but not as often as he used to.
The answer lies in the lair of the Bear.
What did I win?
I agree: the word "shrill" seemed totally uncalled for, even if he meant it as an inside joke. After all, Olbermann was doing exactly what Froomkin has been calling for, repeatedly. I wonder if the word was added by his editor...
Hermit Greg, you win the emperor's spare set of clothes.Reading Froomkin's column yet again, the word "shrill" seems to follow naturally from the Howard Beale comparison, so even if the word was added by his editor, it doesn't really change Froomkin's underlying point.It just pisses me off that Olbermann is making an entirely legitimate, albeit impassioned, criticism of the president, and all Froomkin can say is, "Ooh, that Keith Olbermann, he so crazy! You never know what he'll say next!" It reminds me too much of how the "angry" label got stuck on Howard Dean in the '04 primaries.Why is it that when Democrats show any traces of legitimate anger, it gets portrayed in the media as a fatal flaw, yet when Cheney drops F-bombs on the Senate floor or when Bush shows his petulant streak, the public can't muster more than a chuckle?
Post a Comment