I never cease to be amazed at our vacuous, vapid and venal purveyors of "information" and enlightenment: the media. In all its forms it fails us miserably. Individually there are a few decent examples of honest journalism. Keith Olbermann is not one of them, no matter how much in love with him progressives have fallen. Perhaps somebody should wake me when (and if) he proves why anybody should trust or respect him, ever again. There are, however, still depths to which he can and will sink:
On Wednesday night's "Countdown," Keith Olbermann blasted [Katie] Couric for her comments on the sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton and her remark that NBC News' Lee Cowan should "find another line of work" if he couldn't remain objective about Barack Obama.
Olbermann called Couric's allegations of sexism "a bit Kool Aid-ish," charged Couric with misunderstanding Cowan's comment, and praised Cowan's objective reporting and his ability to separate the hype from the news.
"It is sad that Ms. Couric could not have emulated [Cowan] and separated the hype from the news in her own promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism."
Receiving an award named after feminist icon Alice Paul yesterday, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric said, according to Media Bistro's Patrick Gavin that "however you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen" -- rooted in sexism, she charged, helping to lead to her defeat.
Couric recalled one "prominent member of the commentariat" saying he "found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama."
She said she remembers thinking, "that's your job" and that he should "find another line of work."
And here's the always-endearing Chris Matthews:
Then We Have This:
Readers of The New York Times were today (Thursday, 6/12/2008) treated to an analysis of whether sexism played a role in the downfall of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Their conclusion? Nah.
But many in the news media — with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the “CBS Evening News” — see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton.
Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said ...
... “But the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to use it for their advantage. They were trying to rally a certain demographic, and women were behind it.”
Keith Olbermann, the host of “Countdown” on MSNBC, said that while there were “individual, sexist, mistakes,” there was no overall sexism.
Any suggestion that MSNBC “was somehow out to ‘get’ Senator Clinton is false and unfair,” Mr. Olbermann wrote in an e-mail message. “We became a whipping boy.”
The analysis alone is pathetic. The photo that accompanied it is unbelievable. At a minimum, the "cropping" defies photoshop 101. Beyond this is something so troubling it almost makes me cry: the unspeakable message this photo sends to Clinton, to other strong women and to those who express real outrage at the conscious and unconscious societal hatred of women.
Can anybody honestly say that we would allow photographs of a "headless" African American to be published without immediate outrage? Would an editor even crop a photograph of an African American in such a way? What if this was a photo of Michelle Obama?
What the hell is wrong with us?