Unfortunately, Olbermann's claim that he covered Pennsylvania is not borne out by his reference to the show of Nov 9--the word "Pennsylvania" doesn't appear anywhere in the transcript! And note that his miserly, grudging coverage of Acorn was triggered by an investigation by the State of Florida, while the whole Ohio kerfuffle is just based on "irregularities" invented by extremist political hacks.

As for the "incredibly unstable scheduling", Countdown has been following Hardball on the schedule for years. Is KO claiming that what comes AFTER Countdown is affecting his ratings?

by all means, Keith, think for yourself.

Mr Sileo points out the same aspects of Countdown that commentators here have mentioned as being illogical and unbalanced: Guests who seem vetted for their alignment with a story's premise (BTW, I'm worried former Nixon staffer John Dean's health. He has not appeared on Countdown to lend his expertise by commenting on rumors of Ohio dirty tricks...), the distribution of internet rumor, the frenzied flogging of deceased shetland ponies...

But in the midst of elucidating what is obvious to everyone but Keith Olbermann and a few citizens who are so left-wing that they can only fly in circles...did Sileo mention his obviously shell-shocked grandfather's rant about presidential coverage and crucifixion. Did he want to make David Shuster sound LESS psychotic?

I meant to say "WHY did Sileo mention..."

"by all means, Keith, think for youself".

Translation: Thank you, Keith, for sharing my political agenda.

I suggest everyone read today's Bloggerman.

Keith comes clean in a rambling piece that could be condensed down to one sentence: There is no evidence of election fraud in Ohio.

Just in case that news is too depressing, Keith throws a little vegetable tartar out to his fan base in the leftie blogosphere by using their meme 'reality based' when opining on the possibility of the White House being out of touch.

There's also an unintentionally hilarious bit where Keith tries to both complain that the MSM hasn't covered this admittedly non-story AND use that fact to debunk the axiom of liberal media bias. This is done by taking a cheap-shot at conservative talk show host Sean Hannity. Keith says, if the shoe were on the other foot, Hannity would still be on his 49th day of non-stop ranting coverage...

What an utter knee-jerk partisan hack that would make Hannity...ehhhh, Keith?...

WOW I'm impressed, those E-mails are great Intel. Bob. ( CIA, Langley ?)
Every bit helps to uncover KO and It's particularly gratifying to see someone in the "business" put it on the line and confront KO directly.
I've re-read the lead piece and E-mails twice, other than that I don't have much to add right now........except............"Shetland ponies"!!

I'll catch the last show late tonight.

Heya

A dynamite post. Great work.

Keith Olberman owes his current national presence to his success on Sportscenter combined with his consistent failures since. He is a constant reminder to me that it was the humor and personality of Dan Patrick that made those old Sportscenters so enjoyable.

Ahhh, to think I actually used to look forward to KO's sportscast on KTLA, channel 5 in LA. Today, I'd like to go a few rounds of dodgeball with him.

No need to wonder why Olbermann gets low ratings. He can't take good advice.

Not to mention the fact that he's a smug tool who has his head up his a**.

"Not to mention the fact that he's a smug tool who has his head up his a**."

Hmmm... it appears you did mention it...or were you just "thinking" through your fingertips? Regardless, your opinions on Olbermann--or better described, your profane insults aren't constructive in any way, now are they?

Who is the Olbermann person you keep talking about? Why should anyone care?

I find all the aforementioned events and subsequent postings astonishing, nay, stupefying, nay, gravelling, nay, well....you get my point. Look people, I am NOT a "journalist", nor even a writer as probably evidenced by my musings and writing. I guess you would call me a "techie" type. I "sat" on the "sidelines" at ABC Television and watched this arrogance, this insanity of denial grow and feed upon itself for YEARS as our viewership dwindled and then dwindled further still. Because of this experience, I view with contempt and derision the lion's share of people in the "media" today who hold themselves out as "journalists". "We - the - people", the citizens of this country we call America have....have witnessed this tripe for sixty years now and finally...finally we have had enough. I guess it is further evidence that one can be intelligent and still do stupid things.

I think Tom Sileo should go back to watching Fox News and let Keith Olbermann do his job (which I think he's doing quite well.)

