of trying to be the voice of liberals "he does not speak for me " and yes I consider myself a Liberal.
Which groups? Surely, you must have examples.
I'm not saying he speaks for me either, but I do find myself agreeing a lot more with his opinions, than a lot of other folks on network and cable TV.
How is he divisive again? Aside from attacking the most worthless right wing commentators out there and calling them on their BS? It's not that these folks have a different political opinion than he does, it's that they're lying and disingenuous about what they're saying. From reviewing KO's worst person segment, it does appear that he makes people the "worst" person if they're out there spewing forth misinformation, and or lies to a mass audience.
If you're a liberal you're OK with letting Rush and other lie on a daily basis and nobody calls them on it?
"For starters he pits groups against groups. If someone has a different political opinion he lables them "Worst Person in the World'"
Is the title of worst person in the world really supposed to be taken literally, or what? I keep hearing this, and it never makes sense. And as far as I've seen, it's not about having a different viewpoint, it's about comments or actions that clearly fall outside of the boundaries of what normal people consider acceptable. So who considers that "divisive", really?
"His show is entirely based on being hyped up people who believe that America is a me vs. them society. I also think he is grandstanding despite his horrible ratings and after almost over 2 years of trying to be the voice of liberals "he does not speak for me " and yes I consider myself a Liberal."
"Me vs them"? A little clarification would be nice. By your logic here, it would seem that anyone who expresses a political opinion is being divisive. That's a bit odd, to say the least. It's about tactics, obviously, and rhetoric, and honestly the humorous exaggeration of "worst person in the world" doesn't qualify as anything unacceptable.
The worst person in the world is not aimed at groups of people or those who think differently. It is aimed at media people who are using personal attacks and smears against those who think differently. Thus the ironic name to make that very point. When he names say the Kansas GOP worst people in the world because they support Bush you will have a point. I havent seen that.
Brab don't you know by now what makes him so devisive is he points out the wingnuttery of the republicans. ;)
Correct: Condoleezza Rice -- a right-wing host is trashing a right-wing secretary of State.
Or
Surprise: Condoleezza Rice -- a right-wing host is trashing a right-wing secretary of State & a Left-Wing host is actually calling them out on it. And even awarding a Bronze WPITW Award!!
Yikes...did hell freeze over :-O
Maybe this is turning into the Condi Rice support site instead of the Hillary Clinton site? I mean, their politics aren't that much different really Clinton and Condi.
There's a certain spill over from the interideological argument over imigration. One of our resident colunminst's makes a noteable item about this that is current.