It doesn't look like Mr. Shapiro shares KO's belief that he is 'non-partisan'.

You know our guest bloggers here charge that Keith is a lightweight when it comes to politics and should stick to sports.

I've disagreed and argued that what they are sensing from Keith is not ignorance of political matters but one-sidedness.

And we all groan over Keith describing himself as being 'non-political'

But the more I read Bloggermann and watch Countdown, the more I see that we are all right. Even Keith. You are right, guys, Keith is a lightweight. He doesn't have Chris Matthew's or Howard Fineman's grasp of the issues nor their concern and zest for ideological complexities. In that sense, Keith is right, he is non-political.

Keith's show is a well-written version of The Soup on E, with warmed-up left-overs, "Oddly Enough" tidbits, innuendo and rumors.

And I'm right too, Olbermann is a partisan.

In fact, that and an entertainer, are all he is.

I think you have it exactly right, Cecelia. What is significant about Shapiro's remark is that he admits that Countdown, which is packaged and promoted as an hour newscast, is actually intended to be a organ for liberal opinion on MSNBC. He uses it as an example of a counterweight to Scarborough!

Of course, Joe's program is clearly an opinion/analysis show. He is up-front about his biases and you will rarely see a Scarborough hour where opposing viewpoints are not part of the mix. Olbermann masquerades as a non-partisan host of an hour newscast, but it's really a crypto-liberal festival. And how often does anyone get to be a guest on Countdown who doesn't sing from Olby's sheet of music?

"Crypto-liberal festival"

(That reminds me of the little things...most recently... the picture of Bush's swearing-in during a piece about the worst day of the year...)

PERFECT description, Johnny!

(And you're dead-on also that even Scarborough Country, Donahue, and Hannity & Combs air(ed) opposing viewpoints.

Since when does subscribing to a particular social or economic or even political ideology equate with partisanship? Being a conservative or a liberal does not make one a partisan. This is just my humble opinion, but the title of "Partisan Hack" is one that is thrown around much too easily these days. It is quite possible to be either a liberal or a conservative, even a Democrat or Republican, and not be a partisan.

It may, in fact, be true that KO is a Partisan Hack.

However, a comment by Shapiro that Olbermann is anything but conservative certainly isn't the "gotcha!" moment it's being portrayed as on this site. The Shapiro comment is informative, maybe even intersting, but evidence of nothing really.

Oh, and KO is signed on for at least another year at MSNBC, so I suppose you can rest easy that you'll have plenty of reason to stick around.

The Shapiro comment is more than interesting. When asked about hiring Tucker Carlson and having two conservatives back-to-back on MSNBC prime time, Shapiro's response was to cite Keith Olbermann as proof of balance. He wasn't citing Olby as an example of impartial reporting or fair and balanced journalism. No, he was citing Olby as the liberal balance to the conservative pundits.

It's something this site has been saying for months, and now it's confirmed by Shapiro himself.

Oh great! Then it's settled then. Olbermann is a liberal and his show Countdown, which judges which news stories are the top five for the day, is considered by MSNBC brass to be the counterweight to Scarborough Country and the upcoming Tucker Carlson vechicle.

The only matter in dispute is Olbermann's alledged hackery.

Like attorneys at the bottom of the ocean... this is a good start...

JD-- That's my point exactly. What Shapiro said was that Keith is a liberal, the charge made on this site is partisanship. Keith's only claim was that he doesn't vote as a means to remaining non-partisan. One could argue that not voting is sort of a silly way to avoid partisanship, and I certainly think it's a rather ridiculous decision on his part. However, the fact that he's a liberal (which I don't think he's ever denied) doesn't equate with partisanship. yes, this site has been saying for some time that Keith is a liberal. But really what you've all been saying is that he's partisan, a fact that has yet to be proved. And, with all due respect, do you really think posting a well known fact to a site like this is some kind of journalistic scoop?