I'm sorry but I don't really see how this e-mail exchange proves anything. I could say that I got an e-mail from Santa Claus and relay the contents of that e-mail to someone else but unless they saw the actual e-mail and it was forwarded to them from me with the verifying addresses--it just doesn't prove that Olbermann did engage in this e-mail "war" with Mr. Sileo. However, I will accept them as factual for the sake of argument. From reading these e-mails it is quite clear to me that Mr. Sileo did indeed have an agenda and was upset that Mr. Olbermann was reporting a story in a way in which Mr. Sileo did not agree with and if that's not an agenda, I don't know what else is! And what exactly did Mr. Sileo hope to prove by forwarding these e-mails to every right-wing blog on the internet? Was he seeking publicity for himself as he "slayed" a liberal "dragon?" I was born on a Sunday but it wasn't last Sunday and it is very clear to me that this e-mail exchange says far more about Mr. Sileo than it does about Mr. Olbermann.

First of all, I have questions about the actual authenticity of this alleged e-mail exchange between Mr. Sileo and Mr. Olbermann since no authentic copy of the e-mails between the two has been provided. But for the sake of argument, let's say that this exchange did indeed happen. My question is this-what did Mr. Sileo hope to prove my sending these e-mails to Mr. Olbermann? It seems to me that he was attempting to censor and/or silence a fellow journalist which goes against every principle of freedom of the press that I, a journalist, was taught in J-School! Was it the political tone of Mr. Olbermann's reporting that bothered him? If so, Mr. Sileo is as guilty of bias as Mr. Olbermann. Bias is still bias whether it comes from the right-wing agenda or the left-wing side of things. And lastly, what did Mr. Sileo hope to accomplish by forwarding the text of these e-mails to every right-wing blog on the internet? Was he hoping, perhaps, to curry favor with the ruling party in DC as he made his career move from a small-market to a larger-one? Does he want to advance himself somehow by "slaying" a libeal dragon? I'm sorry, but this e-mail exchange told me far more about Mr. Sileo than it did Mr. Olbermann.

I've got to agree with Gold Rush Woman.

Something that's made me want to check to see if my wallet is still in my purse... is when Sileo says he can't continue to comment on Olbermann now that he's a working reporter. But it was okay for him to forward private e-mail correspondense. I know that if I were disagreeing with someone in my particular profession that's not the tact I'd take with a fellow professional.

Agreed, Gold Dust Woman, this speaks volumes more about Sileo than Olbermann.

I had own my reservations in publishing this exchange but after carefully weighing the various ethical considerations, consulting several attorneys who specialize in e-mail confidentiality law and convening a panel of leading ethicists and moral philosophers for a roundtable discussion at my mountain hideway in Aspen, I concluded that if the exchange could reasonably be expected to cause distress and discomfort among the loony left I ought to publish the exchange and see how many tin foil hatters emerged from the woodwork. I am comfortable that this process was fair to me and put the onus on others to vouch for the accuracy of the e-mail exchange.

As to the question as to whether this exchange really happened. I don't see any reason to doubt. The test proposed by Angel Dust Woman does not hold up because there is really no such thing as an "original" e-mail.

I have no reason to doubt Sileo but I did forward a copy of the entire post to Keith for comment; he has not registered any objection.

PS, I know that Cecelia always has Limbaugh on the brain but it's Gold DUST woman.

Bob,

FYI: Though I am not a leading ethicist and moral philosopher, I play one on the internet.

And I love roundtables, especially those in Aspen dining rooms.

Frankly, I think Sileo stood up for what he believed in and wasn't out to prove anything. The exchange is actually pretty civil and I think both men made some points, although I do think Sileo had Mr. Countdown on the defensive. Olbermann really doesn't have an answer for a lot of these questions and instead tries to change the subject with stats about the 1944 election. I also think Sileo staying out of this whole thing is pretty damn honorable, especially since his e-mails to Keith are pretty non-political in the first place. I actually can't even tell if he's a Republican or Democrat, note that he never said he supports Bush or the war, just that Olbermann has no right to slant his coverage on the subjects. This is more of a journalism debate than a political one if you ask me. Good job, Mr. Sileo.

I agree, I think Sileo is actually taking the high road here. So what if he's showing us the e-mails, I think it's pretty cool that Olbermann wrote him back and I would have done the same thing. Olbermann shares e-mails he gets from viewers on his blog thing all the time so why shouldn't Sileo extend him the same courtesy? I also really like the way Sileo's e-mails were penned, respectful yet stinging.

Don't forget that KO cited his Nov 9 show as proof that he covered voting issues in Pennsylvania. Of course the Nov 9 show included no such thing. That is probably the surest evidence of the authenticity of The Olbermann Letters.

LibGirl,

I didn't get that Sileo was commenting at all on the merits of Olbermann's coverage of the war. In making the case that Olbermann's post-election coverage has been over-the-top, Sileo appealed to the 'supposed' WII vet and "been there" authority of his grandfather in a way that I found inexplicable. Inexplicable UNLESS I assume that Sileo himself is saying Olbermann isn't just being unprofessional ( I'll buy that...) but also unpatriotic. That's a bit of reasoning that certainly reveals something about Soleo's politics.

Olbermann, in turn, replied in a way that is very revealing as well. The country is split down the middle over whether it was a good idea to go into Iraq NOT as Keith suggests, split on whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Assuming Iraq to be part of the president's war on terror is NOT a "political judgement". Assuming it's something else IS... and Olbermann made it clear that he has made that judgement.

Anyway, I can't fault Olbermann for that bit of self-revelation and then pretend that Sileo made none.

Bob,
What's with the labels (OlbyLoon, TypicalLibNut)? Are you afraid to let your visitors form their own opinions?
-q

While Olbermann has shared e-mails via his blog, he has never identified a particular person so I cannot equate Mr. Sileo doing the same in this instance with what Olbermann has done on his own blog.

I believe that Mr. Sileo was engaging in a bit of shameless self-promotion. Journalism is a very competitive business and I believe that he was doing his best to give himself a leg up in his new job and curry favor with the conservatives who rule Washington-whom it is very clear that he agrees with by his taking Mr. Olbermann to task on a number of issues and how he addresses those issues is very telling. If I were Mr. Sileo's employers, I'd be quite worried about HIS obvious biases. I must say however, that he seems to be a first-rate self-promoter and unfortunately, in today's world, that's really all you have to be--flash, not substance.

BTW-I've watched Olbermann's reporting on this "fraud" issue and the thing is-he has tried to provide balanced coverage on the issue. I could be wrong on this, but I think that he did in fact either interview or contact Brodsky (I may be spelling this incorrectly)--but the gentlemen who ran the network polls on election day. He also had the Ohio Sec. of State on to defend the integrity of voting there and gave him an entire segment to do it in. He also corrected himself about the Florida panhandle voting trend after it was revealed that the voters may be registered as Democrats there but that they've been trending Republican for sometime now and that this was far from the first election that this type of Republican trend had been evidenced in those particular regions of the state.

Now I'll leave the question as to whether or not Olbermann "sided" with these guests or against them to someone else--but at least he provided a forum for these type of guests to counter criticism from the left on this issue and I don't really see how he could be faulted for doing so.

And one more thing--Sileo accuses both David Schuster and Olbermann for "attacking" the president. I read both their blogs and I watch Countdown on a fairly regular basis (but not every night) and I'm just not seeing that. Does he have guests on who question how the war is going or how certain policies are being framed by this administration? Yes. But he just as regularly has on guests from KNOWN conservative publications (like the Wall Street Journal) who counter the critiques from the liberal quarters. Isn't that what journalists are supposed to do? To provide a balanced viewpoint of opinions and to ask tough questions of ALL their guests?

Correction: Mitofsky provided the election polling data for the networks--not Brodsky, my bad, sorry.

Jonny Dollar: Don't forget that KO cited his Nov 9 show as proof that he covered voting issues in Pennsylvania. Of course the Nov 9 show included no such thing. That is probably the surest evidence of the authenticity of The Olbermann Letters.

SMACK DOWN case closed

Obviously Qualude, Angel Dust and Ceci don't realize that all the clear thinkers on this site are well aware of the Secret Memo and know all about their plans to subvert America.

By now the message should have been clear - that this site is not FOR all you loony-left Keith lovers . We are NOT here to defend Keith. We are not here to play his little mind-games. We are not here to give in to intolerance, bigotry and religious persecution.

Remember, no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country...he won it by making the other dumb bastard die for his country.

The "Ohlbermann problem" is a symptom of a bigger problem with television news today. You see it first hand in the way the exchange between KO and Sileo over process devolved into a self-indulgent debate over politics, to whit:

The longtime reality that we never faced up to is that bias exists in everyone, including journalists. But in reporting stories, journalists should strive to be fair and balanced. But there's no journalistic standards in place to supercede the political agenda of a journalist or producer so inclined to slant a story. That's how we got memogate. That's how we get socalled straight news stories with the reporter permitted to inject a little editorial commentary along with the factual part of the message.

What caused this issue of bias to heat up lately? The competition that emerged from a conservative, fair and balanced news network (Fox), and from conservative print and internet publishers (ie: blogs). The cop on the beat is no longer solely liberal. Liberals don't have a monopoly anymore in directing the nation's political agenda. They pissed off and it shows.

Another is the growing pattern to cater to entertainment tastes. Many top-salaried employees of the news division don't deserve to be called journalists. They stupid and lazy. Look at those news hosts and anchors that didn't recognize the Swift Boat story until it hit them over the head, and even then employed the cowardly school-yard technique of "shoutdown".

Another problem that's gotten worse: the increasing number of outlets for a journalist in this market, anong other reasons, has led to an increase in the blurring between editorialist and reporter. Since when did beat reporters do stories during the day and editorialize at night? I'd like to see the contracts that NBC has with David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Campbell Brown et al that permits them to participate in round table political debates on the cable news and Sunday morning news shows, and be considered beat reporters. How the hell can Mike Wallace or Dan Rather walk over to Larry King or Charlie Rose and vent their spleen about politics? Because their bosses let them.

It's gotten to a point where I don't care whether a journalist classifies himself as reporter or editorialist. But what I do want is that ALL of them to drop the pretences of nonbias. Keith Ohlbermann, Dan Rather, Brit Hume, Ed Bradley, Aaron Brown, et al should declare what their politics are. It won't be news to anyone who watches them regularly. But at least I will no longer feel like they're questioning my intelligence with claims of nonbias.

With apologies to Laura Ingraham, they should shut up and just be fair and balanced.

>

First of all, if he was looking to "curry favor" the last thing he would do is act anything other than ultra-liberal in the news business. I've been in newsrooms around the country and they are NOT welcome places for conservatives or even independents for that matter. Sileo does not seem like a conservative to me, he seems like a concerned journalist. And I say that without any hint of cynicism.

Second, he e-mailed Olbermann before he became a D.C. producer, it says in the first e-mail to Olbermann that he was working for the AP in a non-journalist capacity and that's the only reason he would dare send the e-mail. So that throws out your theory about "trying to get a leg up in a new job."

As usual, liberals are trying to turn this into a debate about Sileo instead of Olbermann, who is paid an enormous amount of money to supposedly deliver the news fairly each night. I would much rather talk about Keith Olbermann than a producer I've never heard of. I don't know this Sileo personally but from what I read it seems like he's simply looking out for his business, what is wrong with that?

Bob,

That speech couldn't be any more breathtakingly brilliant if were delievered by Bill Murray.

heya

Interesting journalistic discussion huh? Are you sure you weren't seeking to increase your visibility in this "enigma" of a business?

And you're the one who accused Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and David Schuster of having a clear bias in their journalistic work, then quoted your grandfather as saying that no journalist would have dared questioned a "clear presidential win" by Roosevelt in war-time. Those comments didn't have a political agenda? Because it sure sounded to me as if they did. Your message was "I don't know how you dare question this clear-cut Bush win".

Tell me this-if John Kerry had won and there had been clear-cut voter irregularities in some states would you have been sending e-mail to journalists who wanted to cover the story, essentially telling them to STOP reporting on it? Or would you have been demanding full recounts from the top of your lungs?

If you're doing your job correctly, and your doing the work that a journalist should, the answer to the question should be very simple. You should be demanding to get to the truth no matter which side of the political aisle it might benefit, and oh by the way, you shouldn't be criticizing reporters who are trying to do their jobs and ask the tough questions. It's all too easy these days not to do the hard work that good journalism requires and it's all too easy to criticize those who do. It's the equivalent of being jealous of the straight-A student and taking shots at them, all the while choosing not to study on your own.

I don't know where the idea came from that all journalists needed to be singing from the same choir book. If that would have been true during the Watergate era, Woodward and Bernstein would never have become household names. And since you seem so eager to receive publicity, perhaps your efforts might be better spent actually doing your own job instead of criticizing others who are doing theirs.

True that, GDW.

Were the tables turned, you know darn well that the righties would be screaming "foul" from the highest mountain.

The ceaseless condemnation of KO on this site goes beyond the way he's reported election anomalies, to his very right to do so. The First Amendment protects the press as they pursue such stories. It also gives us the right to voice our dissent, however, it's clear that many who post here would prefer to suppress Mr. Olbermann and others of his ilk.

Rumor has it that Mr. Sileo requested you remove these emails from your site. Why haven't you done it?

Rumor has it? This is not Countdown - we deal in facts not internet rumors. If you have some facts to add to the discussion please do so otherwise wrap another sheet of tin foil around your cranium and go back to sleep.

Actually, this "rumor has it" argument is easily solved as you're the one that has been having contact with Mr. Sileo. Did he or didn't he ask you to remove the emails?

Again, this is not Countdown. We don't respond to "internet rumors" floated by blackbox loons. And since you are not offering any facts I take it that you have now added that extra layer of tin foil to your cute little hat.

I'm of the conservative/libertarian outlook and I've voiced a distaste for Mr. Sileo actions as a professional and have pointed out that he's using partisan arguments to defend a position that is easily defensible without them. So I'd appreciate it if you guys would qualify your irrelevant "righties would too" statements to "some".

I think the Olbermann argument that if Bush had lost the election that conservatives would be howling as loudly as SOME Democrats have now, is utterly specious. It's being echoed here but consider it, folks. Arguing that someone 'may' be a hypocrite is not the same thing as proving your point about the merits of Countdown's obscessive coverage of what have proven to be baseless allegations.

Look too at the typical lack of logic and INTEGRITY in Keith's bit about the lack of MSM coverage of these allegations. He argues this proves that there is no liberal media bias. Has Keith EVER personally believed the MSM is biased to the left... nooooo. So then shouldn't the relevant comment be the fact that since his colleagues (who he would defend as being unbiased) do not care to give ground to baseless suspicious then he in fact has made a judgement that he will be accountable for in time?
Double hell nooooooooooo!.... instead he takes a potshot at the right in general and specifically at two conservative PUNDITS. Sheesh!

I can tolerate that nonsense in people who shoot the breeze on blog comment boards. I find it deplorable in a "journalist".

You guys should too.

Note to Cecelia, who loves "roundtables, especially those in Aspen dining rooms"

OK you can come to the next roundtable. It's next Thursday at 8 pm.

DIRECTIONS: When you drive into Aspen make a right at the third traffic light on Main Street, go one block make another right, then go three blocks, make one more right and then a left. Then just keep driving. You can't miss it.

I think I am in love with Gold Dust Woman .

She is such a perfect example of a liberal kook that if we had any budget I would PAY her to post her loony comments on this site.

Here is typical libnut logic:

Angle Dust questions the legitimacy of the e-mail exchange because she can't "see" the original but then makes claims about herself while hiding behind the anonymity of a psuedonym - claiming she went to journalism school and being a journalist.

Angel Dust accuses others of trying to ""censor and/or silence a fellow journalist" and then turns around and decries those who are "criticizing reporters who are trying to do their jobs and ask the tough questions". For libnuts "free speech is free so long as you agree with me!"

I love this one...

It's all too easy these days not to do the hard work that good journalism requires and it's all too easy to criticize those who do. It's the equivalent of being jealous of the straight-A student and taking shots at them, all the while choosing not to study on your own.

