Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Attention Capitol Hill Parker | Pinball and Clowns »

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Keith Olbermann: Claims of Sexism “Nonsense”

posted by on June 12 at 14:04 PM

Katie Couric calls the media on its sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton’s campaign—and Keith Olbermann (again) dubs Couric the “worst person in the world” for pointing out that sexism exists.

RSS icon Comments

1

did this warrant its own entry?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 12, 2008 2:16 PM
2

He's totally wrong. Katie isn't the worst. You are.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 12, 2008 2:21 PM
3

@1

It's a warrant-less entry.

Justification will not stand in her way!

Posted by natopotato | June 12, 2008 2:28 PM
4

Can someone tell Keith Olbermann to shut the fuck up? He's really getting on my nerves. Does he have a point anymore?

Posted by Cook | June 12, 2008 2:28 PM
5

Sexism and Racism. The two prevelent themes of the primary season. If Hillary had won, the Republicans would still pull the same shit against her as they're doing now for Obama, basically using code words to denote that she's a woman like they're using for Obama to tell people "don't vote for the BLACK guy".

Can't we all just get along? If we don't, the republicans will cakewalk into the White House while we're pulling each other's eyes out.

Case Closed. Let's focus on Grampa Munster and his wife Cruella D'Cain

Posted by apres_moi | June 12, 2008 2:34 PM
6

He dubed Elton John one of the worst people in the world, ECB. He didn't mention Couric at all. At least not in the video you linked to. Care to revise?

Posted by als | June 12, 2008 2:34 PM
7

Fail post is fail.

ECB, if you're going to call yourself a journalist, you should at the very least get your facts straight, instead of being a knee-jerk reactionary robot.

Olbermann didn't bestow the Worst on her for complaining about sexist coverage of Clinton. He did it because she impugned the journalistic integrity of a reporter covering the Obama campaign who wrote about how difficult it was to remain objective because of the intense adulation shown to the candidate. She interpreted his comment, taken out of context, to mean that he wasn't being objective, when if she had simply bothered to actually READ what was written, she'd see that he was speaking about how challenging it was to remain objective.

Get your facts straight before flying off the handle.

Posted by AMB | June 12, 2008 2:38 PM
8

I know! You could change the channel!

Posted by povertyrich | June 12, 2008 2:40 PM
9

Sexism and Racism. The two prevelent themes of the primary season. If Hillary had won, the Republicans would still pull the same shit against her as they're doing now for Obama, basically using code words to denote that she's a woman like they're using for Obama to tell people "don't vote for the BLACK guy".

Can't we all just get along? If we don't, the republicans will cakewalk into the White House while we're pulling each other's eyes out.

Case Closed. Let's focus on Grampa Munster and his wife Cruella D'Cain

Posted by apres_moi | June 12, 2008 2:40 PM
10

I agree, Keith O is getting to be as annoying as Bill O....they should have sex actually and get the tension over with.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | June 12, 2008 2:40 PM
11

what do you expect from someone named OlberMANn!!!

actually, he has a small point. Katie is very upset because she had hoped the new Clinton administration would appoint her ambassador to Munchkinland.

Posted by michael strangeways | June 12, 2008 2:41 PM
12

Fail post is fail.

ECB, if you're going to call yourself a journalist, you should at the very least get your facts straight, instead of being a knee-jerk reactionary robot.

Olbermann didn't bestow the Worst on her for complaining about sexist coverage of Clinton. He did it because she impugned the journalistic integrity of a reporter covering the Obama campaign who wrote about how difficult it was to remain objective because of the intense adulation shown to the candidate. She interpreted his comment, taken out of context, to mean that he wasn't being objective, when if she had simply bothered to actually READ what was written, she'd see that he was speaking about how challenging it was to remain objective.

Get your facts straight before flying off the handle.

Posted by AMB | June 12, 2008 2:42 PM
13

what do you expect from someone named OlberMANn!!!

actually, he has a small point. Katie is very upset because she had hoped the new Clinton administration would appoint her ambassador to Munchkinland.

