Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: ICN Gets Religion

By I bleed for Olbermann on July 12, 2006 1:09 PM

Boo hoo hoo -- people are being mean to poor defenseless Olbermann. What did he ever do to anybody except provide objective news to the public. What would Ed Murrow say?

I agree with ICN. All posts should be fed through a "need to know" filter. For specifics, consult your Ouija boards.

By Brandon on July 12, 2006 1:12 PM

This is a nice new development now isn't it? Spud has openly declared his intention to avoid any news that would be of a personal nature and might insult the sensibilites of his hero, Keith Olbermann. Does he know another scandal could be in the making possibly and wants to "lay down the law" before it happens so he won't have to sully his hands in delivering the bad news about a fav of his? Those damned liberals, can't trust 'em, always editing and lying and flat-out ommiting to spin the news in their favor.

By Joe on July 12, 2006 1:17 PM

Olbermann suggested I fornicate with my mother before I kill myself, and that was printed, so we're free to discuss that by these lofty standards, correct?

Whatever. Up and until Olberdunce's putrid ratings are private, and considering the size of his audience one might argue they are, we can still note that he's dead last in these numbers:

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., JULY 10, 2006
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,264,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,382,000
FNC GRETA 1,340,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,252,000
FNC HUME 1,197,000
CNN COOPER 1,132,000
CNN DOBBS 823,000
CNN PAULA ZAHN 679,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 360,000
CNNHN GRACE 354,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 349,000

So O'Reilly had 6.4 times the audience of the Olberfraud. Spin that, baby.

Anyone have the 4 am numbers?

By johnny dollar on July 12, 2006 1:28 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree somewhat with Mr Cox. If you don't see a Countdown synopsis from me tonight you'll know why! ;)

There's a case that can be made for TVNewser as an Olbypologist. The case against Spud is weaker and a lot more circumstantial. Yes he was an MSNBC fan (and participant in the fan forum). But there's a reason why FNC won't talk to TVN and they will talk to ICN.

Remember the Mackris business made news because a lawsuit was filed and settled. That takes it to another level, publicity wise. I can see the point that it is inconsistent for him to allow the Mackris business to be cited in comments but deletes references to karmabites and her adventures in Olbyland. It could be because a settled court case suggests a higher level of evidence than allegations that have not been admitted to or even addressed.

I disagree with his decision not to cover The Olbermann Letters and have told him so. But I am not convinced that he is a shill for liberalism, Olby, or A-Mess-NBC. He has been for the most part fair, despite what is in my opinion a blind spot on this issue.

By . Count the Beans, Joe ... Count the Beans . on July 12, 2006 1:28 PM

So O'Reilly had 6.4 times the audience of the Olberfraud. Spin that, baby.

it's more about the ad revenues ... which are up at MSNBC, especially for Olbermann. congrats on OR crushing KO in the ratings, but that's been going on for a while now. and as KO's ad revenues are increasing, that'll count for more than coming in last. that's why he's got a new multi-year, multi-million-dollar contract.

By paul on July 12, 2006 1:31 PM

Nancy Grace... on headline news... gets better ratings.

Olberman sucks. (Saying he sucks-is it over the top? Probably not, because Kieth would have no problem saying Nancy Grace sucks...she probably does-

but Kieth sucks more...

By Joe on July 12, 2006 1:50 PM

"it's more about the ad revenues ... which are up at MSNBC, especially for Olbermann. congrats on OR crushing KO in the ratings, but that's been going on for a while now. and as KO's ad revenues are increasing, that'll count for more than coming in last. that's why he's got a new multi-year, multi-million-dollar contract"

Hi Keith. Long time, no see--ever since that weakass nonapology of yours.

You know it's Olberfraud himself when he mentions new contracts.

I guess he can buy and sell me twice now.

By Chief Clancy Wiggum on July 12, 2006 2:10 PM

Atleast Olbermann doesn't stand on a soapbox preaching morals and than behind the scenes try to have phone/real sex with his co-workers. Do the words 'loofah' and 'falafel' ring a bell ladies and gentlemen?

Also whats funny is that O'Reilly doesn't mind that his parent company (again while O'Reilly stands on a soapbox preaching morals) shows tv shows like "Family Guy," "Temptation Island," "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire," etc. If Bill actually did care than he would quit his job in protest over his parent company, the company that gives him a job and paycheck, showing such immoral shows like the ones previously mentioned. But he doesn't mind. Hypocritical?

By Joe on July 12, 2006 2:13 PM

"Do the words 'loofah' and 'falafel' ring a bell ladies and gentlemen?"

Yawn.

Freshen up your material already.

By Chief Clancy Wiggum on July 12, 2006 2:18 PM

Well I don't see you refuting any of my comments.

By Robert Cox on July 12, 2006 2:20 PM

J$,

Spud deleted some comment(s) from his site and then offered up a sermon about how he will only allow his site to cover news directly related to cable news broadcasts even if some private matter makes it into print which seemed a thinly veiled comment about Olbermann and the "For The Relief" blog. Some commenter then apologized for some offending comment(s) and specifically references Olbermann Watch. It is hardly a big leap to conclude that the comment Spud deleted was somehow related to Olbermann Watch and the "For The Relief" blog. Since Spud deleted the "offensive" comment but left the Olbermann Watch comment he leaves it to readers to infer some nefarious connection. I am not sure how someone can be generally fair except in some cases. Isn't that a definition of unfair? In this case I did not consider it fair to leave the implication out there that his new policy is somehow related to Olbermann Watch.

If this is not the case then, instead of attacking me, he ought to take some time to clarify his original post and specify precisely who and what he is talking about in his sermon. Since he took down the comments he is now referencing, I have no way of knowing what he chose to edit and so am left only with his characterization after the fact. Given his stated "low regard" for Olbermann Watch (and apparently me) I am not sure what reason I would have for taking his claims at face value.

He then issues a totally absurd challenge:

"I can’t recall ever making numerous posts about Mackris with regards to Bill O’Reilly. I can’t recall talking about the lawsuit at all actually. But I’ve written a lot of entries in the last year and a half so maybe I did. But the burden of proof falls on you Cox since you made the charge. I expect you to produce “numerous posts” forthwith. Not one. Not two. Not even three. Numerous. If you’re right and I’m wrong I’ll happily fall on my sword. But I don’t believe I am…"

Of course, if he had bothered to READ the post I wrote (referenced in my comment on his site) he would have seen that I provided more than a half-dozen links just related to Andrea Mackris alone - not to mention the many other "personal/gossip" items he has either mentioned in his posts, linked to in other posts or articles or that have turned up in his comments section.

I wonder if he would like it if applied his policy to his site in detail and gave him a good old-fashioned fisking. He can ask TVNewser how much he enjoyed getting a similar fisking from me over his rather obvious anti-Fox bias a few weeks ago.

But HE holds Olbermann Watch in low regard because WE shoot first and ask questions later? Yeah, right.

By Chief Clancy Wiggum on July 12, 2006 2:23 PM

Oh yeah:

Where were those WMD's again?

How many days since "mission accomplished"?

How come it's treasonous for the NY Times to report about the gov. monitoring international banks or the Wash. Post to report of secret prisions BUT it isn't treasonous for every media outlet to report that only 2% of containers coming into U.S. ports are actually searched? It seems like that is just as big of a "revelation," does it not? It seems like it would be treasonous to report to the enemy that they have a 98% chance of getting whatever they want into this country through U.S. ports? It would seem that it would be better to keep that number under wraps and keep the enemy guessing exactly how much of a chance they have to sneak something, anything, into the U.S. through the ports. How come those who are calling for the NY Times or Wash Post to be tried for treason for their banking and prison story haven't come out and done the same for the multiple instances where the percentage of checked containers in U.S. ports are discussed?

By KfK on July 12, 2006 2:27 PM

>"But HE holds Olbermann Watch in low regard because WE shoot first and ask questions later? Yeah, right."

Olbermannwatch is a free for all. What's not to like? There are few sites that work as well as this one. It is actually one of the only sites where the Kos crowd will come to debate normal people, albeit in a very bizarre way. I don't think I like this "Spud" all that much.

By Chief Clancy Wiggum on July 12, 2006 2:47 PM

In relation to the flag burning issue how come it isn't bad when the U.S. President autographs mini-U.S. flags?

