Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

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

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

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

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

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

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    September 21, 2006
    Another OlbyLoon "Review" of Olbermann Watch

    The Anonymous Liberal has yet another "review" of Olbermann Watch. This is your typical knee-jerk OlbyLoon rant about why we pick on poor Keith type of review. No one has bothered to comment on his post so please consider showing the poor OlbyLoon a little OlbyWatch love and critique his critique.

    Not surprisingly the "review" is not concerned with the content of the site per se but that the site exists at all; Olbermann is "one of the more pathetic things I've ever seen...an entire blog devoted solely to fisking Keith Olbermann's every word" and prompts him to ask "how can these guys not feel pathetic devoting so much time to fisking the one left-of-center voice on television?"

    And, of course, we get THIS OlbyLoon chestnut "I'm all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found -- on the right or left -- but there's just no way that any reasonable person can believe that Olbermann is a worse offender in this regard than his more famous conservative counterparts (ed. O'Reilly, Hannity)." Got that? He's "all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found -- on the right or left"...EXCEPT when the spotlight is turned on poor Keith.

    Ironically this guy quotes Bertrand Russell and describes himself as "someone who tries hard to approach issues with an open mind and to rely on empirical evidence and logical analysis (not rigid ideology) to guide my thinking." Yeah! He sounds REAL open-minded...so long as you don't criticize someone whose ideogology conforms to his. In OlbyLoonLand, if you agree with "me" then you are open-minded and if you don't then you are hostage to some "rigid ideology". Ahhh...OlbyLogic.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (50) | | View blog reactions

    50 Comments

    I know why the poll question asks who is the "bigger" Olbyloon instead of "biggest". The biggest would have to be Olbermann himself!

    you are correct, sir!

    Who's more pathetic? The "fisker" or the "fisker" fisking the fisker.

    (My apologies to George Lucas and his work from STAR WARS)

    The thinking of the left seems to go like this: only THEY are allowed to criticize or question anyone. The right are supposed to roll over, play dead, and be forbidden to ridicule anyone on their side. Sorry, the game doesn't work that way, which would explain why the Dems are always on the losing end of the score.

    What I do not understand about KO's defenders: why is the response always, "Well, what about O'Reilly?"

    Well, what about him? If you think he plays with facts, does that justify KO's tortured abuse of the truth? Assuming it's true, does it make it right? In their view, it apparently does and it's a rationalization for their own intellectual disingenuousness.

    Last night's ratings. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_wednesday_sept_20_44263.asp#more

    KO once again lands in 4th place in the demo's and overall.

    Anyone smell another special comment coming soon?

    A wise man once said that "He who shouts loudest wields the least power". I've come to notice that about the intolerant lefties who duck facts and fall victim to "voices in my head" truth. One quick note about Olbermann, though. He is so far out there that scientists were wondering if they should categorize his head as a planet.

    One thing is for sure, as bloated as his ego (and body) are, he certainly qualifies in size to be an entire new solar system.

    Brandon.. not all people have to be small in pysical stature along with mental stature. The world needs people like you.

    You Right-wing extremists are just angry that Keith has the balls to stand up for the rights of Al-Qaeda.

    There are currently members of Al-Qaeda being held at Gitmo who have not yet had the chance to speak to their family...and that is outrageous!

    Keith and the REST OF US ON THE LEFT will continue to press to protect Al-Qaeda's rights.

    ** Democrats in '06...protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda even when the Republicans won't **

    Anyone smell another special comment coming soon?
    *************************************************
    If O'Reilly's book sales better than KO's next week I have a feeling we're all going to be treated to a very ultra special comment from KO.

    Can anyone explain why this site has an issue with "I'm all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found -- on the right or left -- but there's just no way that any reasonable person can believe that Olbermann is a worse offender in this regard than his more famous conservative counterparts" Seriously. They are all the same. It's about ratings so both sides will embellish the truth to speak to their audiences. I guess I don't understand how one goes from that comment to "Got that? He's "all for highlighting truthiness wherever it is found -- on the right or left"...EXCEPT when the spotlight is turned on poor Keith."

    Bill Oreilly is a whore.. look at all the crap he sells.. he is no better than the old carnival barker selling his wares to those who are too old or infirmed to think for themselves. I sure wish Al Qaeda was after him.. although I would have mixed feelings about them killing an American citizen,, but if it is BOR it is well worth the invasion.. In fact why not do it at 8.55 PM EST,, that way they could do us the favor of taking out Hannity as well.

    Al-Qaeda is after him.

    In fact, they're after every American journalist.

    In fact, they're after every American.

    They've stated it on numerous occasions and fatwas...where have you been...?

