He should be suspended, or even fired, if he broke the rules of his network. I like the guy, but he screwed up.
That said, I think CNN has fallen so far back because Fox started the model of blatantly biased "news", and then MSNBC followed suit on the left. That kind of left CNN hanging in the breeze for those who actually want mostly unbiased news reporting. (Like me!) I lean to the left and I do watch MSNBC from time to time, but if I want mainstream news that is as close to being unbiased as possible I turn to CNN or NPR. Mostly NPR since I get most of my news in my car. Or from any one of my highly conservative co-workers who believe, among other things, that Obama is secretly a Muslim and that we was probably somehow behind the recent Gulf oil spill disaster. :? Both of which are preached by the goobs over at Fox News...
msnbc's primetime ratings are not in the tank. they're 2nd behind fixed news. which really has no similar network to compete with.
election night:
fox 7m
cnn 2.4m
msnbc 1.9m
there are rumblings that when comcast takes over they will shake things up...not solely due to ratings but just from a journalistic standpoint.
on disaster nights or election nights. cnn always gets a big bounce. i'm talking about regularly.
Election nights are where the network has to make hay....pull in the numbers...to set up higher ad rates...and sell ads at a higher rate just like the NFL with the Superbowl. The news business is just that...a business, but we expect honesty, transparency and the use of the low bias filter to be served up to us as the news. I prefer CNN, but honestly, that prime-time line sucks serious ass....HLN is absolute shit in prime-time too....what exactly the point of Nancy Grace and Jane Velez???
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
He should be suspended, or even fired, if he broke the rules of his network. I like the guy, but he screwed up.
That said, I think CNN has fallen so far back because Fox started the model of blatantly biased "news", and then MSNBC followed suit on the left. That kind of left CNN hanging in the breeze for those who actually want mostly unbiased news reporting. (Like me!) I lean to the left and I do watch MSNBC from time to time, but if I want mainstream news that is as close to being unbiased as possible I turn to CNN or NPR. Mostly NPR since I get most of my news in my car. Or from any one of my highly conservative co-workers who believe, among other things, that Obama is secretly a Muslim and that we was probably somehow behind the recent Gulf oil spill disaster. :? Both of which are preached by the goobs over at Fox News...
Whose the "we" behind the Gulf Oil Spill???? According to your co-worker and Fox News??? Just interested....
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
i think the only people who watch him are liberals who only want to hear their own point of view and independents/right leaning folks looking for a laugh.
the same can be said for fox.
well that might be debatable solely on the sheer number of viewers they have. but i find it interesting how you did not comment on the more important issue of biased commentators anchoring msnbc's election night coverage...and every other important news coverage.
i think the only people who watch him are liberals who only want to hear their own point of view and independents/right leaning folks looking for a laugh.
the same can be said for fox.
well that might be debatable solely on the sheer number of viewers they have. but i find it interesting how you did not comment on the more important issue of biased commentators anchoring msnbc's election night coverage...and every other important news coverage.
fox news are biased also. i watched msnbc's coverage and they were fair. i didn't see a problem with it.
well that might be debatable solely on the sheer number of viewers they have. but i find it interesting how you did not comment on the more important issue of biased commentators anchoring msnbc's election night coverage...and every other important news coverage.
fox news are biased also. i watched msnbc's coverage and they were fair. i didn't see a problem with it.
this isn't a fox verses msnbc thing. i don't particularly care for either channel. only thing i watch on fox is oreilly from time to time because he is not afraid to have guests from both the left and the right share their viewpoints. my point is they don't have him hosting actual news coverage like msnbc does with olberman and the other leftists.
but i am happy to see admit msnbc is biased though. childish too, after tuesday.
He should be suspended, or even fired, if he broke the rules of his network. I like the guy, but he screwed up.
That said, I think CNN has fallen so far back because Fox started the model of blatantly biased "news", and then MSNBC followed suit on the left. That kind of left CNN hanging in the breeze for those who actually want mostly unbiased news reporting. (Like me!) I lean to the left and I do watch MSNBC from time to time, but if I want mainstream news that is as close to being unbiased as possible I turn to CNN or NPR. Mostly NPR since I get most of my news in my car. Or from any one of my highly conservative co-workers who believe, among other things, that Obama is secretly a Muslim and that we was probably somehow behind the recent Gulf oil spill disaster. :? Both of which are preached by the goobs over at Fox News...
Whose the "we" behind the Gulf Oil Spill???? According to your co-worker and Fox News??? Just interested....
Typo - I meant He, as in the great black socialist nazi muslim omnipotent president currently residing in the White House but with God's infinite grace will be replaced in two years by Sarah "mama grizzly" Palin.
but i am happy to see admit msnbc is biased though. childish too, after tuesday.
but fox doesn't admit to it. and their guys supported republican candidates. and told people to donate to their campaigns.
dude. i do not like fox either. you sound like a little kid telling on his brother or something. either way the fox guys who did that were their commentators (with the exception of neil cavuto) not the one's anchoring what is supposed to be an unbiased news program like election night.
but i am happy to see admit msnbc is biased though. childish too, after tuesday.
but fox doesn't admit to it. and their guys supported republican candidates. and told people to donate to their campaigns.
dude. i do not like fox either. you sound like a little kid telling on his brother or something. either way the fox guys who did that were their commentators (with the exception of neil cavuto) not the one's anchoring what is supposed to be an unbiased news program like election night.
how am i acting like a kid telling on his brother? I just don't know why people compare keith to those guys on fox. other than having a show. that's all there is. he reports facts and comments on them. they take non stories or fabricated ones. and run with it. i don't think what he did was wrong. in terms of donating.
dude. i do not like fox either. you sound like a little kid telling on his brother or something. either way the fox guys who did that were their commentators (with the exception of neil cavuto) not the one's anchoring what is supposed to be an unbiased news program like election night.[/quote]
how am i acting like a kid telling on his brother? I just don't know why people compare keith to those guys on fox. other than having a show. that's all there is. he reports facts and comments on them. they take non stories or fabricated ones. and run with it. i don't think what he did was wrong. in terms of donating.[/quote]
--
every reply you've had in this thread was comparing him to fox.
i don't think any person who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist should donate money to any political campaign...especially those anchoring important news coverage that should be unbiased. i think your political leanings may be getting in the way of clear thinking here.
let there be no doubt: the media is and has been dead in this country for a long time. this story further perpetuates that.
dude. i do not like fox either. you sound like a little kid telling on his brother or something. either way the fox guys who did that were their commentators (with the exception of neil cavuto) not the one's anchoring what is supposed to be an unbiased news program like election night.
how am i acting like a kid telling on his brother? I just don't know why people compare keith to those guys on fox. other than having a show. that's all there is. he reports facts and comments on them. they take non stories or fabricated ones. and run with it. i don't think what he did was wrong. in terms of donating.[/quote]
--
every reply you've had in this thread was comparing him to fox.
i don't think any person who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist should donate money to any political campaign...especially those anchoring important news coverage that should be unbiased. i think your political leanings may be getting in the way of clear thinking here.
let there be no doubt: the media is and has been dead in this country for a long time. this story further perpetuates that.
...wow that is some bad quoting--sorry![/quote]
i know what you're saying. but it's his personal money. and it's not like he's down the party line.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Well I guess it took MSNBC two whole days to realize "indefinitely suspending" their highest rated host wasn't the best idea in the world
The only thing Keith is good for is Sports highlights...the rest, he is a mess.
I don't really give a damn if he gave the Dems $, that's small compared to what he does on a daily basis with his BS show. He is no better than Hannity, etc and MSNBC is no better than Fox. If you can't see that, you (the general you) are an idiot.
This just in...Keith Obermann is a Democratic party shill....Hannity is a GOP shill.....MSNBC is a Dem shill....Fox News is a Repub. shill.........the world is round.....the sun is hot....water is wet...
also, bill maher said it on his show to which i've heard many people parrot since, especially on facebook.
i'm glad this is all over, though, i was getting tired of seeing those URGENT ACTION ALERT!!!! posts every day on facebook. urgent, as if the world will collapse without his show, i hope he never goes on vacation!
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
another thing that i find laughable about olbermann's show is how he never has a guest on who disagrees with him. this is an article that, ironically, came out yesterday comparing countdown to o'reilly's show. bear in mind the daily news is a pretty liberal paper in philly. but it's a fair article and illustrates what i'm talking about:
Stu Bykofsky: Olbermann fair? O'Reilly balanced? What we found
By Stu Bykofsky
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Columnist
BEFORE THE Democrats got battered in Tuesday's election, I decided to check out one of their favorite pincushions - the Fox News Channel's "fair and balanced" motto.
"Fair" can be subjective. "Balanced," less so. Airing contrary points of view is one element of being fair.
Last week, Monday through Friday, I recorded the flagship shows that lead Fox's and MSNBC's prime-time lineups: "The O'Reilly Factor" on right-leaning Fox, and "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on left-leaning MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh calls it PMSNBC, while Olbermann refers to his competition as "Fix News" or "Faux News." These star-driven vehicles represent their networks.
To some extent, each outlet is a partisan noise machine with a narrow view of the landscape. The other cable news outlets are either not nakedly partisan or too small to be considered.
It is total war between MSNBC and Fox.
A week after MSNBC launched promotional commercials for itself, ending in the slogan, "Lean forward," Fox responded with a promo saying it, and America, "Moves forward."
The methodology: I scored each guest politically as either "left" or "right." Those defying classification were "neutral."
The results prove you hear more conflicting opinions on "The O'Reilly Factor" than on "Countdown," which seems allergic to any conservative idea.
