I have watched the last several episodes, had only seen bits and pieces previously. I find it entertaining. I really don't agree with most conservatives or liberals, so I don't have a side. Creekdipper is right in a lot of it, the guy is very biased, etc. Still, I like the show. Some panelists, left and right, have been pretty good. Some on both sides idiotic. He calls BS on the right-leaning ones, let's the left-leaning ones go on and on.

I'm not really clear on this idea that Bill Maher has an obligation to be fair. It's his show, a comedy show discussing current events. It's the common theme going on right now - is there an obligation to give balance when the facts are clearly lined up on one side only? It's like discussing whether the moon revolves around the earth. Is there a balanced counterpoint? Often times when Maher cuts someone off, it's because they are spouting irrefutable bullshit easily dismissed with facts.

Wait, does Obama think the moon revolves around the Earth? Then nope, it's just a giant ball of cheese.

I want to say this as a moderate (no pun intended) fan of the show, but Bill Maher has donated $1,000,000 to the Obama campaign. At this point, he has a vested interest in making sure that his candidate wins. His show is as fair and balanced as Sean Hannity's show which features liberal guests meant to give the impression that the show represents both sides. But I actually enjoy both shows a lot, and put together, you kind of do get a balanced idea of what is going on in the world.

I kind of feel sad that you believe that.

I thought it was a decent show and there haven't been really anything too special since he came back this year. Though I lean heavily to the left, Chris Hayes is about the only person on MSNBC I can stomach for more than 5 minutes and he was good on Maher's show too. I felt Bob Costas was wasted. Seemed like he had some really interesting things to say about the NFL but they just dropped it. I thought his New Rules was one of the best in awhile. The monologue about God and money was perfect.

Feel free to continue to get all of your news from moveon.org, it doesn't bother me at all.

I don't even understand what about what you said could also make him sad about it.

I don't think it's "sad", but certainly looking at things only from each extreme side is not a "balanced" view.

I read the Wall St. Journal and the Chicago Tribune newspapers, and browse news sites like CNN online. But, I do think knowing the talking points of each extreme side allows a little more balanced view of how they are seeing things.

Probably the close you can get to a "balanaced" view. I haven't come across any non-biased news sources. Even a TV drama about the fantasy of a balanced TV news show can't do it..it is actually pretty extreme towards one side.

You actually think Maher's show is fair and balanced? His show (like the rest of Cable TV political shows) are an infommercial for their political candidate, nothing more nothing less. A majority of shows have unbalanced panels, stacked audience members for one side, and wackos like Michael Moore or Ann Coulter who are on the panel to stick to their talking points.

I actually feel sad that it is so extreme these days on both sides, as I can't watch any of cable tv shows anymore. You can do a test by turning on FOX at any given time and they are railing against Obama, then turn on MSNBC and they are railing against Romney, then click on Huffington Post or Daily Kos on the internet and they are railing against Romney, then click on Drudge Report and guaranteed a negative headline against Obama. The sad thing is they cater to the partisans, and partisans love when someone preaches to the choir. (Trust me I have friends and family on both sides of the political aisle) who eat these shows up and I can't even discuss politics with them anymore cause its like talking to a zombie with their talking points.

The news isn't about giving information to the viewer anymore, it is about skewing it towards their political beliefs and framing the debate in favor of their candidate. Thats what sad to me.

Preach.

I don't think Real Time has an "obligation" to be balanced. I just say it's of less value to me because it isn't. Balanced doesn't mean you have to equally present the position that the sun is cold to balance out the position that it's hot. That's an indisputable scientific fact given all the information we have.

But most things don't fall into the category of indisputable fact. Is Religion good or bad? What should the military budget be? Can anyone come up with a number that's 100% indisputably the "correct" number? Should all people have health insurance, even working young adults who can afford it and choose not to get it? The list goes on, and there ARE sides of those complex issues.

The fact that one feels strongly in one direction about something doesn't make it indisputable fact. And at the end of the day, if one has to hold one's belief's close and unchallenged in order to sleep at night, I find that somewhat delusional. If you care about truth, you don't mind your beliefs being challenged because every successful challenge defense confirms the beliefs and strengthens them as something that should be believed.

How can someone who cares about truth intentionally ignore information which may lead to it? That's the issue I sometimes have with Real Time. There have been too many times I've seen the panel and audience in furious applause over something I know is misleading (such as needing a driver's license under Voter ID laws). I feel everyone who opens his mouth has an obligation to speak the truth to the degree he knows it. And it's exceedingly easy to shirk that reponsibility when you're passionate if you don't have someone intelligent who doesn't feel as you do there to hold your feet to the fire. Inconvenient and frustrating, yes. But necessary.

Just because it's his show doesn't mean he's immune from criticism. He does come across as biased. I remember when he was discussing the SOPA controversy and he didn't even bother to read up on it, yet reduces the the issue to "people just want free shit."

Of course, when political commentators are biased in favor of a certain party, some people belonging to that same party have an endless list of excuses and rationalizations.

Wow...sorry your feelings were hurt.

If I had my own individual flag, I'd send one to you so you could burn it & chant death threats.

However, in the interest of internet peace, I'll just declare my remarks to be insensitive, disgusting, and reprehensible.

***Your post is a prime example of damned if you do/don't. If I said that I only watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh because their political views are closer to mine, you'd say that I was a brainwashed Teabagger who has a closed mind. On the other hand, if I watch liberal shows and then offer critiques (with specific examples) about what I find unfair, that is called "trolling".
I've never understood why threads devoted to shows have to only include "fans". I pointed out that I liked Politically Incorrect, so it's not that I hate all things Maher. The oddest thing is that I always hear people criticize religions by saying that they're pretty empty if they can't stand up to criticism. I love Game of Thrones, but I'm not about to call someone a 'troll' who posts specific dislikes about the show; in fact, I'd welcome the chance to rebut their criticisms (or agree, as the case might be). The idea that 'fans' would be so "upset" by criticisms that they just want to ban any negative comments if just bizarre, quite frankly, and makes those people look rather childish.

That's because the media is a rorschach test. Everyone sees something different, though most people will agree on seeing something similar.

Still not trolling, eh?

I disagree with Creekdipper on some issues but I enjoy what he brings to the discussion and it's always helpful to here other sides. Plus, was it true that Maher was saying the strike was over when it wasn't?

Even though I'm a complete lefty and an athiest, I'm not wild about Bill Maher. Some of his jokes are awesome, but on the whole he strikes me as more smarmy and egotistical than funny. I don't have HBO so I only watch the show occasionally and by unofficial means.

Have to say I loved Chris Hayes last week; wish he showed that much personality on his own show; it's usually dull as hell.

I think the days of guys like Ted Koppel and Tim Russert are over, as I'm sure they had their ideology but they seemed pretty fair to each side on interviews. I know that Tim Russert worked for Daniel Monyihan, and was probably pretty liberal, but he was tough on both democrats and republicans when they came on Meet the Press. Koppel was the same way on Nightline as he never seemed easy on either side to show his ideology. Now its just Hannity, Maddow, Ed Schultz, O'Reilly, Maher, Stewart where they are pretty much in your face with their politics and I feel they are easier to their side on interviews most of the time.

Oh well, times have changed and this is the state of political shows. Maybe I'm in the minoriity now and most people like these shows.

In Maher's defense, the local news here in Chicago sure made it sound like it was over, and that would have been right before he went on the air.

Either way, is it really a big deal? I'm sure he was just going by what he heard on the news. Same thing I heard

It's not a big deal to me because I wasn't following the strike. But Creekdipper was bringing that up as a criticism of the show which was legit. His other criticisms were petty in my opinion. Like how Maher didn't have the facts right in front of him but made a point to mention them later in the show when he had them. That's a good thing, IMO, if the host goes out of his/her way to assure the audience that the info is correct.

I enjoy Maher's show the few times I see it but I think he's biased. I brought up his comment on the SOPA issue as an example of that.

People don't like to think very hard hard or have their viewpoints challenged so they tune into news commentary shows that align that reaffirm their political beliefs.

I've been watching some political shows on youtube and to someone not knowing about the topics being discussed it would appear pretty dry. So channels are trying to make their content more accessible to the masses by making it more entertaining. O'Reilly was known for shouting at people and telling them to shut up, and Olbermann had the WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD segment, complete with horror theme music.

Yeah, just flip between Fox News and MSNBC during prime time and watch them commentate on the same subjects. Interesting stuff to be sure.

Interestingly enough, I just saw O'Reilly on Brian Williams' show last night and he basically said that what he does isn't about fairness but about being in your face. It was cool to see him admit that his show is pretty much the WWE of news. He went on to say that he believes Obama was born in America and though he doesn't agree with a lot of Obama's views that he respects him. And then I turned on Fox News today and saw him ripping Obama and interrupting his guests... *sigh.