Olbermann: Special Comment Success
Tweet
Based on their past activity, this probably means MSNBC wil cancel his show soon.
Since that first commentary, Olbermann’s nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average and more than CNN competitors Paula Zahn and Nancy Grace. Cable kingpin and Olbermann nemesis Bill O’Reilly (two million viewers that night) stands in his way.
MSNBC has tried being Fox-lite, and the conservative shows have not done well (Tucker, Scarborough), they tried being tabloid (Rita Cosby was cancelled) and the current idea that running Dateline repeats will draw in any kind of audience seems quite foolhardy. MSNBC could succeed by having a politics focused primetime lineup with a few strong progressive voices on the air to contrast with Fox’s never-ending conservatism and CNN’s “straight” journalism.
Which means there’s no way they’re doing it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TED TURNER, MEDIA MOGUL: Either you’re with us or you’re against us. And I had a problem with that, because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet. You know, what if you haven’t made your mind up? You know, what if you’re thinking about it, doing some studying, doing some reading?
Because you know, it’s an important decision whether to go to war or not go to war. I mean, you’re either with us or you’re against us. That’s pretty black and white.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: That was CNN founder, former media mogul Ted Turner speaking at the National Press Club in Washington yesterday. While admitting that he had a hard time choosing sides in the war on terror.
Turner also offered his opinion on the news business, claiming newspapers were a thing of the past. Turner said quote, “When I die, they’re going to die with me.”
Joining us now is the president and founder of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell, and former ABC News correspondent, journalism professor of national security studies at Boston University, Bob Zelnick is with us.
Guys, welcome to both of you.
BRENT BOZELL, PRESIDENT, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Thank you.
HANNITY: I’ve got to be honest, Brent Bozell, I know you’ve chronicled some quotes with Ted Turner over the years. It’s particularly – - that’s particularly shocking, having a hard time making my mind up if I’m against the people that attacked us?
BOZELL: How many people in America do you think after 9/11 sat down and said, “I’ve got to do some reading and some studying to decide whether or not I am affected by this and whether or not we should seek retribution for what happened on our shores, in New York, in Washington, D.C., on the plains of Pennsylvania”?
Either this man is truly delusional, because it’s just one stop comment after — you know, one comment after another from this man. Or he’s got a real serious problem with this country.
It doesn’t matter what conservatives think at this point. I think it’s time for Democrats to speak up. Either they support this man or they should condemn him.
So the show BEGAN with the clip without the question and Hannity STARTED THE SHOW claiming that Turner was talking about the war in terror in general. This quote is particularly egregious on that count:
It’s particularly – - that’s particularly shocking, having a hard time making my mind up if I’m against the people that attacked us?
Iraq attacked us? Really? It’s not until well into the segment when Colmes responds with this:
COLMES: Thank you for telling me what I might say. But let me put this in context. We only showed a clip of his answer. We didn’t get the question.
Bob Zelnick, the question was what do you think of the fact that not you but other people have been when they’ve criticized the war in Iraq, criticized the U.S. government conduct. Their patriotism is in question.
He was responding to the war in Iraq. He made the mistake of conflating that with Bush’s statement, “Are you with us or against us,” something that President Bush made prior to the war in Iraq and about the war in terror. That’s where I think the confusion is.
I believe his answer was about the war in Iraq not the greater war on terror. What do you say?
That doesn’t stop Bozell from saying:
BOZELL: And Bob is entirely right. Look, it doesn’t matter what the question was. His answer specifically twice referenced the war on terror. Not Iraq.
Of course it doesn’t matter what the question was when a right wing idiot wants to accuse a liberal of supporting terrorists, never let the facts get in the way.
Here’s the transcript from the Bill O’Reilly show in question where Laura Ingrham was his guest:
TRANSCRIPT: 101001cb.256
SECTION: NEWS; International
LENGTH: 2399 words
HEADLINE: Talking Points Memo and Top StoryBYLINE: Bill O’Reilly
GUESTS: Laura IngrahamBILL O’REILLY, HOST: “The O’Reilly Factor” is on.
Tonight:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TED TURNER, FOUNDER OF CNN: He said, either you are with us or you’re against us.And I had a problem with that, because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Ted Turner, a primo secular progressive, questions the war on terror, in the face of the North Korean provocation. We will have analysis …
Hi. I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
Blaming America first — that’s the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”
…
Here in the USA, the secular progressive movement is epitomized by our pal Ted Turner, the founder of CNN.
Yesterday, Turner said this about the war on terror and President Bush.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TURNER: He said it very clearly. He said, either you’re with us or you’re against us.
And I had a problem with that, because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet.
You know, what if you haven’t made your mind up? You know, what if you’re thinking about it, doing some studying, and doing some reading? Because it’s an important decision to go to war or whether or not to go to war.
I mean, you’re either with us or against us — that’s pretty black and white.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: All right.
As we all know, the S.P.s hate black and white. There’s no good and evil in that world. There’s no right or wrong. Everything is gray.
That is why, today, you have some far-left elements blaming America for North Korea’s actions. Pitiful.
And that’s “The Memo.”
…
Joining us from Washington, radio talk show czarina Laura Ingraham.
…
O’REILLY: So, anyway, when you heard Ted Turner…
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: … at the National Press Club — and he was talking about Bush’s speech 10 days after 9/11, by the way.
See, I think Turner melds Iraq with the war on terror. I think — I don’t want to get inside the guy’s mind. It’s way too frightening. But I — I think he bounces back and forth.
But he was referring to President Bush’s speech…
INGRAHAM: Sure.
O’REILLY: … 10 days after we were attacked, where Bush basically told the world, you don’t harbor terrorists, and, if you do, you are against us.
Now, Turner says: Well, I don’t want that, because I haven’t decided, me, Ted Turner…
INGRAHAM: Well, Bill…
O’REILLY: … have decided that we’re…
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: … we’re the good guys yet.
(LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: Well, here is the problem, is that the progressives, the liberals, the leftists, who Ted Turner really does represent, they didn’t think they had a dog in the fight when we were in the Cold War.
And now they don’t think they have a dog in this fight. Remember, Ted Turner founded CNN. CNN does not consider itself America’s network. CNN considers itself a global network.
O’REILLY: That’s true.
INGRAHAM: And a message to Ted Turner: You would be the first person, or one of the first, people put up against a wall and shot in an Islamic society.
They don’t seem to understand that their lives are imperiled if we lose this great struggle against the militant Islamists. I don’t understand how they don’t get it, but they clearly don’t get it.
O’REILLY: But, see, here’s what I don’t understand.
INGRAHAM: They are so overwhelmed with hatred for Bush.
O’REILLY: I don’t know…
INGRAHAM: So overwhelmed.
O’REILLY: Yes. I understand the hate-Bush stuff drives clouds into every — every policy matter.
But Ted Turner is a very wealthy individual, and enjoys his wealth, all right.
INGRAHAM: Yes. Money doesn’t buy you brains. I’m sorry. It doesn’t buy you brains.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: No, no, no, no. No personal attacks here.
INGRAHAM: Well, no, no, Bill, I don’t — that’s not a personal attack.
O’REILLY: I mean, you might — sure it is.
INGRAHAM: To say — to say at the National Press Club, as an American citizen, that you haven’t been able — you weren’t able to choose sides? That’s — that — I don’t even know what to say about that.
O’REILLY: Well, here’s what you say. You say he’s…
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: I mean, it used to be that we believed in our country. We believed in the goodness of America.
O’REILLY: He is terribly misguided. He is terribly misguided.
But this is what I don’t understand. Turner is very wealthy. He enjoys his wealth. He buys up property everywhere. I mean, he is a big capitalist guy. Yet, he embraces Fidel Castro, as you know.
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: You have talked about that a lot.
INGRAHAM: And he went to North Korea.
O’REILLY: And he — he — he didn’t say bad things about the North Koreans. He seems to be sympathetic with all of these people.
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: So, here — well, here is my question for Ted Turner.
Why do you hate America, Ted? Why do you dislike the system that we have in place so much?
INGRAHAM: Because he doesn’t believe — no, here it is, Bill. He does not believe in the American ideal.
He believes in these general principles of liberalism and these general principles of a globalist view of the world. It’s not the — it’s not traditional loyalty to country that motivates Turner. And — and that’s his view. He can say whatever he wants. But…
O’REILLY: I agree with you that he’s a one-world guy.
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: I mean, he’s like Soros. But all liberals aren’t like that. You know that.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but America’s ideals are individualistic. They’re the — it’s the frontier spirit. It’s — it’s deeply entrenched in our faith and our faith culture.
O’REILLY: Yes, and we’re nationalistic people. We want — we want our country.
INGRAHAM: Yes. He has utter disdain — yes. He has utter disdain for our faith culture. He has said so consistently over the years.
O’REILLY: Yes, he doesn’t like Christians. He doesn’t like the Judeo-Christian philosophy.
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Yes. Yes.
O’REILLY: OK.
INGRAHAM: We’re the biggest threat to the world, according to Ted Turner.
O’REILLY: I have got to ask you one more thing.
We had Ann Coulter on last week, and she said that the Republicans are going to lose the election. They’re going to — and the polls out today say that, you know, Republicans, if the vote was held today, they would be out of office, and they would lose the House and the Senate.
You think that’s going to happen?
INGRAHAM: I just don’t know. I — I really don’t., I hate to punt the question, but I think this — there’s a lot of wishful thinking, reporting and polling going on in the United States.
I think Republicans probably will lose some seats. Will they lose both houses, one house? I don’t know. But what’s clear, Bill, is that Republicans have got to stop talking about Mark Foley, and start talking about the issues that people in this country really are cared about — caring about long term.
O’REILLY: OK. But…
INGRAHAM: They haven’t been doing that.
O’REILLY: … it’s difficult for Republicans to talk about Iraq, when Iraq is such chaos. We saw this big explosion on the supply depot today.
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: And it’s — you know, the Democrats say: Look, you had your four years. You had the Iraq situation.
INGRAHAM: Sure.
O’REILLY: We supported you…
INGRAHAM: That’s politics.
O’REILLY: … in the beginning. And you guys have booted it. And here’s another display.
INGRAHAM: Yes.
O’REILLY: It’s hard for the Republicans to get out from under that.
INGRAHAM: Well, I don’t know, Bill. I think they can talk about the border.
I think they can talk about the need, absolutely, to have things like this Voter I.D. Act, strong interrogation policies, supporting our military. Down the line, I think Republicans have a better record, even with all their failings. And they have plenty.
O’REILLY: All right.
INGRAHAM: And, if you are not going to talk about the things that you believe in, as conservative candidates, you are going to lose.
And, if they — if they don’t get out there, and start acting — acting like they believe in a philosophy, instead of — instead of believing that they want to be reelected, then, they’re going to — then, they’re not going to be successful.
O’REILLY: OK.
INGRAHAM: But I think there are plenty of people out there who have the right message.
O’REILLY: We will see, Laura.
INGRAHAM: And I think there’s a lot of suggestive reporting going on there.
O’REILLY: And there is.
Thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: Next, on the rundown: Mexico makes noises it will protest the border fence that Congress recently passed.
And later: a brutal attack on a school bus pitting Hispanic kids against an Anglo child — upcoming.
LOAD-DATE: October 11, 2006
So that’s the entirety of their conversation. Did you see anywhere in which the context of the question was reported, at all? But wait a second, Robert, you guys said that
Fox did report the wording of the question, it just wasn’t part of the clip.
Well, the only person who reported it was Alan Colmes, you know, the liberal, and it wasn’t mentioned at all on O’Reilly’s show.
It also wasn’t mentioned by Brit Hume in his Political Grapevine column on the web:
Be Neutral
CNN founder Ted Turner has objected to displays of the American flag by journalists — saying they should have a more neutral posture. And now Turner says that he was not sure which side he was on in the War on Terror following the 9/11 terror attacks. Turner spoke to the National Press Club in Washington yesterday, and referred to a quote by President Bush in February of 2002:
“Our president said it very clearly. He said ‘either you’re with us, or you’re against us.’ And I had a problem with that because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet.” Turner did not say whether he has since made up his mind about which side he’s on.
That’s the item in its entirety. No mention of the question at all.
So Olbermann slammed Hannity and other Fox guests for distorting the context of Turner’s remarks and you slammed him for leaving context out. But not one of the individual people that Olbermann slammed bothered to mention the context of the question. Not one. Hume, who didn’t come in for Olbermann’s ire is the networks lead anchor and even he distorted Turner’s comment in print.
So can you point us all to the transcript that proves your statement:
Cleverly stated, since the wicked Fox did report the wording of the question, it just wasn’t part of the clip.
Because Hannity and O’Reilly certainly didn’t “report” it and neither did Hume.
So Robert, what say you?
63 Responses to “Olbermann: Special Comment Success”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
They could always just make it the Law & Order network.
So, how much did Keith pay for this post?
That’s not just stupid, it doesn’t make sense. That kind of stuff may work in Malkinland but here you’re going to get people here who actually disagree with you.
Oliver,
I really hope that you are just ignorant, not willfully ignorant.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/05/msnbc_aligns_wi.html
Olbermann also works with C&L, DailyKos, etc.
And your employeer is obviously in his pocket.
“That kind of stuff may work in Malkinland but here you’re going to get people here who actually disagree with you.”
Hahahahehehehohohololbbqomfg, so funny. Ironic too, because I remember a certain person banning me. Free speech, much?
Ian, no matter how much you kiss Maglalang’s ass, she.will.not.have.sex.with.you.
Deal with it.
Somehow a link to a crazy blog posting in May proves what I think is your point (I can’t tell, you’re not making any sense)?
I banned you because, like here, you accuse and don’t back it up. You don’t argue, or present anything resembling a logical discussion. You say Keith Olbermann is paying bloggers to post good things about him. You have no evidence of this, not even remotely, its just some crap you made up and throw against the wall like Malkin does.
HahaLAWL!! You said Maglalang, omfg, LOL!!!!!!
Oliver, you’re going to sit there (and I assume you’re sitting) and tell me that MM does not work with Olbermann’s show? Gee, I wonder why just about everytime MM post something about O’Reilly or some right-winger and it’s on Keith’s show that night?
You guys don’t even try to hide it, in fact you even post about it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110007
Apologist.
Not sure if Keith pays or not, it’s just blatantly obvious that his people work with bloggers.
Bloggers work with the media? Alert the… media?
How is this news? Rush Limbaugh picks up news and “analysis” from conservative blogs all the time, conservative blogs do the same with Limbaugh.
But someone who isn’t a rock-ribbed Republican does it and it becomes a federal offense? Do you see now why you look soo silly? You make a crazy accusation then as soon as someone asks for proof you have to back off. Reminds me of someone. You claimed I was being paid to post something about Olbermann, two seconds later your response is that Media Matters “works” with him. I’m guessing a few minutes from now you’ll claim you never even posted anything.
I’ve nver even posted anything.
By the way, how can you support such a man?
http://newsbusters.org/node/8042
Conservatives are just shocked that Keith Olbermann doesn’t kiss the ground that right-wing heroes walk on! News at 11. (And I noticed how you’ve completely given up your original premise when confronted with a little reality)
And I noticed how you’ve completely given up your original premise when confronted with a little reality
Cut and run!
Nobody’s more scared of their own words than conservatives. Remember when the CIA was being blamed for being too soft on Iraq? Then after we invaded, they took the blame for being too hard-line. And I’m not 100% sure, but I think the conservative trolls actually believe both without their heads exploding.
“Conservatives are just shocked that Keith Olbermann doesn’t kiss the ground that right-wing heroes walk on! News at 11.”
Oh yeah, that must be it. Gosh, now I know why I dislike Keith, it’s because he doesn’t kiss the ground conservatives walk on. (If this was the real reason, I could just turn your straw man back on you and say you don’t like Hannity because he doesn’t kiss the ground liberals walk on. However, I’m not a big fan of Hannity anyways.)
Perhaps maybe it’s that Keith hates, lies, and covers up many of things. Just like you use MM, I subscribe to Olbermann Watch. Don’t go on a spiel about OW and look like a hypocrite, now.
“How is this news? Rush Limbaugh picks up news and “analysis” from conservative blogs all the time, conservative blogs do the same with Limbaugh.
ODub, first you said where’s the proof and now you try to bring up conservatives. Don’t try to change the top, we’re talking about Olbermann and liberal blogs. I guess I will take this as admitting you’re wrong.
Ian is boring. Please ban him again.
Take what as admitting he’s wrong? A sentence needs a subject.
So, how much did Keith pay for this post?
Posted by: Ian | Oct 12, 2006 7:09:56 PM
Makes me wonder if Ian is getting a little reimbursement of his own from someone on the wingnut side.
It is good to see Olbermann is increasing his share of the viewers. Obviously die-hared O’Reilly viewers will not become Countdown viewers, but at least progressives have a program to watch that manages to cover the half of the issue that Fox leaves out.
Die hard O’Reilly viewers..
Interesting play on words since most of his demographic, are in fact, nearing the age of death.
He’s very popular with the Polident crowd. I love the fact that Oberman gets under O’Reilly’s skin. Imus has it right…he’s just “icky” and thus, Imus doesn’t watch him anymore.
Fox News just makes me laugh these days. The fact that they put a “D” next to Foley’s name no less than 5 times by “mistake” proves that they are in no way, shape, or form, a serious news outlet.
IMO, Fox is the “National Enquirer” of Television. Compare the class of Paula Zahn, or Anderson Cooper (CNN) to that fruitloop that ambushed President Clinton a few weeks ago. Or Sean “Clinton ruined my life” Hannity.
JK
FOX makes one mistake and apparently they’re biased?
Karl Rove.
Ian, are you actually under the impression youre making sense? Theres more than FNC labeling Foley a Democrat (and not apologizing for it) that makes them conservatively biased. Hell LordAlmighty Dugger just said himself a few days that they are. Are you saying theyre not? You dare to question the Dugg one? Such Insolence!
Also, what does Karl Rove have to do with anything?
No, FOX News does have a conservative slant. There is a difference between slant and bias.
I’m just saying that it’s dumb to call FOX News biased because they made an error. You know?
If CNN made the same error, I would just shrug and say big deal.
“Also, what does Karl Rove have to do with anything?”
Good question.
I could just turn your straw man back on you and say you don’t like Hannity because he doesn’t kiss the ground liberals walk on.
No, it’s because Hannity is an idiot.
There is a difference between slant and bias.
Actually, doesn’t bias mean on a slant?
it’s dumb to call FOX News biased because they made an error.
Once is an error. 5x is not. Especially with a pre-taped show. It isn’t like they couldn’t go back and fix it.
They did the same thing with Chafee and his challenger, Sheldon Whitehouse. Suddenly, Chafee was an D and Whitehouse was an R.
No, it’s because Hannity is an idiot.
Hahahahehehehohoho.
Good one, chap.
Duros62, thanks for falling into my trap. If you actually watched the show and not just read MM talking points, you would know that the hosts correctly identified him while talking about him.
“There is a difference between slant and bias.”
It’s like you guys are waging war on meaning or something.
If you actually watched the show….
Watch Fox news? Eww.
It’s like you guys are waging war on meaning or something.
When meaning is all you have….
“… thanks for falling into my trap …”
Oh mercy.
Gosh, now I know why I dislike Keith.
FOX makes one mistake and apparently they’re biased?
thanks for falling into my trap.
Hahahahehehehohoho.
Good one, chap.
ian is the gift that keeps on giving. He reads like a Hardy Boys book.
KO has the BEST news show on TV period. I happily pay the extra $1.99 a month for MSNBC just to watch his show….althought I do catch some MTP once in a while, if I hear Timmie! is on his game…
Arguing with Ian makes you feel smarter. Ian, you said Olbermann pays of liberal blogs, I asked you for proof. You have none because you just pulled it out of your ass.
Olbermannwatch doesn’t like Keith and makes up inaccuracies in order to justify their reason for being. Media Matters has verifiable factual data to back up our reports.
“Olbermannwatch doesn’t like Keith and makes up inaccuracies in order to justify their reason for being. Media Matters has verifiable factual data to back up our reports.”
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHA.
I’m done.
I am not sure how OlbermannWatch.com got dragged into this discussion but we don’t “make up” inaccuracies and I have no personal feelings about Keith one way or the other. So I am calling on you to retract these claims.