    You are just upset that Bill O. goes after child molestors and the judges that set them free. I know that NAMBLA is a big democratic supporter but really now... So what if O'reilly sells shirts and hate and such?? BFD! O'liely. Is THAT you big bitch about him? I guess like most liberals you have no substantial arguments so you go after superficial bullshit. Let me see if ZI get this straigh- you actually want some foreign terrorist entity to attack an American citizen because he sells hats and such? who do you think you are Olbermann's helmet polisher? Hannity to eh? Just can't stand somebody being right can ya . You have all the logic, wit and wisdom of a retarded porcupine with dull quills . I mean rally O'lielly what are you five or something? I despise Olby but I don't want Al-queda to attack him, maybe force him to wear a burrka and belly dance dowm Broadway , but not attack him.
    Sound like you have a bad combination of PCP brain dead syndrome combined with liberal tourette's syndrome. You just can't stop yourself from saying the stupid shit you say beacuse your brain is addled by liberalism so very bad. It's amazing to me how people like you O'lielly can even go the bathroom by yourself, but maybe I overestimate you. You could be the poster child for liberal brain damage.

    Riverdog...calm down and let me give you a history lesson courtesy of US ALL ON THE LEFT.

    * In the beginning, the world was created.

    * And there was peace and harmony for 4.5 billion or 8000 years...take your pick.

    * And then in 2000 GWB stole the election and brought untold death and destruction to the world.

    Now...I'll give you a brief glimpse of the future

    * And then in 2006 and 2008 Democrats, running on a pro "Al-Qaeda has rights" ticket took back control of America and led a new period of Enlightenment.

    I guess you O'Reilly haters are leaving out the part about Bill giving all proceeds of his sales to Habitat For Humanity and other charities. KO probably gives his to Moveon and maybe a perfectly timed suicide bomber's family. It is sweeps week. Stay tuned.

    No, Olbermann uses the profits from his book to fund his baseball and porn addictions.

    "you have no substantial arguments so you go after superficial bullshit"

    .....Riverdog


    Isn't that the whole point of this site?

    There are a few occasions where someone actually did research and has some valid
    criticisms. Most of the time these are the main points for hating Keith Olbermann:

    *Last in the ratings every night (superficial argument since it has nothing to do with content)

    *He is self righteous and arrogant(again superficial,this is more of an opinion than a valid argument. Every talking head on cable news is guilty of that)

    Anon--if you read the daily show recaps you will see Johnny Dollar and Bob Cox do a very fine job refuting almost every single "fact" that comes out of Keith's lying mouth. You seem to have no problem with his lying because you have somehow deluded yourself into thinking he tells the truth. Those of us who live in the real world, and get our news from real news sources, not the wacky liberal left and Keith's nightly lunacy fest know better. I know it may be hard for you to see that but reading OWatch is a good start towards educating yourself.

    Was Hugo Chavez holding Keith's "book"?
    Only lunatics gave it a look
    Worst Person indeed
    Keith is the bad seed
    To profit from hate like a crook

    Anonyous Liberal has updated his post to criticize me and this site. I responded and we are not engaged in a dialog here:

    http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/09/random-rant.html

    I'm always amazed at the idiotic observation that since we critique one talking head, we should be critiquing all of them.

    Olbyloons, this is Olbermann Watch. You want a media criticism blog, go find it or go supply it. You want us to broaden our focus to those icky Fox folks and submit an exegesis or two on the writings of Madelain Albright and Paul Wolfowitz...go find that blog.

    If you must whine about the basics here...about how narrow the focus here is, and about how all issues are seen through the perspective of how they played on Countdown, then you're going to be whining a lot.

    That's fine. Most of us will read the first two wwwaaaahhhhhh sentences of your posts and then move on. That way everybody is happy here ragging on Olbermann or they're happy about being unhappy.

    Works for me.

    "I don't have any problem with people criticizing Olbermann when he veers into the realm of truthiness (and he does sometimes). The pathetic part is myopically focusing on Olbermann when he is not even close to the worst offender."


    Oh, well.

    Canape?

    See the thing is with the Olbyloons is that they think the man is above criticism of any sort. And they think that if they keep coming here and insulting us, we'll magically "see the light" and become Konverts to the religion of Keithdom. Sorry, it's not goign to ever happen.

    >I'm always amazed at the idiotic observation >that since we critique one talking head, we >should be critiquing all of them.

    Is your problem with Olbermann personally (i.e. because he was mean to your mom), or is your problem with the fact you think keith is a demagogue? because if it is the latter I would assume any instance of that behavior would be offensive to you (even if it gets pointed out on OLBERMANN WATCH.)

    most people who bring up someone like O'Reilly are testing what it is that offends you. If you are upset at unethical journalism it would make sense for you to be upset at any instance of it.

    If, on the other hand, you are only upset when a liberal practices this sort of behavior and seeing right wing propaganda gives you a warm fuzzy feeling then you are hypocrite and typical wing nut.

