Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: MSM KO Bandwagon #225: AP Goes to KO Well Again

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

October 10, 2006

MSM KO Bandwagon #225: AP Goes to KO Well Again

In yet another major AP piece on Keith Olbermann, David Bauder hails KO as "the latest media point-person in the nation's political divide".

Since that first commentary, Olbermann's nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average and more than CNN competitors Paula Zahn and Nancy Grace. Cable kingpin and Olbermann nemesis Bill O'Reilly (two million viewers that night) stands in his way.

Olbermann's audience has increased since August. So, why not just deal straight up with readers? Simple. They can't. (for more on why I would direct you to our rather thorough exegesis on the truth about Olbermann's actual ratings from earlier today)

Olbermann has flirted with the #2 spot for a day or two in the past and always fallen back to #3 (or even #4 or #5). Keith is experiencing a spike in ratings but this kind of thing has happened before - in the weeks before the 2004 election, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when MSNBC was broadcasting parts of the Winter Olympics - and KO has never proven his ability to retain those audiences.

As is typical of the MSM coverage of Olbermann, Bauder makes the most extreme comparison possible (the always low ratings week before Labor Day weekend v. the largest ratings night ever for Countdown) in order to hype Keith as much as possible. Bauder's piece is just one of hundreds of such articles from the MSM going back to 2003 and, as we have noted previously, if KO were to ever live up the exaggerated claims he would have numbers in the "Survivor" or "American Idol" range.

With these MSM KO Bandwagon articles it is always important to check them numbers. My calculator shows Bauder using the L+S data so loved by MSNBC and TVNewser to come up with 834,000 viewers on Monday October 2nd. I have no idea what number he is using to arrive at 69% since there is no L+S data from August that, used as a benchmark, gives that percentage increase. The closest is the L+S ratings for August 30th (484,000) which comes out to 72%. Of course, the dog not barking here is that there is no mention of the "all important" 25-54 "money demo". As regular readers know, the lefty TCA-MSNBC axis has spent much of the past year telling anyone who will listen that TOTAL viewers "don't matter" and all that the networks care about is "the demo". Suddenly, when KO pulls a number edging close to 1 million total viewers the "demo" is out and total viewers is back in. Sheesh! Could these guys be any more transparent?

At least the numbers add up this time so we do not need to call on the AP to publish another correction of an Olbermann puff-piece like we did a few days ago with USA TODAY.

Keen-eyed (and eared) OlbyWatch readers will recall that a few days ago Keith referenced Locke's Second Treatise on Government on Countdown. Now, to the AP, he references Justice Holmes' dissent in Abrams:

"The purpose of this is to get people to think and supply the marketplace of ideas with something at every fruit stand, something of every variety," he said. "As an industry, only half the fruit stand has been open the last four years."

Sounds familiar? Yep, Keith has been reading OlbyWatch again! Of course, this is hardly the first time Keith has gleaned material from Olbermann Watch - this time from my Op-Ed in the Fort-Worth Star Telegram which I linked to this site three weeks ago. It surely won't be the last. Not that we begrudge Keith pilfering our ideas - after all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

There was another line in the article that caught my eye:

Early in his second tenure at MSNBC, Olbermann said he wanted to do a segment on whether some of the more heroic elements of former POW Jessica Lynch's rescue were exaggerated. He was told by NBC News executives that he had to balance it with a commentary by conservative radio host Michael Savage, and he refused. He was prepared to walk, he said, but it never came to that.

I have been digging around - and I know it is out there somewhere - but in a previous interview Keith said that as a condition of his return to MSNBC he was not required to "balance" a segment by having guests with competing points of view on Countdown. Now Keith is telling Bauder a different story - that AFTER joining MSNBC for the second time he stood up to NBC News executives and after his display of bravado they backed down and he has been doing the show his way (sans guests who disagree with Keith) ever since. If you can find the quote ping me and I will post an update.