MONDAY, OCT. 25
First up from the left, in the wake of O'Reilly's questionable comment about "Muslims" attacking the U.S., is Ahmed Rehab, the Chicago executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations. He and Bill have a vigorous argument. Also on the left: Alicia Menendez, senior adviser of the NDN liberal think tank and liberal Juan Williams. (He and Bill are having a bromance.)
Three from the right: Former network correspondent Bernie Goldberg, "Weekly Standard" writer Mary Katherine Ham and Fox News analyst Brit Hume, whose presentation is even-handed, but he usually leans right.
The speed-talking Olbermann's first guest is Ezra Klein, Washington Post reporter and Newsweek columnist; then E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist; then Eugene Robinson, another WP columnist. All left. (Maybe Olbermann should broadcast from the Post newsroom?)
The other two guests are Jeremy Scahill of The Nation (called the "flagship of the left") and Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine. He calls himself a Libertarian, but his attack on Karl Rove marks him left tonight. Five of five, left.
TUESDAY, OCT. 26
Olbermann opens with Gabe Gonzalez, of the Campaign for Community Change, followed by Chris Hayes, Washington Editor of The Nation, followed by Lauren Valle of Moveon.org, who was roughed up by Rand Paul's henchmen in Kentucky, and closing with Michael Wolffe, political analyst of the "Daily Beast" website. All left. Olbermann repeatedly describes Valle as getting kicked "in the head" when the video clearly shows the blow was on the shoulder area.
Then - an inexplicable Stradivarius violin concert by virtuoso Anne Akiko Meyers, whose politics aren't discussed. Four of out five, left. One neutral.
O'Reilly opens with weekly arguing heads Monica Crowley, right, and Alan Colmes, left. For a change, O'Reilly agrees with Colmes on something.
Conservative Stephen Hayes of Weekly Standard is up next, followed by Heidi Harris, a conservative Las Vegas radio-talk host, and then John Stossel, a Libertarian. Since he's arguing for legalizing pot tonight, I count him left.
Following are quarreling lawyers Lis Wiehl, a lefty, and righty Kimberly Guilfoyle. Batting last is righthanded columnist Charles Krauthammer.
Score: Five right, three left.
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 27
Only two "Countdown" guests tonight as Olbermann gloms the last 20 minutes for a "Special Comment" tirade against the tea party. It wants to create, he hisses with his veins bulging and eyes popping, a "theocracy for white males." (Remember that.)
Guests are Nick Nyhart, of the Public Campaign Action Fund, and Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis. Two left.
O'Reilly opens with conservative Dick Morris peddling his election predictions and website. In a segment about whether President Obama maybe used race to push some candidates, O'Reilly has Alfonso Aguilar of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, right, and lightly right Dr. Christopher Metzler, of Georgetown University.
In a political segment, neutral pollster Larry J. Sabato (who miffs Mr. Bill by saying "You take me out of context") appears with Roll Call political writer Erin Billings, neutral.
Next is Occidental University professor Caroline Heldman, who says NPR isn't as far left as she is, then acerbic comedian Dennis Miller from the right.
Finally, there is Fox News staffer Juliet Huddy, whose comments are neutral. Score: Four right, one left, three neutral.
THURSDAY, OCT. 28
O'Reilly opens with conservative radio yakker Laura Ingraham, then Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Dean's campaign, in the next segment. The "culture warriors" - blondes Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson - follow, both right.
Boston Herald reporter Jessica Van Sack talks about a health-care scandal, but is neutral. Next is lawyer and Fox anchor Megyn Kelly, who often clashes with O'Reilly, but I'll count her as right.
"Great American News Quiz" kids Steve Doocey and Martha MacCallum are neutral in the weekly segment that seems like an excuse to show off a lanky, luscious blond (and McCallum isn't bad either). That's four from the right, one from the left, three neutral.
Over at "Countdown," Olbermann offers up The Nation's Washington Editor Chris Hayes, the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman, Democratic U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and Jess McIntosh from Emily's List. That's as left as the Phillies' lineup. The Joker is Republican Charlie Crist, current governor of Florida who pulled a "Specter" and was running as an "independent" for U.S. Senate. I'll score him neutral. So it's four from the left, one neutral.
FRIDAY, OCT. 29
It's a clean sweep for "Countdown." Five guests, all left.
The show starts with Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who explains, in nice language, why Charlie Crist is a liar.
Next up is Mother Jones magazine's Washington bureau chief David Corn, followed by the Huffington Post's grand dame, Arianna Huffington, with the cute "occent." Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress.com follows Arianna. Batting fifth is Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis again.
O'Reilly has more variety in his "No-Spin Zone."
Independent pollster Scott Rasmussen delivers a neutral roundup of various races before Republican Karl Rove talks about that day's UPS bomb threat. Right.
In a segment on gender and politics, conservative columnist Andrea Tantaros faces liberal talk-show host Leslie Marshall. From the left, Geraldo Rivera comes in for a chat, followed by Glenn Beck from the right.
Final guests are conservative Fox host Greg Gutfeld and Fox News anchor Arthel Neville, lightly left, who examine odd things in the news.
