Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: MediaiteSay it ain't so, Keith! Say it ain't so!
Countdown host Keith Olbermann, in a fit of (toned-down) pique at Jon Stewart's false equivalence of MSNBC with Fox News, announced tonight that he is "suspending" the "Worst Persons in the World" segment, with an eye toward killing it. To many of the show's viewers, this is the best part of the show, and equating its elimination with taking the high road misses the point entirely. Don't kill "Worst Persons," just be the better person.
Bring Back Worst Persons!!
Keith is a good reporter/news entertainer and certainly balances out the show and bias we see or have seen from Fox starting with the election of George Bush....
I know many that feel he is just as overboard as those on Fox, but there is no memo dictating to those on CNBC and MSNBC to support anything Democrat... Ed is a self proclaimed progressive, and at times has called out the President for actions not taken or gone far enough.
Possibly with the exception of Chris Wallace, do I see anyone on Fox be newsworthy. Keith and his depiction of those he feels as being the Worst Persons, justifies his selection and explains why that person is picked... yes he says it with bravado, and it could be toned down, but so could the constant attack against the Obama Administration by Fox. Rupert Murdock really hates Democrats and anything progressive!
Even Atticus Finch shoot the rabid dog when he saw it.
It's the duty of good people to point out stupidity and evil. Evil wins when good people fail to act.
Act this Tuesday. Vote. Paid for by Americans Against Moronageddon.
ZFX
This is what I've written about the election:
http://creansth.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/02/5394068-its-battered-and-frayed-around-the-edges-but-its-still-there?threadId=1121554&commentId=18983458#c18983458
Just like Zoo...I'm asking people to vote today.
know many that feel he is just as overboard as those on Fox, but there is no memo dictating to those on CNBC and MSNBC to support anything Democrat
Are you implying that Fox has/had some sort of agreement with Republicans?
No wonder you guys didn't see this (election) coming......
The ideology and views of FOX NEWS, the majority of people feel they lean heavily to the right, which they understand when they watch their programming, its not a secret, and seventy percent of their product has that same leanings, they only support republican or Teabaggers, and have never heard or seen them, lean the other way and offer support to the democrats, which is fine, as long as you take what they have to say, with a large dose of salt.
Here's to Keith.
While he was clearly annoyed at the comparison between MSNBC and Fox (and rightly so), he still got the message that toning down the rhetoric is probably a good idea at this time. Only a strong person could take it on the chin like he did, and come back with a reasoned (and reasonable) response.
While Keith has always been factual, he has also been strongly partisan. For some time now, I preferred to get my news from Rachel. But if Keith starts focusing on the issues (instead of the hypocrisy, which we all know is there already) I may begin tuning in an hour earlier again.
Welcome back, Keith. Rather than being my occasional 'guilty pleasure', you may once again become part of my evening news lineup.
Physicist, I appreciate your admission of KO's partisanship, I must object to your assertion that he is "always factual".
KO lies all the time. Shouldn't be too hard for a physicist to see that. And Maddow may be relatively new to MSNBC, but she lies almost as often. Again, easily verifiable.....
Brent,
Followed your link, and this is the first hit I got:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/
That's a pretty hateful site. Is that what you do for entertainment? The only lie exposed on the site that I could find was Keith twittering that he never mentioned Governor Christie on the air, when in fact OlbermannWatch found 4 mentions of Christie on Keith's show.
The rest of the postings were rants (some actually authored by Michelle Malkin!) about how they don't like or agree with Keith's opinions.
I don't consider myself to be someone who lies all the time. But I'm sure that I don't remember every post I've written on NewsVine. Do you?
Really. Keith does NOT lie all the time. Even a physicist can see that.
Olbermann watch hates KO, but they use video and other references to prove the point.
I just googled "Olbermann lies again". It's easy to find verifiable instances of him embellishing.
Sure, some of the criticism will be unfounded-it's politics.
"All the time" was an embellishment by me. I'm not a physicist (although I was an inertial navigation guy) and I can see that.... ;-)
Thanks for actually taking the time to look.
Brent,
The first version of your post didn't mention Rachel - I guess you were still editing it when I read it. The link to Rachel is even more partisan than OlbermannWatch:
http://liberalfail.com/2010/03/surprise-rachel-maddow-lies-again/
Liberal Fail? Really? You're smarter than that!
Let's try something a little less partisan for our fact checking:
Or you suggest an equally nonpartisan site. Wanna play? Game on ;-)
He has before. Should not be hard to find with access to the internet.
Countdown host Keith Olbermann announced tonight that he is "suspending" the "Worst Persons in the World" segment
Does that mean he'll no longer be appearing on his own show?
Don't kill "Worst Persons,"
I always enjoyed the Worst Persons but, I do understand the logic... sigh
"Worst Persons" is the best segment on the best news/opinion show on television. Keep exposing those FOX fools Keith!!
True that...
http://politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/
This is kind of fun.
Oh, i want to play.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/17/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-because-obama-people-cant-go-fi/
Brent,
Okay, Politifact.
I started with the 'Pants on Fire' section (one of my favorites). There are 135 entries in that section (7 pages, I counted the number of entries). This is what I found:
In summary, more than 86% of 'Pants on Fire' statements come from the right.
And Joe Biden is not a scientist.
Your turn.
Brent,
Checked out your Politifact links.
The Olbermann one shows one lie and a few half-truths. Point conceded - but only if I get to do the same with Bill O'Reilly (who I think is Keith's counterpart on Fox).
The Maddow link takes me to pictures of Anderson Cooper's butt. Not sure what point you're making there.
Brent,
Checked O'Reilly's page on Politifact:
Olbermans page looked like this:
Olbermann's looking a little better than Bill, I think.
Who cares what Olbermann says or does? He has what, four people who watch his show?
Well. I'm happy to report to be one of the four that watches Keith Olbermann, and I hope the other three watchers would identify themselves so I can key them up as Friends on the vine! I think Olbermann is taking advice from the "restore sanity" rally! Re; with all the pointed pundits spewing negativity 24/7 to gullible audiences! To me that's a sign of leadership on Olbermann's part.
Now I also have to admit,MSNBC is but one of many sources I get info from; to include C-Span,ABC,CBS,NBC,Newsweek,WSJ,NPR ect..,The only place I don't tune in is FOX. They have engeneered a brand new version of propaganda! I even check out the Drudge Report sometimes.
Maybe, just maybe , if more of these co-called News Organizations would tone down the pointed rhetoric, their audiences wouldn't be so stident in their views.One thing for absolute sure, we are all in the same boat, like it or not. And as the boat goes, float or sink, so go we! I say, think you Mr Olbermann for being the first to be willing to change direction.
Jack, I saw this last night and thought Keith was being petulant. Stewart may have focused on the media rather than getting out the vote but the Rally was a great success nevertheless. Let's face it, Keith can be strident sometimes. This is one of them.
No Bent, we are not claiming that FOX is a republican advocate, we are proving it.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008160046
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5715340/the_news_corp_million_dollar_payola.html
In this election cycle alone, New Corp/FOX has contributed $2 Million dollars to the Republican party, with no like contribution to the Dems. Yes they are a GOP mouthpiece and advocate their policies without regard to fair and balanced anything.
Religious watcher of Countdown, Chris Mathews and Maddow. Like my news with a middle to liberal bias but do not think that any are completely even handed, just much more so that those on the far right, like Bitch Beck, Bill, pass the loofah, Orally or the village idiot Hannity.
Because he knew sooner or later, he would've ended up on his own list.
"Worst Persons" is the best segment on the best news/opinion show on television. Keep exposing those FOX fools Keith!!
#2 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:24 AM EDT"Worst Person" is the best in your eyes because you just want blood. Even Keith realizes that type of mentality hurt the left.
Wake up!
Eh, right, the left wants blood, the right wants the warm n fuzzies. Puh-leeze.
Pound, lets actually debate the Fox/MSNBC nightly line up right here.
Game?
I see his point and I'm tempted to disagree with him on the basis that we ought to fight the right-wing more on their terms. That's an emotional reaction, however. If Keith wants to have better standards for this own behavior, that's commendable, my reactions notwithstanding.
Still, at some point, on some level, I would hope it possible to counter American fascists without becomming as destructive as they are. I am doubtful there is and see the inevitable destruction of America as a given. I want badly to be wrong on this, but I have nothing to support a conclusion that American fascism will have to run its nasty course before we reject it, and the fascists. I mean, how do you counter a people willing to tear down our nation, so long as it means wealth and power to them as individuals? They have money and power and are determined to have their way with us. And with the USA.
How do you counter that? Their end (goal) of power and money without limit and without accountability is so strong to them that they're willing to employ any strategy and tactics to get there; the end, to the fascists, justifies the means. How do you counter that?
#3 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:51 AM EDTPD:
My joking plea above notwithstanding, I actually agree with Keith on this, for reasons that Jonathan Alter laid out beautifully in the segment announcing it.
Things like "Worst Person" make it TOO EASY for the Beltway Punditocracy to create an analytic framework of "Fox and MSNBC do the same thing from different places" when in plain, unadorned, unadulterated FACT, they do not do the same thing.
jfxgillis, the MSNBC evening line up is far more partisan than Fox could ever hope to be. Matthews, Schultz, Olby, Maddow, Larry? Are you kidding me?
Brent:
Even if I accepted that for the sake of argument, that's not why the two networks are different.
Things like "Worst Person" make it TOO EASY for the Beltway Punditocracy to create an analytic framework of "Fox and MSNBC do the same thing from different places" when in plain, unadorned, unadulterated FACT, they do not do the same thing.
This is just how the Village gets liberals to unilaterally disarm and wind the overton window relentlessly to the right. In theory I agree with you, but in practice I am sick and tired of liberals putting on big puffy gloves for these a-holes while they polish their brass knuckles.
They why not change the name of the segment, but not the content? Make it more center friendly and call it, "Can you believe this s**t?" That'd probably work. ;)
max:
This is just how the Village gets liberals to unilaterally disarm and wind the overton window relentlessly to the right.
I don't disagree with that. But disarming doesn't mean surrender, it means find better weapons.
John Stewart just beat up Olbermann and you guys want to deflect your anger to Fox?
Who and why on Fox do you think is more nasty than KO?
Brent - I will agree that JS 'beat up on KO' and that although KO didn't fully agree w/JS's take on it, KO still agreed he may have a point and made a move that he thought was in the direction towards a more civil discussion.
As I read your posts, it appears you are in full agreement with JS's assessment of KO.
Are you also in agreement with JS on his assessment of Fox News? And will any of them see JS's point and agree to tone something...anything....down?
Like maybe stop asking Guests if they think Obama is Muslim?
I'd rather not get into 'who is more nasty' blame game and stick to JS's message of 'we can all act more sane'.
KO made a move. Most of these posts are of his fans discussing if they agree w/it.
At least they have something to discuss on this subject :)
Who and why on Fox do you think is more nasty than KO?
Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. Take your pick.
Ky, Justin, How many times do I have to criticise Beck and Hannity for you guys?
And Justin, Olbermann is more nasty than either of your two examples. But they're just as ideological. BIG Difference!
Brent -
I'm pleading guilty as charged. Got carried away and forgot you already agreed on the 'both sides' issue in my haste to make the point of...
"At least there is a discussion on KO's attempt to see JS's point - Where is the seed about a Fox Talking Head taking his medicine and agreeing to take a step"
As usual, I was an idiot and lumped you in w/all the Fox 'can do no wrong' posts...
Why do you put up w/me? :)
On the 'nastiness' - Isn't that purely opinion? (and thus pointless to 'debate') Of course the TV pointing out your Pol's faults are waaaay more nasty than the ones pointing out the faults of those Pol's you already despise. (that's a generic Rep & Dem 'you' not a 'Brent' you)
Also - in the interest of full disclosure...
I started watching MSNBC because of KO. Now I find myself regularly missing it and not caring. Too many silly stories and too much constant outrage for me. Although I am appreciative of the fact that he turned me on to Thurber recently.
And Justin, Olbermann is more nasty than either of your two examples.
I'd say that's a matter of perspective.
But they're just as ideological.
I can agree to that.
BIG Difference!
Not really. If I was going to list my "Pundits suck" list, it'd be something like this. Mind you, I know I'm ideologically left so it's going to be skewed. You can't take bias out of a personal opinion. It's in an order from irritated to infuriated.
Maddow
O'Reilly
Olbermann
Hannity
Beck
I will miss it but I'm sure he will find a way to show us who he feels is the worst every day.
#4 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:57 AM EDTI watched the show last night.
Loved how he totally circumvented the Rally for Sanity/Fear to tout his own relevance over Fox, because of Stewarts statements, and ignored the relevance of the rally in the first place.
I even watched the rally on Comedy Central!
Not much politicing, but Olberman, in all his glory, had to point out "How Great "HE" is"!
The man's a moron.
As to the article, Someone is making him "Suspend it". We know it's not him. That goes against his ideology.
If you've ever watched Olbermann much, It wasn't his choice. He thrives on trying to show how bad the other side is.
Ummm, Yes it did!
You don't watch much, or maybe you think Kieth has now become a compassionate person towards the other side.
Olbermann seems to be slipping in the ratings. Maybe someone who's not a complete ideologue told that following Obama's strategy of doing nothing but point fingers (see election tonight) is actually hurting the show?
On another note-Keith is going to be fun to watch tonight! He just might cry!
That's your problem Greg, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
That's your problem Greg, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Do you watch Olbermann? If there's a guy dancing the fact/fiction line, it's KO.
Maybe he found he had worked the list all the way down to where he was 'next'.
On another note-Keith is going to be fun to watch tonight! He just might cry!
Brent--I thought MSNBC kicked KO out of covering major news stories like elections, conventions and the like after his totally embarrassing one-sided slobbering "I love obama" gibberish from 2008?
They can take away his "Worst Person" bit.....it won't help KO's ratings.....they're just punishing the faithful in hopes of growing a larger audience when it's Keith himself not the "worst person" segment that will always be the fly in that ointment. When GWB flew away from the White House on Obama's election day in 2009 I thought for SURE that would be the end of KO---losing his entire reason for being in that one moment. I'm surprised he has managed to hold on this long in the post-GWB era.
That's your problem Greg, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Do you watch Olbermann? If there's a guy dancing the fact/fiction line, it's KO.
All of which has nothing to do with what Greg was saying, and I was commenting on.
And you want to debate? You can't stay on the topic at hand, which is that Greg's "point of fact" was actually opinion. Would you like to debate that or deflect some more?
What's the obsession with ratings? Really? I don't care who has good ratings. Never did. Popular doesn't make it intelligent or right.
I was just trying to point out that after I watched the video, Olbermann admits to being angry all the time. Where's the anger coming from?
Justin, Republican vs. Democrat "ratings" are the reason you're party is getting trounced today.
If this helps, Fox is the most trusted TV news source, including the networks.
you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion
Sure I do Pound4abrown.
Olbermanns "Worst Person" List, is his opinion!
you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion
Sure I do Pound4abrown.
Olbermanns "Worst Person" List, is his opinion!
Absolutely, it is. But so is your statement that someone other than he is pulling the plug. So I guess you already knew that though, huh?
I looked over my post's again and for the life of me, I couldn't find where I said "This is not an opinion of mine"!
Brent, here's something a little more recent for ya:
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/05/05/poll-cnn-not-fox-news-is-americas-most-trusted-news-source/
And now for the breakdown: 32 percent of those polled cited CNN as the most trusted news source, while 29 percent cited Fox News. I
But feel free only to stick to news sources which tell you what you want to hear. Most conservatives do that anyway.
Justin, Republican vs. Democrat "ratings" are the reason you're party is getting trounced today.
