Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Reality Distortion Field

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

February 10, 2006

Reality Distortion Field

Less than 24 hours after his Thursday night appearance on Countdown, terrorism expert Gerald Posner was a guest on Fox News Channel's Dayside. Compare and contrast. On the Hour of Spin, Mr Posner stated:

I think the administration perceives [the threat] as a six to seven. Many of us who follows this view it right now, as a threat to America, as a two or three.... [A small weapon of mass destruction] is the real potential threat. But that's a long-term threat. That can take place anywhere from now to literally the next 10 or 15 years. Otherwise, the threat level I think is lower today than it has been in the last couple of years.

On Dayside, Mr Posner put it this way:

There are other areas, such as railway travel, walking through Grand Central, subway trains, where we haven't made those improvements at all, but on airplanes I think we've taken big strides.... Remember on 9/11 how we were all surprised, we were stunned?... The next attack that takes place in America is likely to be one where we all sit there that day and the morning after and say, who would've thunk it? Who would've thought that they would have used this form of an attack on us?

As for the release of this information and its timing, Posner agreed with KO that the US government was now like the totalitarian one in the novel 1984, and added:

The Bush administration is using terror as a political weapon, and making sure that it does turn on the fear spigot when it wants to, and turn it off at other times.... The Bush administration does it relentlessly, and they do it very effectively.

Meanwhile on Dayside, that same issue elicited this response:

This is one of the things that says: by the way, we have other important things. Remember, we are in a war against terrorism here. And I think it's a very good reminder.

Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (36) | | View blog reactions

36 Comments

By puck on February 10, 2006 5:30 PM

It don't matter a hill of beans what this guy said because he will be taken to task by the great and powerful Olby, (Pay no attention to that moron behind the news desk! I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OLBY OF SPIN!!) For going on Fox News! HE WILL BE BANISHED!! Look this guy figured he could get away with it since Olby's ratings are as close to flatline as you can get! But, a great pickoff JD. Nailed him at the plate!

Meanwhile

Here's a story you won't see on oddball, or the Media Matters Moment tonight. UNLESS THE ROLES WERE REVERSED! For those of you who might not be from the city just remember this. Olby buddy Mort Zuckerman(Daily News).Evil Rupert Murdoch (New York Post). This is funny!!

www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/59872.htm

By JJ on February 10, 2006 5:42 PM

Good call on the LA thing, JD. And also nice on Posner interviews.

By Cecelia on February 10, 2006 8:10 PM

Just as an aside, I've never seen a male--nonactor, of Posner's age, with so much botox in his face.

What's up with that? The guy couldn't raise an eyebrow if he walked into a bar and saw an Iman buying drinks and lap dances.

By KfK on February 10, 2006 8:13 PM

Nice catch Mr. Dollar

Network and cable news is filled with preening emty heads, minimal investigation, and "experts" who will say anything anytime. It's kinda hard to concentrate on providing news when you are worried about how you look, how you sound, what the time frame is etc. That's why it basically blows.

Give me the internet any day.

By Missy on February 10, 2006 9:39 PM

Puck, that story you referenced is great! So the NY Daily News, Zuckerman's paper, is snubbed even by thieves. LOL!!!

By laura l on February 10, 2006 10:11 PM

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed how strange he looked. He used to be sort of attractive in a thanks, but no thanks sort of way.
It's like Mengele started doing cheek implants.

By Trekkie on February 10, 2006 10:40 PM

Nice quotes - now how about some context to go with it?

By Anonymous on February 11, 2006 10:29 AM

Yeah Trekkie,

You're all about context and nuance.

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 11:35 AM

Well excuse me for trying to frame the debate. By themselves, the quotes have no value. So tell me what questions led up to them and then we can discuss them.

By johnny dollar on February 11, 2006 12:06 PM

If you read very closely, you might just find that the first set of answers was regarding the general threat against the US and how safe we are. As for the second set of answers, there's a very clever clue buried in there. You might spot it if you look hard. Here's a hint: it's where I noted that these answers dealt with "the release of this information and its timing". That's your "context".

I know that you feel under some galactic responsibility to object to anything published on this site, even when it's nothing more than verbatim quotes. If you think these quotes have been doctored, say so. If you think the "context" is faulty, then prove it. If you just want to snipe without evidence to smear this site...well, I'll let Cecelia and KfK take care of you. Not a fair fight, I'm afraid, but you asked for it.

