Olbermann crowned Bozell "Worst Person" runner-up for claiming NY Times is "rooting for the homosexual revolution"
On the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Media Research Center president and nationally syndicated columnist L. Brent Bozell III the second-place spot in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for Bozell's July 12 column attacking The New York Times' sponsorship of the 2006 Gay Games. According to Bozell, the Times, in its articles and sponsorship of events such as the Gay Games, is "rooting for the homosexual revolution" and "actively spread[ing] the gay gospel."
From the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, the humorist Brent Bozell, ripping The New York Times for being a corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, just like Absolut Vodka is a corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, and Walgreens, and American Airlines. Bozell says this means the Times is, quote, "rooting for the homosexual revolution." Brent, have you checked lately to see if your trolley is still on its tracks?
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Will reading New York Times make children grow up gay?
Obviously KOs ratings continue on decline. While I agree 100% with is opinion of Brent, his "Worst Person" Segment is a terrible way to get the message out. He cant even beat Paul Zahn.
July 10
Olbermann 8 PM (0.3 25-54: .2, 155,000 homes) v. Zahn 8 PM (0.6 25-54 .2, 201,000 homes)
July 11
Olbermann 8 PM (0.4 25-54: .2, 162,000) v. Zahn 8 PM (0.6 25-54 .2, 176,000 homes)
July 12
Olbermann 8 PM (0.4 25-54: .2, 194,000 homes) v. Zahn 8 PM (0.6 25-54 .2, 219,000 homes)
So for you it's not about what's right or wrong, it's about results. I mean, I know you're not going to argue that what KO is doing by exposing these right-wing blowhards is somehow wrong. I know you're not going to do that. Give him some respect for being one of the only, if not THE only person who does this on an actual cable news channel.
So bearing that in mind, what on earth do ratings have to do with anything at all? Does viewership have more influence over your mindset than credibility and respectablility?
If the guy was credible his ratings would increase.
Having a childish segment called "Worse Person in the World" offers only childish arguments.
I can only imagine if one of those Right wingers had a segment called "Worst Person in The World " and named David Brock for saying the Washington Times is helping endorse the anti gay movement.
Would there be outrage from progressives? I see this as a double standard, we get angry and rightfully so about FOX but his childish antics do not get the point across.
There was recently a little of "worst Americans" that cycled around the right-wing blogosphere. Michael Moore got top honors. Big deal. If they want to have their fun, that's fine. It's when they make claims like "Michael Moore supports al-Qaeda" or, in this case, "The NYT supposed the `gay revolution'," such falsehoods deserve comment, humorous or otherwise.
Isn't Laura Ingram supposed to be starting a new copy cat show on Fox?
Fox has high ratings but their credibility isn't high. They just have an extremely dedicated following. BTW did you know the average age of a Factor viewer is 71? I suspect that 71 year olds stay pretty close to home; people who typically watch KO probably like me watch when they aren't attending to their life.
That is the theme of all the right wing shows shows, they just don't title them as such. We know who they consider the worse people in the world, the worst paper in the world. We know because they tell us on every show. Your fixation with KO is very strange and why you watch a show everyday that you so obviously hate is beyond me.
"If the guy was credible his ratings would increase."
Oh how ridiculous can you be? What tie is there, as far as we've seen, between credibility and ratings? Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly? Are they credible because they have high ratings? Or vice-versa? Give me a break.
"Would there be outrage from progressives?"
Well, did David Brock say that? If so, is there credibility to his accusations? You can't really make a very good comparison to prove your point because Bozell deserves the bad attention. What he wrote was completely stupid. If someone on the left makes an equally invalid and contemptible argument, then I have no problems with someone pointing it out. Until then, I fail to see the double standard you suggest exists.
So I guess since Bush's pole ratings are low then so must his credibility be low. As any jazz or classical musician will tell you. Commercial success does not equal merit.
You cite three whole days of ratings???
