Keith Olbermann

[Oliver]

Funny, I do think Olbermann has a clearly liberal bent, but that's different from being dishonest. If you watch the show, it's hard to say he's ever dishonest, since he basically dissects news items of the day, read from official MSNBC sources, then discusses them. Unless one thinks he's lying about his own opinion, which would be silly.

I agree. I don't think Olbermann makes stuff up (unlike Bill 'there's-an-epidemic-of-lesbian-gangs' O'Reilly), however he does report on the news with a very left wing slant.

The liberal tendency is obvious to me, too. But if I compare him to all the other News-Casts, he represents a more truthful view than others. This may be a side-effect of liberalism, I don't know for sure since I don't care very much about left or right in general. (I use to blame the ones in Power, no matter who they are.)

 

[Cleon]

Keith is just Bill-o's exact opposite... He is his liberal carbon copy. No better or worse than Bill-0; equally as uninformative and biased.

Tell you what.

Find me something Olbermann has said that is anywhere near as bat-**** crazy as a diatribe about "lesbian gangs" or a "war on Christmas."

Olbermann is biased, sure. No argument there, and I don't think he pretends to be anything but. However, being biased does not put him in the same league as Captain Phone-sex.

 

[Upchurch]

Tell you what.

Find me something Olbermann has said that is anywhere near as bat-**** crazy as a diatribe about "lesbian gangs" or a "war on Christmas."

Paris Business Review. Don't forget the Paris Business Review.

 

[Unabogie]

Paris Business Review. Don't forget the Paris Business Review.

Take a look at tonight's show, which I posted above, where he accosts the CEO of Jet-Blue over the words of anonymous commenters on DailyKos.

How craven do you have to be to use such outright dishonesty with a straight face?

 

[Oliver]

Take a look at tonight's show, which I posted above, where he accosts the CEO of Jet-Blue over the words of anonymous commenters on DailyKos.

How craven do you have to be to use such outright dishonesty with a straight face?

I wonder who watches this crap and agrees with this whiney Billo-Report. I mean SOMEONE must believe this crap and actually agree with it. How could Fox News survive otherwise?

 

[Schneibster]

Honest to jebus, Oliver, take a look around here. Who believes this stuff? There's a bunch of them posting on this forum. It ain't really about believing it; it's about being able to pretend they believe it, and that it means something, so they don't have to admit it was all a screwup. Ain't you ever heard of self-justification?

 

[Oliver]

Honest to jebus, Oliver, take a look around here. Who believes this stuff? There's a bunch of them posting on this forum. It ain't really about believing it; it's about being able to pretend they believe it, and that it means something, so they don't have to admit it was all a screwup. Ain't you ever heard of self-justification?

*lol* Of course I know what self-justification is. But this is a skeptics board, for god's sake.

But seriously. Billo is in Business for quite a while now - and he wouldn't survive one Month as "News-Opinionator" in the Mainstream Media over here, that's for sure ... well, maybe in a comedy show.

It's probably the entertaining factor that kept him in business all the time.

Hey, this thread was about Olbermann, wasn't it?

 

[Schneibster]

Skeptics' boards are always a target for skeptoids. C'mon over to SMM&T for a while and watch the AGW denialists, anti-relativity woos, and cretinists (that's creationists in my personal jargon) and tell me how much difference you see.

 

[Oliver]

Skeptics' boards are always a target for skeptoids. C'mon over to SMM&T for a while and watch the AGW denialists, anti-relativity woos, and cretinists (that's creationists in my personal jargon) and tell me how much difference you see.

What's the link to SMM&T?

 

[Oliver]

Skeptics' boards are always a target for skeptoids. C'mon over to SMM&T for a while and watch the AGW denialists, anti-relativity woos, and cretinists (that's creationists in my personal jargon) and tell me how much difference you see.

What's the link to SMM&T?

 

[IMST]

Search Youtube for anything with Jonathan Turley on Countdown. It's worth watching the show just for those segments.

Will do, thanks.

 

[Oliver]

Well? No republicans in here?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keith is just Bill-o's exact opposite... He is his liberal carbon copy. No better or worse than Bill-0; equally as uninformative and biased.

Oh no you don't. O'Reilly and Limbaugh speak lies, outright lies. Olbermann speaks opinion, but prove he tells outright lies such as O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

Politically the truth does have a left wing bias, but only because the right has adopted the Rove ethics of elections and government: lies, damn lies and counter the video tapes when they come out with any effective distraction you can find.

Otherwise a lot of the woo believing nut jobs tend to lean left.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd prefer more reasons and explaination than anger in his show based on the clips I've seen on youtube and the like. Since I do not have TV service at home I haven't watched a whole episode ever, so my take may be based on an incomplete view of his comments.
Generally he comes off as more rational and fact based than a lot of the shouting heads on both sides from what I've seen (o'reilly/hannity-style on the right and malloy/rhodes-style on the left).
of course, I bet I could win a "who's more liberal" contest with Lisa.

Olbermann's rants would be less important if they weren't one of the few in the mainstream news at the moment calling BS on the BS. Were more investigative reporting and actual news being reported, Olberman's rants would be more rant and less informative. For the moment, he is saying what everyone else seems to be reluctant to say.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well? No republicans in here?

I believe the right wing in this forum mostly consider themselves Libertarians. They ignore the individual rights lost with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, (USA PATRIOT ACT), and the cost of the Iraq war to the taxpayer and still vote Republican because the false image they have of Republicans is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Democrats.

(Just to be fair, the Greens and other like minded people often vote Democratic because the false image they have of Democrats is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Republicans.)

 

[ViperVisor]

His show is great. News needs this kind of attitude covering this administration. How is the show if the Dems win in 08 will be the true test of his show.

 

[Oliver]

I believe the right wing in this forum mostly consider themselves Libertarians. They ignore the individual rights lost with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, (USA PATRIOT ACT), and the cost of the Iraq war to the taxpayer and still vote Republican because the false image they have of Republicans is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Democrats.

(Just to be fair, the Greens and other like minded people often vote Democratic because the false image they have of Democrats is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Republicans.)

Well, that's exactly what I don't understand yet without creating a conspiracy theory out of it: Why do Republicans have a wrong image about Democrats - and why do they have a false Image about themselves?

The only plausible answer is a biased environment and as such, especially the Media they prefer to choose. The "Black & White" phenomena in America is pretty overwhelming and I have no Idea why that is if it's not the result or side-effect of the "2-Party-System" itself.

This US Citizen sums it up what I mean by that:

Isn't the two-party system wonderful? It really works!

Every day, we hear plenty of opinions. Top Democrats and Republicans stay "on message," and usually the nation's major news outlets are in sync. The media landscape remains largely uncluttered, so most people won't get "distracted" by other perspectives and choices.

The symmetry is dependable and perhaps reassuring. So, at the convention in Philadelphia, the TV networks aired interviews with Democrats who critiqued the speeches by Republicans. Later, in Los Angeles, the TV networks aired interviews with Republicans who critiqued the speeches by Democrats. What variety!

...

Full Article: http://www.progress.org/archive/sol49.htm

To understand this phenomena and the Medias role in it, is one of the main reasons why I posted this thread. But since I get no opinions about Olbermann from Republican Voters in here, I tend to believe they have no factual arguments against him - or they simply don't watch "Countdown" because they can't live with truthful criticism - aka: "opposing opinion phobia".

 

[Tailgater]

I believe the right wing in this forum mostly consider themselves Libertarians. They ignore the individual rights lost with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, (USA PATRIOT ACT), and the cost of the Iraq war to the taxpayer and still vote Republican because the false image they have of Republicans is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Democrats.

(Just to be fair, the Greens and other like minded people often vote Democratic because the false image they have of Democrats is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Republicans.)

Fairly accurate about the way the votes swing, but I don't totally agree with the reasons you use. True, independent and smaller party voters flock to the side that most overlaps or covers what's most important to each voter.

Well, that's exactly what I don't understand yet without creating a conspiracy theory out of it: Why do Republicans have a wrong image about Democrats - and why do they have a false Image about themselves?

That's not what she said.

They (they being Libertarians) ignore X still vote Republican because the false image they have of Republicans is closer to their beliefs than the image they have of the Democrats.

Bold mine.

Well? No republicans in here?

To understand this phenomena and the Medias role in it, is one of the main reasons why I posted this thread. But since I get no opinions about Olbermann from Republican Voters in here, I tend to believe they have no factual arguments against him - or they simply don't watch "Countdown" because they can't live with truthful criticism - aka: "opposing opinion phobia".

I vote independent, but I do ride the fence on alot of rep/dem issues. I would like to see a good hybrid third party, but until then I will vote for whichever party is acting the most centrist at the moment to keep the pendelum swinging.

You have said there is no table pounding mainstream media critics that tell the truth.
Therefore Olbermann does not exist.
So it is impossible to comment on what doesn't exist.

 

[Oliver]

Fairly accurate about the way the votes swing, but I don't totally agree with the reasons you use. True, independent and smaller party voters flock to the side that most overlaps or covers what's most important to each voter.

I vote independent, but I do ride the fence on alot of rep/dem issues. I would like to see a good hybrid third party, but until then I will vote for whichever party is acting the most centrist at the moment to keep the pendelum swinging.

You have said there is no table pounding mainstream media critics that tell the truth.
Therefore Olbermann does not exist.
So it is impossible to comment on what doesn't exist.

Unfortunately you're right. Olbermann "didn't exist" in the run-up to war.
Where was he? Seriously.

I suspect that everyone who doesn't exactly agree with Dem's or Rep's, will think the same way as you. And this means that there never will be a third, strong party.

And besides that - I also guess that the leading two parties would block another party.

Quite Frankly, and don't take this too literal - to me the Republicans look like the "Bullies" and the Democrats like the "Crybabies".

But where are all these people between these two extremes?
And why didn't they build their own party yet?
Do they all think like you?

"I vote independent, but I do ride the fence on alot of rep/dem issues. I would like to see a good hybrid third party, but until then..."

Or did they try to establish a party but had no chance?
And if so: Who's hindering them?

There must be millions of them. Absurd?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

He used to be the sports newscaster for a Los Angeles newstation, KTLA, and he also worked for ESPN.