Shut Up Already Bush!, The latest...... Options

[Hellfighter]

Now Bush is comparing Obama to Chamberlain in a globally watched speech in Israel.
Of course Bush finds it fine that he's currently negotiating with N.Korea -a nation on his 'axis of evil' list.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24647048/

Apparently McCain is fine with it too and he's saying he can win the war in Iraq in 4 years -wow, where've we heard that song before.

[Cpt.Canuck]

Did you see this last night?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEBpC0GLr6Y


This is why I've subscribed to MSNBC - gotta love Olbermann!

[Hellfighter]

Did you see this last night?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEBpC0GLr6Y


This is why I've subscribed to MSNBC - gotta love Olbermann!

I saw that live - one of his most sizzling nukey-blasts he ever leveled at Bush [he does so at least once a week].

Check this one out; some Bush lackey who tries to defend Bushey's antics today who got cremated by Chris Matthews later;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

[Robert]

The will probably put in firmly in the minority, but I'm not that impressed with Olbermann.
Bush has a lot to account for, I just disagree with Olbermann's main points.
He's hated everything about Bush since 2001, when according to him, Bush stole the elections.
My biggest problems would be is MSNBC actually tries to portray him as a journalist.
Until a few years ago, his prior experience completely revolved around sports.
He is strictly a biased political commentator, that's his whole job function.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, the Conservatives have their commentators so the Liberals need them to offer a contradictory review of events in the news.
He actually does a decent job overall, as his ratings show.
Although part of his boost in the ratings is probably due to how bad the rest of the lineup is at MSNBC an corresponding shows at CNN
One thing which will limit Olbermann's future as a political commentator, he's great when he's had a chance to prepare before hand. If he's unprepared, he tends to choke.
I remember seeing him do a guest appearance on another show where he took a few questions from the audience. You could easily tell he was out of his element when he had to offer unprepared answers.

[Cpt.Canuck]

I saw that live - one of his most sizzling nukey-blasts he ever leveled at Bush [he does so at least once a week].

Check this one out; some Bush lackey who tries to defend Bushey's antics today who got cremated by Chris Matthews later;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

lol!



I like Olbermann, and think he does a pretty nice job. He's a decent counterpoint to Bill O, at least. But I don't think it's fair to question his journalistic abilities simply because he worked for ESPN (after doing a quick bio search: he won an Edward Murrow Award for journalism in 2001 for his coverage of 9/11).

[Robert]

The fact he won an Edward Murrow Award back in 2001, doesn't change the fact his job right now is as biased political commentator.
I would be curious to know if his award was for personal work or as part of a show.
There are several different groups who hand out Edward Murrow Awards, some are directly to a person other times it's to all the members of a newscast.
I think it's interesting to note, Edward Murrow is famous for two things.
His reporting during WWII, then later his use of his show to attack Senator Joseph McCarthy.
His radio reports during WWII was an example of journalism at it's best.
His attacks on McCarthy were by his own words, his personal feelings about McCarthy an not journalism.
At the time he thought there was a chance it would end his career.

For that matter, Bill Orielly has won a Peabody award and an Emmy, that doesn't change the fact he's a political/partisan hack.

Something else which demonstrates my earlier post about how I think Olbermann tends to choke if his remarks are not prepared before hand.
His Conservative counterparts all allow people with contrary views on their programs to argue their views.
Olberman never really does that.
I think he would fail if he did.
A few days after Murrow attacked McCarthy, he invited him his show to allow McCarthy a chance to respond.

[Cpt.Canuck]

Oh, there's no doubt Olbermann is, uh... left-leaning... but I think he does a good job at playing that role. Just as Bill O plays the same role on the other side.





For what it's worth: Olbermann won that Murrow award for his ABC Radio coverage of 9/11. Other past winners include Koppel, Rather, Brokaw (as per Wiki).

Oh, and O'Reilly never won a Peabody - he fabricated that.

[Robert]

I stand corrected, now that you mention it I remember there was a lot of press about how it was a Polk not a Peabody.
I've watched both and most of the time, the truth lies somewhere in between what both sides say.
An interesting point came up while a friend and I were discussing a similar topic.
For some odd reason the liberal commentators have never been as popular as the conservative, which doesn't make sense when you consider there is a very unpopular Republican president.
Think about it, liberal commentators couldn't ask for better material then what Bush provides them.
I think Obermann's ratings will take a dive if a Democrat takes the whitehouse.
While the opposite is true for the conservative commentators, they remain popular regardless of who's president.

