http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/2007/February/070221/070221_keithBio_vsmall.widec.jpg VS. http://www.1041thetruth.com/Portals/57/bill%20oreilly.jpg
Ok, this is just a who do you prefer if either. I know both have their fans and both have thier enemies. I even included a 'both are blowhards' option.

I picked Olbermann cause i honestly agree with 95% of the stuff on his show, and i can't stand O'Reilly at all.

Discuss

Thank goodness you included the "both are blowhards" option. I think both men contribute to the ever-lowering quality of political discussion in this country.

This is going to be a funny thread.

I can't see how you can compare the two other than they are clearly partisans for one side.

O'Reilly won't admit it and I'm not sure I've ever heard Olbermann asked whether he felt he was in the tank for the democrats (And if he's not, he sure is with Obama and it's sickening), so I'm not sure if he's ever lied or not about it. I also think he'd be far more likely to criticize a democratic adminstration that was f*cking things up than people think. It's not his fault we can't win an election.

Trying to look at it from the conservative point of view, I can only see that you might consider him partisan and a blowhard. I can't see other comparisons.

His interviews are civil. He doesn't do an interview and then bring on 2 or 3 people who agree with his point of view just to tell him that he's right. When people disagree with him, he never yells or talks down to them, he doesn't mind being criticized by the right while O'Reilly will send his goons to stalk you if you so much as write a small piece in a local paper that dares to say anything remotely negative about him, and the list goes on and on.

Also, Keith is pefectly capable of handling anchoring new stories such as coverage of a hurricane or whatever and Fox wouldn't let O'Reilly near anything like that because he's only good at what he does on the factor. Nothing else.

Sure, I can see why a conservative/republican would dislike Keith. But I honestly can't believe how people could think what he does it even close to as bad as what BillO does on a nightly basis. I would think people that do are the ones who listen to Rush and don't think there's anything wrong with what he does or says either.

Also, Keith is pefectly capable of handling anchoring new stories such as coverage of a hurricane or whatever and Fox wouldn't let O'Reilly near anything like thatI don't think that's a good thing.

If you're involved in the media, you need to pick between being an impartial reporter/anchor and being an opinionated commentator/analyst.

I took the number 3 option.

At least O'Reilly has a lot more guests to doesn't share the same view as he does than does Olbermann.

Olbermann's interviews may be civil - he interviews people who share the same view that he does.

He is/was (I haven't watched him a long time) completely un-civil in his commentary rants - over & over saying "Mr. President, you are a liar."

I've seen you guys talk about these two a lot lately. I think this is the first time I've actually seen a picture Olbermann. Based on people's comments, I'm glad.

Don't watch them but have seen clips people post. Both are blowhards

They are like facism and communism, two sides of the same coin.

Only one of them served as a loose inspiration for a character on <i>Sports Night</i> (the greatest sitcom ever), so of course I have to choose Olbermann.

Sportscenter > Inside Edition

This is going to be a funny thread.

I can't see how you can compare the two other than they are clearly partisans for one side.

O'Reilly won't admit it and I'm not sure I've ever heard Olbermann asked whether he felt he was in the tank for the democrats (And if he's not, he sure is with Obama and it's sickening), so I'm not sure if he's ever lied or not about it. I also think he'd be far more likely to criticize a democratic adminstration that was f*cking things up than people think. It's not his fault we can't win an election.

Trying to look at it from the conservative point of view, I can only see that you might consider him partisan and a blowhard. I can't see other comparisons.

His interviews are civil. He doesn't do an interview and then bring on 2 or 3 people who agree with his point of view just to tell him that he's right. When people disagree with him, he never yells or talks down to them, he doesn't mind being criticized by the right while O'Reilly will send his goons to stalk you if you so much as write a small piece in a local paper that dares to say anything remotely negative about him, and the list goes on and on.

Also, Keith is pefectly capable of handling anchoring new stories such as coverage of a hurricane or whatever and Fox wouldn't let O'Reilly near anything like that because he's only good at what he does on the factor. Nothing else.

Sure, I can see why a conservative/republican would dislike Keith. But I honestly can't believe how people could think what he does it even close to as bad as what BillO does on a nightly basis. I would think people that do are the ones who listen to Rush and don't think there's anything wrong with what he does or says either.

I couldn't agree more.

I flipped over to BillO during the hurricane last week, and he even cuts off weathermen. I kid you not.

He is/was (I haven't watched him a long time) completely un-civil in his commentary rants - over & over saying "Mr. President, you are a liar."

Not joking - how is this "un-civil"?

They are like facism and communism, two sides of the same coin.

Don't insult those two types of governments.

I'd prefer Dumb and Dumber. But even as they are, they do have their good moments. And I will cite them occasionally.

Both are egomaniacal douchebags.

O'Reilly is a terrible interviewer/debater, but Olbermann is clinically insane, absolutely stark raving mad, completely and utterly bonkers.

both are assholes of the highest degree and great reasons not to have cable

Both are blowhards, but I prefer Olbermann both because I tend to agree with him and because he seems to be a more civil blowhard than O'Reilly.

What exactly did Keith do (lately) which has pissed-off a few people.

What exactly did Keith do (lately) which has pissed-off a few people.

the republacans don't like that he bashes McCain alot, and thney don't like thatthey let him be the main news anchor

the republicans don't like that he bashes McCain a lot, and they don't like that they let him be the main news anchorI don't like Olbermann because he's Koo-Koo for Cocoa Puffs.

both back to back regarding the Edwards scandal (and it shows that O'Reilly is a liar.)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wdS-MmZ6jIQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wdS-MmZ6jIQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

if nothing else, Keith is hilarious.

both are assholes of the highest degree and great reasons not to have cable Since when is looking out for kids by trying to pass JESSICA'S LAW being an asshole?-ohbfrank-

O'Reilly won't admit it and I'm not sure I've ever heard Olbermann asked whether he felt he was in the tank for the democrats (And if he's not, he sure is with Obama and it's sickening), so I'm not sure if he's ever lied or not about it.

He did say once that there was no bias on Countdown, which clearly isn't true, but I wondered if that was intentional on his part to mimic Bill O'Reilly's claim of the "no spin zone."

--THX

You'll have to forgive Olbermann some. He works for a network that is blatantly biased.

Why would you expect anything different from him.

Since when is looking out for kids by trying to pass JESSICA'S LAW being an asshole?-ohbfrank-

You know you can be an asshole and occasionaly do good things. Hell you can be an asshole and constantly do good things.

You'll have to forgive Olbermann some. He works for a network that is blatantly biased.

Why would you expect anything different from him.

You mean O'Reilly, right?

MSNBC is merely seizing on a ratings opportunity. Right after 911, MSNBC fired Phil Donahue (whose show was far more left wing than anything on the channel now) and replaced him with Joe Scarborough. At that time, not being right wingish spelled doom given the jingoistic atmosphere at the time. Now, there are a large amount of people thirsting for something back to the left. I guess MSNBC figured they'd be accused to being leftists anyway so why not buy into it fully?

They're both biased blowhards. I don't tend to watch either of them.

From Drudge:

MSNBC drops Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from anchor chair... David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night.... Developing...

Ha!

I have commented a couple of times in the change in David Gregory.

He has certainly become more balanced than most of the people on MSNBC.

Just so we're clear, this is the same David Gregory who was a part of the "liberal MSM" when he was the Chief White House Correspondent.

he hosts 'race to the white house' on msnbc

Here is the link for that now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Great, now I have to listen to the very uninteresting David Gregory.

I don't care if MSNBC is "biased," it's the only cable news network that has any guts whatsoever.

...because its biased in your direction. :lol:

Well, it's an improvement over Olbermann, but I'd rather they give Chuck Todd the job -- the man is five kinds of awesome.

...because its biased in your direction. :lol:

that doesn't even make sense. did you mean I share that bias?

that doesn't even make sense. did you mean I share that bias?
I would think that's what he meant.

Neither.

Give me Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer and Co. any day of the week.

Both are Blowhards

Fuck 'em both.

I would think that's what he meant.

:rolleyes: I can tell when someone's being an ass on here, thanks.

I would think that's what he meant.


I would think he knew that was what he meant.

He could think of no better response.

I would think he knew that was what he meant.

He could think of no better response.

don't be so cynical.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

I believe that's true in the case of Olbermann.

I don't believe that's true in the case of Matthews. Matthews has a tendency to become enamored with some political candidates. In 2000, it was John McCain. This year - Barack Obama.

However, there are times when Matthews reverts back to his days when he was a real journalist.

anyone who compares Sarah Palin to Norma Rae isn't liberal.

Is it okay to like BOTH of them? I guess I'm one of the few who thinks it's refreshing to have commentators who will voice their own beliefs on the air. Neither of these guys are news anchors (anyone who thinks COUNTDOWN or FACTOR are "news" shows needs to get a clue).

Chris Matthews and Brit Hume are just as left/right as the above two, but no one ever singles them out.

I find commentators who "ride the fence" rather dull, to be honest.

I may not watch Football Night in America anymore. They are both blowhards, but at least I don't have to listen to O'Reilly during the sacred football.

I believe that's true in the case of Olbermann.

I don't believe that's true in the case of Matthews. Matthews has a tendency to become enamored with some political candidates. In 2000, it was John McCain. This year - Barack Obama.

However, there are times when Matthews reverts back to his days when he was a real journalist.


Agreed. McCain was the ultimate media darling. They loved the maverick. But once they got their wish of having him as the candidate, it all changed. :lol:

I may not watch Football Night in America anymore. They are both blowhards, but at least I don't have to listen to O'Reilly during the sacred football.

Well, he is back with his old sports center partner (even though i think he was there last year).

Anyone know if there is truth to the story of Olbermann getting Dan Abrams fired/moved from his 9pm time slot? I know he doesn't anchor 'verdict' anymore but is/was it a direct result of Olbermann like imdb and fox were reporting?

Is it okay to like BOTH of them?
No.

Both are blow hards but I think Olbermann is more of a douche.

Agreed. McCain was the ultimate media darling. They loved the maverick. But once they got their wish of having him as the candidate, it all changed. :lol:

It could have something to do with McCain flip-flopping on just about every issue that made him a maverick. :lol: Now he's an older (!) version of Bob Dole.

It could have something to do with McCain flip-flopping on just about every issue that made him a maverick. :lol: Now he's an older (!) version of Bob Dole.

The real reason the media turned away from McCain in 2000 was he stopped giving them free booze on his campaign bus.


I don't understand the second sentence. Perhaps you could explain it to the forum.

I don't understand the second sentence. Perhaps you could explain it to the forum.

Someone whom I respect but would not vote for.

Is it okay to like BOTH of them? I guess I'm one of the few who thinks it's refreshing to have commentators who will voice their own beliefs on the air. Neither of these guys are news anchors (anyone who thinks COUNTDOWN or FACTOR are "news" shows needs to get a clue).

Chris Matthews and Brit Hume are just as left/right as the above two, but no one ever singles them out.

I find commentators who "ride the fence" rather dull, to be honest.

Brit Hume is FAR more conservative than Bill O'Reilly. He just was a far better "news man" and he can hide his biases from being as obvious. Oh, and he doesn't yell at anyone. Not that at Fox News Brit has to be restrained from showing the ultra-conservative that he is, but when you're civil and your panel includes 1 or 2 very, scared moderate dems (if that) who need a paycheck and 2 repubs as ulltra-conservative as Brit, who's gonna really see the difference anyway?


Matthews I honestly can't figure out. Seems to know politics and history well, but I've seen him fawn/lust over Tom Delay, so he definately goes both ways.

And you're right, when he does ride the fence (and kiss a lot of butt...ever hear him tell his guests how great they are? it's sickening), I agree that it makes the show fall flat.

Brit Hume is a conservative.

I wouldn't call him ultra-conservative.

Brit Hume is a conservative.

I wouldn't call him ultra-conservative.

I remember once reading a blog post by Wil Wheaton about how he agreed with something the "arch conservative" Andrew Sullivan wrote. This was back when Sullivan could still be classified as a conservative, but not "arch".

Anyone know if there is truth to the story of Olbermann getting Dan Abrams fired/moved from his 9pm time slot? I know he doesn't anchor 'verdict' anymore but is/was it a direct result of Olbermann like imdb and fox were reporting?

I can't believe that's true - I would think Abrams has much more clout with the "head honchos" than Olbermann does - remember, Abrams was General Manager for MSNBC for a couple of years.

:rolleyes: I can tell when someone's being an ass on here, thanks.


QIBFWxjDj9I

:lol:

Thanks crazyronin. I never realized it, but CSPAN is much better when you play cheezy 80s instrumental power pop over it!

You know you can be an asshole and occasionaly do good things. Hell you can be an asshole and constantly do good things. It's like O'Reilly is called racist by some blacks, but he's had Russell Simmons on his show and said O'Reilly does good for black charites. O'Reilly does put down rap culture, but so does Oprah.
There's a reason O'Reilly is number one with the counrty and is on liberals shit list.

It's like O'Reilly is called racist by some blacks, but he's had Russell Simmons on his show and said O'Reilly does good for black charites. O'Reilly does put down rap culture, but so does Oprah.
There's a reason O'Reilly is number one with the counrty and is on liberals shit list.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q84eSxIiKqc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q84eSxIiKqc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q84eSxIiKqc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q84eSxIiKqc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I don't know Bill. I don't know what he calls non-whites behind closed doors. Then again, if he's typical of East Coast White males it's probably something fucked up and racist ;)...but I digress...

Anyway, I've heard that audio and while it's certainly ignorant, it's not necessarily Full Blown Racist.

Thanks crazyronin. I never realized it, but CSPAN is much better when you play cheezy 80s instrumental power pop over it!

One of the many vast improvements I plan on making when I'm elected dictator.

Anyway, I've heard that audio and while it's certainly ignorant, it's not necessarily Full Blown Racist.

Racism breeds ignorance.

Olbermann says he will quit MSNBC, start new cable news station. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

O' Reilly is a blow hard, but he has the opposite view on his show all the time. This is called debate and the showmanship (yelling) is what delivers the ratings and what people want to see - a provacative debate. It's why O'reilly destroys all of his competition including Olberman.

O'Reilly seems to try and bring out facts and will correct himself when he's wrong. This is not saying he is always right, but it seems he tries. He also has a wry self depracating humor which I find entertaining. I love his interviews because he gets to the core (cuts off people) of the issue by not letting people spew talking points or pre-prepared speeches to fill time instead of answering Yes or No. I do like his traditional stands and I like that he does a lot of charity and support for the troops.

Olberman to me is the ultimate idealogue who cannot control himself. Recently he broke into Joe Scarboroughs monologue by saying 'Jesus, Joe, just get a shovel' - he literally could not stand an opposing view and interupted a commentators reporting because of it. Almost insane to think a news anchor would EVER do that. Follow that up by his meltdown over showing a 9/11 memorial video and you have the reason why his employers removed him from his job as anchor. The guy is just a lunatic in my book... Chris Matthews is an example of a biased liberal commentator whom I would compare more to O' Reilly, not Keith Olberman.

I don't know Bill. I don't know what he calls non-whites behind closed doors. Then again, if he's typical of East Coast White males it's probably something fucked up and racist ;)...but I digress...

Anyway, I've heard that audio and while it's certainly ignorant, it's not necessarily Full Blown Racist.

Whats worse are guilty white people who get all up in arms about stuff like this but don't say a damn thing when black people or other minority groups say similar or worse things about whites, right out in the open, on the air, or on tv every single day. I do find the dig at East Coast whites [males] (as if females can't be "racist" or whatever you want to call it) ironic, as the East Coast is where all the "progressives" are supposed to be.

Whats worse are guilty white people who get all up in arms about stuff like this but don't say a damn thing when black people or other minority groups say similar or worse things about whites, right out in the open, on the air, or on tv every single day. I do find the dig at East Coast whites [males] (as if females can't be "racist" or whatever you want to call it) ironic, as the East Coast is where all the "progressives" are supposed to be.

links pleez

O'Reilly seems to try and bring out facts and will correct himself when he's wrong.

rotfl

I'm sure his corrections are regularly printed in the Paris Business Review.

How did MSNBC compare with Fox in the ratings for the coverage of the conventions?

Didnt Oreilly get Obama to admit the surge was a success? That in itsel would be enough to make me pick Oreilly.

rotfl

I'm sure his corrections are regularly printed in the Paris Business Review.

Eh, you're just generalizing. If you have a specific beef then lay it out.

How did MSNBC compare with Fox in the ratings for the coverage of the conventions?
Do you know or are you tossing a little bait? ;)

MSNBC finished 2nd to last (ahead of PBS), Fox News was first (or maybe it was 2nd?).


Didnt Oreilly get Obama to admit the surge was a success? That in itsel would be enough to make me pick Oreilly.
Yes he did.

Didnt Oreilly get Obama to admit the surge was a success? That in itsel would be enough to make me pick Oreilly.

He did. He actually said it worked beyond our wildest dreams. Then Obama still said he would vote against the surge... -ohbfrank-

Do you believe the fact that Fox cleaned MSNBC's clock in the ratings had anything to do with the dismissal of Olbermann & Matthews?

Eh, you're just generalizing. If you have a specific beef then lay it out.

Google "Paris Business Review" sometime.

Ratings always equals quality. :rolleyes:

O' Reilly is a blow hard, but he has the opposite view on his show all the time. This is called debate and the showmanship (yelling) is what delivers the ratings and what people want to see - a provacative debate. It's why O'reilly destroys all of his competition including Olberman.

It isn't that provocative if the argument is one-sided and only one person has control of the buttons.

O'Reilly has a pre-determined set of questions. He has his opponent in a box, and when the opponent attempts to explain or elaborate on a question which was more of a statement, Bill conveniently cuts them off. I've seen him do it on many occasions and I've seen Bill evolve into a rather biased individual--when he initially started he debated guests a lot more, and gave them opportunity.

Sometimes you'll get Bill in a good mood (if you're a cute woman who has a little charm and wit) and he won't do it, but overall, I'd say Bill does stack his show so it ends in his favor. The fact he almost always ends with him winning an argument, is a good indicator. He wins because he's playing a game where he controls the rules.

O'Reilly doesn't really debate. He preaches.

Now, I'm not saying other hosts don't do this on other channels, so don't imply it. Since your statement was about O'Reilly, I responded about what I think of O'Reilly.

Racism breeds ignorance.


Jesse Jackson? Et tu?

