Looks as if Keith finally has his own media tag-team over at Salon.com, ready, willing and able to defend him against Rudy Giuliani's whine that it was inappropriate for him to anchor the Republican presidential debate--AND David Bauder's slimy insinuations, in the form of an AP article, that having Keith anchor the debate was the same as having Bill O'Reilly anchor a Democratic debate (as if!).
If you haven't already read Joan Walsh's "A hit job on Keith Olbermann," please do:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/and then dig into this from Glenn Greenwald: "Brit Hume is a 'journalist'; Keith Olbermann is 'partisan'"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/07/olbermann_hume/Too much good stuff here to quote it all, so I'll leave it at this:
...it is actually far from clear that Keith Olbermann is a "liberal" at all; what "liberal" policies specifically does Olbermann advocate?
What Olbermann actually is, first and foremost, is a critic of the government who adopts an aggressively adversarial posture towards the President and those in power. That actually is -- or at least used to be -- called "journalism."...
...Even if one concedes for the sake of argument that Olbermann is a "liberal," what clearly emerges from all of this is that it is not inappropriate in any way for a "journalist" to express political and ideological views, even the most extreme, offensive and partisan views. The behavior of Brit Hume and Chris Matthews leave no doubt about that....
...Olbermann's real journalistic crime is that he is too critical of powerful government officials. That is the real crux of Olbermann's commentary -- criticizing Bush officials for their abuses of power, exploitation of fear and terrorism threats for political gain, and blatant corruption. Whereas in the past, exposing abuses of power by our most powerful officials and criticizing corruption was the hallmark of a real journalist, that behavior is now considered out of bounds, the mark of an unacceptable ideologue, not a journalist.