Olbermann's declining ratings would indeed seem to indicate that his viewing audience has indeed gotten smarter and are tuning out the sportscaster doing a bad Murrow impersonation out.

Hey Doug!

Do viewers have any sources for truly impartial reporting?

Doug maybe the better question would be did viewers ever have any truly impartial reporting. Has there ever been 100%? No!

Everybody has some bent or vent, it's whats sets things apart on the different shows.

Now that being said, I do believe that the FNC host must do the best job on fact checking than CNN or MSNBC. Why? Simple, there are websites out there just waiting to pounce on any and all words they say.

Example: Newshounds, Media Matters.

Objectivity

Yes, I agree. I'm a thinking person so I will bounce around. And it becomes very easy if you watch CNN for a month and than switch to FNC. Boy! is there a difference!

The Hurricane? Well, most places were blaming Bush. And yes I agree, the federal goverment is a mess. But the blame has to be shared also by the state and local goverment as well. The feds can send things but it is the JOB of the state and local goverment to put it in place. And I do believe that Gerge Bush could have went down there. Put a trailer on a slab, hooked up the water, power, and cable. And a majority of reporters would have bitched that he didn't hook up the phone.

Broadcasting is a game of personality, presentation, style , and content.

Yes!....yes,yes,yes, And right now the O'Reilly Factor is the prime time ratings king. Like it or not. And that is a show that is getting blasted in Newspapers, websites, on Countdown. You name it almost on a daily basis. AND! just this week hit 3 million in viewers, AND scored a 2.8 million with a fill in host. The Factor is now becoming a brand name.

Keith has created a niche?

NO!......no,no,no, has he filled a void? Thats better. I won't go into content here because that gets done everyday on this site. Keith has not created anything, or have we forgotten AIR AMERICA RADIO already?

Keith plays to the Air America Crowd and those on the left. Nothing wrong with that. It's good he's on. The problem I have is some of his content you have to look at sideways and thats being nice. If it wasn't for a site such as olbermannwatch Keith would have a free pass. And as we all know Mr. Dollar & Mr. Cox have found some doozers!

But Keith does weasel. Look at the Imus deal. Tip-toed until Imus got fired. If Keith was firm in his beliefs, he should have said what he thought up front. Also, When Keith had his little talk with Jessie Jackson and tried to tie it into a why stop there with the little MEDIA MATTERS produced dog and pony show. Again, be honest. No I don't think Keith lifts stories from Blu-Blogs. He has people like media matters produce them. Why does Media Matters have a problem with everyone else but not Keith? Even has spot promos for his Special Comments.

Case in point Doug, When he went on his why stop there rant. I found it strange that Keith named the number one and three talk radio leaders, but left out the number two man. Funny that happened at Media Matters on their blog which, funny just happened to be named 'Why Stop There'?
There was no Shaun Hannity on that list either. Why? Because Mr. 'I believe in what I'm Doing'. has to pass Mr. Hannity in the hallways almost everyday.

How can he be called the most honest man in News when he can't be honest with himself?

It's one thing to try to present an Edward R. Morrow style broadcast. It's another when it's Ted Baxter doing it.

Thanks Doug for stopping by. You do bring good debate to the table.

Oh and just in case. I do listen to 'The Radio Factor' but my favorite show at the moment is The Jerry Doyle Show.

Cable at night I'll tivo the Factor and while I'm watching that I'll cherry pick segments of other shows off the website. Yes Doug, just about the entire Countdown show is on the MSNBC website where O'Reilly's show has only two segments at the most on the FNC site.

"I watch Countdown because it approaches issues from a different perspective than most of the other news "

No, doubt...

Yes, Countdown is different....Countdown is the "news and/or information program" where "the presenter" soberly asks selected Washington Post journos, or John Dean, or Craig Crawford, loaded questions about the Iraq War and "Bush Administration malfeasance" and then juxtaposes Pres. Bush's image with a groundhog or places VP Cheney's head on a cartoon body in prison garb, in the next segment.

It's the "news and/or information program" where Keith Olbermann airs the latest anti-Bush Admin/Republican/conservative conspiracy theory making the rounds on internet blogs, while assiduously refusing to include a Bush Admin/Republican/conservative guest to answer the accusation.

Countdown is show where Presenter Olbermann, fairly seething with anger, launches into his "special comments" (relentlessly promoted on MSNBC the entire day...) by dramatically intoning, "How dare you, Mr. Bush".

Glad you're enjoying all this wonderful writing and this wonderful alternative to anything approaching responsibility or fairness in a television news program.

Oh yeah, it's so good that you're enjoying DNC-TV, Doug. But please stop trying to con us into believing that a one hour airing of political and cultural agitprop is just a wonderful part of the wonderful diverse array of television offerings for we wonderful savvy sophisticates.

We're far too smart and sophisticated to be fooled by that crap.

Cecelia, whenever you launch into one of your predictable little tirades against the Countdown show, one wonders if you are promoting Fox as a more 'responsible', or 'fair' alternative?

Now, if you were to make a similar tirade against Fox's own brand of 'irresponsibity' or 'fairness', I would certainly begin to respect your opinion a little more.

Just asking.

Cecelia, whenever you launch into one of your predictable little tirades against the Countdown show, one wonders if you are promoting Fox as a more 'responsible', or 'fair' alternative?

Now, if you were to make a similar tirade against Fox's own brand of 'irresponsibity' or 'fairness', I would certainly begin to respect your opinion a little more.

Just asking.

