It’s not quite the liberal Fox News this article lays out. Olbermann is by far the best show. Chris Matthews doesn’t like Bush, but he hates Hillary Clinton. And I think Rosie O’Donnell is all wrong for cable news.
MSNBC has gone on forever with no identity while CNN plays it straight and Fox goes for the wingnuts, and I don’t trust them to keep it up (history shows MSNBC as easily distracted). I have argued for a long time that there’s an audience for liberal cable news that’s being underserved – how much do you think we can stand Alan Colmes throwing in the towel time and time again?
The best bit of this article is the news that Tucker Carlson’s horrible show is close to cancellation.
I sure agree with you Oliver. I really like Olbermann. Matthews really shouldn’t be on television — actually he probably shouldn’t be let out of the house too often. You watch his show for an hour and know less than when you started. Plus it’s not just Hillary Clinton he has problems with–he’s totally twisted about women and gender-related issues. His Id is generally on display and he treats politics like the movies that he’s such a fan of. He’s pretty sick.
But I can’t imagine Rosie O’Donnell putting out a show that I’d want to watch. She’s likely to be even worse than Matthews at imparting information and arguing cogently.
MSNBC really has its head up ass. I was hoping, since Rachel Maddow has been on Olbermann and even on the Today Show (also NBC-related) that maybe they were grooming her for a show. I also have hoped hoped that David Shuster would get a show– and he’d likely be as tough on a Dem president as on Bush if the Dems acted like Bush does.
Instead, they go to someone whose work I already know and don’t respect, and who, while ostensibly on “my side,” I won’t be able to stomach.
Feh.
while CNN plays it straight
Yep, because Glenn Beck is really straight.
Riiiiight
It’s really kind of sad and pathetic the way the thought process of cable news execs goes.
“Hmmm. Olbermann’s ratings are strong. Maybe we should have another left-of-center TV host. Quick everybody, who is the most BOMBASTIC, LOUDMOUTHED liberal you can think of to fill the 9 p.m. slot?”
“Uh, sir, do you think his solid ratings may be because Olbermann’s an honest-to-goodness journalist and not solely because of his personal views?”
“Pah! People don’t want journalism from their cable news! They want someone who ENTERTAINS, not INFORMS!”
“Well…how about Rosie O’Donnell then, sir?”
“Perfect! Call her and see if she’s interested!”
And Alan Colmes is a punching bag, nothing more than a cheap stereotype of what Roger Ailes thinks a liberal is — a weak, ineffective geek. They had to get someone like that for that show – if they put a liberal on there with at least a little backbone, they’d eat Hannity for dinner every night. His argument construction is like some perverted labratory mix of Limbaugh and Lionel Hutz.
CNN the main network, I mean, not the crazy nuttiness that’s Headline News.
Replacing one idiot(Tucker) with another (O’Donnell) is not a solution there is a vast number of Liberals who are articulate and able to form a coherent thought process. Rosie would be something to avoid. how do these MSNBC execs keep their jobs?
Olbermann’s show sucks just like every other show in that kind of format sucks.
Uh, sir, do you think his solid ratings may be because Olbermann’s an honest-to-goodness journalist and not solely because of his personal views?
Oh please. Olbermann’s ratings are a direct result of him being a bombastic loudmouth that pulls NO PUNCHES when attacking the President. His show is not informative. That’s why liberals love that stuff the same way so many conservatives love O’Reilly or Hannity. It’s red meat. Nothing more.
I used to watch these shows all the time until I realized that I wasn’t learning anything new from any of it. They all have their own talking points and fans of one side are going to say the show they watch is great while the other side says it sucks and vice versa. It’s happened right here in this entry.
They all suck. And Rosie’s show will suck too.
Somebody go find a pen and write down the date. I’m about to agree with Jay.
They all have their own talking points and fans of one side are going to say the show they watch is great while the other side says it sucks and vice versa.
Cable TV “news” does not seek to inform. It exists only to draw an audience. As a result, talking apparitions like O’Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, Carlson, and soon, O’Donnell only tell you what you already think.
That goes double for the clowns on the radio.
As you say, Olbermann is kind of an O’Reilly or Hannity counterpart. A little more fact based on his attacks maybe, but still a loudmouth lefty with a platform. About time. The loudmouthed righties have run amok and dominated the airwaves until now.
Yes Jay, they all suck. The default line of someone who can’t see past the liberal v. conservative story line that has populated our media.
That said, who would you consider a real journalist?
Lemme guess what your reply is going to be.
And I’ve seen KO hammer Dems too. It’s not his fault that Bush gives fresh material to those of us in the world of reality every damned day.
“Yep, because Glenn Beck is really straight.”