From your perspective, you might be able to argue that we “focus on” or “obsess over” or “hype” errors and false statements made by Olbermann. Maybe you think it is waste of time or trivial. You could even add that we do so to the exclusion of people who you think are far worse like Limbaugh or O’Reilly. But I defy you to provide a single example of us fabricating inaccuracies. We make it a point to provide links, transcripts and videos to back up our reports.
I am not familiar with Media Matters for America’s legal status but presumeably you are required by law create the appearance of being non-partisan, even when we all know that MMFA is as non-partisan as MRC so please don’t wave around your policies as if it is some sort of badge of honor.
Our reason for being is to mock Keith Olbermann and to bug the hell out of the OlbyLoons who are under the delusion that Keith Olbermann is the “Edward R. Murrow of our generation”, whatever that means.
Regardless, provide a single example of Olbermann Watch FABRICATING an “inaccuracy” and I will shut the entire site down. Believe me, Keith is such a sloppy “journalist” that it is like shooting fish in a barrel to point out his errors each day. Meanwhile, you might want to let your readers know that we have successfully pressured the Associated Press, USA TODAY and other media outlets to publish KO-related corrections. At our request, the Anti-Defamation League condemned Olbermann’s use of Nazi imagery to promote his show. As Ian correctly pointed out, MoveOn.org ran a massive “pledge drive” for Keith last spring – sending out millions of emails calling on their members to watch Keith. You know that I know that the leading blue blogs, MMFA, KO, CAP and Air America Radio all talk to each other and coordinate. There is nothing wrong with that – its a free country – but no one should be pretending it is not happening.
Anyway, I look forward to your correction and apology.
Robert Cox
Editor
Olbermann Watch
The silence is deafening since 9:42:51 AM….
Here’s your chance libs, to shut down OW for good.
Are you going to take the challenge, or just do what you usually do? Whine and bitch and name call?
Well?
Mr. Willis: I’m sorry but your numbers re Olbermann’s ratings are just flat-out wrong. While Olbermann and the MSNBC PR department has tried desperately to peddle these figures as fact, the Nielsen ratings simply do not support these claims in any way, shape, or form. USA Today recently had to issue a correction after Olbermann and the MSNBC PR Department were caught making false claims about his ratings. In fact, on a recent night, he came in dead-last behind all the other news networks in both overall viewers and in the key demo (25-54) behind Fox News, CNN, HLN, and CNBC. And on average, he is in a solid third place, and ever-increasingly, in FOURTH place on most nights. Now please tel me again how it is his show is “gaining in popularity” except in the dream-spinning being done by Olbermann and his PR flunkies?
Furthermore, right before his new book was published, Olbermann began these “special comments”. In the year prior to the commencement of his editorals, he’d only given one and that was on Katrina. The vast majority of his blog entries in the past year were in fact on BASEBALL and SPORTS. Now you expect me to believe he’s the only newsman with a conscience and has all of a sudden developed a great aversion to the GOP that he feels obligated to speak out against? And furthermore, a close investigation of liberal blogs will reveal that almost identically-worded posts were made urging readers to “help save Keith”, with e-mail addresses of key NBC & MSNBC executives, and oh yes, a link to Amazon where readers could helpfully buy his book.
I’m not saying Olbermann doesn’t believe what he says, but I do find the timing highly suspect. And since he and the PR department at MSNBC have been proven liars re his ratings it would behoove you, in the interest of fairness and accuracy to fact-check this man and his statements and those of the PR department at his network before you write about his ratings again. Because what you’ve just written is just flat-out wrong.
Don’t forget another MSNBC PR agent: Brian Stelter of TVNewser. He has been spinning stories in Olbermann’s favor, ignoring negative Olbermann news, and attacking Keith’s competitors for over three years now.
Unbelievable! It’s obvious that you are just repeating the absurd, ridiculous claims of others that Olbermannn’s ratings are up when in fact the truth is (and this can be checked ANYDAY by going to TV NEWSER or INSIDE CABLE NEWS) he’s LUCKY to even be in FOURTH place. Yes, he actually has been in THIRD sometimes and I’ll even admit he was in SECOND place twice but generally when this happens Nancy Grace and Bill O’Reilly have substitute hosts!!
Please get real, wake up and stop lying. The Man Tan Man does enough of this each night.
The good news is that his show will undoubtedly be cancelled before the years’ end which of course doesn’t exactly jive with your much copied article.
“The good news is that his show will undoubtedly be cancelled before the years’ end…”
Mike,
How are you so sure of this as to say “undoubtedly”?
I would like to thank Mr. Willis for comparing Keith Olbermann to Rush Limbaugh.
Although this comparison is unfair to Limbaugh, since he allows listeners to rebut his views, a Limbaugh/Olbermann comparison is one Olbermann critics should encourage.
MSNBC inaccurately labels Olbermann as an anchorman, a term that connotes some sort of allegiance to the standards of professional journalism. However, Olbermann is really a partisan liberal polemicist, as Mr. Willis acknowledges.
It’s not surprising that this is exactly the sort of “anchorman” that Media Matters would support.
Thanks, Mr. Willis, for painting a more accurate picture of what Keith Olbermann really does for so many Olbermann critics who push for “truth in advertising” at MSNBC.
So will you be correcting your errornous ratings information about Olbermann contained within your blog post?
What Bobby Cox refuses to tell you is that people like me go to OW every once in awhile and correct the record of OW’s lies and misinformation. Yet, rarely, does OW challenge our corrections. When they do they are ALWAYS found to be in error, yet they never will admit it.
“What Bobby Cox refuses to tell you is that people like me go to OW every once in awhile and correct the record of OW’s lies and misinformation. Yet, rarely, does OW challenge our corrections. When they do they are ALWAYS found to be in error, yet they never will admit it.”
Well, hey- Radmod, here’s your chance to SHUT HIM DOWN…
Just list ONE (just one!) factual error. I notice that neither you, nor the libs from this site have been able to meet Mr. Cox’s challenge.
Put your money where your whiny mouths are!
What Bobby Cox refuses to tell you is that people like me go to OW every once in awhile and correct the record of OW’s lies and misinformation. Yet, rarely, does OW challenge our corrections. When they do they are ALWAYS found to be in error, yet they never will admit it.
Posted by: radmod | Oct 16, 2006 12:46:20 PM
Show your proof ramahog! Like oliveroil, you spew but show no facvts of OW lying. Show your facts oliveroil and ramahog and OW goes bye-bye. Ramahog all you do is spew the radical left-wing talking points on OW and never produce any facts. Here’s your chance to be Tan-Mans hero and shut down the top site on the deplorable Tan-Man. Produce the evidence, or has the hog been ramroded one too many times?
I am a regular reader and sometimes contributor to OW. I watched KO a few times and could not stomach him and his raving rants at the same time.
So now I go to OW for a precis of what he says.
Hyberpole is totally inadequate to describe his comments. Malicious slander, specius exaggeration and sometimes outright lying seems to be the order of the day.
Did I mention fear mongering? Go to OW September archives and read the September 18 Special Comments.
On the chance KO’s implications were right I stayed home for three weeks. I was sure if I ventured forth I would be confronted by men in brown shirts with a ‘W’ insignia and jack booted men in black with a double ‘WW’ insignia and a deathshead on their hats. All with one purpose: To moniter my thoughts and punish any actions that crossed Mister Bush!
MSNBC pays him and provides an outlet for his OPINIONS. Just don’t call him what he is not, a journalist. Truth in advertising please.
Sorry, I’ve been working. I’ll post shortly.
The following (long, long) post contains only a few examples in the past few weeks. I have not edited them for content so forgive me if they seem disjointed. If you like you can ignore ALL of these examples and I will give one single example following this post:
Notorious liar Johnny Dollar (wow, that is fun!) went on to claim “which contradicts what legal experts have said elsewhere.” The implication is that Shuster got it wrong because “legal experts” (read: most legal experts) say otherwise. However, that is not the truth.
Legal experts DO agree that a criminal case, in regards to the IM page may be difficult if not impossible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217720,00.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2527032
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402002_2.html
Generally, where Spinning Dollar is concerned, you’ll often get more truth by reversing everything he says.
Then Jiving Johnny provided some “damage control and spin” and “bald-face lying”. What was the lie? Fox mislabeled Foley as a (D) two or three times on the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, but, of course, it was only for 3 seconds, eh?
Juking Johnny then provides a link to an supposed acknowledgement by Fox News. However, those of us in the know recognize that the ambiguous link is no other than j¢’s own poorly designed, rarely viewed web-site and was just another effort to get people to go there (correction: I know you’re hurting for numbers so I went ahead and went to help you out).
However, despite the fact that Fox News viewers leave their sets on all day and it MAY have been seen by them, the onus is on Billo to correct the error not someone else. That would be like me apologizing for the incompetence of the Bush administration.
In addition, what is left out is how on another program Fox also switched Reps for Dems:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Fox_Foley_2.jpg
(In case you don’t want to see the picture, the Fox chyron reads “Reid: Did Dems ignore Foley emails to preserve seat?”. Which, of course, Sen. Harry Reid had actually said said Rep leaders.) It also ignores how many people in blogs and even on TV have stated similar things.
So let’s start right off the bat (forgive me if I’m being redundant):
“… not know the difference between emails and instant messages, or is he deliberately obfuscating?”
1) Google ‘Foley’ and ‘emails’ and you will see that everyone uses the term ‘emails’, including Fox news. Why?
2) Because they were emails! Does Einstein j¢ not know the difference between emails and instant messages? Does he not realize that IMs are a form of email?
From dictionary.com : a computer application which allows for communications in real time, a live chat and email service.
“those polls that Olbermann has ignored for weeks because they were going in the wrong direction”
You’ve brought this up so many times, so I wondered if it were true. However, my research indicates it is just your usual spin. From what I have found KO reports polls infrequently (about 1 a month, even in the periods you have mentioned). When he does, it seems to be because of some event occurring (such as this Republican sex scandal).
” ‘do nothing diplomatic stance’ re Korea (a preposterous characterization”
OK. What has this administration done in regards to diplomacy?
“while [Shuster] predicted it would get bogged down”
He did not do that, nor did he predict Hastert would resign by Wednesday.
“Krazy Keith worried that all this talk about a coming GOP disaster might be overstatement.”
If he such a liberal, why would he be worried that it was an overstatement? Wouldn’t he want it to be true? Or is he just simply discussing politics?
“Politics changes quickly. A week can be a lifetime. Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. A stitch in time saves nine. Love means never having to say you’re sorry. Life is like a box of chocolates.”
LOL. That was funny. Stupid, but funny and it served to keep you from having to mention anything else, like
What no mention of the “scathing denunciation of the Bush foreign policy” by G.H.W. Bush’s foreign policy advisor. Oh, that’s right, his critique of Bush’s lack of diplomacy might be proof of that “do-nothing diplomatic stance.”
“of what the rest of the world considers a failed policy toward North Korea”
I’m sure, of course, that you have the hard numbers on that, and that you will dutifully post them, right?
” bragging that among all political books sold just at Wal-Mart stores, he was #2″
I realize that conservatives, especially neo-cons don’t understand humor, but certainly you have to understand that KO was being facetious. I mean “among all the social science and political books” – LOL.
“But he said not one word as the price of gas continued to fall”
Why bother, everyone knows it. If he did, he should correctly point out how convenient it is that gas prices have fallen so low when the Reps are in trouble. And in doing so, you would, no doubt, criticize him.
The part about Hastert’s resignation: “Shuster did not reference his statement of last week which, if taken seriously, would mean that in the next two days, Speaker Hastert would be out of his job.” Statement. Not prediction. J$ didn’t say otherwise. He said Shuster made a “statment” last week.
“October Surprise” was not Olbermann’s phrase but a repetition of what Hastert had called it.
“sex scandal.”
Yep, let’s blame KO for using the same phrase that, as far as I can see, EVERY media outlet is using, including – yep, you guessed it, your bosses at Fox News. Googling “foley sex scandal” returned over 300,000 hits.
“Hastert: the Dems had this story first. [Shuster]: the source for ABC and The Hill was a Republican. As if that was “proof” that the Dems still could not have had the story first.”
Why did you leave out the part that Hastert claimed the Dems knew about it a day or two before he did, but then offered no proof? Likewise, you left out the part that ABC’s Ross said he only told Reps and not the Dems.
“Hastert: the GOPers worked to get Foley to resign.
Shuster: the “timeline” says otherwise.”
What no ‘refutation” of this fact?
“Then “what did Hastert know and when did he know it?”. Clip of Hastert: I learned about it last Friday. Shuster cited various people who claim they told Hastert about it earlier, including Kirk Fordham.”
Various people? Hah! Why not mention that the various people were John Boehner (“this spring”) and Tom Reynolds (“a year ago”). I guess those people are unimportant, eh?
“[Shuster] did not mention any of the denials by Hastert’s office”
a) Why mention it? It’s obvious to Olby-watchers that they deny it.
b) Shuster had shown Hastert’s claim he had heard about it last Friday. That in itself is a denial.
“Except of course for the one [poll] showing George Allen …”
Interesting way you put this. Did KO give a poll that indicated ANY Senatorial race? No, he did not. I can’t ever recall him giving numbers like that, he always gives general poll numbers.
Even if he had, I wouldn’t blame him for not using the Zogby Poll. I was checking out the polls yesterday when I came across the Zogby. I found it strange that Menendez in NJ had taken such a big lead (+11pts) when lately in the past he had been down several points. Likewise, Allen suddenly seemed have the same lead in VA. A little investigation and I found that that Zogby poll differed from other polls in battleground states, by an average of 6 points! While most of the differences favored Reps, some of the most dramatic I saw were 9pts. in NJ, and 8pts. in MD in favor of the Dems.
“a slur against a Congressman (R) trying to “smear” his opponent”
While you may be technically right, I find it strange to call it a slur that KO reported about Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) photoshopping his opponent’s head onto the body of Hugh Hefner and showing him on the cover of Hustler magazine and then sending it to people in the district in the mail.
“but she was “repeating” the administration’s “line” and blaming a “scapegoat”"
Umm, this was true. KO said she was “repeating the consistent line” of the administration and was blaming the media as a scapegoat. How is that wrong? That would be like reporting that the Boy Who Cried Wolf cried wolf, but not mentioning ‘again’.
[Here I note that you didn't mention anything about the Biden plan. Of course, the goal of the neo-cons is to keep saying Dems don’t have plans, so I shouldn't be surprised you didn't mention it.]
“Olbermann praised Warner for “listening to the military leaders” and being a true Senator.”
I hope you are not trying to slur the only good Senator we have here in VA. Warner is a conservative, not a neo-con. This administration is not listening to the military leaders and has consistently given the line that things are going well. Allen (R-VA) repeats the same line as Bush. Since Warner is highly unlikely to be beat in any election before he retires he can actually disagree with the administration.
“Shuster’s “rebuttal” to Hastert’s claim should have been: there’s little or no evidence to support what Hastert said.”
Stop the TIVO!
That’s EXACTLY what Shuster did!
Shuster said “Hastert won’t tell us how he knows this or who his sources are.” He then went on to point out that the people who broke the story told Reps not Dems.
How much propaganda and bias did Jivin’ Johnny put into his three statements?
1. He claims KO “reports this allegation as fact” while JD obviously ignores “aide says he told”. Not “aide told” → “aide says he told.”
B. “Olby’s own guest … dismissed this allegation.” And? It doesn’t change the fact that KO DID NOT ‘report’ as ‘fact’ the allegation. Nor does Scarborough’s opinion make it a fact. I actually agree with that Scarborough is probably right. I am skeptical of Reynold’s view.
III. I agree that KO should’ve said “Hastert’s office.” However, is it a lie? No, since (via ABC News) Fordham claimed Hastert knew about COS Palmer’s meeting with Foley then, in effect, it is reasonable to say “aide says he told Speaker Hastert.” It would be like me telling person A to tell his Boss B and if A tells B, then I have told B.
Two instances of slanting and one outright falsehood. Not bad but typical J$.
“Olby gave Shuster a chance to do some damage control and back off his prediction of yesterday”
I was unable to respond to this yesterday since I didn’t watch until too late, yet I had a hunch you were spinning here. Now that I’ve seen the transcript I see I was right. It’s clear that Shuster made no such prediction of Hastert’s resignation. He said, specifically, “we‘ve been told by every lawmaker, every Republican lawmaker we‘ve called has said that Dennis Hastert will not be the speaker of the House this time next week.” That is not ‘predicting’, it’s called reporting. You would’ve done better to say “I wonder how many lawmaker’s he actually spoke to.”
Now, since you guys wanted just ONE example of an inaccuracy then …
“Shuster prediction falls flat.”
“Shuster emphatically declared that House Speaker Dennis Hastert will have resigned by 8:00 pm ET on Wednesday October 11, 2006.”
It’s too bad that’s a lie.
Shuster REPORTED (as I have pointed out before but you guys keep lying):
“”And, in fact, tonight, we‘ve been told by every lawmaker, every Republican lawmaker we‘ve called has said that Dennis Hastert will not be the speaker of the House this time next week. ”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15141830/
There were more about Shuster’s ‘prediction’ but I have other things to do.
Oh, and for added measure, here is BobbyC’s response to Willis responding to a poster:
“Media Matters for America’s own Oliver Willis engages in a scurrilous attack”
Yep, scurrilous attack. Like that’s accurate.
Olberman Watch writes:
There’s no way that they would make stuff up. No way. Oh wait… I forgot the very next sentence:
Oh mercy. I think we can safely add “paranoid idiots” to the list of phrases that accurately describe the staff at Olberman Watch.
Oh God, Bob Cox has sent over the Olbermann haters to prove just how much Keith gets under their skin. Just make sure y’all spell my name right.
Message to all the clear-thinkers that have seized control of this out of control left-wing blog…don’t listen to Oliver. Just keeping pointing out the facts about Keith.
“You want the truth, you can’t handle the truth”
“Message to all the clear-thinkers that have seized control of this out of control left-wing blog…don’t listen to Oliver.”
Gee, Robert, are you trying to, um, orchestrate something?
What an idiot.
Classic Odub, no response.
My, oh my. It’s been nearly 24 hours and no response to what I wrote. Typical Bobby Cox. Ignore his inaccuracies and then he doesn’t have to shut down his site.
My, oh my. It’s been nearly 24 hours and no response to what I wrote. Typical Bobby Cox. Ignore his inaccuracies and then he doesn’t have to shut down his site.
radmod,
Here is my response.
I will make you the same offer I make all OlbyLoons. You are welcome to write up a GUEST POST for Olbermann Watch. Your topic is certainly KO-centric. You can make your points and let the readers decide.
Well, numerous inaccuracies have been pointed out. Will you be shutting your site down Robert? or was that another lie?
“I will make you the same offer I make all OlbyLoons …”
Um, Robert, you already made your offer:
Now are the examples radmod provided sufficient evidence for your to stand be your word or are you disputing his assertions?
At this point, that’s really the only question here.
Ramahog, there you go again. Just as Oliveroil nor any of you demonuts have yet to come up with one example of OW “FABRACATING” a story you come up with a possible “inaccuarcy” or two to try to make a point. As a good little goose stepping demonut you should have at least learned the difference between those two words. Opps, sorry, forgot word’s have no meaning in the “depends on what meaning of the word is,is” demonut reeducation camp founded by BJ. Me Bad!
Damn, they’re kind of frothing over there aren’t they?
And you know if the “inaccuracy” was deliberate, that’s a fabrication.
“Just keeping pointing out the facts about Keith.”
When you get some, let us know, ‘kay?
Posted by: destroyeroflyingdemonuts | Oct 17, 2006 2:38:04 PM
So tell me since you are obviously so wise and intelligent what is inaccurate in what I posted of OW’s inaccuracies?
radmod,
I am not going to carry on a conversation with an OlbyWatch reader on another site (no offense Oliver) so let me just remind you that I have offered you the chance to submit your comment above as a GUEST POST. Shoot me an email if you would like to convert your comment into a post and I will publish it on Olbermann Watch.
Obviously, I do not agree with you at all but I am more than willing to give you a megaphone over at OlbyWatch to say your piece. Just ping my email address at the top of OlbyWatch with your post. It shouldnt’ take you more that a few minutes to turn your comment here into a full blown post.
What say you?
Cox needs the “Guest Posts” to boost his site’s traffic…, and we’re supposed to somehow be grateful for the free invites?!?
I just spent an hour or so over there, reading comments and posts. Yet another reason I stay off Right-wing sites. Any dissent is swiftly and brutally dealt with in a most uncivil way.
bleh.