    This blog is criticized for its focus on Olbermann.

    Yet those who say this, ignore KO's pathetic obsession with Bill O'Reilly.

    I'm not an O'Reilly fan. While acknowledging that his show is at the top of ratings, and KO's viewership can be counted on one hand, I don't go out of the way to watch O'Reilly. I'm not fond of entertainment masquerading as news, which is what O'Reilly's and Olbermann's shows are. The difference is that O'Reilly actually allows for those with a differing opinion to come on his show, and he engages them in debate.

    KO obviously doesn't think too well on his feet. I noticed that watching him do sports interviews on the sidelines. If he brought folks with differing opinions on Countdown, he would get creamed, and not just only in the ratings.

    jt wrote "If you are upset at unethical journalism it would make sense for you to be upset at any instance of it."

    I am upset about any unethical journalism.
    I am upset about any instance of it.

    How does that change things?

    I wanted to have one blog that focused on one person - Keith Olbermann. Other folks who picked out their own subjects to cover including some that focus on O'Reilly. There are some sites that cover technology, others that cover Apple, others that cover only iPod and others that only cover iPod nanos. If you want to read criticism of BOR go there; if you want criticism of KO come here. If you want general media criticism from the right or left there are sites for that. What exactly is the problem with my looking around, seeing that there was an available niche in the broader media criticism landscape and settling on a Keith Olbermann crit blog.

    I'd suggest that your problem is not about journalistic ethics or Bill O'Reilly but my temerity in choosing Keith Olbermann as my "beat". And that is why you are an OlbyLoon. You can't just say straight up that you are an OlbyLoon and therefore resent any criticism of your beloved Keith.

    You are welcome to defend Keith here. You are even welcome to submit a guest post. There is a free exchange here. How can you as a good liberal, supposedly champions of free speech, be so worried about my exercing that right here?

    Instead of whining about the mere existance of this site why don't you (a) leave (b) create a pro-KO site (c) create an OW Watch site (d) counter anti-KO comments on this site with your own pro-KO comments (e) write a guest post?

    "or they're happy about being unhappy."

    See that, Cecelia the Cecelia, is what I am trying to save you from. As Republicans, it is your god-given right to be mindlessly optimistic and happy and either ignor the sufferings of others or blame them for those sufferings. But instead of embracing that noble heritage that at least has some giggles about it, you all come here to both create and wallow in your pain by starting up anonymous gramatical quibbles about some guy on TV. You're all fat dumb and happy, but you're too dumb to know it. Some biological defect has you searching for ways to be tortured and miserable.

    hello scumbags! and how are the fear-based extremists today? i suppose ya'll are still into theocracies, right? just like the Taliban. and how 'bout the torture thang -- i'll be ya'll are still advocating torture, just like al-qaeda. it's funny how you folks and the terrorists both agree that the end justifies the means. isn't that wild? don't feel too bad though, in every era there are repressive-minded extremists like yourselves who comprise the scum of the earth -- so at least you'll never be alone! have fun being fascists, losers!

    "If, on the other hand, you are only upset when a liberal practices this sort of behavior and seeing right wing propaganda gives you a warm fuzzy feeling then you are hypocrite and typical wing nut."

    I watch MSNBC and never watch Fox News (let alone O'Reilly) so I'll leave them and him to Outfoxed and I'll leave the broader concern for ethical journalism and the testing for hypocrisy among talking-head critics... to you...


    "Some biological defect has you searching for ways to be tortured and miserable."

    You misunderstood--I said everyone is happy... they're either happy to be here ragging on Olbermann.... or they're happy being unhappy here with the ragging on Olbermann.

    You're Chief Olbyloon because no one reflects this condition more than you do.

    So not to worry-- no biological defect, just me exercsing my god-give Republican right...NO.. not to ignore the sufferings of you high-minded sorts here with broad concern for ethical journalism...but to ENJOY them.

    (Dinner for two more, Jeeves, they seem to be staying. And bring them a dry handkerchief...)

    >I am upset about any unethical journalism.
    >I am upset about any instance of it.

    > How does that change things?

    Well for starters it increases you credibility with anyone who might be sitting on the fence. Is your goal only to persuade fellow die hard wingnuts (who agreed with you about Keith before your site) or would you like to persuade people who might have mixed feelings about Keith?

    If I, just for the sake of argument, provided an instance, Where O’Reilly flat out lied and you responded with something along the lines of “that is terrible I hate it when journalist do that. It's one of the reasons I started this site” You might be able to convince a few moderates that you are not just a pissed off conservative railing against a liberal talking head for no other reason than he is a liberal. instead J$ has devoted sections of nightly posts (off topic) to defending the factor.