For the record, as I said previously, I think it's ridiculous for Keith not to vote in the name of non-partisanship. One can certainly vote and still be non-partisan. And one can also not vote and still be a partisan. I'm just not sure that you guys can really legitimately make the claim that you've "outed" him on anything. You haven't proven he's partisan, you've simply repeated what he's already said: that he's a liberal. And then for some odd reason everyone here decided to get real excited because Shapiro repeated what Keith has already said that has been repeated by lots of other people (including people here). Seems silly does't it?

m-

I have to disagree with your assesment. Here's what I gave tomeone else making similar statements:

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/

Here are my favorite two excerpts:

KO:"Relative to my being first, I think it's largely because I'm not a full-time political guy and not a partisan" .... "My thought is that there are three components in the two-party system: Republicans, Democrats, and Voters."

KO: "I'm not political. I don't vote -- I don't believe journalists covering politics should (and I don't think the democracy would suffer if however many of us there are, recused ourselves). I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered. I think transparency is vital; I think it's also, in these super-heated political times, unintentionally inescapable. If a reporter's work in turn winds up criticizing a candidate or party in some cases, and praising that same candidate or party in others, he's as close to neutral as he can be. If not, he's a partisan. The partisans outnumber the neutrals 1000:1.

Where is KO's concern for 'voters' outside of Ohio? Where is his 'praising' coverage of the President or any republican, that would make his coverage 'neutral'?

partisan is defined as: a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

I think KO's lack of 'neutral' reporting invalidates his claim that he sometimes praises the same party/candidate that he sometimes criticizes. When was the last positive story KO did on the President? any Republican? KO promotes ONE ideology- and that, my friend, is a partisan.

--You haven't proven he's partisan, you've simply repeated what he's already said: that he's a liberal.--

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd appreciate it if you would tell us where Keith admitted that he is a liberal.

I don't think you have to pove he is liberl to show he he does not:

"If a reporter's work in turn winds up criticizing a candidate or party in some cases, and praising that same candidate or party in others, he's as close to neutral as he can be. If not, he's a partisan."

His work does give 'neutral' coverage, and that, by his own definition, constitutes him as a partisan. That was the point I was making.

His work DOES NOT give 'neutral coverage, thats what I meant.

M,

What sort of behavior 'proves' someone to be a partisan?

Trey,

Your comment: "Here's what I gave someone else making similar statements..."

Are you referring to me, or someone else? Because if it is me, please show where I made similar statements.

Paul-

I assure you I was not attempting to distort the record. I was only referring to the fact that this was the second time someone questioned the use of 'partisan hack' which we had a good exchange over. I did not mean to infer that you agreed to all or part of anything else said - it would have been easier to just say it was someone else - but alas, I cannot tell a lie-

Thanks, Trey. We disagree on a lot, but you're okay in my book.

Keith's show is a well-written version of The Soup on E,Keith's show is a well-written version of The Soup on E,

Cecilia, excellent point, my sentiments exactly. Except for the well written, most of it is not funny. But then, neither is the Soup. This was the Week, or whatever that is called, is funnier than both KO and Soup.

Btw, I have been trying to write but had my cookies blocked. I can't tell you how awful that was, but they have been unblocked now and I feel much much better.

KO is intelligent, but I don't think he is really interested in politics, that is what it seems like to me. So he remains shallow.

And I agree he is a partisan, that is not the problem. The problem is he lies about it and says he is non partisan, even uses that to prove he is more on top of stories, etc, more objective. That is a laugh. That is what makes him so much like a Barbra Streisand or Garafolo, giving his opinions and not realizing himself how out of his league he is. He honestly thinks his left wing views are the objective ones, the facts, like many liberals automatically do. It lacks sophistication.

Glad your cookies are unblocked, Napa.

Welcome back.

Napa, Some good points in there. Weclome back. Try switching to OATMEAL cookies. (More fiber, better motility).

"What sort of behavior 'proves' someone to be a partisan?"

Well, that's sort of your problem isn't it? You're the one making the claim. As far as I can remember the responsability for providing accurate and relevant evidence lies with the accuser, no?

"...I don't think he is really interested in politics...And I agree he is a partisan"

Sort of a contradictory set of statements isn't it?