U.S. Code TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 says in relation to respecting the flag says:
"8. Respect for flag
(g) The flag should never have placed
upon it, nor on any part of it, nor
attached to it any mark, insignia,
letter, word, figure, design, picture, or
drawing of any nature."

So it is bad to burn the U.S. flag but isn't bad when George W. Bush autographs it? Or is it a violation and no one wants to call him out on it? Is this, again, a double standard? Or has Bush issued a signing statement for U.S. Codes too?

BTW, the link showing Bush autographing U.S. flags is http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/did-george-bush-deface-american-flags.html

By Brandon on July 12, 2006 2:59 PM

No, Olbermann is openly soliciting his fans for sex via his company email and meeting them in tawdry hotel rooms for kinky sex. Yeah, you're right, he's no Bill O'Reilly.

By pete on July 12, 2006 3:13 PM

Nice original work on the flag burning post Chief. Do you get all your ideas from Air America?

By scooter on July 12, 2006 3:17 PM

Your examples are proof that ICN has no standard's and is simply running interference for KO.

By Brandon on July 12, 2006 3:19 PM

Don't bother with ICN. He doesn't have a readership and is a has-run at best when compared to TVNewser and FTVLive, Medialine, and a few of the other media websites. He's a nothing, a nobody, and his selective editing will insure he stays that way. He should just change the name of his site to: I love libreal media and be done with it.

By Deputy Barney Fife on July 12, 2006 3:28 PM

So it is bad to burn the U.S. flag but isn't bad when George W. Bush autographs it?

more or less. come on, be fair. when a president signs a flag it is not at all comparable to burning one. even to call a signature defacing would be a stretch.

Or is it a violation and no one wants to call him out on it? Is this, again, a double standard?

perhaps, but a very slight one. pick your battles, this is a tiny distinction unworthy of nitpicking.

Or has Bush issued a signing statement for U.S. Codes too?

nice crack, but not really relevant.

look, it's about this: should a free people be free to desecrate the most sacred symbol of their freedom? right says no, left says yes -- partly because the left is fond of the rich irony in the burning of one's symbol of freedom as a demonstration of freedom. folks who dig on tradition more than symbolic irony think that is ludicrous. and that will go back and forth, forever. (which is why prohibition called for one amendment, and its rescinding another).

By Anonymous on July 12, 2006 3:42 PM

should a free people be free to desecrate the most sacred symbol of their freedom?

And the slanted way you pose the question shows your inherent bias on the subject.

I go with this, but that's just me:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." - From the movie "The American President" (1995).

By Moral Force on July 12, 2006 3:50 PM

"For this relief..." spewed the orange-tinted man
"...Much thanks" he drooled to his fan
Then he dumped her thru email
Someone died... a tall tale
Another day, another dolar, another tan

By Brian on July 12, 2006 3:51 PM

Hey Chief Clancy Wiggum, one thing Olby does do that the guy over at fox doesn't do. And that is TELL LIES to the American people night after night after night after night. I'd rather have my news guy be a phone sex freak then a left-wing son-of-a-bitch telling fairy tail stories.

Try watching Olby and if you believe just 1/10 of the B.S. that comes out of his mouth, then you better get some real professional help.

Sorry to the other readers but these pretentious left-wingers are really starting to piss me off. They call every one liars when in fact it is them that are untruthful. AND NO ONE CALLS THEM ON IT.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:02 PM

Some truths for chief clancy: Robert Byrd was a grand kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne. John Kerry testified admitting participation in atrocities/war crimes.Saddam gassed the Kurds with mustard gas(WMD).The NYT published leaks to hurt Bush/war effort.Mission accomplished was in regards to the ship coming home from long,successful voyage.
School choice will benefit poor children in failing school districts.World War 2 was won at the expense of intentional civilian casualties:Nagasaki,Hiroshima,Dresden,etc.Abortion stops a beating heart.Private savings accounts in lieu of SS with holding would allow people to choose their own investments. The US is the best country to be born in. WMD's could be 19 men hijacking planes and destroying 3000 lives. Burning the flag is symbolic of violence towards Americans.

