Tuesday, August 30, 2005

What Happened To Keith Olbermann's Brain?

Update: The post below is 3 years old, yet still is the result of common search terms. People are indeed curious as to what happened to Keith Olbermann and if you are reading this now then apparently you are too. For more recent posts about Olbermann please click:

Olbermann and Matthews on Obama


Olbermann and Matthews out at MSNBC

Thanks for reading. End Update.

Keith Olbermann spoke at convocation when I graduated from Cornell. His speech was witty and thought provoking. As an anchor on ESPN, he was definitely my favorite; though only rehashing sports scores, Olbermann came across as intelligent.

What then, I am forced ask, has happened to him?

After the election, Olbermann devoted his MSNBC show night in and night out to how the election in Ohio was fixed and how the election was stolen, unfair and invalid. His treatment of the election has been ripped apart numerous times, so I don't really feel the need to do so. Suffice it to say Mr. Olbermann was proudly wearing his tin foil hat for all to see.

His latest confounding production comes in the form of an entry on his "blog" on MSNBC. I almost didn't want to link to it, as the fewer people who read it, the better. However since MSNBC links to it on their front page, I feel compelled to do my part to point out the idiocy of his commentary.

Olbermann's post deals with Lance Armstrong and why Olbermann doesn't believe his denials of doping use. I'll post a summary of his logic here, to spare from you from reading his rants. The train of thought goes something like this:
  • During an actor's strike, Armstrong "crossed the picket lines" and made commercials
  • Armstrong is therefore a "louse" for not supporting unions
  • Being a louse, Armstrong is untrustworthy and man of weak character
  • Thus, he must be lying about doping and is a "juiced louse"
All the terms in quotes, above, are Olbermann's own. This chain of logic is unbelievably biased (not to mention moronic). He has the nerve to comment on his own rant with:
This is not a piece of pro-union dogma here. This is not a question of a guy crossing a picket line. This is a millionaire, being given a pass to work by a union full of guys making $7,000 a year, saying no, he wouldn’t do it -- and then going and doing it anyway.
While there is some legitimacy to the complaint that Armstrong said he wouldn't make commercials during the strike and then changing his mind and doing so, let's be honest here. Everything Olbermann wrote was a piece of pro-union dogma. And claiming Armstrong's behavior with the unions is related to the doping allegations is farcical.

No comments: