Olbermann

Lots of good comments on my Keith Olbermann post (plus one that accuses me of hating him for being a strong liberal voice, which strikes me as a very unusual interpretation of what I wrote). One thing I wanted to add, though, is that I don’t think Olbermann’s problem is a failure to be balanced. Pundit shows are primarily about entertainment — they have enormous drawbacks as news programs, but the format does work as entertainment — and part of the entertainment value comes from the fact that the host is picking a side and sticking with it. Of course a successful liberal pundit will never be as hard on a liberal politician; that’s just part of the whole idea of playing for a team. Whenever a Republican is in office, Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News pundits and Glenn Beck have to find something else to be outraged about other than the President. And they usually find it pretty easily.

The increasing ratings of Countdown With Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and the enormous popularity of his Edward R. Murrow-esque “Special Comments,” have led to a bunch of recent articles about how he’s the new big thing in cable punditry, the first truly successful liberal pundit on TV, the liberal counterpart of O’Reilly. I’m not completely convinced, and here’s why: I’m not sure his popularity will outlast the Bush administration. Not because he’ll be out of material, exactly. Even if Barack Obama becomes president, there will be plenty of things to be outraged about. The problem is, I’m not sure if he will be outraged, because Olbermann has never struck me as having particularly strong convictions. He just doesn’t like President Bush and more generally what the Republican party became in the ’90s, with the Clinton impeachment and all that. Well, most Americans don’t; that’s why Bush is unpopular and the Republicans were voted out of control of Congress. But what happens if, come 2009, there’s a President that Olbermann likes?