On last night’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann hosted actor-and-sometime-activist Janeane Garofalo to talk about Wednesday’s tax-protesting Tea Parties. And talk she did.
Or, rather, mock she did. Here’s Garofalo’s take on the tea parties—and the people who took part in them:
Let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes—they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don’t know their history. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.
I could note that Garofalo has a starring role on the current season of 24, a conservative-agenda-championing, cheerleading-for-torture show if ever there was one…but, really, hypocrisy is the least of the problems with last night’s “CAPITALIST TOOLS” segment. It wasn’t just the blanket accusation—that a whole swath of people are some combination of stupid, ignorant, and racist—Garofalo leveled last night, but also the glibness with which she leveled it. As if it wasn’t, in fact, an accusation at all, but rather an empirical truth.
The kind of reductive, moralistic mockery-of-the-other-side that Garofalo engaged in last night contributes absolutely nothing, and helps absolutely no one. It is not clever. It is not funny. It serves only to foment misunderstanding and resentment, on all sides.
And the fact that Olbermann sat there, last night, and not only enabled Garofalo’s ranting, but encouraged it, makes it all the more ironic—and all the more inappropriate—for the anchor to sign his show off with Murrow’s “good night, and good luck.” There was nothing good about this.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Finally someone gets up the courage (and it does take a measure of courage for someone living and working in a monomanically urban Democratic environment) to call out the nasty excesses of these show-biz pundits like Garofalo, and their smirky hosts, just as Olbermann. People who get their little knickers in a twist over Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh tolerate much more scabrous language produced by their side - from risky (lol) editorial cartoons portraying anyone who opposes, say, affirmative action, in KKK robes, to the routine comparison of the Republicans to the Nazi Party, i.e., to the mass slayers of Jewish children. I guess it just depends. And after the performances of non-Fox channels in coverage of the recent tax protests - the framing and vocabulary - I think anyone who is not a committed partisan knows what news coverage now, in the age of Obama depends upon, and it ain't chestnuts like 'speaking the truth to power' or 'a first rough draft of history'.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 02:53 PM
Who gives a shit what some has been drunk thinks about ANYTHING! Oh, that’s right, the “Edward R Murrow of our time” Keith Olbermann.
The cult of the celebrity will destroy us.
#2 Posted by Ricky Ricardo, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 03:10 PM
I guess I have a different standard for politicians than for entertainers. Garafalo's an entertainer. I don't expect her to have a deep or thoughtful political philosophy, even if she's likely more informed than most entertainers. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer also, the difference being that his adherents (including, it seems, the Republican Party as a whole) embraces him as a serious political thinker and leader. Most Republicans I know don't take him anywhere near that seriously; the party's pandering to him is a bit disturbing.
By that same token, if you're going to speak about comparisons to Nazis, Limbaugh's been at that game for decades. What's his trademar word for feminists, again (feminazis)? What did he and his followers "playfully" call Hillary Clinton (Hiltlery and the Hildabeast)? What are pro-choicers doing (advancing a modern Holocaust)? etc. There's nothing on the mainstream left that compares to Limbaugh, the putative leader of the Republican Party. Olberman has recognized that Limbaugh's style sells to an audience on the left and, like Limbaugh, he's laughing all the way to the bank. (But he has a fraction of the audience, and nobody conceives of him as a thought leader for the Democrats.)
Megan Garber hints at the difference between Limbaugh and Coulter and Garafalo, when she complains that Garafalo wasn't funny. Does she find Limbaugh to be funny? Does she expect Limbaugh to be funny? How about Coulter? Malkin?
I can't really speak about a supposed "editorial cartoon" I've never seen, let alone speculate how it can somehow be generalized to the political left. But if you're going to be equating the comments of an entertainer with no meaningful political following or platform to the likes of Coulter or Limbaugh, and suggest that Garafalo's rhetoric is sometimes worse, I don't need a link - your post is cartoonish enough.
