You didn't tell us the demo numbers Bob! That changes EVERYTHING!

That many flies can't be wrong.

Did you hear about the study that 73% of O'Reilly viewers (that's 1,460,000 people, approve of Ann Coulter's personal attacks on the 9/11 widows).

Nonfactor, you are incorrect. There is no study of O'Reilly's viewers that made any such finding.

Nonfactor, Keith should be paying your rent. You are a loyal mistress to your precious treasure, Keith Olbermann.

Who performed the study? When was it performed? What is the accuracy of the study? Or are you referring to the unscientific polls that the Factor does?

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/liz/liz.htm

It still says something about the kinds of people who watch Bill's show.

The ones that aren't a survey of viewers, but of people who go to the BO website and vote in the poll?

BTW on that one, the actual figure is 71%, and there were only 67495 responses.

At least it does have to do with Bill O'Reilly. You got that part right.

Sunday’s “Meet with the mess” with special guest Keif Opie

Host: Keif, you have been in the news lately, seemingly kind of irrational, responding ludicrously to e-mails sent by admittedly harsh fans, why use the kind of language you do
Opie: Well Tom, I didn’t really write them. Bill O’Reilly did

Host: Keif – your obsession with Bill O’Reilly seems like the tabloid’s obsession with Brittany Spears and Tom Cruise. No serious journalist has ever used such a, well, has been so, I mean what the heck is the matter with you.
Opie: You don’t understand Tom, in the age 57 years, 6 months, 5 days, white, females named Jenny, from Virgina - demographic I am killing O’Reilly in the ratings.

Host: Keif - you don’t just attack O’Reilly, you even stated another anchor on your own network was dumber than a suitcase full of bricks, you have burned bridges at many former employers, do you think you are respected by fellow journalists?
Keif: If I wasn’t respected I would never get Dana Millbank, Craig Crawford, Laurence (liar, creepy liar) O’Donnell on my show. You just don’t get guests with their “colored” background without being THE best

Host: But Keif, it’s now been 1,000 days since you have had – what we journalists like to call – a non partisan exchange on your show
Keif: Look, if you want Fox news with opinions from all over the place – I mean looking at stories from every angle – that’s not journalism. We present one anti Bush view – and every night I have a guest host who completely agrees with me. I mean – two of us can’t be wrong.

Host: With your ratings being bottom of the barrel, you’re horrible pattern of attacks against fellow reporters and vulgar responses to e-mails, what kind of future do you see for yourself at NBC
Keif: Well Tom, all that doesn’t matter. I don’t report to anyone.

Host: Keif, you have to be one of the most biased, and I’ll use this term lightly – journalists - on TV. I mean Moveon.org backs you, you get much of your information from Media Matters, your guests write columns for the Huffington post, I mean do the words fair and balanced mean ANYTHING to you
Keif – of course they do. Let me give you an example. Look how we covered Karl Rove. I mean everyone knows he is guilty and we were very fair in presenting many, many different repercussions the Rove indictment would have on the flawed Bush administration

Host: But Keith – Rove wasn’t indicted
Keif: You know. Maybe not technically indicted, but all of us at Meltdown know for darn sure he was guilty, I mean, and I don’t necessarily have to take all the credit for this we actually were the first to break the story, David Shuster broke that story right on Countdown. And, I might add - was quickly added to the MSNBC staff

Host; Keif we’re running out of time but my final questions is your appearance. I mean your hair color changes often, your face looks almost orange…
Keif – let me cut you off right there, I mean, everyone, I mean, scientology aside, the climate on Venus, I mean, it’s just another racially motivated attack on me, being from Venus. As we like to say on Venus- good luck and good night

It wasn't a "study of O'Reilly viewers". It was an online, unscientific, click-here poll, like thousands of others all over the internet. it wasn't limited to O'Reilly viewers. Anyone could vote in it and did, and many outfits (like Free Republic) worked up campaigns to get people to vote in it.

So how does it say something about "the kinds of people" who watch his show, when anyone with a modem could vote in it? You get the information wrong, and when your mistake is pointed out, you blissfully ignore your own errors and say, well it "says something" anyhow. How very Olbermann of you.

So you deny that this doesn't show something about O'Reilly viewers? Even if it was + or - 30% it'd be a horrible stat.

Two million flies can't be wrong right? O'Reilly's show must be the best because so many "educated" people watch it.

and johnny, didn't you think we found WMD in Iraq? You sure avoided that subject like the plague once it turned out to be a farce.

Give it up Nonfactor. It was an opinion poll, a non-scientifically based "poll", internet based which had a link from Coulter's own website to O'Reilly's. Who the hell did you think was going to find it--the MoveOn.org and MediaMatters types? It means nothing at all. Nothing. But Ann has been right far more than Keithy boy has.

Krazy Keith is circling the drain
Desperate efforts to save are in vain
The numbers don't lie
Say "Meltdown, bye-bye"
And Keith's off to asylum insane

Non,
You do realize that O'Reilly also has a radio show, right? This was not a "study" of O'Reilly viewers, nor was it even limited to viewers. Anyone who went to the website could vote in it.

You had basically all the facts wrong on this, and still insist that it "says something." Now we find out it was linked from Coulter's site, which means it wasn't even limited to people who give a damn about O'Reilly.

Did you see the study that 52% of MSNBC viewers don't think that the gov't tracking bank transactions is a violation of privacy or has to great a risk of abuse?

Move on to something else.

My facts wrong? All I said was that there was a study that 73% of O'Reilly viewers agreed with Coulter. How did I get the facts wrong? O'Reilly even talked about it on his show.

And funny someone like Scott or johnny dollar should talk about facts.

BTW on that one, the actual figure is 71%, and there were only 67495 responses.