By George W. Bush on July 12, 2006 4:07 PM

I just want to thank each and every one of you for continuing to drink the kool-aid. Don't worry about us spying on you or me and my rich friends getting massive tax cuts to fund our lavish lifestyles while you and your husband/wife continue to both work jobs you aren't being paid enough for. God bless America!

By pete on July 12, 2006 4:11 PM

I just want to thank each and every one of you for continuing to drink the kool-aid. Don't worry about us spying on you or me and my rich friends getting massive tax cuts to fund our lavish lifestyles while you and your husband/wife continue to both work jobs you aren't being paid enough for. God bless America!

Welcome back Chief, why the name change?

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:14 PM

Democrats are the party of the wealthy.Only rich people can afford to think like socialists.Rich people who didnt work to attain lavish lifestyle:
All Kennedys,All Rockefellers, John Kerry.Others?
Help me i don't suffer class envy,so those are off top of my head.

By Deputy Barney Fife on July 12, 2006 4:17 PM

should a free people be free to desecrate the most sacred symbol of their freedom?

And the slanted way you pose the question shows your inherent bias on the subject.

hmm, that's interesting ... and which way do you think i'm leaning? because i thought i phrased that pretty fairly. (i'm all for someone's right to burn a flag.) tho i do think its a desecration, and that the flag is probably the most sacred symbol readily at hand. (lady liberty's probably a bit more iconic, but not all that much at hand).

By Poops McGee on July 12, 2006 4:18 PM

Atleast Kerry fought for his country. Where were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the rest of this current administration stationed when they went off to war?

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:18 PM

You work a job that doesn't pay enough? Did your folks start charging rent on the basement? People who don't earn enough obviously don't work enough.

By Ron Smithbone on July 12, 2006 4:18 PM

Atleast Kerry fought for his country. Where were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the rest of this current administration stationed when they went off to war?

By Chief Clancy Wiggum on July 12, 2006 4:20 PM

Keep up the personal attacks scooter. Bill O'Reilly would be pround.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:22 PM

Where was Boxer,Hillary,Pellosi,Feingold,Bayh,Murray,Cantwell,Schumer etc. Not commiting atrocities i reckon.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:25 PM

Bill would be PROUND of me.Cool. KO is proud of you.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:29 PM

Kerry's war record is impressive. 3 purple hearts and never an overnight stay in a hospital. Most impressive. what was he there like 3 weeks?LOL

By libby on July 12, 2006 4:29 PM

Democrats are the party of the wealthy.

well, historically Dems were the party of the poor and disenfranchised, not the rich. although you are certainly correct that many of the blue bloods manifest bleeding hearts because they've never worked a day in their life.

but with the Reps being so heavily invested in tax cuts and corporate-minded thinking, they've historically been the party for the corporate rich. (afterall, when they first took office this was originally touted as the CEO presidency).

By Bill O'Reilly on July 12, 2006 4:31 PM

3 weeks or not at least Kerry was there. Was Bush?

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:37 PM

I love corporations they keep us all from doing back breaking labor.Like plowing fields and shooting supper.Chopping down trees for your log cabin, and free time to debate BS.Increased life expectancy,high standard of living,wealth etc. And do remember that you actually have to pay taxes to recieve a reduction in taxes.

By Hans Moleman on July 12, 2006 4:39 PM

Kinda sucks though when those big corporations oursource jobs to foreign countries leaving american workers unemployeed.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:39 PM

Texas Air National Guard remember he's smart enough to fly fighter jets. How long was Clinton in Russia during the war?

By Spudrick on July 12, 2006 4:40 PM

You people have a lot of time on your hands. What a waste.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:42 PM

Yeah its so bad people dont come here from around the world anymore.Legal or illegal.LOL. Smell what your shoveling.PEWW.

By Nonfactor on July 12, 2006 4:47 PM

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/07/12/olbermannwatch-opens-mouthinserts-foot/

I always thought ICN was a conservative site, but I'm probably thinking of something else.

I really just think that Cox is making a big deal out of nothing here. Spud seems to want to have a nice policy in where people aren't personally insulted, I don't see the problem.