Score four from the right, three from the left, one neutral.
Before the totals, my opinion: Olbermann's usual mien is mean - scowling. O'Reilly's typically laughing, too often at one of his juvenile jokes. Both are narcissists who take themselves too seriously, but that's true for many on television.
O'Reilly uses a really clever device. After stating his case, he often asks guests, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
Olbermann can't do this: Every guest agrees with, and amplifies, the host's opinion.
During the week, O'Reilly's ratings were about triple those of Olbermann. Is it just Fox's superior lighting, colors and graphics, or might it be content?
Here are the totals for the week:
"The O'Reilly Factor" welcomed 20 guests from the right, 11 from the left and seven who were neutral. Left and neutral voices combined almost equaled those from the right.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" had 20 guests from the left, two neutral and not a single voice from the right. Zero voices of dissent.
So, if you never want to hear anyone challenge liberal views, lock in on Olbermann. While progressives disdain Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," "The O'Reilly Factor" does present opposing views. O'Reilly will cut them off in midsentence, true, but he even does that to people who agree with him. (Shock therapy might help.) Olbermann seems unable to even listen to anything other than progressive orthodoxy.
If the tea party wants a "theocracy for white males," as he said, Olbermann could be an imam. He offered a paltry four women among his 22 talking heads, 18 percent. (Wasn't Joy Behar available?) Only two African Americans got face time.
O'Reilly had three African Americans and scattered 18 women among his 38 guests, for 47 percent. (Don't expect NOW to give him an award.) O'Reilly had three Hispanic-surnamed guests; Olbermann had two.
When it comes to their sources of news, too many Americans live in "silos," protected from contrary views. We'd do better, learn a bit more, by listening to some opposing ideas.
You get that from Fox's O'Reilly, not MSNBC's Olbermann.
another thing that i find laughable about olbermann's show is how he never has a guest on who disagrees with him. this is an article that, ironically, came out yesterday comparing countdown to o'reilly's show. bear in mind the daily news is a pretty liberal paper in philly. but it's a fair article and illustrates what i'm talking about:
Stu Bykofsky: Olbermann fair? O'Reilly balanced? What we found
By Stu Bykofsky
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Columnist
BEFORE THE Democrats got battered in Tuesday's election, I decided to check out one of their favorite pincushions - the Fox News Channel's "fair and balanced" motto.
"Fair" can be subjective. "Balanced," less so. Airing contrary points of view is one element of being fair.
Last week, Monday through Friday, I recorded the flagship shows that lead Fox's and MSNBC's prime-time lineups: "The O'Reilly Factor" on right-leaning Fox, and "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on left-leaning MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh calls it PMSNBC, while Olbermann refers to his competition as "Fix News" or "Faux News." These star-driven vehicles represent their networks.
To some extent, each outlet is a partisan noise machine with a narrow view of the landscape. The other cable news outlets are either not nakedly partisan or too small to be considered.
It is total war between MSNBC and Fox.
A week after MSNBC launched promotional commercials for itself, ending in the slogan, "Lean forward," Fox responded with a promo saying it, and America, "Moves forward."
The methodology: I scored each guest politically as either "left" or "right." Those defying classification were "neutral."
The results prove you hear more conflicting opinions on "The O'Reilly Factor" than on "Countdown," which seems allergic to any conservative idea.
MONDAY, OCT. 25
First up from the left, in the wake of O'Reilly's questionable comment about "Muslims" attacking the U.S., is Ahmed Rehab, the Chicago executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations. He and Bill have a vigorous argument. Also on the left: Alicia Menendez, senior adviser of the NDN liberal think tank and liberal Juan Williams. (He and Bill are having a bromance.)
Three from the right: Former network correspondent Bernie Goldberg, "Weekly Standard" writer Mary Katherine Ham and Fox News analyst Brit Hume, whose presentation is even-handed, but he usually leans right.
The speed-talking Olbermann's first guest is Ezra Klein, Washington Post reporter and Newsweek columnist; then E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist; then Eugene Robinson, another WP columnist. All left. (Maybe Olbermann should broadcast from the Post newsroom?)
The other two guests are Jeremy Scahill of The Nation (called the "flagship of the left") and Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine. He calls himself a Libertarian, but his attack on Karl Rove marks him left tonight. Five of five, left.
TUESDAY, OCT. 26
Olbermann opens with Gabe Gonzalez, of the Campaign for Community Change, followed by Chris Hayes, Washington Editor of The Nation, followed by Lauren Valle of Moveon.org, who was roughed up by Rand Paul's henchmen in Kentucky, and closing with Michael Wolffe, political analyst of the "Daily Beast" website. All left. Olbermann repeatedly describes Valle as getting kicked "in the head" when the video clearly shows the blow was on the shoulder area.
Then - an inexplicable Stradivarius violin concert by virtuoso Anne Akiko Meyers, whose politics aren't discussed. Four of out five, left. One neutral.