10K is actually a large enough sample. so from a statistical standpoint, 67K is more than sufficient for an accurate representative sample.

.

Anyone could vote in it and did, and many outfits (like Free Republic) worked up campaigns to get people to vote in it.

then it probably IS a fairly accurate representation of conservative voters/viewers/persons. (it`s doubtful many libs went there and clicked their hearts out to sabotage the sample, right?)

.

So how does it say something about `the kinds of people` who watch his show, when anyone with a modem could vote in it?

as the vast majority of the respondents are likely people who would call themselves conservative, there is a very high probability that the poll is an accurate representation of what the average conservative voter/Fox viewer/OR viewer would say. so again, there is a probability that the 71% figure is within 10 points either way of what most OR viewers would respond. does that make sense to you?

+ + +

Dave: Is it still within operational limits right now?
HAL: Yes, and it will stay that way until it fails.
Dave: Would you say we have a reliable 72 hours to failure?
HAL: Yes, that`s a completely reliable figure.

Apparently you have a problem actually grasping facts. The number was 71%, not 73%. See that's wrong. So is the idea that it was O'Reilly viewers, which it is not. Its 71% of visitors to BO.com who responded to the poll. Third, the 1.4 million number you came up with. Wrong based on the sample size and group.

Other than that, you were dead on, though.

so again, there is a high probability that the 71% figure is within 10 points either way of what most OR viewers would respond. does that make sense to you?

The number was 73% when O'Reilly talked about it. I don't regularly check up on the poll.

You're right, it wasn't all O'Reilly viewers, but chances are it represents the majority of them. Funny how you seem intent on exposing this poll as wrong when you give a pass to a questionable war. You sure have your priorities in line.

Whenever you get hellbent on trying to make someone online look stupid you really end up looking stupid yourself.

Ann Coulter didnt attack all the widows(fact) However she did attack the Jersey Girls whom aren't above critism. You think she went overboard? So what. I don't. Big deal. The facts remain the same they gained noteriety and financially from their husbands death(fact). Them being widows makes them no more qualified as National Security Advisor, as you or me(fact). They went into the kitchen and now it's hot. I am sure they will survive.

Was WWII a questionable war? Was it worth the toll on USA? Would nonfactor of had the courage to fight nazism? Or would Europe be different today with President Nonfactor instead of Roosevelt? Different by his comments.

Said nonfactor (aka "Mr Honesty"):

> My facts wrong? All I said was that there was a study that 73% of O'Reilly viewers agreed with Coulter.

Let's see:

"a study" - WRONG! It was an unscientific on line straw poll.
"73%" - WRONG! It was 71%
"O'Reilly viewers" - WRONG! It was anyone who clicked on the website.

So in case you want to know what "facts" you got wrong, there they are. We like a spirited discussion here, non, but we aren't very tolerant of people who ignorantly spout off in complete disregard of the truth. We have even less respect for someone who won't admit they were simply wrong, and start spinning ("it says something", "chances are", etc). Just because Keith doesn't have the stones to admit to his mistakes doesn't mean the Olbypologists have to follow suit on that too.

I have spoken.

WWE Entertainment demolishes Mythbusters in the ratings. Which is more believable?

what`s wrong with acknowledging that somewhere between 60-80% of OR viewers think that the Jersey Girls have been given too high of a soap box because they are 9/11 widows? (the Coulter line about `enjoying their husbands death` is more salesmanship than anything else, and probably not what most OR viewers think.) but the soap box resentment isn`t all that unreasonable, so i don`t see anything wrong with acknowledging that it exists among most OR viewers.

Is that some favorite tactich of conservatives? Say if ______ liberal were in charge instead of Roosevelt liberal Germany would've won WWII. To even see people compare WWII to this war in Iraq is laughable.

I got my info from the same column everyone else read. And it was 73% when O'Reilly talked about it (studies online change, OMG). The nytimes said it was of O'Reilly viewers, and I took them at their word, but chances are, the people who responded also watch O'Reilly (like chances are people who watch Olbermann post on this blog).

people who ignorantly spout off in complete disregard of the truth

Does anyone else besides me find this funny coming from johnny dollar?

even less respect for someone who won't admit they were simply wrong

Even funnier.

Do you think Nonfactor is blowing Olberman or is that not even a factor in his unrelenting defense of Kornholing Keith?

> The nytimes said it was of O'Reilly viewers, and I took them at their word

That says it all. The NY Times is gospel, even when proven wrong. The mindset of the Olbypologist.

Where did I say nytimes was gospel. I said I took them at their word. Is this the same thing as me glorifying the terrorists with no actual proof?

The NY Times is quite prone to errors, as they are quite distracted, since much of their time is spent printing retractions and corrections.

We don't have tactichs. What we do have are tactics. And common sense. You're, like your idol, "Please Blow Me" Keith Olbermann, you're twisting and distorting the "facts" to suit your purposes and you've been called upon it and can't admit you're wrong, as you usually are.

Nonfactor,
Are you a pacifist? The New York Times wanted us out of WWII and said as much many times. It's your bible not mine. If any modern liberal (there's a difference) had been at the helm of the USA they wouldn't have fought WWII. Pearl Harbor would have been a law enforcement matter, and Hitler would have been Europes problem not ours.
No comparison needed each war is different. The enemy is different and the USA is way to generous to it's enemies. We could have destroyed Iraq at any time and still can. But we haven't been painted into that corner yet. It was a war of choice, fight it now and later till we figure it out. We live great lives in this land of freedom and to me it is worth defending...even pre-emptively, against only a potential threat. You dems,libs,progressives
(whatever is polling well today) are clueless about the nature of war,except politically. Liberals may kill for their own freedom if forced to. The difference is a conservative will Kill and Die for his freedom.