#3 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 03:47 PM
I love how the tables have turned. When right wingers were throwing the "anti-American" insult and accusations of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" at anyone who dared to oppose any of Bush's policies, there was no outcry about how these words were helping no one and were in fact fomenting misunderstanding and resentment.
To say nothing of the fact that the political opinions of some Hollywood actress are actually being given any attention and discussed as if they actually mattered. That alone is laughable beyond belief.
Do people really care what this person thinks of them? Seriously, now.
#4 Posted by Mary A., CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 03:52 PM
"Nasty excesses of these show-biz pundits."
Like, I dunno, Glenn Beck endorsing secession from the United States?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/glenn-beck-advocates-secession
On the one hand, we have a pundit calling the teabag parties insulting names. On the other hand, we have a pundit calling for a second Civil War.
This is supposed to be moral equivalency?
#5 Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 03:54 PM
Its funny to see the left starting to piss its pants now that they realize they are making people with guns really freaking angry. And they would include significant numbers of the armed forces and law enforcement.
#6 Posted by Ricky Ricardo, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 04:36 PM
Ricky Ricardo just posted a threat at 4:36 pm.
#7 Posted by JN, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 05:48 PM
Ricky Ricardo: Calm down, man. While I have little use for Garofolo, please remember how much hatred and viciousness exists on your side (and they've been at it way, way longer than Keith Olbermann) -- so please spare us your whining. Want a more civil, level-headed political debate? Look in the mirror and start with yourself.
#8 Posted by vegasgirl79, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 05:55 PM
Thank you Megan, for noticing and focusing on this. It takes courage and an out-of-the-box mentality for anyone at CJR to criticize the left.
#9 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 05:58 PM
No intelligent life here.
#10 Posted by retiringguy, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 10:49 PM
Ricky, relax. Nobody on the left is paranoid about immigrant Cuban bandleaders, even if they own firearms. Your Green Card is safe.
JLD, explain - what "courage" does it take? I mean, it may take courage for a Republican political leader to stand up to Rush Limbaugh, given that those who have (briefly) done so have uniformly wilted in his gaze. But where is the consequence, anywhere, to anyone, for "focusing on" overstatement and hyperbole by left-wing celebrities? I realize it's fun to make up that type of accusation, but you're spinning fiction here.
#11 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Sat 18 Apr 2009 at 10:27 AM
Aaron - I'm talking about intellectual courage. The courage to stand up to, well.. people like a guy above named "Aaron" who label Megan's post "cartoonish."
If you're going to pretend that the left is more tolerant, it helps to be tolerant yourself. Thanks for making my point, Aaron.
#12 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 18 Apr 2009 at 02:34 PM
You are a perverted caret muncher, so what up?
It has nothing to do with Obams's color, fool!
#13 Posted by cheri, CJR on Sat 18 Apr 2009 at 04:42 PM
How many of these teabaggers actually earn enough money to have their taxes raised by Obama?
How many people of color did you see at these rallies?
The simple fact of the matter is that most of these people are tilting at windmills (see CJR's entry on Cognitive Dissonance of the Week), and they aren't there to protest tax hikes. And they weren't protesting at all when President Bush and the Republican congress were running up record-breaking budget deficits.
Complain all you want, but the truth is that Garafolo's onto something here...
#14 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Sat 18 Apr 2009 at 06:37 PM
This is why I don't read "journalism" anymore. Having stumbled onto your webpage, I was not surprised to see criticism directed not at the racists protesting Obama but at the person pointing out the racism of the protesters. Yes, Garafalo was not particularly funny, but she wasn't trying to be. Her point was quite serious: "This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up." Why don't don't you engage the substance of her message instead of criticizing her delivery and engaging in ad hominem attacks? I guess it's easier to that than to try to refute her point.
#15 Posted by Richard Burt, CJR on Sun 19 Apr 2009 at 07:53 AM
I think the only real display of Cognitive Dissonance is coming from those who think that Obama's current budgetary forecast calling for trillion dollar plus deficits for the foreseeable future coupled with a carbon cap and trade tax wont somehow comeback and cost every single American a significantly bigger chink of their paychecks.
So much for the “reality based” community.
