Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    February 27, 2005
    Drudge Notes OlbyObessession with Gannon

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS., FEB 24, 2005

    FNC O'REILLY 2,181,000 [VIEWERS]
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,622,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,386,000
    FNC BRIT HUME 1,318,000
    FNC GRETA 1,307,000
    CNN LARRY KING 1,004,000
    CNN ZAHN 673,000
    CNN AARON BROWN 551,000
    CNN COOPER 524,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 388,000
    CNN DOBBS 379,000
    CNNHN NANCY GRACE 366,000
    MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 240,000
    MNSBC OLBERMANN/GANNON 208,000

    If cable news shows were blogs...

    Top Five Blogs (by Traffic in visits/day) at TTLB Ecosystem (2/27/05)

    1) Daily Kos 421,984
    X) MSNBC HARDBALL 388,000
    X) CNNHN NANCY GRACE 366,000
    X) MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 240,000

    2) Gizmodo 229,502
    3) Gawker 222,685
    X) MNSBC OLBERMANN/GANNON 208,000
    4) Defamer 175,071
    5) Instapundit.com 166,389


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (22) | | View blog reactions

    22 Comments

    OlbermannWatchWatch: Those ratings don't include the second airing of Countdown (or the second or third airings of Hardball for that matter). More people watch the Midnight ET airing of Countdown than catch the 8pm ET airing. That would put the blogs at the bottom of that list.

    Sadly, blogs don't have a second airing, so no way to puff up those numbers.

    --More people watch the Midnight ET airing of Countdown than catch the 8pm ET airing.--

    That wouldn't be hard. More people watch Sermonette than the 8pm airing of Countdown. But midnight is hardly primetime. And furthermore, O'Reilly's rerun still gets far more viewers than Olby's rerun. As does Brit Hume's rerun. Pick your hour, Olbermann is still a miserable failure.

    Johnny, you are right -- far more people watch O'Reilly. That's not really the point I was making though, was it?

    Is Countdown a miserable failure? I find it entertaining -- and a good source of in-depth news coverage.

    You all get so worked up that KO covered the Ohio story -- and now the Gannon story (and others). It's so against the very spirit embodied by a blog. Blogs are a way for undercovered stories to see the light of day. Countdown is really the only place you see many stories. Do the stories themselves agree with your personal political beliefs? Clearly not -- but why is that so bad? I don't agree with much of what Bill O'Reilly says -- but I don't think he should be knocked off the air.

    I guess it's the same argument I have to all those folks who want the V-Chip and parental ratings, etc. If you don't like it, turn it off.

    Cheers.

    Boisemedia,

    Try giving some "in-depth" consideration to what you mean by "knocked off the air".

    Is anyone here championing a boycott of Countdown? Nope. Has anyone advocated an e-mail campaign against the show. Nope. I've never seen an MSNBC address published here on the site.

    This blog is doing precisely what you suggest blogs should be doing-- we're watching and critiquing Countdown and Olbermann not because he doesn't agree with our political views but because he never bothers to air them.

    I'm no fan of O'Reilly's personal style and generally watch Countdown, but as arrogant and simplistic as O'Reilly is, he does better than Olbermann. And since your stated taste is for stories that aren't seen in the MSM, O'Reilly does that consistently as well. Countdown does not. For example, O'Reilly managed to inform his audience with pieces on Jordan Eason as well as Guckert ones. Olbermann mentioned the Jordan Eason bruhaha solely in one-liners about conservative head-hunters.

    O'Reilly looked claims of voting irregularities in Washington State as well as Ohio. Keith solely covered Ohio and dropped what he described as his long-held concern (voter irregularities), like yesterday's bad habit, after Ohio was irrevocably decided.

    If you truly want to see stories that aren't covered by the MSM I suggest you watch the O'Reilly Factor instead of Countdown. There, at least, you'll see both sides argued and stories favorable to both Republicans and Democrats.

    That is... if that's really what you want...

    Boise,

    You instruct us that we should dismiss KO's wingnut coverage of the Ohio vote and Gannon stories because "it's against the spirit" of what blogs do. I suspect however that the real reason you would like us to ignore KO's ranting on these two stories is because they show KO for who he is and it's not pretty-- a bitter partisan grabbing at the slimmest of reeds in a desperate effort to attack any person who holds conservative beliefs and closing the door to any other voices of oppostion to his own beliefs. This is what you call entertainment? I don't know-- throwing an on air temper tantrum and beating an Ann Coulter doll to a pulp isn't my entertainment cup of tea. Same goes for the infamous Bill O'Reilly "beam me up" segment. Whatever floats your boat. Have fun.

    I never said dismiss.

    Beating Coulter to a pulp IS my idea of entertainment. She's done so much damage to this nation's public discourse, that seeing her doll beat to a pulp is funny. It's a doll.

    The beam me up thing was also funny.

    It's my opinion. I like Keith. I like his show. I've been watching since the show launched -- and well before his politcal beliefs were obvious.

    I don't watch O'Reilly because I don't like him. It's as simple as that.

    I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. This site, in general, is well done. Some of the posts herein are very slanted against Keith. That's cool -- it's the first ammendment. I hope KO veers even further left... what a concept!

    Hank writes:

    "I suspect however that the real reason you would like us to ignore KO's ranting on these two stories is because they show KO for who he is and it's not pretty-- a bitter partisan grabbing at the slimmest of reeds in a desperate effort to attack any person who holds conservative beliefs and closing the door to any other voices of oppostion to his own beliefs."

    And I wrote:

    "If you truly want to see stories that aren't covered by the MSM I suggest you watch the O'Reilly Factor instead of Countdown. There, at least, you'll see both sides argued and stories favorable to both Republicans and Democrats.

    That is... if that's really what you want..."


    Ladies and gentlemen, we have our answer.

    Boise wrote: "I like Keith. I like his show. I've been watching since the show launched -- and well before his politcal beliefs were obvious."

    Boise shows that if we all talk long enough we can come to some agreement - Keith's political beliefs are obvious.

    I know Keith is obsessed with Bill O'Reilly but this site is not about KO v BO, it is just about Keith. If you don't like O'Reilly that's fine;if you love Keith that's fine too. If you a liberal and want a liberal take on the new that KO's your guy; let's just not pretend that he is a "news anchor" presenting an "objective" look at the day's news. Boise is not making that claim so I have no quibble with him there.

    Bob, I agree that this site is about KO, but in order to fully dissect who he is what he is about, it is necessary to discuss who and what he talks about during Countdown. He injects his hatred for O' Reilly so much (and in absurd, inconsequential ways such as the silly punting record "controversy")that it is hard to ignore. Therefore, in order to convey the continuing emotionally unhinged quality that is so pervasive in Countdown telecasts, I think that we should mention KO's O'Reilly references.

    Boise, Thanks for your honesty in saying that you actually find stuff like the doll destruction tantrum and the incoherent babbling of the "beam me up" segment entertaining. I almost hate to make this next point because it may actually result in an epiphany for you leftists concerning your current modus operandi-- however: Does it occur to you that very few folks who cast votes find this kind of spleen venting, unvarnished, visceral, bile spewing, blow your top, red hot angry invective very appealing or watchable?? If folks see Olbermann as one of the representative voices of the left's perspective on the news, what sort of impression do you think this leaves on the political middle when they see his "Dean Scream" attitude coming into their living rooms every night? Maybe this sort of thing may be satisfying to you, but I'd be interested in reading whether you think KO helps or hurts the liberal cause with his hyper aggressive narrow style and substance.

    Hank,
    You make broad assumptions that render your arguments flaccid at best. First, you assume that the "left" has made Olby their poster boy. As such, you contend that he abuses liberalism every time he goes off the deep end. Bulletin: Your reasoning is flawed. We light no candles to him. Conservatives are all about the labels and name-calling. You continue to lump us liberals together. We're an amalgomation, one that has trouble agreeing on important matters, let alone trivial things like who we like on TV. That you think we can is well, "quaint".

    Next, the "Dean scream" was offensive only because so many opportunists including those in the MSM made it so. Many of us liberals didn't (and still don't) find it the least bit off-putting. Heaven forbid a politician show unbridled enthusiasm or demonstrate genuine human emotion! Certainly this flies in the face of the Republican model of carefully staged, choreographed, autocratic "Triumph of the Will" type public event behavior, but many of us thought it simply genuine--even endearing. Gauche, indeed.

    I think the fact that Olby indicts O'Reilly, is, in principle, laudable. O'Reilly is a wolf in sheep's clothing; a posturing, a mean-spirited, disingenuous, vindictive, pompous, self-righteous, shameless self-promoter bent only on perpetuating the illusion of his personna as he furthers an ultra-conservative political agenda. He's a legend in his own mind. That KO goes too far with his criticism is unfortunate. But O'Reilly deserves what he gets and to perceive him an unworthy victim is to blindly accept his insipid, inflammatory deceptive brand of grandstanding, propagandizing and shameless self-promotion. I find it ironic indeed that conservatives have elevated him to such high station given his sordid past as a sleazy tabloid TV infotainment host. (Of course, he claims to have won two Peabody Awards on Inside Edition, which he described as "the highest journalism award in the country," but that's the least of his faults). Still, you revere him.

    He, along with other "great American" pundits (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Novak, Carlson, etc.) have precious little regard for the truth and are eager to demonize anyone whose views veer from the GOP party line, as they senselessly spew their baseless waste disguised as opinion ad nauseum.

    As crazy as KO can get, I gotta' admit, I'll defend him over those venomous gargoyles any day. And if these weasels are your ideological icons, you've got some nerve criticizing KO.

    Paul, You need to read my last post more carefully. I never said that leftists such as yourself had adopted KO as their spokesman- rather the opposite is true. KO has annointed himself as a cable TV personality who freely injects his "liberal" slant into his "news" presentation. So whether you "light candles to him" or not, you have to deal with him. I am of the opinion that this presents a problem for the political fortunes of the left. Undoubtedly, with his wingnut conspiracy theories, bellicose lashing out at O'Reilly and his on air Coulter doll destruction tantrums, he does have a certain appeal to the unhinged Michael Moore wing of the Dem Party. However, this sort of stuff is a big turn off for the average voter. I don't think having Michael Moore as a guest of honor in ex-President Jimmy's suite at the DNC did a lot to help Dems in the 2004 elections. KO is steadily creeping into Michael Moore territory and his embrace of belligerent leftism is bad news for Dems in 2008 (2006 for that matter).

    As for "lumping all liberals together"-- well, if the shoe fits . . . The Democrats have become the party of David Spade (remember those credit card commercials where the response to everything is "No"?). You say that Dems can't agree on anything and then proudly boast about the widespead enthusiasm with which Dems embraced the "Dean Scream"? Which is it?

    Your rant against O'Reilly is tired, recycled and uninformed. The silliness about the Peabody Award is something you dredged up from at least 5 years ago. You are dead wrong about O'Reilly claiming to have won such an award himself-- he properly attributed it to the show Inside Edition. His citation of the Peabody Award was nothing more than a faux pas in which O'Reilly confused the Peabody Award with the Polk Award which Inside Edition did win. This is not so difficult to understand since the 2 awards have similar names. Other than your personal animus against O'Reilly, you offer nothing to explain why a fair minded person would find O'Reilly's content and presentation objectionable. I admit I don't care personally for KO, but I have offered up concrete examples which, in my view, demonstrate why most objective viewers would find KO repellent and obnoxious. I see O'Reilly as a guy with strong opinions but he invites those who want to challenge him to bring their best shot at him and he (usually) gives his opponent the last word. KO would never think of doing this.

    Finally, for someone who is pretty lukewarm about KO, you've got his lingo down cold-- not much substance but a lot of rhetorical excess. In offering your opinion of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, et. al., you say . . . "they senselessly spew their baseless waste (?) disguised as opinion ad nauseum." Whew!! Better go get that high blood pressure script refilled!!

    Hank,

    Rather than pick apart your response piece by piece, I'll recall one element that depicts a debate tactic you and a proponderance of your self-righteous, right-wing comrades employ, which is to restate what one says in a way that distorts it and then beg response to the distortion.

    e.g., I said:
    We're an amalgomation, one that has trouble agreeing on important matters, let alone trivial things like who we like on TV...(Re: the "Scream") Many of us liberals didn't (and still don't) find it the least bit off-putting...but many of us thought it simply genuine--even endearing.

    You said I said:
    You say that Dems can't agree on anything and then proudly boast about the widespead enthusiasm with which Dems embraced the "Dean Scream"?

