what does everyone think about Keith Olbermann?

[Joe]

He speaks a lot of truth, but it's MSNBC! What gives? On many of his commentaries I keep thinking I detect a barely disguised smirk, as if he is very often about to laugh, as if he is only acting angry.

Can anyone see how he might be a gatekeeper of some description?

 

[anart]

Re: what does everyone think

I think he is only acting angry - in fact, I would guarantee it, though I don't have any proof. He's articulate and he tells the truth on occasion, but I think he's controlled opposition. It makes people feel better to see him get angry and say out loud what is wrong - makes them more comfortable and helps them think that not all is lost. osit.

 

[Joe]

Re: what does everyone think

I think he is only acting angry - in fact, I would guarantee it, though I don't have any proof. He's articulate and he tells the truth on occasion, but I think he's controlled opposition. It makes people feel better to see him get angry and say out loud what is wrong - makes them more comfortable and helps them think that not all is lost. osit.

So he's a release value, of sorts, as it were?

 

[anart]

Re: what does everyone think

So he's a release value, of sorts, as it were?

Exactly.

In fact, his 'act' is modeled, very closely, after Edward R Murrow - to the point of using similar (or identical) phrasing. I don't think that's accidental; I think it's a little 'hat tip' (and hiding it in plain sight) to the idea that they'll use one of the most famous 'hard ball' journalists as a screen play to keep people in their seats as everything falls apart - a cardboard cut out, if you will, who 'acts' like a real journalist. Just my take, of course.

 

[bjorb]

- Hi everyone

What already has given really makes sense

Maybe I have something of value.


Since Truth at this time has it’s way of accelerating and being more accepted it has it’s potential to form a real danger towards the status qou.

What I am trying to imply:

Keith Olbermann as he is now speaks about certain truths, but has he given any solution towards those?

His aggressive way of bringing his stories. It provokes a lot of anger. Some of it really is justified but still,

What if he shifts attention towards violence. As taking the Government back with arms.

Also:

Certain truth is coming out more rapidly. Since they are not able to stop this progress, Maybe Keith Olbermann is just a way intro trying to control those truths. Being some sort of a front-man for it. That he is way intro controlling truth so that it can not get his own way of spreading. - And like mentioned before, bringing the solution towards those.

 

[Joe]

Keith Olbermann as he is now speaks about certain truths, but has he given any solution towards those?

His aggressive way of bringing his stories. It provokes a lot of anger. Some of it really is justified but still,

What if he shifts attention towards violence. As taking the Government back with arms.

Very good point bjorn, I hadn't thought of that angle. But I can certainly imagine Olbermann raising a call to arms!

 

[pete02]

I always took Keith for a comedian. I know for sure those 'angry faces' are just an act and the audience is always laughing so to me it seemed like comedy hour with a little bit of truth in there. But then again, anyone who conflicts with what Fox reporters say is telling the truth. Aren't they?

I love it when he quotes some Fox reporters and then blows holes in everything they say by pointing out the obvious. For the most part tho, I agree with Anart, I also think he's controlled opposition. They're all just actors making a lot of money.

 

[anart]

I always took Keith for a comedian. I know for sure those 'angry faces' are just an act and the audience is always laughing so to me it seemed like comedy hour with a little bit of truth in there. But then again, anyone who conflicts with what Fox reporters say is telling the truth. Aren't they?

I love it when he quotes some Fox reporters and then blows holes in everything they say by pointing out the obvious. For the most part tho, I agree with Anart, I also think he's controlled opposition. They're all just actors making a lot of money.

Hi Pete, I'm wondering if you're mistaking John Stewart for Keith Olbermann? Apologies if you are not, but who you described sounds more like Stewart than Olbermann.

 

[Beau]

He seems to be someone in the same vein as Jon Stewart (minus the comedy), a gatekeeper for those who aren't buying the lies sold by the PTB and their media underlings. For me personally, it's hard to take him seriously since I spent a lot of time in the 90s watching him as an ESPN Sportscenter anchor talking about sports and making jokes about athletes. This doesn't mean that he isn't smart and very aware of what's going on in the world, but that their is always that fact to remember. He still does pro football analysis in the States on Sunday nights too, so he is straddling the line of doing political analysis and still trying to cater to the LCD of football enthusiasts, many of whom do not share his political bent.

 

[seek10]

He seems to be someone in the same vein as Jon Stewart (minus the comedy), a gatekeeper for those who aren't buying the lies sold by the PTB and their media underlings. For me personally, it's hard to take him seriously since I spent a lot of time in the 90s watching him as an ESPN Sportscenter anchor talking about sports and making jokes about athletes. This doesn't mean that he isn't smart and very aware of what's going on in the world, but that their is always that fact to remember. He still does pro football analysis in the States on Sunday nights too, so he is straddling the line of doing political analysis and still trying to cater to the LCD of football enthusiasts, many of whom do not share his political bent.

