Inside Blogotics

continued from page 1

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

Mr. Howe describes the convoluted, but richly detailed, account of how Mr. Olbermann’s rants into the MSNBC camera unraveled under third-degree interrogation of “two little tools I like to call ‘keyboard and mouse.’…

“At Redstate I’ve posted screenshots of Olbermann’s second Twitter account, which actually Tweeted the very segment in which he rants about not being a Twitterer. Yeesh. It’s funny, but the casual manner with which Olbermann maligns Dan Cooper is anything but amusing,” Mr. Howe said. “Olbermann recklessly ran with a story for which he and his staff clearly hadn’t done even the barest of research, something that is all too common for ‘Countdown.’ He pointedly posits a conspiracy theory, and gets every single fact wrong. It’s a perfect example of what passes for journalism at the utterly incompetent MSNBC.”

Twittergate II

Nor is that all about Keith Olbermann and Twitter. In his indignation, Mr. Olbermann insisted he never has been on Twitter. That demonstrably isn’t so, as the articles referenced in the last item show.

Greg Pollowitz at National Review’s Media Blog noted something else. “I actually was following Keith Olbermann on Twitter for a day or so, until I realized he wasn’t using it. Whoever is in charge of the feed now has blocked it from public view. But, from what I remember, the posts were in the first person. Maybe NBC should admit that it was ghost-posting for one of its anchors?”

Either Mr. Olbermann was Tweeting in his own name (in which case, he engaged in 200-proof lying). Or he wasn’t, and thus someone from MSNBC was writing 140 characters per post in Mr. Olbermann’s name, pretending to be him. From ghost-writing to ghost-Tweeting.

Or as Mr. Olbermann himself put it, in language that now reads so differently: “Just remember, whoever you think you are following on Twitter, might be them and it might not. Twitter, tonight’s worst persons in the world.”

Art history

Two weeks ago, President Obama set his schedule for a Catholic university whose name means “Our Lady.” (That would be Notre Dame.) And a fuss ensued. Then, last week, according to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had an encounter with an image of the Virgin Mary. And the protocol and briefing people who brought you the Russian reset buttons, Brazilian names and British DVDs did another bang-up job.

In a trip to Mexico, Mrs. Clinton stopped at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe to see one of the staples of devotion to Mary, popular in Mexico and other Catholic countries. The Guadalupe image of the mother of Jesus as a native peasant is popularly thought to be a miraculous imprint made on the cloak of St. Juan Diego in 1531.

While viewing the famous image, Mrs. Clinton asked, “Who painted it?” The basilica’s rector, Monsignor Diego Monroy, responded, “God!”

“Who painted it?” repeats an incredulous Mr. Morrissey.

Added Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters: “Now, perhaps Clinton being so woefully ignorant of anything religious isn’t such a surprise, but for a Secretary of State to be visiting one of the most famous and important churches in the region, one holding a much beloved religious relic, without even finding her staff informing her ‘who painted’ the image reveals a shocking lack by professionalism of both the Secretary of State and her staff.”

And Mollie Hemingway of Get Religion noted the complete lack of mainstream media news coverage of the gaffe. “Why was this story not deemed newsworthy? I’m sure some people would say that it’s just bias — that if, say, a Bush Administration official had said it, we’d be hearing all about it. I’m not sure. I suspect that it’s more likely we’re seeing the media’s ignorance of Mexico’s religious heritage and her most important religious picture,” she wrote.

Victor Morton can be reached at vmorton@washingtontimes.com

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus