1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Olbermann breaks story? Why no play?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Lugnuts, May 28, 2008.

  1. Consider the source. Even the lefties in the media know Olbermann is WAY off their reservation.
     
  2. spinning27

    spinning27 New Member

    The source being federal documents that list Gramm as a lobbyist for UBS?
     
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    The spirit of Charles Keating is alive and well in the halls of Congress.
     
  4. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    The facts have a well known liberal bias.
     
  5. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    solid, damned solid. :D
     
  6. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Simple answer: Olbermann's position as an advocate/commentator colors the perception of anything he might have that might be considered actual news. Any story he breaks comes with a heavy, an understandable, dose of "consider the source."

    If Anderson Cooper breaks the story, if the WaPo breaks the story and if (ha, ha, like this would ever happen) Fox breaks the story, it might have an easier time gaining traction...

    And never mind if there is actual merit to the story. That hesitation you see to acknowledge a story broken by a partisan commentator is out of fear of being perceived to have "taken sides."
     
  7. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    The American public awaits the "Straight Talk Expresss."

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    Keith boasts greater gravitas than AC. It'd be hard, not to.
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Did you click on the link I posted?

    And that is NOT to try to paint Obama as any worse... It's the same BS with any candidate.

    McCain says he is all for campaign finance reform, but he has needed special interest money to get to where he is. Obama claims that he doesn't take money from lobbyists--and has made more of a point of it than McCain has--but if you read that Columbia Journalism Review story I linked to, you see that lobbyist is a narrowly defined term the way he is using it. Of course he needs money from special interests to play in the game and when he was running for state office and the Senate he feasted on PAC and special interest money. If and when you get a chance try to google up about his relationship with Archer Daniels Midland--to the point that before he decided to use "no money from lobbyists" as a populist platform, he was actually accepting rides on the ADM corporate jet. Then consider some of the legislation he has championed with regard to farm subsidies, ethanol and other issues that benefit a company like ADM.

    I am NOT pointing that out to single out Obama. It's just that that is pro forma for any elected official at those levels. You don't get to the White House or Senate without owing people, and in that regard, McCain is no different from Hillary Clinton who is no different than Barack (spelled correctly) Obama.

    Money drives our national politics. It decides the candidates we choose between. And there is no "gotcha" on this, because all the candidates live and play in that world.

    EDIT: The original Boston Globe story that looked at Obama's relationship to special interests: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

    He's no different.
     
  10. Boomer7

    Boomer7 Active Member

    It's one thing to have gravitas, which Olbermann certainly can deliver (on SportsCenter, he was the master of making the segue from goofy to gravitas and back again). It's another to be the guy who's telling the president to "shut the hell up" one night, then anchoring election coverage the next. Not saying he shouldn't have told Bush to shut up (it was a hell of an essay, as his usual are), but the same guy shouldn't be doing hard news and biting commentary at the same time.
     
  11. I think BrianGriffin made the exact same point I was trying to make, except he did it a bit more elegantly.
     
  12. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    OK.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page