It sure as hell isn't my party. I like the Democrats more than I like the Republicans, but to me that's like saying I'd prefer Cancer to AIDS. They're both ineffective at keeping on message. The Republicans want their ball and want to take it home, and the Democrats have no idea how to keep the ball in the first place. Oh, and as far as their "ratings", that doesn't have crap to do with anything. Uninformed people are making decisions based purely on talking points that one or the other party gives them at this point. It's basically the pendulum swing effect. Things are bad right now, vote the other guys in! Soooooo, hey folks, remember what things were like from 2000 to 2006? Did they curb deficit spending those six years? Nope! Did they do anything at all about healthcare? Nope! So what the hell do you think they're gonna do now?
US Deficit in 2000? 5,628.7 billion. US Deficit in 2006? 8,451.4 billion. Good friggin' job folks. Summation of my anger? The GOP is lying to you about what they're about. The Democrats are inept, I'm fine with stupid as opposed to evil. Seeing as how that's my only friggin' choice.
If this helps, Fox is the most trusted TV news source, including the networks.
So you're saying that 1151 people nationwide are indicative of all of the United States? Do you really think that's an appropriate sample group to call something nationwide? Also, as Republicans, do you think they trust anything other than Fox News? Do you think that'll shift the sample a bit? To most of Fox's viewers, anything other than Fox is not good enough. They're the "lamestream" media.
Some people like Jeff Hunt of the Texas Military Museum deserve to be on the Permanent Worst Persons list for destroying the high schoolers' diorama and there's nothing Red State/Blue State about that.
#7 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:13 AM EDTRight. I say keep it and do far less pointing out loonies on Fox and more on people who are just bad, politics aside.
Many of the show's viewers? You mean all ten of them?
#9 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:18 AM EDTtsmall:
That joke was funny when BKER1492 said it two minutes ago. Not now.
Wow, he won't even acknowledge that he blew it with the joke in his "gotta get the last word" mentality.
This is why Democrats will always lose in the end. They may take control here and there, but they will never rule as Republicans do... for decades at a time. The problem for Democrats is that they listen to reason, and rationalize. Republicans are hard line with every aspect of what they do.
Rigid and backwards will always defeat logic and reason. Sorry to go all geek on you, but think about it. The Vulcans were the rulers of the Galaxy until they found us and in less than 200 years in the Star Trek world we forceful, head strong, arrogant, ignorant earthlings drove them to the back of the Federation.
Logic and reason always lose!
#10 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:21 AM EDTThere's an ancient Greek saying that is well translated into English: Might makes right. Wish it weren't so.
The problem for Democrats is that they listen to reason, and rationalize.
You guys still don't "get it".....
{{sigh}}
Actually Brent... Neither do you. I am against the president for a variety of reasons... primary of which is that he promised to be Liberal and failed miserably... Continuing the patterns of Bush...
And honestly sir... Anybody that thinks they do get it in this environment is ignorant. You have no idea what Americans are thinking just as I don't. We have a polarized nation of 300 million individuals now. Everyone has a completely different complaint. We currently are the furthest we have ever been from being a Nation right now.
Now... think about that... Why do you think that is? When you figure that out then you might be more enlightened. I am not going to help you because I will contribute to the problem. Americans listen to a bought and paid for media for their opinions instead of forming their own.
brian, anyone who thinks one side or another "listens to reason or rationalizes" better than the other will never "get it".
Republicans make mistakes all the time. I can admit it. You need to realize that there are Democrats in office that screw up too.
The Democrats are getting voted out tonight because they didn't fix the economy, nor did they look like they were trying. Too busy with ideological issues-they took their eye off the ball.
Do I know what "All Americans" are thinking-no. But on a bell curve, individual issues of "I need a @!$%#ing job" is in the fat middle part......
But thanks for the intellectual honesty. It's rare by the opposition on Newsvine.
Just as long as you know I was not intending to insult you. I was merely stating that Democrats have a serious issue with how they deal with things. One area I truly loved Bush and Cheney for was that they didn't care about public opinion... They just did what they thought they needed to.
Even though that decision destroyed America, they still acted. Democrats refuse to take that stance. I also was not saying Republicans are dumb... They are just rigid and backwards in how they present themselves.
brian, no worries, I was just pointing out that the two parties are more similar than you were letting on....
Wow, wait! America has been destroyed? I'm looking around me-she's still here and functional. Maybe a little hyperbole?
Brent,
Sorry to make an add on to your statment.
"I need a @!$%#ing decent job that will give raises, bonuses, and at least a few benefits"
Sorry again- I have been agreeing with everything you said- but wanted to put my 2 cents in as someone who works at a job where everyone had to take a 6% pay cut, no bonuses, no raises, and a large increase on Health insurance payables- both the monthly fees, and the amount we have to pay out of pocket each year before the co-pay even kicks in.
The only thing that is not decreasing is the work load. So I wanted to add on the qualifier.
Ronin, if the economy doesn't improve to your satisfaction, I'm sure the pendulum will smack the Republicans in two years as well. That's how we roll.....
;-)
Spike... Policies that built over 4 trillion in deficits that puts the total for Republican presidents since 1980 up to 9.2 trillion dollars of our current 13 trillion dollar deficit? yes... I think that could qualify as leading to destruction.
Brent,
I will not disagree with you in #10.9 either. I just wanted clarification- as some people will put any new job on the created list- whether it pays a liveable wage or not. At my age entry level is not an option- I can't spend another 23 years working my way up the totem pole again.
I am sure other people are in the same boat as I am, and would love to get a different job- if there were any to be had. Without competition (available jobs) employers are free to dictate terms.
I am voting Republican down the line for the first time ever. If they don't do the job I will be one of the ones leading the charge to bounce them back out again.
Olferman should return to jock straps and ground balls. He is irrelevant to all but a very few radical left wing hate merchants. Good riddance to the worst person. Now the opening of each show will display, who most people consider to actually be, the "worst"....the Keithster himself.
#13 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:38 AM EDTHe's ruined his sports career-off NBC's SNF after just one season. Keith has made himself radio active.
Ratings are god on TV, plain in simple. If he starts losing viewers he'll either bring it back or replace it with something similar.
#14 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:42 AM EDTI'm kinda thinking that ending the segment is a strategy shift to get someone other than left-fringe haters to watch.
Maybe. I'm pretty liberal but I have a hard time watching Olberman, even though I agree with him on most things.
I think NBC is grooming Harry to take over Keiths slot. Same diff, just more wrinkles.
David, if you admit to being liberal and also admit to having a hard time watching him, what does that say about those who like watching him?
Full disclosure-I don't really like watching Hannity and I'm a knuckle-dragger. I know everything Sean says is going to be skewed to the right.
I love O'Reilly though-he has quality liberals debate him all the time. It's the same reason I watch Maher-I like an open debate.
Olbermann's show in itself is an echo chamber-he never has opposition on.
David, if you admit to being liberal and also admit to having a hard time watching him, what does that say about those who like watching him?
Simply that they have different taste in opinion programming. Olberman, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Maher, Stewart, Maddow etc etc. These are not news shows. They are opinion shows about news.
David, I agree 100%.
I don't watch Hannity either for the same reason.
New found respect for you since you admit not watching Hannity, I use to rotate to Fox News Bill O'Reilly, Hannity when back in 2005/2006 O'Reilly turned me off with his excessive use of Pin-Head, Claims of no Spin, Shouting down opposition & Flaunting his religious righteousness. Oh especially labeling all war protesters as left wing nuts, which wasn't the case & As soon as people spoke out against health care reform these people were True Americans, expressing their first amendment blah blah. Hannity has always pushed my buttons, I was P.O. when I found out that Sky news (Fox in UK) took UK Citizens complaints & edited it to make sound like they were against their health care system. Truth was most of these people were told that they were running a story to help get reforms they wanted to the public system. The last straw with Hannity was the Presidents Speech Last Year on Health Care (You Lie), I watched in on MSNBC & got their take. I then switched to Hannity & with in 5 min he lied, he said President Obama Called the insurance CEO'S evil & his guest just agreed, didn't bother to correct him I waited a week for a retraction nothing.
TMHY, thanks for the props-come back to O'Reilly. He's honest and has legitimate dissent on his show. He inserts his opinion, but to me, he's the equal&opposite to Matthews, who I dislike for similar reasons to yours, but respect that he actually debates.
Olbermann NEVER has a conservative on.
Brent
O'Reilly loves a lot of attention, he likes to make issue of nothing I was a Republican until 1984 & I still currently have Republican friends who protested the Iraq War with myself O'Reilly painted everyone of us as radical left wing nuts, why would I want to support him by increasing his ratings? He agreed with the War so he painted everyone against it with Same Brush but when it came to being against health care reform something in his favor he called them "true american hero's screaming down the big bad democrats". I tried to be considered to those against health care reform, Wasn't labeling everyone a races because I've been on that side of the brush. I understand many hand real concerns but when most of the right on Newsvine continue to decry every little thing as a talking point or liberals being victims or Death Panels, Didn't read the bill or countless other talking points It has become pretty hard to actually really understand what is under the surface of each person's point of view. I even posted some other Solutions, I got rated well for the comment but no one bothered to continue the discussion of Solutions, if they agreed or disagreed. Most of the time when presenting any information no one responds & then some "Troll" (Lack of a Better Term) Comes along & instead adding anything useful it is just some sort of attack. If Newsvine is a reflection of the country as a whole then there is certainly a very wide disconnect between us.
I like the discussion we are having, showing each other respect, that is only thing I wanted the past 2 years.
Matthews is good at making over reaching claims, jumping to conclusions but I do like that he has opposite points of view on the show, Ed Show I watched for a little bit I liked he had opposite points of view on as well plus he gave President Obama hard time on a lot of decisions he made, especially that he was more center right then a strong progressive. However Same thing as Fox News Heads it got old. Yeah I was angry the President was weak on the Public Option & He Campaigned on it & Fact that Mathews kissed the Presidents has denying The President Campaigned on the Public Option was utter bullsh!t to me. Then the Republicans I am not ready to hand them the keys just yet, especially since The Presidents Election they planned to roadblock for political gain, they haven't showed me they deserve any power, they held up the health care bill in the Senate made all these compromises, said they don't know what's in the bill but yet most of the Republican provisions were left in like selling insurance across state lines in 2015 but they wouldn't vote for it. They have proved they didn't want to work with the President for the past 2 years, they didn't vote the bill but they still have hand prints on it, They still talk about not working with the President if they Win, Fox News said couple of hours ago that if they win the house they will have to work with the President. If they do Win I hope it will bring some compromise & work.
Okay here is the problem I have with this, Keith talked about the false equivalence and then he falsly equates a largely humourous segment to anything close to what Fox does.