    Your approach semms to be to call anyone who points out bad behavior by any member of fox news a loon and start screaming about how your site is dedicated to Olbermann. Strange how you don’t seem to mind people getting off topic and discussing things like the liberal bias of Ted Koppel.

    >I wanted to have one blog that focused on one person - Keith Olbermann. Other folks who >picked out their own subjects to cover including some that focus on O'Reilly. There are some >sites that cover technology, others that cover Apple, others that cover only iPod and others >that only cover iPod nanos.

    Well if I thought you were being totally honest here I would agree with you. Again talking about the liberal bias of Ted Kopell is not getting off topic but talking about the conservative bias of Fox news is?

    >If you want to read criticism of BOR go there; if you want criticism of KO come here. If you >want general media criticism from the right or left there are sites for that. What exactly is >the problem with my looking around, seeing that there was an available niche in the broader >media criticism landscape and settling on a Keith Olbermann crit blog.

    Not one thing. I don’t care if you even start "I hope Keith Olbermann dies in a car crash blog." You are welcome to hate him, dislike him, dislike his show or dislike his mom. I just think you and some of your peers are hypocritical about some of the behavior you critisize keith of doing.


    >I'd suggest that your problem is not about journalistic ethics or Bill O'Reilly but my temerity in >choosing Keith Olbermann as my "beat". And that is why you are an OlbyLoon. You can't just >say straight up that you are an OlbyLoon and therefore resent any criticism of your beloved >Keith.

    Not true. I don’t consider myself a defender of Olbermann. You seem to think anyone who attacks any right wing talking points is some kind of super fan. I don’t think I have even watched his show in the last two months. Oh and i don't really even consider myself a true liberal. I loathe the current adminstration and will surely be voting against them, but I consider myself mostly libertarian. If you can find a instance where i came out in support of free health Care I will buy you a brand new Bill O'Reilly Factor T-shirt.

    >You are welcome to defend Keith here. You are even welcome to submit a guest post. There >is a free exchange here. How can you as a good liberal, supposedly champions of free speech, >be so worried about my exercing that right here?

    Robert, I have criticized what you have written. I have never tried to deny you your first amendment rights.

    I also seriously thought about taking you up on your offer to make a guest post. I just don’t honestly consider myself a big enough fan of Keith to write one. Frankly I think he is no different than Rush Limbaugh. I think is liberal bias is pretty evident. I think he exists to stir up the liberal base much the way Rush stirs up the conservative base.


    >Instead of whining about the mere existance of this site why don't you (b) create a pro-KO >site (c) create an OW Watch site (d) counter anti-KO comments on this site with your own pro->KO comments

    The approach I have chosen is to argue with any posts I disagree with, what is your problem with that? Also I never whined about the existence of this site; I whined about the hypocrisy it

    >I am upset about any unethical journalism.
    >I am upset about any instance of it.

    > How does that change things?

    Well for starters it increases you credibility with anyone who might be sitting on the fence. Is your goal only to persuade fellow die hard wingnuts (who agreed with you about Keith before your site) or would you like to persuade people who might have mixed feelings about Keith?

    If I, just for the sake of argument, provided an instance, Where O’Reilly flat out lied and you responded with something along the lines of “that is terrible I hate it when journalist do that. It's one of the reasons I started this site” You might be able to convince a few moderates that you are not just a pissed off conservative railing against a liberal talking head for no other reason than he is a liberal. instead J$ has devoted sections of nightly posts (off topic) to defending the factor.

    Your approach semms to be to call anyone who points out bad behavior by any member of fox news a loon and start screaming about how your site is dedicated to Olbermann. Strange how you don’t seem to mind people getting off topic and discussing things like the liberal bias of Ted Koppel.

    >I wanted to have one blog that focused on one person - Keith Olbermann. Other folks who >picked out their own subjects to cover including some that focus on O'Reilly. There are some >sites that cover technology, others that cover Apple, others that cover only iPod and others >that only cover iPod nanos.

    Well if I thought you were being totally honest here I would agree with you. Again talking about the liberal bias of Ted Kopell is not getting off topic but talking about the conservative bias of Fox news is?

    >If you want to read criticism of BOR go there; if you want criticism of KO come here. If you >want general media criticism from the right or left there are sites for that. What exactly is >the problem with my looking around, seeing that there was an available niche in the broader >media criticism landscape and settling on a Keith Olbermann crit blog.

    Not one thing. I don’t care if you even start "I hope Keith Olbermann dies in a car crash blog." You are welcome to hate him, dislike him, dislike his show or dislike his mom. I just think you and some of your peers are hypocritical about some of the behavior you critisize keith of doing.


    >I'd suggest that your problem is not about journalistic ethics or Bill O'Reilly but my temerity in >choosing Keith Olbermann as my "beat". And that is why you are an OlbyLoon. You can't just >say straight up that you are an OlbyLoon and therefore resent any criticism of your beloved >Keith.