#16 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sun 19 Apr 2009 at 11:38 AM
Right on, Mike H! We have a few mathematically challenged folks here. 1) the tea parties were not party stigmatized, there were plenty of pissed off independents and donkeys in attendance. I'll grant you that many of the participants were the ignorant work-a-day folks that are clinging to God and guns. These people can't find the toothpaste in the morning with out a map acording to the leadership in Washington. Only goodness comes from DC and wisdom and benevolence; have you ever seen one of these people admit to making a mistake? 2) To be in Ms.G's shoes and to seem intellectual and prescient of all that matters one must exhibit a blase affectation, a certain "you know what I mean" attitude to connect with the intellectually selfaware. Olberman wouldn't know how to moderate highschool debate let alone an omniscient afficianado such as Ms.G. 3) Truth is nominal for these folks. They are there for self actualization and if someone gets caught in their afterburner of verbal tripe, too bad, they were in the way of freaking brilliance after all. 4) Yes the evidence is in, all conservative members of our culture are Christian, white, racist, homophobe, imbeciles. This calls for action ie stifle them, cut them off, belittle them, equate them with diseased cattle. Score one for MSNBC your channel for bovine excrement news.
#17 Posted by paul, CJR on Sun 19 Apr 2009 at 10:17 PM
That is a good begining of the conversation (Did the Media miss the boat on the public's opposition or did the media stand behind the people in power?), however check out these two links:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/msms_tea_party_cognitive_disso.html
It seems you draw in more viewers and readers by not insulting them. Wow! That was a concept that even the old copyboys knew when they wrote articles throughout most of the 20th Century.
How has insulting half your audience allowed newspapers to survive?
Someone at CJR should post on it, I've given you studies to work with. Or will you remain ignorant until the last paper folds?
#18 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 11:26 AM
@Hardrada: I agree, the tea party protests weren't entirely about taxes. But, then again, they weren't entirely about any one thing. Some people attended the protests because they resent the government spending associated with the bailout. Some people went because they resent taxes altogether (judging from the signs, the protests attracted a lot of Ron Paul supporters). Some people went out of party (or, perhaps, network) loyalty. Some people went simply to witness the spectacle of it all. And I'm sure at least a handful went simply because they're fans of a nice Orange Pekoe.
The point is, it's a murky thing to make blanket assumptions about the motivations of the people who populate such protests. And when those assumptions turn into accusations, things get even murkier. If you're going to make charges of racism, you simply must provide evidence to back those up. And if you're going to make blanket charges of racism, you better make damn sure you back them up.
If you don't--as Garofalo, in the segment, did not--and if, indeed, the only nod you give to any sort of substantiation of your claims is a self-congratulatory discussion of "the limbic brain"--then you are insulting not only the targets of your accusations, but also the members of your own audience.
#19 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 11:30 AM
Fair enough Megan, and thank you for responding to my comment. I was willing to keep an open mind about these protests, but the preponderance of "Where's Your Birth Certificate?" signs that I saw at these protests led me to believe that racism was a very significant element. You are correct in criticizing Garofalo for painting everyone with the same brush; obviously those people who showed up at these protests aren't a monolith, and she offered little to support her argument. But I think we need to be honest about what we saw here.
#20 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 04:05 PM
I think we're in agreement, then, Hardrada. Yes, there was some racist signage--and, one assumes by extension, racist sentiment--on display at the tea party protests. But the lead-up to Garofalo's guest spot said nothing about racism. Garofalo brought that up apropos of nothing. Now, if she'd then gone on to offer evidence of her claims--"they're racist, and that needs to be said, and here's why"--then that'd be one thing. But instead of substantiation, we got this little nugget of neurology from Garofalo:
"The limbic brain inside a right-winger or a Republican or a conservative--or your average white power activist--is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe, so their synapses are misfiring."
