Olbermann on O'Reilly: "Why does [he] still have a job?"
On the January 18 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann attacked Fox News host Bill O'Reilly for comments he made regarding the kidnapping of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted in October 2002, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri. As Media Matters for America documented, on the January 15 edition of his television show, O'Reilly said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted," later stating, "There was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances." The following day, as Media Matters also noted, O'Reilly addressed the criticism surrounding his comments by saying: "I made no awful remarks ... just asked questions."
On Countdown, Olbermann said of O'Reilly: "It boggles the mind that, in 2007, a public figure can still blame the victim -- a victim who is a teenage boy -- and not lose his job over it." He later added: "We've all gotten a lot of amusement from Mr. O'Reilly's baseline idiocy, but this is reprehensible. It reeks of perversity and inhumanity. Simply put, Mr. O'Reilly no longer deserves any place on the public stage."
From the January 18 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: And as a commentator insists, a second victim did not escape because he was having a lot more fun than he did at home. That boy's parents reveal they believe their son was sexually abused. Why does the commentator still have a job?
[...]
OLBERMANN: It boggles the mind that, in 2007, a public figure can still blame the victim -- a victim who is a teenage boy -- and not lose his job over it. But Bill O'Reilly has told his audience that Shawn Hornbeck, abducted at age 11, more than four years ago -- rescued just a week ago -- never escaped because he didn't want to.
"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents," O'Reilly said. "He didn't have to go to school; he could run around and do whatever he wanted." A lot more fun indeed -- like suffering sexual abuse at the hands of his kidnapper as Shawn Hornbeck's parents today said they believed happened.
We've all gotten a lot of amusement from Mr. O'Reilly's baseline idiocy, but this is reprehensible. It reeks of perversity and inhumanity. Simply put, Mr. O'Reilly no longer deserves any place on the public stage.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
So all the conservative misinformation and bloviating on Earth is constrained to just Bush and O'Reilly.
If only.
Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, and the next generation of conservative liars will keep Keith on deck for the next 20 years, as will faithful followers such as you, Leather Apron, for it is the consumers of conservative trash that give the usual suspect intellects their undeserved spotlight.
Dave and Lether,
Fox News and much of American talk radio derive most of their material from their parasitic, or at least symbiotic, relationship to other media. I don't mean to use the term "parasitic" in a derogatory way: I think it's an accurate description. The Fox News brand is based, not on its own reporting, but entirely upon how it contrasts itself against other media. FNC routinely reports on how others are reporting events. And I'm not even trying to suggest that this is anything endemic to Fox -- it's the nature of the media industry: they perpetually cite, report about, and criticize one another.
So yes, you're right, Keith Olbermann relies on Bill O'Reilly for material. But how is that different from the long, long, long tradition of newspapers taking issue with rival papers' reporting? Your criticism of Olbermann is particularly ironic in the case of Fox, where hosts like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have made bashing rival media outlets a fixture of their broadcasts.
And by the way, advising journalist, news analyst, or commentator to stop asking "why" seems more than a little perverse -- even if you were only trying to make a joke. (An attempt which failed utterly in my view.)
"Why does Keith still have a job?" O'Reilly is #1 night-after-night in all of cable news, and Olbermann routinely gets stomped by ratios of 4-to-1 and 6-to-1.
In addition, Olbermann has his own problems with presenting the truth. Olbermann Watch can barely keep up with it all.
by American Idol. So why do either of them have jobs?
Thanks once again, Shoes, for demonstrating what grade-school, puerile, shoddy outfits these conservative MM-wannabe sites really are. Olbermann Watch consists of NOTHING except lists of Olbermann's topics, assertions (without proof) that he's wrong about all of them, and open insults about his looks and tone of voice. Out of the first dozen such summaries, not ONE actual factual refutation of "Herr Olbermann" was offered. Maybe there were some such in the archives, but I figured I'd dignified your link long enough.
...is nothing but one guy's biased opinion of each Obie show & a few immature folks calling each other names...
Um... because he's gaining ratings while O'Reilly is losing them? No, wait, that's not it....
Could it be because Olbermann hasn't suggested that a kidnapped child voluntarily stayed with his captor because he didn't have a "strong bond" with his family and he "liked...his circumstances" with his kidnapper?
No... that's not a firing offense either, apparently.
