What should alarm the AlJazeera Loving news management at NBC news is the fact that Q1 ratings are normally more robust versus Q2 because the winter months yield more TV sets in use....

I think KO's April-May-June numbers may put him back in the bathtub and the Teheran loving Dan Abrams on the street.

I think Milbank better hold off on ordering the next case of Grecian Formula .

Television ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the 'accuracy' of the news. So, the question stands; What is the point of this post? If you look at the overall tone of this entire site, it seems as though it is simply a mouth-piece for Republican talking points and all things 'Fox News' oriented. Therefore, by default, you seem to be associating the fact that Countdown shows natural fluctuation in 'ratings' that that implies that the bulk of what is reported within the show lacks credibility. Following that logic, and in accordance with the charts linked in the closing of this post, you seem to be saying that The O'Reilly Factor is the most reliable program on cable news. Neither of these assertions are true, by any means. TV ratings are like the 'polls' that politicians seem all to eager to cite when they are trying to make a point about war, or the economy, or health care ( et al ). They are simply a 'snap-shot' of one moment in time. And, by the time people get around to debating the logistics of those particular polls, they've already changed. The simple fact remains that it is up to the individual person to determine what they see as 'valid' news. Any person with the ability of free thought doesn't need a blog to tell them what to think.

Olbermann is a lying, suckhole, asshat and should be taken off the TV. Hopefully his ratings will aid in his dismissal.

....And American Idol gets great ratings...

...And your point is?......

You should juxtapose KO's ratings with Bush's approval ratings, then you can make whatever point you are trying to make about both of them together.

I know, I know, this is OlbermannWatch....

Which means talking about the things KO talks about is Right on Topic!

Hey, to the "Other" Brandon: In Olby's case, not only are his ratings trending downward, he also doesn't present an accurate or unbiased broadcast. He's a loser in two "key" demos. And ratings are used by advertisers to buy advertising and set rates for commercials so they are far more important than a political or popularity poll as you're trying to claim. But hey, congrats for presenting info straight out of the olbyloon playbook. Deny, minimize, apologize. Repeat.

70% of Ulbermahn's ratings are Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hizb'Allah sleeper cells in America.
He's a hit with the Jihadi set!
If his ratings are now dropping that means that the FBI is closing these cells or they are about to launch attacks.
I hope it's the former!

The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 1:52 PM

What kind of circular logic to you use moron? Johnny $ debunks the lies that KO spews every night. R Cox is showing that Keiths ratings are crap because Keith and his sicophants in the media base sucess and accuracy on ratings. If Keith had high ratings, you and your little freinds would be on this site every day crowing about how the left has won. Look at Keith's ratings, they prove it.

In response to "Brandon".

The fundemental flaw in your rebuttal to my initial post is making the assumption that i am somehow an 'apologist' for anyone. True, i do watch Countdown on a regular basis, but, in no way is it my sole source of information on the happenings of any given day. That's the great thing about information; you have many sources to choose from. Also, you seem to have missed the glaringly obvious point that i made in regards to the apparent 'topic' of this thread; that ratings do NOT equal accurate reporting. Had this been a blog in relation to how advertising revenue is shuffled from one network to another based on the success of a given program, then your reply posting would have been correct. However, not once in my post did i make mention of the link between 'advertising'and 'ratings'.

Also, Olbermann makes no qualms about his political opinions. You either like him, or you don't. You can debate the merits and flaws of any newscaster on any given day.

So, to simply say that i am using some sort of 'playbook' and to label me as someone who is somehow beneath you intellectually is laughable.

The Factor at April 5, 2007 4:16 PM

..........and here's another post full of baseless accusation. One thing that's always amazed me is the ease at which the anonimity of the internet puts us in.

So, simply because you may know a few people that worship Olbermann enough to throw a fit now and again, when someone that you don't know comes along to provide a valid argument, you feel comfortable enough to generalize about them.

And once again, the point of my post was missed. so, i'll say it again, high ratings DO NOT equal accurate reporting. That is a fact. If done right, you can have the highest rated show on any network and drop falsehood after falsehood on a nightly basis. I'm not speaking for some executive producer of any of the network's signature shows; because in the mind of a producer, they equate 'ratings' and 'accuracy'. That doesn't make it correct.
No circular logic here. Simply connecting some easy-to-read dots to make a point.

"Also, Olbermann makes no qualms about his political opinions. You either like him, or you don't. You can debate the merits and flaws of any newscaster on any given day. "

Wrong, Ulbermahnn claims he's not partisan. His show is far from accurate. It's basically a Far Left/Pro Jihad Propaganda infomerical. He never talks about Islamic agression, he distorts his opponents views and when he lies he drops the story all together,
He's not a news man, he's propagandist!

"It's basically a Far Left/Pro Jihad Propaganda infomerical"

Now THAT is funny

The Other Brandon,

I will give Ulbermahn credit, he's one of the best Propagandist I've seen on TV.
He stays focus and on message, day in and day out.
He's just like Sean Hannity, only the Far Left version!

And once again, the point of my post was missed. so, i'll say it again, high ratings DO NOT equal accurate reporting. That is a fact. If done right, you can have the highest rated show on any network and drop falsehood after falsehood on a nightly basis. I'm not speaking for some executive producer of any of the network's signature shows; because in the mind of a producer, they equate 'ratings' and 'accuracy'. That doesn't make it correct.
No circular logic here. Simply connecting some easy-to-read dots to make a point.

Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 4:45 PM
A ratings expert? Any facts or examples?

Alright, here's a perfect example........

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report: both fake news shows, both, two of the highest rated programs on Comedy Central.

And once again, the point of my post was missed. so, i'll say it again, high ratings DO NOT equal accurate reporting. That is a fact. If done right, you can have the highest rated show on any network and drop falsehood after falsehood on a nightly basis. I'm not speaking for some executive producer of any of the network's signature shows; because in the mind of a producer, they equate 'ratings' and 'accuracy'. That doesn't make it correct.
No circular logic here. Simply connecting some easy-to-read dots to make a point.

The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 4:45 PM

This is what happens when a moron tries to debate you without reading your post. I never equated accuracy with ratings. I said that Olbermann equates accuracy with ratings. Why would you talk about accuracy with Olbermann anyway? Olbermann is the most ill informed political hack ever. Johnny Dollar has repeatedly shown how Olbermann gets his stories from Liberal Blogs. That equals accuracy? Olbermanns existence on MSRNC is his #1 his ratings, and # 2 his liberal bias. Since his career primarily exist because of his ratings, it is completely fair to analyze his ratings. Think before you type. You are a true Olbermann apologist moron. You belong in a zoo with other endangered species.

"This is what happens when a moron tries to debate you without reading your post. I never equated accuracy with ratings. I said that Olbermann equates accuracy with ratings. Why would you talk about accuracy with Olbermann anyway? Olbermann is the most ill informed political hack ever. Johnny Dollar has repeatedly shown how Olbermann gets his stories from Liberal Blogs. That equals accuracy? Olbermanns existence on MSRNC is his #1 his ratings, and # 2 his liberal bias. Since his career primarily exist because of his ratings, it is completely fair to analyze his ratings. Think before you type. You are a true Olbermann apologist moron. You belong in a zoo with other endangered species."

The Factor;

Perhaps you should take your own advice. I did not say that you were equating 'ratings' with 'accuracy', i was simply stating that that is what the initial post in this thread is saying. Debunk away at Olbermann all you like. If it makes you sleep better, that's fantastic. If you feel vindicated at the end of the day using the term 'Olbyloon' in relation to someone who makes a valid point that you refute, good for you. It's widely apparent that i am in the 'minority' when it comes to people that post here, and that's fine. But come on people, there's got to be someone reading this that has even a modest amount of debating skills.

To The Other Brandon: I think the ratings post is simply here to provide accurate numbers to help people cut through the "Spin" of ratings. I do not think R. Cox is making any assumptions or correlations between Olbermann's news accuracy in relation to ratings (I just re-read the blog entry and I can not seem to find just that point). Because of your own bias against Fox News, you may be over reaching when you say, "Countdown shows natural fluctuation in 'ratings' that that implies that the bulk of what is reported within the show lacks credibility." I think "natural fluctuation" simply refers to various news cycles. Certain "news" stories are certainly going to help spike certain "news/talk show" programs, for example; I would say the Anna Nicole Smith coverage helped spike Larry King & Nancy Grace's ratings).

From what understand, I think R. Cox is saying is that both sides (conservative & liberal news "spinners") should step back and look at the raw numbers. Then he is simply pointing out that Olbermann's ratings level off every time he has been the beneficiary of a "news spike." I think what R. Cox is saying is that Olbermann's lastest jump in ratings (because of Dems. taking control in Nov.) wasn't really that big (as hyped) and his demo decline since then isn't that bad, it just seems to be leveling off (when you compare over time since 2003).

When exactly in this post did R Cox say that accuracy = ratings? Cox just did an analysis of Keiths ratings to show how the lefty wing sicophants hyped his ratings when they were not that much of an improvement over Donahue. He then shows how Olbermann only gets higher ratings during the Olympics or elections. So you are bascially making an observaition out of you imagination.

Save the Cats! at April 5, 2007 5:59 PM

"To The Other Brandon: I think the ratings post is simply here to provide accurate numbers to help people cut through the "Spin" of ratings. I do not think R. Cox is making any assumptions or correlations between Olbermann's news accuracy in relation to ratings (I just re-read the blog entry and I can not seem to find just that point). Because of your own bias against Fox News, you may be over reaching when you say, "Countdown shows natural fluctuation in 'ratings' that that implies that the bulk of what is reported within the show lacks credibility." I think "natural fluctuation" simply refers to various news cycles. Certain "news" stories are certainly going to help spike certain "news/talk show" programs, for example; I would say the Anna Nicole Smith coverage helped spike Larry King & Nancy Grace's ratings).

From what understand, I think R. Cox is saying is that both sides (conservative & liberal news "spinners") should step back and look at the raw numbers. Then he is simply pointing out that Olbermann's ratings level off every time he has been the beneficiary of a "news spike." I think what R. Cox is saying is that Olbermann's lastest jump in ratings (because of Dems. taking control in Nov.) wasn't really that big (as hyped) and his demo decline since then isn't that bad, it just seems to be leveling off (when you compare over time since 2003)."

Finally, someone that i can actually converse with.

And yes, you are correct in saying that i am not a fan of Fox News. However, i don't see it as an 'over-reaching' argument, when based on the content of the site.

And yes, you are correct in saying that i am not a fan of Fox News. However, i don't see it as an 'over-reaching' argument, when based on the content of the site.

Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 6:04 PM

What is there to debate. Your Original argument has be debunked. You tired to paint R Cox as someone who thinks accuracy = ratings with out any evidence (very Keith Olbermann like). Then you tried to spin you way out of it when you were called on your flawed argument.

Posted by: The Factor at April 5, 2007 6:12 PM

"What is there to debate. Your Original argument has be debunked. You tired to paint R Cox as someone who thinks accuracy = ratings with out any evidence (very Keith Olbermann like). Then you tried to spin you way out of it when you were called on your flawed argument."

Debunked? Hardly. This is a site that is all about showing Keith Olbermann's 'glaring inconsistancies', 'lies', 'distortions' ( etc etc ). And, in the middle of it all, here's a thread about his ratings. This has been a tactic of Bill O'Reilly for as long as i can remember: equating his high ratings with the validity of his program. And, using the basis of this site and seeing the opinions of those that post here, it's not a massive leap of logic to think that this thread is attempting to equate Olbermann's less than perfect Neilsen score with his 'lack of accuracy'. So, there is a debate to be made. "Cats" simply described a possible senerio in which the initial post by Cox was made. So, to simply throw out the word 'debunked' and draw a very loose connection to my point of view and how Olbermann reports makes no sense ( although it just might score you points with those who think the way you do ). I would really like to see what Cox has to say about this, since it was that person that started this thread.

Alright, here's a perfect example........

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report: both fake news shows, both, two of the highest rated programs on Comedy Central.

Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 5:24 PM
How does the topic go from news shows to "fake" news shows? Are you going to lump in Survivor next?

debunked by the factor, add that one to the list.........lol

Alright, here's a perfect example........

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report: both fake news shows, both, two of the highest rated programs on Comedy Central.

Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 5:24 PM
How does the topic go from news shows to "fake" news shows? Are you going to lump in Survivor next?

Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 6:24 PM

-----------------------------------

........ If done right, you can have the highest rated show on any network and drop falsehood after falsehood on a nightly basis.......

Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 4:45 PM
A ratings expert? Any facts or examples?

Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 5:13 PM

---------------------

Just providing an example based on the question asked

What is there to debate. Your Original argument has be debunked. You tired to paint R Cox as someone who thinks accuracy = ratings with out any evidence (very Keith Olbermann like). Then you tried to spin you way out of it when you were called on your flawed argument.

Posted by: The Factor at April 5, 2007 6:12 PM
Sounds suspiciously familiar, this "other brandon" person. Debunked and wiggling his way out......

Sounds suspiciously familiar, this "other brandon" person. Debunked and wiggling his way out......

Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 6:28 PM

----------------------------------------------

No need to 'wiggle' out of anything. I have stood by my initial post. Once again, the only person that can 'debunk' anything in relation to this is Cox, the person that made the initial post. To use a phrase from the film "The Princess Bride": I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It's funny I have been using the word debunked (accurately) to describe some the false scientific assertions made by Cee on another thread. I think these guys must have picked up on that and decided to use it to matters that are still very much in dispute.

It's funny I have been using the word debunked (accurately) to describe some the false scientific assertions made by Cee on another thread. I think these guys must have picked up on that and decided to use it to matters that are still very much in dispute.
Posted by: craigs at April 5, 2007 6:45 PM

Yeah, I see that a lot craigs...

Factor actually used the term 'sycophant' after reading a post where Grammie used the term. Factor spelled it wrong, but you have to give him credit for at least wanting to expand his vocabulary.

"However, i don't see it as an 'over-reaching' argument, when based on the content of the site."

To The Other Brandon: I can see your point. I would agree there are many intense bloggers here both Left and Right, and sometimes comments degrade into a flurry of name calling. But as for this site being some "...mouth-piece for Republican talking points..." I think you should give it a chance, if only as an exercise in seeing how news is spun.

Yes this site contains some amount of spin and/or bias (as every news/blog/media outlet does), but some of the stuff that Johnny $ and Robert Cox expose here ARE true, and really very obvious. (For example: the silly "news" story that a Porn Star turned down Olbermann. The "flack" (his PR person) said it was the other way around and she hasn't been on Countdown since 2003. All R. Cox did was go to MS-NBC website, find the two video links where Olbermann interviewed her in 2005, as well as link to transcripts. Which makes me wonder, why respond to something if you are not going to be truthful with something as simple as the date of her appearances? And perhaps the bigger issue, how else are you fudging the truth).

As a liberal, I think it takes some getting use to having conservative bloggers make some valid points showing Olbermann's liberal bias and sometime inaccuracies in news reporting. And as a liberal, I think you would agree that other than Fox News, the rest of the cable news media tends to lean left, to varying degrees. I was really into Countdown when I first stumbled across it during the Dems take-over, and I too, thought, alright, finally a guy speaking the "truth," but I grew tired of the Bill-O stuff and felt somewhat swindled in terms of his news reporting. (Recent example: he completely ignored the British Sailor Hostage Crisis, using canned reporting only when they were released. Perhaps (as an aside) you can offer some insight into this, because honestly I am at a loss as to why he did not cover this story. Jeez, even The Daily Show covered this story!)

What I enjoy about this site is you can witness "news spinning" in real time from both sides of the aisle.

A refreshing post Cats!

As someone who gets labeled an 'Olbyloon' just by being here and 'going against the grain' of this site, I must agree with MOST of your post.

I too made a post questioning why KO didn't cover the hostage story...that was about the only post I've made that wasn't assumed to be made by Mike.

Mike and I may have some things in common, but the same IP address is not one of them.

Someone wrote

"I would really like to see what Cox has to say about this, since it was that person that started this thread."

There is no mystery for anyone who cares to go back and read the post I wrote last October - linked in the post above.

Here is a point even an OlbyLoon can follow. Statistical analysis is not meaningful when you form a hypothesis (Keith's ratings are up really big) then measure "growth" by taking the lowest point you can find (e.g. the last week of August, 2006) and the highest you can find (e.g. a few days from several weeks later).

Here is the only stat that matters for 2006:

COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN 0.4 356 427 162

Those numbers mean that Keith has shown modest growth in total viewers over the past fours and a slight decline in the A25-54 demo. If you WANT to show growth you pick the lowest point you can find (2004 when we began covering Keith here) and trace a line from that point until the last two months of 2006. If you WANT to show decline you pick the last two months of 2006 and trace a line until now.

The point of my post is that in four months from Keith's most recent lows in the summer of 2006 up until the end of the year, the mainstream media made much of Keith's "ratings surge" all the way up to about 1/4th of O'Reilly's numbers. In the four months since that surge topped out they have not only failed to report that Olbermann's numbers have been in decline over a similar period but continued to report that his ratings are going up (Rollling Stone, Cornell Daily Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.) when in fact they are going down.

So, the post is "about" the way in which the MSM lies in order to promote someone with whom they share a political agenda. The "purpose" of the post was to announce my plans to begin to publish a "moving average" for KO's ratings as a way to more accurately account for the ups and downs of the news cycle and making more statistically meaningful statements about Keith's ratings.

There is no "conspiracy" here. The third chart I published shows quite clearly that Keith's numbers have grown nicely since last summer. He has not known this kind of success as a broadcaster since 1997 when he left ESPN so he SHOULD be pretty happy. He is certainly the toast of the blue blogs and the liberal media crowd.

What should be a source of concern is the odd way that the two lines have separated and Keith's ratings growth stopped within the demo and yet continued to grow. There are certain ironies embedded in that data.

1) after years of telling us that "total viewers" don't matter because advertisers only care about "the demo", Keith is now growing in "total viewers" and declining in "the demo". I wonder how often we will be hearing from Keith, MSNBC or Brian Stelter about how no one cares about total viewers.

2) as most of Keith's growth in viewership has occurred outside the demo, his "average age" number has skyrocketed. My guess is it is now about the same as O'Reilly's. I wonder how often we will be hearing from Keith and his pals about HIS audience "dying off".

...and as an additional note: Perhaps you agree with me that the likes of Royalking, Brandon, and Joker actually do the conservative thinkers here a great disservice.

They are actually helping the 'liberal' cause more than they will ever know with their empty-headed rhetoric.

To the "other Brandon": your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. But don't let little things like facts stand in your way, God knows Olbermann never does.

And Bob? It'll be a cold day in hell before Olbermann's buddies in the MSM admit his ratings suck and are now trending down not up.

Posted by: Save the Cats! at April 5, 2007 7:17 PM

"To The Other Brandon: I can see your point. I would agree there are many intense bloggers here both Left and Right, and sometimes comments degrade into a flurry of name calling. But as for this site being some "...mouth-piece for Republican talking points..." I think you should give it a chance, if only as an exercise in seeing how news is spun.

Yes this site contains some amount of spin and/or bias (as every news/blog/media outlet does), but some of the stuff that Johnny $ and Robert Cox expose here ARE true, and really very obvious. (For example: the silly "news" story that a Porn Star turned down Olbermann. The "flack" (his PR person) said it was the other way around and she hasn't been on Countdown since 2003. All R. Cox did was go to MS-NBC website, find the two video links where Olbermann interviewed her in 2005, as well as link to transcripts. Which makes me wonder, why respond to something if you are not going to be truthful with something as simple as the date of her appearances? And perhaps the bigger issue, how else are you fudging the truth).

As a liberal, I think it takes some getting use to having conservative bloggers make some valid points showing Olbermann's liberal bias and sometime inaccuracies in news reporting. And as a liberal, I think you would agree that other than Fox News, the rest of the cable news media tends to lean left, to varying degrees. I was really into Countdown when I first stumbled across it during the Dems take-over, and I too, thought, alright, finally a guy speaking the "truth," but I grew tired of the Bill-O stuff and felt somewhat swindled in terms of his news reporting. (Recent example: he completely ignored the British Sailor Hostage Crisis, using canned reporting only when they were released. Perhaps (as an aside) you can offer some insight into this, because honestly I am at a loss as to why he did not cover this story. Jeez, even The Daily Show covered this story!)

What I enjoy about this site is you can witness "news spinning" in real time from both sides of the aisle. "

------------------------------------------

No doubt that Olbermann, and virtually any reporter on cable news in the past 10 years, is absolutely guilty of 'spin' in some form ( whether blatantly removing items from stories or manipulating facts to suit your particular point ). I've seen Keith do it myself many times.

As far as the 'British soldiers' story, i honestly can't speak to that. Producers have a large amount of control over what is given time versus something else. Perhaps ( and bare in mind for those that will consider this my own personal 'spin' on behalf of Olbermann, it isn't. It's just speculation ) the producers of the show may have considered this something that has gotten so much air-time on MSNBC, that so much speculation had already been put out, that so many minds had been made up about how this would end, that they simply didn't cover the story.

In all ( and this is something that some people don't seem to understand ) is that Countdown is 'news', 'entertainment', and a certain amount of 'opinion' all rolled into one.

The line between 'spin' and news was blurred a long time ago. Long before Olbermann or O'Reilly or Sean Hannity became so well known in the realm of cable news.

But, more to the point of my first post, and more to the point of why i think that Cox is using this thread to possibly equate 'accuracy' with 'ratings'.

To quote from the initial thread post by Cox:

"It strikes Olbermann Watch as more useful to look at Keith's ratings over the long-term by looking at the annual ratings data."

Seeing as how Olbermannwatch is used to show the 'inconsistancies' in Keith's broadcasts, his 'spin', and even 'lies', the phrase 'It strikes Olbermann Watch as more useful....' seems to indicate a direct connection with the 'theme' of the site and the ratings themselves.

They are actually helping the 'liberal' cause more than they will ever know with their empty-headed rhetoric.

Posted by: at April 5, 2007 7:40 PM
Thinks so lil mikey? Hoe does it feel to be the lone person that thinks that? Oh, I forgot your alter ego, too.

Posted by: Robert Cox at April 5, 2007 7:39 PM

There is no "conspiracy" here. The third chart I published shows quite clearly that Keith's numbers have grown nicely since last summer. He has not known this kind of success as a broadcaster since 1997 when he left ESPN so he SHOULD be pretty happy. He is certainly the toast of the blue blogs and the liberal media crowd.

--------------------------------------------

Never made any mention of a 'conspiracy'. I was simply pointing out what appeared to be a direct correlation between the sites goals and the extensive post regarding ratings.

Factor actually used the term 'sycophant' after reading a post where Grammie used the term. Factor spelled it wrong, but you have to give him credit for at least wanting to expand his vocabulary.

Posted by: at April 5, 2007 6:59 PM
Unlike the 12 word person that lurks here 24/7.

"To the "other Brandon": your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. But don't let little things like facts stand in your way, God knows Olbermann never does. "

Posted by: Brandon at April 5, 2007 7:44 PM

--------------------------

So, how is it flawed?

"To the "other Brandon": your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. But don't let little things like facts stand in your way, God knows Olbermann never does. "

Posted by: Brandon at April 5, 2007 7:44 PM

--------------------------

So, how is it flawed?

Brandon, Joker, Royalking, for what it's worth, this conservative is glad you all are here!

I think Robert defended is position and answered your question in the above post.

But, thank you for clarifying your position by providing me the initial quote:
"It strikes Olbermann Watch as more useful to look at Keith's ratings over the long-term by looking at the annual ratings data."

I feel "more useful" is used in providing a direct connection with how ratings are "spun" or "analyzed" depending on the ratings venue. The ratings are ratings, raw factual data if you will (used by the left & right), just because they are posted here versus a pro-Olbermann site, does not change the raw data.

"I think Robert defended is position and answered your question in the above post.

But, thank you for clarifying your position by providing me the initial quote:
"It strikes Olbermann Watch as more useful to look at Keith's ratings over the long-term by looking at the annual ratings data."

I feel "more useful" is used in providing a direct connection with how ratings are "spun" or "analyzed" depending on the ratings venue. The ratings are ratings, raw factual data if you will (used by the left & right), just because they are posted here versus a pro-Olbermann site, does not change the raw data."

Posted by: Save the Cats! at April 5, 2007 8:21 PM

-----------------------------

Yes, Cox's stated point as to why this thread was started was quite clear. And no, the data does not change based on the venue it is displayed in.

If the point is to show that Countdown is not the 'ratings masterpiece' that some claim it to be, then that is fine. A point well made.

However, in it's initial presentation and in it's stated venue, it can easily be misconstrued to be something that it might not be.

REALITY CHECK

The only "direct correlation" here is between your imagination and your inability to read the plain meaning of the written word.

This is the second post I've written about Countdown's ratings since October, 2006. In all of the posts I've ever written about Keith's ratings I have never once equated audience size with accuracy of content. There is no correlation, I've never said there was and so this entire conversation is a complete waste of time.

Next...

Brandon, Joker, Royalking, for what it's worth, this conservative is glad you all are here!

Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 8:20 PM
I think lil mikey still feels bad for calling you a sanctimonious bitch, otherwise he would have lumped you in there, too, Cecelia. P.S. I think you got a nice butt, too. :)

Cecelia. P.S. I think you got a nice butt, too. :)

Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 8:39 PM

Thanks, Royal. Your check is in the mail...

"I feel "more useful" is used in providing a direct connection with how ratings are "spun" or "analyzed" depending on the ratings venue. The ratings are ratings, raw factual data if you will (used by the left & right), just because they are posted here versus a pro-Olbermann site, does not change the raw data.
Posted by: Save the Cats! at April 5, 2007 8:21 PM"

You beat me to the punch. I would, however, go futher and state that is the only reasonable interpretation of the line. R Cox adressed the ratings, the stories about the ratings, why the stories are inaccurate and a better way to determine the true rise and fall of Meltdown.

Grammie

PS Wiggles is an inside joke among a few of us here.

Thanks Grammie, I agree.

I always assume that people read the actual posts by Johnny, Robert and Brandon and not just the comments.

"REALITY CHECK

The only "direct correlation" here is between your imagination and your inability to read the plain meaning of the written word.

This is the second post I've written about Countdown's ratings since October, 2006. In all of the posts I've ever written about Keith's ratings I have never once equated audience size with accuracy of content. There is no correlation, I've never said there was and so this entire conversation is a complete waste of time.

Next..."

Posted by: Robert Cox at April 5, 2007 8:36 PM

-----------------------------------------------

To simply state that the written word about ratings is 'plain' in conjunction with this site and it's intended goal is to completely underestimate the written word.

Context is everything when you look at sites like Olbermann Watch who bring up 'ratings' as a point of contention.

In the context of the site, you presented the point that Olbermann's ratings in certain demographics are not as strong as some would make them out to be, and ( until your recent, stated response to my question ) made no mention of the seperation of how your opinion of Olbermann was seperated from the ratings data that you showed.

And to simply toss aside the entire duscussion contained within this thread as a 'waste of time' is to underestimate the people that may have an alternate perspective from what you present.

Never made any mention of a 'conspiracy'. I was simply pointing out what appeared to be a direct correlation between the sites goals and the extensive post regarding ratings.

Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 8:02 PM
Another of lil mikeys posts debunked, add Bob to the even longer list.

Cecelia, I almost forgot to thank you for those pictures you sent me.

Hey Cats, no problem. I owe you more than one.

Every time I see or hear the word 'cat' I have to giggle remembering the first time i read any your posts.

Grammie

Brandon, Joker, Royalking, for what it's worth, this conservative is glad you all are here!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 8:20 PM

That post says a lot more about Cecelia than it does the three stooges.

So, how is it flawed?
Posted by: The Other Brandon at April 5, 2007 8:07 PM

I would assume Brandon's lack of response combined with Daddy Cox swooping in to fight his battles means one thing and one thing only:

It's Flawed because Brandon says it's Flawed!

How dare you ask him to explain what he means...

And don't look at the man behind the curtain....

Move along, nothing more to see here....

Cluck, cluck, cluck. Crap, crap, craaaap.

Grammie

I see happy hour's still not over, eh Grammie...

RoyalKing/Jeff AKA moron 8:02PM: "Thanks so lil mikey".

I just had to take a look at this thread for the first time to see if I had made any anon posts here I didn't know about?

Sho nuff, apparently I did at 7:40 .... according to Jeff anyway....the site moron.

WHY can't I remember doing this stuff???

>>>>Brandon, Joker, Royalking, for what it's worth, this conservative is glad you all are here!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 8:20 PM

>>>>That post says a lot more about Cecelia than it does the three stooges.

That is certainly true. I am pretty surprised at her statement there, but then it may well be that she has some vested interest in the volumn of viewership here. I don't think it's ever been established who does and does not get paid for their work here, or by whom. None of this is to suggest that Cecelia does or does not look like this:

http://uploadextra.com/img1/5b2c0724ff56192bad0b900b3beee745/cecelia.jpg

real classy, vokie. Why do you loons care who is paid and who is not? Can't make a legitimate argument, so you dwell on this?

>real classy, vokie. Why do you loons care who is paid and who is not?

Uh, oh... I think there's one of them big words to describe the BUSHWIPE morons that go after K.O. to deflect from the daily embarrassment and abuse for being a Bush loyalist, all for free:

masochist

At least Billdo, Sean "Gokkun" Hannity, Flushed Limpo, Savage, Beck, Levine, and so forth, down to Tony Snow, are getting paid.

As far as Cecelia goes, I don't really pretend to understand anyone who is so incredibly interested in Olbermann, but I try to come up with sane explanations because she often seems quite sane, despite constant defense of the Bush administration, very, very, very, much like Bob Cox. But if you compare the pictures, you see that there are differences, so we'll drop the shovel there.

There is a legitimate argument to be made as to why anyone should be surprised that the moderate Cecelia is glad that Joker "is here." Why wouldn't I be surprised? Joker has called for deliberate fomenting of "Muslim" civil war so "they" will kill each other off. He wants to wade in "muslim" blood and roots for the non-Christian body count in Iraq to go as high as possible. If Cecelia is glad he is here, it is either to provide insane righwing balance to the insane left, or simply because she wants Olbermannwatch to get more traffic, or both. Or for some other reason which she will no doubt elaborate upon for us.

Vok,

Well, being as deep and inscrutable as I am, I like the fact that Joker is here rather like I like the fact that Coward Watch is here. Both are capable of pushing buttons in a way that sends their opponents into garment ripping apolexy.

That's a sight that's highly amusing in the context of an anonymous internet blogboard, not to mention a blogboard where the purpose of taking a culturally aclaimed national news-caster "seriously" is considered so puzzling.

I love keith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tv1grFvJWc

Joker push buttons?

If asking "Why are the leftists defending Iran?"
is 'pushing a button' then, by all means Joker, push away.

Try pushing the button that changes you back into Rodan, then back into Red Wolf, then back into Rico.

You claim to be separate people, yet interesting how only one of you posts for weeks on end.

'Joker' must have the computer for March and April while 'Rodan' had it for February and 'Red Wolf' had it for most of January and late last year.

Yes, I'm glad you are ALL here...

Makes my job of exposing hypocrisy sooooo much easier...

"There is a legitimate argument to be made as to why anyone should be surprised that the moderate Cecelia .."

Cecilia a moderate ?
You certainly don't know her very well.

In case you were wondering, Katrna VandenHeuvel doesn't mince words, and didn't on last night's Colbert Report, particularly when talking about the Iraq war ("The
Most colossal foreign policy disaster this country has ever experienced") and standing behind The Nation's coverage of and opposition to it from the get-go ("We never lost our head — while too much of the media gave head....we need watchdogs, not lapdogs"). VandenHeuvel included Stephen Colbert in with the "lapdog" part, but he deftly sidestepped by proclaiming himself too distracted by the image raised by the two visuals.

Too many "lapdogs"!
Know anyone like that ?

Cecilia a moderate ?
You certainly don't know her very well.

Posted by: at April 10, 2007 8:11 PM

Well, your detailed knowledge of me should extend to learning how to spell my name.

In case you were wondering, Katrna VandenHeuvel doesn't mince words, and didn't on last night's Colbert Report, particularly when talking about the Iraq war ("The
Most colossal foreign policy disaster this country has ever experienced") and standing behind The Nation's coverage of and opposition to it from the get-go ("We never lost our head — while too much of the media gave head....we need watchdogs, not lapdogs"). VandenHeuvel included Stephen Colbert in with the "lapdog" part, but he deftly sidestepped by proclaiming himself too distracted by the image raised by the two visuals.

Too many "lapdogs"!
Know anyone like that ?

Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at April 10, 2007 8:21 PM
Colbert is comedy, that's why he is on the "comedy channel." In other words, not to be taken seriously......

of penicillian after having anonymous sex in cheap hotel rooms with his groupies.

a dose of penicillian that is, given he sleeps with disease-riddled whores.

Lots and lots and even then, limp dick.

And how long have you been unable to spell? Obtometrist? Pray what tell kind of specialty is THAT?

Wonder if Olbermann has had his dose of penicillian from getting a dose of whatever STD his whorish "girlfriends" have given him.