KO's ratings are up for the fist half of the year in the target demo compared to a year ago, O'Lielly is down. He's still nowhere near O'Lielly, but he's up nevertheless.
Maybe people are growing tired of simply looking for reasons to point their fingers at someone else for all their problems, which is what I think watching O'Lielly is all about.
I have no problem with MMFA giving Keith a little love. I mean, why not? Other than our two stalwarts on Comedy Central, Keith is the only news personality on TV who seems to be concerned about the general state of the news most Americans are receiving and it's good that someone with their own TV show tackles many of the same issues that MMFA does. Having MMFA point out what Keith is doing from time to time seems to irritate some MMFA readers, but I see it more like you're on the phone with your mother and she gives you a little update on what your brother is up to. ;-)
And besides, many of us who read this site on a regular basis are probably already so disillusioned with any form of TV news and commentary that we might not know there's someone out there who is also concerned about the blatant lies or hate speech coming from some of those who speak for the right wing. If these mentions increase Keith's viewers, and if that gives him even more freedom with the network to keep fighting the good fight, then I say that's a good thing.
And isn't it nice to know that these hypocrises and lies are being exposed to another audience besides just the folks reading this site? Isn't it better to spread the word wherever possible?
think there is a collective effort to promote progressive media outlets and personalities. The conservative movement has been doing this since the fifties. I think Brock is just using a play he learned when he was employed by the vast right wing conspirators (smile). I've notice most of the progressive blogs now link to stories to other progressive blogs, articles, and columnist. They highlight segments from Colbert, Stewart, and Olbermann. AA radio have many progressive columnists, bloggers, and progressive personalities on the shows. Brock is a regular on Franken. I think it's a concerted effort to get the progressive message out and I for one applaud it. It's about time. Progressives have operated at a disadvantage in the media and in politics because we’re very quick to criticize other progressives, the conservative media and politicians don’t do this publicly and this gives them the appearance of having a unified message. We can fight later right now we’ve got to win the mid-terms.
I completely agree. Spreading the message and keeping each other apprised of what we're all up to is important. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
If the guy was credible he'd have better ratings?
So I guess BOR and all of FNC are credible given their sky high ratings?
Again, KO is doing something that many in the media are afraid to do -criticize knuckle heads like Bozell.
Now, if your are looking for a people who truely define "pandering" Bozell's MRC sham fits perfectly.
Bor/al bushira ratings merely confirm that morons continue to outnumber people with brains.
KO's right. Bozell conveniently left out a number of other sponsors for the event like American Airlines and Absolut. I guess they support the revolution, too.
This clown is a disgrace and only ignorant slime would take him seriously on this or any other issue.
Maybe people are growing tired of simply looking for reasons to point their fingers at someone else for all their problems, which is what I think watching O'Lielly is all about.
- pete592 /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given his audience, maybe they forgot how to use the remote again. One does hear about Nursing Home cruelty from time to time. Bor would qualify as such. They might want to check for a pulse while they're at it.
Glad to see there is room in the TV biz for both BOR and KO. Even though I don't watch either... From the stats above it seems that not too many do watch. So for all those stalwarts who think KO is speaking truth to power, go right ahead. Based on the ratings it looks tome like much ado about nothing.
ps. mrkites comments show again that people who disparage others just because they hold different opinions show themselves to be off the deep end. Time to come up for air mrkite. Either way you look at it about half the country agrees with your side and about half does not. Reasonable people will agree there are very bright and principled people on both sides. Labeling everyone you disagree with as slimes, morons, clowns, etc. and those you agree with as people with brains is just not a very convincing argument. I think you can do better than that.
"Based on the ratings it looks tome like much ado about nothing."
Again, what do the ratings have to do with anything? This is a very odd connection that keeps being made.
"Either way you look at it about half the country agrees with your side and about half does not. Reasonable people will agree there are very bright and principled people on both sides."
The problem is that this administration and its rabid apologists do not have half the country on their side. They do not agree with their policies, once they learn them. They are not real conservatives. The bright and principled people have been marginalized to make way for administration people like John Yoo and pundits like Coulter. So those people can still be criticized without worrying about "half the country".
Criticizing the wingnuts does not imply in any way that he doesn't recognize that there are some bright and principled people around.
brabantino,
The point I'm making is that hardly anybody watches KO and/or BO so in my opinion it doesn't really matter in the big picture.
I live in a town where a professor likes to rant and rave in a column he writes for the local paper. Nobody, besides a few in our local community reads this guy and even fewer care, as it is just his opinion.
That's how I look at these cable pundits. They may or may not be interesting and I may or may not agree with whatever it is they are bloviating about. But other than that, I really don't see they have much impact at all. Bill still has more viewers but as a percentage of the country it is miniscule.
They both are infotainers and both try to live things up by stirring the pot. Big deal. MMFA is doing the same thing in many cases by trying to create controversy when there is none. Sometimes I find it fun and interesting, othertimes not. At the same time I recognize there are very, very few who take what MMFA says as gospel. But God bless them. Some of their posts are interesting and funny. I enjoy most.
They are infotainers and creating controversy ( i.e., "War onChristmas" ) to keep people "tuned in". The problem is that some, maybe to many, people are having their views shaped by the likes of BO and Coulter and voting against their own self interset in local and national elections.
"But other than that, I really don't see they have much impact at all. Bill still has more viewers but as a percentage of the country it is miniscule."
And the same can be said for any pundit or publication, really. What you're not factoring in here is that what people hear, people say. How many things have you heard from people in your life that you've used in later conversations? I'm willing to bet it happens quite often. Now imagine that all of that information is false. How many people have you inadvertantly misinformed because of that? And how many people have those people told? I'm not saying it covers the whole country, but it's a bigger influence than just the percentage of viewers, quite obviously!
The fact of the matter is, with people who are speaking truth to power, every little bit helps. With people who lie to their audiences, every little bit hurts. It all adds up, with more pundits and over time, it creates a general atmosphere. The mass of the shows out there are forwarding administration misinformation, and that has an influence over what voters "know". Or have you forgotten that a large chunk of the population believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11, when there was no evidence for that? How do you suppose things like that happen? Surely you will acknowledge that if there were more shows like KO's and less like anything on FOX then that sort of effect would be reduced.
I have to laugh at your defense of mrkite.
You wrote: Criticizing the wingnuts does not imply in any way that he doesn't recognize that there are some bright and principled people around."
hahahah... I laugh again as I read it again. You must too. To say mrkite is criticzing wignuts is like saying Montey Python's black knight having his leg cut off is 'but a scratch'.
Go back and reread his comments and then try again. Thanks for the chuckle.
"To say mrkite is criticzing wignuts is like saying Montey Python's black knight having his leg cut off is 'but a scratch'."
Let's review:
MrKite:"This clown is a disgrace and only ignorant slime would take him seriously on this or any other issue."
AA:"Labeling everyone you disagree with as slimes, morons, clowns, etc. and those you agree with as people with brains is just not a very convincing argument."
MrKite was talking specifically about Bozell, and that clearly seems to be the comment you were referring to. That comment says nothing about his ability to recognize that there are better conservatives out there. As for criticizing O'Reilly's audience, anyone who either believes him at this point or doesn't care about his lies isn't worthy of much praise. I'm not sure I'd state things how he did, but that did not seem to be what you were referring to anyway.
Does that clarify things for you a bit?
LOL, a three-day trend???
You cite three whole days of ratings???
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know for sure if Keith actually hosted any or all of the dates in question or was their a guest host? The wankers would lie about stuff like this in a heartbeat.
It's who they are. It's what they do.
Reasonable people, what's that got to do with you, ugly amerikan?
Where do you get this half the country agrees with you crap, flush? Christ, even fox and rasmussen can't get near 50 percent with both thumbs on the scale. You're going to have to steal it again, pal.
I see you think, (I use the term loosely,) that sophomoric insults actually mean anything. They only show you again to be closed minded and a bore.