What does someone have to do to be fired from a cable news network? Connie Chung was sacked for airing Kathleen Gingrich's response to a question about her opinion of Hillary Clinton, in which Chung suggested that the answer would be "just between you and me. Now THAT'S just awful. Unforgivable. That was enough for her to lose her job.
O'Reilly, a guy who claims no expertise in psychology or criminology, baselessly dismisses any possibility of the so-called Stockholm syndrome (--a relatively well understood phenomenon, especially in children, in which identification with the captor or abuser is a psychological survival response--) and proceeds to speculate that the kid must not have had a strong enough family bond to inspire him to attempt escape... and then when O'Reilly is called on it, he outright lies and says that he was only posing questions, and THAT'S not a firing offense?
This shouldn't come as a surprise, of course. The bottom line for Fox, like MSNBC, is money and ratings. There is absolutely no reason why any material pressure would be placed on O'Reilly to entice him to report this story with any degree of decency. Connie Chung, on the other hand, made the mistake of offending someone who had a few dollars and some clout. That's the difference.
The only way I can imagine O'Reilly being fired from Fox would be if he were to claim that the sexually abused and murdered child of a major Republican official deserved her fate, or if his audience abandons him. Short of those two options, the man can do no wrong from his employers' perspective.
All of which gets us back to the main issue (which you've dodged, Shoes): was O'Rielly's behavior professional and proper or not? My answer is no, and I think a responsible company would let him go.
To quote Bill O'Reilly: "What say you?"
Good comments. I'd add one other item. The bottom line for Fox isn't just money and ratings. Its goal is also to feed propaganda to the public in order to push a political agenda. For Fox, it works well that it has popular sitcoms and sports shows because that softens the image for Fox. Otherwise, it would only offer hate shows to the public.
are you saying that CNN and the network news programs don't push a political adjenda? Have you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg?
One that indicates that the lion's share of the gullible and illiterate rednecks are the majority of the TV viewing audience, as has always been. This has always been abundantly clear to TV network marketing strategists seeking market share. TV is a manipulative medium and always has been. It encourages the numb and passive absorption of its mindless message of 'consume' and 'obey'. Do not adjust your sets.
masquerading as critical analysis. if you take out all the sophomoric name calling ("monkeyman"), and unsupported opinion (opinion is fine, just don't call it fact), there wouldn't be any site, as near as i can tell, aside from the ads and polls.
if you don't like keith olberman, that's fine, it's your right. however, if you're going to critique him, have actual evidence to support your assertions. calling someone a name isn't evidence.
I went to your MMFA watch site yesterday, and explained to you why the first two items I read were nonsense. Are these actually YOUR sites, or do you just not see through them?
i wasted my time going to the other site, but maybe the first two items were the weakest. Do us a favor; pick the STRONGEST item from this Olbermann watch site and post it here. If nobody is able to debunk it, you can continue to post links with honor.
If your best item turns out to be crap, you give your word that you will stop embarrassing yourself, and trying to waste peoples time by posting links.
Deal?
When all else fails, bring up faux's "ratings". I am still amazed how disciplined the right-wing fruit loops carry the message for their masters.
If Keith would git rid of B.O. And Bush, it might be worth it but in reality, Bill O. would not make a pimple on Keith's behind. John S.
Olbermann actually spends very little time on O'Reilly. Olberman is a very good journalists who obviously spends his language skills masterfully to give an appearance of spending most of the hour on O'Reilly.
lets all laugh and forget the fact that the man actually suggested that a kidnapped sexually abused kid actually secretely enjoyed it
This nation is overflowing with venomous right-wing gasbags.
There are at least a dozen others Keith could get truckloads of material from!
Check out this list:
[link to biz.yahoo.com]
Hugo Chavez is "popular" too. Does that mean he's right?
I am damn sick and tired of the "oh yeah? well look at the ratings!" argument.
It's fallacious and lame.
it's the fact that he is that is alarming. He doesn't deserve the popularity in my view because he's such a flippin' loon. He's loose with facts, beligerent, arrogant and wrong pretty much all the time. He's divisive and represents the worst in political discourse. These poll results are disturbing. But I think people will trend away from him at some point shortly. The ploitical winds have shifted away from this sort of garbage.
