You'd have to be crazy of course
To think Keith a reliable source
It's the same tired song
Krazy Keith's always wrong
Like a moronic Tour de Force

Maybe Kurtz will ask him why he keeps wanting O'Reilly fired for saying things, but he named the Donahue guy WPIT for saying the ESPN chick should be fired for...saying things.

Bad hairpiece verses really badhair piece.

Even money, They will bring up Keith's Olbsession with Bill.

Reliable Sources with Keith Olbermann on?

Can't we get a class action suit against Kurtz for false advertising?

I have now banned 24.147.202.165. This IP address has been the source of comments from someone who also uses "Kip" and is posting similar comments to those that led me to ban the other two IP addresses. The person coming from that address also used the following pseudonyms to post:

Wasted Keystrokes
royal king, jr.
Karl Rove
[Anonymous]
The real royal king
Random O'Reilly quote
Why don't you just beg to J$ again, crybaby
Robert Cox, you are a great man
A real righty
Don't underestimate OW
Phony Soldier
Trojan
Taty Kuric
Republican Warrior
Look!! An IRANIAN!! OVER THERE!!!
Southern Male
me
John
Whoa! Is this guy queer or what?
The Truth
Thurston Howell III
Bush #1

When I ban these IP addresses I am also deleting EVERY comment ever made from that address. As a result, readers may notice a lack of continuity in certain threads. Some readers may be interested to know that this person who has been posting these comments has posted 640 comments over the past year under 23 names. For those who have complained about "trolls", you have only yourself to blame if you are "feeding" them. Google around if you care to learn more about the psychology behind what drives people to engage in troll behavior (basically these type of people are psychotic misanthropes who seek pleasure by attempting to make people as unhappy about their lives as they are about theirs). Trolls seek validation that they are succeeding in getting the sought after reaction so responding to them in any way but especially with insults, anger, hostility, etc. actually ENCOURAGES more troll-ish behavior. The more you complain - or argue with them - the more comments they post. This is, for example, why this person kept namejacking. Some of you expressed anger that someone who namejack and so they did it more. Some of you expressed anger about the use of vulgar language and so they did it more. This is how these type of people operate.

That said, at some point, the behavior goes on long enough and becomes egregious enough that more drastic measures become necessary. In some cases that is reporting the person to their ISP, in other cases banning IP addresses. There is no perfect solution because a motivated troll can take plenty of steps to circumvent any measures that might be taken on an "open" board like OW. So, it will hardly surprise me if this person keeps popping up. All I can do is do what I've done over the past 24 hours - look up their IP address, ban that address and delete every comment ever posted from that address.

So, we'll see if this particular troll returns. If they do some of you will, I am sure, let me know, and I will repeat this process as needed.

I checked ARIN who is and this IP address originates from the Boston area. Go figure!

QUESTION: The data now shows that your audience in the demo has declined 14% off the highs despite a dramatic increase in political coverage during primary season. What does this suggest about your ability to sustain audience interest in your show?
Posted by RCox at January 26, 2008 12:50 PM

That is an excellent question to ask. They said the same about Rush Limbaugh when Bush got elected, so I would think Olbermann would use that example.

Maybe you should email this list or OW link to Howard directly.

His email at Washington Post:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/howard+kurtz/

His CNN Reliable Sourrces email:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?25

BTW, Is the Wasted Keystrokes & (Anonymous) the same as A N O N Y M O U S? too bad I like his/her comments, although the "phoney soldier" is definately someone I could do without. But, I guess since they are one in the same, oh well.

I would ask him how he can claim to anchor a "newshour" and be "not politically biased" given his highly selective roster of politicos that he has interviewed:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/05/the_list.html

I would ask how he can possibly hope to maintain a program IF a Democrat is elected in November. He has put himself in the position of defending, protecting, and promoting Democrats. What will his admittedly liberal audience think if he begins to call them out the way he has promised to (i.e., like he does for the Bush government)? After all, he says he would do the same for either party but after a recent dust-up and a lot of heat from his fans in the form of hostile comments on Daily Kos, he felt it necessary to APOLOGIZE to his viewers at Daily Kos for what he'd said/done on Countdown. Will he have the guts to speak one critical word about a Democratic administration or will he be forced to issue nighly apologizes to his viewing audience via KOS?

My second question would be this--how does he hope to cover the General Election as one of MSNBC's main anchors given his overt bias towards the Democratic party? Will he simply hand off interviews to someone else (Chris Matthews?) or will he actually be forced to ask a Republican a question or horror of horrors-have one on his show?

Brandon, I agree about the Kos apology. That and the check to BJ Clinton were prime examples of Olby's egregious and outrageous bias toward the far left. Both of those are great fodder for Kurtz questions.

I would ask how he can possibly hope to maintain a program IF a Democrat is elected in November.
Posted by: Brandon at January 26, 2008 3:59 PM

You'll be finding out soon enough, Brandon.
Posted by: at January 26, 2008 4:02 PM

Ouch! Hey anon, don't count on a Dem getting elected if BILLARY is the nominee.

I would ask him

why the obsesional attacks on other news journalist on such a personal way and call for them to be fired? Of course this would lead to the question, why the obsession with Bill?

Is it because it's good for his ratings, he doesn't believe in freedom of speech or he likes his viewers to see his personal distain for these people?
Wouldn't it be better for his viewers if he concentrates more on news?

Why not have guess on his program that don't share his opinions like all other news programs?
Doesn't he want opposing and descending views to his own isn't that the democratic way?
Or does he want his opinion to be the only one on his show, won't that go against what he preaches every night?

I'd ask him why he has to buy suits at Costco.

Ok, here's a question I would love to see asked:

In your nightly Worst Person in the World segment, you often take the opportunity to make questionable and frequently lewd comments about people you disagree with politically. On more than one occasion for instance, you�ve referenced Fox News� political analyst Dick Morris and the �hooker (he) called�. As well, you frequently nominate Bill O�Reilly to a Worst Person dishonor. In the past, you have called him a �bigot�, �racist�, and have accused him of thinking that child molestation is �fun� (re: Shawn Hornbeck). And when you throw in the never-ending sexual barbs directed at Mr. O�Reilly (�Bill Orally�, �falafels�, �loofahs�, �Andrea Makris�, etc.), how do you reconcile your no-holds-barred commentary with your self-ascribed label of �journalist�?

Hmm... I see cut-and-paste from Word Perfect doesn't jive with OW so nicely...

BTW, Is the Wasted Keystrokes & (Anonymous) the same as A N O N Y M O U S? too bad I like his/her comments, although the "phoney soldier" is definately someone I could do without. But, I guess since they are one in the same, oh well.

Posted by: at January 26, 2008 3:23 PM

wasted is not phoney soldier. wasted jacked his name, that's why it is on his list of names. I don't think wasted was anonymous. However, I guess they were both banned.

Ouch! Hey anon, don't count on a Dem getting elected if BILLARY is the nominee.
Posted by: Anyone but Hillary at January 26, 2008 4:20 PM

Your Clinton hatred is showing.
You'll have 4-8 years to ferment that hatred to a feverish pitch, because she will be your next president.
And you only have yourself to blame with your support ( and votes) for GWBush, worst president ever.
Posted by: at January 26, 2008 4:46 PM

hey anon, 8 years of the Clintons gave us Bush your moron. I NEVER voted for ANY Bush. Considering I voted for Bill TWICE, his behavior this past month is utterly disgusting. Believe me, Republicans are licking their chops when she gets the nomination.

try somthing new, read:

http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html

Actually, I REALLY want Oralmann to answer this one:

Would you agree to go head to head with O'Reilly if he challenged you to a sit-down to be moderated by a neutral party in a neutral venue?

I'd ask him why he has to buy suits at Costco.
Posted by: Cecelia at January 26, 2008 5:19 PM

Ha! Considering Kurtz gets his suits from Sam's Club, I don't think he'll notice enough to ask.

Suggested question for Kurtz:

Keith, do you think it is a good idea to be blogging at one of the most far left wing blogs on the Internet? These ARE the same people who did the "Betray Us" ad.

Do you stand by what you said about Fox News being worse than Al-Qaida? If so, what examples can you give us to convincingly make that point?

I think it's important for Kurtz to address Keith Olbermann's Fox Derangement Syndrome:

What's the genesis of your disdain for Fox News ("Fox Noise", "Fixed News", etc.)?

What do you have against the existence of Fox News? If you point to supposed right-wing bias, what do you base that assertion on?

Assuming for a moment Fox News is indeed a conservative bastion of information, what's wrong with there being one right-wing news organization amongst many other left-leaning ones?

Keith, why are your guests overwhelmingly Democrats? Why don't you ever invite prominent Republican politicians on your show? If you claim that you do, and it's just that no one will accept the invitation, could you please supply us with a few names of people your producers have contacted so that we may confirm this?

This would be something that Kurtz could work into one of the questions suggested here.

Why do you try to evoke Edward R Murrow by imitating his trademark sign off yet do such things as saying in a long interview with an opportunity to correct yourself "...Fox News being worse than Al-Qaida? If so, what examples can you give us to convincingly make that point?
Posted by: John-O at January 26, 2008 5:48 PM"

Do you think that Edward R Murrow would have made such comments about his competitors?

Grammie

You'll have 4-8 years to ferment that hatred to a feverish pitch, because she will be your next president.
And you only have yourself to blame with your support ( and votes) for GWBush, worst president ever.
Posted by: at January 26, 2008 4:46 PM

You obviously weren't around during the Carter administration.

Yes, I voted for Bush, but only because in my mind he was the lesser of two evils, both times. I'm thinking this election will be about the same scenario.

Kurtz would have to go back a ways, but it would be nice to hear Keith explain why he used his WIPW segment to attack a New York Daily News research assistant, or the the mission statement of NBC News to have their show host use the airwaves to settle personal vendettas:

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/media_people/countdown_gloves_come_off_in_olbermanngrove_showdown_33809.asp

Mr Olbermann, how can you anchor election coverage when you are on record saying the Republican Party are the greatest terrorists in the US?

I would ask how he can possibly hope to maintain a program IF a Democrat is elected in November. (Brandon)

He'll blame every event on the Bush Administration. There won't be much change in the content, don't you think?

Ya know folks these are all really great questions.

Too bad not one will be asked by Howard!

If I saw Howard walking down the street I would just ask him.

"So Howard, who's bringing the 'Chap-Stick', you or Keith?"

Ask him if he would ever consider having the people who he names as the Worst Person, on the next week to rebut him? I know what his answer would be, but it would be fun to ask him anyway.

1. Mister Olbermahn, what evidence do you have to back your accusations that Fox News is worse than AQ and the Republicans are the greatest terrorists?

2. Mister Olbermahn, what were you on when you made those comments?

3. Does your shrink actually watch your show?

4. If so, what does he think of your mental state?

I'd ask Olbermann if Liz Claman ever called him to point out she did not have her contract dropped by CNBC.

Ask him if he would ever consider having the people who he names as the Worst Person, on the next week to rebut him? I know what his answer would be, but it would be fun to ask him anyway.

Posted by: Tom P at January 26, 2008 8:01 PM

-Excellent question! Accountability for the WPITW segment! Great idea.

Kurts won't frill OLbermann. They're buddies. The Left has his back.

My suggested questions for Howie Kurtz:

Krazy Keith,

Why did you choose to invent the genre of snarky, sarcastic sports broadcaster?

Is it because you hate sports?

Is it because you hate athletes?

When you were a kid, were you not always the last person picked when they were choosing up sides for a ball game?

Rico,
Expect no hard questions towards Olbermann. They love the guy.

Oh, by the way.....

Another installment of the KO diaries yesterday on Kos.

Have we completely given up on the idea of non-partisan media?

Mr. Olbermann, will you ever grow a pair and start having people on your show who actually - gasp! - disagree with you?

A few months ago, Kurtz did a segment on "news" people who live in "echo chambers" and you'll never guess whose name came up as an example. It could get interesting.

Question to Olby: " Is it true that , inspite of hairy, flabby ass cheeks, you wear thong underpants in front of his girlfriends 9 year old sister?

You mean the way you assholes blamed Clinton for most of Bush's 2 terms ?

Posted by: at January 27, 2008 1:46 AM

I think we more than enough evidence, asshole.

I think we have more than enough evidence, asshole. Damned keyboard.