My point about half the country is based on the only poll that counts. I'll leave it to you to try and figure that one out.
Let me get this straight;
So while the media fails to question Bush and at the same time suppresses damaging stories, with people like Matthews practically slobbering over his codpiece photo-op, while we're being pounded with war talk and fearmongering, while Rove is scaring up the homophobic religious vote, while Kerry is not an attractive option and while Diebold machines are clearly vulnerable to manipulation, you believe that the 2004 election says that half the country thinks like or respects Brent Bozell? That proves that "half the country" is on his side? Really?
I have to hand it to you.. that is a very susinct conspiracy theory.
Have a great weekend.
Who said it was a conspiracy theory? Do you deny any of the factors I listed or contend that they don't influence votes?
Have a great weekend stewing over your inability to defend your own remarks.
brabantino,
You're take on the elections are, in my opinion, pretty funny. I learned a long time ago that you can't fight illogic with logic so I doubt you'll understand the silliness of your post.
You can whine all you want and make up even more excuses to rationalize why Bush won, but the fact remains that he did win. (I live in Ohio so I know the problems with most of the voting machines happened in Democratic controlled districts so you can forget that one.)
You don't seem to realize your take regarding who and what influenced the election is moot. You can believe what you want. The point, which you have tossed off is the point i made which I'll reiterate; the only poll that counts, counted. It seems to me that you are the one who is still stewing.
Oh well. Better luck next time.
You're the illogical one completely incapable of refuting his points. You're weakness is transparent.
It wasn't a valid poll. It was skewed by maninuplation. Winning by cheating is not winning. You learn that in Kindergarten.
"You don't seem to realize your take regarding who and what influenced the election is moot."
Your point was that "half the country" supported people like Bozell because of the election. That's who MrKite was criticizing and that's what you took him to task for. The reasons why Bush won the election are, therefore, anything but moot. What I'm saying, since you seem incapable of grasping it, is that there are many factors for who wins an election besides pure political orientation. The results of the election in themselves do not dictate that "half the country" is along the lines of any single person or policy, because of the factors I listed and certainly others as well. Do you think everyone who voted for Clinton supported gays in the military or NAFTA? Do you think that if some left-wing nut wrote some absurd column that criticism of him could be adequately dismissed with "a plurality of the country agrees with him because they voted for Clinton, and that's the only poll that counts". I dare you to say yes and explain why.
The numbers you cite as proof that people like Bozell should not be called out for the dishonest hatemongers they are do not mean a damn thing. They bear no reflection on how the population feels about his kind. Your dishonesty in waving around the election as some sort of defense for any idiot who attempts to further your side's viewpoint is truly contemptible.
Also I have to laugh at your title "another brilliant reposte" from the person who responded to me with some garbage about conspiracy theories, as if that was a valid reply. Once you indicate that you're capable of some level of coherent thought, then maybe you can be sarcastic about my intellect. Not until then.
Such silliness. Go ahead and argue that the election was stolen. Go ahead and defend the hateful remarks of mrkite. Go ahead and waste you time with silly dares and meaningless diatribes against me.
I do believe you illustrate clearly that it is useless to argue against illogical people. You mischaracterized mrkites statement. mrkite was not saying only Bozell was slime but those who agree with him. A truly high level argument that you seem to think needs to be defended ad infinitum.
There comes a time when further discussion is pointless. If you want to reply, please have the last word. Frankly I'm bored. Bye.
"Go ahead and argue that the election was stolen."
Strawman. That wasn't my argument, since it's irrelevant to the point. It's still a factor to be considered though, that when the votes themselves are suspect that attributing beliefs behind them is difficult if not impossible.
"I do believe you illustrate clearly that it is useless to argue against illogical people. You mischaracterized mrkites statement. mrkite was not saying only Bozell was slime but those who agree with him."
