Are you scared of us, just because if ratings were scored by the audiences collective IQ, your favorite shows would lose hands down? Is that why you want to keep your site as an echo chamber?

Come on now, you need us for foils, if nothing else.
Thanks for the links, tho.

I'd be scared for this country is people who believe the crap KO puts our as "news" ever came to power in this country. So, to that extent, I am "scared" of you.

As for IQs, I am willing to match wits with you ANY TIME, ANY PLACE, ANY WHERE. Except not now...I'm going to watch My Name is Earl.

PS, my favorite shows are 24, The Sopranos, My Name is Earl and any broadcast of a Yankees game. I'll let you calculate the collective IQs, Einstein.

Dear Mr. Cox
I think you know I'm a liberal, but thanx for the KO site review. I found it to be interesting.
My favorite shows are CD with Keith Olbermann, anything on the History Channel, or Discovery Channel. (not in that order) But my all time favorite thing in the world to watch is also a Yankees game. Esp when they play Boston. I also like to watch Cash Cab but they have not been playing it here as late. I also like to watch cooking shows. Auf Wiedersehen

Good shows, all. Good that you share the fan thing with Senator Clinton, too.
I have read many of your posts, Robert, and will welcome some kind of display of wit in your future ones.
Keith Olbermanns show is not billed as a "news" show, but as "stories you will be talking about tomorrow.."
Must be an effective show, because talking about it the next day is exactly what you guys do here, but with all the grace of scorned women. Gotta wonder what your real problem with him is.............

blu - actually the show is billed as "news" and Keith is listed by MSNBC corporate as "news anchor".

Oh. Like FOX "News" then?

It's classy and refreshing of you to link to some sites with a different point-of-view.

I referenced this on another thread. In his new commercial for CD, KO promises "to make sense of all the news of the day." Does he do that? Hardly. It is commentary (not analysis) from only one side. And he flogs the same stories for days at a time. Do you really go to work everyday and talk about Tom Cruise's baby? KO does.

Ian,

I have ALWAYS linked sites with a different POV. Just look at the blogroll. Many of those links have been there since I launched the site in 2004.

Likewise I have always sought to get some pro-KO contributors for the site but most of the KO supporters who come here toss out comments and scurry away.

In many cases, a few self-appointed "Protectors of the the Faithful" have threatened, bullied or otherwise discouraged KO supporters from contributing to this site because they have this odd notion that Keith would not approve. They have imagined that I would not actually post the contribution or edit it to be anti-KO. This isn't true but they have succeeded in scaring off potential pro-KO contributors.

It is really a measure of their lack of understanding of how the blogosphere works - especially with regard to marketing their site. The more people that come here to defend KO the more likely they are to be able to draw off readers to their pro-KO sites. At leas tone DUers understood that because he/she kept posting invites to their KO/Countdown discussion forum in one of our more popular discussion threads a couple of weeks ago. I would not be surprised if more new readers go hit the three sites mentioned above over the coming weeks off the links above than they normally get. Some may be anti-KO for a time but after a couple of weeks the anti-KO people will drift off and they will have acquired new readers.

I checked my blog stats as usual just now, and the referrals from this site were numerous. What, I wondered, could be going on? I must admit I was pleasantly surprised; Mr. Cox, you *can* be gracious when you want to be! Thank you kindly sir.

(One little thing - the blog title is actually "Either Relevant or True." That's just too long to fit in a URL nicely.)

I'll fix this post. You may not have seen that at first I thought your blog was called "Relevant Torture" so at least "Relevant or True" is a BIT better.

Thanks for bronze, Bob.

I think acknowledging that a whole range of legitimate opinions does exist is tremendously important. For the same reason I admire KO's stance on confronting the powers that be, I appreciate the fact that your blog does exist. I don�t always agree with your views or those of your readers, but offering a venue to challenge established wisdom and giving voice to opinions that might otherwise go unacknowledged is a good thing � irrespective of where you lie on the political spectrum.

And for the record, one of the first things I did when starting Drinking with KO was link to olbermannwatch.

Thanks for bronze, Bob.

I think acknowledging that a whole range of legitimate opinions does exist is tremendously important. For the same reason I admire KO's stance on confronting the powers that be, I appreciate the fact that your blog does exist. I don�t always agree with your views or those of your readers, but offering a venue to challenge established wisdom and giving voice to opinions that might otherwise go unacknowledged is a good thing � irrespective of where you lie on the political spectrum.

And for the record, one of the first things I did when starting Drinking with KO was link to olbermannwatch.