NOTE: Over the weekend we had a Welcome AP Readers post up where we noted that Olbermann Watch received a prominent mention in Bauder's piece. Although I am taking issue with the piece as part of our ongoing MSM KO Bandwagon series, the article is pretty good over all. Bauder obviously did his homework and spent a good deal of time looking at the "Olbermann Wars" in the blogs. So, while I am ripping him a bit, I'd have to say this one of the better articles on Keith in a while.

UPDATE: This site offers a textbook example of why it matters when AP and USA TODAY and others play fast and loose with KO's ratings:

In just over a month, since MSNBC's Keith Olbermann began a blistering attack on the Bush administration, his ratings have soared 69 percent, the Associated Press observed Monday, citing figures from Nielsen Media Research. According to A.P., the sudden rise in Olbermann's audience -- it now exceeds CNN's Paula Zahn in the time period but amounts for less than half of FNC's Bill O'Reilly -- can be traced to his Countdown commentary following Donald Rumsfeld's speech equating Iraq War opponents to pre-World War II appeasers.

As we noted above, the "sudden rise" of "69%" is based on picking a real low number and comparing it to a single night that was a distinct ratings anamoly for Keith which was driven primarily off of the then-breaking Foley scandal. And Keith only beat Zahn on that one night. But how can the uninformed reader possibly be expected to discern the truth when the author cites unimpeachable sources like "Nielsen Media Research" and the "Associated Press" and the piece does not bother to explain how that number was calculated. After all, why would AP want to inflate Keith's numbers?

Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (48) | | View blog reactions

48 Comments

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 12:04 PM

If a real progressive ever gets a chance in the media you rightwingers are going to have a stroke... Hey that gives 67% of us something to look forward to.

By Dude on October 10, 2006 12:16 PM

"Progressive"

So do you think the self procliamed Non-partisan, fair, journalist Kieth Olberman is "Progressive".

Everyone believes in progress, some just don't feel social engineering is the way to do it, nor this fantasy of Utopian social parity.

By KfK on October 10, 2006 12:18 PM

Bob,

As usual, another willing MSM lackey has taken a ratings analysis from MSLSD and used it as absolute fact. These guys love to spew, but they hate math (it's too logical), so they willingly allow themselves to be duped.

By ObserverDan on October 10, 2006 12:19 PM

O'liely, as a fellow atheist, let me say you are an embarrassment and you dumb this site down. That is the only comment i have ever, and will ever direct your way.

By Brian on October 10, 2006 12:27 PM

Bill O'lielly what is a progressive and don’t look in the damn dictionary.. And name me some former people who where “progressives”...Just in YOUR OWN WORDS ?

By Brian on October 10, 2006 12:30 PM

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean being a pacifist

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean a welfare state

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean open borders

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean being anti-religion

Still a Progressive O'lielly ?

By Brandon on October 10, 2006 12:36 PM

So Bob, will you be providing the AP with a little history lesson on KO's actual ratings instead of the ones that MSNBC seems to get the press to run without double-checking the true facts about what his numbers really reveal?

By mlong on October 10, 2006 12:42 PM

Ko ratings are like his love life..he can only "keep it up" for a short time and only with a lot of extra help. :)

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 12:47 PM

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean being a pacifist

I am a pacifist because violence has never solved a problem, it has ended them for a short blip of time, however it has never SOLVED a problem.

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean a welfare state

I support the elimination of increased benefits for women out of wedlock who have more children. IE not increased benefits off of the public teat based on poor decisions that people have made.

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean open borders

I am for the closing of the borders and a 50K fine for any employer who hires illegal aliens. A second time would result in FEDERAL prison time.

Being a Progressive doesn’t mean being anti-religion

I am not anti religion there are religions that are not about pushing their beliefs down the throats of others. I pity religous people because they are gullible.

Still a Progressive O'lielly ?

Now more than ever.