His latest speech calling politicians with names as PROSTITUTES in this age is TOO bold . How does the main stream media will ignore this, unless it is part of the game. So he must be another front man from PTB gathering the people' attention for possible future manipulation. They are used to playing the game from BOTH ends.

 

[thevenusian]

I can't handle watching his show more than a bit, but I do think it is a masterpiece in media 'framing'- defining issues in a certain way in order to elicit emotional responses from his audience and herd the group into thinking only along certain lines- and other manipulations. Aside from his Special Comments, the device he uses constantly are all the so-called analysts, commentators and experts with who he converses for several minutes, many of whom are regulars. Because only certain questions are asked, and others are omitted, and information is given from supposed 'insiders' who know more than the rest of us, viewers ideas about stories are framed in a certain way. Rather than being a wide-spectrum presentation of factual data, most of the time I get a very biased, limited view along certain lines from these reports. As such, I have largely given up watching TV news due to it inducing a high incidence of shouting at the TV, which no one around me appreciates.

I seriously doubt anyone would be an anchor on MSNBC who doesn't answer to their masters higher up the chain (major defense contractor General Electric). I gave Rachael Maddow the benefit of the doubt at first, and she obviously has certain areas where she seems like a truth teller, but her show follows the same formula. Whenever any of these people start talking about Al Qaida I lose any sense of trust I might otherwise have had. Neither of these shows allows for any discussion of 9-11 outside the party line, either, at least as far as I am aware.

 

[pete02]

I always took Keith for a comedian. I know for sure those 'angry faces' are just an act and the audience is always laughing so to me it seemed like comedy hour with a little bit of truth in there. But then again, anyone who conflicts with what Fox reporters say is telling the truth. Aren't they?

I love it when he quotes some Fox reporters and then blows holes in everything they say by pointing out the obvious. For the most part tho, I agree with Anart, I also think he's controlled opposition. They're all just actors making a lot of money.

Hi Pete, I'm wondering if you're mistaking John Stewart for Keith Olbermann? Apologies if you are not, but who you described sounds more like Stewart than Olbermann.

No apologies necessary Anart, you are right, I'm mixed up but its Steven Colbert I was thinking of! Thanks for the correction!

I used to get msnbc on my old cell phone so I would watch Keith and then Rachel Maddow right after so I got him mixed up, sorry all. I used to enjoy the hour of info and it helped the time pass by but now that you have me rethinking my post, I gotta tell ya that he did always come across as mostly serious to me. Every now and then tho he would give you that smirk that just told you he was messin around but that was more obvious. For the most part tho, I still have to echo your words about controlled opposition because I do firmly believe that if any of these people were speaking only the truth, they wouldn't be on tv for long. I've always taken msnbc for a democratic channel while fox is more republican so depending on who's side of the story you want, just adjust your channel! ;)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Recently Jon Stewart tried to cool Olbermann's fire:

_http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/01/22/jon-stewarts-special-comment-on-keith-olbermann/

Keith calls a new MA senator a bunch of names, and Jon points out why he was wrong to do so, and how Keith's justifications do not hold water. I don't know anything about the senator in question, and the quotes were out of context, so I'm not sure if Keith was right about him. Knowing the kind of politicians we have, however, he could've easily been right for the wrong reasons.

 

[Niall]

I thought it was a great speech but I wondered how he had a brilliantly researched and well-written 12 minute monologue prepared in time for the evening news that day? That suggests he didn't write it himself. So, like any other newsreader, he's basically reading from someone else's script.

With Joe's latest Focus and others' thoughts here, I'm thinking about its purpose and Olbermann's role in general. The US is draped under a frequency fence which if anything just got stronger thanks to this SC decision.

Surely someone in Olbermann's position, working for one of the Big Five media giants, must have realised that his employer would not take too kindly to any perceived threat from one of its emplyees?

Unless... Olbermann has no regard for maintaining at least some semblance of strategic enclosure because he is 'in the loop'?

In fact, his 'act' is modeled, very closely, after Edward R Murrow - to the point of using similar (or identical) phrasing.

His signs off with, "Good night, and good luck" at the end of each performance. That's exactly what Murrow signed off with too, so I think it's a pretty blatant "I-inherited-Murrow's-mantle" statement from Olbermann.

 

[anart]

In fact, his 'act' is modeled, very closely, after Edward R Murrow - to the point of using similar (or identical) phrasing.

His signs off with, "Good night, and good luck" at the end of each performance. That's exactly what Murrow signed off with too, so I think it's a pretty blatant "I-inherited-Murrow's-mantle" statement from Olbermann.

Except that he didn't. He doesn't even approach what Murrow could do, due to the complete lock down on the media (and even in Murrow's time it was manipulated). He's 'pretending' to be Murrow - he's acting - and the fact that he uses the same sign off is either a 'slap in the face' to those who pick up on it, or a 'nod and a wink' to those in the know.

To a hypnotized populace, there is no difference between a man who is acting like a journalist and a journalist.