The media critics are too busy writing fawning articles kissing his ample butt to actually pay attention to what he was saying. Sure, NBC probably did just what ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox would have done had they been given the videos but Olby's spin on this is disgusting and self-serving. I believe it was the public who demanded that the networks STOP showing these videos almost instantly after their initial broadcast.

It was; but since everyone is playing The Fantasy Game with the "what if the students and/or professors had guns" angle... let's try THIS hypothetical:

What if NBC announced they received that package and had turned it over to the FBI and were NOT going to air any of its contents?

Do you not think there would be 10 times the outrage from people demanding their "right to know" or somehow gleeming some sort of conspiracy/ cover-up/ New World Order gossip?

The Orange One's "you, the viewer, are at fault" spin is pathetic; but I think I have to give his employer a pass on airing the stuff... after all, FOX was more than happy to follow suit with its reporting before the public backlash, so one has to assume that they would have done no differently had they been the ones receiving the package.

"I think I have to
give his employer a pass on airing the
stuff... after all, FOX was more than happy
to follow suit with its reporting before the
public backlash, so one has to assume that
they would have done no differently had
they been the ones receiving the package."

And if Fox is willing to do it, you know it must be right.

Of course you shouldn't air this stuff. What kind of retard gratuitously grants a serial killer's their last wish? The kind that wants to make a buck off a spectacularly disgusting human tragedy. Garbage.

I don't know just how to put this one down but I'll try. I believe that all media outlets are at least partially to blame in the media debacle with the heap of scorn going to NBC. I remember Keith explaining in great detail just how this package showed up and all the steps NBC news did to take care of it. So now, it seems that Mr. Olbermann is trying to basically deflect blame from his bosses to the public at large which for me, personally I don't buy in the slightest. Every time I saw the tiniest fraction of any video of the killer & I changed the channel regardless of who was airing it. I don't have to walk into a sewer to know it's going to stink and I don't have to watch any of that video to know that the murderer was at odds with the real world. Perhaps you are well right David in that more folks would clamour more to see the video than have it boxed away, never to be shown. But to those folks who feel a need to see the murderer on video I would say...nothing, I would just shake my head and walk away.

MS-NBC used a still frame of the killer with the guns at the begining of a Sunday afternoon "Doc-block" type show. The documentary was about serial killers (having nothing to do with VT) but they shamelessly used the Cho picture to "hook" the viewer. It was pretty disgusting.

I'm not surprised that Olby would stoop that low in order to deflect the blame from himself. If Steve Capus would have announced that NBC received the package but deemed the video and photos of Cho pointing a gun too graphic or disturbing especially for survivors who actually saw Cho in action, I think the public would have accepted that. Perhaps if NBC News execs weren't so ravenous to capitalize on this gruesome massacre, the network could have shown the drawings or other images in which Cho did not brandish a gun or ramble incoherently about the crime. They could have broadcast the other images and video at a later date. But no, it's all our fault, not the fault of NBC News execs. Thanks for clearing that up, Olby.

By the way, MSNBC pulled the plug on Alison Stewart's The Most. I guess they wanted to wait till after the IMUS fiasco to calm down, but it was good they were able to "showcase her as a BLACK anchor" when they (specifically Olbermann) needed to. Oddly, she subs for KO tonight. Guess he has more vacation days then she did. Great company to work for.

Thank heaven for small blessings. So much guilt and blame to be shared by so small an audience.

Grammie

This is getting rediculous

thats ridiculous

David: You do not have to give over the material to have conspiracy theories about this whole ordeal. How on Earth was the perpetrator able to kill two people, mail the documents (speedily and efficiantly), comeback, use semi-automatic weapons, and get away with killing 32 innocent victims? That is my quesrion ... I am disappointed in those that have not inquiried on these unusual happenings yet.

Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor

I am surprised that you consider this an area for serious inquiry that has been neglected. It is, and obviously, was not only possible but not that difficult for one man to carry out.

We had a suicidal evil maniac who did a lot of planning. He is equipped with two guns that accommodate ten and fifteen round mags that can be changed in three to five seconds, which in the circumstances of shock and fear of his victims is an eternity, thus ensuring his always being armed and ready. His package is ready to go. He is operating in an area that ensures that no one is on guard or anticipating anything other than classes as usual.

Once the first murders are misjudged by the authorities, he still has the advantage. Flee, the dorm, over to Fed Ex with his already prepared package then over to Norris Hall. I am thankful that he was stopped when he was.

Grammie

>We had a suicidal evil maniac who did a lot of planning. He is equipped with two guns that accommodate ten and fifteen round mags that can be changed in three to five seconds, which in the circumstances of shock and fear of his victims is an eternity, thus ensuring his always being armed and ready. His package is ready to go. He is operating in an area that ensures that no one is on guard or anticipating anything other than classes as usual.

Once the first murders are misjudged by the authorities, he still has the advantage. Flee, the dorm, over to Fed Ex with his already prepared package then over to Norris Hall. I am thankful that he was stopped when he was.

Wow Grammie, you've put a lot of thought into this. Do you have something to tell us?

"Wow Grammie, you've put a lot of thought into this. Do you have something to tell us?"

Grammie apparently has an exclusive that might just help the authorities with this case, since she seems to be the only one who knows Cho went to Fed Ex...in addition to the Post Office.

Heaven forbid someone put some thought into a post! You guys are total idiots. You should put a little thought into your posts, as I have said at least 3 times to you mikey. Is that how you debate mikey? 2nd hypocritical post of the day. How does your foot feel down your throat?

Jeff, why won't you listen? You forgot to look up 'hypocritical' again, didn't you?

Now Jeffy, let's take a recent example of REAL hypocrisy on this board:

You said; "You should put a little thought into your posts". Now THAT Jeff is classic 'hypocrisy' because you apparently never put any thought into your own posts.

But wait....maybe I'm wrong about Jeff! Maybe he really is doing the best that he possibly can?

"Wow Grammie, you've put a lot of thought into this. Do you have something to tell us?
Posted by: at April 24, 2007 1:22 AM"

Chicken Blogger, I don't know if I have something to tell you or not. I only stated my opinion about the ease that something like this can happen based on the facts.

I do know, however, that maudlin emotionalism and wild eyed conspiracy theories do not serve us well to guard against such horrors in the future.

What are your thoughts about the points I raised? Or, just offer your thoughts.

Grammie

"Wow Grammie, you've put a lot of thought into this. Do you have something to tell us?"

Grammie apparently has an exclusive that might just help the authorities with this case, since she seems to be the only one who knows Cho went to Fed Ex...in addition to the Post Office.
Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2007 1:45 AM

Nice!

He did use overnight shipping--but it was the USPS overnight shipping, however he used the wrong zip code (too many digits) and an incorrect address which delayed it being delivered until 2 days afterwards. Grammie was technically correct that he did send an overnight package, she only had the carrier wrong. If that's the best you have to try and discredit a poster here, you don't have much and that makes me LMAO!

Brandon's last post is a classic example of why extreme right wingers have this well earned reputation of for lacking a sense of humor.

Brandon, you actually took this exchange as a serious argument when it was never intended to be anything but an injection of light humor - a quip....Brandon!

You can't do anything but laugh at people like you.

Mikey- you are missing the point... again The debate was started by one of your lefty conspiracy theorists that felt it was hard for one individual to pull this off. In a three to four hour window one person could have done far more damage. Yet you beat on Grammie for naming the wrong carrier. Lame and clueless. The idiot in this debate is technicolor who things there is a conspiracy at every level of this country. Rove did it!

No Benson, I didn't "miss the point" at all!

I fully understood that I was never really a part of this 'debate' at ALL, nor did I really want to be. All I was doing was injecting a little humor...lighten things up a little, if you will. It certainly was not as you say, any attempt to "beat on Grammie" either.

That little quip never required a response from anyone. I was not attempting to make any serious point...However in retrospect, you COULD look at it as a way of parodying the way many tend to hang on every little word, and every little mistake....no matter how innocent the thought behind them might have been. The previous week's big news story was a prime example of that.

