A look at the ratings for cable news in the prime time slot over the past few days

Friday Feb 3rd

8pm:

1. O'Reilly: 1,653,000 (guest host)
2. Zahn: 467,000
3. Grace: 424,000
4. Countdown: 260,000 (dead last)

Monday Feb 6th

8pm:

1. O'Reilly: 2,690,000
2. Zahn: 575,000
3. Grace: 523,000
4. Countdown: 431,000 (dead last)

Tuesday Feb 7th

8pm:

1. O'Reilly: 2,541,000
2. Grace: 645,000
3. Zahn: 612,000
4. Countdown: 441,000 (Dead last)

My maths ain't so good, but me thinks I see a trend.

When are the Democrats going to wake up? Keith is the dream host for the far left, and he pulls terrible numbers. Maybe that correlates to the number of voters the far left can deliver?

We asked in the comments here earlier today if Olbermann & Company would criticize the timing of the news of a foiled terror strike on Los Angeles.

Well, you know it seems funny how every time major bad news is going to hit the fan the terror level gets ratcheted up or some plot gets released. If it's a three-year old plot of no "significant intelligence", why release it now?

And gee, every time Bill Clinton did anything conservatives said he was creating a diversion from Whitewhater/Monica Lewinsky/etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

At some point in the discussion it occurred to somebody that this makes zero legal sense, as he's not charged with leaking, but with lying.

It does when you consider that Libby's lawyers have gone to the "Oliver North" defense: ask for as many classified documents as possible to force the prosecutor to dismiss the charges or get a mistrial. Libby's team has asked for ten months worth of Presidential Daily Briefs, which are of course some of the most heavily classified documents in this Administration.

then the Muslim cartoon controversy and Karen Hughes (Huh? Why would she have anything to do with this?)

Maybe because President Bush tasked her with "burnish[ing] the U.S. image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism has fueled extremist groups and terrorism," (Wahington Post March 12, 2005).

Right. That's why they were shopping these photos all over the Middle East until they found someone who ready to stir up some foment about them.

Let me see if I have this right - Newsweek publishes an article about American soldiers defiling the Koran (an article later disproven) that causes violence and riots in the Muslim world and conservatives blame the magazine for being "reckless". All the blame fell on them.

But this controversy happens and now the conservatives are saying that the media is "obliged" to print them (citing free press rights) and the "radical" Muslim world is over-reacting.

You can't have it both ways.

Well after a few days it was nice to see somebody decide to show up for work at Media Matters. Two foxs and a Glenn Beck. If I was Rick Kaplin I would at least start charging an advertising fee to Soros. God knows they could use the add revenue at M.S.L.S.D.

KFK

The interesting thing I found with you're list was, Bill takes off Friday and Olby loses half his ratings!! That defies logic!

> Maybe because President Bush tasked her with "burnish[ing] the U.S. image abroad

And what do the Muslim cartoons have to do with the US or the US image? I get it, you are saying that Olby was trying to make an implication that the US was somehow involved in circulating them. Interesting; I wouldn't put it past him. Thanks for pointing that out.

And what do the Muslim cartoons have to do with the US or the US image? I get it, you are saying that Olby was trying to make an implication that the US was somehow involved in circulating them. Interesting; I wouldn't put it past him. Thanks for pointing that out.

Nice try. I meant that since the radical Muslim fringe is trying to pin the blame for the cartoons being published in the first place on Western society's perceived disrespect for Islam in general and the U.S. in specific. So it would be natural that the President's "point person" in the Middle East should be front and center. Instead she's off the grid.

I give you an "A" for creativity, but a "C" for content. Thanks for playing.

Koran story by newsweek?
A FALSE story involving US soldiers defiling the Koran.

There is a fine line between printing something that is offensive and printing a false story directly implicating someone.

Example- If I say "John" is an idiot. That is an opinion- "John" can do nothing.

If a say "John" peed on the Koran and someone beats "John" up, "John" can sue me for damages.

I'm just glad the Danes didn't print disparaging cartoons of Captain Kirk and Dr. Spock. I would hate to see Trekkie have to take to the streets and burn down buildings.

KfK

I don't know if Doctor Spock would be insulted or complimented that you made him into a Vulcan.

However, Mr Spock would be infuriated at having been confused with a two-bit quack whose child-rearing theories have been thoroughly disputed.

Although he'd never show it.

Trekkie,
don't waste your time with this bag o' losers. These losers (Johnny Dollar, KfK, Dave the alleged token black) believe that Olbermann sucks because he dares to question Bush and the GOP. They try to say that Olbermann is unfair because he doesn't invite conservatives on his show (not true), unlike shows like Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh. What they don't mention is that liberals are constantly screamed over on the aforementioned shows, blatant lies are promulgated (notice these losers never bring up such topics as Kerry's intern affair, or Juanita Broaddrick, or all the other wingnut bullshit treated as FACT on shitty shows on Fox), and Olbermann slants left and doesn't kiss Bush's incompetent ass.
Fuck'em.

whoops. almost forgot to include the harpy Cecelia.

