Advertisers don't use this data for ad buys and the research shows that in the case of news events, viewers are far less likely to watch recorded programming than they are in the case of regular entertainment shows (like dramas, comedies). Yet Setzer uses what data set? The Live Plus. What does MSNBC use to promote the ratings gains to the media for Olberamnn's show? Live Plus. And yet Olbermann's fans declare him to be the very model of honesty and integrity. Perhaps he could really begin to speak "truth to power" if he'd ask the MSNBC PR types and his buddy Setzer to use ACCURATE ratings data instead of these inaccurate numbers.

If you are wondering, I have not the faintest idea why Scarborough and Olbermann are so heavily Tivo'd compared to other cable news show. I suppose one reason might be that many viewers are watching the shows less as "news" and more as "entertainment" and are thus more willing to watch them "off line". Any other theories out there?

For those who do not have a Tivo, one of the features is a Season Pass where you can click one button and the machine record the show every time its on. You have the option to record "first time" telecasts or "first time and repeats" and you can store up to five total telecasts at a time. The entire point of Tivo is to skip the commercials. Given the fact that many people have their machines set to auto-record Countdown every night, my guess is that a large chunk of those "viewer" numbers are for people who recorded but never watched the show.

You can see why, then, advertisers are not willing to pay rates that take such viewers into account - they are basically freeloaders who do not watch them commercials and may be recording a lot of content they never actually watch.

I used to tivo Countdown in case Olbermann had an embarrasing moment. I usually just deleted it, every episode. Once I learned those recordings might be counted toward his ratings I decided I could rely on OW to provide any stupid event he might be a part of. I also just fastforwarded thru much of the show, much less the commercials, so his boasting of being the most DVRd program are empty.

You people have to be the biggest morons I've ever heard of.

And you wasted a moment of your life to say that? Go back and watch your TV god. Maybe he'll actually have someone new on his show tonight.

Why do you KO haters even watch KO? Clearly there are more conservative shows on than liberal. Perhaps there is liberal bias in the media but there are so many more conservative hate shows than liberal ones. So stop crying. Fox gets huge ratings every night and you won the last two elections. Don't tell me you feel threatened by one little show on a network nobody watches.

H&C is on in 5 min so relax, you can go back to that dream world where the Iraq war is fantastical..

"Why do you KO haters even watch KO?"

Ah...the question no one ever answers!

We all know the answer though....they want EVERY show to be 'conservative'.

"Why do you KO haters even watch KO? "

Some of us don't - some of us watched for several years and we can repeat the shows verbatim. Some of us aren't even conservative but we've had enough of the hypocrisy. I just have to look at Bob's preview and I know I've seen the show before.

"Some of us don't - some of us watched for several years and we can repeat the shows verbatim. Some of us aren't even conservative but we've had enough of the hypocrisy."

Are you kidding? BO and H&C are always the same. Lets see…… what school's teacher or judge can we vilify tonight? A little Anna Nicole anyone? I got it how’ bout a pedophile? Same stuff every night but lets ignore the 3 American solders that were killed today.

America don’t worry about how we got to this point…it’s all about if we leave it’s going to be 100 times worse so lets just waste…oops I mean appreciate the sacrifice but never talk about it. Because talking about it means facing it…..so bring on Coulters and Sharptons. Yeah baby!

I wouldn't know about H&C or BO; I don't watch them either. I have watched many hours of KO and I've had enough of him.
So did he interview anyone new tonight? How many minutes did he devote to the missing soldiers, if he even covered that story? I see on Bob's preview he was planning a Paris Hilton segment.

All the information for Network TV that I see reported is Live Plus.

Really? Where would that be pray tell. Link?

How can Tucker Carlson have a negative percentage? Adding L+SD data decreases his ratings -- how is that even possible?

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings051307,0,1532551.story?coll=zap-tv-ratings-headlines

"Ratings information is taken from fast national data, which includes live and same-day DVR viewing. All numbers are preliminary and subject to change"

There is one link, and the bottom one is from Variety. They mention that they took this from "same-day nationals" The ratings that TVN uses is Live plus SAME DAY. So according to Variety and the website above, they use the Live plus numbers as well.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964774.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

"ABC and CBS were the standout nets on a rather tame penultimate Thursday of the season, which saw top shows including "Grey's Anatomy" and "Survivor" produce some of their lowest ratings to date.
According to same-day nationals from Nielsen"

Someone has been cherry-picking the ratings data quoted again I see. There are any number of articles out there which talk about how Live Plus isn't used by advertisers and isn't normally used internally by networks, unless it's to goose their ratings like MSNBC does with Olbermann.