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 2:12 AM

Well, Mike if you were able to keep from saying "Fox" or "Bush" after reading any criticism of Olbermann or his show, I might think you reallly weren't here to defend him.

But then if that really were the case you'd be plying your inability to make a persuasive argument for anything--- including smoke alarms at an underwriter's convention---over at Johnny Dollar's Place, or a war blog.

Posted by: Cecelia April 16, 2007 2:26 AM

"Well, Mike if you were able to keep from saying "Fox" or "Bush" after reading any criticism o Olbermann or his show, I might think you really weren't here to defend him."

Sure Cecelia, I certainly get your point. It's much like your side's inevitable tendency to invoke Clinton whenever they read criticism of Bush.

In a way, Fox IS very much the point. As long as this travesty of "Journalism" called Fox 'News' remains, then you should consider shows such as Olbermann's the enevitable and even necessary backlash.

No, two wrongs don't make a right, but there are times when it is the only alternative.

Also, if the same person who makes a daily ponification at the top of every page on this this site didn't also run a pro-Fox page dedicated to "the truth" about Fox 'News', then their own credibility would be exponentially higher as well.

While it's not exactly conflict of interest...it's more like collusion of interest.

So Mike just defended Olbermann's lack of journalistic integrity by using the well-worn Olbyloon excuse, "Look at Fox! If they can do it, so can we!" Sorry Mike but that dog doesn't hunt except in the mind of the average deluded Olbyloon.

Well, Johnny might do a blog on Fox News, Mike, but I don't.

You may watch Fox News, Mike, but I don't.

Now YOU are invoking Clinton, to go along with your usual bit that no one has any moral standing to criticise Keith as long as there are troops in Iraq.

What's next-- it's "unbalanced" to criticise Olbermann as long as Don Imus is allowed to live? As long as conservative talk radio can garner good ratings? As long a Paul Wolfowitz can goose girls?

The last time I saw Fox they had Sens Biden and Rangel talking about Scooter Libby.

You watch Fox..and have issues with the folks there, then YOU go over to Johnny Dollars Place... or to jesusihatebilloreilly.com and have at it.

But quit telling me I have to jump your hurdles in order to criticise MSNBC's primetime DNC-TV show.

Frankly, we both know you'd be setting out new hurdles for each one I cleared, and using any criticism I made of Fox or the war as ammunition to defend Olbermann to his other detractors, rather than as a reason to seriously consider my complaints about him.

You may be fooling yourself with this "logic" (though I doubt it). You certainly don't fool anyone else.

Cecelia, whenever you launch into one of your predictable little tirades against the Countdown show, one wonders if you are promoting Fox as a more 'responsible', or 'fair' alternative?

Now, if you were to make a similar tirade against Fox's own brand of 'irresponsibity' or 'fairness', I would certainly begin to respect your opinion a little more.

Just asking.

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 2:12 AM
Anyone that uses the thinking side of their brain knows that Fox News is much more on the "fair" side and "responsible" side than More Snot Nosed BroadCasters. Please, tell us how fair Ulbermahn is, I need a really good laugh!

Jeff the moron: "I need a really good laugh!"

What you need is a really good lobotomy

Cecelia: "Now YOU are invoking Clinton, to go along with your usual bit that no one has any moral ground to criticise Keith as long as their are troops in Iraq."

No Cecelia, I wasn't and never said "no one" has "moral ground" to criticise Keith...but YOU clearly have demonstrated no moral ground to criticise ANYONE.

As for my "invoking Clinton", you clearly don't understand analogies, and that makes you a lot less smart than you think you are.

You know Cecelia, your posts remain clean and respectable MOST of the time...and then out of the blue, you suddenly call someone who has refrained from insulting you something like 'liar' or worse, This is morally reprehensible...and to say it has surprised me (twice), is an understatement.

It won't surprise me a third time. I see you for what you are.

Actually Brandon, that dog DOES hunt quite well under the circumstances.

The cable news airwaves are literally saturated with right wing reactionary rhetoric these days. The obvious solution would be to clean it ALL up, but that clearly isn't an option. Roger Ale's brain would have to be cleaned up first. therefore the obvious need for backlash shows like Countdown.

If you'll recall, Fox 'News' was started as a backlash to what many saw as "liberal media bias".

Olbermann is left-leaning; however, he works for a network that has people from the left AND right. Fox has an agenda. If you girls cannot understand the difference, you are as stupid as we have been saying you are.

blindrat

Krille - "People can figure out that the Olbermanns, or Hanities, and O'Reilies of this word are coming from a certain angle and use it as one point from which they can triangulate the truth."

Cecelia - "How dare you suggest people aren't stupid, you evil deceiver? Why, if what you say is true, what would be the point of filling our nights with Olberman-watching and our days with Olbermann-kvetching? What are you doing with that water? No! No!....Ahhhhhhrrrrrg......I'mmm meeeeeelllllllttttting!"

"But please stop trying to con us into believing that a one hour airing of political and cultural agitprop is just a wonderful part of the wonderful diverse array of television offerings for we wonderful savvy sophisticates."

Why should he, and why wouldn't it be? Actually I think what most ruffles the feathers of the BushWing is that they make their electroral living convincing folk that the "mainstream media" is just so horribly tainted by the left, so having a truly leftist newslant on tv kind of gives that the lie. That's all I can figure because the level of "outrage, outrage, I tell you" that goes on here overdoes Termagant.

Tells us plainly and clearly, Ye the OlbermannWatch-- put the spittle protector over the keyboard and tell us-- just what is so heinous about some random, low-rated TV variety show that dares defile the name of Bush-Cheney?

Blinrat: Cecelia and the girls only understand what is 'right'...."right wing" that is!

You know Cecelia, your posts remain clean and respectable MOST of the time...and then out of the blue, you suddenly call someone who has refrained from insulting you something like 'liar' or worse, This is morally reprehensible...and to say it has surprised me (twice), is an understatement.

It won't surprise me a third time. I see you for what you are.

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 12:27 PM
lil mikey, telling us who has morals and who doesn't, proving again, to be the biggest hypocrite on the internet!

"Tells us plainly and clearly, Ye the OlbermannWatch-- put the spittle protector over the keyboard and tell us-- just what is so heinous about some random, low-rated TV variety show that dares defile the name of Bush-Cheney?
Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 12:40 PM"

I take two exceptions with the above.

First, 'heinous' is over the top as a term that most here would use to describe KO's show.

Second, 'variety show' is totally inaccurate to describe a show that has the same guests saying the same things week in and week out.

You did, however, get the 'low rated' just right.

Grammie

Tells us plainly and clearly, Ye the OlbermannWatch-- put the spittle protector over the keyboard and tell us-- just what is so heinous about some random, low-rated TV variety show that dares defile the name of Bush-Cheney?

Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 12:40 PM

I don't think plainly and clearly will do it for you, VOK.

Heck, no... Not in a discussion where the defense of Keith Olbermann must be laid out by your invoking of "the rightwing"..... "the Bushwing"...."the rightwing's "labeling" of some media slant, and.... good ole "Bush/Cheney"....

Not to mention your defense of a piece by journalist, Doug, who is bascially saying "aren't you Olbermann critics smart enough to just change the channel like the rest of America"..... And, THAT, in the context of it being the last thing folks like Mike and Blindrat wanted to hear when it came to their "historical" criticism of Fox News.

No, plainly and clearly isn't going to make a bit of difference, VOK. Anymore than my saying I don't watch Fox News and don't write blogs about Fox News does it for Mike. Anymore than my suggesting that Fox at least seems to air Democrats and liberals and to even pay them to be on staff will do it for Blindrat. Anymore than the suggestion that this is a blog site about Olbermann does it for those folks who then tell us we shouldn't be kevetching about him while Bush has FUBAR'ed Iraq.

No, plainly and clearly telling folks that MSNBC is airing a prime time news show that couldn't contain more DNC talking points if it were written by Howard Dean, and that uses blue-blogs as a source for dirt against the Presenter's political opponents, time-slot competition, and folks he just doesn't happen to like, without any counterview or rebuttal offered, is only going to result in terms like "rightwing", "bushwing", "Fox Noise", Iraq", being thrown around like mudballs.

Plainly and clearly...indeed...

VOK- So why do you people obsess over this again?
Grannie - No comment

"First, 'heinous' is over the top as a term that most here would use to describe KO's show."

No way. You nattering nabobs of negativism spout much stronger language, and do so more often than not. Maybe not you grannie, I know you like to keep your wars neat-n-tidy.

"Second, 'variety show' is totally inaccurate to describe a show that has the same guests saying the same things week in and week out."

Not really. That is the hallmark of the variety show. I guess you are making another anti-Olbermann in-joke here. Dunno.

"You did, however, get the 'low rated' just right."

Well exactly. You Olbermann-Watchers are probably most of the audience. Ooooooo.....he's just soooo bad, that bad bad boy. Naughty naughty Mr. Keith. Ooooooo....I've gotta call Johnny and Jenny and warn them how baaadddd he is being. What an audacious bad bad liberal boy! He even likes girls...oooo icky! Let's talk about him!

Well exactly. You Olbermann-Watchers are probably most of the audience. Ooooooo.....he's just soooo bad, that bad bad boy. Naughty naughty Mr. Keith. Ooooooo....I've gotta call Johnny and Jenny and warn them how baaadddd he is being. What an audacious bad bad liberal boy! He even likes girls...oooo icky! Let's talk about him!

Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 1:23 PM

Look at it like this, VOK....

We are obsessing over a man with a primetime news show, who just made a prominent media guilde's top ten list of most influencial persons in television news.

On the other hand, YOU come to this site, in order to obsess about.....us....

Cecelia...glad you just admitted to 'obsessing'. We might be getting somewhere here.

Then you followed with the same kind of inane "well you're obssesing TOO" logic that implies that we should never invoke Fox "News' in defense of countdown.

VOK- So why do you people obsess over this again?
Cecelia- I can't explain it to you because you are a brainwashed robot that hates President Bush and Fox.

"No, plainly and clearly telling folks that MSNBC is airing a prime time news show that couldn't contain more DNC talking points if it were written by Howard Dean, and that uses blue-blogs as a source for dirt against the Presenter's political opponents, time-slot competition, and folks he just doesn't happen to like, without any counterview or rebuttal offered"

So what? I still don't get it. It's one show. It's like Hanity. Hanity is worse because they hire someone to PRETEND to be a democrat and give the worst and weakest opposition possible so that viewers are actually convinced they have hear an open honest debate. Or if you think that IS better, then it's like Rush. Or Savage, Or take your pick. So What?

My only question, which I am generally interested in, is why you care. And Krille's take, which is that only an idiot can't do the math for themselves, is correct, isn't it? And he is really restrained about making it and then you practically flame him. It's just weird.

Cecelia...glad you just admitted to 'obsessing'. We might be getting somewhere here.

Then you followed with the same kind of inane "well you're obssesing TOO" logic that implies that we should never invoke Fox "News' in defense of countdown.

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 1:38 PM

That all that went completely over your head, as did the Clinton thing, isn't surprising.

At least you garnered your reputation honestly...

"On the other hand, YOU come to this site, in order to obsess about.....us...."

You need to just number that one. It would save typing. But you're obsessing about me obsessing about you obsessing about Olbermann. Now you go.

Truthfully, I come here to see if there are any arguments on substantive issues to be had, and occassionally there are.

I do find you folk very interesting, I admit it. There are some things you can't help looking at and trying to understand, like a two-headed woodchuck or something. It just doesn't seem like it can be so, so I try to come up with some explanation. And try as I might, this just doesn't make sense. I get Bob's thing. He wants to be a rightwing internet impressario and he happens to be rightwing and in line for a large inheritance. But unless you are married to him or something, I just can't see it.

"VOK- So why do you people obsess over this again?
Grannie - No comment"

That question doesn't seem to appear in this thread. Particulars, please.

"You nattering nabobs of negativism spout much stronger language"

Perhaps some do, sometimes. But you phrased the question in such a way that even answering it implies agreement with your characterization of everyone's opinion that KO's show is 'grossly wicked or reprehensible; abominable: a heinous crime. ' If you wanted a genuine answer, you would have done better to ask a genuine question.

"I know you like to keep your wars neat-n-tidy."

Could this be the crux of my taking exception to your statement. You view this site as a battleground in some war, rather than a place to express opinions and debate others. Personally rough and nasty too often, but a WAR about KO?

Have to leave now. I am already late for my PT.

But I will be back to finish in a few hours.

Grammie

Grammie

VOK writes as though I have said "Cecelia- I can't explain it to you because you are a brainwashed robot that hates President Bush and Fox."

I don't know whether you "hate" as opposed to criticise Bush or Fox News or not. I do know that in a discussion where YOU asked that objections to Olbermann be clearly and plainly stated, you simultaneously referred to criticism of Olbermann as being easily discounted because it's "the rightwing" and "the bushwing" kevetching.

So who is calling who a mindless partisan "robot", VOK?

VOK writes "So what? I still don't get it. It's one show. It's like Hanity. Hanity is worse because they hire someone to PRETEND to be a democrat and give the worst and weakest opposition possible so that viewers are actually convinced they have hear an open honest debate. Or if you think that IS better, then it's like Rush. Or Savage, Or take your pick. So What?"

So complain at Johnny Dollar's Place, VOK. I'm not singing the praises of Fox News and I'm not even in their audience, but in order to legitimately criticise Olbermann, I somehow have to berate FOX!

Guess what.... THAT wouldn't work for me, either. Then you'll argue that I only fuss about Olberamann (and an Olbermann board!) because I'm part of "the Bushwing".

It's interesting too, that you would refer to having a counterview and Hannity opposition on to being "worse" than having NO alternative voice.

BTW-- can any Hannity watchers offer a list of Dem/liberal guests on Hannity's show, in order for me to guage who VOK is insulting as being weak among their crowd?

As far as Limbaugh and Savage go, aren't they radio talk show hosts? Are they the face of any cable channel's prime time "news show" offering?

VOK writes "My only question, which I am generally interested in, is why you care. And Krille's take, which is that only an idiot can't do the math for themselves, is correct, isn't it? And he is really restrained about making it and then you practically flame him. It's just weird."

I've articulated why I care. Why am I supposed to NOT care about a guy who does have a primetime news show, and one that Doug himself characterizes as being groundbreaking, unique, and culturally influencial, but it makes perfect sense for YOU to care enough about him to be here disagreeing with me?

Cecelia: Well, Johnny might do a blog on Fox news, but I don't"

No, you just come here to this reprehensible personal smear site and rub just as hard as you can rub. Truth doesn't matter one whit to you because it's all about your team 'winning' for you...nothing else matters.

You can some here and defend a lying troll like Jeff because, after all, he's on your team, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Meanwhile....decent young American's continue to die in Iraq for a lost cause, and I don't think you care at all!

Cecelia: "Why am I NOT supposed to care about a guy who does have a primetime news show"

Because bitch, this is Amerca and you can change the damned channel!

Cecelia: "Why am I NOT supposed to care about a guy who does have a primetime news show"

Because bitch, this is Amerca and you can change the damned channel!

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 2:12 PM
Cecelia, I think lil mikey is on the verge of a meltdown! His bp must be off the chart...

"I think mikey is on the verge of a meltdown".LMAO!

Everything else you 'think' is a lie...why should that be an exception?

"BTW-- can any Hannity watchers offer a list of Dem/liberal guests on Hannity's show, in order for me to guage who VOK is insulting as being weak among their crowd?"

Isn't the show really called "Hanity & Colmbes?" I've only really seen the SNL sendup, and the wisdom there seems to be that Colmes is some kind of stereotype they use to basically lampoon the leftist argument. I don't really know. I don't follow this stuff. Anyone who watches cable news is, IMO, wasting their time. If you want info you can get it yourself these days, you don't need it pre-digested for you. Which I think is kind of an extension of Krille's point.

"As far as Limbaugh and Savage go, aren't they radio talk show hosts? Are they the face of any cable channel's prime time "news show" offering?"

No. So what? Is that your journalistic line in the sand?

"I've articulated why I care."

You have? I guess I missed it. Is it because you believe all the TV cable shows that call themselves "news" shows should be objective? Just state it quick and straight in one sentence, without the robot stuff and all, and I'll have my answer and will shut the ?#@! up.

"Why am I supposed to NOT care about a guy who does have a primetime news show, and one that Doug himself characterizes as being groundbreaking, unique, and culturally influencial,"

Er, because you don't like the show and think it's stupid and you disagree with Doug. If you don't like Breyer's Vanila-fudge swirl, do you found a website to counter it's vileness?

"...but it makes perfect sense for YOU to care enough about him to be here disagreeing with me?"

I don't care about him. I guess you can't believe that. I've told you I think you people are interesting. Just like someone claiming to expose the evil fraud of Breyer's Vanila Fudge Swirl. And I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, other than your apparent view that you've given some answer about what you think is important about all this Olbermann business that I understand. If you've explained it, I didn't get it.

"So complain at Johnny Dollar's Place, VOK. I'm not singing the praises of Fox News and I'm not even in their audience, but in order to legitimately criticise Olbermann, I somehow have to berate FOX!"

You don't have to berate anyone. it's hard to imagine such an existance, but there you go. Biased media on cable is what the market wants, and everyone knows it's biased, so who cares? (Krille's valid argument). Or if you do care (Your valid argument), you can't pretend to be objective if you only apply the standard to one side.

I do find you folk very interesting, I admit it. There are some things you can't help looking at and trying to understand, like a two-headed woodchuck or something. It just doesn't seem like it can be so, so I try to come up with some explanation. And try as I might, this just doesn't make sense. I get Bob's thing. He wants to be a rightwing internet impressario and he happens to be rightwing and in line for a large inheritance. But unless you are married to him or something, I just can't see it.

Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 1:53 PM

You self-servingly "not seeing it" no matter how plainly and clearly it's presented to you doesn't surprise me. That you're the type of guy who denigrates the folks buying tickets to the clown act, while you can't stay away from the tent you label the freak show, is something so transparent blindrat can see it.

Guess there's nothing left to do but merely enjoy your hypocrisy.

"You self-servingly "not seeing it" no matter how plainly and clearly it's presented to you doesn't surprise me."

In other words, you've told me a million billion trillion times and so you're not going to tell you again!!! It's as plain as the nose on my face. It isn't complicated. It's so simple. It's so simple it no one could not understand. Especially as many times as I've been told. And yet I don't get it because of my agenda. It's all a trick to make Cecelia attack Fox. And Clowns. And Stuff. Ahhhrrrrrrrgggggg!!!! I'm meeeeeelllllllting.

Nevermind. I guess I do get it.

>Isn't the show really called "Hanity & Colmbes?"

The show is called Hannity and Comb, because all that really matters is Hannity and how he looks.

Sean Hannity is the executive producer of the show, so he controls a lot more of what we see than Alan does.

Not that I have a problem with that, just calling a spade a spade. It's the Olbyloons (not THE olbyloons, the other Olbyloons, with a capital O) that want to change Countdown and make it what they want.

>So Mike just defended Olbermann's lack of journalistic integrity by using the well-worn Olbyloon excuse, "Look at Fox! If they can do it, so can we!" Sorry Mike but that dog doesn't hunt except in the mind of the average deluded Olbyloon.
Posted by: Brandon at April 16, 2007 10:04 AM

Saying Fox is as partisan as Countdown is a well-worn excuse? Perhaps it's well-worn because it's also well-known. But that dog doesn't hunt, huh, Brandon? Perhaps it would if you trained it to go after ALL hypocrites instead of just the ones you don't agree with.

Oh, but then your dog might turn on you, eh, Brandon!

Too Funny!

"Guess there's nothing left to do but merely enjoy your hypocrisy."

And the clown act. You forgot the clown act.

VOK writes "Isn't the show really called "Hanity & Colmbes?" I've only really seen the SNL sendup, and the wisdom there seems to be that Colmes is some kind of stereotype they use to basically lampoon the leftist argument. I don't really know. I don't follow this stuff. Anyone who watches cable news is, IMO, wasting their time. If you want info you can get it yourself these days, you don't need it pre-digested for you. Which I think is kind of an extension of Krille's point."

Wait a minute.... you don't follow Hannity and Combs but you used it as a talking point as to why no conservative has grounds to criticise Countdown?

You base your conception of the show on a SNL spoof and then turn around and mouth some sort of idiocy about cable news being pre-digested information and not worth your time!

Then...in the midst of this glorious logic you say that Doug was arguing that cable news watchers are wasting their time!

VOK write "No. So what? Is that [radio talk shows] your journalistic line in the sand?"

Uh...no... I also wouldn't compare the Daily Show to a prime time television news show. I wouldn't compare what Olbermann does with Dan Patrick to a prime time television news show... and MOST OF ALL... I wouldn't compare an SNL spoof to ......

"Er, because you don't like the show [is why I shouldn't be here arguing with VOK about it....] and think it's stupid and you disagree with Doug. If you don't like Breyer's Vanila-fudge swirl, do you found a website to counter it's vileness?"

If Breyer's Ice Cream came with a plethora of partisan talking points and accusations unhampered by any rebuttal or counterview, I just might. I certainly know for sure that you'd join me there and spend lots of time telling me what an unworthy waste of time that is...

VOK writes "You don't have to berate anyone. it's hard to imagine such an existance, but there you go. Biased media on cable is what the market wants, and everyone knows it's biased, so who cares? (Krille's valid argument). Or if you do care (Your valid argument), you can't pretend to be objective if you only apply the standard to one side."

Why does it not surprise me in an argument over a matter you say you don't care about....that occurs in a medium you say....you don't care about.... and that references a media personality you say....you don't care about.... You say I now must apply a standard to Fox News.... a channel you say you don't watch or care about..... to all other programs.

Well, it just so happens that I have. I have said that from what I've seen Fox offers a counterview. YOU then replied that it just got weak folks on to counter.... I reguested a list of those "weak folks"..... you countered that what you know about the program from SNL.... and that it doesn't matter anyway....it's all garbage....

Chris Matthews can have administration officials, Republicans, conservatives on air, right along with liberals and the journos and discuss an issue. Tucker and Scarborough the same. Anderson Cooper...ditto..... Larry King...yep....Glenn Beck.... uh huh....

You go from denigrating Fox to denigrating cable news...and calling a clearinghouse for predigested news.... and all in order to counter criticism that Doug's cultural icon feels that he is exempt from doing what every other cable show host knows is course 101 in journalistic ethics....

You've already declared youself as not knowing anthing about cable news, not caring about cable news, not thinking cable news amounts to much, not caring about Olbermann and anything else as it relates to anything about the subject.

I suppose all you have left is to call Olbermann and the whole of cable news a social construct....

"Guess there's nothing left to do but merely enjoy your hypocrisy."

And the clown act. You forgot the clown act.

Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 2:55 PM

Oh, I'm here to help dissect the clown's act.

Even the act coming from the clown who in the process of defending the cable news clown, admits he knows and cares nothing about the entire subject and that cable news isn't worth his time in the first place..

That's a juggling act that would make Olbermann clown proud, Bozo.

Perhaps it would if you trained it to go after ALL hypocrites instead of just the ones you don't agree with.

Oh, but then your dog might turn on you, eh, Brandon!

Too Funny!

Posted by: LMAO at April 16, 2007 2:52 PM

And on YOU!

Johnny, I think we need to see the list again of Countdown guests and do you know last month's guest list of Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson,etc. in order for us to make a comparision.

Great Cecelia: There you go attacking Countdown by invoking Fix, along with the biggest blowhard of them all.

Can you say hypocrisy?

Great Cecelia: There you go attacking Countdown by invoking Fix, along with the biggest blowhard of them all.

Can you say hypocrisy?

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 3:33 PM

No problem, Mike. I just look up the guest lists of MSNBC shows then.

Cecelia with her best "I know you are but what am I" comeback.

"And on YOU!"

You're so clever you're downright boring Cecelia. Are you the best your 'team' can come up with at the moment?

Johnny, I think we need to see the list again of Countdown guests and do you know last month's guest list of Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson,etc. in order for us to make a comparision.

Posted by: Cecelia at April 16, 2007 3:22 PM
king o' the hypocrites, where's the "attack" in this post?

Anyone that uses the thinking side of their brain knows that Fox News is much more on the "fair" side and "responsible" side than More Snot Nosed BroadCasters.
Posted by: royalking at April 16, 2007 12:00 PM

Well, I finally had my laugh for the day!

Hardball with Chris Matthews:

April 9, 2007
Guests: Phil Gingrey, Chris Van Hollen, Eugene Robinson, Tony Blankley, Howard Fineman

Hardball April 10th
Guests: Clarence Page, Al Sharpton, Sabiyha Prince, Deforest Soaries

Hardball April 11th
Guests: Sen. Barack Obama, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Michael Eric Dyson, Armstrong Williams, Kate O‘Beirne, Anthony Zinni, Bob Shrum

Hardball April 12th

Guests: DeForest Soaries, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Elijah Cummings, Eugene Robinson, Pat Buchanan, Tom Oliphant, Chris Dodd

Hardball April 13th

Guests: Cynthia Tucker, David Gergen, Faye Williams, Armstrong Williams, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Maury Wills, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David

On a week devoted to the Imus mess, I count four conservatives on Hardball and the show with Al Sharpton had David Gregory confronting him about not paying back the money the court ruled that he owed the men he accused in the Twana Brawley affair.

Anyone care to compare this list to the number of conservative voices allowed on Countdown last week? For the entire month?

You're so clever you're downright boring Cecelia. Are you the best your 'team' can come up with at the moment?

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 3:36 PM

Yes, the "best" we can come up with is to specifically counter what you've put out as YOUR best argument.

Cecelia: "yes, the "best" we can come up with is to specifically counter what you've put out as YOUR bst argument."

OOHHH, another "I know you are but what am I comeback".

What cleverness!

And by the way, it wasn't MY argument.

Here is the guest list for tonight's airing of Hannity and Colmes:

Monday, April 16th
Breaking news on VA Tech shooting; Ask the Candidate - Rep. Dennis Kucinich; Bo Dietl and Leo Terrell

Here is the program in which the amazingly loud and amazingly erudite (not!) Sean Hannity will shout down and out argue the man who would be president, Dennis Kucincih and then will then turn his amazing powers onto to either Bo Dietl or Leo Terrell, after having bested milksop Alan Colmes and/or his liberal replacement.

The mere loudness of Hannity's voice will competely justify Keith Olbermann in keeping his show a one-perspective only DNC-festival.

>>>.Wait a minute.... you don't follow Hannity and Combs but you used it as a talking point as to why no conservative has grounds to criticise Countdown?

Nope. Where do you get this stuff? You have plenty of grounds to criticize anything. Like Breyers Vanila Fudge Swirl. I just want to know why you do it so....extensively.

>>>You base your conception of the show on a SNL spoof and then turn around and mouth some sort of idiocy about cable news being pre-digested information and not worth your time!"

Right. Don't see the problem there. Maybe if I wasted my time watching a TV show I hate every night I would understand how awful that statement is and how morally objectionable it is to think SNL is more accurate in satire than Cable news is in earnestness. But then SNL's raison d'etre is bi-partisan laughter, whereas Cable news exists for partisan anger. Are you saying SNL is wrong in it's portrayal of said?

>>>Then...in the midst of this glorious logic you say that Doug was arguing that cable news watchers are wasting their time!

I do? Actually, I was saying that was my extension to Doug's thesis. I don't think he would necessarily agree with it.

>>>VOK write "No. So what? Is that [radio talk shows] your journalistic line in the sand?"

>>>>>Uh...no... I also wouldn't compare the Daily Show to a prime time television news show. I wouldn't compare what Olbermann does with Dan Patrick to a prime time television news show... and MOST OF ALL... I wouldn't compare an SNL spoof to ......

Why not? Newsflash...it's all entertainment, and all they care about is what will make you tune in and listen to their advertisers so they can get paid.

>>>If Breyer's Ice Cream came with a plethora of partisan talking points and accusations unhampered by any rebuttal or counterview, I just might. I certainly know for sure that you'd join me there and spend lots of time telling me what an unworthy waste of time that is...

Darn tootin. You Ice-cream fillibustering nut.

>>>Why does it not surprise me in an argument over a matter you say you don't care about....that occurs in a medium you say....you don't care about.... and that references a media personality you say....you don't care about.... You say I now must apply a standard to Fox News.... a channel you say you don't watch or care about..... to all other programs.

Context. I'm not saying you must do anything. I'm saying for me to understand it as anything other than partisan kookery, you must either do that or explain yourself. Or, you can just not care what other people think about your weird hobby. Lots of options. I don't want to seem oppressive.

>>>Well, it just so happens that I have. I have said that from what I've seen Fox offers a counterview. YOU then replied that it just got weak folks on to counter.... I reguested a list of those "weak folks"..... you countered that what you know about the program from SNL.... and that it doesn't matter anyway....it's all garbage....

Right. I'm still pretty consistent, and pretty correct there. I don't even know all the folks on Fox, and I can't begin to tell you if Olbermann is the least objective of all the cable people, but I do know you are essentially quibbling over whether the high-priced call girl or the crack-whore is more suited to the white gown.

>>>>"Chris Matthews can have administration officials, Republicans, conservatives on air, right along with liberals and the journos and discuss an issue. Tucker and Scarborough the same. Anderson Cooper...ditto..... Larry King...yep....Glenn Beck.... uh huh...."

So what? The love boat had several appearances by Carol Chaning. "Why cahaptain Schtooobin', ahhh didn't know you cahhhred." Your point madam? That this whore is worse than that "lady of the evening?"

>>>I suppose all you have left is to call Olbermann and the whole of cable news a social construct....

Why would I bother? But really, if some genre of TV isn't a social construct, what is? "Reality" is what's on TV? Is that your counter-position?

Still waiting for that one clear sentence as to why why why.

Great Cecelia: There you go attacking Countdown by invoking Fix, along with the biggest blowhard of them all.

Can you say hypocrisy?

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2007 3:33 PM

Johnny, I think we need to see the list again of Countdown guests and do you know last month's guest list of Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson,etc. in order for us to make a comparision.

Posted by: Cecelia at April 16, 2007 3:22 PM
king o' the hypocrites, where's the "attack" in this post?

HMM?

"Here is the program in which the amazingly loud and amazingly erudite (not!) Sean Hannity will shout down and out argue the man who would be president, Dennis Kucincih and then will then turn his amazing powers onto to either Bo Dietl or Leo Terrell, after having bested milksop Alan Colmes and/or his liberal replacement.

The mere loudness of Hannity's voice will competely justify Keith Olbermann in keeping his show a one-perspective only DNC-festival."

I guess that is a troll impersonating Cecelia? No idea. Can't quite tell anymore.

VOK writes:Nope. Where do you get this stuff? [that he used Hannity and Colmes as a talking point in defending Olbermann] You have plenty of grounds to criticize anything. Like Breyers Vanila Fudge Swirl. I just want to know why you do it so....extensively."

Well, you not only did use Hannity as a talking point to defend Olbermann...you later admitted you based you're entire perspective of it on an SNL spoof.... :D

Here's what VOK said about H & C : "So what? I still don't get it. It's one show. It's like Hanity. Hanity is worse because they hire someone to PRETEND to be a democrat and give the worst and weakest opposition possible so that viewers are actually convinced they have hear an open honest debate."

VOK writes "Right. Don't see the problem there. Maybe if I wasted my time watching a TV show I hate every night I would understand how awful that statement is and how morally objectionable it is to think SNL is more accurate in satire than Cable news is in earnestness. But then SNL's raison d'etre is bi-partisan laughter, whereas Cable news exists for partisan anger. Are you saying SNL is wrong in it's portrayal of said?"

No, I think you might be right here. You probably are incapable of understanding the speciousness of using a show you have only seen as spoofed on SNL, to defend a cable show, you say you don't watch as well, in order to spend your time criticising a site you frequent, and to argue with people over a medium you deem unworthy of your time and intellect.

That we're supposed to believe that you know anything about the medium, predigested partisan news that you say it is...when you admit you don't watch it.... is similar to how we're supposed to believe that you don't understand why we waste time on Keith Olbermann...