Just wondering...I noticed all ktur's photos and comments about her have vanished from the flapjack site....hmmmm...wonder who got to them

1) Your respect for legend newsman Ed Murrow only seems to go so far, Keith. He had the subject of his most famous crusades, Senator Joseph McCarthy, on his show for an opportunity to address the charges he (Murrow) had leveled against him. Have you ever asked anyone to appear on COUNTDOWN who was the subject of your "Worst Person in the World" or "Special Comment" segments for an opportunity for the same type of unrestricted rebuttal Murrow afforded McCarthy? If so, who but if not, why?

2) It has been almost 4 years since Ashley Banfield was fired by MSNBC over her negative public comments regarding FOX News.* Two questions. Why do you think she was rebuked for one comment against FOX News while your continuing obcession on COUNTDOWN is tolerated by management.

Lastly, after 4 years, has Ms. Banfield finally given up pestering you about returning her glasses?

*Ashley Banfield's speech at Kansas State University - April 24, 2003 can be found at http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/banfieldtext42403.html

###
I will be surprised to see what the subject of the appearance is going to be.....

The election coverage?
Clinton v. Obama with race and the adulterous sodomite, former President Bill Clinton's behavior?
Fox News?

Thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Cox.

I always had trouble with "obsession." Typing, it seemed right with the c.....but looking at it makes it obvious I was very, very wrong......

Oh well....it is still early....

I wonder if the RELIABLE SOURCES segment was taped Friday and it is a worthless endeavor to e-mail Mr. Kurtz now with any suggested questions?

I think we should all consider e-mailing the man at CNN with good or critical comments, depending on the content of the show, after it's broadcast.

For those intersted in contacting Mr. Kurtz.....

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?25

ktt wrote: "I'd ask Olbermann if Liz Claman ever called him to point out she did not have her contract dropped by CNBC"

Or Neil Cavuto, or Terri Keenan,...

Kurtz: " Keith claims he is no card-carrying liberal. " We'll interview him after the break."

Here comes Olby.

Olby is a sandwich-board carrying liberal.

Olby is again using the tired old saw that Sean Hannity is a conservative and Fox does not disclose that blah, blah, blah. Hannity's show is billed as analysis and commentary, not news. NBC markets Olby's ultra flaming liberal spinfest as news (news you can use). All the socialist propaganda and Britney trash you can use.

" I don't like those 'fist-fight' things." HA HA HA HA!! What a load of crapolla.

Now Olby is explaining why he "quit" the news business in 1998, when he tried to interview guests with opposing views and they began arguing. No, Olby, what you just said is that you are incapable of controlling your own spinfest telecast. And you were hiding in the bathtub.

More Olbylies.

Kurtz wasn't too awfully impressed with Keefs O'Reilly obsession. Keith basically admitted now that if he doesn't slam BO constantly, O'Reilly will win the one-sided feud. Olby is delusional.

So Howard doesn't know how to ask a follow-up question? When Olbermann says he doesn't want two people arguing back and forth, why doesn't he just have the conservative viewpoint on? He has no problem just having a liberal on as the sole voice. Howard, just go past KO's canned response to that subject. Not exactly playing hardball.

Thanks for the informative slobberfest, Howie K. Now wipe the stains off the blue dress you wore to the interview. He must have left the Costco suit at home.

I believe HK thought a KO interview would bring ratings from the blue blogs to his sorry little show. There was no evidence of a desire to pull anything new from Olbermann, just the same old song.

And it's KO's job to keep O'Reilly's statements from being "on the record"? KO is there to save the world from O'Reilly?

Disappointing to say the least, Howie. But what should we expect from CNN, anyway? Not much.

Kurtz: Mr. Olberman, much has been made about your, shall we say, lack of sexual prowess. Is this the reason why you continue to degrade females?

Disappointing, not enlightening - that sums it up.

Keith basically told Kurtz he won't have conservatives on because he doesn't want any disagreements. With who -- I thought "Countdown" was supposed to be a regular news show, and the host was supposed to be able to handle regular news situations, such as the Chicago Democratic candidate debate MSNBC stuck Olby on.

He said he quit in 1998 because he couldn't stand the arguments between guests from the right and left, but when has "Countdown" even had two guests with the same political beliefs on at the same time. It's always Keith in a two-shot with Dana, or Craig, or Rachel, or creepy Michael, or whoever. So if Olby really is a professional journalist in the Edward R. Murrow tradition, why should he have any problem at all going one-on-one with a conservative guest if there's no liberal guest on at the same time to create the argument Keith so fears?

SB - lol. I beieve HK is a wuss but definitely too much of a wuss to bring up that topic, but a good question referring to his mysogeny.

Excellent, John. Is it Olbermann's job to have an argument with a guest? I thought his role is to elicit information, not say "amen" to a guest's opinions, and I've heard him do that.

So Howard doesn't know how to ask a follow-up question? When Olbermann says he doesn't want two people arguing back and forth, why doesn't he just have the conservative viewpoint on? He has no problem just having a liberal on as the sole voice. Howard, just go past KO's canned response to that subject. Not exactly playing hardball.

Posted by: ktt

HK did ask some good questions the problem was like ktt said Howard didn't ask follow up questions. And there were plenty of them to ask.

Keith mentioned Fox many times(and he's not obsessed?), using the argument "well if Fox is doing it, why can't I." So two wrongs make a right? Honest news stories isn't the objective of his show?
Keith criticizes Fox News every night for journalistic integrity, but he seems to admit to doing the same thing.
Howard sited that Keith talks about Bill every night "are you obsessed with the guy"
Howard's statement would suggest the better question would have been-
why are you obsessed with he guy?

Howard states to Keith going after Bill is a clever way of getting attention for yourself.
Keith answers "that wasn't the point of it"
But later he states his viewers enjoy it and expect it every night.
So right there he contradicts himself. That answer suggest that the main reason he goes after Bill is for attention and ratings, I guess real news takes a back seat.

With this interview because Howard didn't ask follow up questions you have read between the lines.

What I got for the interview is he is obsessed with Fox News and he goes after Bill mainly for ratings and attention.

Keith owes his paychecks to Bill.

> Olby is again using the tired old saw that Sean Hannity is a conservative and Fox does not disclose that blah, blah, blah. Hannity's show is billed as analysis and commentary

Well Oralmann claimed Hannity was doing SC primary coverage. Another Olbermann Lie. Hannity didn't come on until SC primary coverage (w/Hume) was over and all races were decided. And then he came on specifically to do commentary and analysis. And funny how Olby saw Hannity but forgot to mention Colmes.

Olbermoronn is a disingenous, lying, hypocritical, slovenly political hack.

But his fans lap it up and believe everything he says is the gospel. Fox clearly presented the Hannity "aftershow" as analysis. I turned the channel because I didn't want to hear his analysis. Olbermann meanwhile is allowed to spin from the news anchor's chair for the Democratic party.

And if his fans had a working brain, they'd realize that his answer about why he doesn't want conservatives on was a clear dodge and a BS answer at that. Why can't he interview them one-at-a-time? Or would what they saw so interfer with his (and his fans) belief system? They can't handle the truth. They don't want to hear dissenting opinion. THey just want to hear the kool-aid disguised as "news" from Keithie.

But later he states his viewers enjoy it and expect it every night.

posted by joe

I forgot about that comment.

"only the news you want to hear" - that should be MSNBC's new tagline instead of "the place for politics"

Judging from the more recent comments posted here, I'm guessing I missed the interview. Anyone know if it will be rebroadcast? Or will I have to hope it pops up on YouTube?

John-O - there's probably a transcript at CNN.com

Also, check the fangirl sites. They post everything Olby does. Some even record his every TV appearance, One loon used to transcribe every radio show because she couldn't record it. Can you imagine what her apartment must look like - it probably includes an altar to him.

Then there's the babe that has the web site devoted to every picture, every word he's written, and every article written about her man. Talk about no life. I may come here occasionally to trash him but I have not built a world in tribute to him. No wonder she's alone. It's like Olby's obsession to BOR - unexplainable.

John-O, this is the link directly to the transcript.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/27/rs.01.html

A powder puff being interviewed by a limp noddle.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the beginning of a match made in heaven. :)

Grammie

John-o, there is a good critique and a link to the video at Newsbuster:

Hypocrisies Galore from Olbermann and Kurtz on ‘Reliable Sources’

I am trying to steel myself to watch the video. Maybe if I took a prilosec and had a few dozen Alka Seltzers ready to go I might be able to do it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/01/27/hypocrisies-galore-kurtz-olbermann-reliable-sources

Grammie

Mr. Olbmerann wants to avoid the mudslinging and name-calling attendant with having multiple guests discussing one subject on his show (I guess he can't interview them separately?).