[HammaTime]

I also was able to watch the rant live. It was truly amazing to watch.

I agree with Robert, the role he plays is clearly as a commentator. The show is not sold as a news show. We really need a new term to describe news entertainment.

Robert, I disagree completely with you about the popularity of liberal commentators. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and even going back to Phil Donohue all stand in opposition to your assertion. Phil Donohue's show was MSNBC's most popular show when he was fired during the run-up to the war. The bosses at NBC lied and said he was fired for poor ratings, but when it was later revealed that his show had been the most popular, they admitted they were "uncomfortable" with having an anti-war commentator on their network at the start of the conflict.

As for Olbermann's ratings going down once Obama is President, I'd look to the ratings of Limbaugh, Hannity and the likes when Bush took office. Did they drop or climb?

I've been astonished at some of my friends who have been long-time hard-core Republicans. One has a very high post in government under the auspices of Homeland Security. He is absolutely FURIOUS about what has become of his agency under the "leadership" appointed by Bush. He bursts with anger and says our government is now just like Russia as Bush and his minions have appointed only political cronies. His agency is now run by someone with no security background, but she had a background in the Bush campaigns.

The outrage that Olbermann is voicing isn't solely held by liberal viewers. There are many in our nation who are furious over the disastrous changes that have been brought about by Bush.

[Robert]

You'll probably going to disagree but I think you made my own point.
Even though there have been several popular liberal commentators, I believe overall the conservative commentators have been more popular regardless of who's president.
BTW I haven't looked this up or checked rating, this is strictly a gut feeling which I'm pretty sure I'm right about.

Your post also goes to my previous point that I believe Olbermann's biggest weakness is the fact he doesn't do well without prepared remarks. Unlike the Hannity, Orielly, Beck or even the people you names like Stewart and Colbert. All of which have had shows where they do Q&A' with people who have dissenting opinions from the host of the show.
I think all the people named above, liberal and conservative all eat/drink/sleep current news except Obermann.
They all have writers, he seems to reply on them more.
More to my point, Donahue has been on both Hannity, Orielly.
Can you picture Olbermann doing his show where he let Hannity, Orielly argue their views with him.
Never going to happen.
Right or wrong, they would hand him his ass on a plate.

As for Donahue getting fired,
I've always thought there was probably a little more to the story than what he or MSNBC said.
Sure he had the top rated show at MSNBC, but it was a failed lineup overall.
It's like a pro sports team beating a high school team.
We're talking about Phil Donahue after all, a household name for 20+ years. So of course his show was the top at MSNBC, but it doesn't change the fact overall, his show failed to bring in the numbers MSNBC probably expected when they offered him the show.
BTW I am aware of the memo from NBC an their concerns he wasn't the face they wanted due to his anti-war stance.
I just don't think that's the ONLY reason as it's often portrayed.
If he had better ratings, they probably wouldn't have cared.

[Hellfighter]

You'll probably going to disagree but I think you made my own point.
.......

Actually I don't watch Keith O, every night- perhaps once a week if at all. I'm not AT ALL into ratings wars between networks either. I like Keith O's format because its one show where I here alot of info and not a big argument flaring up every 2 mins. that noone can hear.

The rest of msnbc's format of programming regarding politics I like alot too- they give both sides of the coin to speak and interview key political players/supporters all the time.

I don't watch right wing programming because they'll always say things I disagree with.... as in I know they'll always say things contrary to what I believe.

Fact is Keith O roasts the President because he loathes his policies he's not doing it to get popular ratings-that's a moot point to bring up regarding the rants being ratings plays. He sincerely wants to bash Bush and neocons. Yayyyy -but like I said I'll catch at most maybe 1 hour of his show in total a week.

He's actually very smart and informative- and knows alot about this and that historically and politically.As in extremely up to par on current news...its quite obvious he has an eye for absorbing current up to the minute details and research - extremely.
It's not accurate to say he wouldn't do well outside of commentaries - he has done interviews live many times here and there on late night tv circuits and is never lost in relating his beliefs and talking about them.

