Olbermann’s voice didn’t work in new reality

Keith Olbermann is out at MSNBC, and his Countdown show is no more.

Regardless of what you think of Olbermann, it’s hard to deny he changed the way we perceive news and the role of the journalist. He took the helm on March 31, 2003 – just 11 days after the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush. In the aftermath of “shock and awe” came the infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, where Bush declared major combat operations over and the press dutifully began to cover the situation less and less, as if things had ended. The narrative, it seemed, had been complete.

Olbermann, though saw a different story and pursued it doggedly every night on Countdown. By keeping the story alive, he began to show a different picture. Not only were major combat operations not over, but the situation was deteriorating as the power vacuum made room for the Iraqi insurgency and even the creation of an Al Qaida base of power within the country.

Over time, Olbermann changed the narrative, just as some of our best journalists before him have done. The press slowly woke up to the reality, and although the first response from the administration hawks was to deny that we had a situation, Bush’s shakeup of the war management team was the result of the criticism and renewed interest. Conservatives may not have liked Olbermann’s style, but his criticism led to a change of strategy (in this case, the surge) that probably saved Bush’s image as a war president in the realm of public perception. Even as some on the left tried to deny that the surge worked, mind you.

Olbermann’s approach was different, perhaps the antibody to CNN’s “leave it there” approach. He made a habit of asking hard questions and trying to give us answers, even if the whole process was uncomfortable.

Olbermann’s signature signoff on Countdown during the Bush years (“It’s been X days since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq”) might be the most misunderstood mainstay from the show, and in fact I think seeing that phrase for what it was is essential to getting the mission of Countdown. Conservatives seethed that he was exploiting Bush’s gaffe for too long and weaking public support for the war. This might be true, but I don’t think that reflects a solid understanding of Olbermann’s show.

I always saw the phrase as two-fold. It was a reminder to the American people, eager to stuff unpleasant news down the memory hole, that the war was still ongoing and that we should be paying attention. But more broadly, it reflected Olbermann’s particular read on progressive politics: the business of government is never finished, and that while clever slogans might calm an anxious public, the grim reality is that nothing is ever over and that we create new kinds of problems when we stop paying attention and stop holding our public officials accountable.

This second view came out in other ways. He did yeoman’s work lobbying for health care reform, keeping the issue alive when others thought it dead. He pushed for more and more, but when the terms of the bill were clear, he argued that Democrats should take the deal they have, not hold out for the one they hope for. Not because it was perfect, but because it was a start. Begin to address the huge issues, and tweak it as we go. This is classic John Dewey philosophy, the idea that democracy is a process and not a destination and thus must meet our constant engagement rather than disillusionment when things don’t go perfectly.

Essentially, the kind of thing that enraged his conservative detractors. It’s basically, “Yeah, government is imperfect. So what? Help us make it run better.”

The problem, of course, is that Olbermann became the story more and more over the years. His righteous anger on Iraq came to stand for what millions felt about mismanagement of the Iraq war, but anger subsides with time. He became instead a symbol of a unique right-wing media lie, that there wasa burgeoning “angry left.” Whereas he gave voice to anger during the Bush years, over time he was just seen as angry. Reading his Twitter feed via his profile page is sad at times, as you can see countless replies to trolls that successfully goad him into responding. If there’s one thing that seemed to define Olbermann to someone who just sees him via media, it’s that he doesn’t have it in him to let some things go. When things are crazy in Iraq, it worked for us. But as part of his overall approach to many things big and small, it gets hard to understand. This, incidentally, is a characteristic I see in myself sometimes and have to fight.

All of this is his media image to many. None of it may be true and he might just have fun messing with the trolls, but perception can be reality. More to the point, it can mean stepping on your own message.

Olbermann seemed to acknowledge that he heard these criticisms. He killed the Worst Persons In The World segment on his show several times because he understood people didn’t get the joke, but it kept coming back. How do you move on without abandoning the uniqueness of what you’re trying to do?

I remember watching his Saturday night coverage of the Giffords shooting a couple weeks ago. In particular, his Special Comment seemed to show a picture of Olbermann shaken. He apologized for angry rhetoric, acknowledging that while it might not have played a part, it was time to tone it down. He asked folks of many stripes to join him.

This was no longer the Olbermann we knew. His voice on the show changed in the short aftermath before his resignation. I don’t know how to put my finger on it than to say that it was time to move on; the voice he gave progressives during the Bush years was no longer needed during the Obama years, replaced instead by the cool reasoning of folks such as Rachel Maddow.

I know this because I’ve watched Olbermann less and less the past two years but try not to miss Maddow’s show. Both shows deserve credit for something the right will not acknowledge (and more to the point, rarely did during the Bush years): they’ve held Obama accountable as well. Maddow and Olbermann are journalists through and through and haven’t gone easy on the current president just because they share many of his stated ideals. In fact, their role has been to challenge Obama to stick to those ideals.

But it wasn’t the same. Perhaps he had to burn down the village to save it, in a sense. Maybe Countdown had to die because it became impossible to evolve it into what it needed to be if we are to tone it down. Maybe to do that it had to be free of peoples’ preconceived notions and the unique history it has in recent pop culture. Or maybe he’s just having a hell of a time trying to balance career and the aftermath of his father’s death. Maybe it’s a mixture of a lot of things.

Whatever the case, it has felt for a year like Olbermann had lost his voice, or perhaps that his voice on Countdown wasn’t suited for a political climate that was changing. It’s a shame, but these things happen.

People worry about Comcast forcing him out. So do I. If true it’s a confirmation of our worst fears about how corporate media robs us of unique voices.

But those real worries aside, I see it another way. I blogged about Cluetrain the other day, and in that post I highlight some ideas that make for a logical next step for Olbermann. He is free to be who he needs to be now, unencumbered by corporate restraints. Look at the severance deal more carefully and you’ll see he’s free to do what he wants on the Web. This is crucial. He can reach his audience more directly and maybe even find new listeners with even a simple YouTube and Twitter combination, as Dave Winer points out.

Some might say that he loses a platform that gives him special reach by not being on MSNBC; I say the interactive Web gives him to operate without a ceiling. Maybe, just maybe, in all of that he’ll figure out a way to dream it up again.