No, he wants to have comity on his program.

This from the same person who calls people monkey boys and fascists and other assorted names.

I simply cannot - can not - understand his thinking.

OLBERMANN: "I'm going to play this down the middle. Just don't jump in and scream at each other."

I asked one question, they went for five minutes. And I never got a word in. And we never came back to the second part of the interview. I said, "They're finished."

And I pretty much felt like I was too. I just -- I can't -- there's almost nothing that ever comes out of those interviews other than arguments, heat, and ratings. And I don't want to go through that again, and I think the success of "Countdown" suggests the audience doesn't want that.

Lets see here.....O'Reilly....#1.....Olbermahn......#4.....O'Reilly.....#1......Olbermahn....#4....Huh?

There is no Fox News host in the world who
would be allowed to slide after issuing such a lame answer as to why they never interviewed liberals and/or Democrats.

Anyone who watches tv knows that Olbermann does not have to interview people simultaneously. He can quickly interview one side, say goodbye and then interview someone with a rebuttal.

He could interview a Republican one night and a Dem the next, etc.

The reality is that Olbermann himself can't abide an opposing view that isn't simply thrown out in a rhetorical devil's-advocate fashion by another journalist. (THAT scenario probably causes Olbermann to grit his teeth, as well.)

It was more than angry exchanges that turned off Olbermann when he hosted The Big Show on MSNBC.
Again, Keith could design a show to avoid them, as many other shows do and he could have done that on The Big Show. The reality is that Olbermann was and is still sickened by the possibility of a conservative/Republican advocating their POV on his dime. He simply doesn't care much about ideas per se, and there's none he wants aired, other than his own.

Kurtz knows Olbermann's history. He knows that Olbermann is not someone who just wants to counter this particularly "bad" president, who has launched this war. The Big Show history is evidence of how Keith handles news and views that don't mirror his own.

Olbermann uses the The Big Show as exhibit A of his own ability to effect professional distance, by arguing that "bad things" were said on that show about Clinton.

Anyone who watched the show knows that even worse things about Republicans were said there, and very frerquently by Keith Olbermann!

We (and Kurtz) know that the host left his own television show because, by his own admission, he didn't wish to air those bad news and views about Clinton!

Keith Olbermann is a political zealot at heart. He's Air America and Free Speech TV. He was cruising along with a slightly more cynical, less wide-eyed version of their narrative, but he was mostly speaking that language long before George Bush came upon the scene.

Oh, he's right that he's now become a zealot (In fact, there' is no comparable zealot with such a role on national mainstream television, liberal or conservative.), however Olbermann says things that tell us that this change is less a reaction to Bush, than his dismay over the advent of "Fox Noise".

Olbermann is allowed co-anchor MSNBC's political coverage with equal "sage" status as Russert and Brokaw, not because he knows when to turn his zealotry off, but because he's a walking MSNBC billboard for it and an invitation to a million other lDaily Kos zealots to watch for the gestures, the faces, the sarcasm, towards people who vote differently from Olbermann AND differently from the majority of Olbermann's professional colleagues.

If there were anythng approaching a scenario of a conservatve zealot as national political coverage anchor on MSM tv, there's no way on earth this person could get away with Olbermann's or MSNBC's spin on it.

Kurtz wouldn't sit still for it, for even ten seconds.

"If there were anythng approaching a scenario of a conservatve zealot as national political coverage anchor on MSM tv, there's no way on earth this person could get away with Olbermann's or MSNBC's spin on it."

Exactly.

Olbermann admitted that he couldn't do a one-on-one interview with Bush or Giuliani because of the intense dislike he has expressed for the two men.

Quote One: "If for some reason the president of the United States wanted to come on and make a statement during our coverage of the Republican primary, I would step aside for that interview."

Quote Two: "[W]e had Rudy Giuliani on twice [during MSNBC's debate coverage], and he was the subject of one of my comments, and I didn't think it was appropriate for me to -- you know, to be part of that interview, so I literally recused myself in each case and let Chris Matthews do the entire interview, which I don't think that hurts anybody."