I mean, seriously. What bothers me here isn't merely Garofalo's accusation of racism; of course, as we've seen again and again, during the presidential campaign and after its conclusion, there's a small segment of the Republican Party that harbors xenophobic sentiment about Obama (just as, I'm sure, there's a small segment of the Democratic Party, and the Libertarian Party, and the Working Families Party, and the Green Party, that does so). Now, certainly, we can argue that the GOP's segment is larger than most, or that Party decision-makers have actively tried to exploit xenophobic sentiment--but if we're going to do so, we should be having a true discussion about it. One that relies on fact, rather than on glib stereotype.
The problem I have with the Countdown segment isn't just Garofalo's accusation itself; it's that Garofolo seemed to think it unnecessary to provide evidence of her accusation, as if conservatives' racism and stupidity are of such empiric truth that they no longer deserve the indignity of substantiation. That kind of thinking doesn't foster conversation; it stops it in its tracks.
#21 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 05:17 PM
You've hit the nail on the head Megan; this all comes back to the rise of the "Reinforce What I Already Want To Believe" Media. For example, CNN recently has been trying to carve out a niche as a moderate, centrist network that doesn't cater to partisans from either side... and lo & behold, their ratings plummet, and now they're 4th behind Fox and MSNBC.
A lot of liberals cringe at Olbermann/Hannity comparisons because Hannity is so hateful, but the principle is the same. Just like the echochamber sessions Hannity has with Jonah Goldberg, the LAST thing Olbermann has interest in is a thoughtful and honest exchange of ideas, because both Olbermann and Hannity would be embarrassed and exposed as partisan windbags if they ever tried this.
#22 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 05:59 PM
Isn’t the phrase “That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.” a racist statement? So what does that make Garofalo?
#23 Posted by Dennis Livingston, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 11:07 PM
I know for a fact that if Ms. Gerafalo had replaced the words "they" with "Jews" or "Blacks" or any other minority she would have been kicked out of Hollywood for the rest of her life. Look at Mel Gibson's case if you don't believe me. Why is it if she talks about her fellow Americans like that she is an "outspoken political activist." Please. When Ms. Gerafalo can show me some actual life skills besides the ability to pretend she is someone else for money I might actually listen to something she says seriously.
#24 Posted by Herb III, CJR on Wed 22 Apr 2009 at 04:25 PM
To add to my last comment: I went to a tea party. The terms "president", "democrat", "republican' and "black" were never used once. I personally am not a "redneck" (I am a jet engine mechanic with an IQ over 140) and I am not a racist (I don't blame our black president we've had for 90 days; I blame our white congress we've had for over 200 years). Its not about race, its not about who has the money and who doesn't, and it most certainly isn't about actors and other know-nothings who don't live in the real world but think that they can tell me how to live my life. I'm simply fed up with our own government spending OUR money any way they damn well feel like. Lets see if the *ahem* "public servants" can hear this in Washington. ITS OUR MONEY. STOP PRETENDING THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL YOU HOW TO SPEND IT. WE SUPPLY YOUR SALARY, YOUR OFFICES, YOUR CARS AND PLANES AND THE FANCY RETIREMENT PACKAGES YOU HAVE THAT NONE OF US WILL EVER SEE THE LIKES OF. IF ANYONE IN WASHINGTON HAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS CONCEPT, FEEL FREE TO TAKE TWO ASPRIN AND KISS MY ASS IN THE MORNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks to all of you for listening. Rant over. I feel much better now.
#25 Posted by Herb III, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 06:17 PM
I guess I'm one of the Tea-bagging rednecks, and it is about him being black! Our constitution was written by WHITE men. Even black people know he shouldnt be in office. Go watch Pastor Manning on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcDQ0QaIhuc). A BLACK pastor who knows Obama is an idiot.... He isnt a U.S. citizen, he won't put his hand on the bible... what happened to out CONSTITUTION? Out goes our history! And I dont know why that dumbass Garfaldo is Pro-Obama when she's the one who will be taxed like hell! All the black people and most of the white who voted for him only did because he's black! Once yall saw one black person who talked with some intellect.. OH LETS VOTE FOR THIS IDIOT!
#26 Posted by sc, CJR on Wed 5 Aug 2009 at 06:32 PM