Jesse Jackson? Et tu?

he'll cut your balls off. ;)

Do you believe the fact that Fox cleaned MSNBC's clock in the ratings had anything to do with the dismissal of Olbermann & Matthews?
I believe it played a large part. MSNBC is a mess when it comes to separating opinion/commentary from reporting. At the network level they mix the two so it is only natural that the individuals do so too.



Ratings always equals quality. :rolleyes:
huh? Did someone make that assertion?

I believe it played a large part. MSNBC is a mess when it comes to separating opinion/commentary from reporting. At the network level they mix the two so it is only natural that the individuals do so too.


I agree. Had MSNBC topped Fox in the ratings you wouldn't be hearing the excuse that NBC is giving. And, Matthews & Olbermann would still have 'their job.'

huh? Did someone make that assertion?

"Huh?" :lol: I always love that response.

Anyway, Kerborus made a suggestion as to why O'Reilly had such high ratings. It may have to do with his demeanor, or it could be that there's just a lot of blowhards out there that nod their heads at everything he says.

Oh, and if you can't separate reporting from opinion, that is kinda funny.

Neither.

Give me Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer and Co. any day of the week.

Especially when I'm suffering from insomnia.

I am not one of Olberman's 10 viewers. I like Bill O'Reilly, that blow-hardness is self-depreciating. If anyone listens to his radio show you can see that he makes jokes at his own expense lots of times. He doesn't take himself too seriously.

Google "Paris Business Review" sometime.

That's the best you got? Further, before I believe that one side, I'd like to see the rebuttal from the other side. Not sure what the context was, you know.

It isn't that provocative if the argument is one-sided and only one person has control of the buttons.

O'Reilly has a pre-determined set of questions. He has his opponent in a box, and when the opponent attempts to explain or elaborate on a question which was more of a statement, Bill conveniently cuts them off. I've seen him do it on many occasions and I've seen Bill evolve into a rather biased individual--when he initially started he debated guests a lot more, and gave them opportunity.

Sometimes you'll get Bill in a good mood (if you're a cute woman who has a little charm and wit) and he won't do it, but overall, I'd say Bill does stack his show so it ends in his favor. The fact he almost always ends with him winning an argument, is a good indicator. He wins because he's playing a game where he controls the rules.

O'Reilly doesn't really debate. He preaches.

Now, I'm not saying other hosts don't do this on other channels, so don't imply it. Since your statement was about O'Reilly, I responded about what I think of O'Reilly.

I won't argue that point. It's HIS show. Of course he'll get the point across he wants to. It's his job. I have seen examples of the behaviour you talk about, but sometimes I think you miss the point - it's the POINT of the show for him to interupt people if he feels they are wandering and he gets them back to the Yes or No question and not the prepared speech. I mean, it's the no spin zone - what you describe is the basis for the show...

"Huh?" :lol: I always love that response.

Anyway, Kerborus made a suggestion as to why O'Reilly had such high ratings. It may have to do with his demeanor, or it could be that there's just a lot of blowhards out there that nod their heads at everything he says.

Oh, and if you can't separate reporting from opinion, that is kinda funny.

Nah, people who hate him love to watch him too. When he was defending Bill Clinton during the scandal years, I hated him for saying that what Clinton did was unimportant. He gets ratings because he is entertaining primarily and traditional secondarily. I would say that he's good at getting his point across and getting straight answers, not debating.

That's the best you got?

Yes, it is. It's the one single instance of Bill O'Reilly not being 100% truthful. The entire democrat party was formed with the single purpose of warning the world of this misdeed.

Didnt Oreilly get Obama to admit the surge was a success? That in itsel would be enough to make me pick Oreilly.
BINGO! And that's the kind of questioning the left-wing liberals hate about O'Reilly. You can't make Democrats look bad or else your going to get bad pub from the national media and Hollywood.

Olbermann! I love his views, have read his books, and last night he quoted Arrested Development! Winner!

Yes, it is. It's the one single instance of Bill O'Reilly not being 100% truthful. The entire democrat party was formed with the single purpose of warning the world of this misdeed.

Eh? You assume that he knowingly did this on purpose instead of having a bad research crew. Are you psychic? You also provide no context and who knows if it was a joke or sarcasm was implied.

You treat this like an open and shut case, but I don't see it. But hey, don't let your idealogy get in the way of being fair...

Olbermann.

The man has great taste in ties.

Cheap doesn't mean taste. ;)

:lol:

Olbermann has better taste in ties than Limbaugh.

This now concludes the "damning with faint praise" portion of the thread.

BINGO! And that's the kind of questioning the left-wing liberals hate about O'Reilly. You can't make Democrats look bad or else your going to get bad pub from the national media and Hollywood.
Nobody has a comment on that?
You believe it to be true?
Where are the insults from the left?:scratch2:

Generally, your comments are worth replying to. No offense. :shrug:

A perfect zing gone horribly wrong due to a typing error. :(

I zonged when I meant to zing. :(

surprised it was up already
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fNx22TH7FfU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fNx22TH7FfU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Olbermann's Special Comment about the anniversery of 9/11 and how the republicans use it as a political tool and propaganda.

911tm indeed

Generally, your comments are worth replying to. No offense. :shrug:
Since I use the Bible, facts and stats to make my opinion I guess your right.

Bible, facts, and stats.....which of those words doesn't belong with the others? ;)

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, wm lopez. Forty percent of all people know that.

But does he have dictionary facts?

Wow, Olbermann.... 9/11tm. I mean wow. Is this man filled with blind hate or what?

What is the old saying - 'Ignorance is bliss.'

Oh, and also, Olbermann said last night on his show that from now on if Palin ever uses the 'thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere', or the fired chef line' or mentioning that she sold her plane on ebay' that he'd give $100 to charity.

The numbers are head to head close.
But on with the t.v. ratings O'Reilly kills Keith Olbermann.
What does that say about DVDTALK members?

There was a story on imdb a few days ago, that said Olbermann beat cnn on monday, granted he had an interview with Obama that night, so, i dont know if he regularly beats Campbell Brown's show.
oh and in regards to the ratings
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y6qKmG00Ui4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y6qKmG00Ui4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

There is a rumor floating around that Chris Matthews will soon be getting his walking papers from MSNBC.

There is a rumor floating around that Chris Matthews will soon be getting his walking papers from MSNBC.

Just in time for his Senate run?

Bible, facts, and stats.....which of those words doesn't belong with the others? ;)
Stats.

Just in time for his Senate run?