I love it when liberals and conservatives try to define each other. It amuses me.

It was a war of choice, fight it now and later we figure it out ... this land of freedom ... is worth defending ... even pre-emptively, against only a potential threat. Liberals may kill for their own freedom if forced to. The difference is a conservative will Kill and Die for his freedom.

You bring up an interesting point, which pretty much boils down to PRE-EMPTION (Pre-Emption, Huh! Say it Again, What is it good for?) which most dems likely oppose and most reps favor. And that's where the "figure it out after" part you mention comes in. To be fair, it'll take a decade or two to determine, on balance, if the U.S. pre-emption in Iraq was a successful foreign policy decision or not, and whether pre-emption is a viable foreign policy option afterall.

Kind of reminds me of the time Kissinger asked Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai -- a student of French history -- what his assessment of the French revolution was, and Zhou said, "It's too soon to tell."

Does any of this change the fact that O'Reilly had more viewers in the middle of the night than Olbermann had in prime-time?

Of course, Nonfactor just has to say something, so he choses an unscientific straw poll to criticize O'Reilly. In polls like that, you can vote multiple times, and Coulter fans can show up to push the numbers. I find it funny that the leftists cry like babies when they lose legitimate elections, and scream "bias" and "election fraud" every chance they get. Then they see an unscientific straw poll that helps their absurd cause and the evidence is unimpeachable! Classic! I guess we should decide our elections via unscientific multi-vote online website polls -- seems the lefty loons will certify that data faster than Jimmy Carter certifies fixed elections.

Non,

You said that you took the New York Times at their word. Early on you linked to Liz Smith's column in The New York Post. Which is it? Was there a story in The Times or was that an error?

I don't have a problem with you getting the facts about this online poll wrong. If you knew more about how lazy reporters are you'd know it's dangerous to depend on them to tell you about any study or report. Always go back and READ THE ORIGINAL!!! More so when you are dealing with a gossip columnist.

What I do have a problem with is your constant efforts to hijack threads on this site to propound the same point over and over again. This post is about ratings and, in particular, the kinds of ratings data you won't see on TVN. Brian has done an effective job in making his site the first stop for folks looking for cable news ratings data. The probelm, IMHO, is that he is not even-handed in how he reports that data and he is constantly attempting to advance is anti-Fox agenda. How any of that has anything to do with an online poll about Ann Coulter is beyond me.

You are whistling in the dark here. You seem to want to flog a notion that liberals keep telling themselves to reassure each other - that Fox News watchers are all idiots who mindlessly parrot what Fox News tells them.In the olden days, when the idea of conservative talk radio was new, people flocked to Rush Limbaugh because he was articlating thoughts that many people shared but were not hearing expressed elsewhere. Rush was not TELLING THEM what to say or do; he was saying what they wanted to say but saying it better. If you were able to get off your liberal, intellectually superior, high horse for just a moment you might be able to see this. Quite frankly I am sick of this kind of liberal condescension.

Since you are apparently such a genius why don't you tell us how smart YOU are. Where did you go to school, what degrees to you have, what level of education do you have. I watch Fox News and I seriously doubt you are smarter than me.

Does it occur to you that Fox News viewers like readers of The New York Times or listeners to Air America Radio are ALL people who are very tuned into current events, politics, global policy issues. In other words, people who consume information from any of these sources are relatively intelligent and well-informed.

Someday you loony lefties will realize something that conservatives learned a long time ago. That you have to be able to make an argument FOR YOUR SIDE if you want to convince the great undecided middle. Vituperation is not a political philosophy.

It's to soon to tell with IRAQ but not Islam they will continue to try and destroy everything I love and hold sacred. The situation reminds me of the scene in Casino(movie)..people have been arrested and 5 boss's are discussing what to do about a union official...4 of them say he's a stand up guy and won't rat on them but the 5th boss shrugs and says why chance it...the union chief gets killed..thats where i'm at...why chance it...

No, I'm not a pacifist. I do support certain wars or military actions. Modern liberals aren't pacifists (I don't really know where you got that idea) and to claim that liberals (FDR) wouldn't fight WWII when conservatives (Lindberg) were protesting against the war shows you have a very narrow view of history. FDR was Americas most liberal President. This is kind of like the revisionist history you see on Fox news when the questions are asked: Would MLK be a Republican today?
Conservatives have historically been the isolationists, not the liberals (and it didn't change after Vietnam).

Can you prove to me that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States (note, you can't use the phrase "mushroom cloud" anymore). I'm for diplomacy, and if a nation attacks us (i.e. Pearl Harbor) we go after them with the full strength of the United States military. If we were to fight preemptively our military would be stretched to a breaking point with wars in North Korea, the entire Middle East, and parts of Miami. How are democrats clueless about war? Oh yeah, I forgot, we didn't have a Democratic Commander-in-Chief during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

Liberals may kill for their own freedom if forced to.

Does this sentence even make sense? I have a feeling you were trying to say Democrats don't want to fight for freedom unless forced, which is a completely unsubstantiated and ignorant claim.

Conservatives are really good at saying what they think Democrats do, the problem being they're wrong most of the time.

Yes, I meant NYPost.

What I do have a problem with is your constant efforts to hijack threads on this site

Constant efforts? I do realize the poll I cited was off-topic in this thread, so? Where exactly have you seen my constant efforts to hijack threads? And how do you not see this happening when conservatives (KfK, dollar, etc. do the same).

I could care less if Bill O'Reilly got 10 million viewers, I don't really care about ratings. My problem with FOX News is their claim of fairness and balance, and how a majority of their viewers believe them. Your claim that I need to discredit the viewers or listeners to these right-wing loudspeakers is fallacious.