    I didn't say "Dems," I said liberals. We ain't all Dems. Nor did I "PROUDLY BOAST"...Nor did I say it was embraced, I said we thought it genuine. And regarding "which one is it?," it is as I said it is, not as you regurgitated it.

    My use of the word "waste" to describe the scurrilous rhetorical smegma that your annointed little cluster of hatefully heroic pundits emit isn't careless. These asps spew nothing more than acidic, baseless slime designed to inflame, not to inform. To attach any more validity to it is to elevate them to mollusk level. You wanna' to defend the likes of Ann Coulter and Hannity, you have my blessing. Just please don't move in next door to me.

    If you continue to insist that O'Reilly never claimed that Inside Edition won 2 Peabody's, you'll be wrong.

    http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/peabodyfacts1.htm

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000565.html

    He did, then later, when confronted with the facts, claimed the show had garnered gotten the 2 Peabody's confused with the 1 Polk. Who can blame him? It's anyone's mistake. After all, the both start with a "P".

    That it happened a while back doesn't mitigate its occurence. Nor does it fail to illustrate Mr. Bill's marriage of convenience with the truth. Yeah, O'Reilly's a real prince. You wanna' believe him? You wanna buy the Fox News tag line? You go. But please don't try to to peddle your BS to me. I'm not buying. Base your arguments on fact, leave my words alone and we can talk. Short of that, please don't bother.
    BTW, my BP is just fine, thank you.

    Hank,

    I like to post URLs from opposition sources, and hadn't found this until after I'd posted my last.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88364,00.html

    Mr.. Bill's had plenty of time to sue Franken for slander or libel re this (and other similar claims). To my knowledge, the only suits that came from Mr. Franken's indictments of O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh et al is the one from Fox re: "Fair and Balanced," which they dropped in 2003. (If you know of others, please forward links.)

    http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_237170454.html

    If Franken's out there lying about and libeling all these chumps, why aren't legions of lawyers pursuing him, especially given the litigious nature of Fox News?

    "Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Novak, Carlson, etc.) have precious little regard for the truth and are eager to demonize anyone whose views veer from the GOP party line, as they senselessly spew their baseless waste disguised as opinion ad nauseum."

    It makes no sense to lump these people together.

    Tucker Carlson has a highly regarded PBS show. While on Crossfire he wasn't any more partisan and inflammatory than Begala or Carville. Begala and Carville have stated that they were all told to be loud and argumentative on the show.

    I'm not sure what lie Novak has told. He has gotten into trouble for outing Valarie Plame as a CIA operative and as someone who lobbied the agency to suggest her husband Joe Wilson to head up an investigation into whether Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake in Africa.

    This info directly contradicted Wilson's own testimony. Nothing new there. Wilson had already contradicted his own report in his book.

    We'll have to see if outing Plame rises to the legal standard set for revealing the ID of covert operatives.

    As for the other talk show hosts, I'd have to hear what inaccurate horrors Franken has revealed them to have said. Coulter got into trouble for stating that Canada had sent soldiers into Viet Nam, it was advisors...etc.

    As for Rush and Hannity, I can't imagine that anyone can spend three hours yabbering on the radio day after day, and not be "indicted" for some statement or another. We'll see how Franken fares on Air America over the years.

    OK Paul, I'll start off by conceding your minor point of my characterization of Democrats embracing the Dean Scream (which constitutued one entire sentence of my previous post). Other than that, all I got from your response to me was even more name calling of people you disagree with (nothing to back it up of course). If you were attempting to try to refute my aruments, you didn't even come close. You chide me for supposedly not sticking to the facts, but you offer not a single fact of your own to rebut the account that I gave of the liberals favorite O'Reilly myth-- the Peabody Award non-story. You say that I claimed that O'Reilly never said that Inside Edition won the Peabody Award. That is not true - I specifically said that O'Reilly did say that Inside Edition had won a Peabody(I don't think you are reading my posts very carefully Paul). What I did say was that O'Reilly never claimed to have won the Peabody award himself (which is a claim that you made in an earlier post, Paul-- go back and look!!!) This issue is akin to the punting record issue that KO brought up on Countdown a couple of weeks back-- a lot of bluster over nothing. And to answer your question about why Fox and O'Reilly don't file a libel suit against Franken, I can answer that with one simple case citation- New York Times v. Sullivan. Paul, the legal standard for a public figure to recover damages against a person who makes untrue or defamatory statements is that it must be shown that Franken did so with malice and that the statements resulted in injury to that persons reputation. It is an almost impossible standard to prove (unlike in England, where the defamer bears the burden of proving that their supposedly libelous statement is true). Fox was stupid in the first place to bring a suit against Franken for two reasons: 1) almost no chance of recovery; 2) it gave Franken more free publicity. So Paul, Fox and O'Reilly's failure to bring a libel lawsuit is meaningless (for this same reason, I doubt that you will see baseball players such as Rafael Palmiero bring suit against Jose Canseco for saying that Palmiero did steroids).