Which state is going to seek the Senate seat in?

PA of course.

Is he a resident of PA?

I wasn't aware that that one of the PA Senate seats was up for election this year.

Is he a resident of PA?

Probably not currently.

I wasn't aware that that one of the PA Senate seats was up for election this year.

2010 which means you start now.

He better hope that Specter is retiring because he ain't beating Specter.

He better hope that Specter is retiring because he ain't beating Specter.


Matthews couldn't even win the Democratic Primary, much less beat Specter.

v1f7ICTAdVw

Neil Cavuto handing O'Reilly's ass to him.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPKVqbj09B8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPKVqbj09B8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
O'reilly thinks that because MSNBC has gained in the ratings over the past year (and beat him in the key demo on tuesday), he thinks that its a conspirisy, a fraud and thinks there should be a federal investigation. Olbermann's reading is funnier, and i couldn't find O'reilly's read.

I hope McCain wins the election, if just to see if Keith Olbermann loses it and kills himself on live tv.

There was a "Doctor Paul" Revere telling us about this crisis for more than a decade.

I think Olberman is hilarious but a blowhard. I've been listening to him during the election for the entertainment value, but generally I hate shows like his (from the right or left). I don't generally want someone to just re-enforce my views... or worst... make me angry and bitter.

I'd rather read, and think, and challenge my views... Shows like Olberman and Oreilly do neither. They're entertaining (maybe depending on your leanings), but I wouldn't trust either of them.

There was a "Doctor Paul" Revere telling us about this crisis for more than a decade.
A true visionary, to have seen the coming war of words between O'Reilly and Olberman 10 years in advance.

I hope McCain wins the election, if just to see if Keith Olbermann loses it and kills himself on live tv.

Funny I hope Obama wins so everyone at Fox News blows the back of their heads out

A true visionary, to have seen the coming war of words between O'Reilly and Olberman 10 years in advance.

I was referring to the Cavuto / Oreilly clip, where O'Reilly bemoans the lack of an adequate public figure who would identify these crisises as they're upcoming.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPKVqbj09B8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPKVqbj09B8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
O'reilly thinks that because MSNBC has gained in the ratings over the past year (and beat him in the key demo on tuesday), he thinks that its a conspirisy, a fraud and thinks there should be a federal investigation. Olbermann's reading is funnier, and i couldn't find O'reilly's read.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSe8xtHHioo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSe8xtHHioo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
o'reilly's version

Maybe O'Reilly can get a joint investigation going with Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman to see if Nielsen is intentionally distorting the ratings of Fixed News shows while also being Unamerican. What a pin head.

Funny I hope Obama wins so everyone at Fox News blows the back of their heads out

LOL! Me too

I wanna see Alan Comes give Yawn a "neener neener" - though I know Yawn would lose it and punch him in the face. Still - would make for some awesome 2-3 day post Obama win TV!

Maybe O'Reilly can get a joint investigation going with Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman to see if Nielsen is intentionally distorting the ratings of Fixed News shows while also being Unamerican. What a pin head.


When Olberman showed the clip of Bill's "reasoning" or lack thereof, of a possible conspiracy, I laughed so hard I hurt my ribs. Too think O'Lielly would actually have the nerve to even bring it out instead of just not making that embarrassing info public on his show, shows how truly deranged and arrogant he is. The man has come unhinged and derailed moreso than ever since 9/11

On that note though - even though he shouts his guests down, denies their facts when clearly they are right and always beleives he is correct, he still has people on wih differing views - and though I like Keith, he's becomming like the radio version of Rush - all me all the time - that is unless he has on people who agree with him.

You'll have to forgive Olbermann some. He works for a network that is blatantly biased.

Why would you expect anything different from him.

same thing for oreilly though and sean hanitty. Fox news is also biased towards the rebulicans.

I agree - the worst thing they - and now in hindsight I see why, was shitcan Dan Abrams...they didnt like the fact he was trying for a fair and balanced warts and all on BOTH SIDES..MSNBC revealed their bias by putting on Rachel Maddow (the female Olberman) They werent about to let viewers see both sides and "decide for themselves"...ah, the beauty of being a moderate and not tied to one parties ideology allows us moderates to see this.

same thing for oreilly though and sean hanitty. Fox news is also biased towards the rebulicans.
Of course they are and here's the proof.
Hannity has Colmes to argue with him.
And O'Reilly had Barney Frank on his show who is the cause of this economic melt down and wouldn't let him make excuses.
And if only FOXNEWS could be as honest as NBC or MSNBC.
Like look at this poll Olbermann is beating O'Reilly so the Republicans are distorting the ratings and make it look like more people watch FOXNEWS than MSNBC. When clearly this poll shows the truth of the American people!:brickwl:

What planet are you from?

What planet are you from?
The planet that doesn't follow the leader or submit to peer preasure.

Good luck following Hannity, then.

Good luck following Hannity, then.
Since Hannity follows Jesus.
Luck doesn't come into play.:shrug:

Denigrating those who oppose your point of view with falsehoods = follwing Jesus? Good to know.

Don't bother trying to decipher.

Denigrating those who oppose your point of view with falsehoods = follwing Jesus? Good to know.

Good answer.
I like that you said that.
Because when it comes to Jesus he's either true or false.
So I stand on the side that he's true.

Since Hannity follows Jesus.
Luck doesn't come into play.:shrug:


and there we have it ladies and gents..God IS on the side of the republicans...:rock:

So THATS the mystery of being "Hannitized"..much like being BAPTIZED....huh? Follow Sean Hannity = Following Jesus and doing Gods will...why lord cant we all think that simply?

Its good to know you possibly take comfort that Sarah Palin believes God has tasked the troops to go to Iraq

I understand O'Reilly's agenda and Olbermann's agenda. They're each entitled to their own views and they make no apologies for them. However, the difference between the two, as stated by a previous poster, is the utter disrespect that O'Reilly displays towards anyone who doesn't share his ideologies. The chasm between the two in that regard is very wide.

I understand O'Reilly's agenda and Olbermann's agenda. They're each entitled to their own views and they make no apologies for them. However, the difference between the two, as stated by a previous poster, is the utter disrespect that O'Reilly displays towards anyone who doesn't share his ideologies. The chasm between the two in that regard is very wide.Wait, wut? They are both blowhards.