What does the college I've gone to have anything to do with watching or not watching FOX News? The knowledge and accuracy of current political events might have an impact, but your statement 'I bet I'm smarter than you' is childish.

Believe it or not I have many conservative friends. I don't think they're stupid as you seem to imply whether or not they watch FOX News. I don't call them names because we have different views on taxation or social issues, and they don't call me names, but we still manage to civilly argue about the issues.

Scooter - this isn't the mob in Casino, this is the United States, and we aren't sitting in a room full of mob bosses, we're in a Democracy. What are you implying? That we should destroy the religion of Islam because you think it "trys to destroy everything you love or hold sacred"? Give me a break.

yes

"If we were to fight preemptively our military would be stretched to a breaking point with wars in North Korea, the entire Middle East, and parts of Miami."

Miami, I love it down here. I guess Miami bothers you because it's a town where Spanish people have money right Nonfactor?
We don't need your stinking racial quoatas and welfare you Leftwing Racist scumbag. I'll take 100 Million Mexicans over your Leftists Islamic supporting ass any day of the week. You Racist scum!

"If we were to fight preemptively our military would be stretched to a breaking point with wars in North Korea, the entire Middle East, and parts of Miami."

Miami, I love it down here. I guess Miami bothers you because it's a town where Spanish people have money right Nonfactor?
We don't need your stinking racial quoatas and welfare you Leftwing Racist scumbag. I'll take 100 Million Mexicans over your Leftists Islamic supporting ass any day of the week. You Racist scum!

Non which wars/ miltary action do/did you support and why?

The Miami part was a joke in light of recent events.

Scooter, I'm not going to list the wars throughout the history of the world and tell you my opinion on them, I just don't have enough time. If you want my opinion on a certain war name it and I'll tell you what I think about it.

And I do hope you were joking about destroying a religion because you don't agree with it.

You mis-understood i dont care about dstroying the religion......it's the practitioner's that I meant. Kosovo.

Not a big fan of Ali I presume.

I've had it. Every hot spot in the world has muslims in the mix. Think it's coincidence? Islam is a death cult. I just want them to have what they seem to be begging for. All of them. NO. But why chance it?

So we should get rid of Mohammed Ali, we know he hasn't done anything as the extremists in the religion have, but why chance it right? Give me a break. I don't even think you believe that.

Some Christians blow up abortion clinics and kill fay people, so we should just get rid of all Christians--why chance it, right?

Indonesia, Phillipine's, Bali, Spain, England, France,NY-USA,Kashmir, Somalia,Chechnya, Kosovo, Rwanda, India, Iraq, Iran...others?

gay*

Hey Nonfactor what do you have to say about this!

http://www.pmw.org.il/LatestBulletins.htm#b220606

Here's the quote from the video

"We will rule the nations, by Allah’s will, the USA will be conquered, Israel will be conquered, Rome and Britain will be conquered...

The Jihad for Allah... is the way of Truth and the way for Salvation and the way which will lead us to crush the Jews and expel them from our country Palestine.

Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo.

The prisoners will be released by Allah’s will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun."

Watch the video.
The Religion of peace right!

Invade their countries,Kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. A. Coulter.
No not Christian's. And they are insurgents in the war on fetus's. Ok not the ones who are crippled up(Ali) i have some compassion. More than the fundamentalist muslims who have none.

gay? is that a reflexion or what are you saying?
Those aren't legitimate problem spots? Don't be naive.

Hey Nonfactor, what about the Jihad of the 7th Century that Killed 30 Million Christian?

Care to comment?

The most intolerant religion(Islam) and you attack christians to defend them.Are you intolerant? A couple bombs and an assasination...yes thats similar to 9/11..Bali, Beslan, London subway, Madrid train bombs. Go on your on a roll.

The report, "Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan," accused Khartoum of recruiting and arming over 20,000 Muslim militiamen, called Janjaweed, or "men on horseback," to carry out attacks on civilians from the Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups who, while also Islamic, are of African origin and make up the majority of the region's settled population.

oops i forgot darfur. go on defend the muslims

You Who? Nonfactor where are you?

Scooter, you got me!
I hate Chritians and love Muslims! I am Islamic! priase be to Allah!

Or a Democrat.........

Scooter, you got me!
I hate Chritians and love Muslims! I am Islamic! priase be to Allah!

WTG Non,

You posted a 3 line (actually 2 and a little bit) post that had 3 errors in it. You proceeded to turn that into, I think, 5.

Recap:
Not a study, a poll.(1)
Not 73%,(2) as the gossip columnist wrote, in the Post, not the Times (3)(your link, not mine, I went directly to BO. com for the facts)
Not viewers, but those clicking a choice online(4)
Not 1.4 million, but 47921.45(5)

Damn, dude, admit you screwed up and let it go. I'll be the first to admit you've made some valid posts before, but this attempt to justify your error by using an erroneous article hurts your credibility. As does your ad hominem (using one of your favorite terms there) claim that I don't post facts.

Just in case you have to keep this going, tell me where I'm wrong here.

I adressed what you brought up earlier in this thread.

P.S. That's not an ad hominem by the way.

I know. You claim that's what it was when you saw it. In the Times. Er, Post. Nice research.

Right. Not an ad hominem. Attack the messenger, claiming I don't post facts. Not the message with all the facts that you were wrong about.

"All I said was that there was a study that 73% of O'Reilly viewers agreed with Coulter."
WRONG.

"Funny how you seem intent on exposing this poll as wrong when you give a pass to a questionable war. You sure have your priorities in line."
I've never done the second, and I haven't done the first either. What I have done is show in how many ways your take on the poll/"study" is wrong.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."-Beatrice Hall in summing up Voltaire's writings. And
the reason I am part of that 71% not of O'Reilly's viewers, of which I am very rarely one, but of the RESPONDENTS.

