14 thoughts on “Time For Olbermann To Apologize To Jindal”
Jindal starts his anecdote with the words “[d]uring Katrina . . . .” I interpreted that to mean “during,” while the storm was hitting the coast or in the immediate aftermath. Erickson expands that to cover “. . . Bobby Jindal met with them in person on the ground in the days and weeks following the storm . . . .”
I’m Erickson’s statement is true, but it really does not support the implication Jindal sought to convey. Did Olbermann et al go too far? Sure, but Jindal was not as precise as he should have been, though precision would not have served his political purpose.
And, in any event, the federal bureaucrats about whom he complains were the result of Bush’s cronyism, aided and abetted by the GOP-controlled Congress.
I was waiting for the head-of-a-pin dance to start. The city flooded on Monday, Jindal was probably in Lee’s ‘office’ around Thursday, when the rescues were being mopped up but much of the city was still under water, and Lee was on the phone getting grief about having sent the boats out. Jindal’s people explained it to Ben Smith here, although it took Smith a couple of tries to get the story straight.
Like in Alice in Wonderland, we are debating whether words or speakers of words are the masters.
Sounds Clintonian. “I didn’t really mean ‘during,’ I meant ‘after.'”
Or, is it Bush-like? We don’t torture because John Yoo came up with a new definition and we are using that one.
Griping over the meaning of “during” (personally, I’d just assumed he meant the week the hurricane hit while the city was flooded, but then I’d heard the Jindal-Katrina stories before so I knew the context) is sour grapes. The point of the story was to demonstrate an example of how you can rely on citizens when government breaks down, a story Jindal got straight from the source. The left-o-sphere and Olbermann invested a lot in the idea that Jindal wasn’t with Lee that week and wasn’t on the ground in the critical days after the levee was breached, and none of that is even close to being true, so you are left fighting over whether he implied he was talking about Monday instead of Thursday. Have fun with that.
Olbermann is awful. Check out Somersby’s dailyhowler.com
He calls out and takes down KO on a practically daily basis.
Daily Howler is one of the best media criticism sites on the net, and everyone can learn by reading it.
As for Jindal, he’s obviously putting in his lot with the rich morons and their clownish tea parties over the struggling people of his state. That ought to be enough rope.
Crank,
There are at least as many examples (outside of the Bush administration Katrina fiasco) of how you can rely on the government when the private sector breaks down as there are of “an example of how you can rely on citizens when government breaks down.” So what? Jindal’s single data point proves nothing.
What, if Olbermann refuses to apologize, it’ll then make him a dishonest hack who reads far-left bloggers’ erroneous postings on his show and MSNBC a house organ for the Democratic party?
A. Waste of time.
B. Elevating the relevance of someone who has little.
You guys are treating him as though he were a voice to be reckoned with. He’s a joke, a laughingstock, a cartoon. You don’t demand apologies from that which you have zero respect and if Keith Olbermann hasn’t distinguished himself as someone to be ridiculed and nothing more, then there is no bottom of any barrel for anyone to reach.
Substitute Limbaugh for Olbermann, far-right for far-left, FOX for MSNBC, and Republican for Democratic and RW would have an equally valid comment.
Except for one thing, Magrooder. Name one Fox show that NEVER presents the opposing POV. Olberman is a coward and so are his viewers. He’s afraid of being embarassed and his viewers are afraid of the truth.
BTW, Limbaugh has about 20 times the ratings Olberman has. FWTW.
RW, I respectfully disagree. Failing to respond to your critics merely because they are lunatics who should have no credibility is Bushthink. You see where that got us. Olbermann has a national microphone, and the people who take him seriously should never, ever, for an instant be permitted to forget that they are choosing to listen to a guy with no credibility and no regard for the truth simply because he promotes their fantasy world.
Fox shows that don’t provide opposng views — um, let’s see, oh yeah, ALL of them.
So, Crank, who are we referring to here? Limbaugh? O’Reilly? Beck? Hannity?
“people who take him seriously should never, ever, for an instant be permitted to forget that they are choosing to listen to a guy with no credibility and no regard for the truth simply because he promotes their fantasy world.”
It works for any of them.
Fox shows that don’t provide opposng views — um, let’s see, oh yeah, ALL of them.
We’ve got ourselves an expert. It must be a drag, watching Fox News 16 hours a day.
Fox News went to court to defend themselves as an entertainment source, not a news source.
“Fair and balanced” is a slogan, just like ABC used to have the slogan “We’re still the one”. It means nothing in reality.