Posted by michael strangeways | June 12, 2008 2:45 PM
14

Really? I didn't get a chance to watch the Olbermann thing. Was it merely because she pointed out sexism exists? That seems so unfair of him.

Posted by elenchos | June 12, 2008 2:46 PM
15
Posted by AMB | June 12, 2008 3:06 PM
16

Yawn. OK, OK, I get it: ECB, you are woman, hear you roar, but sometimes it makes me snore.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 12, 2008 3:34 PM
17

Slog is awesome - Slogger posts about a reaction to a clip they haven't watched that they saw someplace else, commenters react to the reaction without the context of bothering to watch said clip or even read said post, then other commenters tear into each other over mistaken perceptions of identity or meaning.

Posted by Just Sayin' | June 12, 2008 3:45 PM
18

What AMB said.

I watched it this morning. He pointed out her comments about the coverage of Clinton being sexist then left them by saying "that's fine, she's entitled to her opinion." The Worst Person title was given to her because of how she slandered NBC reporter Lee Cowan for admitting that, while traveling with the Obama campaign, he found it difficult to remain objective and she responded to that by saying he should find another line of work. She didn't bother to state Cowan's name at all, just his comment and Keith argued that had she paid attention to his reporting on the Obama campaign, she would have seen that he was very objective in his reporting. Oh - and she called him part of the "commentariate" when he is, in fact, a reporter, like she's supposed to be.

Couric was given the mantle of Worst Person because she failed at being an objective reporter. Kind of like you just did.

Posted by Jessica | June 12, 2008 3:51 PM
19

Slog commenting is soooo broken for me today. Takes forever and comes up with a white page. Sometimes the comment is posted, usually not.

GET ON IT STAT.

Posted by w7ngman | June 12, 2008 4:00 PM
20

OK, I just watched it. As others said, he described her view on anti-Hillary sexism as "a little Kool-Aidish", but said she's entitled to it, and then went on to another subject. And so I ask: Jesus, ECB, what is it with you? Why are you so chronically unable to present an argument honestly? Either you didn't listen to his piece on it at all, or worse, you did and are just willingly misrepresenting it.

Posted by tsm | June 12, 2008 4:02 PM
21

your ability to pack so much misinformation into a single sentence is *very* impressive.

Posted by brandon | June 12, 2008 4:16 PM
22

Erica c. Barnett today's worst person in the world!

Oh, and JT Cornball wins best person for comment #16!

Posted by Sad Comment | June 12, 2008 4:27 PM
23

SLOG is completely FUBAR today!!!!

The I.T. Dept had better be working overtime today...

Posted by michael strangeways | June 12, 2008 4:35 PM
24

I feel the need to point something out about this sexism/racism argument. Please bear with me. I welcome your counter arguments.

The main argument, at least the one KC and commenters here seem to make, is that sexism is more acceptable than racism in the media and in society in general. Racism is Bad(tm), and sexism is just not as taboo yet and subsequently, in a male-dominated media environment we see a lot of douchebags like Chris Matthews making sexist jokes and commentary.

I tend to agree, and this disparity deserves attention, but I see a couple things wrong with this particular formulation.

Sidebar: this is the MSM we're talking about here. The MSM is notorious for being a bunch of sensationalist blowhards, and don't necessarily (nay, *don't*) represent the mainstream opinion and sensibilities about gender.

Further, the argument is fine on it's own, but lately it's been brought up in the context of the Clinton/Obama match up. I get the an underlying implication from some people making this argument that this sexism/racism disparity somehow hurt Clinton's chances at the polls. As tsm and others have repeatedly pointed out, however, that just isn't the case.

In exit poll after exit poll, we saw a large number of people voting based on race. These people, invariably, broke overwhelmingly for Clinton (the white dominated racism factor). We also see, to a lesser extent, people voting based on gender. For this argument to make sense in a political context, we should see those people voting for Obama (the male dominated sexism factor). The problem is that didn't happen. Those voting based on gender also broke overwhelmingly for Clinton.