With such low ratings for Olbermann, it's a wonder the show remains on cable. I also wonder if there are talks behind the scenes by the brass there about dropping the show before the fall sweeps in November.

With such low ratings for Olbermann, it's a wonder the show remains on cable. I also wonder if there are talks behind the scenes by the brass there about dropping the show before the fall sweeps in November.

Why would MSNBC drop it's highest rated show?

That may flies can't be worng...er, wrong.

Er, many. Damn Oblerman anyway.

That saying doesn't apply to my question.

15 million people voted for ________ on American Idol.

That many flies can't be wrong. (It's sarcasm)

Why would FOX drop a show that gets 15 million votes a night?

That many flies can't be wrong. (Not only is it not sarcastic, but it doesn't make sense)

I was merely repeating your BS from earlier. The brass at MSNBC could very easily drop his show, in spite of "stellar" ratings.

So you were repeating my "BS" even though it made no sense? Not witty at all.

And yes, the brass could easily drop his show, but they won't.

No, not witty at all, just a non sequitur that made as much sense as saying they won't drop their highest rated show.

It has happened before in much bigger venues than a last place cable news operation.

No, not witty, just a non sequitur that made as much sense as stating that they won't cancel their "highest rated" show. Are you there? An insider at MSNBC perhaps? Just how do you know they won't?

It has happened before at much bigger operations than a foundering cable news outlet.

I didn't say they wouldn't cancel the show, I asked why they would cancel the show.

Anyway the term "that many flies can't be wrong," doesn't apply.

Just over 2 Million viewers watch Bill. I am impressed. In a nation of nearly 300 million, it is heartening that Bills nonsense appeals to so few.

That O'Reilly has more viewers than Olbermann means little. About 2 million people watch O'Reilly, though the number is shrinking fast, in a country of about 290 million people. This arguement is more about who is less unpopular than anything.

Well, if you want to be accurate, O'Reilly's viewership on any given day is usually around the 4 million mark (adding in the 11 pm West Coast repeat etc).

Also, don't spew misinformation here, like his numbers are "shrinking fast". The last set of monthly ratings (May 2006) shows that he has MORE viewers than he had in May 2005. That is what you call "shrinking fast"?

Roni wrote:

>That O'Reilly has more viewers than Olbermann means little.

OK! If that is true, then ratings mean nothing. American Idol and Countdown are equivalent if you ignore the 50 million extra viewers for Idol. Please, Roni, turn off Air America and Olbermann. These shows are rotting what little gray matter you have.

************DEVELOPING ON DRUDGE***********

MSNBC will be dropping some of its talk-show lineup in favor of more taped reports.. Developing...

KEITH IS GONE! WATCH!!!!

************DEVELOPING ON DRUDGE***********

I am convinced that Nonfactor is either Keith or somebody on Keith's staff.

Could Keith be finished? I just saw the Drudge alert too!!!

Stories:

How fast can you say 'Justice' Bill O'Reilly did it again! at http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/2006/05/13/how-fast-can-you-say-justice--bill-oreilly-did-it-again.aspx

Keith Olbermann smears and attacks Pat Robertson at
http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/2006/05/23/keith-olbermann-smears-and-attacks-pat-robertson-for-selling-milkshakes-and-energy-drinks-on-his-website-.aspx

The Man Who Lives In A Bubble, MSNBC Keith Olbermann lies again about his ratings then smears Bill O'Reilly at
http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/search.aspx?q=olbermann

Stories:

How fast can you say 'Justice' Bill O'Reilly did it again! at http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/2006/05/13/how-fast-can-you-say-justice--bill-oreilly-did-it-again.aspx

Keith Olbermann smears and attacks Pat Robertson at
http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/2006/05/23/keith-olbermann-smears-and-attacks-pat-robertson-for-selling-milkshakes-and-energy-drinks-on-his-website-.aspx

The Man Who Lives In A Bubble, MSNBC Keith Olbermann lies again about his ratings then smears Bill O'Reilly at
http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/search.aspx?q=olbermann

Sorry for the double post, I received an error message after the first one and and thought I should try it again.

"MSNBC will be dropping some of its talk-show lineup in favor of more taped reports.. Developing...

KEITH IS GONE! WATCH!!!!"
----------------------------
Oh, Heavens no. If Countdown is cancelled then... then... then... well the Iraq will STILL be a mess, Republicans will STILL be voted out in droves in November and Bush will STILL go down as the worst president in history.

But, by all means... this possible television show cancellation is a very important development to our society. Enjoy it. There's certainly nothing else vital going on in our world you should be focusing on.

No James:

If Countdown is cancelled the Iraq war will STILL be faught, Republicans will STILL be the majority and Bush will still be the Prez and will go down as one of the best presidents in history.

The only thing that will change is there will be one less psychotic ranting leftist spewing propaganda on cable TV.

BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING
*****************************************************
MSNBC will replace "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" with an old-style RCA black & white test pattern.

Despite its potentially controversial content, the test pattern, which features a politically incorrect depiction of a Native American in full eagle feather headdress, it is expected to far surpass any ratings that "Countdown" has been able to attain. "Big Chief's Big Circles" will begin airing Monday, June 26 at 8PM Eastern with possible reruns during other dayparts yet to be determined.
*****************************************************

From the article:

Two of the channel's hosts, Chris Matthews of "Hardball" and Keith Olbermann of "Countdown," clearly will not be affected, because MSNBC's managers consistently cite those programs as long-sought breakthroughs.

"We've just got to build on those two shows," Mr. Griffin said, sitting beside Mr. Abrams in the conference room at MSNBC. "It's critical. We have to capitalize on their success."