And yet he's allowed to cover them otherwise?

Someone on the Right expressing such hatred for Clinton or Obama would be asked to recuse themselves from covering them at all. And not just one-on-one interviews.

How Kurtz missed this mystifies me.

"Someone on the Right expressing such hatred for Clinton or Obama would be asked to recuse themselves from covering them at all. And not just one-on-one interviews."

It would go way beyond that. Any newsman who emulated KO for content and connotation about anyone other than Bush et al, Fox and BOR would probably be banned for life.

Grammie

"It would go way beyond that. Any newsman who emulated KO for content and connotation about anyone other than Bush et al, Fox and BOR would probably be banned for life."

And Olbermann would be leading the march calling for the ban.

But what does it say about a major cable news organization that it has as one of its news anchors a person who cannot interview the President of the US?

IOW, that news anchor is so tainted by his past expressions of contempt for the President, that he must recuse himself from the interviewing him.

But he's still allowed to cover him.

Geez, that's just absurd.

That is a new organization with simply no standards - sorry Keith, "tenets of journalism" - at all.

None.

I was just about the post the recap of the Kurtz/Olbermann interview from Newsbusters, but saw Grammie already did. Oh well, I'll post it again:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/01/27/hypocrisies-galore-kurtz-olbermann-reliable-sources

BTW, where are all the loons? Was there really only three of them and they got swept away in the latest IP address ban?

It would go way beyond that. Any newsman who emulated KO for content and connotation about anyone other than Bush et al, Fox and BOR would probably be banned for life.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 27, 2008 4:21 PM

Right on, Grammie. They'd be labeled political hacks and looked upon as being anti-intellectual sideshow freaks by nearly everyone in the industry, let alone people like Kurtz who do analysis ON the media.

No one should buy the spin that Olbermann and his show is a consequence of the Bush Administration and the war. He is a consequence of Fox News and the dismay among the liberal elite that there is no screening point for opinion now. There is no "Uncle Walter" to tell us the proper way to view things and the way we would view things if we were as smart as our would-be "guardians".

Olbermann's view isn't really that he needs to "speak truth to power". His view is that there's conservative opinion, issue advocacy, and "spin" out there that should have been kept relegated to pages of The American Spectator or Weekly Standard magazines, mailed to your home in a plain brown wrapper.

In Olbermann's book, there's just too much information/heresy out there now, thank you very much.... Don't ask him to abet THAT by airing a viewpoint from the philistines...

BTW, where are all the loons? Was there really only three of them and they got swept away in the latest IP address ban?

Posted by: news you can use at January 27, 2008 4:37 PM

I think there was a "legion" of them, but they all resided in the head of guy.

I hope Patsy, is all better now, and under the care of kind monks.

If you thought the Clintons played dirty in SC, buckle in, we ain't seen nuttin' yet....

Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama
F. Smith January 27, 2008 12:29 PM
By Susan Milligan
Globe staff

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

"I hope Patsy, is all better now, and under the care of kind monks."

My thoughts and prayers go to the monks.

MSNBC has announced its lineup for coverage of the SOTU Address:

"Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann will anchor the coverage of the speech. Their coverage runs from 9-12amET. Guests for the program will include Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and Sen. Jim Webb. From 12-1amET, Norah O'Donnell and David Shuster will continue coverage."

I guess is Bush somehow drops into the studio, Olbermann will have to run from the room.

Here is some video of Olbermann's interview with Kurtz from ThinkProgress:

Olbermann: I’d Sacrifice My Personal Success For A ‘Responsible Presidency’

This morning on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz interviewed Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown.

Kurtz tried to press Olbermann into conceding that he is thankful for Bush’s unpopularity because his show’s success is due to his criticisms of the Bush administration. Olbermann responded that if given the choice between his current success and a new President, he would choose the latter:

KURTZ: But in a sense, the Bush administration has been very, very good for Keith Olbermann.

OLBERMANN: Honestly? No. I’m an American citizen, I think this has been a disastrous presidential administration. I would have given what I have, in terms broadcasting success in the nature of this newscast, I would have easily said…if I were given the choice of this or some responsible presidency in the last four years or eight years? I would have taken a responsible presidency.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/27/olbermann-kurtz/