In Loonyland, Countdown is a bastion of "good journalism," Keith Olbermann is a "straight-A student" who has "tried to provide balanced coverage on the issue."

Keith is some kind of hero because he "corrected himself about the Florida panhandle voting trend after it was revealed [emphasis added] that the voters may be registered as Democrats there but that they've been trending Republican for sometime now and that this was far from the first election that this type of Republican trend had been evidenced in those particular regions of the state.

Newsflash to Angel Dust - it wasn't "REVEALED" that the dixiecrat counties in Florida's panhandle were Zell Miller Democrats. This has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE for years and was widely discussed after the 2000 election beacuse the major networks declared that the polls in Florida were closed an hour before they actually closed - the Florida panhandle counties are on Central Time. This was widely reported (and investigated by Congress) and had a major impact on the Floriday outcome because those counties are GOP strongholds in national elections.

With Angel Dust the hits just keep on coming: "[Olbermann] just as regularly [emphasis added] has on guests from KNOWN conservative publications (like the Wall Street Journal) who counter the critiques from the liberal quarters." For AD, Olbermann provides "a balanced viewpoint of opinions" and asks "tough questions of ALL their guests?"

"Just as regularly"..."balanced viewpoint"..."tough questions"? Are you kidding? And who are you talking about at the Journal, John Harwood? The WSJ Op-Ed page is conservative but I am not aware of anyone who accuses Harwood of being a right-wing tool. Give me a break. Providing a forum to "counter criticism from the left" is fine but what Olbermann has been going is to use his show and blog to advance wild, unsubstantiated, incorrect and flat-out dumb charges night after night from the likes of Michael Hout, Steven Freeman, Kathy Dopp, Jesse Jackson, Erica Solvig, Cliff Arnebeck, and Bev Harris and then, on a handful of occassions permitted a guest to come on and "respond" to false charges. Some balance! By the way Angle Dust, when did you stop beating your dog?

Here is a real gut-buster from AD - "I watch Countdown on a fairly regular basis (but not every night) and I'm just not seeing [Olbermann for "attacking" the president].

We do watch Countdown every night and every night he pack his broadcast with every anti-Bush administration story he can find. All I can say is "keep watching."

It's nice that Angle Dust wants us to demand "to get to the truth no matter which side of the political aisle it might benefit." Too bad she doesn't hold her boyfriend Keith to the same standard when it comes to widely reported, ACTUAL voting irregularies coming out of King County (Seattle), Washington or Philadelphia, PA or South Dakota Indian Reservations.

I leave the last word to LibGirl who makes the most salient point of all "this is more of a journalism debate than a political one if you ask me...liberals are trying to turn this into a debate about Sileo instead of Olbermann."

Bob, I punched those directions into the yahoo map site and it said it would lead me to a ramshackle Colorado country store where there's several decrepit geezers sitting around playing checkers and grumbling about stuff.

Imagine that?? :D

I know you really want to pin that tin foil hat on me, it just isn't justified however and I wish you would stop. I've been obsturate and argumentative with you, but I've always been respectful and I never call you names. I wish you would do the same. If you'd like to discredit me I wish you would do so with some integrity. Calling me a left wing loon doesn't prove anything, as logic would have it, I could technically be a left wing loon and correct all at the same time.

From one loon to another, kudos, m. Just ignore the slings and barbs and stay on point. Seems it comes with the territory. I, for one, appreciate your comments.

It's so nice to see that Mr. Cox seems to think I'm worthy of attack too. I guess I was making way too much sense for him and as we all know-the greatest sin is this world is to not agree with them and their very flawed thinking. And this is when the name calling begins in earnest. Note that I was immediately tagged with the endearment, "Angel Dust". Sorry, but I'm not the one popping the illegal substances here. Now Mr. Cox is devoting entire posts to attacking me. So revealing. I'm not too sure what any of you are spiking your Kool-Aid with, but you might want to think about cutting back.

And I indeed was a journalist for over 10 years and I worked in much larger markets than Mr. Sileo ever has. I predict that Mr. Sileo will go far in this business however. He already has a clear right-wing agenda and wants every journalist he knows to sing from the same GOP hymnal. And despite the tripe that the GOP would have you believe, conservative companies run the media in this country and the last thing they want is their reporters bucking this administration lest they loose their tax cuts and the ability to gobble up additional media properties in this country.