By Ed Neilly on July 12, 2006 4:53 PM

"Mission accomplished was in regards to the ship coming home from long,successful voyage."

hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
hAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Hoooweee! ha! Whoa!

By libby on July 12, 2006 4:54 PM

I love corporations they keep us all from doing back breaking labor ... And do remember that you actually have to pay taxes to recieve a reduction in taxes.

absolutely. i just wish more corporations paid their fair share of taxes. too many loopholes. i'd love a flat tax ... for everybody.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 4:58 PM

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates sure hood winked us tax payers by sheltering there $$$$$.

By Nonfactor on July 12, 2006 5:01 PM

I was thinking that was way too many "HAHAHAs," but after reading what scooter wrote I think they're warranted.

Mission accomplished was in reference to the ship returning home safely? Do you honestly believe that?

By scooter on July 12, 2006 5:02 PM

Tax burden and regulation is what runs corps out of this country. Punish success is a poor formula.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 5:09 PM

Yes.
"The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished." from a CBSnews.com report
Go figure

By scooter on July 12, 2006 5:10 PM

Yes.
"The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished." from a CBSnews.com report
Go figure

By scooter on July 12, 2006 5:16 PM

Bashing Bush is to easy. Lets do something hard. How bout name a piece of legislation sponsored by Democrats that helped Union folks out. Or brag about Democratic leadership of some big city like say Detroit and what a Oasis it is.

By Mr. Fact Checker on July 12, 2006 5:21 PM

scooter said:
Yes.
"The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished." from a CBSnews.com report
Go figure

Here's the entire article:

"Six months after he spoke on an aircraft carrier deck under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," President Bush disavowed any connection with the war message. Later, the White House changed its story and said there was a link.

The "Mission Accomplished" boast has been mocked many times since Mr. Bush's carrier speech as criticism has mounted over the failed search for weapons of mass destruction and the continuing violence in Iraq.

When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Mr. Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren't that ingenious, by the way."

That explanation hadn't surfaced during months of questions to White House officials about proclaiming the mission in Iraq successful while violence continued.

After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.

The president's appearance on the Abraham Lincoln, which was returning home after service in the Persian Gulf, included his dramatic and much-publicized landing on the ship's deck.

Mr. Bush's disavowal Tuesday brought new criticism from at least three of the Democrats seeking their party's nomination to run against the president — John Kerry, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman.

"Today was another banner day in George Bush's quest to bring honor and integrity to the White House," Lieberman said. "If he wanted to prove he has trouble leveling with the American people, mission accomplished."

Since Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile fire — more than died in combat before the speech.

In his Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Bush told the reporter who asked about the sign: "I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops."

The president said his statement "was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq."

In the May 1 speech, Mr. Bush did note that the job in Iraq was not complete, promising "difficult work" in Iraq "bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous," he said.

Later he added: "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

But Mr. Bush also sounded a triumphant note, describing the Iraqi operation as a "victory in a war on terror."

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," he said. "And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

The president's USS Lincoln speech came under scrutiny almost immediately. Democrats claimed the White House wasted taxpayer dollars and sailors' time on a publicity stunt.

Despite initial claims that the ship was too far out to sea for a helicopter landing, forcing the president to use a jet, the Lincoln was actually within helicopter range when Mr. Bush arrived.

The jet flight was much more dramatic than a helicopter arrival would have been, as the president took the control stick for part of the flight and emerged on deck wearing a flight suit and helmet.

In addition, Pentagon officials told the Washington Post that after the president's speech, the Lincoln waited offshore for hours while he slept rather than heading into port after its 10-month voyage."

Scooter didn't tell us this was Bush's explanation, and one that came up weeks later. Shame on you scooter, you are a liar. Shame. Shame.

Liar.

By Mr. Mister on July 12, 2006 5:35 PM

yes, the administration underestimated the need and resources to define a larger mission that included winning the piece more handily after overthrowing Sadaam ... and the carrier landing was certainly a bit of a PR move; politicians being politicians and all that ...

but that being said ...

even if the "Mission Accomplished" sign WAS orchestrated by the admin, if the mission was to overthrow Sadaam, that was certainly accomplished when the banner was displayed.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 6:46 PM

I call it selective quotes ala KO style.LMAO.
Mission Accomplished.