    Not true. I don’t consider myself a defender of Olbermann. You seem to think anyone who attacks any right wing talking points is some kind of super fan. I don’t think I have even watched his show in the last two months. Oh and i don't really even consider myself a true liberal. I loathe the current adminstration and will surely be voting against them, but I consider myself mostly libertarian. If you can find a instance where i came out in support of free health Care I will buy you a brand new Bill O'Reilly Factor T-shirt.

    >You are welcome to defend Keith here. You are even welcome to submit a guest post. There >is a free exchange here. How can you as a good liberal, supposedly champions of free speech, >be so worried about my exercing that right here?

    Robert, I have criticized what you have written. I have never tried to deny you your first amendment rights.

    I also seriously thought about taking you up on your offer to make a guest post. I just don’t honestly consider myself a big enough fan of Keith to write one. Frankly I think he is no different than Rush Limbaugh. I think is liberal bias is pretty evident. I think he exists to stir up the liberal base much the way Rush stirs up the conservative base.


    >Instead of whining about the mere existance of this site why don't you (b) create a pro-KO >site (c) create an OW Watch site (d) counter anti-KO comments on this site with your own pro->KO comments

    The approach I have chosen is to argue with any posts I disagree with, what is your problem with that? Also I never whined about the existence of this site; I whined about the hypocrisy it

    So out of curiosity your problem with Olbermann is?

    "So out of curiosity your problem with Olbermann is?"

    His caps.


    > His caps.

    interesting... One my problems Bill O'Reilly is his hair line (oops sorry got off topic).

    "So out of curiosity your problem with Olbermann is?"

    His caps.>>

    Listen, I know you want to be taken seriously, but there's only so much seriousness I can manage when we're talking about a formulation that argues that if you are of a particular political mindset and are more sensitive to media bias against your own political druthers, that this makes you a rightwing wingnut...or hypocrite ...of whatever the pejorative.

    I just can't get worked up over your calling me a hypocrite over being especially chagrined at and focused upon a "journalist" who, in my book, has no inclination toward giving my views the most minimum of fair shakes or the strawman that this site must be Media Watch in order to have some sort of validation.

    So if some libertarian is on the fence about Keith and my rightwing hypocrisy is something that's preventing him from jumping over into Olbermann disdain territory, I'll just have to try and live with that.

    canape?


    "talking about the liberal bias of Ted Kopell is not getting off topic but talking about the conservative bias of Fox news is?"

    I generally try to keep the topics focused on Keith Olbermann. Occassionally the discussion threads stray which is fine. I don't recall ever saying that a discussion of Fox News was "off topic".

    When people come to the site and complain that we don't criticize O'Reilly or Hannity or Limbaugh the way were criticize Keith I tell them the site is an Olbermann site andd that if they want there to be an O'Reilly Watch site they should start one. I do not consider this the same thing as telling them that bringing up O'Reilly is off-topic. By and large, we bring up O'Reilly on this site because, like everything else, it is somehow related to Keith (that KO named BOR WPIW or did a segment on BOR or said his ratings were somehow better than BOR or that his audience was better than BOR). As far as J$ "defending" BOR, to the best of knowledge that is because Keith has made some false or misleading statement about BOR. I try to have that we do not talk about any subject or person unless it somehow ties back to Keith. That is in the posts. The comments can and do wander a bit.

    A commenter is welcome to say that BOR is worse than Keith and make the case for why. I have little patience for someone who simply tells me that I should write about BOR or Hannity or whatever. This is my site and I will write about whatever I want. It is not up to any reader to demand that I somehow change the subject or nature of this site. This is a free blogosphere and they are free to go create whatever site they think should exist. Why some (you?) think that I ought to spend my time writing/editing a blog based on what THEY (you?) think.

    If you cannot or will not see that telling a blogger what he or she ought to write about is absurd.


    >I just can't get worked up over your calling me >a hypocrite over being especially chagrined at >and focused upon a "journalist" who, in my >book, has no inclination toward giving my views >the most minimum of fair shakes or the strawman >that this site must be Media Watch in order to >have some sort of validation

    OK your basic dislike of Keith seems centered around the fact that he is not giving your side the, "most minimum of fair shakes."

    My point has always been that most, on this site, could care less about media culpability, but instead have congregated to bitch about a liberal talking head. Your original assertion (at least in my case) that liberals claim you need to talk about all talking heads is not true.

    And hey, congregating to complain about Olbermann is fine. no different than a liberal starting, www.Rushlimbaughlikeslittleboys.com or crooksandliars or some such site where people gather to vent and maybe rally the troops.

    >So if some libertarian is on the fence about >Keith and my rightwing hypocrisy is something >that's preventing him from jumping over into >Olbermann disdain territory, I'll just have to >try and live with that.

    Hey fine with me. Being persuasive to those on the fence doesn't have to be one of your goals. I'll venture to guess that many on the left are happy to know that you, and many on this site are taking that approach though. Happy to know that you working hard to insure anyone playing devil's advocate leaves this site offended and convinced that keith is just getting smeared by the right.

    of course if your goal is actually to stop a demagogue, making sure that the only people you convince are those who already dislike Keith might be ineffective and a waste of your time. But hey, it is your time, so I will leave you to it, to do as you like.

    >This is my site and I will write about whatever >I want. It is not up to any reader to demand >that I somehow change the subject or nature of >this site. This is a free blogosphere and they >are free to go create whatever site they think >should exist. Why some (you?) think that I >ought to spend my time writing/editing a blog >based on what THEY (you?) think.

    Well I am only going to speak for myself here, but I think writing what you want whether it be Keith is dull or his mother has herpes is fine.

    I also think certain things you write will gain credability, and some will hurt it. Now you may care less about what your credability is with me and that is your business, but I consider myself relatively fair minded.

    When I see someone mention that Bill O'Reilly lied about X, Y and Z. get slammed called a "loon" and told "how difficult it must be for them to undertstand that this site is about Olbermann" by the moderaters, who then, in turn talk about the liberl bias of Ted Koppel, I jump to the conclusion that it is liberals you dislike and not bias.

    Again, that is your right, if true.

    I have also seen, you in particular be fair minded, when you have done that, I for one have been more receptive to your message. Maybe you care whether I or others of my ilk are receptive to it, maybe you don't. Again that is your concern.

    So seriously write what you want. Write to persuade the base, write to perusade people on the fence, write for own satisfaction. What you write is your business. I am only commenting upon what I perceive in your writing.


    "I jump to the conclusion that it is liberals you dislike and not bias"

    I do not "dislike" liberals. I do not agree with what they believe.

    I do not like what NBC has done in putting Olbermann forward as a "journalist" or "news anchor" when he is clearly not operating in either capacity on Countdown. I make that point on this site by highlighting ways in which he is not meeting basic standards of journalistic ethics and using his "news anchor" chair as a platform to air a highly distorted account of news stories (note, that I do not criticize him for editorializing per se only that he does not make clear when he is reporting "news" and when he is "editorializing" and that is the type of confusion that responsible news organizations attemt to avoid.

    As far as who is receptive to my message, if you knew me better you would know that I don't care if I am in a room of 100 people and 99 of them disagree with me on some issue. I will continue to put forward my view and argue my case with anyone who wishes to engage me on the topic. This is not theory - over the years at work and in school I have often found myself in a minority of one. And quite often I have managed to sway the room to my side.

    Even if no one agreed with me about my views on how Keith Olbermann and his supporters within MSNBC were undermining the credibility of NBC News I would continue to express them. Want proof? When I began this site I had virtually no readers. Today we get 50-100K unique visitors per month (sometimes more). The size of my audience or how many people agree with me does not make what I am saying right or wrong. When I express an opinion I am right because the opinion is well-developed, logical and based on the known-facts.

    Just Plain Cecelia,

    "not to ignore the sufferings of you high-minded sorts here with broad concern for ethical journalism...but to ENJOY them."

    Hardee har har. Cecelia you are drifting futher and further into false attribution. When did I argue the "ethical journalism" line? That is pretty much the sole (and hypocritical) provenance of Robert and the Olbersessionists, who wring their hands alot about ethical journalism... as long as it "relates back to keith." If you are going to spend your life here, at least take the time to make your zingers have some bearing on the people you are firing them at. You are making me question whether spending time here trying to save you is worth it. You seemed like an edumacated person.

    Have another great productive day enjoying suffering. Are you sure that isn't just your own shadow, though? Not to offend, but from the "outside," your idea of a party seems to be three geeks in a basement pulling their hair out over a boring TV show, and picking the cool ranch dorito "canapes" out of their braces.

    "I do not "dislike" liberals. I do not agree with what they believe."

    There we have it. But Robert, I thought you didn't classify yourself but gave your mind free scope to range from liberalism to conservatism to libertarianism to statism. I thought, in fact, that you argued for several "liberal" positions-- at least the ones that defend the Bush administration.

    "I make that point on this site by highlighting ways in which he is not meeting basic standards of journalistic ethics and using his "news anchor" chair as a platform to air a highly distorted account of news stories (note, that I do not criticize him for editorializing per se only that he does not make clear when he is reporting "news" and when he is "editorializing" and that is the type of confusion that responsible news organizations attemt to avoid."

    I've only been swirling around this bowl for a couple weeks and it is quite clear that your most strident objections have been to the "special comments," which are very clearly delineated as, well, special comments. It is pretty clear that you will use any argument at your disposal to attack "liberal" positions by means of Olberstrawmann, and shift ground in any way you need to do that. However black the other pots and kettles, he will always be the only really black one, because "that is the purpose of this site." You must be a fan of Moliere. The sleeping potion works by means of a dormitive faculty that produces sleep. What really goes on here?

    Let's remember back to our last long exchange (without reviving it.) You jumped on Keith for using a special comment to suggest that the president could have helped expedite the 9-11 memorial. You claimed there was nothing he could have done. This was factually wrong, and I pointed this out. In doing so, I parenthetically mentioned that my own personal opinion was that the memorial was not as important as everyone (esp. Keith) was making it, and that 9-11 should not be so prominantly worn on the nation's sleve, used to rewrite our laws and constitution, etc.

    You couldn't have jumped harder or faster off criticism of Keith's original point to come after my parenthetical remark-- blowing it up into insensitivity, sympathy for terrorists, equating it generally with not taking terrorism "seriously," saying I had no plan or analytical ability, and conflating me with the Democrats on this issue. Thousands of rather impassioned words, aimed against a point of mine which disagreed more fundamentally with Keith's comment than your own position did. Why? Because this was a more threatening position to YOUR political opinions. That right there showed me what the real "purpose" of this site is, from the Cox perspective. That purpose is, oddly enough, what it should be -- it is a heartfelt attempt to convince people to vote in accordance with you on issues you think are important. That it is deceptive in this purpose is not unique, but in trying to do it hiding behind Olbermann's skirt, it does lookweaker and more deceptive. You can't blame someone like JT for rolling their eyes when you claim your real purpose is just to attack Olbermann. That would be as weired and pitiful as it sounds, and he can easily tell you are not that dumb.

    Your ideas on how to fight terrorism, what the estate tax should be, whether we should drill for more oil in the refuge or try to reduce consumption... all these are things an intelligent rhetorical writer such as yourself could forcefully argue. I'm sure a Robert Cox blog could do well. Why not just come out of the closet?

    Erie Bob,

    You mischaracterize what I wrote and then make a feeble attempt to pick out your version of what I wrote. So, what's the pointing of responding to you?

    It does not advance the ball if you are not willing to QUOTE DIRECTLY and QUOTE IN CONTEXT.

    I disgree with liberals on most foreign policy issues including how we deal with the threat of terrorism and the War in Iraq.

    When you write "your most strident objections have been to the "special comments," I think you are confused. I wrote about ONE of them. J# wrote about all of them.

    I'd like to see where you think I said that I claimed there was nothing Bush could have done.

    "You jumped on Keith for using a special comment to suggest that the president could have helped expedite the 9-11 memorial. You claimed there was nothing he could have done. This was factually wrong, and I pointed this out. "

    First, that is NOT what Keith "suggested". He blamed Bush directly and fully for the "failure" to rebuild the 9/11 memorial and the Freedom Tower. He said nothing close to "could have helped expedite". Did you actually read/watch it?

    Since I never said what you claimed there is little point in offering a rebutal. I would note that the focus on my piece was to provide the readers an accurate account of the timeline from 9/11/01 to 9/11/06 and what accounted for the "delays" in redeveloping the site - none of which had anything to do with Bush. As is quite clear to anyone who knows the story, my account is correct. I do not recall you or anyone else pointing out a single instance of where I was wrong.

    My point was not that there was NOTHING that Bush could have done to cause the 9/11 memorial to be built but rather that there were many legitimate reasons for the delays and none of those delays were caused by Bush (for example, failing to submit legislation to the Hill, failing to sign some executive order, failing to budget for a project, etc.). As anyone who lives in NY knows, putting up ANY building in New York is highly complex. That you don't know any of this does not make it less true.

    My point in regards to KO was that he lives here and knows full well that what he said on 9/11/06 was a load of hooey.

    "When you write "your most strident objections have been to the "special comments," I think you are confused. I wrote about ONE of them. J# wrote about all of them."

    Sorry if I conflate your goals, the goals of your site, and the goals of the person you selected to advance the goals of your site. You have obviously entirely and intentionally missed the point of the previous post.

    My point is that you don't really care about what KO says, does, or thinks except as it regards advancing your own political opinions. That is why you didn't bother to have the conversation THERE that you are now trying to start HERE, now that the question is whether you are genuinely obsessed with Olbermann or just hiding behind his skirts to advance your political agenda without actually arguing it.

    Suffice to say that if these kind of semantics were your point...

    "not that there was NOTHING that Bush could have done to cause the 9/11 memorial to be built but rather that there were many legitimate reasons for the delays"

    ...then Olbermann's commentary would still stand. There are many legitimate excuses why the Iraq war is a failure. The overarching reason is that all the particular difficulties are not avoided or overcome, and this is a question of effective leadership.

    Erie Bob,

    No, Keith's rant would not stand because the entire premise of the piece was flawed. This is a typical "fake but accurate" argument from the left - that Keith's conclusions are correct even when the facts he draws on to build his case are shown to be false. At least that's better than the reducto ad absurdum argument advanced by many on the left to "advance" their political arguments.

    You can make a case for challenging Bush on "effective leadership" or Iraq if you want but the delays in redeveloping the WTC site have no bearing on that case.

    You can continue to dance around it all you want but if you are not willing to confront the focus of my piece - that the claim put forward by KO that Bush is responsible for the delays in rebuilding the WTC site - then what is the point?

    It's really simple, KO was wrong on the facts therefore he is wrong in any conclusion he draws from those "facts".

    "You can continue to dance around it all you want... "

    As can you, "it" being your attempts to roll your political agenda in the Olberstraw and spin it to gold. I admire your discipline. And I'll bite so that you can get back to where you need to be, under the skirts of a random talking head.

    The reason you cannot "debunk" Keith's comment is that the general point of this rant does not rely on ANY facts other than two.

    First, that GWB made a big deal about "rebuilding NY" --which you can take any way you want-- but considering the WTC was by any measure the largest chunk of physical destruction that day, it might be supposed at least to include the WTC site.

    Second, that there is still a hole there.

    That's it. The final point is that he didn't get the job done the Keith feels was promised, and he thinks it's taking too long. You can say it's because it isn't primarily his responsibility, or that it would have been imprudent to do the kinds of things that might have forced it through, and I might agree. You can say that Keith mentions some rhetorical metaphors and allusions that you disagree with or think refer to things that he is factually mistaken about. You might say, as I do, that it simply isn't important enough to use the bully pulpit or threaten imminent domain to smooth out the process. But insofar as I can draw a conclusion from his "comment," it is simply that Bush hasn't gotten the job done, or as you put it "because the President did not intervene and FORCE the various parties to rebuild the WTC site."

    You or I might disagree with the thrust or importance of that comment, we might say that at the absolute best this is the absolute least of GWB's failures of ommission, but arguing it the way you have is akin to trying to logically prove that someone's favorite color is green, not purple. As we can see from your post, it takes a hell of a lot of words to argue those kind of points, and they don't really go anywhere.

    Robert Cox could care less what Olbermann says, thinks or does. He wants you to vote Republican.

    JT writes:

    "My point has always been that most, on this site, could care less about media culpability, but instead have congregated to bitch about a liberal talking head. Your original assertion (at least in my case) that liberals claim you need to talk about all talking heads is not true.

    And hey, congregating to complain about Olbermann is fine. no different than a liberal starting, www.Rushlimbaughlikeslittleboys.com or crooksandliars or some such site where people gather to vent and maybe rally the troops."

    The only way I see so far that you can define "media culpability" and our concern for it is that we agree with your opinion that Bill O'Reilly is a liar and your opinion of Fox News in general, since he and Fox are the examples you've used.

    You seem to equate embracing your assumptions and opinions with being balanced. If Olbermann Watch agrees me that-- O'Reilly is a hack...then I can assume they are not hacks and its worth giving some consideration to their opinion of Olbermann, etc.

    But that's not how you should evaluate whether something is worth considering and I wouldn't give a fig about the people who do think do think this way.

    People can have differing opinions, they can have political ideologies that differ with mine, they can even think Olbermann is the salt of the earth....and STILL be capable of making a valid point and of offering up logical, coherent, and worth considering viewpoint.The more hoops I make them jump in agreeing with my subjective opinions, the LESS I really care about "the truth".

    I'm a big fan of Chris Matthews and Hardball. Chris feels that Bush has made a mess out of his presidency and has hurt the country. THAT is Chris Matthews' opinion and he argues it compellingly and makes me think, even when he's launching into sheer speculation about Cheney and Rove, etc. He honors journalistic ethics by allowing people on air to offer up their own opinions and rebuttals.

    THAT is the way you convince people that what you say might have some validity AND that you care about the concept of ethics in journalism=== that
    you are willing to hear their point of view and to put it out there for consideration...NOT that you embrace all of it or even some part of it.

    Olbermann has no intention of doing that, does not do that, and argues that he has no obligation to present such things. Conversely, although this site has a narrow focus, Bob and Johnny DO...do what Olbermann does not... and they do it daily on this site.

    If someone is REALLY on the fence...THAT is the sort of partisan and partisan opinion they'd respect.

    Have another great productive day enjoying suffering. Are you sure that isn't just your own shadow, though? Not to offend, but from the "outside," your idea of a party seems to be three geeks in a basement pulling their hair out over a boring TV show, and picking the cool ranch dorito "canapes" out of their braces. >>


    Works for me! Pass the Mountain Dew, would ya?

    (You've got salsa on your teeth.)