Keith and Chris will be around for a while longer I'm afraid.

"If Countdown is cancelled the Iraq war will STILL be faught, Republicans will STILL be the majority and Bush will still be the Prez and will go down as one of the best presidents in history."

HAHAHHA. I'm sorry but the idea of president McDumbasss as one of the greatest in history is
really really funny. HAHA, sorry can't stop laughing. So far he is doing a fine job running the country, much like the two companies he used to run.

Can nations file for bankruptcy protection? Oh well, since Iraqi oil money is going to fund this war it shouldn't cost more than a few billion.

"If Countdown is cancelled the Iraq war will STILL be faught, Republicans will STILL be the majority and Bush will still be the Prez and will go down as one of the best presidents in history."

HAHAHHA. I'm sorry but the idea of president McDumbasss as one of the greatest in history is
really really funny. HAHA, sorry can't stop laughing. So far he is doing a fine job running the country, much like the two companies he used to run.

Can nations file for bankruptcy protection? Oh well, since Iraqi oil money is going to fund this war it shouldn't cost more than a few billion.

"OK! If that is true, then ratings mean nothing. American Idol and Countdown are equivalent if you ignore the 50 million extra viewers for Idol. "

This has always been the most moronic line of reasoning on this blog. I feel like some 12 year is trying to convince me that Armageddon is a great flick because it was the highest grossing film of its year. Look I don't care if you guys hate keith, but throw out reasons related to own your own thinking, based on the content of the show and stop using some herd mentality. So fucking what if a lot of people watch American Idol that just says something about the collective IQ of america and not the value of the show.

Agreed, JT. Idol says it on it's own program. More people voted for the Idol winner than has ever voted for a US President. Same for viewers on Suvivor in it's day. Sometimes, viewership is more an indictment of society than the program.

I do have make one point, however... viewership drives ratings.... ratings driver advertising... advertising drives money for the ownership. I believe Countdown is doing better. But, as much as I like the show, it has a long way to go.

To me, the ratings are revelevent in only 2 cases. One is that, based on the fact they are keeping Matthews and Olbermann around because of the strengths of their shows, MSNBC obviously has no interest in trying to be anymore than a third place network. And they no longer have even that wrapped up. While KO has passed the unwatchable Paula Zahn (in the demo), Nancy Grace is consistently out performing KO in both demo and total viewers. Glen Beck beats Hardball regularly. It would seem to me they should be looking for better talent and/or ideas to improve their position across the board. But they aren't, for who knows what reason.

Matthews just "celebrated" either his 7th or 9th anniversary. KO his third. After this much time, you would think they'd quit talking about the "promise" of these shows and realize they are what they are.

The second reason is that KO makes such an issue on air about his ratings "sucess," the falling ratings of FNC, and how old BO's audience is. So the argument that "ratings don't matter, its a good show" flass short. KO himself talks about his ratings, not how good his show is.

Interesting that Idol keeps getting brought up. Does MSNBC realize that American Idol is on FOX? They did a whole hour on it the other day. Fox can't buy advertising like that.

jt wrote:
"This has always been the most moronic line of reasoning on this blog. I feel like some 12 year is trying to convince me that Armageddon is a great flick because it was the highest grossing film of its year. Look I don't care if you guys hate keith, but throw out reasons related to own your own thinking, based on the content of the show and stop using some herd mentality"

Oafermann himself made the ratings issue fair game by lying to viewers about his ratings being 75% of O'Reilly's. This "moronic line of reasoning" is based on Kowardly Keith's own words and his feeble attempt to manipulate the ratings to his advantage.

"Oafermann himself made the ratings issue fair game by lying to viewers about his ratings being 75% of O'Reilly's. This "moronic line of reasoning" is based on Kowardly Keith's own words and his feeble attempt to manipulate the ratings to his advantage."

Well, assuming that is true, (and a lie not an error) then you proved keith is wrong about his ratings and they are less then he stated. I never disputed this simply because I have no idea what his ratings are, or what the ratings of the factor are, or what the ratings of Oprah are, and I don't care. The fact that a large majority of Americans like or dislike a show demonstrates nothing about its worth. More people have seen Top Gun than schindler's list. it dosen't make it a better movie. and I'm not defending Keith with this, or Billy O when he touts his ratings, it's a moronic argument whenever it is used.

JT wrote:
"The fact that a large majority of Americans like or dislike a show demonstrates nothing about its worth."

You couldn't be more wrong. The value (worth) of any show is directly proportional to it's number of viewers. Advertising rates are established by ratings. That's why The O'Reilly Factor is worth more and can charge advertisers 3x as much as Meltdown. That's why GE shareholders should be fuming at MSNBC's super-low primetime cable tv ratings.

Comparing the ratings of a nightly news show to the box office receipts of a Hollywood movie is ludicrous. It's news, not fiction. Meltdown has been on primetime tv for over 3 years and it's ratings (as well as its competitors) are well-established. The fact that viewers prefer The Factor to Meltdown at a 4 to 1 clip is no accident. The Factor is not necessarily better, but it's definitely "worth" more than Meltdown.

The fact that Oafie tried to unfairly manipulate the ratings to his advantage makes him fair game for close scrutiny and retort.

Playing the "what if game" for a minute.

If CD is really the "best show on TV"...
and the ratings are so low...
does that say anything about the Dems chances to regain either House this year?

I mean, it seems that if CD is really a stellar program, and so many people really hate Bush and Republicans and Iraq, that more people would be watching.

Just a thought.

"I mean, it seems that if CD is really a stellar program, and so many people really hate Bush and Republicans and Iraq, that more people would be watching."

No. I just think it means republicans and conservatives like to thump their chests, say 'aren't we great,' trash liberals... and they like to hear others (FOX, O'Reilly) say the same.