^^^ what is there to get? mytzplyx was pretty clear.

The planet that doesn't follow the leader or submit to peer preasure.

I'll take the follow the leader and peer pressure planet, please. And one that spells correctly.

^^^ what is there to get? mytzplyx was pretty clear.And I thought I made it pretty clear I disagree with his assessment.

And I thought I made it pretty clear I disagree with his assessment.

no, you just said they're both blowhards, which really had nothing to do with the assessment.

no, you just said they're both blowhards, which really had nothing to do with the assessment.Well, we better clear this up then before it get out of hand! How's this:

I think Olbermann's blowhardiness causes him to disrespect people who don't share his views to the point that I really don't think O'Reilly is sooo much worse than Olbermann. Of course, this is with respect to mytzplyx's assessment that O'Reilly holds anyone who doesn't share his ideologies with utter disrespect unlike (in mytzplyx's view) Olbermann.

Sorry if this wasn't clear, I could have save some folks time.

O'Reilly at his best.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-teM03FPUow&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-teM03FPUow&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-zuOPDCr7oM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-zuOPDCr7oM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Well, we better clear this up then before it get out of hand! How's this:

I think Olbermann's blowhardiness causes him to disrespect people who don't share his views to the point that I really don't think O'Reilly is sooo much worse than Olbermann. Of course, this is with respect to mytzplyx's assessment that O'Reilly holds anyone who doesn't share his ideologies with utter disrespect unlike (in mytzplyx's view) Olbermann.

Sorry if this wasn't clear, I could have save some folks time.

Jeez pal, what's with the attitude? I simply asked a question, no need for the condescending attitude.

Jeez pal, what's with the attitude? I simply asked a question, no need for the condescending attitude.No offense meant. Cheers. :beer:

Well, we better clear this up then before it get out of hand! How's this:

I think Olbermann's blowhardiness causes him to disrespect people who don't share his views to the point that I really don't think O'Reilly is sooo much worse than Olbermann. Of course, this is with respect to mytzplyx's assessment that O'Reilly holds anyone who doesn't share his ideologies with utter disrespect unlike (in mytzplyx's view) Olbermann.

Sorry if this wasn't clear, I could have save some folks time.


Ok, I see what you mean. I'm assuming you mean just by the very way he (they) impart their views on the viewing public, in general. I get that.

But, what I meant to refer to specifically, was direct, face-to-face conversations with guests who appear on their respective shows. I don't see how it's possible for someone to not see the clear difference in these situations. I actually share some of O'Reilly's views. He's just a dick of a person to disagree with in person. He doesn't let people finish, he cuts people off, makes snide comments, raises his voice, and even yells at his "guests".

Holy crap those youtube vids had me rolling!

I understand O'Reilly's agenda and Olbermann's agenda. They're each entitled to their own views and they make no apologies for them. However, the difference between the two, as stated by a previous poster, is the utter disrespect that O'Reilly displays towards anyone who doesn't share his ideologies. The chasm between the two in that regard is very wide.
It's like this:
If someone is trying to sell you bull what do you do?
Stay calm and agree with him or set that person straight that your on to his game. And that's what O'Reilly did with Barney Frank. Mr. Frank didn't want to admit that it was his fault. And for the record BILL MAHER' show and SNL brought up the fact that Barney Frank was one of the one's responsiable.
Bill Maher and SNL are liberal shows.

He doesn't let people finish, he cuts people off, makes snide comments, raises his voice, and even yells at his "guests".[/QUOTE]

That's why Larry King gets everybody to appear on his show because he lets them say whatever bull they have and Larry won't challange them.
Why do you think it took so long for Obama to appear on O'Reilly's show.
And when Obama appeared O'Reilly was the only interviewer to get Obama to admit the surge worked. And that's bad that an interviewer can give the American people that kind on reporting?

well, for those that don't visit the tv forum, Orally will be on Letterman tonight

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uKftpGB03vU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uKftpGB03vU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He doesn't let people finish, he cuts people off, makes snide comments, raises his voice, and even yells at his "guests".

That's why Larry King gets everybody to appear on his show because he lets them say whatever bull they have and Larry won't challange them.
Why do you think it took so long for Obama to appear on O'Reilly's show.
And when Obama appeared O'Reilly was the only interviewer to get Obama to admit the surge worked. And that's bad that an interviewer can give the American people that kind on reporting?[/QUOTE]


There's a difference between hard interviewing and being rude. I think O'Reilly crosses the line all too often. I thinkt he Obama interview was fine. I'm sure there are tons more of youtube clips of O'Reilly's outbursts and meltdowns that'll illustrate what I'm talking about.

And, I think what you're trying to say is that compared to O'Reilly, most other interviewers are pansies and allow their subject to walk all over them. You brought up Larry King. True, I agree. But, again, there's a clear line between not letting a subject walk over you and being a rude interviewer. All I'm saying is that O'Reilly more than crosses that line, sometimes.

There's a difference between hard interviewing and being rude. I think O'Reilly crosses the line all too often. I thinkt he Obama interview was fine. I'm sure there are tons more of youtube clips of O'Reilly's outbursts and meltdowns that'll illustrate what I'm talking about.

And, I think what you're trying to say is that compared to O'Reilly, most other interviewers are pansies and allow their subject to walk all over them. You brought up Larry King. True, I agree. But, again, there's a clear line between not letting a subject walk over you and being a rude interviewer. All I'm saying is that O'Reilly more than crosses that line, sometimes.
There's a difference between someone that O'Reilly is interviewing (Obama) and a guest on his show to present his position (Frank). O'Reilly is a respectful but hard interviewer, and can be an outright nut when grilling a guest.

There's a difference between someone that O'Reilly is interviewing (Obama) and a guest on his show to present his position (Frank). O'Reilly is a respectful but hard interviewer, and can be an outright nut when grilling a guest.

O'Reilly is smart enough to know that he gains legitimacy if he conducts a proper interview with someone like Obama. He feels he can trash people like Frank with impunity.

Besides, Obama wouldn't allow himself to be drawn into a shouting match.

Besides, Obama wouldn't allow himself to be drawn into a shouting match.

Obama doesn't yell at children.

I prefer Ann Coulter vs. Ariana Huffington.