Anyone who watches Fox News for a minute should have to wear a Miss America-style sash which reads “Miss Informed”.
Jindal starts his anecdote with the words “[d]uring Katrina . . . .” I interpreted that to mean “during,” while the storm was hitting the coast or in the immediate aftermath. Erickson expands that to cover “. . . Bobby Jindal met with them in person on the ground in the days and weeks following the storm . . . .”
I’m Erickson’s statement is true, but it really does not support the implication Jindal sought to convey. Did Olbermann et al go too far? Sure, but Jindal was not as precise as he should have been, though precision would not have served his political purpose.
And, in any event, the federal bureaucrats about whom he complains were the result of Bush’s cronyism, aided and abetted by the GOP-controlled Congress.
I was waiting for the head-of-a-pin dance to start. The city flooded on Monday, Jindal was probably in Lee’s ‘office’ around Thursday, when the rescues were being mopped up but much of the city was still under water, and Lee was on the phone getting grief about having sent the boats out. Jindal’s people explained it to Ben Smith here, although it took Smith a couple of tries to get the story straight.
Like in Alice in Wonderland, we are debating whether words or speakers of words are the masters.
Sounds Clintonian. “I didn’t really mean ‘during,’ I meant ‘after.'”
Or, is it Bush-like? We don’t torture because John Yoo came up with a new definition and we are using that one.
Griping over the meaning of “during” (personally, I’d just assumed he meant the week the hurricane hit while the city was flooded, but then I’d heard the Jindal-Katrina stories before so I knew the context) is sour grapes. The point of the story was to demonstrate an example of how you can rely on citizens when government breaks down, a story Jindal got straight from the source. The left-o-sphere and Olbermann invested a lot in the idea that Jindal wasn’t with Lee that week and wasn’t on the ground in the critical days after the levee was breached, and none of that is even close to being true, so you are left fighting over whether he implied he was talking about Monday instead of Thursday. Have fun with that.
Olbermann is awful. Check out Somersby’s dailyhowler.com
He calls out and takes down KO on a practically daily basis.
Daily Howler is one of the best media criticism sites on the net, and everyone can learn by reading it.
As for Jindal, he’s obviously putting in his lot with the rich morons and their clownish tea parties over the struggling people of his state. That ought to be enough rope.
Crank,
There are at least as many examples (outside of the Bush administration Katrina fiasco) of how you can rely on the government when the private sector breaks down as there are of “an example of how you can rely on citizens when government breaks down.” So what? Jindal’s single data point proves nothing.
What, if Olbermann refuses to apologize, it’ll then make him a dishonest hack who reads far-left bloggers’ erroneous postings on his show and MSNBC a house organ for the Democratic party?
A. Waste of time.
B. Elevating the relevance of someone who has little.
You guys are treating him as though he were a voice to be reckoned with. He’s a joke, a laughingstock, a cartoon. You don’t demand apologies from that which you have zero respect and if Keith Olbermann hasn’t distinguished himself as someone to be ridiculed and nothing more, then there is no bottom of any barrel for anyone to reach.
Substitute Limbaugh for Olbermann, far-right for far-left, FOX for MSNBC, and Republican for Democratic and RW would have an equally valid comment.
Except for one thing, Magrooder. Name one Fox show that NEVER presents the opposing POV. Olberman is a coward and so are his viewers. He’s afraid of being embarassed and his viewers are afraid of the truth.
BTW, Limbaugh has about 20 times the ratings Olberman has. FWTW.
RW, I respectfully disagree. Failing to respond to your critics merely because they are lunatics who should have no credibility is Bushthink. You see where that got us. Olbermann has a national microphone, and the people who take him seriously should never, ever, for an instant be permitted to forget that they are choosing to listen to a guy with no credibility and no regard for the truth simply because he promotes their fantasy world.
Fox shows that don’t provide opposng views — um, let’s see, oh yeah, ALL of them.
So, Crank, who are we referring to here? Limbaugh? O’Reilly? Beck? Hannity?
“people who take him seriously should never, ever, for an instant be permitted to forget that they are choosing to listen to a guy with no credibility and no regard for the truth simply because he promotes their fantasy world.”
It works for any of them.
We’ve got ourselves an expert. It must be a drag, watching Fox News 16 hours a day.
Fox News went to court to defend themselves as an entertainment source, not a news source.
“Fair and balanced” is a slogan, just like ABC used to have the slogan “We’re still the one”. It means nothing in reality.
Anyone who watches Fox News for a minute should have to wear a Miss America-style sash which reads “Miss Informed”.