You might argue that sexism is more of a subconscious phenomenon and that even if men did vote based on gender, they wouldn't even know it, let alone mention it in an exit poll. But doesn't this go against the assertion that sexism is more prevalent and acceptable in society than racism? We can't have it both ways.

I assume that for the most part people are true to themselves and their isms in the voting booth because they don't have to answer to anyone. If we assume that sexism is more acceptable than racism, we can say that Obama was hurt even more than the exit polls suggest, because we would see a lot more people lying about voting on race vs. those voting on gender.

Even ignoring that, we still saw both groups break for Clinton.

To sum up this rambler, I agree that sexism is more acceptable in the mainstream, and I feel like it should be addressed. On the other hand, I feel like using that argument in the context of a Clinton/Obama matchup is a bit disingenuous, because by all indications it didn't hurt her at the polls.

Posted by w7ngman | June 12, 2008 4:48 PM
25

exactly. all the [entirely justified] complaining about sexism in the media has obscured the fact that a huge portion of hillary's base supported [or rather, still support] her simply because she is a woman. which is more relevant -- what chris matthews thinks, or what several million voters think?

Posted by brandon | June 12, 2008 5:14 PM
26

this was a turd of a post. ECB the horse is dead. You can stop beating it now.

Posted by ZWBush | June 12, 2008 5:30 PM
27

Snap!

@2 for the win!

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 12, 2008 5:39 PM
28

the minions have exhausted the smackdown on ECB's misrepresentation of Olbermann's remarks yesterday, so my question is:

why, ECB, are you so lazy in selecting these supposed examples of sexism? i don't buy the argument that sexism kept Clinton from the nomination (there are endless non-sexist reasons to be anti-Clinton), but god knows you don't have to look very far for better examples

Posted by oneway | June 12, 2008 5:39 PM
29

The ladies, they get worked up because of the menses. It's a good thing they don't let them near the nuclear football. They would get cranky, can't find their Pamprin and BOOM! Goodbye world!

It's sad to have to say it. As a Christian, that is.

Posted by Christian | June 12, 2008 8:39 PM
30

As was said earlier about a different topic, you'll outlive most of these people, Erica: Olbermann, Matthews, etc.

Small comfort.

Posted by chicagogaydude | June 12, 2008 9:20 PM
31

Who doesn't like a wee lassie? I don't.

But "ambassador to Munchkinland", Strangeways. That's pretty goddam funny.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | June 12, 2008 10:29 PM
32

Erica, don't just let this hang there. You've made a mistake with this post. Admit it, make your mea culpa's and move on. Ignoring this stuff as you've done in the past brings your integrity in to question. Oh sure you will get the trolls who will harp on about it even after you apologize (ask Dan) but the rest of us are able to look past a mistake when someone is appropriately contrite. Be the bigger woman.

Posted by Ben Weldon | June 13, 2008 9:18 AM
33

I watched Olbermann the other night and was baffled by his take on Couric’s comments, which, as they were reported in the Worst Person segment, seemed PERFECTLY REASONABLE. One does not have to be a Clinton supporter or a Kool-Aid drinker (what-EVER) to know that sexism is at the root of the media’s fixation on her pantsuits and tears. It was Chris Matthew’s unexamined sexism that led him to attribute Clinton’s candidacy to the fact “her husband messed around.” And it is the culture’s tacit acceptance of sexism that allowed John McCain, in a room full of supporters, to chuckle at a question in which Clinton was referred to as a “bitch.” So it's out there motherfuckers --- not quite as plentiful as air, but sexism does exist.

Couric might have been missing context when she cited the reporter’s remarks about objectivity, but Olbermann’s jeering and vitriolic reaction seemed out of all proportion. She's no Bill O, for crissakes.

Posted by mccottage | June 13, 2008 12:02 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.