By Mr. Ned on July 12, 2006 6:49 PM

So you are on the same level as KO. Okay.

By scooter on July 12, 2006 7:11 PM

If i want your opinion I'll give it to you.
But anybody can take out of context quotes. It happens all the time in the media and KO is no stranger to omitions.Its KOs MO.OK OH?

By Chief Clancy Wiggum on July 12, 2006 7:18 PM

"even if the "Mission Accomplished" sign WAS orchestrated by the admin, if the mission was to overthrow Sadaam, that was certainly accomplished when the banner was displayed."

I thought the mission was to find WMD's. Where did I ever get that idea from?

By Spud on July 12, 2006 7:33 PM

"But HE holds Olbermann Watch in low regard because WE shoot first and ask questions later? Yeah, right."

Who fired the first blog round Cox? Not I. You could have emailed me asking for clarification. (I should note that you did ask a question on the blog about it and I responded saying that you has basically jumped to the wrong conclusion) You didn't. You could have posted a follow up comment to my comment where I clearly stated there was no connection between Olbermannwatch and the blog. You didn't. So yes, if the shoe fits...

This is what really realy bugs me the most about this site. You guys are ultra ultra paranoid. You attach ulterior motives where none exist. To wit...

"Spud deleted some comment(s) from his site and then offered up a sermon about how he will only allow his site to cover news directly related to cable news broadcasts even if some private matter makes it into print which seemed a thinly veiled comment about Olbermann and the "For The Relief" blog."

I don't see how any rational person can argue such when there is absolutely no proof that exists to support such lunacy.

I'm not Olbermann. I'm not O'Reilly. I don't make thinly veiled references when I want clarity. If I'm going to tie Olbermannwatch to something I'll come right out and say it. And I'll back it up with reasons why I say it.

You're totally barking up the wrong tree Cox. I've been deleting private life related comments for longer than you can know. Anderson Cooper, Shepard Smith, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, the list goes on and on. Even O'Reilly. Though I will admit that I fucked up with Tanne. I tuned Tanne out because Tanne is an Olbypologist. So I was operating with narrow assumption that Tanne would be spendin Tane's time defending Olbermann. I didn't consider that Tanne would be attacking O'Reilly as well. My mistake. From now on Tanne gets the same treatment. But I digress...

The point is I've been seeing this crap fly on the blog for a while now. But it's crept up with Olbermann and that blog. I've been aware of the blog since before TVN and FTVLive and Jossip had the story. Dollar put me on to it. but that's not my cup of tea. It got to the point where I wasn't wiping out a comment every other day but multiple times per day. So I went public and said what I said. It has nothing to do with protecting Olbermann and Olbermann alone. It has everything to do with me not wanting that crap on my blog. I'm not comfortable with it there. I don't see how it serves a purpose other than to just demean someone over something that doesn't have anything to do with cable news.

ICN was one of the few blogs to point out the Olbermannwatch letters and I even openly questioned a double standard in the MSM for dowplaying the story compared to what they do to O'Reilly. But I draw a clear distinction to Olbermann shooting his mouth off and getting burned for it, deservedly so, and some woman who can't get on with her life after having a fling with Olbermann that she has to put a blog up and tell the world about it.

What bugs Dollar I think the most is that I'm not willing to automatically find Keith guilty every time something happens. There have been plenty of times I've taken him to task or questioned something he did (though maybe not enough to suit you guys). But I need more than supposition and paranoia and cynicism. I need cold hard proof. And that proof is not always forthcoming. But that's just me.

As far as Mackris goes, let me be crystal clear now so that there isn't any more confusion on the matter...

What ICN would publish...
---------------
That there was a lawsuit filed by a former producer against O'Reilly charging sexual harassment. It's a news story.

What ICN would not publish...
---------------
Falaffels and whatever else was the alleged contents of those alleged conversations. This is tawdry. No place on ICN for it.

I try to catch all the commentors but hey, I miss stuff sometimes (I already addressed Tanne). I once had CNN security come down on the blog like a ton of bricks because some moron posted Christi Paul's address in the comments and I didn't catch it. Apparently there was trouble from that. I felt terrible about it.

And you know this all could have been avoided Cox if you just freakin emailed me. The fact that you didn't seek out clarification makes me wonder whether you really even cared to know what the answers were...

By Spud on July 12, 2006 7:43 PM

Read your list,

About what I expected from you. No direct mention of ICN making direct comments of Mackris but a lot of 3rd party references that touched on Mackris as part of a larger story. I already addressed the comments.

And if someone post's Andrea Mackris' name but doesn't refer to falaffels or dirty talk or whatever else crept out of that story, I'll probably allow it in the comments. It was a news story. Just like Olbermann's emails that Grove wrote about was a news story. Someone having a fling with Olbermann and having it end is not a news story. Not yet at least.

By johnny dollar on July 12, 2006 8:01 PM

> What bugs Dollar I think the most is that I'm not willing to automatically find Keith guilty every time something happens.

Hey, who's jumping to conclusions now? Feel free to post any such sentiments you've ever heard from me. I'm as reasonable a guy as you could want in this loony bin of cable news junkies.

By Robert Cox on July 12, 2006 8:17 PM

Spud,

I think you are missing the point.

You have already said that you have a low opinion of OlbermannWatch. That is my site. So, by extension, I infer that you have a low opinion of me. Am I jumping to conclusions there? If so, please explain my error.

You delete some comment(s), put up some sermon, and then leave up a comment about Olbermann Watch leaving it to readers to infer what comment(s) caused you to post your sermon in the first place. I don't think it is such a great leap for a reader to think that your sermon was a reaction to something having to do with Olbermann Watch. You are free to disagree but I don't think I am being "paranoid" to interpet your sermon as being directed at me and my site. If that's not the case then why don't you clarify your ORGINAL post and specify exactly who and what you are referring to rather than attacking me in your comment section and on my site.

You say now that you have been deleting "personal matter" comments from your site for sometime but only felt the need to sermonize about it when it came to "personal matter" posts about Keith Olbermann, right? And, as I have pointed out, you have not been nearly so concerned about "personal matter" posts involving people like O'Reilly, right. You do realize it took me about 10 seconds to google your site and find the name Andrea Mackris in about a dozen posts, right? I mean, if you really were so concerned why not do the same and clean up the "personal matters" comments for people other than Olbermann?

Correct me if I am wrong but you did link the Nick Lemann hit piece in the New Yorker, right? And call it a "must read" right? And that piece contains exactly the type of personal inunendo you were sermoninzing about, right? I believe it even has a passage about loofah's and falafels, right? If you are so concerned about this type of stuff then why link the piece? Why call it a "must read". See, when you do that it creates the appearance that you are letting other people do their dirty work for you.

As for your "calling me out" on your site about "proof". I did provide multiple links to posts and comments on your site that according to your sermon are off-limits on your site, right? You did say that you would delete comments that were not related to what was broadcast by a particular news host, right? So when you called me out for not providing "numerous links" you were in error, were you not? I had done so already, and in spades, had I not? To me, that is why I have such a low opinion of ICN because you shoot first and questions later.

Seems to me the real problem is that you are selectively editing the comments and not disclosing that to your readers. You don't have any published editorial policy that I can see and you are not consistent in how you apply whatever criteria you claim to be using. You do this and then suddenly reveal it while claiming some high moral standard as your justification for doing so, impugining the integrity of other people for not following a similiar standard - all the while not actually applying that standard yourself as the links I provided demonstrate.

If you want to make it your job to go around policing every comment on your site then more power to you. It seems like an awful waste of time. But don't PRETEND to do that, act all superior about it and then get upset when it takes all of 10 seconds to demonstrated that you aren't practicing what you preach.

By Robert Cox on July 12, 2006 8:32 PM

BTW,

When I wrote:

"Spud deleted some comment(s) from his site and then offered up a sermon about how he will only allow his site to cover news directly related to cable news broadcasts even if some private matter makes it into print which seemed a thinly veiled comment about Olbermann and the "For The Relief" blog."

You called that lunacy:

"I don't see how any rational person can argue such when there is absolutely no proof that exists to support such lunacy."

Since I am so off-base here why don't you tell me (and the readers of Olbermann Watch you seem so intent on insulting) what it was that you WERE referring to when you talked about news anchors and private matters and your exchange with your reader about Olbermann Watch? Can you please give me the rational explanation of what your post IS about and how it has now bearing on Keith Olbermann and the Much Relief blog?

By scooter on July 12, 2006 8:39 PM

chief thats 1 of many reasons.you just chose to focus on that.Thinking it hurts Bush. because Bush is playing down WMDs found because we can trace them to our "allies" and he doesn't want to go down that road with our "allies",but they found enough WMDs for me.And Bush removed a dangerous dictator. Killed many terrorists who were already there and those who flocked in.Good things don't you agree? Saddam gone.Terrorists getting killed.Dead terrorists won't be blowing up anymore US skyscrapers(9/11).
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!

By Bill Clinton on July 12, 2006 8:45 PM

Even I thought that Iraq had WMD's but go ahead and keep swinging away at Bush. I also gave the order to bomb the hell out of Belgrade, which resulted in the deaths of 5,000 Serbian civilians. Sure, Slobodan was no threat to the U.S. but who gives a fat, intern's ass!

By Spud on July 12, 2006 8:51 PM

"Hey, who's jumping to conclusions now? Feel free to post any such sentiments you've ever heard from me. I'm as reasonable a guy as you could want in this loony bin of cable news junkies."

Oh I didn't say you couldn't be reasonable. But at the same time it is my impression and I've told you this more than once that Olbermann is a sensitive area for you. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. It generates an almost Pavlovian response. It is my judgement that one can't make rational analysis from that point of view. Since you say I have a blind spot for Olbermann and I will stipulate that I am incapable of adequately analyzing the validity of that statement without possibly straying into the realm of rationalizing. Fair enough?

By johnny dollar on July 12, 2006 10:59 PM

I didn't say you had a blind spot for Olby. I said in my opinion you had a blind spot regarding the worth of covering this particular story. Not the same thing. Fair enough?

By Spud on July 14, 2006 1:34 PM

I wish to issue a retraction and apology

I inadvertently put up the wrong text to quote in a comment on this blog. Specifically...

"Spud deleted some comment(s) from his site and then offered up a sermon about how he will only allow his site to cover news directly related to cable news broadcasts even if some private matter makes it into print which seemed a thinly veiled comment about Olbermann and the "For The Relief" blog."

The correct quote should have been this one...

"The comment is apparently somehow being related to Olbermann Watch which is (again) being tied to the allegations made on the "For This Relief" blog. Apparently there is not a big premium placed on getting facts straight over there but, for the record, we have nothing to do with that blog or that blogger."

I called the first quote sheer lunacy. It is not. It is true. And I apologize to Mr. Cox for that because that wasn't the quote I meant to put up. It was the 2nd quote I had intended to take issue with. It wasn't until several rounds into this spat that I spotted that error. Which means I compounded the original mistake by steadfasty continuing to ram the point home. Again my apologies to Mr. Cox.

By HAHA on July 14, 2006 2:08 PM

HAHAHAHA

-----chief thats 1 of many reasons.you just chose
-----to focus on that.Thinking it hurts Bush.
-----because Bush is playing down WMDs found -
-----because we can trace them to our "allies"
-----and he doesn't want to go down that road
-----with our "allies",but they found enough WMDs
-----for me.

HAHAHAHA. Yeah I'm sure they did. The rest of need an actual weapon as proof.

---- And Bush removed a dangerous dictator.
-----Killed many terrorists who were already
-----there and those who flocked in.

HAHAHA. Yeah, Iraq is a terror free zone now.

-----Good things don't you agree? Saddam gone.

HAHAHA. For whom. Americans getting killed all the time a huge war debt that will take generations to pay off and instable region about to break out in civil war. HAHAHA these are great things. If only we could get rising gas prices to go with it.

-----Terrorists getting killed.Dead terrorists
-----won't be blowing up anymore US skyscrapers
-----(9/11).

HAHHAAHA. But their 12 living brothers will be flocking to join real soon.

------MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!

HAHAHAHA. Good then there is no reason to leave the troops in Iraq anymore.

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

67 Comments