http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/06/countdown_with_69.html#more So, now that Bill has apologized to Murtha, when will Krazy Keith apologize to Bill?
Ratings for Thursday Demo Bill 423000 Meltdown 152000 Total Bill 2,083,000 Meltdown 306000 Once again Bill has more viewers aged 25-54 than Krazy Keith has total viewers.
The mother of all ownings continues with this revelation: http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4666_0_4_0_C/
The fact that FOX was believed to doctor the transcript was only a secondary point. But you are correct that it was an owning, since they agreed with the major point It could be that this biased piece which is labeled facts is actually correct, and the error wasn't on FOX NEWS' end, but on the end of a lowly transcriber. My only question is that if that is the case, why were there two seperate transcription services who presumably get their information from FOX that printed Normandy instead of Malmedy? Did the same transcriber do the work for both services?
passing the buck seems to be a favorite passtime of the neocons. i bet the transcriber company also put up the "mission accomplished" banner.
It is strange how much people feel threatened and are afraid of Keith. It is a great show, and the Worst Person in the World is a pretty funny bit. I like it. O'Reilly may have made the century mark, but he has probably provided enough blundering mistakes and lies to to have been given that title 5 times as much. What a huge amount of restraint from Keith.
I am not going to defend either Olbermann or O'Reilly. Both have made careers feeding off these silly 'battles' and 'feuds' and offer little to no substance to their viewers. These personal feuds keep theirs ratings up, and keep them from losing their jobs. They're more alike than most people realize...
I disagree in part. Keith's career has been made by sports more than any fued with Bill. I do agree that the fued offers little substance to their viewers, but Keith's look at news stories often break aspects to stories before other news agencies do, and he is able to offer substance in those. Anytime he has to cover celebrity news of no substance he always prefaces it by saying that his producers are making him, and it is distasteful to him. Watch the number 5 story and sometimes the Number 4 story on his show. That is where the substance will be. Everything else is just entertainment.
Olbermann likes to create an echo chamber by having on guests who agree with him. O'Reilly has on a lot of guests that disagree with him.
I agree they're both 'entertainers', and that's why I am saying they offer nothing of substance to their viewers, other than entertain them, that is. I disagree with you, however, that he's any different from O'Reilly. I watch both on occasion and I am entertained by both, but they're more similar than dissimilar, IMO. I understand if you're a fan of Olbermann, though, I enjoy his segment with Dan Patrick on ESPN Radio, I pretty much listen to that show on daily basis while working...he's pretty funny.
Olbermann usually has commentators or nuetral experts on. He isn't trying to run a point counter point show with two talking heads on each jabbering. When he does have that, he will kick them both off if they start arguing with each other. Instead Keith has reporters, writers for congressional magazines, and other experts and has them discuss the topic. It is about going more in-depth on an issue, and not about having one side get to argue some point or another. That is different from other news shows. It is funny seeing you defend the practice of cutting people's mikes so they don't get a fair shot to state their side of the story.
BS. They are generally liberal - just like Keith. Most "journalists" are liberals. http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/countdown_with_76.html#more
I see that the style of the writers on the site is very personal attack oriented. Well despite that the list of guests doesn't really show that much. A show that is on 5 times a week, with multiple guests per subject, and that is all they could come up with? I stand by my statement. Keith isn't trying to run the kind of show where people get on and shout about their side, and someone else gets on and shouts about their side, and in the end viewers are just mad at everyone and politics in general. Keith's show is about taking people with knowledge of subjects or might be close to the issue at hand, and fleshing out the details surrounding it. You don't watch the show, and wouldn't even watch the clip where Keith busted Bill for his slander against the WWII vets. Your information appears to come from a site dedicated to the personal attack.
There is no need to shout on Keith's show because only one side is presented and that is Keith's side. If Keith doesn't have a bias, why are conservatives his worse persons of the week so much more often than liberals?