I'm not sure what newsrooms the earlier poster claimed to be working in but there was a dramatic shift in thinking from the time I began my TV career in 1989 and when I finally left the business five years ago. During that time, huge corporations began to buy up smaller stations and corporate group think became the rule of the day. Stories we previously covered were ruled "off-limits" by the powers that be. And at one station we were given clear guidelines on how to refer to stories. Instead of referring to anti-abortion protesters, we had to call them "pro-life." We were asked NOT to cover the concerns of environmentalists when a huge industry announced plans to build near a fragile ecosystem (wetlands) area. Just two of the many, many examples I can cite.

And the idea that Olbermann, Schuster, and any of the MSNBC crew is wrong to express their opinions via their blogs is laughable. What the heck do you think that O'Reilly does on the air every single night or that Limbaugh does on air every single day????? It's not fact, it's opinion presented as fact. Ah--but they're spouting the lines you want to hear--the lines that reinforce your own hatred and prejudices and extreme political agendas aren't they--so that makes it all okay, right?

I fail to see how Mr. Olbermann's coverage of the screw-ups of this administration have revealed an anti-Bush stance. Facts are facts. You know-like how our military leaders didn't sufficiently plan for the type of urban warfare our troops are now engaging in. How the time estimates on when the Iraqi military/police being trained are now extended yet another year from what the Bush administration claimed they'd be. How our deficit is at level records and how the upcoming Bush budget for FY06 will contain drastic cuts in domestic spending, most esp. in the Education Department-this from a man who proclaims himself the "Education President" because the war is costing us far more than anyone ever dreamed that it would. Those are facts, my friends, not opinions. And covering them doesn't indicate a anti-Bush bias, it indicates that someone is doing their job-not trying to divert the public's attention by devoting hours of airtime to phony "ecoterrorist" stories and running stories about "Christmas Under Siege".

You people really do need to get a grip and realize that when someone prints or speaks the truth in the media it doesn't mean they're AGAINST your president but that they are merely reporting the FACTS. And if those facts don't agree with your own personal political agendas, what do you want to do? Kill the messenger. How positively medieval of you. Oh--and on a final note-you do know what they called it the last time that zealots ran the world? The Dark Ages. A little something to think about for you right-wingers on this Christmas Eve. Happy Holidays.

Thanks Paul.

Ms Dust I find it surprising that for someone who claims a background in journalism that you do not recognize the difference between a reporter and an analyst or commentator.

Limbuagh is not a reporter. He's a commentator, an opinion guy. O'Reilly calls himself an "analyst", but that's really a guy who deals in opinion and commentary. That's what their shows are all about. I wouldn't choose Limbaugh, or O'Reilly, to host a one-hour news broadcast, but they are perfectly qualified to give opinions. Sort of like the op/ed page of a newspaper.

Olbermann, however, anchors the closest thing to a nightly news hour that you'll find on A-Mess NBC. And Shuster is supposed to be a straight-news reporter. That's way different from what O'Reilly does (and one of the reasons why he trounces KO every night).

It's not a matter of what the opinions are. I had no problem when they had Donahue running in KO's slot. It was an opinion/commentary show like O'Reilly's (except it was a terrible production). Donahue is supposed to be an opinion guy. He's open and up-front about it. Olbermann is supposed to be a reporter, but his opinions are all over his work. Get rid of the phony "news report" patina, rename it the Olbermann Factor, stop pretending that it's an unbiased look at the day's events, and let KO just be honest about his loony views, and you'd get far fewer complaints.

I don't believe Tom Sileo really exists. It's all a big lie, Bob made the whole thing up.

Johnny: Fewer complaints from who? Gold Dust Woman's "anti-abortion" activists or pro-abortion...eh... pro-choice ones? :D

BTW: I wouldn't automatically suspect GDW's claims because she fails to distinguish between a pundit, an analyst, or a reporter. Olbermann IS an MSNBC news anchor and he did the same thing.

Go figure...