I guess I'm just confused about what you all mean by "partisan." You accuse him of pandering to the "left wing loons" (which seems to suggest that he's in it for the ratings grab, and therefore sort of undermines the idea that he's a partisan. A selfish egomaniac maybe, but not partisan if his aim is something other than politics) and yet act as though he's promoting the talking points of the DNC. Which is it?

A

"If a reporter's work in turn winds up criticizing a candidate or party in some cases, and praising that same candidate or party in others, he's as close to neutral as he can be. If not, he's a partisan."

m-

That's KO's defintion of partisan. Not mine. KO's. I would suggest the evidence you seek is his show. Tell me the last time KO praised President Bush or any republican for that fact. By his standards, his FAILURE to provide 'neutral' coverage has branded him a Partisan.

Tell me the last time he praised a Democrat? The whole point of his show seems to be to criticize just about everyone. Not sure that makes him a partisan. He may not make a habit of splitting equal time between criticism and praise, but he sure seems to split his time between criticism of the dems and criticism of the republicans.

m-

Are you watching 'Countdown with keith Olbermann' on MSNBC weekdays at 8pm ET? We have the talking points from every show documented on this site. Please show me the one where KO was criticizing a democrat. Before you go looking, let me remind you there will be 500 examples of republican/bush bashing for any dem example you stumble on.

Split time? You're joking, right?

m, you do not appear to have ever seen his show. Read through the archives here for abundant proof that he is one way about his criticisms and praise, for Dems and against Republicans. Period. That is a partisan.

A partisan is someone who sees only their preferred biased side of a situation, someone who actively supports a cause. KO has never once supported Bush or any Republican, and he is so unsophisticated intellectually about politics that he himself doesn't even realize how partisan he is. He is totally blind, ironically the very attitude he takes toward Bush. It's called projection, blame others for what you yourself are doing.

Olbermann is supporting the cause of blaming Bush for anthing and everything no matter how unprovable or nonsensical, which is what the left wing of the Democratic party now also stands for. KO stands with them.

Paul, I wrote the above comment in part in response to your comment. My saying KO is not interested in politics and also that he is a partisan is not a contradiction. He does what a lot of poseurs do, pretending to be interested in something, learning a quick and shallow amount to impress others, and to a real aficionado appearing very shallow and silly.

Like a guy who wants to impress a girl that he can play guitar, goes out and buys a "Les Paul" and pretends he can play it. If he was really interested in being a guitar player, he would practice all the time, study hard.

KO wants to be regarded as a political news player, but he doesn't want to do the hard work of studying both sides of an issue and giving substantive commentary.

Instead, he grabs what he thinks is cool in an adolescent way, the nut ball left view, and espouses it like it is deeply insightful or something. He is so shallow about it that he himself doesn't even realize he is completely partisan. For evidence, we have this site.

And thanks for the oatmeal cookies, they are delicious. :)

M,

I never labeled Keith as being non-political, he described himself that way. And I said I agreed with him if what he means is that he's non-political in the sense that he's not a political junkie like Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, or even Joe Scarborough

You can certainly be a partisan and be a policy wonk, be knowledgeable of differing ideologies, and are able to articulate both sides of a position... and you can be a partisan and not give a damn about any of that... such as our boy...

You say we've yet to proof that Keith's a partisan. Well, we think we have. What sort of proof do we need to provide to convince you?

M,

Well, I'm going to remember your definition of partisan the next time someone says George Bush is pandering to the religous right. :D

I suspect the more M's ideas of partisanship and nopartisanship are related to the specifics of Countdown the more they are going to drift out of our fingers like a bug in the dishwater. But I'm wondering if you guys have considered whether you WANT to argue with this stuff. Especially you O'Reilly Fans. As it stands now Mr. Bill could be defined as the pinnacle of neutrality...

C-

It does show just how far left M is on the measuring stick when he believes that Countdown w/KO criticizes both sides equally. I think it is a futile debate, but, in the interest of honesty, I felt the need to attempt to convince him otherwise.

BTW: how come the beef with Mr. Bill?

My beef with O'Reilly?

Nothing in particular. It's just that he's an idiot.