Do YOU agree with him? Is that why this is such an issue for you? Bozell's argument is hatemongering nonsense. It's homophobic trash. His website is full of the most dishonest excuses for "watchdog" journalism that exist anywhere. You made the point that many people on the right are reasonable and respectable. True. Bozell is not one of them, and that's part of the reason why you can't lump him in with "half of the country" who supposedly share his viewpoint, and why you can't accuse MrKite of not understanding that many conservatives are respectable. You may disagree with the wording, but anyone who aligns himself with Bozell or overlooks his ethical canyons for partisan reasons does not deserve a lot of respect. The "gay gospel", pushing the gay agenda, bias for the homosexual revolution...good God. Anyone who swallows that garbage is either a homophobe or completely devoid of critical thinking abilities. Surely you would agree that leaves a lot of room for respectable conservatives outside of that group.
You see, that is many people's complaint about the current situation anyway;the wingnuts like Bozell and Malkin and Coulter, people who are not respectable, they are the public voice for "half the country". They do not actually represent the views of those people, they do not make legitimate arguments, and they lie as a means to their ends, and that's why they and their followers should be criticized whenever warranted. You can't explain what's illogical about any of that, I know.
So if you wanted to just chastise him for his wording, go at it. There's an argument to be made there, particularly when he said "or any issue". Trying to defend a wingnut like Bozell by lumping him in with the mainstream of America based on a choice between two people for the presidency is completely nonsensical. Your pathetic responses have only proven that point.
I love it when you wingnuts pull your haughty shtick. There's nothing more hilarious or pathetic than when you wingnuts get to showin' off your cipherin' abilities. As if.
More people voted for American Idol than your nitwit, so by your "logic", that would make that election more important than the Presidential ones stolen by katherine harris and mr blackwell.
You wacks come out here tossing up your bogus, bush-leaguer bs , get your heads knocked off and then try and come back with this "the only poll that matters" malarkey as your slop invariably clangs off the coke bottles beyond the monster.
Well, as KO would say in his SC Days, "that's deep and I don't think it's playable."
NEXT!
Gee, I guess "This clown..." was too vague for you, uggie. Sorry, fella, can't help you. Elementary Special Ed is not my field.
Your acknowledgement that their were problems with Ohio voting machines and that they were primarily in Democratic precincts only serves to strengthen our argument, pal.
Then again, when discussing bor's audience, you are the one who answered my suggestion that they just might want to check for a pulse with - and I quote - "Zzzzzz."
Gee, I love your ability to frame an argument. "My friend couldn't have been doing 80 in a 55 mph zone, Officer. I passed him like he was standing still and I was only doing 90!"
And the sad thing is that you were probably valedictorian of your class and clueless conservative college.
Gee, too bad that's not a true headline. Laura was complaining that the Media never got off their Green Zone hotel balconies or told any of the "good news" stories about our efforts in Iraq. You know, like when we rebuild schools we leveled in the first place.
You left me at hello
I have to hand it to you.. that is a very susinct conspiracy theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello! They left you in a basket on the Church stairs.
Uggie, if you're going to try and dazzle us with your sparkling vocabulary using words like succinctly, you might want to learn how to spell them properly. You're welcome.
yet another brilliant reposte.
brabantino,
You're take on the elections are, in my opinion, pretty funny. I learned a long time ago that you can't fight illogic with logic ...
ugly amerikan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, and that maxim has sustained you and yours through. dark times and kept you alive and thriving in the family illogic business for generations.
- anotheramerican /
Thanks, Brabatio. I don't know why you waste your breath arguing with someone in the illogic business, but, hey! More power to you.
I just won't accept the "only poll that matters" argument. It's been tried here before and it's easy to shoot down.
The same way he told you that you can do better, so can he. And he should. I may not agree with your phrasing, but the accusation that you denigrate everyone who disagrees with you (about half the country, right) based on your comments regarding Bozell and his followers was completely unfair. It comes off as an attempt to shield the wingnuts from criticism by pretending they're mainstream and I won't allow that.
Isn't bozell related to William F Buckley by marriage or is he just some idiot cousin or nephew?