Re "ESPN: The Uncensored History," in which KO figures prominantly--

. . . I'm glad to see others discussing Michael Freeman's ESPN book ("The Uncensored History"). Forget the "tortured genius" aspect, which has been disproportionately emphasized. Sexual harrassment at ESPN is the book's central issue.

Freeman talks a lot about Keith's battles with management, it is true; but when the smoke clears, our man ultimately emerges as a FEMINIST ICON, taking up forcefully -- and outspokenly -- for the rights of women at the network who were suffering every kind of sexist oppression known to broadcasting.

While Keith's sidekick Dan Patrick, as is his wont, supported them quietly behind the scenes, Keith championed the women's cause exactly the way we'd expect him to, and IMO has earned himself a place in ANY pantheon of important fighters for women's safety and equality in the workplace!

If I had no additional reason to admire him (and goodness knows there are so many others!), all that Keith risked on behalf of women at ESPN would, by itself, win him enduring place in my heart.

Read Olberman & Patrick's "The Big Show" for entertainment; read Freeman's "ESPN: the Uncensored History" for the writing, which is excellent, and especially for the insights it yields concerning the character of the man to whom this Clubhouse is dedicated.

--WhirlyG
Edited to add:
:loveya:

I've reflected more than once that Alison, with her spectacular looks, would never be allowed to be anything other than a stereotyped bimbo in many other situations. But with Keith, she's allowed to shine on her own and be herself, even if she is - gasp - smart and snarky. She has years of experience ahead of her before she matures into full flower, but I've thought that she's very lucky (or clever, or both) to be with Keith. How many other anchors would have allowered her to bloom? And there was never a queston of sexual harassment with Keith, even before I read what you just wrote. He has integrity and compassion, and neither is consistent with such behavior.
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

. . . female colleagues down the line, and derive great satisfaction from what he has contributed to their success.

:loveya:

I would urge any fan of the man to read "ESPN: The Uncensored History," but at the same time, read it with a copy of his Salon column "Mea Culpa" close by. In order to get a real feeling for the whole persona (at least as much as we can know of it from a distance), and to be fair to the guy, you have to have both side by side.

The picture of him that comes to me from reading both is that yes, this is a guy who stands up for what he wants and doesn't take crap from anybody...and who claims himself to have a huge ego...but behind all that bluster, has a deep-seated insecurity he himself didn't realize until he began to explore it via therapy (possibly initially triggered by 9/11, but then maybe continued into deeper, more long-term issues).

Part of the reason I suspect it is precisely because he is such a snarkologist. Most people don't become snarkologists unless they have a reason to be cynical and sarcastic about something. Most of the time they're not perfectly shiny happy people with a rose-colored view of the world. They have looked at it closely and assessed it with a sharp mind and found it sorely wanting. At that point, they can do one of two things: become complete nasty, negative misanthropes who spend all their time hurting other people while they try to get ahead, or they can become comedians who use sarcasm and snarkiness as the shield behind which they hide all their vulnerability and frustration and insecurity (despite whatever brilliance and talent they truly have--which for some reason they fear is never enough)--and keep trying their own level best in the world without hurting others. They remain basically good people, good friends and champions of the powerless and downtrodden, ready to help whenever they can, even after they themselves experience success (which they're never quite convinced they truly deserve). However, because they appear to think they're personally hot stuff (a front they put up, of course, to cover the insecurity), many people take them at face value and hate them--especially those not gifted with as much intelligence or natural talent.

You can read all the bad stuff he says in that book, but you have to read it knowing that he's taken some of it back because he realizes he went overboard in some places (in others he appears not to have--and you have to say "Yeah, things really were that bad," or "That person really was a bonehead"). You can read about him making Suzy Kolber cry, but you have to read it knowing that he had no idea what was happening at the time and admitted later that if he had, he'd have stopped it right away and apologized. That he realizes now that the only reason he did it was because he was terrified of the failure of ESPN2 being pinned on him and him alone, and he needed someone else to scapegoat, and she was the easy target. It was his insecurity talking, and he knows that now. I respect someone who's examined himself closely enough to not only be able to realize he's made bad mistakes in the past, but to admit it in public where people can slag him mercilessly for it--and do.

