Do I detect the rank smell of condescension in the belated take on Keith Olbermann in this morning’s LA Times? The reporter’s reference to KO as a “longtime sportscaster” is factual but somehow belittling. And methinks her description of him as a “folk hero” for the left — “an unexpected folk hero for the frustrated left,” to be precise — has a patronizing odor.
So does this: “When he’s not lecturing Bush, he wears a perpetually amused expression on the air and casually tosses papers off his desk.” Indeed he does. I can’t gainsay her that. But there’s something supercilious in how she puts the facts. Ditto when she describes him as “scribbling out” one of his commentaries (a particularly strong one at that) and when she points to “gushing” messages that come in (one, pointedly, from Joseph C. Wilson IV, who, it so happens, is exactly right about Olbermann and the press).
I could go on (and on). For instance, to the tut-tutting about KO’s coverage of celebrities like Tom Cruise, and so forth, but that’s getting too picky. Which is so juvenile.
Postscript: A reader from Los Angeles writes:
Whdd y ‘spct whn y ct stff t th bn?
Context: To save space in the news hole, vowels have been eliminated as well as lots of top-drawer journalists and editors.
Translation: What did you expect when you cut staff to the bone?