C-

that made me let out a Chris Matthews 'HA'. I do appreciate your blunt and direct response!

My fair and objective thought:
Regardless of what I think of Mr. O, I think that statememnt should serve as 'proof' to others [like m] that your are much more evenhanded w/ your criticizisms.

My humorous thought:
Has KO rubbed off on you? Just a little?

Oh for goodness sakes Trey, if you want to hurt me just jam something under my fingernails or kick me in the stomach.

But you don't have to get cruel...

:D

hey C-
I hope one of us has misinterpreted the other- What I was saying was that I thought it was funny when you said Mr. O was an idiot. I liked the fact that you were direct with your answer. I laughed when I read it. hence the 'HA'.

Now, it does show you are moe evenhanded at handing out critiques. Thats a compliment.

If my attempt at humor was ill-concieved [Has ko rubbed off...] I apologize. It was just a joke because we both know he enjoys his digs at O'reilly.

Very Sorry Cecilia if I did not word my thoughts properly. I never intended to offend you.

Trey,

Read my emoticon: :D :D :D

c-

I get it now. My only defense is I am dim witted in the morning. I sometimes get sharper as the day goes on. let's hope this is one of those days!

Okay, so you guys have weighed in a lot on this, I will make an attempt to address each issue as best I can:

1) Yes, of course I?ve seen the show. I watch it regularly. I think the show absolutely has a liberal slant to it. There?s never been a question about that. I wouldn?t watch it otherwise. I can assure you, I am not a regular viewer of anything on FOX NEWS for the exact opposite reason. My issue was, and still is, that I don?t believe that equates with being partisan, namely the accusation levied on this site that Mr. Olbermann is some kind of political partisan. The label ?partisan? in my opinion is something very specific. A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. I?m not sure what party, faction or cause you think Mr. Olbermann is adhering too. He delivers a news-based show, and he does so with sarcasm and snark, but I?m not clear that it is an act of political partisanship.
My real problem with this whole issue stems from the fact that I think the use of the word ?partisan? as a pejorative attack when one expresses a belief ( political, social or economic) other than your own is a reckless attack on civil liberties and freedom of speech. The use of the label ?partisan? as it is often used today, and on this site, is as a means for discrediting and rejecting out of hand the views of another, without any evidence to suggest the justification for such a label?based more on whether an opposing view has been expressed rather than whether an act of partisanship has actually occurred. For the record, I think this is a bad habit of both the Democrats and Republicans. And an even worse habit across most of the blogosphere, left or right. One can express a firm opinion, or make fun of a politician and even promote an agenda, and still not be a partisan.

2) ?Well, I'm going to remember your definition of partisan the next time someone says George Bush is pandering to the religous right. :D?
First, thanks for the smile. And second, I?m not sure that my definition, or any definition, of partisanship for that matter, will help you defend against any claim of pandering. They are, in effect, very different political mechanisms, and not synonymous. But hey, go for it sister, as long as it makes sense to you.
3) As to the suggestion of my ?far left? leaning views in connection with the thoughts I?ve expressed on this site, well, refer back to #1 and the use of pejorative (or what are intended to be pejorative) attacks in order to reject out of hand an opposite view. I don?t do it to you, please don?t do it to me. If the fact that someone holds different values than yourself is a justifiable reason for closing your ears and not listening, how would we ever get anything accomplished?
4) As for the slinging of words like ?left leaning? and ?liberal? as though it were an insult. Please come up with something more substantial as a means for discrediting my opinions. As I?ve expressed elsewhere on this site, being a liberal or a democrat does not make me wrong. I can, quite logically, be both right and a Democrat at the same time. I have taken issue with what has been expressed on this site, but never once predicated my arguments on assumptions about the political ideology of the people here.
4) Everyone on this site seems less than eager to discuss, or present, any opposing view to the suggestion that Mr. Olbermann is an unintelligent, unfair and partisan hack. Ironic, given the particular topic that we?ve been discussing. Especially, I might add, if those kinds of attacks are predicated on pure conjecture about the state of mind of an individual one has never met. Hey pot, meet kettle.