It amazes me that some people still seem to think because of what was said in that book that "he makes people who work with him miserable." That was 1993. How many of us want to be judged now exactly by how we behaved back in 1993?

And then you have the fact that seems incompatible with that idea, which these same people seem to ignore: that he went to bat for all those women suffering from sexual harassment, when he had something to lose by doing so. How does that jibe with his alleged delight in making them cry on the job? It doesn't. It just doesn't. And no one else talked to about it has ever denied he did it or that he played a big role in it, either. All they have done is said "The women lied" or "The women exaggerated"--which is typical, because so often when women are harassed, they are not believed.

I don't pretend to know or understand the complexities of his relationships with the opposite sex and I am sure not going to speculate on them here. But to my mind, anyway, he doesn't come off as a misogynist at any point. On the contrary, I'm with Whirly--I see him as a sort of accidental feminist--and perhaps more so than if he were married for decades with a passel of kids. Which would, I fear, do a far better job of convincing the masses that "he doesn't have a problem with women." The irony of that, of course, is that there are plenty of so-called happily married men with children who have nothing but contempt for women in general and their wives in particular. Who knows, maybe he's so turned off by the idea of possibly becoming "one of them," and such an idealist about relationships, that that also makes things difficult for him. Who knows?

Things are not always as simple as they seem. Neither is this guy.

Just my $.02. Or maybe $2.

. . . complexities of human nature.

No one, not even an admirable person, is perfect; but in Keith I believe we see a man who is trying to be his best self and succeeding a considerable part of the time.

--WhirlyG

Wow! What a great post!

1. "Snarkologist" really deserves an independent post on it's own, perhaps entitled "Snarkology 101." That is a wealth of insight, and I'd love to explore that further: what is Snark? when is it appropriate? when is it best held back? how does snark enhance, or detract from a story? what is the role of humor? does one learn how to become snarky, or is it inherent in certain personalities?
Inquiring minds would like to know!

2. Keith, the human being. Sure we admire and love him, and often place him on a pedestal. But those who get placed so high are often victims of others trying to knock them down (enter here the discussions of the "other" websites). Also pertinent: can we keep an objective eye opened to Keith? I think we have, for the most part.

3. The importance of reading "in context." You can read something KO has written, but in order to fully appreciate it, you're better off understanding the totality of the person. His earlier writing is not going to be the same as his later works - they will reflect a growth of character, insight, and humor. You also can't really isolate one sentence or paragraph and say "this is what KO thinks about...." because it's a photograph of a moment in KO time.

This "in context" stuff is important to me, because I learned of its importance in two separate areas of study: musicology and biblical studies. The above rules are the same. Know your subject matter. Set it in historical context. Know what form is being used (newscast, blog, poetry, etc..). Avoid making rash judgments, and keep an open mind.

Great stuff, Berry! :thumbsup:

Cheese, you bring up a lot of things worth examining here.

1. Snarkology 101. I guess my feeling is, whenever you scratch a snarkologist, what you find underneath is someone who was hurt badly by something, somewhere, somehow. Combine that with a natural bent for humor (perhaps inherited?) and you get a snarkologist. Whether it's a bitter, nasty snarkologist (I don't like those at all) or a basically good, kind, decent snarkologist depends on which way the twig was bent (and that is a responsibility that generally falls to the parents of said snarkologist, or at least whichever parent or other loved person hopefully raises the snarkologist, because without at least one loving caretaker in youth, the snarkologist will be a bitter, nasty one). That's my theory, anyway.

High intelligence and snarkology also tend to go together, because high intelligence has a keenly sharp sense of the absurd and the hypocritical, and can't help juxtaposing what people say with the opposite things they actually do, or what a culture says it values with what it actually rewards--and when that juxtaposition is done in a comical way, you have Snark!

I think one big difference between bitter, nasty snarkologists and good, decent ones is that good, decent ones still have values and, if you will, "sacred cows." Their sacred cows are not the same as many other people's, but they have them and they don't cross the line into bad taste or nihilism. You see some people out there and they are great snarkmeisters but it's in a bitter and nasty way--they almost make you afraid that you're next on their list of those to be snarked at. They don't seem to have any values and you're afraid to turn your back on them because you figure while you're laughing at their snarks on someone else, someone else is laughing at their snarks on you. And they will snark on anything and everything. No subject goes unsnarked.

KO's not like that. He has made up his mind what matters and what is not to be snarked about and at, and he keeps up the boundaries and maintains them with grace. Michael Jackson and his foibles--snark. Paris Hilton and her foibles--snark. Just about any celebrity too big for his or her britches--snark. Criminals who lead the cops on crazy car chases and end up getting caught--snark. People doing the goofy-looking things people do? Snark--gentle snark (after all, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean they don't seriously enjoy it). But Iraq? No snark--unless it's about the deaths of two tyrants who tortured and killed others. Then we can snark. Little girls getting raped, tortured and murdered? Again, no snark. Terri Schiavo? Pope dying? No snark.

2. The human being. Hey, nobody can help placing a person on a pedestal who shows the kind of talent and wisdom of use that KO shows. At the same time, one must guard against seeing him as perfect. Another sign of the good snarkologist: willingness to deprecate self. (I'm thinking here about the jokes he made about being disappointed that the Fox Sports promotional tattoos of his face were only temporary, or about having a "big fat wallet," or about how for the good of mankind he was not going to pose for Playgirl, or about when Monica Novotny called him "my boss" and he said "I'm your boss?!? What a terrible life you must have!") No, doesn't sound like a guy who thinks he is perfect or wants others to. However, it doesn't mean he's going to take crap from people who lie about him, call him things he's not, etc. This is where one of his traits comes in that I think annoys his fans a great deal--the fact that he seems more likely to reply to critical email than email agreeing with him. Some people would love to respond to every word of praise they get and would just ignore their naysayers, but his naysayers appear to have *better* exchanges with him than those who like him. He still appears to be motivated by a strong need to prove his critics wrong, or to prove himself right. Remember what I said about the insecurity that lies beneath? Why else would this be so? Unfortunately it's a weakness that makes him vulnerable to those naysayers. They know they can "get to him" to some extent with all the taunting. Oh, and speaking of the book--remember how enraged he supposedly got when he overheard some joke in Suzy K's mouth about him being "obsessed" with baseball? If *that* doesn't smack of someone once having really hit him where it hurts on *that* subject, and him having been hypersensitive about it ever after, I don't know what does.

You know, I was just about to post here a list of what I think his personal "hot buttons" are. Then I realized that might be going too far--after all, I could always be wrong. And gee, what if I was right? Would I really want his detractors to be able to come here and see them, and draw on them in their next set of nastygrams to him? No. That would not be fair to him. So. I refrain.

3. Reading in context. Wow, I don't know about you, but I have never been famous and I can only imagine what it must be like to read words of your own from your past, printed in a book for all time, and held against you by people who came across it in the library just yesterday! Is anyone that static a person that they deserve to be judged solely that way? I don't think so. I think you have to assemble pieces from various sources in order to assemble a true picture of anyone. Like a historian trying to write a biography of a long-dead person, you don't just check one source and then write your book. And as he himself said, if you're not smarter when you get older than you were when younger, you should just stay in your room.

I have sometimes joked that those of us who have had our Internet posts archived, and have done nothing about it, will someday have to wake up to the fact that our own grandchildren will someday be Googling us and reading the words of some flame war we had with someone on a Usenet newsgroup 40 years ago. I sure hope they don't judge us solely by that, any more than I judge my opinion of what kind of person my mother was by the fact that she told me she actually broke up with her date on prom night--let him pay for the whole evening, take her out, show her a good time, *then* dumped him!