How is that man still on the air.
Jay: “Oh please. Olbermann’s ratings are a direct result of him being a bombastic loudmouth that pulls NO PUNCHES when attacking the President. His show is not informative. That’s why liberals love that stuff the same way so many conservatives love O’Reilly or Hannity. It’s red meat. Nothing more.”
Jay, do you even try anymore? Are you you here because you like being proven wrong.
Olbermann attacks both sides. He just happens to attack Republicans more often because, and this might come as a shock for a negative IQer like yourself, because the Republicans are wrong more often.
“I used to watch these shows all the time until”
I bet you haven’t watched 10 full episodes of Olbermann. You probably haven’t see 1 full episode of Olbermann and you are attacking him based solely on your prejudices.
Chris Matthews doesn’t like Bush
Well, he doesn’t so much now that Bush’s popularity is (rightfully) in the crapper. Back in those heady “Mission Accomplished” days, Matthews’s lips were firmly attached to Bunnypants’s ass.
That said, who would you consider a real journalist?
Well, I listen to NPR and BBC radio most of the time. Television is limited to C-Span. My view of a real journalist is somebody that informs, not flings shit. I don’t care if KO sometimes goes after Democrats. That means nothing. O’Reilly will sometimes go at Republicans. You going to start watching his show now?
He just happens to attack Republicans more often because, and this might come as a shock for a negative IQer like yourself, because the Republicans are wrong more often.
There’s an intelligent statement. The only thing you didn’t do was finish it off with, “Nyahh, nyahh! So there!”
I bet you haven’t watched 10 full episodes of Olbermann. You probably haven’t see 1 full episode of Olbermann and you are attacking him based solely on your prejudices.
Good grief. What’s next? “My Dad can beat up your Dad” and “I know you are, but what am I?”
Grow up fool.
Tucker Carlson has had about 35 chances with his own tv show. That’s proof right there of no liberal media. By the way, Rachel Maddow was the token liberal on one of his shows, along with Carlson and Jay Severin (R-racist).
The reason Tv execs hire liberals like Rosie O’Donnell is ratings and also because it fits the narrative. A big, brassy lesbian who is prone to saying things that make mainstream liberals cringe. I’m surprised Fox didn’t pick her up. Msnbc puts people like O’Donnell on to say to America “Here is a mainstream liberal.” Though I like her style, she does no good for liberals.
Me: “He just happens to attack Republicans more often because, and this might come as a shock for a negative IQer like yourself, because the Republicans are wrong more often.”
Jay: “There’s an intelligent statement.”
The first correct thing you’ve said in a long, long time. Too bad you were being sarcastic.
Me: “I bet you haven’t watched 10 full episodes of Olbermann. You probably haven’t see 1 full episode of Olbermann and you are attacking him based solely on your prejudices.”
Jay: “Good grief. What’s next? ‘My Dad can beat up your Dad” and “I know you are, but what am I?’”
How fucking stupid are you?
I’m questioning your first hand knowledge on the subject at hand, how is that not relevant?
Now answer that question, or prove you are nothing more than a troll.
Now answer that question
This is too funny. You do nothing but shriek, “Liar , liar pants on fire!” every chance you get. You’ve already concluded that I haven’t seen a single full episode of KO, so what’s the point? I could tell you I watched 2 episodes or I could tell you I watched it for two weeks straight at some time. It wouldn’t matter.
Besides, stop making ME the issue. The issue is cable news shows. My opinion of cable news shows and their uselessness is not mine alone. Quaker feels the same way.
Perhaps instead of calling me names, you can offer up some reasons as to how KO’s show is that much different than other cable news shows that I should lift my self imposed ban on watching.
Jay said:
>Besides, stop making ME the issue. The issue is >cable news shows. My opinion of cable news shows >and their uselessness is not mine alone. Quaker >feels the same way.
>Perhaps instead of calling me names, you can offer >up some reasons as to how KO’s show is that much >different than other cable news shows that I >should lift my self imposed ban on watching.
You know, you’ve got a really good point there, Jay. Far too often, posters on this site go after each other personally. In this case, Jay’s absolutely right. It’s really not about him.
Let’s try to stick to attacking the logic and not the individual.
Me: “Now answer that question
Jay: “This is too funny.”
No, it’s pathetic, Jay. You’ve dodged two legitimate questions in a row, and this is an ongoing pattern with you.
You are nothing more than a political troll.
“Perhaps instead of calling me names,”
I wouldn’t call you names if you were interesting in an intellectually honest debate.
“Besides, stop making ME the issue. ”
The validity of YOUR opinions are at issue.