Okay, so you guys have weighed in a lot on this, I will make an attempt to address each issue as best I can:

1) Yes, of course I�ve seen the show. I watch it regularly. I think the show absolutely has a liberal slant to it. There�s never been a question about that. I wouldn�t watch it otherwise. I can assure you, I am not a regular viewer of anything on FOX NEWS for the exact opposite reason. My issue was, and still is, that I don�t believe that equates with being partisan, namely the accusation levied on this site that Mr. Olbermann is some kind of political partisan. The label �partisan� in my opinion is something very specific. A firm adherence to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. I�m not sure what party, faction or cause you think Mr. Olbermann is adhering too. He delivers a news-based show, and he does so with sarcasm and snark, but I�m not clear that it is an act of political partisanship.
My real problem with this whole issue stems from the fact that I think the use of the word �partisan� as a pejorative attack when one expresses a belief ( political, social or economic) other than your own is a reckless attack on civil liberties and freedom of speech. The use of the label �partisan� as it is often used today, and on this site, is as a means for discrediting and rejecting out of hand the views of another, without any evidence to suggest the justification for such a label�based more on whether an opposing view has been expressed rather than whether an act of partisanship has actually occurred. For the record, I think this is a bad habit of both the Democrats and Republicans. And an even worse habit across most of the blogosphere, left or right. One can express a firm opinion, or make fun of a politician and even promote an agenda, and still not be a partisan.

2) �Well, I'm going to remember your definition of partisan the next time someone says George Bush is pandering to the religous right. :D�
First, thanks for the smile. And second, I�m not sure that my definition, or any definition, of partisanship for that matter, will help you defend against any claim of pandering. They are, in effect, very different political mechanisms, and not synonymous. But hey, go for it sister, as long as it makes sense to you.
3) As to the suggestion of my �far left� leaning views in connection with the thoughts I�ve expressed on this site, well, refer back to #1 and the use of pejorative (or what are intended to be pejorative) attacks in order to reject out of hand an opposite view. I don�t do it to you, please don�t do it to me. If the fact that someone holds different values than yourself is a justifiable reason for closing your ears and not listening, how would we ever get anything accomplished?
4) As for the slinging of words like �left leaning� and �liberal� as though it were an insult. Please come up with something more substantial as a means for discrediting my opinions. As I�ve expressed elsewhere on this site, being a liberal or a democrat does not make me wrong. I can, quite logically, be both right and a Democrat at the same time. I have taken issue with what has been expressed on this site, but never once predicated my arguments on assumptions about the political ideology of the people here.
4) Everyone on this site seems less than eager to discuss, or present, any opposing view to the suggestion that Mr. Olbermann is an unintelligent, unfair and partisan hack. Ironic, given the particular topic that we�ve been discussing. Especially, I might add, if those kinds of attacks are predicated on pure conjecture about the state of mind of an individual one has never met. Hey pot, meet kettle.

ooops. That should be 4 and then 5, not 4 and then 4. Okay, so maybe my political affiliation isn't a reasonable way to discredit my opinions, but maybe the fact that i can't count is? :-)

m-

First, I noticed you have abandoned your 'split time' argument. So we will move forward.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you believe it is OK to report 'News' with a liberal slant? The debate here is that 'News' should be delivered without the politcal opinion of the 'Anchor'. And in the end, it should work out to be 'neutral' to all sides. I refer you back to KO's definition of partisan. It is KO who has violated his defintion of what his program is.

And by the way, that's who we track here: KO. This site does not track every reporter or journalist and comment on them. We are only interested in tracking KO and his lack of adherence to the principles HE set forth for HIS show. Your arguments are not being disounted because you have liberal beliefs, they are being dismissed because they lack credence.

It is not based on conjecture. Please, I implore you, to READ KO's own words. Then tell me his show adheres to the priciple HE set forth.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

On the contrary M, we've done nothing but present evidence that Olbermann is a hack. The only thing you've done is to define partisanship as blind allegiance to one party or ideology. Very convenient. That makes you able to argue that any criticism of Democrat by Keith is proof enough that he's not partisan. Of course that's idiotic, and you'd have no trouble recognizing that if one of us suggested that Tom Delay's criticism of John McCain or moderate Republican congressmen belies accusations that he's a partisan.