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 9:21 PM

Here's a hint: it's where I noted that these answers dealt with "the release of this information and its timing". That's your "context"

I didn't watch the show in question, so I have no idea what was asked of the man that elicited the responses you quote. You're all about the questions that come before the answers, so tell me what they were in this case.

If you think these quotes have been doctored, say so. If you think the "context" is faulty, then prove it.

I can't properly make a response on-point without more information. There isn't enough to make a determination.

By johnny dollar on February 11, 2006 9:42 PM

> There isn't enough to make a determination.

Well then why do you come in here trying to smear this site by implying there's something wrong with the quotes?

> tell me what they were in this case.

Maybe you should have found out before blundering in here telling everybody what you have deemed has value or doesn't. You have no idea what has value because you admit you don't know what you're talking about. I told you what the topics were, and now you want me to transcribe the word-for-word questions, as if that changes what Posner said.

I'm not your personal research slave. What's stopping you from looking up the transcript and finding out for yourself? You can pore over them looking for some "out" so you can come back here and then point to some wording as a pretext to excuse the entire discussion and make everything all well again in OlbyLand. Well go ahead! Come back when you have something.

Next time do your homework.

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 9:54 PM

Well then why do you come in here trying to smear this site by implying there's something wrong with the quotes?

Because I don't know what was said to elict them. How's that - straight enough answer for you?

I'm not your personal research slave. What's stopping you from looking up the transcript and finding out for yourself?

I tried already - Fox doesn't offer a transcript of that show and a Google search produced nothing useful.

Next time do your homework.

You put the quotes up - that puts the burden on you to establish their bona fides. That's the first thing they teach in Debate 101 - never use evidence unless you can source it and contextualize it.

By johnny dollar on February 11, 2006 10:09 PM

What makes you think that I posted this so that I would have the rarified privilege of debating with a trekkie? I couldn't care less about debating with you. The purpose of this post isn't to give you something to do on a Saturday night when you're sitting at home (as am I).

You don't like it. You think it has to be sourced and "contextualized". Well I sourced it. Countdown and Dayside. And I contextualized it. If that's not good enough for you, that's tough. I don't lose sleep at night worrying if trekkie is going to think my contextualization was adequate to his high standards.

How about Olbermann sourcing and contextualizing the nonexistent Bill O'Reilly quote he used on January 27? Did you ask him to verify the accuracy of the nonexistent quote he made up to smear Bill O'Reilly? Was it sourced? Was it contextualized? I didn't see your post saying his attack on O'Reilly has "no value".

How about Olbermann sourcing and contextualizing his claim that the LA mayor didn't even know Bush's speech was coming? Something even the LA mayor doesn't claim? Have you written to Countdown to demand Olby explain his sourcing and contextualizing? I didn't see your post here opining that Olbermann's report has "no value".

That's the difference between Olby and me. I don't make up phony quotes to smear people. I tell the truth. And if you don't like it, prove me wrong.

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 10:18 PM

I tell the truth. And if you don't like it, prove me wrong.

How the hell am I supposed to if I never saw the show to which you reference and no transcript can be retrieved? You might as well ask me to find the corner in a round room.

As for the rest, I don't care what you think of me, my personal life or my "standards". You speak, I respond. That's how this system is supposed to work, right?

By johnny dollar on February 11, 2006 10:31 PM

> How the hell am I supposed to if I never saw the show to which you reference and no transcript can be retrieved?

Well you're really speaking from authority. Complaining about something when you didn't even see the program(s) in question. And there is at least one flat-out false assumption in your question (not the part of you not seeing the show, it's obvious that's true).

> You speak, I respond. That's how this system is supposed to work, right?

Apparently not. I asked you six questions and you ducked every one of them.

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 10:53 PM

Well you're really speaking from authority. Complaining about something when you didn't even see the program(s) in question.

You made the assertion that the quotes were contradictory. I am attempting to respond to that assertion because I disagree.

Apparently not. I asked you six questions and you ducked every one of them.

You won't answer my question, so I refuse to answer yours.

By johnny dollar on February 11, 2006 10:58 PM

> You made the assertion that the quotes were contradictory.

I did? WHERE? Quote me. Are you sure you aren't Olby in disguise? Because you can make up quotes as well as he can.

> I am attempting to respond to that assertion because I disagree.

Of course. You didn't see the programs, you complain that you don't know the context, but have already decided that the quotes are NOT contradictory. Based on WHAT? Your reading skills? The same ones that just came up with an "assertion" that I never made?

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 11:12 PM

I did? WHERE? Quote me. Are you sure you aren't Olby in disguise? Because you can make up quotes as well as he can.

You post two quotes: one from Countdown, one from Dayside. Then you ask us to "Compare and contrast."

To contrast means to "put in opposition to show or emphasize differences". You are asking your readers to look at the two quotes and see how they are different. If they have differences, then it follows that they must have some element of contradiction within them.

You didn't see the programs, you complain that you don't know the context, but have already decided that the quotes are NOT contradictory

I did NOT make that statement. What I asked for was more information in order to make a more effective argument. At no point did I make that claim because I don't have enough data to make it.

By johnny dollar on February 11, 2006 11:30 PM

> If they have differences, then it follows that they must have some element of contradiction within them.

Oh please. Semantic tricks? Is that the best you can do? Two quotes can be different without being contradictory. "It's sunny out." "It's not cloudy out." Different quotes. Compare them. Contrast them. They are different, but they are not contradictory. Clear now? So much for that diversion.

> I did NOT make that statement.

You didn't? Here's what you said:

> You made the assertion that the quotes were contradictory. I am attempting to respond to that assertion because I disagree.

You disagree with the notion that the quotes are contradictory. That means that you are saying they are NOT contradictory. You have real problems if you cannot even comprehend your own words, or if you change your position within the space of a half hour.

Now you're saying something different: you need more information to make an argument as to whether they are contradictory. If that's your fall back position, then fine. If you don't feel your arguments are effective because you don't have enough information, then get more data so you know what you're talking about. Or else, Don't Make The Arguments.

By Trekkie on February 11, 2006 11:51 PM

Two quotes can be different without being contradictory. "It's sunny out." "It's not cloudy out."

Now who's playing semantic tricks? You can't contrast two statements that mean the same thing. If it's sunny out, then it is not cloudy. The statements are the same. They can be compared, but not contrasted.

You disagree with the notion that the quotes are contradictory. That means that you are saying they are NOT contradictory.

Wow, you really can miss the point. You made the assertion that the quotes are contradictory. I disagreed. That does not mean I necessarily think they are not contradictory. They may be mutually exclusive with each other, or irrelevant when compared to each other.

If you don't feel your arguments are effective because you don't have enough information, then get more data so you know what you're talking about.

Again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion. Not me. You.

By johnny dollar on February 12, 2006 12:12 AM

> If it's sunny out, then it is not cloudy. The statements are the same. They can be compared, but not contrasted.

Either you are dense or you think I am. It's easy to contrast them. One is optimistic, emphasizing the sun. The other is not so optimistic, emphasizing the lack of clouds, leaving a less positive impact. To claim that you can't contrast things unless they are contradictory is beyond stupid.

> Again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion.

The assertion that you made up? You made it up so you prove it.

Let's recap: You disagree that the statements are contradictory, but a half hour later you say, oh that doesn't mean they aren't contradictory. You admit that you argue out of ignorance, haven't seen the programs, and claim that you don't know the context. You admit that your arguments are not effective and want me to do research to make them more effective. Yet while you want me to scour around and look up stuff to help you, you refuse to answer even one of six questions that you could type up in ten seconds without having to expend one nanosecond on research.

I don't have any burden to prove anything to you. I don't care if you believe it or not. There is hardly anything more worthless and unimportant to me than the approval of intellectually dishonest partisans. I hope you've enjoyed your Saturday night entertainment.

By Trekkie on February 12, 2006 12:25 AM

Fine. You know what, I've kept a civil tongue in my head during this entire matter. I will not sit here and be called "intellecutally dishonest" (in plainer language, a liar) by you.

So how's this for plain: you are a mean, vindictive, spiteful slander-monger who wants everyone to agree with you or shut up. You treat those who disagree with you like they have the intellectual capacity of a gnat and rather than engage them on the issues you attack them personally. Then you sit back at let your sychophants applaud you.

I tried to engage you on the issues, but apparently since I disagree I am a loon and a liar with an agenda.

Ban me, block me. I don't care anymore.

By johnny dollar on February 12, 2006 12:39 AM

> rather than engage them on the issues you attack them personally

coupled with:

> you are a mean, vindictive, spiteful slander-monger

Compare and contrast.

> I will not sit here and be called "intellecutally dishonest" (in plainer language, a liar) by you.

I didn't say YOU were intellectually dishonest. But if the shoe fits, wear it in good health.

By Anonymous on February 12, 2006 8:15 AM

Tekkie prefers to throw his shoes into American machinery and instead walk barefoot.

By Leo on February 12, 2006 11:39 AM

And you are a person who choses to change reality to match his views.

By Anonymous on February 12, 2006 1:48 PM

Are you saying Trekkie changes reality to match his views? Because in Trekkie's reality Al Qaeda sells girls scout cookies, Harry Reid is a brave warrior, the Bush family is pure evil, and Captain Kirk is orbiting Earth.

By KfK on February 12, 2006 2:01 PM

"Leo" blurbed:

"And you are a person who choses to change reality to match his views."

Yes indeed! I am able to change reality to match my views! Why, just yesterday I changed Trekkie into a wart hog! I am magic Leo, and don't you forget it.

By Leo on February 13, 2006 1:23 AM

It would seem you are in the right place then.

By JJ on February 13, 2006 1:35 PM

There's a pretty good analysis by emptywheel:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/02/libbys_nixon_la.html#more

...which includes the now-famous Shuster quote. (I've given it a quick read.)

Additionally, this "new" Libby news story has actually been around for a week or so. (See emptywheel's earlier posts.)The story has actually been out since around February 1.

This "new" story just happened to pop up on the media radar when Murray Waas dropped a story at the National Journal:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm#

Waas spurred a lot of me-too journalism, as noted by Tom M. at JustOneMinute.

Among these Me-Too journalists -- none other than NBC, the NY Times, and others.

This presentation by NBC and others is really turning into an embarrassment.

Even more interesting is KO's leading quotes in this piece. Nice catch again, JD.

Let's lobby to keep KO!

By JJ on February 13, 2006 1:37 PM

And yep, I'm getting ready for the shotgun piece tonight to swamp the show.

My bet is that KO says "yeehaw" at least three times during the segment.

By KfK on February 13, 2006 1:51 PM

Man oh man! These reporters are nuts! I was watching Mclellan's press conference with the mental midgets of the MSM, and they were SCREAMING about the delay in information from the VP's hunting accident. You'd think this were Three Mile Island and lives were in jeopardy! Forget about the fact that is was an ACCIDENT while the VP was on R and R! What BS.

These reporters are so insane that they play the conspiracy angle on everything. I bet less that 3% of the population cares that there was a delay in the story. I mean, who would want to tell the press anything right away? So they can run to the Hospital and harass the Docs who are trying to help the victim?

Look for KO to go even further tonight, with clips of the contentious news conference. I wonder where all these a-holes were when Vince Foster allegedly offed himself. I think there was quite a delay in that non-story.

But there is no liberal MSM bias! No way no how!

By KfK on February 13, 2006 2:15 PM

On second thought . . .

Ted Kennedy waited 24 hours to tell anyone that Mary Jo was at the bottom of Poucha Pond! I think it is OK to wait 24 hours to tell the MSM vultures about a hunting accident!

By puck on February 13, 2006 5:56 PM

KFK

Old Teddy named his dog Splash, So would it be okay for Dick Cheney to name his next dog Blast?

Trixie
Are you leaving Olby watch for good? Should I get the keg and big sandwich? Probibly not, they never moved to Canada like they said they would in 04. Ah shucks!

By KfK on February 13, 2006 7:00 PM

I think "Blast" is a good name for his dog, Puck. Whatever dog he gets better be pretty big, since it will have to be able to fetch human corpses! Ha ha!

No offence Mr. Cheney -- you know I love ya!

By Cecelia on February 13, 2006 7:11 PM

As a diplomatic effort, I think Cheney should invite members of the press to accompany him on his next hunting trip.

OlbyWatchTweets

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

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

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

If It's Sunday, It's Meet the Obsessed

Keith Olbermann: An Infantile, Dysfunctional, Empty Vessel

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

36 Comments