You don’t watch Olbermann, you admit this, yet you condemn him as a, “bombastic loudmouth”, and equate him to O’Reilly, Beck, etc. When challenged on how you formed that opinion, you play the victim card and refuse to answer the question.
How can you form an opinion on him if you’ve never seen his show? And how is that question not relevant to this debate?
If you are not willing to answer those questions, you are not interested in an intellectually honest debate.
locus: “Let’s try to stick to attacking the logic and not the individual.”
I’m attacking his logic. Asking what evidence a person used to form an opinion is not getting personal. It is the heart of an intellectually honest debate.
Here ya go Strowbridge.
I have watched ZERO complete episodes of Olbermann. None. Zip.
Yet I will tell you confidently that Olbermann is not a journalist, he just plays one on TV. I stick by what I wrote earlier–the people on cable TV shows are there to hold up a mirror to gull viewers into admiring their own intelligence.
Cable TV channels make their living by getting you to sit still for advertisements about new cars, hygiene products, fast food, and money managers. They’ll tell you whatever they must to get you to stay put.
The validity of YOUR opinions are at issue.
Why should that validity of my opinion be an issue? It’s an opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. I like the NY Giants. Oliver likes the Washington Redskins. Whose opinion is more valid? There’s no such thing as a valid or invalid opinion.
You don’t watch Olbermann, you admit this,yet you condemn him as a, “bombastic loudmouth”, and equate him to O’Reilly, Beck, etc.
I said I don’t watch Olbermann – present tense. It doesn’t mean I’ve never watched — past tense — the show.
When challenged on how you formed that opinion, you play the victim card and refuse to answer the question.
No no. You didn’t challenge me. You already concluded I hadn’t watched the show with your, “I’ll bet you….” nonsense.
Don’t go preaching about intellectually honesty. Rather than explain why Olbermann’s show is different from other cable news shows (which you still haven’t done) and as such is worth an hour of my time each day, you’ve chosen once again to resort to deflection and making the “validity of my opinion” the issue.
Me: “The validity of YOUR opinions are at issue.”
Jay: “Why should that validity of my opinion be an issue?”
Shut the fuck up.
Goddammit, it is your goal to say the stupidest thing on the internet on a daily basis?
What you just said is so fucking stupid, I don’t even know how to respond. I can’t dumb down an answer to the point you would understand it. Opinions are only as valid as the evidence that backs them up. If the validity of our opinions are not an issue, what do we judge the issues on? If the validity of our opinions are not an issue, reality is no longer objective. You live in a fantasy world where opinion is more important than evidence.
There is no point in talking with you if you don’t think the validity of your opinions are an issue. If is impossible to get to the truth.
You really are a worthless human being. … No, you are not a human being and should not be treated as such.
Why don’t you hang out with the Freepers. Maybe they will appreciate your limitations more.
By the way, if the validity of your opinions are not an issue, then you have no right to ask me to defend mine. That makes you a fucking hypocrite as well as a moron.
“Yet I will tell you confidently that Olbermann is not a journalist, he just plays one on TV.”
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/journalist?view=uk
Unless you have a non-standard definition of definition of the term, “journalist”, there’s little debate here.
And as you’ve admitted you have no firsthand knowledge of the program, there’s little reason to discuss the topic with you. I don’t talk about calculus with people who have never done mathematics more advanced than algebra, it seems pointless to talk about a subject with someone who doesn’t have the knowledge to form an educated opinion.
“Cable TV channels make their living by getting you to sit still for advertisements…”
This is true of network news. It is also true of magazines, newspapers, radio programs, etc., etc.
Even those without advertising generally have sponsors, (like PBS does).
So unless you have a non-standard definition of journalist, you are mistaken.
Shut the fuck up.
Ah yes. There’s the REAL CS. The big BAD CS from Canada baby! “Don’t fuck with me, eh! I’ll show you what I’m all aboot!”
Opinions are only as valid as the evidence that backs them up.
Do you have any idea what an opinion is? There’s no such thing as a valid or invalid opinion! A friend of mine thinks ‘CSI: Miami’ is a great show. His opinion is that it’s great. My opinion is that it sucks. Whose is valid and what evidence does either of us have to “back it up”?
Let me let clue you in oh clueless one. You’re confusing ‘valid’ with ‘informed.’ An opinion cannot be wrong (ie invalid). It can be a misinformed opinion. I would be hard pressed to say that CSI: Miami sucked if I hadn’t seen it at all. That should give you some sort of clue into the KO show.
You really are a worthless human being. … No, you are not a human being and should not be treated as such.
Blah blah blah blah blah. This little snit act of yours is really boring.
By the way, if the validity of your opinions are not an issue, then you have no right to ask me to defend mine. That makes you a fucking hypocrite as well as a moron.