Or Sarah Palin vs. Jeannine Garafalo (however the latter spells her first & last names...I'm too lazy to look it up).

yeah, Republican to Democrat. we get it.

yeah, Republican to Democrat. we get it.
Or in the case of Palin vs. Garafalo, MILF to :yack:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZTjtlroDPQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZTjtlroDPQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> :lol:

There's a difference between hard interviewing and being rude. I think O'Reilly crosses the line all too often. I thinkt he Obama interview was fine. I'm sure there are tons more of youtube clips of O'Reilly's outbursts and meltdowns that'll illustrate what I'm talking about.

And, I think what you're trying to say is that compared to O'Reilly, most other interviewers are pansies and allow their subject to walk all over them. You brought up Larry King. True, I agree. But, again, there's a clear line between not letting a subject walk over you and being a rude interviewer. All I'm saying is that O'Reilly more than crosses that line, sometimes.[/QUOTE]

I like what he did to Barney Frank and also the 9/11 telethon guy who wasn't giving the money to the victims. I'm just one of those people that gets mad when I'm being b.s.ed.

O'Reilly at his best.


And just to be fair and balanced, a few of Olbermann's more sterling moments.

wRGjByssPEQ

rhdIIGbdZTE

QY4J8ceGjqw

Did anyone catch this?

I laughed harder at SNL than I have in a while.

ip9K3AVdxvE

Olbermann is a "bathtub Boy", defines Blowhard much better than O'Reilly, waaay overwrought and strident and I find him to be fascinating to watch (as I skim the channels). Kinda like watching a train wreck. Do people take him seriously?

And just to be fair and balanced, a few of Olbermann's more sterling moments.

A swing, and a miss.

You do realize that wasn't really Bill-O in the clips above?

Olbermann is a "bathtub Boy", defines Blowhard much better than O'Reilly, waaay overwrought and strident and I find him to be fascinating to watch (as I skim the channels). Kinda like watching a train wreck. Do people take him seriously?

He does play up the dramatics quite a bit, but I can't help but agree with his reasoning most of the time.

He needs a "foil" on his show like Hannity needs his Combs. Perhaps Ann Coulter, now that would be an intense show.

4 more years for MSNBC's Olbermann

NEW YORK - Barack Obama, the presidential candidate Keith Olbermann championed this fall, just won a four-year term. So, too, has Olbermann.

MSNBC announced Monday that Olbermann, its headlining prime-time star, has signed on to continue hosting "Countdown" each weeknight at 8 o'clock EST. MSNBC essentially tore up an existing contract Olbermann had, adding a year and a half and more money. (Exact terms of the deal were not disclosed.)

It's also four more years of cable television's most sizzling rivalry. Fox News Channel said last month that Bill O'Reilly, whose show airs opposite Olbermann's, had also agreed to a new four-year contract.

Olbermann's fans made him a folk hero during the campaign for his sharp-tongued criticism of John McCain and President Bush. The size of his audience has more than doubled, from an average of 776,000 in October 2007 to nearly 2.2 million this October, according to Nielsen Media Research. O'Reilly's audience hovered around 4 million a night in October 2008. (But the two were much more competitive among the 25-to-54 age demographic; Olbermann beat his rival seven nights in October in that category.)

MSNBC has built its prime time in Olbermann's image, hiring Rachel Maddow - a frequent Olbermann guest - for a successful 9 p.m. show. (Olbermann's telecast is repeated each weeknight at 10.)

MSNBC said Olbermann will continue to play a major role in coverage of big news events. MSNBC installed him as a co-anchor with Chris Matthews during the primary campaign, but later switched him to a commentator role.

They asked Keith on THE VIEW if he would report anything bad on Obama and he said yes. Unlike Chris Matthews.

They asked Keith on THE VIEW if he would report anything bad on Obama and he said yes. Unlike Chris Matthews.

I'll believe that when I see it.

I like O'Reilly a little. He takes way too much credit for things that are probably just coincedence "You know where (whoever) got that from? He got it from me. He listens to the show." He does shout down others at times, but he at least pretends to be fair.

Olberman is a douche. Small minds use big words. And he takes the smallest little comments and spins them into massive overdramatizations. Like Afflec on SNL.

Did Olberman respond to the SNL skit?

yes

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uN1AZOV_OTc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uN1AZOV_OTc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

K.O. is an idiot and a bore. I can only take him in 3 min doses then my head explodes.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ttxHL7NTUQk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ttxHL7NTUQk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Olbermann give O'Reilly the triple crown in worst persons :lol:

I'll believe that when I see it.

I like O'Reilly a little. He takes way too much credit for things that are probably just coincedence "You know where (whoever) got that from? He got it from me. He listens to the show." He does shout down others at times, but he at least pretends to be fair.

Olberman is a douche. Small minds use big words. And he takes the smallest little comments and spins them into massive overdramatizations. Like Afflec on SNL.

Did Olberman respond to the SNL skit?

Olberman may act like a know it all douche, but at least he's not selfish cunt that O'Reilly act's out

Olberman may act like a know it all douche, but at least he's not WRONG ALL THE TIME like O'Reilly. :lol:

He's just wrong 96.8% of the time.

He's obnoxious 100% of the time.

They asked Keith on THE VIEW if he would report anything bad on Obama and he said yes.

How do you know that?

Man you really love The View. Are you allowed to watch tv at work?

He's just wrong 96.8% of the time.

He's obnoxious 100% of the time.

And you have NOTHING good to say about a kindred spirit?

How do you know that?
THE VIEW and Bill Maher and sometimes THE DAILY SHOW are the liberal shows I watch. And I saw Keith's appearance on THE VIEW. And he also said he doesn't vote which brought up a gasp from the women of THE VIEW.

Olbermann give O'Reilly the triple crown in worst persons :lol:

But, that wasn't even funny... i didn't even crack a smile... are those supposed to be his better moments?

I've never understood the appeal that Olbermann has with some folks - obviously not as many as O'Reilly has.

I don't understand the appeal of O'Reilly either. However, he seems to possess considerably more knowledge about subjects than does Olbermann. That's not saying a great deal however.

I've never understood the appeal that Olbermann has with some folks - obviously not as many as O'Reilly has.

I don't understand the appeal of O'Reilly either. However, he seems to possess considerably more knowledge about subjects than does Olbermann. That's not saying a great deal however.