How are we to believe that it's all so unworthy when everything you do says otherwise...

guess that is a troll impersonating Cecelia? No idea. Can't quite tell anymore.

Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 4:38 PM

Just following your argument based upon the knowledge you have of the program from SNL...

No, I think you might be right here. You probably are incapable of understanding the speciousness of using a show you have only seen as spoofed on SNL, to defend a cable show, you say you don't watch as well, in order to spend your time criticising a site you frequent, and to argue with people over a medium you deem unworthy of your time and intellect.
This is the exact same thing lil mikey says over and over, so does lmao. The site is dumb, we are dumb, it's all a waste of time,yet, where do they, themselves, seem to be spending a vast amount of their time? Right here. Very humorous, to say the least.

Why would I bother? But really, if some genre of TV isn't a social construct, what is? "Reality" is what's on TV? Is that your counter-position?

Posted by: VOK at April 16, 2007 4:24 PM

No, reality is what's on SNL.

The social construct is any argument one makes in countering your defense of a guy you don't watch, in a medium you don't watch, as you compare it to a show you don't watch, on a blogboard you think is a waste of time...while you work up to an argument that Olbermann does not exist.

VOK: Hannity runs an OPINION show. Olbermann's program is labeled as a "NEWS" program. Olbyapologist Doug wants Keith relabeled as a "presenter". We here at Olbermannwatch know the true, correct term for Olbermann is PARTISAN HACK.

"That we're supposed to believe that you know anything about the medium, predigested partisan news that you say it is...when you admit you don't watch it.... is similar to how we're supposed to believe that you don't understand why we waste time on Keith Olbermann..."

Look, I can tell you snow is cold even though I don't roll around in it naked every day. If you want to argue that cable news isn't by-and-large geared to attract and flatter particular demographic sensibilities (and I see no reason to exclude The Daily Show) then whoop-de-doo for you, you're wrong. It's kind of a duh thing. You can't divide up a political audience 40 ways to sunday without carving up shows into niches.

"How are we to believe that it's all so unworthy when everything you do says otherwise..."

Well, watch it, judge for yourself, and report back. Don't take my word for it. I have no idea of anything other than I'm not about to try and get my news from any one of these newsertainment piles of trash. How about YOU start watching Hanity and Beck and Savage and O'Reiley and Scarborough and Mathews and all the rest, and then let us know whether your preordained and equally uninformed opinion-- that Olbermann is the very worst of the worst, was correct.

"Just following your argument based upon the knowledge you have of the program from SNL..."

So that was an impersonation of me? I still don't get it. Is that really the lineup? Does that not seem to make my point? I still think it was a troll.

VOK: Hannity runs an OPINION show. Olbermann's program is labeled as a "NEWS" program. Olbyapologist Doug wants Keith relabeled as a "presenter". We here at Olbermannwatch know the true, correct term for Olbermann is PARTISAN HACK.

Posted by: Brandon at April 16, 2007 5:17 PM

I could live with Olbermann painting DNC donkeys on his face, waxing eloquent about the "Richard McCain", and having Oscar wothy special comments moments "I'm out of order?! You're out of order, MR Bush!"..... tilll the VOK's likes and dislikes became all there was to the world....

I'd just like to see Olbermann air a counterview once in awhile....like to Olbermann's own contention that the Bushies were destroying habeas corpus... a subject of such deep national concern that he's never followed up on it since the courts ruled him wrong...

To continue, VOK.

"Second, 'variety show' is totally inaccurate.... same guests saying the same things week in and week out."

"Not really. That is the hallmark of the variety show.....another anti-Olbermann in-joke here. Dunno."

The 'hallmark' of a variety show is the same guests (performers) saying (doing) the same thing week in and week out. Although I don't see it, surely you jest. From:

http://www.answers.com/topic/variety-show

"A variety show is a show with a variety of acts, often including music and comedy skits, especially on television."

Or is the problem that you don't understand the meaning of 'variety', which is: a number of different types of things, esp. ones in the same general category: a large variety of fruits.

Or, have I totally misconstrued your meaning in that you are literally referring to: Also called variety show. entertainment of mixed character, consisting of a number of individual performances or acts, as of singing, dancing, or skits. Compare vaudeville (def. 1).

I would never near go that far, but I also would agree that there is some very small element of truth in comparing Countdown to a vaudeville act.

"You did, however, get the 'low rated' just right."

Well exactly. You Olbermann-Watchers are probably most of the audience. Ooooooo.....he's just soooo bad, that bad bad boy. Naughty naughty Mr. Keith. Ooooooo....I've gotta call Johnny and Jenny and warn them how baaadddd he is being. What an audacious bad bad liberal boy! He even likes girls...oooo icky! Let's talk about him!

VOK, I am starting to become concerned about you. A simple statement of fact by you and a simple statement that you were accurate by me brought on that non sequitur tirade.

Although I have not engaged you before, I have read most of your comments. You seem to pride yourself on your independent intellectual secularist mind in forming opinions, as opposed to those who use the crutches of religion, outside sources and other dubious things to inform their opinions. Perhaps you got up on the wrong side of the rock this morning.:)

Grammie

Looking forward to your response.

Cecelia: "I'd just like to hear Olbermann air a counterview once and a while.."

OH puleeessee Mr. Olbermann....air a 'counterview' for Cecelia. She just can't stand life as she knows it until you do. Do this please Keith so poor Cecelia can live again.

She may even be suicidal. It may already be too late!