#15 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:43 AM EDTIt appeared from the commentary, that he had his feelings hurt from Stewart equating his show with FOX. A bit disappointed that Olbermann would be so easily swayed. I guess I'll be free in the last 15 minutes of the show from now on. Too bad. I really liked the segment. It made the show.
#17 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:55 AM EDTYou nailed it-you like the hatred. But that limits his viewership. This, I think, is an attempt to broaden the appeal of his show beyond left wing "haters".
Not impressed with you labeling viners haters, as labeling is just a form of hate or agression. But I do like a satire and humor to break up monotony in a show.
Then why do you think KO's attacking a person is the best part?
KO spews venom and you love it. Just admit it-you'll sleep better.....
It honesty that drives a point home in the hopes of changing the target's behavior, not hatred.
Are you saying KO's WPITW is really "constructive criticism"?
LOL
blunt honesty. With some of these GOPers it requires the equivalent of taking a 2x4 between the ears of a stubborn mule(ie language they understand), to drive a point home.
Brent not sure how you say hatred?? Yes there has been a few times he has expressed some hate, especially if talk about some supposed Glenn Beck murder or Rape years ago, but when he would show Bill exploded on Callers to his Radio show who confronted him, was pretty funny. Then again it is stupid that he blast Bill for doing that when he pretty much never has opposition on his show. Worst Person wasn't great but sometimes it was perfect. The best parts I mostly watched he was showcasing footage from Glenn Beck & then filling in blanks that Beck left out or where he flat out lied plus he supplied facts to back up the claims. You don't have take his word for it you can look up the stuff, just like More Glenn Beck watchers should look into stuff. I Don't think you would want Democrats voting based on K.O. So I would think you try to educate your fellow Republicans from Following the Beck, Bill, Hannity kool-Aid?
This, I think, is an attempt to broaden the appeal of his show beyond left wing "haters".
Brent--I agree, but I suspect it will not work.
Forget the bad...do a "Best person" segment. ( If he can find one )
#21 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 10:34 AM EDTThis is the fair and balanced peace and love that we all have come to expect from the tool known as Olferman....
"In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees,"
Nice guy....
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286056#ixzz148aHgNNZ
#22 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 10:57 AM EDTWould you like me to pull out any of the ridiculous statements made by O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Fox & Friends, etc?
It happens on both sides of the aisle.
Have you ever met Mr. Olbermann? Do you know what he is really like? Or do you take the opinion of others as fact? I do not know if Bill O'Reilly is an awful person or not. I do know I sincerely disagree with him on his views, but that doesn't make him a tool, or a monster. Whether ya agree with him or not can we at least stop the 3rd grade name calling?
His words are enough for me....I doubt that you will ever, ever find a quote from others that dwarfs that garbage. give it a shot.
Can someone please tell me what the worst person segment is? If there was a person Keith would think is the worst, I would think it would be Bill O'Reilly because he gets 4 times the amount of viewers nightly.
The worst person segment is a bit that Keith does illuminating what he deems as the most absurd, offensive, morally wrong, etc. He gives a little description of why in each one. Bill O'Reilly has been No. 1 quite a few times but ratings has usually not a lot to do with it. Here is an example of "The Worst Person in the World"
OV--how many times has KO selected a democrat for the segment?
lisaed,
Seriously? He's even had Obama on the Worst Person's list:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Rb2cdcmZLmcJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/obama-makes-keith-olberma_n_130445.html+list+of+olbermann's+worst+person&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
And many other Democrats besides.
But I must admit that most nominees are not Democrats. Many aren't even politicians or pundits, just stupid thieves or hypocritical religious leaders.
Physicist---I was being serious as I never watch the show and was just asking....I figured he had to have had a small handful over the years.
Not sure off the top of my head. To be honest I don't watch much of Keith. I find him over the top and too bias. However I have caught his show from time to time and I have seen a few democrats on there. Sometimes its non-political people as well. Sometime it is someone who robs someone and left their wallet in the place they robbed or what have you.
As I have stated before "It happens on both sides of the aisle." Watch the keynote address that John Stewart gave this weekend and you will see a clip of him bashing both the left and right. Keith Olbermann Chris Mathews and a few other liberal commentators amongst the ranks of those that stoke the flames of extremism.
The difference in the stations, which is minimal in my opinion but is there, is in their response to the rally. Fox News slammed and slammed and slammed. I watched around 10-15 minutes of Glenn Beck last night and from what I caught of it, he was grasping at straws to poke holes that were not there. There was not one word of moderation, that I heard, from Fox about the rally. On the other side Keith suspends his worst persons in the world segment, Chris Mathews applauded it, Rachel Maddow gave a "bravo bravo" to the keynote, and Lawrence O'Donnell gave John's speech the title of the most elegant and clear message since President Obama's 2004 keynote at the democratic national convention.
The point is one side listened, the other side lambasted without hesitation. There was genuine sincere action on one sides behalf and the other was propagating the narrative regardless of the message. I was at the rally, and met numerous conservatives. We talked we had a few drinks and went on our way. There was no yelling about Obamacare or socialism. It was a civil discussion about how to fix the ills we all know are broken. This is what the rally was meant to do and why I think your question propagates exactly what John was speaking out against, division based on ideology and extremism.
Have you watched his full keynote speech?
I watched around 10-15 minutes of Glenn Beck last night and from what I caught of it, he was grasping at straws to poke holes that were not there.