Liberals (and moderates for that matter) are busy doing better things than watching TV.

James,

Only an OlbyLoon would use a line like this:

"Liberals (and moderates for that matter) are busy doing better things than watching TV."

Who are these liberals you are talking about and what is it that you think these libreals are busy doing? Driving teenages to abortion clinics, purchasing lighter fluid to set American flag on fire, drawing Hitler mustaches on photos of the President of the United States?

Robert,

Don't you know -- conservatives control Hollywood! Liberals are busy defending the country in Iraq while conservatives write scripts for "The West Wing" and "Will and Grace." Only conservatives watch these shows! And the Academy Awards are a flag-waiving fiasco bound to turn any patriotic liberal off of TV forever! Liberals never watch TV.

"Who are these liberals you are talking about and what is it that you think these libreals are busy doing? Driving teenages to abortion clinics, purchasing lighter fluid to set American flag on fire, drawing Hitler mustaches on photos of the President of the United States?"

I spend my time reading Robert. Maybe you should try it.

"Who are these liberals you are talking about and what is it that you think these libreals are busy doing? Driving teenages to abortion clinics, purchasing lighter fluid to set American flag on fire, drawing Hitler mustaches on photos of the President of the United States?"

I spend my time reading Robert. Maybe you should try it.

"Who are these liberals you are talking about and what is it that you think these libreals are busy doing? Driving teenages to abortion clinics, purchasing lighter fluid to set American flag on fire, drawing Hitler mustaches on photos of the President of the United States?"

I spend my time reading Robert. Maybe you should try it.

JT the Uberlib spends all his time reading, EXCEPT when he is watching the most vapid hour of inane spin and lies on television? I doubt it!

I've figured it out. Keith Olbermann must've kicked KfK's cat or something.

And that has to do with the discussion how?

I don't like cats.

"JT the Uberlib spends all his time reading, EXCEPT when he is watching the most vapid hour of inane spin and lies on television? I doubt it!"

I have watched olbermann about 5 or 6 times in my life. and yes, I spend most of my free time reading would you like a booklist? God knows you need it.

"JT the Uberlib spends all his time reading, EXCEPT when he is watching the most vapid hour of inane spin and lies on television? I doubt it!"

I have watched olbermann about 5 or 6 times in my life. and yes, I spend most of my free time reading would you like a booklist? God knows you need it.

So you have watched Olby almost not at all yet you feel you must defend him here. Five or six shows and you are a rabid fan. Hmmmmm. . . am I the only one who finds this a rather unlikely scenario?

As for your "reading list," I think I'll pass. You see, someone who writes like this --

>HAHAHHA. I'm sorry but the idea of president McDumbasss as one of the greatest in history is
really really funny.

-- is not someone who reads. Sorry my friend, but you are either a liar, or a fan of dime store novels and pamphlets, or a moron who reads but does not absorb. Really really. No, I really really really mean it! You are McDummy! really!

As for the O'Reilly poll, O'reilly himself put down Coulter for the personal attacks on the 4 (Not ALL) 9/11 widows.

NonFactor wrote:

"My problem with FOX News is their claim of fairness and balance, and how a majority of their viewers believe them."

This brings up a question that I've had for some time now: Do those who question whether FNC is "Fair and Balanced" do so based on the newscasts, the opinion commentators, or both?

Have you watched Shepard Smith's nightly newscasts? He specifically presents the news without analysis and rarely if ever pre-characterizes the political significance of a story that he reports, certainly not in a way that attempts to sway opinion. I also don't recall that he ever brings on commentators for statements of opinion. I watch plenty of competing news broadcasts so I think I am correct in stating that he covers essentially all of the news stories that the other national broadcasts do and with little if any hint of political bias. Further, I don't recall that he ever appeared to artificially extend the 'newsworthiness' of a particular story in successive newscasts for the purpose of promoting some political agenda or for any other reason.

In short, I do believe that FOX news *reporting* is reasonably fair and balanced. That's what I observe - "what say you"?

thanks,

-OM

I don't know how anyone who truly cares about "fair and balanced" news show, can also be a fan of Keith Olbermann's.

Olbermann doesn't hate FOX because FOX tilts. He hates FOX because it doesn't tilt left, as his show does.

Olbermann couldn't care less about being "balanced"-- in the sense of airing right and left opinion. He cares about putting out what he views to be truth, justice, and the American way-- politics that are liberal and certainly anti-Bush and anti-Republican.

There was some interview that Olbermann did-- I think it was the one with Brian Lamb--- where Olbermann stated that MSNBC bigwigs were not thrilled with any criticism of the White House, but would overlook their natural (as he would see it) reluctance to criticise if the ratings were good enough:

"There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all. ... There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened. On the other hand, if they look at my ratings and my ratings are improved and there is criticism of the president of the United States, they're happy."

Olbermann seems to be hoping he can attain the latter situation... (And I'm not even going to touch on the irony of Olbermann also using a his "news" show to attack people he dislikes-- both professionally, personally, and politically...)

Well, then Mr. Keith "Bonehead" Olbermann... YOUR dream situation is exactly the one you must conclude is what stands at FOX.

If FOX tilts right AND has GREAT ratings...THEY have the dream situation.

It's just one more of the ironies of Keith Olbermann that a guy-- who has been such a fan of sports all his life is one of the worst sports of all time.

I don't know how anyone who truly cares about "fair and balanced" news show, can also be a fan of Keith Olbermann's.

Olbermann doesn't hate FOX because FOX tilts. He hates FOX because it doesn't tilt left, as his show does.

Olbermann couldn't care less about being "balanced"-- in the sense of airing right and left opinion. He cares about putting out what he views to be truth, justice, and the American way-- politics that are liberal and certainly anti-Bush and anti-Republican.

