Thursday, October 22, 2009
Olbermann tells an Apostle of God he should shut the ______ up!
Yikes! I wouldn't want to be in Olbermanns shoes on his judgment day. Noticed too that he conviently left the name of "Jesus Christ" out of the title of our church. He is angry guy. I never liked him...and I have even less respect for him now. He is high on my list of "Worst People". I hate how he twists the truth...and demonizes people. But don't all the talk show pundits do that on both sides of the spectrum. That is why we just have to be level headed and not take everything they all dish out as fact...because most of it is demonized trash talk about the people on the other side of the line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I have never liked Olbermann. Anyone who has a segment of their show dedicated to finding the worst in anyone is not worthy of my time. Editorials are one thing, but a dedicated segment called "Worlds Worst People" is just too negative for me. Don't even watch him. Channel surf right by him.
There is a lot of complaining about the lack of civility in our current public discourse. Apparently, many seem to think that Americans used to be civilized in their political battles, and that Americans have become angry, cranky, and rude. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Journalism and public political debates used to be even more rancorous than they are today. In the 1800's, journalism was not taught as profession as it is today, so there were many more articles that were more fiction than fact than articles of today (though sometimes I have my doubts about that). Name-calling was accepted as par for the course. Nowadays name-calling is a two-edged sword. It can get the name-caller into deep trouble if he is not careful. In some ways, political discourse has improved over the years. You should read Ann Coulter's book "Slander." She is a polemic personality, but her book is very thoroughly researched and documented.
Nevertheless, among today's media persons, Olbermann is one of the worst, but for some reason he is not controversial enough for the NFL, but Rush Limbaugh is. It's an upside down world we live in.
Olbermann is passionate. He is over the top for many as you have all indicated. Teresa is right that acrimony abounds on both sides. My guess is that we all find those on our side of the isle less acrimonious than those on the opposite side of the isle.
Thank you to Alan for the perspective. Journalism has been worse, much worse with little regard for the truth at times.
Regarding Mr. Oaks comments I think it important to remember that once religious leaders make pronouncements in the public arena, they are open to all the slings and arrows reserved for those who enter the public forum. The LDS Church has chosen to play politics, to enter the public brawl where everyone gets punched. There, religion is no longer privileged, protected, or even accommodated. Imams, rabbis, popes, and apostles can expect to be told to shut up and much worse.
Mr. Olbermann goes over the top with rudeness though. I have never seen the pundits on the conservative side be as crazy rude as he is...to everyone he picks on. Honestly, you can hear hate in his voice when he talks. I don't beleive he has an ounce of respect in his bones for the opinions that are the other side of the line.
Elder Oaks basic message was to encourage our members to not allow the hate that was spewed at them in the recent voting in California to stop them from excercising their civil rights to vote their will. I don't think he crossed the line to being in the politcal arena with that at all. He wasn't telling them how to vote, or what they should think or do. There is no new message in that. That is what the civil rights movement was all about. Allowing everyone to vote and to be able to vote their will with out being worried about the back lash from others, or having our vote squashed because we didn't vote someone elses way.
I see nothing wrong with that message, and I think Mr. Olbermann was with out doubt way out of line and way over the top on the issue and only because it came from the other side of the line.
If Olbermann wants to take shots at the church for its stance on issues then fine. Like Doug said, if the church enters into politics then it will take some jabs. My issue is that Olbermann gets personal and says Elder Oaks who is an apostle of "The Church of Latter-Day Saints" (must be someone else and not to be mistaken for Elder Oaks of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is one of the Worlds Worst People. If he wants to attach the church then do so...not the person.
Actually, there are people on the conservative (or libertarian) side who are just as caustic as Olbermann. Try listening to Michael Savage, or to a lesser degree Mark Levin. They are often as outrageously rude and offensive as Olbermann, but that is why none of these people ever get mainstream. They remain on the fringe.
Also, Elder Oaks knew he was going to be criticized. He stated as much in his talk. I don't think he cares if he is criticized. His job is to defend the church and its goals. Criticism naturally comes with taking controversial positions (which are not necessarily incorrect).
I don't like Savage at all. Never heard of Levin. I have listened to about 1/2 hour of Savage and tune him out everytime I have to drive late at night. Which is where he belongs...late at night where few hear his ramblings.
Post a Comment