As for the shooting, I am squarely in the middle on this one...and I don't see where any of the second guessing is getting us. It's all Monday morning quarterbacking.

Things often get WAY to contentious on the board, and sometimes a little humor should be helpful....but when others on here mistake an obvious quip for something more than it is, and then respond in an overly hostile manner, it tends to shine a light on how overly serious some people are.

As I said before, you can't do anything but laugh.

Things often get WAY to contentious on the board, and sometimes a little humor should be helpful....but when others on here mistake an obvious quip for something more than it is, and then respond in an overly hostile manner, it tends to shine a light on how overly serious some people are.

As I said before, you can't do anything but laugh.

Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2007 9:43 AM
Hypocrtitical post #1 of the day! You mean like when you accused me of not knowing who Wolfowitz was when I made the statement, being sarcastic, "I thought it was Bush and Cheneys war." Yes, exactly like when I said that. Idiot.

lil mikey also lying, it wasn't a little quip, you're still crying about Janet putting you in your place. Secondly, you wouldn't know what humor was if it slapped you up side of your face. You are angry, bitter olbyloon and shows in every single one of your posts. Oh, and very desperate, too.

"...The news media, us, the news viewer, you, are to some degree complicit in fulfilling this part of his evil wish..."

That is the quote in context. Amazing how this site manages to leave off the "us" part of the quote. The statement is completely accurate: Cho wanted publicity and the public wanted to know about Cho. The media gave the public what they wanted...

Any questions, kids?

Refresh my memory a little Jeff about when and how Janet ever put me "in my place"?, Cuz I just don't remember any such thing. Last thing I remember is Janet literally going ballistic over a harmless little joke about groupees & how her ridiculous reaction made no sense at all. Trust me Jeff, I'd almost forgotten it, and I sure as hell am not 'crying' about it.

More Jeff nonsense: "You are angry, bitter, olbyloon": Funny you'd think my friends and family would have noticed something like this? The only one who has noticed anything at all is my very intelligent wife, who has read some of the incredible stupidity you have posted with amazement... and wishes I would just quit wasting my time responding to you.

Finally Jeff, have you educated yourself a little about Paul Wolfowitz yet?

Blindrat: "Amazing how this site manages to leave off the "us""

THAT is precisely the kind of distortions that this site is guilty of making week in and week out. I've pointed out several similar examples myself. When you do that, you then get accused of 'missing' the point concerning what KO 'meant'.

What can you say Blindrat....this is a SMEAR site...truth, context, and fairness concerning Olbermann always takes a back seat here.

Blindrat: "Amazing how this site manages to leave off the "us""

THAT is precisely the kind of distortions that this site is guilty of making week in and week out. I've pointed out several similar examples myself. When you do that, you then get accused of 'missing' the point concerning what KO 'meant'.

What can you say Blindrat....this is a SMEAR site...truth, context, and fairness concerning Olbermann always takes a back seat here.

Mike,

These same people complain that media-matters quotes people out of context, when that site gives PARAGRAPHS of context...

Amazing, eh?

...truth, context, and fairness concerning Olbermann always takes a back seat here.

Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2007 12:46 PM
Especially when you open your trap!

"...The news media, us, the news viewer, you, are to some degree complicit in fulfilling this part of his evil wish..."

That is the quote in context. Amazing how this site manages to leave off the "us" part of the quote. The statement is completely accurate: Cho wanted publicity and the public wanted to know about Cho. The media gave the public what they wanted...

Any questions, kids?

Posted by: blindrat at April 24, 2007 12:35 PM

How would Johnny including the word "us" in his headline (a nonquotation headline) above change the context?

It's assumed Olbermann feels that MSNBC is complicit in following Cho's wishes because they aired his writings and THAT is the subject at hand. That is the complicity assumed. The headline is in going beyond that to arguing that the audience is complicit too.

But it's ironic that here you are, quibbling that "us" was left off and therefore some folks might assume that Olbermann didn't include the media as being complicit and then you make a statement that gives the media far LESS complicity than Olbermann himself said in his statement and in what Johnny implied when you say:

"The statement is completely accurate: Cho wanted publicity and the public wanted to know about Cho. The media gave the public what they wanted..."