There was some interview that Olbermann did-- I think it was the one with Brian Lamb--- where Olbermann stated that MSNBC bigwigs were not thrilled with any criticism of the White House, but would overlook their natural (as he would see it) reluctance to criticise if the ratings were good enough:

"There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all. ... There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened. On the other hand, if they look at my ratings and my ratings are improved and there is criticism of the president of the United States, they're happy."

Olbermann seems to be hoping he can attain the latter situation... (And I'm not even going to touch on the irony of Olbermann also using a his "news" show to attack people he dislikes-- both professionally, personally, and politically...)

Well, then Mr. Keith "Bonehead" Olbermann... YOUR dream situation is exactly the one you must conclude is what stands at FOX.

If FOX tilts right AND has GREAT ratings...THEY have the dream situation.

It's just one more of the ironies of Keith Olbermann that a guy-- who has been such a fan of sports all his life is one of the worst sports of all time.

Eauman - FOX News is simply opinion, sure there are some segments without it, but the majority of the programs are appealing because they offer an opinion the majority of it's viewers agree with. That's not why I dislike the network. Shepard Smith is the one person on FOX News I can stand. Sometimes, like everyone else, he gets annoying, but usually he's okay to watch.

I think this debate on the "fairness and balance" of FOX News stems from how we each define "fair" and "balanced." I don't think you have a balanced view of an issue if you get two people with a differing opinion and put them on T.V. I think you have balance if you present both sides of an issue without and spin--but that isn't entertaining.

Olbermann doesn't hate FOX because FOX tilts. He hates FOX because it doesn't tilt left, as his show does.

If you can prove that to me, Cecilia, I'd gladly believe you.

Olbermann couldn't care less about being "balanced"

If you can prove that to me, Cecilia, I'd gladly believe you.

It seems, Cecilia, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you just don't like seeing anybody on T.V. who criticizes a Republican. Because I certainly hope that you don't want anyone to criticize the President or a certain political party. And judging by what you're saying it seems that you don't have a problem because you think Olbermann is biased, you don't like him because you feel he's biased to the left.

I think this debate on the "fairness and balance" of FOX News stems from how we each define "fair" and "balanced." I don't think you have a balanced view of an issue if you get two people with a differing opinion and put them on T.V. I think you have balance if you present both sides of an issue without and spin--but that isn't entertaining.

You mean like the MSM did while blaming Bush for Katrina?

Or basically saying that nobody before Bush thought Saddam had WMD?

God knows the MSM's coverage of global warming has been "fair" and "balanced", right?

Guess what? It is impossible to show both sides without spin. Fox News' NEWS SHOWS are more balanced than anybody else's on any other network.

Olbermann couldn't care less about being "balanced"

If you can prove that to me, Cecilia, I'd gladly believe you.

You're...kidding, right?

You think Olbermann cares, at all, about being
"balanced"? Heck, the list of his "worst people of the world" shows how much of a joke that is.

It seems, Cecilia, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you just don't like seeing anybody on T.V. who criticizes a Republican.

Yes, because conservatives have not seen plenty of it for his entire Presidency.

Shall we go back to the studies of the coverage of Bush v coverage of Kerry in the 2004 election?

It seems to ME that you think anybody who thinks Bush MIGHT have a legitimate reason for what he does is just a right-wing automaton.

And judging by what you're saying it seems that you don't have a problem because you think Olbermann is biased, you don't like him because you feel he's biased to the left.

No, the annoyance is that he won't ADMIT he's biased.

Hannity freely admits he's a conservative. O'Reilly is markedly less biased than Olbermann has ever hoped to be.
-=Mike

JT,

The best part about your comments is how you exemplify this notion that liberals like you are smart, well-informed worldly people who read important books and think deep thoughts. And, by contrast that those who don't share your worldview are unintelligent, uninformed, myopic, fools who must be programmed by an evil genius (Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).

Maybe it would make your head explode to realize that I am smarter, better educated, and more informed about the world than you could ever hope to be. I also happen to be an avid reader and am able to articulate my toughts without resorting to pasting a cartoon into a comment thread.

What exactly is that frightens you about the idea that those who don't share your opinions are smarter than you? It seems like a form of whistling in the dark.

Maybe someday you and your Loony Left pals will realize that Fox News doesn't tell people what to think or air news designed to manipulat their prefrontal cortex. Even if they did, their top-rated show has just 2 million viewers in a country of 300,000,000 people. How exactly is that Fox News is such a corrupting influence when it reaches such a tiny perctange of the American public?

Mike - aside from your rant in the beginning about the "MSM" I think I can address your other grievances.

If your basis for labeling Olbermann biased because he points out the stupid things conservatives do more than liberals nice try. If you have any other complains feel free to list them.

Your attempt to cite examples doesn't even work. What does your impression of the media's coverage of Bush v. Kerry have anything to do with what I said? What does the press holding the Bush administration accountable have anything to do with what I stated in my post--or do you think that asking questions of government officials is another ploy by the "MSM" to undermine Republicans?

It seems to ME that you think anybody who thinks Bush MIGHT have a legitimate reason for what he does is just a right-wing automaton.

Please tell me where you got that impression, or did you just want to come up with a reply you thought was witty?

O'Reilly is markedly less biased than Olbermann has ever hoped to be.

I leave you with this.

Nonfactor,

If Olbermann cared about balance, he'd offer some.

Now the concept of letting a Republican or a WH official on the air to answer charges that are anti-Republican or anti-Bush may be foreign to you....but to suggest equal time denotes a squelching of people who "criticise Republicans" reveals far more about your and Olbermann's thinking that your opponents need suggest...