Same with KO. Just from reading some things other people have said I am amazed at how much half-truth gets assumed on about him as "fact." Heck, even that he's "a Yankees fan" or that they're "his team." I don't see where that is necessarily true. Yes, he followed them as a kid, because his mom did, but that was before he became a sportscaster and (if you read The Big Show) supposedly stopped being a homer for any one team. Besides which, I get the impression he's a "baseball fan" in the broad sense--he loves the *sport* more than anything else, even a particular team. But that's one small example. Whether it's his religion, the kind of women he dates or whatever, it seems that a lot of conclusions get drawn in the absence of very little solid information. I know that when information is scarce people tend to cling to what little they have like barnacles (and we're all guilty of that probably), but what bugs me is when people will take one thing they read about him somewhere, and draw mistaken conclusions from it. (For example, people who actually don't know the story of why he can't drive, and assume it's because he chooses not to learn--and who used it as yet another strike against him in terms of not understanding why he was unhappy with life in Bristol, CT and lashed out against his ESPN "dream job." When they'd be just as unhappy, if they were physically unable to drive and forced to live in a small town with no public transportation, just because it was close to where they worked.)

Oh well, this has all gone on for way too long. I'm starting to feel like Howard Beale!

and I have a feeling you may be especially on-target in your remarks about people judging him based on things they read that happened years ago. Time corrects our judgment as we strive to mend our flaws and some of us try harder than others and are a bit more honest with ourselves about what we see. I get the impression that KO's done quite a bit of growing and changing since the ESPN days and it would be especially inappropriate to try to pretend that he's the same guy now that he was then.

As for the difference between a "nasty" snarkologist and the kind of snarkologist that Keith is, I tend to think of it in pretty simplistic terms: regardless of how snarky Keith is or how/why he got that way, he's still capable of liking, enjoying, and respecting people. Nasty snarkologists have lost that capability -- even when it comes to themselves -- perhaps especially when it comes to themselves.

ed:sp

I think you have the difference between the "nasty" snarkologist and the kind Keith is pegged just right. He may be insecure (and I truly believe he is, under all the ego), but he doesn't hate himself, and he doesn't hate other people, and he doesn't hate the world. He's able to see the human comedy, as well as the human tragedy. And that makes all the difference.

I believe there is a saying that goes "Life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think." KO both feels *and* thinks, so he sees both sides.

. . . A question occurs:

Keith has had a great time giving it to O'Reilly for harrassing Ms Makris -- while THIS has been happening in his own back yard.

I'm aware Keith joined with a number of other highly desirable guests a while back, in determining NOT to appear on Imus' show (hence Imus' frequent tart comments aimed at Keith, whom he formerly praised)-- so KO may make a point of not paying much attention to what's going on there most of the time. However, it is nigh onto impossible for the story of the Contessa "experiment" and how it failed not to have percolated through the MSNBC organization and into Keith's conciousness.

What has KO had to say behind the scenes about this horrendous incident? And what freedom does he have on "Countdown" to talk about Contessa's abuse on another MSNBC program? It's not only in his interest to DENOUNCE IT (since feminists could have an impact on MSNBC's ratings if they got wind of this and decided to organize a response) but judging from his past history, it would normally be difficult for KO to keep his mouth shut about it.

The story -- from tvnewser -- follows:

- - -
"SHAME ON MSNBC" FOR IMUS/CONTESSA
Some of the comments from e-mailers in response to yesterday's post about Contessa Brewer:
> "Rick Kaplan should be forced to sit on the Imus set while on the air and take abuse from Imus in person. He had no problem allowing Contessa Brewer to be sexually harrassed and humiliated on air."
> "No woman should be subjected to the abuse that Contessa Brewser or Amy Robach had to endure while working with Don Imus and his ilk. He purports to be 'progressive,' yet he and his crew constantly insult and belittle the women they work with...And shame on MSNBC for allowing such trash on their airwaves."
> The main reason Contessa isn't on is because of Tracy Burgess of WFAN, an e-mailer says: "Tracy was always insulting her."
> "Don't forget that on Imus last week Charles had a barbie doll with dark hair that sort of looked like Contessa. He took it and had it straddle his mic, then he removed the top and exposed the doll's bare chest. And that was on top of all the sexual comments."
> "I agree that Imus pretty much shit on Ms. Brewer (for no apparently good reason other than he and his cohorts apparently felt that Ms. Brewer was imposed on them -- to the theoretical detriment of Charles)."
--Posted by brian