By Anonymous on October 10, 2006 12:56 PM

HASTERT: ANYONE WHO KNEW ABOUT FOLEY SHOULD GO

-- Refers to Self, Repbulican Leadership, as "They" --

WASHINGTON -- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert addressed the scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley in a brief press conference this morning, saying, "After mulling this problem over for a few years ... we have investigations going," Hastert stated. "We have the ethics committee doing an investigation; we have the U.S. attorney general and the FBI doing an investigation; and on Foley, we have the state of Florida doing an investigation." "If anybody's found to have hidden information or covered up information, they really should be gone," added Hastert.

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 12:58 PM

Brian.. A progressive is someone who believes that the power and money should not be in the hands of so few. A few progressives.. OK,, you ready.. Chomksy, Cockburn, Ivins, Commoner, Gandhi, Hugo Chavez. Zinn
the people who lead the city of Amsterdam. Soros, the CEO of insurance company Progressive. the CEO of Costco, Ted Turner, Robert Greenwald, Michael Moore, Errol Morris, Bill Maher. This country needs to take over state control of companies that are neccessary for the existance and daily requirements of Americans. Allowing for profits leads to wide spread corruption and blantant theft.

By steve on October 10, 2006 1:10 PM

and state control somehow doesn't lead to wide spread corruption or blatant theft?

By texaslady on October 10, 2006 1:13 PM

Progressive means "for the good of all" and using intelligent thinking to make a better world for everyone. I would also like to think it means researching and finding your own values without blindly accepting the popular party line.

Please add to the list, Bill Gates, Richard Clarke, George Soros (has a foundation that does provide research and help.)

Please explain which foundations can be attributed to Cheney, Bush family, Rumsfeldt, Kissinger, Wolfawitz, Hastert, shall I go on?

It seems as if Republican stands for selfish, rich and corrupt.

By texaslady on October 10, 2006 1:14 PM

Please add to the list, Bill Gates, Richard Clarke, George Soros (has a foundation that does provide research and help.)

Please explain which foundations can be attributed to Cheney, Bush family, Rumsfeldt, Kissinger, Wolfawitz, Hastert, shall I go on?

It seems as if Republican stands for selfish, rich and corrupt.

By texaslady on October 10, 2006 1:15 PM

Please add to the progressives list, Bill Gates, Richard Clarke, George Soros (has a foundation that does provide research and help.)

Please explain which foundations can be attributed to Cheney, Bush family, Rumsfeldt, Kissinger, Wolfawitz, Hastert, shall I go on?

It seems as if Republican stands for selfish, rich and corrupt.

By cee on October 10, 2006 1:21 PM

Oh my, secular humanists coming at me from all sides with self-rightousness and pat answers to the answers men and women have faced for millenia.

"For the good of all?" What is good? Who is all?

By Anonymous on October 10, 2006 1:29 PM

As usual they take the one day a month Krazy Kieth gets an audience and presents it as an everyday thing.

What about 15 days a month KO can't draw flies?????

By LawStudentSteve on October 10, 2006 1:57 PM

Lie said: "If a real progressive ever gets a chance in the media you rightwingers are going to have a stroke"

He's right. Even if we give him FoxNews and the editoral page of the Wall Street Journal as "conservative" or at least "non-progressive", that only leaves-

ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNNHN, The New York Times, The LA Times, and almost every other newspaper out there.

Gosh, I hope - one day - that a "progressive's" voice can be heard!

By G Monster on October 10, 2006 2:34 PM

I believe the term comes from Sally Field in a movie. "Factual, but not accurate." Anyone can help me with the name of the movie?

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 2:41 PM

Lawstudent... There are liberal voices at the channels you mentioned, as there are conservative views. Could you please name me real newsmagazines that are "liberal". I would like to see if your political knowledge goes beyond the scope of magazines that can be found at your local check-out stand. How is CNNHN liberal ? How are any of them liberal... the only reason you think they are liberal is because your political knowledge is very limited. Ever wonder why this country allows an unlimited amount of lawyers, but every year the amount of people who enter medical school is limited ? The world needs more lawyers like New York needs more rodents.

By LawStudentSteve on October 10, 2006 2:46 PM

Lie said:"The world needs more lawyers like New York needs more rodents."

-Or Liberals.

After 14 years in law enforcement, I saw first hand just how dangerous "limited knowledge" can be. Usually it manifested itself in the guise of some feel-good judge letting an animal back on the street. You know, a liberal- in the classic sense.

My post was only to show you what a dumbass statement you made regarding "if only a Progressive could make it" in the media.

I know that sometimes you post just to provoke, but I am now really starting to belive that you are just a dumbass.

By G Monster on October 10, 2006 2:55 PM

lol,

o'lielly is a dumbass, but you must take him with a grain of salt, as he is a permanent member of olbermannwatch. I think he is actually like an actor playing a liberal, to make them look extra dumb, if that possible.

He's kind of like Alan Colmes, you can see how dumb he is, but you actually start to like him after a while. Plus O'lielly has nowhere else to go, so he's always here for a good argument. :)

By codas on October 10, 2006 2:56 PM

It seems as if Republican stands for selfish, rich and corrupt.

Posted by: texaslady at October 10, 2006 01:13 PM

Unless they can prove otherwise, that is exactly what defines them. What good have they done for anyone but themselves. Don't give me the Wal-Mart and you can go to the emergency room if you need to argument. Oh yes. You {freed} a bunch of poor folk in Iraq. They are free to be killed daily by the lunatics all around them. What else? Oh I know. A very large debt that will have to be paid by resposible people who will have to ask the country for a sacrifice instead telling them to go shopping. A military that has been ravaged by their sick philosophy. A great religion "Christianity" that has been sold down the fucking river by political opportunists. Should I continue. No. Anyone who has integrity knows these things now.

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 3:01 PM

Lawstudent.. I am still looking for an answer.

By LawStudentSteve on October 10, 2006 3:28 PM

Sorry to keep you waiting, Lie... between clases-

Your question: "Could you please name me real newsmagazines that are "liberal" is kinda like asking: "Could you please name me real plants that are green".

I could tell you TIME is notoriously liberal, in both its reporting and its columnists. Look at cover stories that feature "conseravtive" issues/features/personalities. Remember when Newt was named Man of the Year? They put a pic of Newt that was distorted, multi-colored, and similar to an impressionist painting. And that impression was quite clear to Time- Newt/Conservatives are evil. How 'bout their story on Ann Coulter? The cover had her picture taken with a fisheye lens and again- quite distorted. Compare those shots to Bill or Hillary.

Again, time and space don't allow me to give concrete examples however- several books (such as BIAS or even that evil Bill O'reilly's Culture Warrior) document such repeated liberal domination of the media.

I also see you didn't address my main point- CONCEDING that Fox is conservative- that's ONE media outlet that leans right. I rattled off more than a half dozen that lean left.

Where/why are confused?

By LawStudentSteve on October 10, 2006 3:34 PM

clases = classes

By LawStudentSteve on October 10, 2006 3:37 PM

Where/why are confused? = Where/why are YOU confused.

Its tough to take ConLaw notes and address liberals!

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 4:25 PM

Lawstudent.... I asked you to name liberal newsmagazines.. I am sorry you have no idea of any of them. Just shows me that you are living in a very narrow world. I would ask you to name four people on the presidental ballot in 2004, but certainly some neocon would look it up and help you. No,, I am not talking about Cheney or Edwards. So,, Faux news saying that Chaffee and Foley were democrats was just a mistake on their part ? The question is do they hire liars or inept people? Judging by what they call their liberal I have no idea.

By threeleftsmakearight on October 10, 2006 4:53 PM

O'lielly,
By that same rationale, was the Communist News Network saying that William Jefferson is a Republican just a mistake?
Of course you don't think any of these networks, newspapers or magazines are liberal because the lefty viewpoint has become the default viewpoint at most of those places. And, since you're looking for reinforcment of your views, you don't see through the haze...typical error of the neo-com, you don't know any better.

By threeleftsmakearight on October 10, 2006 4:57 PM

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 5:00 PM

Communist News Network.,,, Is that what Rush told you to call it.. does he whisper in your ear ?

By threeleftsmakearight on October 10, 2006 5:07 PM

O'lielly,
Faux News. Is that what Kos told you to call it?
See, we can all play that game. The difference is that my supreme intellect and insight will dominate any silly neo-com argument you make, so you have to resort to childeshness.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 10, 2006 5:25 PM

texaslady said:

"'For the good of all?' What is good? Who is all?"

Looks like a lot of Texans are suffering from this type of postmodern hyper-relativism. Just the other week, while arguing for his right to torture and incarcerate who and how he wants, Bush said:

"What does that mean, 'Outrages Upon Human Dignity'? Its very vague." - George W. Bush, September 15, 2006

This is how neocons remain unaccountable in regard to their crooked policies and inhuman positions: they studiously avoid concurrence on the meanings of words, freeing them from ever having to fully commit their crackpot dogma to a mutually acknowledged argument. This lexical confusion is spread into society and reinforced continuously by Fox News and other indivisible administration organs posing as information media.

That's why I like Olbermann: his take on issues is explainable through rational debate - it has logical coherence with other things you know or can observe. This contrasts with O'Reilly, who yells "shut up!" and threatens to send the Murdoch Troopers when he's on the rhetorical ropes.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 10, 2006 5:42 PM

You know; I can understand why Olbermann and O'Reilly are hung up on the ratings - their livelihoods depend on them.

But when the blogosphere partisans of these personalities start using the fluxuation of viewership numbers as rhetorical arguments against one another, the whole thing gets rather tautological.

I've breezed through this website a bit today, and all I see is huffing/puffing re: O'Reilly's ratings, with a healthy dash of prudish recoiling from Olbermann's outspokenness. How about actually comparing arguments from each side and doing a little fact-checking?

I know it neocon-chic to see truth as a free-market commodity, but its not - despite what those existential beatnik/hippies like William Kristol and Newt Gingrich may say. "Torture" still means "torture" and "separation of powers" still means "separation of powers" no matter how many people vote for Clay Aiken and how many for what's-her-name.

By Ohio Mike on October 10, 2006 6:33 PM

Sir Loin of Beef,

I noticed the following comment made by you:

Are you referring to "rational debate" occurring on his show (I am guessing), since you reference O'Reilly telling everyone to "shut up!" when someone disagrees with him.

My simple question is...when does this "rational debate" occur on his show? I am all ears.

By Bill O'lielly on October 10, 2006 6:38 PM

Threeleftsmakesaright.......... 33 %

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 10, 2006 9:10 PM

"My simple question is...when does this "rational debate" occur on his show? I am all ears."

Ohio Mike makes a pretty sound point, as far as it goes, but his observation has nothing to do with what I was saying. Its true that "Countdown" features nothing that could be referred to as "debate"; its strictly a news and commentary show, with goofy pablum regrettably thrown in for the ratings, and I suggested nothing to the contrary in my previous post. Look at the statement you chose to critique:

"That's why I like Olbermann: his take on issues is explainable through rational debate."

I meant debate between people like you and me, discussing the issues presented on these shows. It sure would be a more productive use of time than is the endless contest of ratings share with which this website seems to be obsessed.

I crave such substantive debate. The problem is that people on the right typically avoid real debate by creating straw-men such as the one you just manufactured to distract my attention in this minuscule venue. They avoid the debate because their jumbled, disarticulated dogma can't stand up to the most lenient of scrutiny. That's why the incestuous linkages between the White House and Fox News are so numerous; and why the administration buys cooperative journalists and "swift-boats" inquisitive ones. Its also, by the way, the reason Putin just had his most relentless adversary in the Russian press executed in a Moscow elevator.

Olbermann's commentary, to my mind, does a good job of logically laying out the evidence that we are witnessing the formation of a very disturbing regime in this White House that is intent on founding a veritable Oceania. Convince me I'm wrong, don't just complain about the absence of "debate".

By Robert Cox on October 10, 2006 9:38 PM

Brandon wrote:

"So Bob, will you be providing the AP with a little history lesson on KO's actual ratings instead of the ones that MSNBC seems to get the press to run without double-checking the true facts about what his numbers really reveal?

Excellent point. As a matter of fact I was thinking that same thing - that I needed to write a post that has been on my mind for a while - an objective look at Olbermann's real ratings, sans hype, over the past few years. I found good data from 2004, 2005 and 2006 and used that to write...

A few words on RATINGS REALITY...
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/10/a_few_words_on_2.html

Enjoy!

PS, I must say it is a brilliant piece of work :-)

By twinsdad on October 10, 2006 9:53 PM

Sally to the girl writing a story about her in "Absence of Malice".....better line....."I hired you and I can fire you.....you got 30 days"
a line W has to start using more often

By Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker] on October 11, 2006 6:40 PM

I wrote: "This is Olbermann Watch not Savage Watch."

An OlbyLoon wrote: That's not the point, RCox.

I wrote: Maybe not in OlbyLoonLand but here on planet earth it IS the point. If you don't like Michael Savage go launch a SavageWatch blog and maybe I will link you.

For further information please consult the FAQ:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/09/olbermann_watch_1.html

Posted by: Robert Cox at October 11, 2006 06:28 PM

NOw.. shouldn't RCox go to AP Watch to bash the AP? Maybe he shoul give the link to himself? Ha ha ha!

By Sanity Clause on October 13, 2006 1:22 PM

Regarding your quote:

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

You may be amused to know that some have revised this to:

"Imitation is the sincerest form of television"

By chrisg on October 14, 2006 3:07 AM

I love you olbermann! At least one sportscaster has the balls to say what he thinks is right. P. off Andy Rooney! I know you are old, but get with the program!!!

By dub on October 14, 2006 3:14 AM

Oh my lord. The only human paying attention to what is going on in this world is this guy you hate. It seems strange that coulter or any of the sea of fakers are getting dragged into this. Can't we all just see that Keith is the only hope cable news has for getting us out of the lies and misinformation that has been going on for who knows how long? Wake up. You were sick. There is work to be done.
xoxo

By Cecelia on October 14, 2006 8:48 AM

If you think Olbermann's "special comments" are the only truth in a sea of cable news lies.... you just might be an Olbyloon...

By Cecelia on October 14, 2006 8:51 AM

"Ilove you olbermann! At least one sportscaster has the balls to say what he thinks is right."

Well who doesn't love it when a "sportscaster" turns political pundit and ethicist...

Always a wealth insight there...

By Natrium on October 14, 2006 2:12 PM

Lessee now, we religious people are so gullible as to believe in being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Furthermore, we believe, as did Cecil B. DeMille that "the ten commandments are not the ten suggestions." We are so naive that we are dead set against corruption. We believe that honesty is not an epithet.

Is it no wonder, then, that wordly and sophisticated progressives, who seem to be above such pedestrian morality, pity us poor benighted religious types for our foolish belief in a higher power than that arrogated by the obviously more enlightened progressive secular humanists?

By Natrium on October 14, 2006 2:12 PM

By Nonfactor on October 14, 2006 2:40 PM

Ahh, Natrium, a tried and true argument of the right-wingers. Create a boogeyman out of all liberals and progressives that fit your standards so you won't have to listen to them. "Liberals hate America so I don't care what they have to say," or "Progressives hate God, so I won't listen to them," or "Liberals just think they're so much better than us."

It's just not true. Funny how you quote the Scout Law in attempts to refute what liberals or progressives stand for. The Democratic Party and most liberals and progressives don't believe that God should play a role in politics; that doesn't mean that they are morally bankrupt. Get a grip, and come up with a new shtick.

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

48 Comments