The Phil thing reminds me of the north american soccer league now and decades ago- whenever they got a soccer star from Europe the press would announce and promote a big coup was scored in getting a superstar.... the truth is the teams the stars came from let them go because they were only good as legends with no more functionality as functional superstars. Phil had his day in the 80s- it was funny to see msnbc pull him out again- times change.

ps.my opinion; Obermann would lay smackdown on O'Reilly -you can tell Keith O is aching for such an opportunity to plaster Bill O.... he has enough ammo to easily do it -factually and for personal attacks -and he knows how to walk the walk with contenders.

And to be fair, if Obama strays off course if Prez, Keith O will not hesitate to smack him down too. Keith O's on the air to deliver his own message, not to see how popular he can be.




This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/19/08 6:18pm

[Robert]

LOL
You will never see Obermann go head to head with any other commentator because he would get owned.
Not that it makes him wrong or them right, just he would be out of his element.
Which is why I've never seen him do the typical Q&A on his show like most other commentators.
Then again maybe he sometimes does those kinds of shows and I've missed them as I rarely ever watch his show or other ones like it. I prefer print news, although commentary does have it's purpose.
I just know when he was on another show, he choked because he didn't have prepare answers.
I'm not talking about him going on a show to basically repeat what he's already said, of course he can do that.
I'm talking about when a person brings up a topic or point he's unprepared for, he has trouble replying.

This may be a terrible analogy, but here is what I see as the main difference between Obermann and most other commentators regardless if they are left or right.
Most other news editorial shows are like forums, open back and forth discussions.
Obermann and countdown are more like a blog, limiting or lacking contrary viewpoints.
I personally find the 1st type more informative on the rare occasions I watch them.

[Hellfighter]

.............
I personally find the 1st type more informative on the rare occasions I watch them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with alot of what you say.... one reason I don't watch Keith O too much is that I find his format boring - I prefer to watch Chris Matthews and hear Pat Buchanan,s view and other conservatives/libertarians -and I get to see neocon/Bush supporters show up on the show often to make total lying dufusses out of themselves.

However that being said and from a neutral standpoint as a fact,Olbermann is very very intelligent and from when I used to watch him alot I know he's very coherent, fast thinking, and articulate in pulling up factual information of past events and current ones [probably honed from his earlier days as an intense sportscaster at Fox]. He has quick wit too.... he's one who can easily think ahead of a counter-debater and lead them into a trap-easily.... I'm not trying to sound like a Keith O cheerleader but I like to give credit where its due. Some of the things I read in the thread about him [regarding facts/ not opiniond] are way off base with the reality.

I think he likes to do his show in the one-sided format is because he has a ton of info he wants to get out- I think he feels arguing out points from what he strongly believes are factually sound is useless and unnecessarily annoying. it seems he just wants to present his show as a 'reading board of current events' for viewers and not come off as a typical debating show which tv viewers can see in a dozen political programs everyday. I'd say its not that he can't argue his points nor is afraid of a debate -it looks like in reality he just can't be bothered with that style- he has more fun/less obstruction as things are now in the way he presents his opinions .


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/20/08 11:09am

[Robert]

Deep down you know what these shows really are, they are the older, more intelligent and politically based versions of Howard Stern.
Each an everyone one of them to some minor degree rely on a shock factor.
Where Stern has boobs, prostitutes and sex talk.
Political Commentators have their random personal attacks on the political system.
Or maybe these shows are more like Jerry Springer not Stern.


For myself, I prefer Beck.
Not because I think he's right, I disagree with 50% of his assertions
Except for how political correctness is killing America.
I would be the 1st to admit he's a boob, but I find him the most entertaining out of the bunch.

[Hellfighter]

For me -their various quirks are amusing and can be taken as shocking - but I watch for the dirty deeds they find out about the stage players. They have ways of digging very deep and enlighten the public as to the hypocracy of these smooth talking dimwit politicians - McCain and right wingers think Obama's easy pickings-> they are in for a rude awakening when they see 'stuff' about MCCain pop up all over the place and he actually turns into the beating stick come November -or earlier.

I'm more along the lines of filthy rich getting more filthy rich keep scheming to pulverise the average joes into submissive servitude is what's killing everyone worldwide -the corrupt leaders globally wage their wars economically nowadays and geopolitically, they seek to squash other opposing nations through fearmongering and saber rattling behind lies and secret agendas.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/20/08 4:42pm