    Thanks for the admonition not to move in next door to you. Your tolerance for my differing viewpoint and your obvious embrace of diversity of thought is hard to miss. Now the liberals are supposedly the party of inclusion, diversity, and tolerance, but you are telling me stay away and not move in next door ro you. Why? Are my ideas threatening to you? This mentality pervades the liberal campuses of our nation (Berkley CA, Cambridge MA, Madison WI) where speakers with liberal bona fides like Jane Fonda and Bill Moyers are always welcome, but conservative speakers are not welcome (or are "disinvited") because of "security concerns".

    Finally, Paul I am truly amazed at your litany of hate that you have for conservatives ("scurrilous rhetorical smegma" "hatefully heroic pundits" "acidic baseless slime). What is your goal in all this name calling? Do you think this sort of tactic makes your arguments more convincing and relevant? Do you think that others who don't share your views will find you more convincing if you throw out a few choice insults to your opponents? Maybe you don't care, but I believe this is one reason why the Dems lost the election is 2004.

    Hank,
    Thanks for your condescending admission to my insignificant point. It's a start.

    Oh, I read your posts thoroughly and they're very well-written. You're right about my initial inaccurate O'Reilly reference (that O'Relly claimed two Peabody's when he'd gotten none). PLEASE NOTE that I had corrected that in my next post, e.g. "If you continue to insist that O'Reilly never claimed that Inside Edition won 2 Peabody's, you'll be wrong..." which included the back up (URLs) you say I never provide. What in the way of back-up are you looking for? Need it be notarized?

    If you want me to engage in a play-by-play on the dishonesty of these pundits, I can, however it'll be a time-consuming exercise. Franken and others are taking it on and I feel no need to duplicate their efforts. If you choose to deny their proof, I'll not convince you. Bob Cox invited me to conduct a similar exercise a while back with Rummie and Bush. It's actually not as tough with Rummie as with Bush, because even though Rummie talks a mean maze, he's still lied. With him, it can be a matter of degree. But W's clever...he prefers to have his best lying done by subordinates. Even so, videotape doesn't lie, but I quickly tired of it. It did help me develop some web research skills. But I digress.

    My "neighbor" dig was tounge-in-cheek. To use it to gauge my intolerance of "differing viewpoints and...diversity of thought," insinnuating that I exclude simply because I admit revulsion when highly-paid, openly opinionate pinheaded pundits abuse their station to effectively sway public opinion is a reach. You legitimize this by saying they're "commentators," not "anchors". But many don't make that distinction and some can't. And with news outlets running government-produced proaganda, paid pundits preaching policy and phony reporters lobbing softballs in the Press Corps, just what's "news" has become indeed fuzzy.

    As I write this, I hear a report that over 20 federal agencies under Bush had produced OVER 100 of the fake news segments (VNRs) reported a couple of months back--MANY more than first investigated/divulged by the GOA. This is unprecedented. Manipulation of the media by this administration appears epic. And Fox News has become little more that the GOPs news outlet. Of course, you all accuse the media of possessing a "liberal bias," so this is all BS to you.

    A recent study shows that "Fox News journalists offer their own opinion in seven out of ten stories on the news channel, versus less than one in ten stories on CNN and one in four on MSNBC. ("We report, you decide," my ass). They dish it up and you buy it hook, line and sinker.
    http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000837511

    I'd prefer not to have you as my neighbor not because your ideas threaten me, they don't. You're already my neighbor. I'm surrounded by republicans. Few in my neighborhood know my politics, because I don't wear them on my sleeve. But I know theirs. Why? Because they tell me, often. If you want to know who's a repub, you don't have to ask...they tell you, over and over. My neighbors (some of 18 years) were surprised when I put a Kerry sign up (which they stole, along with a bumper sticker). I got more.

    I worked in corporations a regulated utility and a pharmaceutical manufacturer for almost 30 years and had to keep my politics to myself. Who and what to vote for was SUGGESTED (on the QT, of course) my entire career.

    You exhibited another repub debate tactic--change the subject. e.g.: "Are my ideas threatening to you? This mentality pervades the liberal campuses of our nation (Berkley CA, Cambridge MA, Madison WI) where speakers with liberal bona fides like Jane Fonda and Bill Moyers are always welcome, but conservative speakers are not welcome (or are "disinvited") because of "security concerns". We lept from a discussion of you as my neighbor to alleged discrimination against repubs on the rubber chicken circuit. Well done...but you forgot Kennedy/Chappaquiddick and the Clintons.

    "What is your goal in all this name calling?" You know, I've abstained from it in the past. (Just check out my earlier posts). But I'm finally calling a "spade" a "spade". I've been biting my tongue for so long and trying to be nice about all the BS that passes as political discourse these days that I'm about ready to bust a gussett. PLEASE NOTE that I didn't call YOU names. You seem to be a decent sort. But if you HONESTLY think the people I insult in this manner are above reproach, then you have both my apologies and my deepest sympathy. Let me put it this way, I'd not be anxious for any of them to marry into my family. I mean, we're not talkin' about Mother Theresa, here.

    "Do you think that others who don't share your views will find you more convincing if you throw out a few choice insults to your opponents?"
    No, I don't. And you're right, it's pointless, but when I abstain, it seems to have no affect whatsoever and at least this lets me work with words (ya' gotta' admit, there are some fun morsels in there). I've made your argument repeatedly and know you're right. I'll blow off steam and be nice again soon.

    "Maybe you don't care, but I believe this is one reason why the Dems lost the election is 2004." And if you think that democrats (Swift Boat Vets for Truth) have a corner (John Kerry=Jane Fonda-commie pinko queer) on inflammatory, insulting rhetoric (Global test/Kerry's wife's a dingbat), you're dead wrong. There were many reasons we lost and it was close. But you just keep thinking it was a landslide. The pendulum swings, my friend. When my neighbors get tired of getting shat upon by our leaders, I may get my Kerry sign back.

    It's amusing that defenders of Olby apparently feel that because their Hero has an obsession with Bill O'Reilly, that they too have to march in lock-step and attack Mr Bill as well. A familiar approach: you build yourself up by tearing other people down.

    So once again we're hearing the Peabody/Polk issue raised. But even Paul S admits that when the mistake was pointed out to him, O'Reilly corrected the record. Not in a print statement. Not in a small, unseen corner of a website. But on the air, before his millions of viewers.

    Meanwhile, Olby can lie about something O'Reilly never said, make fun of him based on the lie, and then refuse to issue any kind of correction (let alone an apology) when confronted with the proof that he was wrong all along.

    All reporters/journalists/commentators make mistakes or report inaccuracies at some time or other. O'Reilly deals with it like a man: he makes an on-air correction. Olby sweeps it under the rug (not the one above his eyebrows either). Which one is the true journalist?

    I loathed O'Reilly long before Olbermann was on "Countdown". Yeah, we're "lock-step", JD and Olby's calling the shots. Gimme a break!

    And if your idea of "fair and balanced" coverage is O'Reilly; if you think he's a real "man" by virtue of his grudging, rare public admission of errors (when backed into a corner); if you're truly convinced that O'Reilly is the pinnacle of truth and journalistic excellence, God help ya.

    Hank/JD

    So you love Mr. Bill. Hank...you asked for O'Reilly lies. Since KO's not been on lately and Bob, Marisa and JD are setting site traffic records chasing each other's tails, I'll indulge you, Hank and offer JD a respite.

    Tonight your hero on the "Factor," interviewed Rosa Brooks, ex-Clinton staffer and U. of VA Law professor re prisoner abuse coverage in the NYT. He claimed the coverage was excessive, abusive of the administration/military. Another abuse by the liberal media, which Ms. Brooks said was a misnomer. Bill then cited the Columbia Univ. Graduate School of Journalism study I linked to yesterday (above) saying it proved the "elite media was left-wing". When Ms. Brooks tried to rebut, Billy interrupted before she could finish, again citing the study, which he said "proved it flat-out! We've got it..you'll just have to read it!"

    This URL provides a bipartisan sample of some 40 articles on the study. I've read most of them, yet find none to support O'Reilly's claim. Perhaps some of you with more patience and a keener eye can devine the basis for his claim.

    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9672

    Later, he interviewed Nancy Soderberg, claiming that left-wingers want the wars in Iraq and on Terror to fail, asking her why this is? Nancy had appeared on the Daily Show, (Bill played a clip)in which Stewart said that, what with the Lebonese situation and all, it just might WORK... the administration may SUCCEED! (Then what?)

    http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_10028.html

    Bill followed the clip by asking why folks like Stewart (who he respects), Mike Moore, Striesand, "Stuart Smalley" (sic), Air America and the NYT all want to see our troops fail? She explained that the Daily Show is comedy, and Stewart was joking...that none of us, in fact want the US to fail. Bill then said "Then why don't they ever SAY that?

    I occasionally read the NYT op eds. I watch the Daily Show, follow Michael Moore (I'm not big on Streisand). I listen to Air America, as well as Rush, O'Reilly, Scarborough and Worm Hannity. Guess what? THEY ALL say they want us to WIN--ALL of them, without exception. O'Reilly is promoting complete, utter, baseless, deliterious bullshit--that his viewers devour like horseflies. For O'Reilly to lie about us libs in this manner, to initiate and perpetuate such inflammatory deceit is simply unconscionable. "The dems want our troops to fail so Bush will look bad." "The democratic party has been hi-jacked by the extreme left-wing!" He says shit like this EVERY NIGHT, as does Hannity and the rest.

    Oh, and for the "fair and balaced" aspect of having Nancy there? Of course, no conclusion was made. He either leaves it hangin' (we report, you decide) or "agrees to disagree".
    This is the journalistic excellence to which your "fair and Balanced" former "Inside Edition" star subscribes. And this is but one little mid-week "Factor" sample.

    BYW, Please don't expect me to report on Bill frequently. He demands full-time attention and frankly, he's undeserving.

    Paul, I don't know what prompts you to assume that O'Reilly is my hero. I have defended him because you have swallowed hook line and sinker the bogus Franken talking points and then regurgitated the same tired blather on this site. Pointing out your errors in your attack on O'Reilly is not the same thing as hero worship. O'Reilly is certainly not perfect but he is a better journalist than Olbermann who will never admit an error as JD points out. As for the Columbia study, did you skip over the part that pointed out that negative coverage of President Bush far exceeded that of John Kerry during the presidential campaign? As for O'Reilly's statement that the left wants the troops to fail in Iraq, I don't know that I necesarily agree with that, but it may not be an unwarranted inference either. Of course no one on the left is going to say that they want the troops to fail in Iraq. But what do their actions say? I'll give you an example. You've got fringe left-wing characters like Ward Churchill who are equating the victims of 9/11 to fascists. You had (the late) Susan Sontag, another left wing loony, blaming American policies for the attack. These folks have their First amendement right to say what they please, but no one can deny that such irresponsible talk only emboldens our enemy. And I keep waiting to hear Air America, Jon Stewart and others of their ilk take to the air and repudiate stuff like this and all I hear is silence. Does all this mean that some on the left want our troops to fail? I don't think it's out of the question at all. It is obvious Paul that O'Reilly was stating an opinion during this piece with Nancy Soderberg.

    A couple of questions for you. 1) What's your problem w/ Babs Streisand? She seems right up your alley? 2) A while back you posted a comment to the effect that the GOP was treating the AARP oh so terribly with regard to their opposition to the President's SS private accounts proposal. What was that all about?

    Hank,

    I assume Bill is your hero because you're so quick to rush to his defense (armed with all of the appropriate GOP talking points). How predictable. RE: "did you skip over the part that pointed out that negative coverage of President Bush far exceeded that of John Kerry during the presidential campaign?" --> No, Hank, I didn't. If you read the articles I provided, it was reported as frequently as the Fox bias data. The emphasis differed from paper to paper, depending on their political leanings. Did YOU "skip over" the explanation for Bush's MORE NEGATIVE COVERAGE? That it was due to the tendency that an incumbent must account for conditions related to his first term and in this case, also negative developments in Iraq? Did you read that, Hank?

    Strategy 210: change the subject. Make an analogy, then a connection based on that analogy...then generalize to form a conclusion. Ward Churchill referred to the tower victims as "little Ikeman's." Sontag decried our inconsistent, violent, opportunistic past mid-east policies saying one could understand how they could have contributed to the hate fundamentalist muslim groups harbor for us...leftist views, both. Did either ever say that they wanted the US to fail? I've not seen record of this. If you've such knowledge, please share it. But you're not content to stop there. You go further. By association, if it's REOMTELY PLAUSIBLE that lefties like Churchill or Sontag MAY WANT the US to fail (an apparently absurd, unfounded contention) then it follows that ALL liberals must feel this way. You build baseless assumptions on unfounded premises. Please stop.

    "I have defended him because you have swallowed hook line and sinker the bogus Franken talking points and then regurgitated the same tired blather on this site."

    --> I never quoted or paraphrased Franken, I have no Franken "Talking Points" nor am I aware of any. If you've seen any, please provide them. I regurgitated nothing. I looked at data from numerous sources admittedly including Franken, and found that in this case, Franken was indeed, right (which Bill acknowledged in his admission of Inside Edition's Polk Award). But there's no proof among conservatives. We just continue to argue the same old tired shit. Although I respect Franken, I'm not a huge fan of his show. And I do think he gets carried away. But he does admit errors on the air (even though you contend that O'Reilly's the only one to do this).

    "Pointing out your errors in your attack on O'Reilly is not the same thing as hero worship."
    --> I was using artistic license. I didn't mean that you "worship" him, just that you're eager to defend him and to abuse his detractors. And BTW, you pointed out no errors (other than one I'd already corrected), quite the reverse, my friend. And I provided links. If I err, please provide evidence.

    "...but no one can deny that such irresponsible talk only emboldens our enemy." --> Tactic 111. Dissent is unpatriotic and all dissentors are traitorous.

    "And I keep waiting to hear Air America, Jon Stewart and others of their ilk take to the air and repudiate stuff like this..." --> The Daily Show is a COMEDY PROGRAM. Stewart is a COMEDIAN. He's followed by talking puppets. And Air America repudiates this crap DAILY on Morning Sedition, Stephanie Miller's show, Al Franken's, Al Shultz's shows and others.

    " ...and all I hear is silence.
    --> While you're "waiting" for this repudiation, I suggest you turn your radio "on".

    "Does all this mean that some on the left want our troops to fail? I don't think it's out of the question at all."

    --> That's NOT what he was saying, inferring, or trying to communicate. He was trying to paint dems as unpatriotic by saying we hope the war fails. Because if the war fails, then Bush fails. And that's all that really matters to us liberals, because first and foremost, above all, we hate that man. This all started long ago when "Support Our Troops" became a euphamism for "Support George W. Bush".

    "It is obvious Paul that O'Reilly was stating an opinion..."
    -->Read what he said. I quoted him. He didn't say "in my opinion," "I think," or "it seems". It wasn't identified as commentary.

    And this was an unremarkable, typical O'Reilly exchange, similar to many he has nightly.

    You lump folks like me in with Ward Churchill. Do I compare you to Reverend Dobson? Why do you insist on generalizing?


    Re Striesand, I really don't know a thing about her politics. I just have never forgiven her for "The Way We Were". (Cold shudder).

    To my recollection, my AARP comment may have been in reaction to the USA NEXT slam of them, which is beyond sinful. The repugs responsible should be severly punished. It's sinister and sick. And the sickest part to me is that while it slams the AARP, it also demeans gays. The other mention I made re private/"personal" accounts (love your jargon) was that as a long-tiime investor, thinking any such account will provide a solution to any SS "problem" (formerly crisis) is folly indeed. Past that, I don't recall anything else.

    You really seem like a nice guy, Hank. I just wish you could see past the GOP BS. Because when you see what groups like USA NEXT are doing, I simply don't understand how, as an ethical, caring human being, you can abide with such mean-spirited treachery. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

    Hank,

    I used the "regal" "personal accounts"...sorry to lump you in with those repubs who have substituted "personal" for "private". I HATE it when I do something I've just accused an opponent of doing!

    I must proof more closely. ;-)