O'Reilly opens with weekly arguing heads Monica Crowley, right, and Alan Colmes, left. For a change, O'Reilly agrees with Colmes on something.
Conservative Stephen Hayes of Weekly Standard is up next, followed by Heidi Harris, a conservative Las Vegas radio-talk host, and then John Stossel, a Libertarian. Since he's arguing for legalizing pot tonight, I count him left.
Following are quarreling lawyers Lis Wiehl, a lefty, and righty Kimberly Guilfoyle. Batting last is righthanded columnist Charles Krauthammer.
Score: Five right, three left.
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 27
Only two "Countdown" guests tonight as Olbermann gloms the last 20 minutes for a "Special Comment" tirade against the tea party. It wants to create, he hisses with his veins bulging and eyes popping, a "theocracy for white males." (Remember that.)
Guests are Nick Nyhart, of the Public Campaign Action Fund, and Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis. Two left.
O'Reilly opens with conservative Dick Morris peddling his election predictions and website. In a segment about whether President Obama maybe used race to push some candidates, O'Reilly has Alfonso Aguilar of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, right, and lightly right Dr. Christopher Metzler, of Georgetown University.
In a political segment, neutral pollster Larry J. Sabato (who miffs Mr. Bill by saying "You take me out of context") appears with Roll Call political writer Erin Billings, neutral.
Next is Occidental University professor Caroline Heldman, who says NPR isn't as far left as she is, then acerbic comedian Dennis Miller from the right.
Finally, there is Fox News staffer Juliet Huddy, whose comments are neutral. Score: Four right, one left, three neutral.
THURSDAY, OCT. 28
O'Reilly opens with conservative radio yakker Laura Ingraham, then Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Dean's campaign, in the next segment. The "culture warriors" - blondes Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson - follow, both right.
Boston Herald reporter Jessica Van Sack talks about a health-care scandal, but is neutral. Next is lawyer and Fox anchor Megyn Kelly, who often clashes with O'Reilly, but I'll count her as right.
"Great American News Quiz" kids Steve Doocey and Martha MacCallum are neutral in the weekly segment that seems like an excuse to show off a lanky, luscious blond (and McCallum isn't bad either). That's four from the right, one from the left, three neutral.
Over at "Countdown," Olbermann offers up The Nation's Washington Editor Chris Hayes, the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman, Democratic U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and Jess McIntosh from Emily's List. That's as left as the Phillies' lineup. The Joker is Republican Charlie Crist, current governor of Florida who pulled a "Specter" and was running as an "independent" for U.S. Senate. I'll score him neutral. So it's four from the left, one neutral.
FRIDAY, OCT. 29
It's a clean sweep for "Countdown." Five guests, all left.
The show starts with Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who explains, in nice language, why Charlie Crist is a liar.
Next up is Mother Jones magazine's Washington bureau chief David Corn, followed by the Huffington Post's grand dame, Arianna Huffington, with the cute "occent." Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress.com follows Arianna. Batting fifth is Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis again.
O'Reilly has more variety in his "No-Spin Zone."
Independent pollster Scott Rasmussen delivers a neutral roundup of various races before Republican Karl Rove talks about that day's UPS bomb threat. Right.
In a segment on gender and politics, conservative columnist Andrea Tantaros faces liberal talk-show host Leslie Marshall. From the left, Geraldo Rivera comes in for a chat, followed by Glenn Beck from the right.
Final guests are conservative Fox host Greg Gutfeld and Fox News anchor Arthel Neville, lightly left, who examine odd things in the news.
Score four from the right, three from the left, one neutral.
Before the totals, my opinion: Olbermann's usual mien is mean - scowling. O'Reilly's typically laughing, too often at one of his juvenile jokes. Both are narcissists who take themselves too seriously, but that's true for many on television.
O'Reilly uses a really clever device. After stating his case, he often asks guests, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
Olbermann can't do this: Every guest agrees with, and amplifies, the host's opinion.
During the week, O'Reilly's ratings were about triple those of Olbermann. Is it just Fox's superior lighting, colors and graphics, or might it be content?
Here are the totals for the week:
"The O'Reilly Factor" welcomed 20 guests from the right, 11 from the left and seven who were neutral. Left and neutral voices combined almost equaled those from the right.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" had 20 guests from the left, two neutral and not a single voice from the right. Zero voices of dissent.
So, if you never want to hear anyone challenge liberal views, lock in on Olbermann. While progressives disdain Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced," "The O'Reilly Factor" does present opposing views. O'Reilly will cut them off in midsentence, true, but he even does that to people who agree with him. (Shock therapy might help.) Olbermann seems unable to even listen to anything other than progressive orthodoxy.
If the tea party wants a "theocracy for white males," as he said, Olbermann could be an imam. He offered a paltry four women among his 22 talking heads, 18 percent. (Wasn't Joy Behar available?) Only two African Americans got face time.
O'Reilly had three African Americans and scattered 18 women among his 38 guests, for 47 percent. (Don't expect NOW to give him an award.) O'Reilly had three Hispanic-surnamed guests; Olbermann had two.
When it comes to their sources of news, too many Americans live in "silos," protected from contrary views. We'd do better, learn a bit more, by listening to some opposing ideas.
You get that from Fox's O'Reilly, not MSNBC's Olbermann.
I had a kinda-sorta similar argument with a journalism professor at LSU once. In NZ, media outlets don't endorse political candidates - they report the facts down the middle, and we don't have talking heads opinion shows that only present one side (at least, we didn't at the point I moved here). I never understood how a media outlet can support a political candidate and still expect to be taken seriously when it reports on politics. She argued that there isn't a problem with media outlets endorsing candidates, because at least that way you know where the bias lies. It's pretty sad when you have someone training the journalists of tomorrow saying not, "There's a problem, fix it," but "Pick a side and run with it."
At the end of the day, anyone watching Fox News or MSNBC is only getting half of the story. Fox appeals to the right wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the right in a favorable light. MSNBC appeals to the left wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the left in a favorable light. I get the sense that both sets of viewers have their heads in the sand, to a certain degree - they only want to hear what they want to hear, so they watch the news outlet that they know will give them the news they want.
I don't think Fox's superior viewership means they speak for the American people though - if they did, then Republicans would be getting 70% of the vote every time there was an election. I do however think it's much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite people for something, and I think Fox does a great job of uniting people against the left. From the brief encounters I've had with both networks, I found Fox to be more anti-left than pro-right, and MSNBC to be more pro-left than anti-right.
(I could be completely wrong because I try to avoid both networks usually - but on the few occasions I've seen them, which is usually on a treadmill at the gym when someone beat me to the remote, I've noticed that Fox and MSNBC reserved their most extreme adjectives for discussions about the left, though MSNBC did fire a few barbs Fox's way too)
And then there's CNN, which tries admirably to stay in the middle as much as possible, but lacks competent firepower. Larry King does nothing but lob softballs during his interviews, Wolf Blitzer gets star struck too easily, and all too often they try to rely on gimmicks (holograms and iReport) over actual news reporting and analysis.
In short, I'm yet to find a single credible news outlet that's worth watching/listening to.
As for Olbermann, I don't buy the argument that "Fox can do it so we should be allowed to too!" I've always believed that you should never hold yourself to your rival's standards - you should always take the high road and make sure your standards are higher than theirs. Though that's also coming from someone who believes no news outlet should endorse a political candidate, and no columnist/host/anchor should be allowed to donate to a candidate.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I had a kinda-sorta similar argument with a journalism professor at LSU once. In NZ, media outlets don't endorse political candidates - they report the facts down the middle, and we don't have talking heads opinion shows that only present one side (at least, we didn't at the point I moved here). I never understood how a media outlet can support a political candidate and still expect to be taken seriously when it reports on politics. She argued that there isn't a problem with media outlets endorsing candidates, because at least that way you know where the bias lies. It's pretty sad when you have someone training the journalists of tomorrow saying not, "There's a problem, fix it," but "Pick a side and run with it."
At the end of the day, anyone watching Fox News or MSNBC is only getting half of the story. Fox appeals to the right wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the right in a favorable light. MSNBC appeals to the left wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the left in a favorable light. I get the sense that both sets of viewers have their heads in the sand, to a certain degree - they only want to hear what they want to hear, so they watch the news outlet that they know will give them the news they want.
I don't think Fox's superior viewership means they speak for the American people though - if they did, then Republicans would be getting 70% of the vote every time there was an election. I do however think it's much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite people for something, and I think Fox does a great job of uniting people against the left. From the brief encounters I've had with both networks, I found Fox to be more anti-left than pro-right, and MSNBC to be more pro-left than anti-right.
(I could be completely wrong because I try to avoid both networks usually - but on the few occasions I've seen them, which is usually on a treadmill at the gym when someone beat me to the remote, I've noticed that Fox and MSNBC reserved their most extreme adjectives for discussions about the left, though MSNBC did fire a few barbs Fox's way too)
And then there's CNN, which tries admirably to stay in the middle as much as possible, but lacks competent firepower. Larry King does nothing but lob softballs during his interviews, Wolf Blitzer gets star struck too easily, and all too often they try to rely on gimmicks (holograms and iReport) over actual news reporting and analysis.
In short, I'm yet to find a single credible news outlet that's worth watching/listening to.
As for Olbermann, I don't buy the argument that "Fox can do it so we should be allowed to too!" I've always believed that you should never hold yourself to your rival's standards - you should always take the high road and make sure your standards are higher than theirs. Though that's also coming from someone who believes no news outlet should endorse a political candidate, and no columnist/host/anchor should be allowed to donate to a candidate.
Does Fox lean to the right? Of course. But they always have guests with opposite views.
I had a kinda-sorta similar argument with a journalism professor at LSU once. In NZ, media outlets don't endorse political candidates - they report the facts down the middle, and we don't have talking heads opinion shows that only present one side (at least, we didn't at the point I moved here). I never understood how a media outlet can support a political candidate and still expect to be taken seriously when it reports on politics. She argued that there isn't a problem with media outlets endorsing candidates, because at least that way you know where the bias lies. It's pretty sad when you have someone training the journalists of tomorrow saying not, "There's a problem, fix it," but "Pick a side and run with it."
At the end of the day, anyone watching Fox News or MSNBC is only getting half of the story. Fox appeals to the right wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the right in a favorable light. MSNBC appeals to the left wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the left in a favorable light. I get the sense that both sets of viewers have their heads in the sand, to a certain degree - they only want to hear what they want to hear, so they watch the news outlet that they know will give them the news they want.
I don't think Fox's superior viewership means they speak for the American people though - if they did, then Republicans would be getting 70% of the vote every time there was an election. I do however think it's much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite people for something, and I think Fox does a great job of uniting people against the left. From the brief encounters I've had with both networks, I found Fox to be more anti-left than pro-right, and MSNBC to be more pro-left than anti-right.
(I could be completely wrong because I try to avoid both networks usually - but on the few occasions I've seen them, which is usually on a treadmill at the gym when someone beat me to the remote, I've noticed that Fox and MSNBC reserved their most extreme adjectives for discussions about the left, though MSNBC did fire a few barbs Fox's way too)
And then there's CNN, which tries admirably to stay in the middle as much as possible, but lacks competent firepower. Larry King does nothing but lob softballs during his interviews, Wolf Blitzer gets star struck too easily, and all too often they try to rely on gimmicks (holograms and iReport) over actual news reporting and analysis.
In short, I'm yet to find a single credible news outlet that's worth watching/listening to.
As for Olbermann, I don't buy the argument that "Fox can do it so we should be allowed to too!" I've always believed that you should never hold yourself to your rival's standards - you should always take the high road and make sure your standards are higher than theirs. Though that's also coming from someone who believes no news outlet should endorse a political candidate, and no columnist/host/anchor should be allowed to donate to a candidate.
Does Fox lean to the right? Of course. But they always have guests with opposite views.
Not just guests, for that matter. Have you ever listened to Alan Colmes?
Upon his return: "... he thanks Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and yours truly [Dana Loesch], which was a bit of a surprise as just two weeks ago he called me a “b*llsh*t mouthbreather” and blocked me on Twitter, but I guess things have changed. I never thought the donations were a big deal, the only thing was MSNBC’s own policy and how employees, if they like earning money, should listen to their employer or at least approach them about it before breaking it.
"It did strike me as odd that he admitted we
probably treated him better than he would have treated us [::cough:: Juan Williams]. He would have been unnecessarily harsh simply because of ideological differences? Principle is principle and frankly, I could care less about the cosmetic stuff surrounding it. I hope at some point Olbermann cares less about that, too."
Comments
That said, I think CNN has fallen so far back because Fox started the model of blatantly biased "news", and then MSNBC followed suit on the left. That kind of left CNN hanging in the breeze for those who actually want mostly unbiased news reporting. (Like me!) I lean to the left and I do watch MSNBC from time to time, but if I want mainstream news that is as close to being unbiased as possible I turn to CNN or NPR. Mostly NPR since I get most of my news in my car. Or from any one of my highly conservative co-workers who believe, among other things, that Obama is secretly a Muslim and that we was probably somehow behind the recent Gulf oil spill disaster. :? Both of which are preached by the goobs over at Fox News...
well that might be debatable solely on the sheer number of viewers they have. but i find it interesting how you did not comment on the more important issue of biased commentators anchoring msnbc's election night coverage...and every other important news coverage.
yes i'm talking about fox, too.
fox news are biased also. i watched msnbc's coverage and they were fair. i didn't see a problem with it.
this isn't a fox verses msnbc thing. i don't particularly care for either channel. only thing i watch on fox is oreilly from time to time because he is not afraid to have guests from both the left and the right share their viewpoints. my point is they don't have him hosting actual news coverage like msnbc does with olberman and the other leftists.
but i am happy to see admit msnbc is biased though. childish too, after tuesday.
Typo - I meant He, as in the great black socialist nazi muslim omnipotent president currently residing in the White House but with God's infinite grace will be replaced in two years by Sarah "mama grizzly" Palin.
but fox doesn't admit to it. and their guys supported republican candidates. and told people to donate to their campaigns.
dude. i do not like fox either. you sound like a little kid telling on his brother or something. either way the fox guys who did that were their commentators (with the exception of neil cavuto) not the one's anchoring what is supposed to be an unbiased news program like election night.
how am i acting like a kid telling on his brother? I just don't know why people compare keith to those guys on fox. other than having a show. that's all there is. he reports facts and comments on them. they take non stories or fabricated ones. and run with it. i don't think what he did was wrong. in terms of donating.
dude. i do not like fox either. you sound like a little kid telling on his brother or something. either way the fox guys who did that were their commentators (with the exception of neil cavuto) not the one's anchoring what is supposed to be an unbiased news program like election night.[/quote]
how am i acting like a kid telling on his brother? I just don't know why people compare keith to those guys on fox. other than having a show. that's all there is. he reports facts and comments on them. they take non stories or fabricated ones. and run with it. i don't think what he did was wrong. in terms of donating.[/quote]
--
every reply you've had in this thread was comparing him to fox.
i don't think any person who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist should donate money to any political campaign...especially those anchoring important news coverage that should be unbiased. i think your political leanings may be getting in the way of clear thinking here.
let there be no doubt: the media is and has been dead in this country for a long time. this story further perpetuates that.
...wow that is some bad quoting--sorry!
For one hell of a good laugh
how am i acting like a kid telling on his brother? I just don't know why people compare keith to those guys on fox. other than having a show. that's all there is. he reports facts and comments on them. they take non stories or fabricated ones. and run with it. i don't think what he did was wrong. in terms of donating.[/quote]
--
every reply you've had in this thread was comparing him to fox.
i don't think any person who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist should donate money to any political campaign...especially those anchoring important news coverage that should be unbiased. i think your political leanings may be getting in the way of clear thinking here.
let there be no doubt: the media is and has been dead in this country for a long time. this story further perpetuates that.
...wow that is some bad quoting--sorry![/quote]
i know what you're saying. but it's his personal money. and it's not like he's down the party line.
cough
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j ... me-calling
cough
:roll:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
who's implying that olberman reports nothing but facts...as I've said he's a hack, just like hannity...
where are the J. Williams Free-speechers...? Suddenly they are silent...I figured they'd be supporting ol' Keith...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The only thing Keith is good for is Sports highlights...the rest, he is a mess.
I don't really give a damn if he gave the Dems $, that's small compared to what he does on a daily basis with his BS show. He is no better than Hannity, etc and MSNBC is no better than Fox. If you can't see that, you (the general you) are an idiot.
This just in...Keith Obermann is a Democratic party shill....Hannity is a GOP shill.....MSNBC is a Dem shill....Fox News is a Repub. shill.........the world is round.....the sun is hot....water is wet...
this guy for one
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=143368&p=3283474&hilit=facts#p3283474
also, bill maher said it on his show to which i've heard many people parrot since, especially on facebook.
i'm glad this is all over, though, i was getting tired of seeing those URGENT ACTION ALERT!!!! posts every day on facebook. urgent, as if the world will collapse without his show, i hope he never goes on vacation!
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Awesome article....isn't Philly news in the top 5 for democratic sponsored news?hmmmm
democratic sponsored news?
It's like if FoxNews went out and did a study to discredit a republican.....it makes it all that much more worthy and believable.
oh i got ya...daily news is a notoriously liberal leaning paper.
At the end of the day, anyone watching Fox News or MSNBC is only getting half of the story. Fox appeals to the right wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the right in a favorable light. MSNBC appeals to the left wing, and tells everything in a way that paints the left in a favorable light. I get the sense that both sets of viewers have their heads in the sand, to a certain degree - they only want to hear what they want to hear, so they watch the news outlet that they know will give them the news they want.
I don't think Fox's superior viewership means they speak for the American people though - if they did, then Republicans would be getting 70% of the vote every time there was an election. I do however think it's much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite people for something, and I think Fox does a great job of uniting people against the left. From the brief encounters I've had with both networks, I found Fox to be more anti-left than pro-right, and MSNBC to be more pro-left than anti-right.
(I could be completely wrong because I try to avoid both networks usually - but on the few occasions I've seen them, which is usually on a treadmill at the gym when someone beat me to the remote, I've noticed that Fox and MSNBC reserved their most extreme adjectives for discussions about the left, though MSNBC did fire a few barbs Fox's way too)
And then there's CNN, which tries admirably to stay in the middle as much as possible, but lacks competent firepower. Larry King does nothing but lob softballs during his interviews, Wolf Blitzer gets star struck too easily, and all too often they try to rely on gimmicks (holograms and iReport) over actual news reporting and analysis.
In short, I'm yet to find a single credible news outlet that's worth watching/listening to.
As for Olbermann, I don't buy the argument that "Fox can do it so we should be allowed to too!" I've always believed that you should never hold yourself to your rival's standards - you should always take the high road and make sure your standards are higher than theirs. Though that's also coming from someone who believes no news outlet should endorse a political candidate, and no columnist/host/anchor should be allowed to donate to a candidate.
Does Fox lean to the right? Of course. But they always have guests with opposite views.
Not just guests, for that matter. Have you ever listened to Alan Colmes?
that guy it republican lite, and by no means a liberal.
liberals like myself are offended by that lol...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Colmes was Hannity's on-air punching bag when they were a team. He was paid to sit there and look like a fool.
"It did strike me as odd that he admitted we