That statement of yours makes it sound like Olbermann is arguing "Yeah, I did it, mom....but he made me". That's far more egrecious than anything Johnny implied about Olbermann.

It's not surprising that you're contradicting yourself in making such a quibble. Mike routinely does that as well when contorts himself into a pretzel when he flaks for Olbermann.

Cecelia, I'm sure you saw above that mikey was whole heartedly agreeing with the ratboy in regards to the "us" word. Mountains out of not even a molehill, more like a grain of sand, i.e. grasping at short straws, again.

Cecelia: "How would Johnny including the word "us" in the headline (a nonquotation headline) above change the context?"

The fact that you would even ask a question like this shows so much about your giddy eagerness to smear someone at the expense of fundamental honesty and fairness.

I'm quite certain Robert chose to use a "nonquotation headline" so he could leave out the "us". If indeed, the contet was not important, why not just leave it in?

I know why Cecelia...because this is nothing but a personal SMEAR site...and you are one of it's charter members.

Take pride!

Cecelia,

If the quote was in context, there would've been no headline. It is a non-story...

Cecelia:

OBVIOUSLY it sounds much WORSE when the 'US' is taken out. I'm having a hard time believing you don't see the difference.

When I read the headline Bob wrote, like most people, I immediately thought to myself, "Well, yeah, and you too...."

And then I read it in context, where Olbermann essentially says, yeah me too.

After all the EEEEVIL things you and your 'team' say Olbermann does, After all the HYPOCRITICAL things your 'team' says Olbermann engages in, After all the PROPAGANDA you and your 'team' say Olbermann proliferates...

Now you say, well, it's ASSUMED Olbermann also means himself and his network...

WHAT!!!!????

So, you give him the benefit of the doubt when it fits your twisted argument, but don't when it doesn't?

And you're the one who tried to impose 'rules' here regarding quoting, paraphrasing, and debating?

Laughing My Ass Off!

No it's Mike who believes himself to be the "decider" and wants to try and impose rules on others, but only on those he disagrees with.

A really intelligent retort from you Brandon, calling me the 'decider'.

But hey, nobody really expects much from you anyway.

"nobody?" Areyou trying to speak for everyone again, mikey? Still haven't learned? Incidentally, he didn't CALL you the decider. You sure do enjoy putting words in people's mouths, spin, if you will.

Now you say, well, it's ASSUMED Olbermann also means himself and his network...

WHAT!!!!????

So, you give him the benefit of the doubt when it fits your twisted argument, but don't when it doesn't?

And you're the one who tried to impose 'rules' here regarding quoting, paraphrasing, and debating?

Laughing My Ass Off!

Posted by: LMAO at April 24, 2007 3:38 PM

Well, you and blindrat have proven yourself right in that there are people idiotic enough to make an erroneous conclusion.

The assumption is that since the media is composed of human types, who made the decision to air Cho's videos and letters, is therefore complicit in a way that an inanimate conduit for information --say an email program--- cannot be held complicit.

You and blindrat have both have shown that there are idiots who can conclude the latter rather than the former and believe that Olbermann would argue it.

Poor Keith.

I know why Cecelia...because this is nothing but a personal SMEAR site...and you are one of it's charter members.

Take pride!

Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2007 3:20 PM

Oh, I do, Member Mike. Pass the canapes would ya...

Cecelia,

If the quote was in context, there would've been no headline. It is a non-story...

Posted by: blindrat at April 24, 2007 3:24 PM

Your quarrel is with Olbermman then. He aired the "non-story".

But there is the little story (argument) that MSNBC chose to immediately air the information that Cho had sent them, before the public knew it existed and before anyone could have possibly demanded that they did air it.

Cecelia: Even when she agrees with Olbermann she disagrees.

Poor Cecelia.

Cecelia: Even when she agrees with Olbermann she disagrees.

Poor Cecelia.

Posted by: LMAO at April 24, 2007 6:49 PM

No, I don't argue against Olbermann from the standpoint that he's an utter fool.

When I saw that this is the appeal you wish to make in order to counter Johnny, I guickly stood aside.

Have at it!