More people buy the Ford Focus than the Corvette. So, using the unhinged right-wing "logic", the Focus is the better car. Laughable.
in the likes of Hannity, Limhaugh, Coulter, Bozell, Buchanan, Imus, M Reagan, and others . O'Reilly is just one.
at Bull OhReally? for not buying the drinks during their last night on the town.
So drive comfortably between 8 and 9pm!
I wonder how the over 70 crowd likes Bill's pervo-fest nudie segments and O'Reilly's newfound alignment with NAMBLA?
About Tucker Carlson and Don Imus?
we will git them all by high noon....
VERY easy answer, I'm afraid.
Same reason that jacka$$ Hannity is still there.
They make money for Fox. And THAT is priority #1 at Fox.
Actually being factual, is near the bottom of the list. (In fact, I don't think it's even on the list.)
Taste and decency matters not when the money is rolling in, but when public outcry deems the incident a liability.
Murdoch pulled the plug on the O.J. project at the last minute because it was a shortlived, one-shot cash cow that ****ed everyone off, not a lingering one like O'Reilly that merely upsets one half of the political spectrum.
Republicans needed Billo after getting trounced in November and they will really need him after the "08 elections and the wholesale erasing of anything republican.
Wahhh, wahhh - the bad old Olbermann is criticizing O'Really? again...
sheesh... I guess anytime there's an Olbermann commentary thread I should expect to read criticism of it.
I guess we aren't supposed to pay any attention to O'Really and his fellow con bloviators.
O'Reilly works for FOX, and apparently his ratings are still high enough to keep his boss happy, and despite the fact that what is said is damn close to despicable...he has the right to voice his opinion. And to fire him over those remarks would probably ONLY result in Fox facing a big fat lawsuit.
Here in Massachusetts a talk radio host did get fired for calling a gubernatorial [fringe party] candidate a "big fat lesbian". He's suing the station.
BTW the candidate is fat. And she is a lesbian.
If Jay Severin was any furthur back in the closet, he'd pop out in Narnia.
It was John DePetro and the candidate was Grace Ross.
is hilarious....I'm afraid I'm going to have to steal this line from you and use it my financial advantage...
thank you, have a good day...
...O'Reilly has the right to his opinion. I don't even know what it would mean for someone not to have the "right" to an opinion - could "they" lock us up for thoughtcrime?
What he does not have a right to is a job. And it is not for me, or you, or David Brock to decide... it is Ailes and Murdoch's decision.
I don't particularly want to see O'Reilly shut up, but I would like to see less tolerance in general for just spouting whatever hateful, unkind garbage pops into one's head and calling it "edgy, non-PC" rhetoric.
What I meant [and probably didn't express very well] is that Fox or any employer might run into legal problems dismissing a talk show host for voicing an opinion [no matter how disgusting]. Now IF O'Reilly or any host had suggested their listeners inflict physical violence on someone or a group because in their [the host's] opinion they deserved it--THAT should be cause for dismissal.
Personally I think O'Reilly is showing signs of an impending meltdown.
IANAL, but I think you can be fired from TV for pretty much any damn reason. Limbaugh got booted off ESPN for saying McNabb was overrated, that the media made a big deal out of him because he's black.
Nothing legally actionable... and IMO far from the most outrageous thing El Rushbo ever spewed out his neck, but mediapathic enough for ESPN to yank him.
though quite effectively blamed it on ESPN. But he was not fired nor even asked to leave.
And to fire him over those remarks would probably ONLY result in Fox facing a big fat lawsuit.
Happens. Weiner and Maher are two that spring to mind. That's the industry they're in.
There are probably pages full of clauses that give Fox outs to fire O'Reilly.
Probably because he has the only remaining copies of George W. Bush's complete military and arrest records. Either that or FOX knows that there are millions of Republican morons who (incredibly) actually believe Bill O's B.S. and will tune in night after night. Strange country, this America....
Good grief, this guy is a complete idiot. No wonder hardly anybody watches him. The better question would be "Why does Olbermann still have a job?" Hardly anybody actually watches his show, and the only way he gets any viewers at all is by bashing O'Reilly and Bush. If Bush resigned and O'Reilly retired, Olbermann would have absolutely nothing to talk about. It's no wonder he got fired from ESPN, and if the higher ups in MSNBC had any intelligence at all, they would fire him as well. Olbermann is a far left nut case who will most likely be visiting a luny bin sometime soon.
I think your going a little over the top. But I do wonder who Olbermann will target in 2009 when the Democrats control the White House and when OReilly retires. O 'Reilly isnt getting any younger .
...is "a little over the top?" Okey-doke.
Do any of you remember when Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin toured as the Yuppie and the Yippie? Well, one day, Billy the Barbarian and Keith the Conquerer can tour. Billy will have a tat on his face like Mike Tyson and Keith will borrow the whip and chair from Siegfried & Roy.
Hey, I think I'm channeling Dennis Miller with all my cultural references.
For the record, I love Keith. Anyone as smart and brave and concerned with the Constitution as Keith deserves HollyChips and my chocolate chip cookies.
"If you have to keep mentioning and reminding people how honest you are, you are not". (Rousseau)
Same way, Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced".
And "The Truth Detector" has nothing to do with truth.
"And "The Truth Detector" has nothing to do with truth."
You betcha. That's why I ascribe Colbert's truthiness to The Truth Detector. And, of course, truthiness is Colbert's parody of BOR, the smug satisfaction with brushing past truth rather than bearing it as the burden that it is.
DORIS
I don't wonder at all who he will target.
* Kieth doesn't focus on the White House that much, if at all. His prey will be even more plentiful in 09. Don't you see how busy his "target" is right now with the new Democratic Congress? If the White House is taken too, Kieth will have to expand his show.
You know he tried to hit up Jenna Jameson for some free porn vids after he had her on and pretty much called her a whore to her face?
Koresh knows I hate a hypocrite, and a guy who stimulates his own anus with a vibe while talking dirty to a co-worker is not my definition of a moral person.
Sicko.
Watch it... ! You're talking about a Culture Warrior.
...that you would accuse Bill "loofah" O'Reilly of being a sexual harasser.
He is for us, the little people, and only has our best interests at heart.
He is a "culture" warrior of pure and noble intentions.
This whole personal fued between these two is a yawner anymore. The fact they play it out on a national stage is even more moronic. Let them sling back and forth at each other all day long, but do either of them think that people really care? "I know you are, but what am I?.............
What two adults say to one another, even if they insult or call each other weenies or meanies, is at their own insufferable doorsteps.
If MMFA irks you this much.
And leave your raging liberalism to go unchecked?
Not a chance.
Tommy, You must have a playbook which you use to critique articles this site. As I've seen you do many times before, when MMFA posts an article related to a pundit or neocon saying or doing something unquestionably outrageous, rather than criticize or defend the neocon, you attack the messenger (sometimes MMFA or sometimes the subject attacking the pundit or neocon). Other times, you split hairs on the subject to make an off-topic point. Either way, you accomplish deflecting the conversation away from the point of the article and sapping comment space. Suggesting there is a feud between Olbermann and O'Reilly is a distraction from the legitimate issue Olbermann brings up. O'Reilly and other pundits go after the messenger (Olbermann) and MMFA because they are getting exposed. Olbermann and others are doing the exposing. That is not feuding.
Yeah..
You've checked a few things. But not enough to gloat about.
Will you check my liberalism next? ;0)
The only thing Tommy has ever put in check is his already minuscule intelligence.
I dont think this has been a personal feud except in the mind of Olbermann. It cant be a serious feud with ratings of that O Reilly pulls.
[link to www.mediabistro.com]
We live in a country where American Idol is still popular. I don't think ratings are any indication of rightness, or decency, or integrity. In fact, it seems there is almost an inverse relationship.
They both despise each other, that is a feud.
But from what I read most people who worked with Olberman dont like him either.
As far as OReilly he is pompus as well.
I dont think its as big a feud in O Reillys mind as it is in Olbermanns mind.
In the end I hope they both get what they deserve, cancellations so we can have programming that is less biased and more informative on the airwaves of our nation.
because unlike most of the other "anchors" on MSNBC Keith Olbermann has enough balls to stand up and point out the stupidity and hypocracy of the current administration. Look at the rest of the lineup on MSNBC primetime and tell me who else isn't a right-wing bootlick.
The difference in the two, in my opinion.........
O'Reilly - His endless pronounciations that he is for the folks or independently fair, never personally attacks anyone is all crap, as far as I'm concerned. His ridiculous culture war on everything he doesn't like is just to sell his book.....he is a Bush apologist without convictions, and his HUGE, incredible ego with it's voracious appetite needs to be constantly "the story" instead of honestly covering stories.