OV--and I wonder how MSNBC covered Beck's rally......his rally too was very civil.
From the coverage I saw of it was not awful. It was not great but there was some good points made by pundits with praise as well as against what was said at the rally.
However, once again you are missing the point and did not answer my question.
Have you watched the keynote speech? I can provide a link if you would like.
You took one sentence of my whole response and did not address anything else. What about where I said,
"It happens on both sides of the aisle."
and
"Watch the keynote address that John Stewart gave this weekend and you will see a clip of him bashing both the left and right. Keith Olbermann Chris Mathews and a few other liberal commentators amongst the ranks of those that stoke the flames of extremism."
This isn't a division point. I refuse to play the same games of left vs right. It is stupid, pointless, and only kills our chances at civil discourse, our chances at solving real problems with constructive conversation rather than the status quo of blaming each other and pointing fingers while screaming emotional catch phrases. Im sick of it. We do not live our lives solely as Republicans or Democrats. We live our lives as Americans as people, who care about each other and what is best for our nation. Once again... PLS watch the Keynote.
OV---I saw excerpts from the Stewart speech. I was more interested in watching him interview the President which I did watch in its entirety. So JS slammed both left and right in his keynote? Good for him. That said, I would still argue that Stewart resides on the more progressive side of the aisle. He interviewed the President from that position anyhow. And re: games of left vs. right? It's just a reality. We all play it. Obama thought he wouldn't have to.....or at least told us that repeatedly to play the independent voters and get himself elected. I never believed him.....did you? Despite all that pre-2008 election pretty "I'm a post-partisan" rhetoric, he in reality is one of the most divisive partisan presidents that I can remember. And that's what matters to me....not anything Jon Stewart may or may not have said in his keynote.
onevoice:
Although I agree with you on content, I agree with lisa on form.
No matter the pretty words or appeals to consensus, compromise, and post-partisanship or bi-partisanship or whatever, politics in a democracy always reduces to binary opposition. It has to because a unitary government is almost by definition totalitarian. On those rare occasions when a democratic polity seems unitary, what happens is, the governing party itself winds up splitting and you end up binary again.
Oh, and I was there and didn't hear Stewart's speech yet. But I don't need a link because someone made a DVD of the Rally from start to finish and I want to watch the whole thing.
lisa-
There is no doubt that John is more on the left, he admits this himself. However that does not change the fact that he criticizes both equally.
The reason I want you to listen to the entire speech is because there is one key part that I believe is in its purest form is true. It is his traffic analogy. Below are a few excerpts followed by a link to the full speech.
"Most Americans don't live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, or Conservatives." ...
"This is who we are, these cars. That's a school teacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He's going to work. There's another car. A woman with two small kids, can't really think about anything else right now...A lady's in the NRA and loves Oprah. There's another car, an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. Another car is a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist, vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us."
"Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear. Often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one-by-one into a mile long, thirty-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river."
"And they do it, concession by concession. You go, then I'll go. You go, then I'll go. You go, then I'll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car. Ah, oh that's okay, you go and then I'll go. And sure at some point, there will be a selfish jerk, who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute, but that individual is rare and he is scorned and not hired as an analyst."
This is the majority of America, not the America that Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann project.
"he in reality is one of the most divisive partisan presidents that I can remember."
I think that this is an opinion based on an emotional reaction not very well founded in fact. But that is my opinion. I have facts to back it up but that is not the point of this seed. It is not about President Obama or his interview with John Stewart. The President does not have as much control as people believe he does. This was as true when George W Bush was in office as it is today. People always lay blame on the president way too much for things he has very little control over under the Constitution.
"No matter the pretty words or appeals to consensus, compromise, and post-partisanship or bi-partisanship or whatever, politics in a democracy always reduces to binary opposition."
I have no reservations about the dichotomy that often comes with democracy or a republic. However, what I was simply stating to lisa was that both sides are guilty of harboring extremist views. However, they are the minority of the population. Most people are civil moderate and live their lives outside the realm of political activism. When we start believing that everything we do, the food we eat, the people we associate with, the doctor we go to, the phone company we use, should be political in nature we lose a bit of our humanity and become diametrically opposed with no chance of resolution or compromise. This always leads to violence. This is what we need to avoid at all costs. We can monitor our words and not make someone with differing views into monsters. We will always have different points of views. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, if there weren't differing views life would be boring as hell. How we conduct ourselves when discussing our differing views is crucial to our society and prosperity in the long run. An unstable society politically and emotionally usually results in a period of tyranny.
People always lay blame on the president way too much for things he has very little control over under the Constitution
OV---Oh, I apologize as I never meant to imply that I only blamed Mr. Obama----it is the dem majority (of which he too was a part prior to his taking the White House) who have been at the reins now for four very long years. It is time now for them to face the people.
Also, I appreciate and agree with Jon Stewart's point about Americans outside the beltway....for cripes sakes I've spent my entire life living in three different BIG BLUE states.....and I too Miss Partisan Conservative get up each day and drive to work and get along each day. I get his point. But he ain't ever gonna change the beltway or now too the blogosphere or those of us who live there---if not literally, figuratively.
OV--22.11--and I don't disagree with any of your points here.....I get that you try to live in the middle of the road....and that's fine......just as it's fine that Jack lives on the left side of the street and I live right across the street from him on the right. And we spend the better part of our time on the vine trying to convince those in the middle that we are on the correct side of any given debate. Debate is good. And debating those who disagree with one's own point of view is just more fun if it can be done in a mostly above board manner.
onevoice:
Here's what I was responding to:
I refuse to play the same games of left vs right.
You have to "play the same games" in order to have:
chances at civil discourse, our chances at solving real problems with constructive conversation
The above-the-fray pretense is impotent and even perhaps actually destructive not constructive in the final analysis because it both rules out the hard, grimy toil of constructing policy in the field of contention, and it frequently (not in your case, I'd wager) has no real philosophical grounding.
I don't believe that having a civil discourse is "above the fray" as you put it. Is it not our job to set high standards after all? I am not ruling out the hard debate and work that is required to create sound policy. There will almost always be a pointed of heated contention. That does not change the fact that we should aim for civil discourse at all times. We are human and we all fail. What shows character is how quickly you can bounce back up to the moral high ground.
In regards to the philosophical basis of civil discourse John Locke showed a very distinct difference between the two with two different roles. On the former he stated that civil discourse is for understanding, to learn to listen, for the benefit of the two parties. Meanwhile philosophy is a discussion of the state of things, in their pure nature. Not all discussions are philosophical and/or rhetorical. Some are about the "grimy toil of constructing policy in the field of contention" and deserve a more hands on approach than rhetorical, than philosophical.
My point is that there needs to be compromise in order for work to be accomplished, in order for governance to prevail. This is not pie in the sky above the fray thinking. This is what was done to create our country with our bicameral legislature, with the signing of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Deals were struck compromises were met and when tensions flared others stepped in to quell the animosity to remind that all those present had the same goal, just different ways of achieving it. If this concept of civil discourse is not too above the fray for our founding fathers, then why is it too above the fray for us now? We are not perfect, but we set the bar high, so we can strive for a better tomorrow. If that is above the fray, then so is the American Dream.
Lisa -
"Debate is good. And debating those who disagree with one's own point of view is just more fun if it can be done in a mostly above board manner."
I agree with all of that basically. The only thing I would add is that it were done in a civil manner in which both parties had open minds to the others points of view as well as questioned their own beliefs based on the hard evidence the other side presents. This does not happen too often and I wish there were more of it. It would do our nation a great service.
one voice:
I don't know about you, but I took "civil discourse" as a term of art, i.e., "discourse concerning civil affairs" not "discourse conducted in a civil manner." The latter is mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant to "solving real problems" (listen to LBJ tapes sometime). Personally, I'm usually civil when conducting the civil discourse, though I reserve the right to be rude if the situation calls for it or I'm in a @!$%#ty mood (which I am [see my sub-thread on Top Jedi's Pelosi article]).
My point is that there needs to be compromise in order for work to be accomplished, in order for governance to prevail.
And what happens when your interlocutor says "We can't compromise on X because we regard Y as a core principle that is non-negotiable"?
Answer: You either surrender or you roll them depending on whether they or you hold the levers of power. In which case, it all resolves into binary opposition and that "game" you don't play.
Now, if what you're saying is that "On those things upon which we can compromise, we should," yeah, okay. I buy that and believe it. Actually fought for it to both my left and right during the health care debate.
jfxgillis -
I figured there was some sort of miscommunication somewhere.
You basically hit the jist of what I was saying though with your last line.
""On those things upon which we can compromise, we should," yeah, okay. I buy that and believe it. Actually fought for it to both my left and right during the health care debate."
This is basically what I am claiming. We need to strive for civil discourse even when the opposition is unwilling to compromise and take the moral high ground and provide instances and examples in which counter their "concrete" arguments. We must always attempt to be civil though we do fall short. I also argued with some on the left and a ton on the right about health care. We must aim for civil discourse but I realize it is not always possible. We must always try to compromise but I realize that this cannot always be the reality. What I feel compelled to stand against is those who refuse to compromise almost all of the time.
one voice:
What I feel compelled to stand against is those who refuse to compromise almost all of the time.
I don't see how you can do that without playing the left/right game.
You can do it as an independent bashing both parties. You will always have your bias. However you can still insert yourself as a middle voice of moderation and a choice of change compared to that of the status quo. Most of those who are unwilling to compromise do so in vehemence towards another ideology, another party that they view as evil, or socialist. If you can step outside that realm and not allow yourself to be cast with that emotionally linked die, then you have a better chance of reaching compromise.
Keith is an entertainer snake oil salesman on the same par with the dirty rags. He does nothing without first deciding if it will instill hatred and shock.
#24 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:45 AM EDTYou're right and whatever he's doing isn't helping to revive the dead MSNBC cable news shows, so maybe their thinking is dumping a segment will help. I don't think it will but George Soros tells his cable channel what to do so...
granted, oreilly beats olbermann, and fox beats msnbc, but worst persons was a good segment that fox probably wishes it had come up with. oreilly could have done it but it would have seemed like a self-promotion each and every night!
#25 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:55 AM EDTHe did say it may be temporary, or the segment might get reworked. I very much liked his comments that FartzNooz lying and his occasionally impassioned truth-telling are not the same, despite the impression that Stewart may sometimes give. And, as Jonathan Alter mentioned last night, when Olbermann has made mistakes he puts the record straight. That right there shows the universe of difference between MSNBC and FartzNooz. Just the fact that he's not always polite in telling the truth and calling out the liars on the right doesn't mean he's wrong.
#27 - Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:56 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