Yo KmFdm, easy big boy(girl) its just free speech - If your(Dems, Olby)ideas are so good and the arguments from the other side so bad then why do you keep losing elections despite Republican missteps?

Me thinks its because your side's (Olby et al)arguments don't ring true and are perceived to be an overreach and embellished to the point of disbelief. Every Bush misstep you'all overplay your hand with illogical crap about conspiracies etc. that lead people to think the other side must be O.K. by comparison.

Look at the Alito hearings. Take Halliburton - if Cheney sold his stock long ago then what possible gain does he reap by the Gov. using Halliburton. Yet your side sees a conspiracy.

Ah! So the culprit emerges!

Hello KmFdm, if that is your real name. I see that you enjoy the well-established liberal tactic of race baiting. Good for you. As an undoubtedly white leftist, it is your obligation to think about race all the time. Putting race up front, contrary to popular belief, does not make you a racist, even if you disparage someone for not thinking in a way appropriate for his or her color.

You have displayed the intellect necessary to join Trekkie, Jill, Jenna and Obi-Wan in their fight for. . .for. . .against stuff! All you need to do is chose your preferred fantasy world and tell us what it is. I predict you have an unhealthy interest in "Dungeons and Dragons" or "The Lord of the Rings."

As far as calling Cecilia a Harpy, "in Greek mythology, the Harpies ("snatchers") were beautiful winged women best known for constantly stealing all food from Phineas before he could eat, enforcing a punishment declared by Zeus."

I suppose she does impose a type of intellectual punishment upon you and your kind, so for once, you have spoken accurately.

Anybody notice that Keith's initials, K.O., are the OPPOSITE of O.K.? Using lefty-logic, this is a telling happenstance worthy of input from Mo Rocca.

2000: Gore defeats Bush by 500k votes.
2004: Bush narrowly defeats John Kerry.
Yeah, sure is a conservative country! What is Bush's approval rating... 38 per cent? Also, say buh-bye to Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee.

Cool! KFK is on the case. Yo, KfK! The bad ass conservative who cries like a bitch when someone spoofs him on a message board, the ultra-patriot who *would've* served except for community college getting in the way, or some other goood reason (had a cyst on his ass like Limbaugh, got deferment after deferment like Cheney)...but he still has a Support Our Troops magnet ribbon on his foreign car!

enjoy the circle jerk, kids. Maybe you can get each others numbers and text each other tonight during Olbermann's show!

PEACE

Last Rasmussen poll Bush approval: 47%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

As for Hillary Clinton:

"Today, just 27% of Americans say they would definitely vote for the former first lady while 43% would definitely vote against. Still, 59% of Americans believe it is somewhat or very likely that she will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008.

Among Democrats, the number who would definitely vote for Clinton dropped 11 percentage points over the past two weeks."

Keep screaming and kicking and stomping, race baiting and accusing. Kiss terrorist butts and blame Bush for "Tora Bora." Seems to be working really well for your Queen Gorgon Hillary. Get ready to lose another Presidential race. Start making excuses now.

Hey KmFdm, were you the jerk who posted under my screen-name from Reston, VA? Be truthful for once in your pathetic life. Remember, your location is available through your IP address.

Dude, your hilarious. Keep it up, a good chuckle is a nice way to break-up the monotony of the work day.

KmFdm, you are disgusting.

Definition of "spoof":

"A spoof is a humorous take on an established idea, cultural movement, television program, movie, play, or book. Spoofs almost always make satirical humour of the movie or play, poking fun at various aspects while retaining the general plot or idea. They are a form of parody. "

Definition of "imposter":

"An impostor (or imposter, a common variant) is a person who pretends to be somebody else, a person who makes deceitful pretenses"

You posted using my screen name. Which word best fits? I suppose responding to a racist comment using my screen name is "crying like a bitch." How about I soil myself and use your screen name to praise the NSA you bizarro.

Yo kfmdfmfdf (sp?), You must me tied up in knots worrying about all these Republican shenanigans. Let's see if I can bring you out of your funk.

HALLIBURTON - CHENEY!!!!!

Did that work? Did you get a rise?

BUSH LIED!!!!

How about that - did it help?

DOMESTIC SPYING - NIXON

There, I know that worked.

THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!!

Any better?

BUSH IS AN IDIOT!!!!! or BUSH SUCKS!!!

What do you think? Would I make a good Democrat?

Undoubtedly Kmfdm is short for some vulgar phrase. These wackos are either sci fi nuts or vulgar impostors. The only leftist group we miss here at Olby watch is the "too dumb to work a compooter" crowd (i.e. about half of 'em).

oh my God. Anyone, please: Look up KMFDM on google, wikipedia, hell, even yahoo. It will take about 2 seconds. Please post the results.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hooooooheeeeehaaaaaa!

That is some funny stuff!

Well, I was almost right! So let's take inventory:

Jenna Talia (sophomoric obscene nickname)
Obi Wan and Trekkie (sci fi wackos)

And introducing KMFDM:

http://www.kmfdm.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM

HA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sometimes life is too sweet! Keith's loyal following is becoming clearer now. J$, if this keeps up I expect MSLSD or Keith to offer you a few thousand to shut the site down.

Is that all you've got? Sophomoric insults and ad hominem attacks?

Koran story by newsweek?
A FALSE story involving US soldiers defiling the Koran.

There is a fine line between printing something that is offensive and printing a false story directly implicating someone.

Newsweek acted on a "good faith" basis that their information was accurate. When their government source backed away, they stepped away from the story.

But the underlying argument still stands - Newsweek published something inflammatory that caused violent riots in the Muslim community. The Administration and most of the major conservatives blamed Newsweek and said the story should have been held/killed.

These cartoons get published, creating an even stronger reaction from the same community. But instead of attacking the newspapers who continue to publish them, conservatives are making all this noise about how the papers are "obligated" to print them.

The arguments don't track - two items that evoke the same emotional outrage, yet one is "liberal recklessness" and the other is "press freedom". As I said before, these two arguments cannot coexist. So pick one and go with it.

Trekkie,

Acting on "good faith" is the key to a good news story. The list of "must do's" for a mainstream media reporter include:

1. Pick desired story, pick a side
2. Gather facts accordingly
3. Pick a hero
4. Pick a goat
5. Act on "good faith"

The old list is now outmoded:

1. Fact check, double check, make sure the story is true
2. Obtain facts based on "who what where when how"
3. Compose objective story, avoid opinion.

As for the comedy you and your friends autogenerate, we can hardly be blamed!

Trekkie,

Thank you so much for playing the "good faith" card. I know that when I am on the trail of a "fake-but-accurate" story, I always act on good faith. We all know the G W Bush memos existed at one time in the past, and with allegiance to "good faith" we proved it.

As for the Koran-flush story, we all know this happens every day. The documentation may be lacking, but "good faith" is the key to presenting this story as well.

Courage Trekkie!

"I suppose she does impose a type of intellectual punishment upon you and your kind, so for once, you have spoken accurately."

I would steal his food too.

Answer this:
Where are Bush's Guard records?
Or why doesn't anyone remember him serving in Alabama?
Liberal media, my ass...

If I say "Star Trek Voyager" is better than the original "Star Trek"- that is an opinion no matter how misguided. Which is better is subjective.

If I say Captain Kirk hooked up with Seven of Nine, that would not be a valid opinion because you cannot have an opinion that something is a fact. Either it is provable or it isn't.

The Newsweek story proved to be false. Can you prove a cartoon to be false? No. Apples and Oranges.
---

The Newsweek story proved to be false. Can you prove a cartoon to be false? No. Apples and Oranges.

"Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target."

Let me try this again. Newsweek publishes a story that outrages the Muslim world and increases tension. Reagrdless of the veracity of the story, the result is rioting and violence. The conservative press and pundits blame Newsweek, saying basically "We're at war. Doing things like this will get people killed."

Now, these cartoons get published. Again, the Muslim world is agitated. More rioting and violence. But instead of saying that the editors should have used more discretion in deciding whether or not to print them, the same conservatives who trashed Newsweek are waving around free press and free expression.

It cuts both ways - if Newsweek gets blamed for publishing an inflammatory article, then the European press should be blamed for publishing inflammatory cartoons. Instead we have a mixed message.

Yes, the content is different. But the emotional response was not only the same, it was predictable.

Trekkie's key point in his own words:

"Regardless of the veracity of the story"

Yes indeed. Disregarding veracity is the opiate of the left.

Trekkie, you are malfunctioning much like the M5 computer from Epsiode 53, Season 2: "The Ultimate Computer."

If the Koran flush story were true, I would not have been upset at Newsweak for publishing the story. After all, Newsweak lives on anti-American tabloid-style fluff. It was the fact that they published lies that made the whole thing blow up in their faces. I fear you Trekkie, because you seem unable to see the issue many have with fiction being passed off as reality. Then again, you are a Trekkie, so fiction probably means more to you than reality.

One more time. The story could have been the absolute truth and it would have blown up anyway.

Newsweek has a story (Item A) that will make a large group of people very mad. They can choose to run the story or not, depending on whether they feel the story's value outweighs the inflammatory nature. They chose to run it.

A Danish newspaper has a series of political cartoons (Item B) that will make a large group of people mad. They make the same calculaton and run the cartoons. Same result.

A and B are similar enough that you can draw a inference from them - they provoke a strong emotional response.

Newsweek gets slammed for recklessness (despite the story being vetted by the Defense Department, as is standard procedure for all national security stories). The Danish newspaper is lauded for upholding free press. See the inherent contradiction?

Trekkie,

you are hopeless

Trekkie,

You are hopeless.

Trekkie,

Do you not understand the difference between an inaccurate NEWS story, that made unfounded charges against American soldiers and cartoon drawings that express poliitical OPINIONS?

It's not that Newsweek ran a story that was inflammatory to Muslims, it's that they did this on such filmsy sourcing. You don't run the risk of starting riots unless you have solid sourcing that the story is true.

On the otherhand, political cartoons are the essence of "free speech", they express poitical opinion, they are not news stories.

Sheesh!

C wrote --

"Trekkie, do you not understand . . ."

Yes C, he does not.