As to my comments on pandering they come from your observations that pandering and partisanship are contradictory. You can't both pander for personal gain (ratings) and be a ideological zealot. Again, you'd have no trouble refuting that if we made it a defense of Bush and accusations that he panders to fear in the soccer moms... or panders to the religious-right. Pandering and ideological zealotry are not mutually exclusive. They generally walk hand-in-hand.

You argue that partisan is party defined as unquestioned and unfaltering support of a party or ideology. Then by default it must also be the unquestioned and unfaltering opposition to a party or ideology. And only a fool would argue that a few exceptions invalidate an entire history.

We've seen this sort of partisanship consistently in Olbermann. But again, I suspect that any attempts at "proof" will be as effective as catching moonbeams. Just like I also suspect that in the past you've never had a problem with anyone calling Fox News partisan as well as conservative.

No, I didn't abandon the "split criticism" comments. Just forgot about them. And if I thought FOX NEWS was partisan I would say so. And actually, I believe the news should be poltiicall slanted. Historically it always has been. It used to be that newsreporters, and newspapers, were quite slanted towards a poltical ideology. The fact that we've moved towards some idea of an "unbiased" news report is part of the problem and why we're having this discussion today. People have specific values that shape the way they see the world. Two people can in fact view the same event and have two very different versions of what occurred, and neither of them is wrong or partisan.

m--"I think the show absolutely has a liberal slant to it."

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That is so funny, you must be somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.

KO is the same kind of partisan as apparently you are, a partisan for the far left, as I mentioned previously about him. Partisanship makes one blind, that's the problem with it.

We have proven through hard work and close attention, in detail, that KO is a left wing partisan hack.

Being partisan is usually the sin of omission, leaving out facts that don't support their cause. There is plenty of criticism of Bush to go around, and there is also plenty of criticism of Democrats too. When you only do one and not the other, and lie and say you are being objective on top of it, that is a partisan hack.

Wow--y'all've been busy. And since I failed to mention it, lovely to again hear from you, m. Your liberal missives are music to my eyes.

I wonder why we continue to thrash about so? Both m and I've admitted that KO seems willing to present the 'news' through a liberal filter. I went so far as to say that his public description of his political leanings is misleading, given the way he reports events. You call him partisan, because his snarls and barbs always hit targets on the right. To make sure we're on the same page, partisan is defined as: [n] an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity; [n] a fervent and even militant proponent of something; [adj] devoted to a cause or party; [adj] affiliated with one party or faction; [adj] adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party; "denominational prejudice"

I think m's contention is that while KO seems politically left of center (especially when compared to many who post here), he's not partisan, since he claims no party affiliation. And of course, you can't accept that liberal (or conservative, for that matter) and partisan aren't synonyms. KO may be a fervent opponent, but not militarily so. KO offers the fact that he doesn't vote as evidence of his political neutrality. This site puports to illustrate his "denominational prejudice" citing KOs willingness to cover the Ohio voting irregularities and his sarcasm toward Bush and other repubs. The righties howl that KO's not playing fair (unlike pundits) because pundits/commentators admit to their biases, while KO's content to be passed off as an "anchorman." m thinks he's basically just a left-leaning "smart alec" and I think we're chasing our tails.

Does anyone here truly think that Fox news is NOT partisan or biased? Is anyone even half-way serious about this or is it just some smirky send-up? Admitting one's agenda doesn't mean one is "Fair and Balanced". On this site I've recently seen the left accused of hawkish behavior, racism and projection. In a mere lifetime I've gone from being a civil rights activist/protestor/pacifist to a race-baiting, intolerant war-hawk. What a crazy, upside-down world we live in!

"Does anyone here truly think that Fox news is NOT partisan or biased?"

Besides m, you mean?...

You aren't a war hawk...

You people really need to put down the kool-aid--it's beginning to pickle your brains.