I didn’t ask you to defend yours. You apparently are a fan of the show. I’m pretty sure I know why. I didn’t I accuse you of stupid shit like saying your “opinion is invalid.”
All I did was ask you to explain how KO’s show is different from other cable shows that are cut from the same cloth.
You still haven’t done so.
unless you have a non-standard definition of journalist
Non-standard? A “non-standard” definition would be needed to cover a so-called journalist who labels people “The Worst Person in the World” each week.
That’s not “standard” journalism the way I learned it.
I see your OED and raise.
Dig around in there and let me know how Mr. Olbermann measures up.
“All I did was ask you to explain how KO’s show is different from other cable shows that are cut from the same cloth.
You still haven’t done so.”
And I asked you what you based your opinion on.
You accused me of using personal attacks.
Are you trying to be a hypocrite?
It boils down to this…
I treat those with as much respect as they deserve. You want me to answer your questions, you have to prove you are willing, or even capable of having an intellectually honest debate.
Do you want to have an intellectually honest debate? Or are you going to play semantics?
Oh, and by the way, invalid is not the same as wrong. Invalid means not well grounded in logic or truth. (There’s also a legal as well as medical definitions, but those would be inappropriate here.) Opinion can be invalid.
For instance:
Valid: I don’t like CSI:Miami because David Caruso is a terrible actor. A huge piece of ham that begs spoofing. Remove shades. Squint. Squat. Every single damn episode. Who taught him to act? Who hired him?
Invalid: I don’t like CSI cause it’s a rip-off of CSI:Miami.
————————————————
Me: “unless you have a non-standard definition of journalist”
Quaker: “Non-standard? A ‘non-standard’ definition would be needed to cover a so-called journalist who labels people ‘The Worst Person in the World” each week.’”
Nowhere in the definition of the word, “journalist”, does is say you can’t use humor in your approach.
You would realize the segment is a humorous look at outrageous news if you every watched the show.
Like this week when he mentioned a story about the police breaking into an 84-year old woman’s house to see if she was okay, and then using a taser on her when she reacted badly to having people break into her house.
And I asked you what you based your opinion on.
Seeing the show CS.
Happy?
I await my answer now.
Do you want to have an intellectually honest debate?
So instead of responding to me initially with, “Jay, have you actually watched the show?” which I would have answered without issue, you wrote the following:
I bet you haven’t watched 10 full episodes of Olbermann. You probably haven’t see 1 full episode of Olbermann and you are attacking him based solely on your prejudices.
It’s obvious from that you weren’t interested in any sort of debate. You were looking to have another pissing match and guess what? My leg is soaked.
Now, will you FINALLY explain how KO’s show is different than any of all the other cable news shows we see day in and day out?
Me: “And I asked you what you based your opinion on.”
Jay: “Seeing the show CS. Happy?”
Almost. How often have you seen the show? Have you watched a full show, or just bits and pieces?
Jay: “It’s obvious from that you weren’t interested in any sort of debate.”
Jay, you’ve posted links here that proved the exact opposite of your claims. My opinion of you is so low, that whatever you say I assume the opposite is true. This is why I’m pissy with you. It’s based on experience.
Jay, and I’m being serious, I don’t think you are capable of a debate.
“Now, will you FINALLY explain how KO’s show is different than any of all the other cable news shows we see day in and day out?”
Sure.
I’m assuming you mean shows like Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly, not shows like 360, correct?
KO delivers, wait for it, news. O’Reilly admits he doesn’t, Hannity and Whatshisface is billed a partisan ‘debate’ but is 30 minutes of Hannity bitch-slapping Colmes and the other 30 minutes felating the Bush administration, and Beck, I don’t even know what Beck is. This man has said so many things that are reprehensible, and can’t figure out how is still has a show, it’s not like his ratings make up for it.
Olbermann delivers news, interviews actual experts, and will smack either side if they deserve it. He smacks the Republicans mostly because they are in charge and have to be held responsible for the mess they created. And this isn’t some partisan opinion, this is the opinion of the vast majority of the population. The majority of Republicans think the nation is one the wrong track.
We’re so used to news organizations given equal weight to unequal opinions that when someone actual says one side is right and the other is wrong, people freak out.
He’s not afraid to tell it like is it. And if you are on the wrong side of nearly every debate, like most Republicans are, I can see why that would piss you off.
However, unlike Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Hannity, he has never called anyone a traitor for disagreeing with him, called for people to die because they disagreed with him, etc.
And yet again, when faced with a real debate, Jay runs away.
This is why I call him a fucking asshole. He’s not worth the effort to type a logical argument.