The appeal is when a guest comes on and starts talking crap instead of answering the question O'Reilly gets loud. And he does bash both Left and Right wingers. But since Left wingers act the most negative like the gays protesting not being able to marry going on now it seems like he bashes only the Left.

Bill in the "safe zone."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TXK6IDjIPks&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TXK6IDjIPks&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7-MkRcokN8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7-MkRcokN8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7kUc25yFjNc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7kUc25yFjNc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Olbermann making fun of O'Reilly and the teddy bear.

:lol:

I love how Stewart always abuses Billo :lol:

THE VIEW and Bill Maher and sometimes THE DAILY SHOW are the liberal shows I watch. And I saw Keith's appearance on THE VIEW. And he also said he doesn't vote which brought up a gasp from the women of THE VIEW.

Olberman doesn't vote? He sure shoots his mouth off alot. People who want to bitch and moan but not bother to vote should shut the fuck up as far I'm concerned.

I've never understood the appeal that Olbermann has with some folks - obviously not as many as O'Reilly has.

Olbermann has been beating O'Reilly in the ratings lately, so it's not as obvious as you might think

I don't understand the appeal of O'Reilly either. However, he seems to possess considerably more knowledge about subjects than does Olbermann. That's not saying a great deal however.

Personally, I find Olbermann's knowledge of history and sports encyclopadeaic. It may be that he has a better staff digging up the information, but I've never heard O'Reilly back up an opinion with specific historical references. And you wouldn't hear Keith fabricating a phony War" on Christmas.

If I were on "Millionare" and had to chose between Keith and Bill O' as a lifeline, the answer to me is obvious.

If he's all you say he is. why does he have only guests that share the same political philosophy that he does?

Ratings: Depends on which ratings you're talking about - and what time period you're talking about.
encyclopadeaic: :lol:

^^^ You've asked the same question before, and if that's all you got on Olbermann, then he's doing just fine. I don't see why he has to be Bizarro O'Reilly.

When Olbermann does have someone on who doesn't share the same political philosophy, he treats those people with a lot of respect. Pat Buchanan had been on his show during special debate shows. Keith never argued with what Pat had to say. I bet that just blew your mind.

I somehow had the bad luck to catch a few minutes of Olbermann's ranting a week or so ago when flipping the channels in a hotel room.
If he is considered or considers himself a 'commentator': Total raving rabid nutjob. He was almost literally frothing at the mouth. And I didn't hear a single fact from him, just lots of opinions and ad hominem attacks.
If he is considering or considers himself a "newsperson" or "journalist": I'm surprised the mainstream news media still has any respect left, and of course his performance put the total lie to the oft repeated but fully wrong "we're not biased".

I don't watch either of them, but I have watched or listened to OReilly in the past. I don't agree with everything he says, and he is sometimes bombastic and argumentative, but if I had to pick one of them, it would definitely be him. He at least brings on opposing views and gives them (an admittedly short time) to speak their piece.

Nielsen Ratings as of 10/30/08:

8:00 P.M. time slot:

The O’Reilly Factor—4,706,000 viewers
Campbell Brown—1,579,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann- 2,811,000 viewers
Nancy Grace –1,135,000 viewers

Nielsen Ratings as of 10/30/08:

8:00 P.M. time slot:

The O’Reilly Factor—4,706,000 viewers
Campbell Brown—1,579,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann- 2,811,000 viewers
Nancy Grace –1,135,000 viewers

But Keith's winning this poll. So one of these is full of crap and doesn't tell the people's choice.:confused:

Ratings are important, but advertisers care more about the 25-54 age demographic, which Keith does as well if not better than O'Reilly a lot of the time.

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O'Reilly Factor- 3,060,000 viewers (731,000) (1,253,000)
Election Center-1,166,000 viewers (431,000) (576,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann- 1,635,000 viewers (509,000) (771,000)
On the Money--207,000 viewers (65,000) (106,000)
Nancy Grace -1,166,000 viewers (412,000) (618,000)

nothing like random statistics.

Nielsen ratings are not random statistics. :rolleyes:

Try again!

Nielsen ratings are not random statistics. :rolleyes:

Try again!

Picking an unspecified date is very random.

Try again!

^^^ You've asked the same question before, and if that's all you got on Olbermann, then he's doing just fine. I don't see why he has to be Bizarro O'Reilly.

When Olbermann does have someone on who doesn't share the same political philosophy, he treats those people with a lot of respect. Pat Buchanan had been on his show during special debate shows. Keith never argued with what Pat had to say. I bet that just blew your mind.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oiiarNdxouc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oiiarNdxouc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Jesus Joe why don't you get a shovel. This is what prob got him and matthews demoted to commentary jobs during the conventions

That and telling Chris Mathews to cut Mike Murphy off: "Alright let's wrap him up!"

O'Reilly will at least have people who have an opposite opinion on his show. He really DOES show both sides of issues. 50% liberal, 50% conservative, if you look at the breakdown (with an open mind) on an average week. Many weeks, he has more liberal guests than conservatives.

Olbermann only has guests that agree with him.

I've never understood the appeal that Olbermann has with some folks - obviously not as many as O'Reilly has.

I don't understand the appeal of O'Reilly either. However, he seems to possess considerably more knowledge about subjects than does Olbermann. That's not saying a great deal however.

:lol:

is this a joke? you really do have some serious blinders cman. it's rather amazing how you see what you want to see. To say that O'Reilly has considerably more knowledge about anything than anyone is laughable. Pure fantasy.

This is just one of many examples - certainly one of the more egregious...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IN__q9s4GOg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IN__q9s4GOg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And it's been pointed out time and again that he's a liar. An unrepentant baldfaced liar.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkgM2QmBUC0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkgM2QmBUC0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nk-RKJNF-iw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nk-RKJNF-iw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He likes to make things up and claim they are from some journal or a phantom "study" - he does it all the time. It makes him sound good, but he's a liar. And that also makes him a dangerous one - he panders to the basest instincts of far right Americans to push his agenda. He is indefensible.

notice how he reacts when he is caught in one of his lies...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AC8BBIwrbLU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AC8BBIwrbLU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bullying is the only thing he has...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RbX-2X7_h-M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RbX-2X7_h-M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XrNl6-j9x5w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XrNl6-j9x5w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5crhZAAlXME&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5crhZAAlXME&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

and then he just calls his detractors names....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F8JRUlDpY8k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscri