Olbermann named Savage second "Worst Person in the World" for saying "average prostitute" is "more reliable and more honest than most U.S. senators wearing a dress"
On the September 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage the second "Worst Person in the World" for declaring on the September 21 edition of his nationally syndicated talk show, as documented by Media Matters for America, that "an average prostitute" is "more reliable and more honest than most U.S. senators wearing a dress."
Olbermann has given Savage one of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" awards before, most recently on September 14, for claiming, as Media Matters noted, that the U.S. Senate is "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into it."
From the September 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The silver tonight to Michael Savage. Says "an average prostitute, let's say in a city. Probably they're more reliable and more honest than most U.S. senators wearing a dress." Prostitutes, crossdressers. Well, Mike, we'll defer to you. You're the expert here.
From the September 21 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: I have more respect for a crack dealer than I do for some of these politicians. They're up front about it. I have more respect for a prostitute than I do for most senators. You take an average prostitute, let's say, in a city. Probably they're more reliable and more honest than most U.S. senators wearing a dress. The United States has overtaken France as the country with the highest number of asylum applicants, the U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday. My hair is standing up. Asylum. Asylum. I give them asylum. I give them a one-way ticket back to the hellhole they came from.
Is it really this easy to get a job in talk radio? Could I be making big money right now by going on the air and shouting hate speech, as opposed to all of this '9-to-5, hard working' crap I've been trying? Where did I go wrong?
Okay, here goes: "This is Rottenwood Radio, blasting over the Internet 24/7. Liberals are BAD. I don't have any specifics, but I need you guys to hate SOMEBODY. That way, you'll divide politicians and platforms into 'teams' - and I'll tell you that the progressive team is full of evil homosexuals and holier-than-thou coffeehouse types. You don't want to be on THAT team, do you? So be on our neo-conservative team, which sounds so much better because we dress it up in flowery words like 'freedom' and 'low taxes' and 'sticking it to the man!', while glossing over all of the grotesque carnage and loss of freedom.
This is Rottenwood, signing off. Where's my money?"
Yesterday's "Worst Person" was Poger AIles, for saying that Clinton's defense of himself on Fox was "an assault on all journalists."
From the transcript:
"But our winner, Roger Ailes the Ming the Merciless, of FOX News and congrats, incidentally Roger, on having achieved the perfectly circular shape. He says today that President Clinton's reaction to Chris Wallace the other day was 'An assault on all journalists.' No, Roger, what he said was an admonishment, somebody sending terroristic threats to me and others is an assault to all journalists.
"Roger Ailes, today's 'Worst Person in the World.'”
Poger AIles?
Sheesh!
Roger Ailes, of course.
Ailes is spherical, not circular.
It is rather eye-opening, if not hypocritical, that when the O'Reilly's and the Coulter's of the world make disparaging or insulting comments about the left - well, that is just wrong, humorless, and uncalled for, (stomping fist on desk) > "Enough of these personal attacks!!"
However, when favorite son Olbermann calls Roger Ailes fat, well, that's different, absolutely hysterical, ROFLMAO funny!
Admit it, when it's your "guy" being poked fun at, it's bad. If it's their "guy", it's fine.
Who was laughing?
Where is the denunciation?
Your post was funny.
And for the record, I don't think Olbermann is funny at all. He should forget the comedy and stick with commentary.
Actually, I think Olbermann can be quite funny, in an acerbic intellectual way. I have no problem with him, and much of his analysis is right on, in my opinion. The right has so many blabberers on TV, he is welcomed as another voice for me.
Olberman called Roger two-dimensional, while Rusty pointed out that he's three-dimensional. That's a compliment.
And by the way, who among us on the left hasn't laughed at the occasional Teddy K or Michael Moore fat joke. Their condition is pretty much caused by their own behavior. It's not like someone used a racial or handicapped slur and people laughed. But when we laugh at these types of comments about these heavy people, there isn't any hatred involved whereas people like Savage & Coulter seem to hate for hates sake. Then when called on their hatred, they say they were being humorless.
Oops, I mean humorous.
So, from your perspective, it's OK to call people fat or as you put it "these types of comments about these heavy people". Because there is no hatred involved. But when the evil right wingers insult, they do it just for hate's sake?
Wow.
I was throwing the right a bone. I was showing that we on the left are as open and as deserving of ridicule as anyone on the right. I'm not saying that fat jokes are not insensitive. They are. you'd be surprised at some of the things that people find funny and how in the most evil and dangerous times peole can laugh. My God, I've laughed at funerals. Humor is a saving grace sometimes. But, I see nothing in these comments that comes close to some of the things that come out of the mouths of Coulter and Savage. They've both made a fortune with hate. They always step over the line, and then someone excuses what they say because it was supposed to be funny.
Don't think you that I expected that from the get go? It's always different, much worse from the right, not the same.............like clockwork. The degree is not the issue.
But I wouldn't expect many here to admit the similarity, but the stock retort "It's different because........."
Anyone with a shred of honesty admits that personal attacks and insulting humor comes from all sides, it varies all the time with respect to degree......and the heavy blind partisans always say the other side is worse. The fact is, they aren't. Politics is nasty and dirty, and just to be in the game soils one and the pedestals they try to climb are built on weak sand, at best.
It's that the right wing gets more face time and preferential treatment. When was the last time someone on the left wing who advocates killing their political opponents got time on a major news network to plug their book?
Get back to me when he calls for killing one hundred million people, the presidents assasination or the poisoning of a Supreme Court justice or even beating conservatives with a baseball bat
but at least KO doesn't write a book calling for the death of all people who choose to be liberal. Furthermore KO is the only man in the media to stand up for us on the left. That is honorable in my opinion to stand up for who YOU are instead of acting like the rest of the chumps in the Media
My point was if you think this is funny, which I do by the way, and then get all puffed over some insulting comment by the right? - well, you shouldn't. But like clockwork when another thread is posted on something Coulter says, you will see the outrage.
...particularly the ones that are deemed vile enough for MMFA to highlight, don't often fall into the "fat joke" category. Of course, calling somebody fat isn't really funny and it certainly isn't nice, but come on...there is a difference between calling someone circular and calling them a "f*g" or a "raghead." The Coulter statements that people here get worked up over are the calls to violence and the hate speech.
" there is a difference between calling someone circular and calling them a "f*g" or a "raghead." "
There is? What's the difference? If I call a f*g a f*g won't he/she get m*d?? If I call someone f*t won't he/she get m*d?? It gets back to tommy's point, to what degree does it need to be for it to be humorous or h*tr*d? So, if Savage and Coulter only called people f*t then MMFA would have no problems with their talk shows?Or is it your "opinion" that they have hateful intentions therefore cannot be funny no matter what they call people?
First of all, I'd like to see an MMFA article where Coulter or Savage was taken to task for calling someone fat. Secondly, there is such an obvious difference between calling someone circular and calling someone a "f*g" that I can hardly believe you're actually being serious. Your use of "f*t" should be an obvious an clue that you're just trying to be satirical, but you seem sincere, so I'll just throw out this hypothetical to demonstrate the difference between insults and hate speech: There are two men, a black man and an obese man...I call one of them circular and then I call the other one a "n*gger." Now try and tell me that there's no difference.
" There are two men, a black man and an obese man "
So, you have no problem calling one "black" but you can't call the other "fat". Ok, I see the difference. If you were sincere on your analogy, wouldn't you have called one a "person of color" and the other "circular"? No, you call one black because you have "accepted" that word to describe african americans. Perhaps the man of color is offended by being called black, since he isn't black. But, you can't call one fat because you think it would offend him? It seems to me you are doing everything you can to avoid calling one man fat because you would offend him, correct? Your strawman arguement didn't work. The fat man IS fat.
...it's usually his hypocrisy that people are condemning, not the name-calling per se. Have you ever heard Keith Olbermann claim that he doesn't do personal attacks? The case could be made that both men can be jerks, but only one of them is being hypocritical.
I am not talking about Olbermann vs. O'Reilly here. I am talking about the posters that get all up in arms over some silly personal jab when done by the right to the left. Then when it's the other way around, and it is just as prevalent in the media today, the scorn turns to snickers.
My take is - if it's funny, it's funny. If it's not, it's not. The shooter and target are irrelevant.
"I am not talking about Olbermann vs. O'Reilly here. I am talking about the posters that get all up in arms over some silly personal jab when done by the right to the left."
You're the one who mentioned O'Reilly. You claimed it was hypocritical of people to get up in arms over O'Reilly's name-calling and not Olbermann's, and I pointed out tha--in O'Reilly's case--people get up in arms over his hypocrisy, not the name-calling per se.
sorry, let me try to close that italics tag again.
Ditto, R'wood...*cough*
You forgot to promote yourself, e.g., "My latest book, "Everyone but he is an a**hole* is available on my website rwood.com. You can get it for only $24.95 and it's even outsold Al Franken's latest trash...."
You get the picture.
Now, count your cash, and get in line at the confessional.
What is so bad, really, with Savage's point? That the people we elect to the Senate, he should have included men as well, are dishonest and unreliable. Obviously not all of them, but who can deny our Congress is peppered with unsavory characters?
They run on and promise all sorts of touchy, feely good, platforms to pander to voters. Yet once elected spend much of their time cozying up to donors and have no time for the tough choices and decisions that demand their taking a stance, even if unpopular.
They wallow and waste time with idiotic senseless issues like gay marriage and flag burning amendments, instead of real problems we need addressed.
Savage may use an extreme analogy, but at least with a hooker, you may get a waffle afterwards. With many politicians, you're bent over and shown the door. But we only have ourselves to blame for those we elect, for we get what we deserve.
How could you say gay marriage is not important. My lesbian friend would beat the snot out of you for that ridiculous statement! I do not mean to be offensive but I am sick of people putting this issue in the back corners. These people deserve justice whether you think it is important or not. I have much respect for the right wingers who go on this site (you included) but I think that was a little insensitive. I don't mean to be rash but these people do not deserve the discrimation the right has been dishing out.
Apparently you missed my point. This whole issue was a right wing attempt to gin up their base. It's used near all elections, probably will be in this one too.
OK I will admit I overreacted. Anyways I still think what Savage said was sexist.
it is just a bunch of name calling. Stupid waist of time.
Savage is a moron plain and simple. This website has shown time and again how way off the edge of the world Savage is. He says things that don't make any sense, he says things that are pure vile and hatred. I've never heard anyone from the left or the right as hateful and self righteous as this guy is. He is an a-hole on a large scale.
Well ya know ole Mike has a point, kinda....
If he said "Your average prostitute is more reliable and honest than most U.S. senators."
He would be 100% correct.
Keith Olbermann calling Chris Wallace a monkey???
all over the world should rise up in protest and boycott MSNBC. And rightwingnuts and conservofacists can whine all they want when their feelings get hurt, bulliies always cry when their noses get bloodied. The only way to get a bully to stop is to bloody his or her nose. The sticks or stones will break my bones tactic only encourages the bullies to throw more names.
And rightwingnuts and conservofacists can whine all they want when their feelings get hurt.......
**************************
With all the constant and incessant bellyaching and whining that the leftist posters do on this website whenever their collective feelings get hurt............wow.
MMFA should indeed jump on Olbermann's grievous insult to monkeys everywhere. Now, if KO had only called the monkeys fat that wouldn't be so bad. But to compare monkeys to Chris Wallace is just hate.
What if he were black?
...except he's obviously not, so what's your point?
Dub..
Bull..
Stan..
Durd..
could call a fellow journalist a monkey and MM would have nothing to say. ya right. I say again what I've always said, I have no problem with liberal commentators, but I don't understand why MM pimps this idiot. They guy is off the charts loony. There are other liberals that MM could support that would better represent the liberal position.
There are other liberals that MM could support that would better represent the liberal position.
I'm always fascinated by conservative advice on how we can be good little liberals who please you. To that end, would you mind telling us who your preferred representative of the liberal viewpoint would be? Thanks so much.
1. Is it OK for KO to call other journalists monkies?
2. Do YOU think KO is a good representative of the liberal position?
3. Is Keith honest when he says he is not partisan?
4. Wouldn't it be better if he said what he was and what he believes and NOT call his show a news broadcast and just say his a politcal analyst with a clear postion?
Being straight forward and honest about where he is coming from might do wonders in attracting viewers.
As to your question, where to start??
1. Is it OK for KO to call other journalists monkies?
Yes. Likewise, if Bill O'Reilly wants to call journalists monkeys I have no problem with that either.
2. Do YOU think KO is a good representative of the liberal position?
I don't listen to him enough to know. I think some of his commentaries have been pretty good.
3. Is Keith honest when he says he is not partisan?
I didn't know he said that. If he does, then no, based on what I have heard from him, he's not honest when he says that.
4. Wouldn't it be better if he said what he was and what he believes and NOT call his show a news broadcast and just say his a politcal analyst with a clear postion?
Does he call Countdown a news broadcast?
But you still haven't answered my question. Who would be the conservative-approved liberal spokesperson?
or you're making a fat joke....
"to me
it is just a bunch of name calling. Stupid waist of time."
- evillib1727 / Thursday September 28, 2006 05:56:53 PM EST
"waste" of time IMO.
I have banned TV news from my house, but watch a fair amount of Olberman on the web from any number of sites, even MFMA.
He's the only one in the mainstream media with the guts to speak the truth. He's called Dubya, Rummy, you name it. I'm proud that he's on our mainstream.
But, Keith, you won't get invitations to Whitehouse cocktail parties. Don't you just lose sleep over that? Just think there you could be chatting with Jeff Gannnon.
Hmmm....Speaking of prostitutes....