Aleksandra

I saw that you blogrolled us; and we you. Thanks.

A little, healthy, juvenile debate never hurt anyone even if it is a debate between lying, commie, marxist, terrorist-loving, loons and evil, fascist, nazi, wingnut, extremists.

You've mentioned this to me in a private email (which is still in my "to answer" folder, my apologies), and here the subject arises again on a post that I'm lured to like a Republican to money. Absurd though the thought may be, I can't help but feel I'm being called out. Maybe it's that Olbermann ego rubbing off on me.

In all of my travels among the various pro-KO sites, I've not seen these "Protectors of the Faithful" of which you speak. Personally, I could give a rat's ass if Mr. Olbermann approves of anything I say or do; he and I don't know one another and that is unlikely to change. For all of my admiration for the man – in ways both cerebral and salacious – I've used my own blog to occasionally call him on things he's said. I've done this with the knowledge that the site gets multiple hits from NBC IP addresses each day. Somebody at the mothership is reading what we put out, and it hasn't affected my editorial decisions in the least. ERT may be a lovefest 90% of the time, but we do have minds of our own. As for fear of creative editing, well, anything I or any of my contributors sent here could easily be posted on our own blog in counterpoint.

Nor is my failure to rush to contribute to OW due to a lack of understanding of the blogosphere. My first blog went up on September 13, 2001, as soon as internet service was restored to my New York City apartment. I've been around this block many times in many incarnations since that day and I'm well aware of how things work. Marketing ERT is pretty far down on my list of priorities, however. Susan and I started it on a lark one night; the fact that our little hobby blog has had the modest success it has still astounds me. Lots of people, it seems, want to play in our happy fun place. Who'da thunk?

This brings me to my final point. Being a fangirl is my happy fun place. Reading constant put-downs of the object of my fannish glee is neither happy nor fun. Having debates that are born out of ideology, yet are ultimately about trivial nonsense gives me the agita. Some people thrive on that kind of thing; the internet is full of them. I just don't happen to be one. I actually enjoy a good debate – I'm a politics junkie after all – but I'd much rather contribute positively to public discourse than squabble with someone because s/he doesn't like the same news program I do. I believe anything I might contribute to your front page would engender plenty of negative comments that I would not be inclined to answer. I've been there and done that and it adds nothing to my health or happiness.

In my post to ERT today I'll mention both your recommendation post and your invitiation to pro-Olbermann writers to contribute to your blog. In fact, since I'm unable/unwilling to do so myself, I'll encourage my readers to do so. I sincerely hope someone does it, if only to further deflate your theory. ;-)

OK.

I have also offered to have a KO debate (topic of your choice) where me and the other blogger are the only two who can edit the POST itself. Readers could comment below but not directly participate in the debate. If you ever feel inspired to engage in such a debate I'll promise to dispense with the hyperbole and deal with the substance of the arguments - and no personal slams.

Let me know.

The fans of KO are moonbats
Some know how to read... congrats
Only a tool
Would worship this fool
That's why Olby's fans wear ass hats

I see "Barbara Bush" ain't a fan;
She's free to opine, if she can.
There's just one odd thing
About the right wing--
Why can't you conservatives scan?

On second thought, I regret that drive-by limerick. I'd much rather see the civil, issues-based debate advocated above than start a scansion war--forgive my moment of (attempted) poetic weakness. . .

Don't put down that quill just yet, sylvia. If you scroll on some of the other threads for posts by the likes of johnny dollar, puck, and O'Reilly rules, you will soon realise that this is, as someone in Wikipedia referred to it, a personal vendetta site, and Robert Cox's calls for debate are lip service to get him street cred so he can point to his offer as evidence of his fairness.

Yes, I've been engaged in all sorts of personal vendettas. In fact, blucaller is going to point them out for you, so you can see directly all my personal vendettas in print.

Maybe you don't have a vendetta, but you three remind me a lot of the rabid anti-Clinton guys in their heyday, and I suspect KO is the object of your dis-affection. I think Mr. Olbermann must be very happy to have you.

First I'm engaging in personal vendettas. Then when you are invited to point them out, all of sudden maybe I'm NOT engaging in personal vendettas.

I don't waste my time in discussions with people who just make stuff up.

I said "by the likes of johnny dollar, puck, and O'Reilly rules, you will soon realise that this is, as someone in Wikipedia referred to it, a personal vendetta site," and did not intentionally refer to you personally. But you do seem to take thing pretty personally. But as far as I know, this site isn't about you.
Just like Olbermann and O'Reilly's show, this is done in real time. I can't edit my posts, so the best I can hope for is to make corrections, which I did. Of course, that wouldn't matter to a person who had a vendetta, would it?

I'm new to this online dispute,
And know not where the problems took root
Between "Johnny Dollar"
And Mr. "Blucaller"
But I think their bickering's cute.

Hee Hee Hee...
That's so great, Sylvia!

A personal vendetta? So what is my personal stake there A.D.A. McCoy? YEP JD! You and Mr. Cox are right. Someone posts crap on Wikipedia and the Mind Numb Moonbats follow orders. Though I guess I should feel thrilled. By the way I like the way you just throw out I'm a rabid anti-Clinton person even though I've been a Libratarian since 96', I voted for Harry Browne, not Clinton nor Dole. This may come as a shock to you but there are more than two partys out there. I've already stated this but I guess you were out of the class that day. One last thing you're half right. Bill O'Reilly, every segment is fresh. Not like Olby who 3/4 of the show is recycled video from the day. Maybe if Olby put in a full 60 minutes like Bill does, his ratings might be a little better. And lets not forget at last count.

BILL O'REILLY: 2,434,000

OLBERMANN : 610,000

O'REILLY 4 TIMES THE VIEWERS!

THATS NOT A VENDETTA, THATS FACT!

I said you REMINDED me of rabid anti-Clinton people. Because of the viceral and often petty quality of your vendettas against Keith Olbermann. I'm trying to get a feel for why you guys are so obcessed and threatened by him if it isn't pure ideology. Maybe it's his looks. Maybe it's his size 14 shoes. Whatever it is, it's not normal. I don't even despise Bush that much.

Puck says if the Olbermann show
Had more Keith and less video
The ratings would rise!
I'm left to surmise
He must be a fan of KO. . .

blucaller wrote:

"Mr. Olbermann must be very happy to have you"

Ha! Keith is terrified of this site. We have consistently demonstrated an uncanny ability to tear through his wall of obfuscation and expose the deep-seated liberal agenda that lies at the root of Keith and his "Cronies" at MSNBC.

I suppose you have not bothered to note the sidebar on the right side of the main page; Keith Olbermann has routinely cast aspersions on my integrity and the integrity of all the clear-thinking readers of this informative and education site.

To wit:

"Olbermann Watch is a site created to mock me" - Washington Post Radio

"My critics on Olbermann Watch are belligerently uninformative" - The New York Observer

"There is a whole army of bloggers, radio hosts and TV people who have decided that any deviation from their political view is to be persecuted..."Olbermann Watch" is foremost among them." - The Hartford Courant

"Robert Cox is not a reliable observer of my work" - to Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post

I'd say that irrefutable proof that Olbermann Watch is a constant, gnawing prescence in his mind.

In at least one, and I suspect all your "instances," KO was responding to a direct question about your site. Would you have prefered he didn't respond? I can just imagine the hay you would have tried to make out of that!
If some kooks were to set up a site who's sole purpose (in your mind, let's allow) were to deride you, and for some reason UNSOLICITED news outlet Googled you in prep for an interview and their site came up in the search, they'd be remiss if the didn't ask, and you'd be compelled to respond.

My point: You have set this exploitation site up so these "Do you still beat your wife?" questions are inevitable

Your site exists for purposed of self-
aggrandizement and you're only noteriety comes from a parasitic activity

I've seen no other evidence that KO regards you as anything other than a hapless group of cyber-salkers, or that he "trembles" (HA!)

That your very existance is proof of his effectiveness and that if he's not, he should be grateful that he has you

Blucaller- Speaking of KK's "effectiveness" you reference above, how's that 2004 Ohio presidential vote recount coming along?

Sylvia

Once again. If KO were to put in a FULL EFFORT into his show, insted of 45 minutes of recycled video. Maybe, just maybe he could do better in the ratings.

Remember this is commercial tv not PBS. Show me an advertiser that doesn't look at numbers. You should remember that. Unless you're a socialist.

O'Reilly: 2,434,000 Olby: 610,000

Talk to me when Olby starts doing a million a night on a constant basis.

And don't give me Olby has better content. With numbers like those it means only one thing. His content is crap! 80 plus attacks on Bill O'Reilly ain't done s**t for Olby's ratings. People watch Olby. Olby attacks O'Reilly, people watch O'Reilly and relize that it was Olby's show that was the train wreck.

Bill O'Reilly, with numbers like those means one thing. Right now he's getting the job done!

Oh! and just for you're info. I'm a Pittsburgh Penquins fan.

This comment thread is now closed.