CONTESSA BREWER OFF MSNBC's IMUS
Contessa Brewer is no longer reading the news on MSNBC's broadcast of 'Imus in the Morning.' ("Any idea what happened with the Imus and Contessa Brewer experiment? She just stopped appearing without mention," an e-mailer asked yesterday.)
Brewer will continue to be an afternoon news anchor, TVNewser has learned. Charles McCord will continue reading the news. (After all, Imus is produced by WFAN.) On today's broadcast, Imus and the crew were reviewing a list of potential successors, an e-mailer says...
> "The last few times I heard the show when she was , the gang was increasingly piling on with some over the top comments," an MSNer says.
> On April 12, an e-mailer said: "This morning Brewer looked like a fish out of water. She was clearly very uncomfortable and it was almost painful to watch."
> On March 25, an anonymous tipster said: "MSNBC and Imus have allowed Imus's on-air associate Bernard McGuirk to regularly make sexually offensive remarks directed towards Contessa Brewer. It is obvious from her pained expression that these remarks are unwelcome and create a hostile work environment for her."
> In February Brewer was moved off Early Today to replace Amy Robach, who didn't seem comfortable on the Imus show.
--Posted by brian
http://mediabistro.com/tvnewser/
- - -

unprofessional and despicable this behavior was. Whether he chooses to blog about it is another question. Ms. Brewer or her legal counsel might not want him to and I believe he'd respect her wishes in the matter.

. . . I hope the day arrives when he CAN weigh in, tho!

What matters is whether someone stomps on Imus for being such an asshole.

. . . It's important that such heroic stands be documented. Otherwise, KO might as well have said nothing about the election, either.

I endured some of the same things at my workplace that those ESPN women did, and I like to think if KO were there he'd have denounced the behavior and supported me.

before the news broke.

That could make a difference. Somehow I think MSNBC is a slightly different world than ESPN. I could be wrong, of course.

I guess it will be interesting to see.

but I don't know what the structure of ESPN in the KO era was like vs. the structure of MSNBC today. Are (were) all the programs and all the production crews on them pretty much separate from each other? Do (did) they ever all get together in the same place at the same time outside of some big honcho's farewell party? Or is there crossover?

And here's a good question: would KO at MSNBC have occasion to see anyone on someone else's show (be it Imus's or whoever's) actually in the process of being harassed? Or would it all be secondhand knowledge? Would such a person actually be in a position where she might come to him and say "This is what's been happening and you've got to help me"? Or would it be more like "Why would I come to him? He's not even on the studio grounds when we do our show."

Is the crew of Imus the crew of Imus, the crew of Countdown the crew of Countdown, and never the twain shall meet? And is the same true of all the other shows on MSNBC? Or is there more familiarity than that?

Anyone know?

And would there be pressure not to comment on it publicly if some other "name" at the network received unwelcome publicity for such harassment? The "we're all one big happy family" syndrome? Not that KO would necessarily knuckle under to that pressure. But for some reason, who knows what, he has not taken potshots at Imus in the past, despite the fact that Imus certainly has not returned the favor--and nobody is giving HIM the "don't say that about Keith, we're all one big happy family!" treatment.

It's a puzzlement.

. . . But the problem was ongoing until Contessa switched time slots so there was plenty of time for it to make the rounds.

Every corporate setting I worked in, everybody knew what was going on in all the other departments.

The turdface on Imus had his mic between the proxy-doll's legs facryinoutloud. On national television. KO would have to be spending A LOT of time in ball parks not to have caught a whiff of the major stink to come.

My husband and I have known him for years. It's in his nature to always side with the underdog.