Randy,

You may have a point. I do not really know much about what type of ratings data is being reported for entertainment programming (both the examples you cite). I've emailed Variety and Zap2It for clarification and will post any responses I receive. I've asked them...

1) "same day" data became available in December, 2006; have you used it since it first became available?

2) Did you make a sudden switch or gradually introduce the "same day" data in your reporting?

3) Since you first began reporting "same day" data, do you only use "same day" data?

4) Advertisers have soundly rejected the use of "same day" data. As the primary purpose of Nielsen data is to price advertising on TV, why do you use data that the primary consumers of the data do not accept?

In the case of entertainment programming, it may make sense to use same day data. In my house we Tivo ALL of the entertainment programming in my house so we are not locked in to being in front of the TV at certain times during the week. For the curious, our TiVo has Season Passes set up for the following:

24, Sopranos, Deadwood, The Office, My Name is Earl, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Inyuasha, Grey's Anatomy, House, Reliable Sources, Meet the Press, Chris Matthews Show, Beltway Boys, Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann, Special Report w/ Brit Hume.

Not all of those shows are for me, and I do not watch all of the shows I record. The shows I do not always watch but record just in case are all news programs.

This raises an interesting question which is whether viewers are treating Countdown as "entertainment" or "news".

It may also be worth exploring how industry outlets like Variety report the data v. straight news organization. Anyone care to track down how the ratings are being reported at USA TODAY, WSJ, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, AP?

Anyone know if the Television Critics Assn has a position on this?

It makes sense to me that news programs are generally not Tivo'd. The chart above mostly makes sense to me in that few if any viewers are tivo'ing any of the cable news programming. It makes Scarborough and Olbermann even more puzzling because the difference is so dramatic. One area to consider is that younger viewers use tivo far more than older viewers but I ran the numbers and in the 8 PM time slot Olbermann is FOURTH in percentage of viewers in the demo at about 27% (O'Reilly is 5th at about 19%; the rest are all between 35% and 40%.

Besides demonstrating that Stelter is using data that is heavily weighted in favor of MSNBC, this data might also say something about MSNBC's strategy. It suggests that MSNBC is not striving to be a "liberal alternative" to Fox News Channel but rather becoming an "entertainment" news channel during prime time and the breakfast shows slot.

This would explain the Doc Block programming and the series "Models NYC" at 10 PM. It would also explain why NBC fought so hard to protect Imus, allowed him to stay on-air in the week BEFORE he was to start serving his suspension, and why they only pulled the plug on Imus when advertisers began pulling out. It also makes clear just how devastating the loss of Imus was because his show was the pinnacle of newstainment programming and was a platform for promoting all other on-air talent. It also suggests that Olbermann not being on Imus was likely a big issue with MSNBC which I expect we will hear more about when Imus begins his comeback tour.

If your strategy is turn MSNBC into a newstainment channel then you love Olbermann because that is the core of his show. You do not want Keith spending a lot of time on hard news - some but not much. You want him doing lots of Britney, Paris and American Idol. You want lots of Americans Funniest Home Video material. You like the special comments because they are "ear candy" entertainment for liberals - and they get you on YouTube which promotes the show.

At the 10,000 foot level, this also suggests that there has to be some major tension within NBC News over this "newstainment" strategy. It might explain why some of the internal dissent over Imus became public.

I'm just ruminating here a bit. Anyone have anything to add to this?

I dont think they are striving for entertainment news. Well, Scarborough may, because he covers news much like H&C do. They both love to cover the tabloid stuff. THey may tape it however for the entertainment. The reason Im guessing people tape it, is because first, they are watching something else, and second, there are some things in the show that you just want to see. For example, I hate it when I do not see who the worst person in the world is, or soundbites, or newsmakers. If I missed the show and I didnt stay up so late and could always watch the midnight running of the show, I would Tivo It.

I just saw an MSNBC commercial for it, and the best way really to describe what they are srtriving for is hard news, while adding entertainment as well. They have the 5th and 4th story which is serious political things, and then there is oddball for entertainment, as well as newsmakers or soundbites. Then there is the 3rd story which it is an interesting but usually not political story, though sometimes it is. Then from Keeping Tabs to WPITW to the 1st story, those are all things that are not usually that serious. So they want the hard news, but he also wants to have fun.

Randy,

You're not getting my meaning. I am not saying they are trying to be "Entertainment Tonight". I mean they are presenting news AS entertainment ala Colbert Report and Daily Show - newstainment. The only way you can REALLY get the jokes on the Daily Show is if you actually know what the real news is - the assumption being that their audience has the basic news stories before they watch the show (probably off news web sites).

The Live Plus numbers are currently a negotiating point between networks and advertisers, nothing more. The numbers that advertisers use to set their rates and the ones that make networks money are currently Live data, the numbers you see on Inside Cable News. For TVNewser to have switched to the former without explanation and without any valid reason other than promoting MSNBC is indefensible.

I mean they are presenting news AS entertainment ala Colbert Report and Daily Show - newstainment. The only way you can REALLY get the jokes on the Daily Show is if you actually know what the real news is - the assumption being that their audience has the basic news stories before they watch the show (probably off news web sites).
Posted by: Robert Cox at May 15, 2007 2:01 PM

So if the Daily SHow is getting their information from "real news" sources, as you say, than their skewering of Bush and his administration and how incompetent they have been on most of the issues is accurate....
which would also make Keith Olbermann correct on most issues.
Gee, imagine that !

Bob,

I can see why you are a fan of Olbermann. Only an OlbyLoon would read this...

"The only way you can REALLY get the jokes on the Daily Show is if you actually know what the real news is"

and understand me to have written this...

"So if the Daily Show is getting their information from "real news" sources, as you say, than their skewering of Bush and his administration and how incompetent they have been on most of the issues is accurate"

and thus conclude...

that makes "Keith Olbermann correct on most issues."

Thank you for once again providing an example of OlbyLoonLogic at work.

I saw booby's post last night and I freakin' laughed so hard and wondered how someone could even think that way. An olbyloon, for sure, sadly misguided and terribly confused.

Robert:

It's interesting how incredulous you are because you say Bob misinterpreted something you wrote.

Funny thing Robert....you and Johnny Dollar do precisely the SAME thing EVERY night in your so called 'recaps' of KO's show.

ONE recent example: Johnny Dollar thought it was perfectly OK to misquote Olbermann as having said "....The US "blinked"...." when his actual statement was "did we blink". Then one of your hardcore Olbyhater 'loons' followed up to complete the transformation of that particular quote into "the US blinked", and then expressing outrage that anyone would say such an outraqeous thing....the problem is....he DIDN'T say such a thing!

Johnny was quilty of turning an obvious QUESTION, involving a complicated international situation that could be interpreted several ways, into a STATEMENT that allowed no interpretation whatsoever. This certainly made it more convenient for the site's single minded mission of trashing Keith Olbermann, but how honest was it?

There was subsequently a big follow up discussion that became fairly heated that you weighed in yourself on.

Obviously, the people who hate Keith Olbermann were angrily defending their 'right' to interpret KO's comments the way they chose to interpret them...and were skewering me for calling them on the original misquote....and then....bashing me for daring to suggest that the original quote could be interpreted in a different way than Johnny and themselves had done.

I have found other obvious misrepresentations of what Keith Olbermann actually said in other show 'recaps' as well...and I feel I could probably find them regularly if I had the time and inclination to compare the so called 'recaps' with what Olbermann actually said every night.

This is the fundamental problem when you operate an entity dedicated to smearing a particular individual....you regularly cross lines of fairness in your zeal to provide the maximum smear effect....and as a result, you become worse than the thing you claim to abhor.

As for Jon Stewart, you are correct that the audience could not possibly 'get' the joke if they did had not already gotten the story elsewhere beforehand. That makes his audience a fairly educated one.

Unlike what you obviously profess to believe, I think Keith olbermann's audience is a pretty well educated group as well...who already has a handle on the story before ever tuning into Olbermann's show.

"Funny thing Robert....you and Johnny Dollar do precisely the SAME thing EVERY night in your so called 'recaps' of KO's show."

"ONE recent example: Johnny Dollar thought it was perfectly OK to misquote Olbermann as having said "....The US "blinked"...." when his actual statement was "did we blink".

Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 12:00 PM

If they do it every night, why did you have to go back 2 months to find a, what you called a 'misinterpretation' that wasn't really a 'misinterpretation?' It seems like you could have just went to the 14th recap to find one. Yet, you are still crying over the 'blinked' thing, 2 months ago!

See Jeff, here you are again injecting yourself into something else involving me and someone else that is "none or your business", yet you expressed a problem with me doing that to you on the other thread, even called me a 'prick' for doing it....hypocrite!

What's the matter? Can't find a 'misinterpretation' on every single recap? Like royalking said, you had to go back 2 months to find something even remotely close to one, seemingly.

Anon 2:59, if you would, or could, read my original post you would have seen that I specifically used that example because it was one of the only ones in which I directly challenged Johnny, and his legion of Olbermann haters.

You would also see where I said I believe I could probably find similar misrepresentations IF "I had the time or inclination" to look for them every night....which I don't. I rarely even bother to read the 'recaps' because I have found they are ridiculously biased and bear little, if any, resemblance to the actual show. However, on the occasions when I have carefully read them, and then compared them with the actual show, I have found misrepresentations galore.

So no, I didn't "have to go back 2 months"...I simply used a single example in which I specifically took the time and effort to challenge the Olbyhaters....which is also one in which some of the regulars will actually recall because of the controversy.

And finally, that example was a blatant misQUOTE, not just a 'misrepresentation'.

"I have found other obvious misrepresentations of what Keith Olbermann actually said in other show 'recaps' as well...and I feel I could probably find them regularly if I had the time and inclination to compare the so called 'recaps' with what Olbermann actually said every night."
Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 12:00 PM

1. If they are so obvious, why would you have to look for them? It seems they would be staring us right in the face!

"I rarely even bother to read the 'recaps' because I have found they are ridiculously biased and bear little, if any, resemblance to the actual show. However, on the occasions when I have carefully read them, and then compared them with the actual show, I have found misrepresentations galore."

Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 12:00 PM

2. An olbyloon in deep denial, too bad. He just can't bear to read his lies being pointed out. Better to act like it never happens.

Funny Jeff...how you don't like it when I make an uncsolicited comment against you when it is "none of my business"....but you keep right on injecting your grade school level insight into my discussions addressed to and intended for others.....hypocrite!

You are one who continues to preach about interjecting while doing it, I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you continue to be.

No Jeff, you are the one who keeps DOING it. I gave you a little of your own medicine, and you reacted by saying it "was none of my business" and by calling me a 'prick".

I would rather you stayed comepletely out of my discussions...and I guarantee you, if you did, I would stay out of yours....but obviously, I can't make you do that.

My wife keeps telling me to ignor you because you obviously don't have the intelligence or the common sense to be worth trying to debate...and I might just listen to her one of these days.

You forgot to throw in a 'lovely' or 'intelligent' when speaking of your 'wife.'

Stelter just totally flip-flopped on this, why is he suddenly distinguishing between Live and Live+? Just so happens that it's about Fox too?

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/debates_25_million_watch_fox_59176.asp

Sorry Robert, I should have put this on this thread first, since it is all about ratings.

Daily Kos gives a shout out to Doug of Olbermann Watch:

Logic Comes to Anti-Olbermann Site

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/16/11423/8181

Mike,

This post is about how the "slight" difference, as TVNewser called it last summer, between Live and Live Plus ratings data has become a HUGE difference for two particular shows, both on MSNBC and one of which is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Readers will recall that I was the one who caught Brian Stelter making the switch from Live to Live Plus data without disclosing that to readers. At that time I held that he had made the change at the behest of MSNBC (which he later admitted to be true), and that the purpose behind it was to boost Olbermann's show because they knew that Countdown was Tivo'd far more often than other cable news programs (which not only has proven to be the case but which MSNBC itself now promotes in its advertisements for Countdown).

One reader took from my words an absurd conclusion which I dismissed effectively above.

Rather than address the point at hand you use this other commenters inane remark to make your own inane comment - about your beef with a post from two months ago.

That post was about Olbermann's failure to cover what was for about two weeks the lead story worldwide - the kidnapping of British sailors by the Iranian government. Rather than address Keith's failure to even MENTION this important story and our belief that he did so because the story conflicted with his personal agenda, you chose to engage in some sniggling, arcane debate about the word "blink".

Either you have ADHD or you just cannot bring yourself to address the salient issues on this site and instead have some inner demons that cause you to obsesses on minor points and irrelevancies.

In this case, let's say we grant you your point - anyone who said anything other than that Keith simply asked an innocent question "Did we blink?" was wrong. Now, how does that change OUR point that Keith ignored the lead story around the globe for 12 days and when he finally reported on it, it was to characterize the U.S. (not Britain) with somehow having failed to stand up to Iran. And how does that change the fact that TVN's use of "Live Plus" data redounds significantly to the benefit of Olbermann in his ratings battles with CNN and FNC? Let me save you the trouble of a reply - it does not.

So, you are correct on the narrow question of Keith's words that night two months. Keith said "Did we blink?".

You are incorrect about everything else in this regard.

What journalistic justification exsits for using the word "we" to mean the U.S. when the incident involved the Brits and the Iranians? Since "we" were not involved in the incident how could "we" have blinked?

As the world's leading authority on Keith Olbermann, I can say without a doubt that J$'s analysis of Olbermann's words are correct. It is the oldest trick in the propagandist handbook to make a statement in the form of a question. Olbermann does this routinely and it is what he was doing that night. LIke many OlbyLies, this is a compound lie.

Olbermann's use of the word "we" means the U.S. government, specifically the Bush administration. The word "blink", as we will see from the rest of Keith's "report" is meant to say that the kidnapping of the British sailors had nothing to do with their being in Iranian territorial waters and everything to do with the arrest of some Iranian spies in Iraq (as reported in a British newspaper). In the OlbyLie version, the British were operating strictly under U.S. orders (because Blair is Bush's poodle, right?) so the negotiations over the British sailors between the Blair government and the Iranians was a front for the actual negotiations between Iran and the U.S. with the Brits as a proxy. When you know about the reports in the British newspaper and are familiar with the far-left talking points that inform Keith's "news" reports, you understand that Olbermann's "question" is intended to convey to his far-left band of OlbyLoon viewers that Bush CAUSED the incident by ordering the arrest of five Iranians in Iraq then got themselves into a staring contest with the Iranian government and backed down. In other words, this is more Bush-bashing in the form of a "question".

Now, can we get back to the matter at hand - the manipulation of ratings data by TVN to promote Keith Olbermann.

Robert, I apprecaite your response but my point was simple...and still stands.

To begin with, I didn't miss the 'larger' point regarding KO's failure to cover the story prior to that at all. I am personally on record of questioning KO's reasoning myself, although I never believed the story was as earth shattering as some on this board apparently believed. These things have happened randomly throughout recent history, and cooler heads USUALLY prevail, as happened this time.

I was "sniggling" about the word 'blink' for a very good reason....I had watched that show in it's entirety that evening....then I read Johnny's 'recap'. In my opinion, the show Johnny was describing was a very different show than the one I had just watched. It made me wonder if I had a hearing defiency or something?

I decided to watch the 12:00 PM show to see what I had missed, and sure enough, I had not really missed anything.

It is perfectly OK for Johnny to interpret KO's comments as he sees them, but it is fundamentally unfair to BEGIN with a misquote...and then expand negatively on it from there.

I've seen much evidence on your site that many of your readers never even bother to watch Countdown, but then get all of their very strong opinions about the show from reading Johnny's 'recaps'. In fact Johnny often suggests that they skip the show in favor of O'Reilly's beforehand. However, that is similar to me listening to KO's Limbaugh or O'Reilly 'quotes', and then taking them at absolute face value....which is something I DON'T do.

To begin with, I didn't miss the 'larger' point regarding KO's failure to cover the story prior to that at all. I am personally on record of questioning KO's reasoning myself, although I never believed the story was as earth shattering as some on this board apparently believed.

Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2007 3:25 PM

If I remember correctly and I do, you said "it wasn't a political story at this time." At which point I asked "at what time would this be a political story" at which time you had no answer, at least a straight answer. You never "questioned" Ulbermahn. Thanks for informing us that British troops (our allies) being taken hostage by Iranians (our enemy) isn't "earth shattering."

Yes, I i DID say I "didn't think it was a political story at this time" and I stand by that, but I ALSO said that "I think he should have covered the story" as well.

That said Jeff, if I ask you nicely...will you please stay OUT of my conversations with other bloggers from now on?....Thank you!

No, you never said that. Not during the crisis, anyways. You defended Ulbermahn's decision not to run the story. Even though, at the time you were still in the "I don't defend Ulbermahn" mode.....

That another lie...but...I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

I've already asked you one time, now I'll ask you ONE more time....please stay out of my conversations with others....OK....is that too much to ask....eh....Cowboy?

Mike,

I am not clear how what J$ wrote was a "misquote" or how J$ went on to "expand negatively on it from there".

Here is a link to the post

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/04/countdown_with_244.php

Here is the relevent passage from that post:

"#4: After 13 days of ignoring the story entirely, Oralmann teed up the news of the hostage release as if his audience were intimately familiar with all the details. In fact, he has never said one word about it. But hey, now he can put an anti-Bush spin on it: the U.S. "blinked". And since there is no record of Olbermahn uttering even a peep about it until now, he can take whatever position he likes as long as it makes "Mister" Bush look bad. OlbySpin at its most elegant, and most repellent. Again Herr Olbermann suggested the US "blinked" as he introduced recycled NBC footage. But guess what? There was nothing whatsoever in the report about the US "blinking" or anything remotely like it. Olbermahn just dropped that in: it made the blue blogs happy, and so what if there was not one syllable of explanation or documentation presented? The loons won't care. Olby thanked the tape machine."

The word "blinked" or "blinking" is in quotes. Olbermann said "blink". If J$'s blog post was a Ph.D. thesis you MIGHT have a tiny little point but the way he used the word and the use of quotation marks is not misleading in the least. You seem to want to say that J$'s post is misleading. It is NOT. Olbermann used the word "blink". He used the word "we", meaning the U.S. You make it sound like Olbermann said something entirely different when it is quite clear that Olbermann was making a declarative statement in the form of a "question" which is his standard M.O. So, this being a blog which is a more conversational wriiting style, that he actually did use the word "blink", that he was referring to the U.S. and that Olbermann regularly uses this rhetorical style, I would say that on a scale of 1 to 10, your "argument" rates a zero.

You are wrong. He is right.

Now, with that settled, perhaps you will deign to address either the point of that original post - that Olbermann avoids stories that do not suit his political agenda - or this post - that TVNewser is using ratings data that provides Keith Olberamnn (and Joe Scarboroough) a wildly distorted picture of the cable news ratings.

As for whether Iran kidnapping British sailors is "earth shattering news", it was the lead story in the press around the globe for almost two weeks. I am not even going to waste my time explaining why the event had MAJOR political implications. If you think Keith was "misquoted" because J$ wrote "blinked" when Keith actually saud "blink" then getting into the geopolitical implications of the Iranian Hostage Crisis II with you is not worth my time.

Robert: No, I am right. J$ turned a question into a statement (as you have already admitted), and then used quotes to further legimize it as a statement, and not a question. This may be an irrelevant 'niggle' to you, but to me it was significant in that particular instance.

I have NEVER disagreed that Keith avoids stories he considers unfavorable. I agree....but so does almost every commentator on Fox. Thats not an excuse, just a reality.

As for the story itself, it was never clear to me how avoiding that particular story furthered Olbermann's agenda in any way?

Arguing how "earth shattering" it was or wasn't is another story for another day.

That another lie...but...I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2007 5:04 PM

Just yesterday you were gloating that "I never call anyone a liar w/out evidence" to Bicker. Today, you do it. You never said Ulbermah should have covered the story. You lose. Your argument is a "zero."

Jeff Lie #1: I claimed I never call anyone a liar to BRANDON, not Bicker.

Jeff Lie #2: I DID say Olbermann I think should have covered the story...LIAR!

Truth #1: I don't call anyone a liar with out evidence...but I've caught YOU in so many lies, I've lost count (yes Jeff - with evidence). I would post evidence and a back up statement....and what would you do?...just ignor it and go on to your next LIE!

It's no accident that you are the ONLY one I routinely call a LIAR on this site....that is because you ARE a consistant and proven LIAR....many, many times over.

Now shut the hell up.....you LIAR!!!!

Everybody go to the July 20 Comments. Monsieur Royale has cracked up.

Everybody go to the July 20 Comments. Monsieur Royale has cracked up.

Posted by: Clucker at July 23, 2007 1:41 PM

STO, you give him a wedgie!

I'll tie his shoelaces together, gang!

Let's go!

There are people all over the world monitoring blogs and websites looking for the defenders of the enemy as well as potential supporters. I am one of those people.

There are people all over the world monitoring blogs and websites looking for the defenders of the enemy as well as potential supporters. I am one of those people.

Here are a few words on Ratings Reality: The reality is that all the Viagra in the world isn't going to help Olbermann's sagging ratings.