As for Olbermann, he unabashedly leans left and makes no bones about it. For the most part, he is respectful and considerate to his guests and appears far more gentlemanly than O'Reilly ever does. His whole O'Reilly obsession is a little ridiculous, but that's not the jist of his program, more of a satirical edge it seems.
In addition to the fact that I generally agree with Olbermann more than I do with O'Reilly, I do like the fact that Olbermann doesn't try to act like he is "independent" while bashing Bush. It just seems to have more integrity.
I would feel much better about Fox if they would just drop the "Fair and Balanced" nonsense. I see no problem with having a point of view; I would argue that our pretend-objective journalism, where you have to dig to find the bias and unquestioned assumptions, is more of a danger to our public discourse than out-and-out partisanship.
"As for Olbermann, he unabashedly leans left and makes no bones about it"
Actually, that's not true. Olbermann claims to be independent and objective as well. It rejects the liberal label. He's the same as O'Reilly in that regard. Both Olbermann and O'Reilly claim to be neutral, but it's obvious to any objective viewer that O'Reilly is conservative and Olbermann is liberal.
Meant "he rejects" the liberal label. Having a bad typing day.
"The Truth Detector." "The TRUTH Detector." The Truth DETECTOR." Wow. Most guys of your ilk manage to get past their sign-on name before they make total asses of themselves. I guess you couldn't wait that long.
"The Truth Detector." That ranks right up there with "I'm a uniter, not a divider." And "by far the majority of my tax breaks went to the poor and middle class." And with the notion that this administration supports our troops, when Rumsfeld showed more deadly contempt for the military in one minute than Clinton managed in eight years.
funny as hell. LOL
"If you have to keep mentioning and reminding people how honest you are, you are not". (Rousseau)
Same way, Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced".
And "The Truth Detector" has nothing to do with truth.
Olberman is the number one rated anchor on his network. True O'falafel still has better ratings than Olberman but Olberman's ratings a climbing while O'reilly's are dropping like a rock
[link to www.oreilly-sucks.com]
Factor Ratings Down 22% From October of 2005
Remember these numbers the next time O'Reilly says his ratings are up, and remember that he is lying to you, then remember he claims to have a no spin zone. How can you claim to have a no spin zone if you cant even tell the truth about your ratings. Not only are his ratings down 22 percent from October of 2005, they are down 37 percent from his high of 3.1 million viewers a night in 2004. Yet "Billy" is on the Factor about once a month thanking his viewers for the ratings increase. When your ratings have dropped 37 percent in the last 2 years how in the hell is that a ratings increase, and how is that a no spin zone.
O'Reilly Factor:
Total Viewers - Oct. 2006 -- 2,081,000 --- Oct. 2005 -- 2,678,000 --- 22% Drop 25-54 Demo - Oct. 2006 -- 470,000 --- Oct. 2005 -- 518,000 --- 9% Drop
Now compare that to the numbers for Keith Olbermann, his ratings have actually went up, and he is the #1 rated show on MSNBC.
Countdown With Keith Olbermann:
Total Viewers - Oct. 2006 -- 637,000 --- Oct. 2005 -- 381,000 --- 67% Increase 25-54 Demo - Oct. 2006 -- 233,000 --- Oct. 2005 -- 145,000 --- 61% Increase
Just to put Bill O'Reilly's ratings (which are high) in perspective, have you ever wondered how many of O'Reilly's loyal viewers also watch American Idol on a regular basis? I would wager there is a strong correlation...
Big deal. O'Reilly's audience is still over three times bigger than Olbermann's. Olbermann's audience was so low to start out with, that it wasn't hardly possible for him to go any lower. The only direction to go was up. However, my guess is that Olbermann's latest puzzling rant against the T.V. show 24 will cost him a few viewers. He actually had the gall to call 24 a right wing propaganda show designed to help Bush, simply Bush a nuclear bomb was detonated in the U.S. at the end of the last episode. Apparently Olbermann believes that the threat of nuclear war is merely a hoax created by conservatives, and that to me seems pretty ridiculous.
you are having a bad typing day!
I meant "because" not "Bush." We need the preview back!
Ratings mean nothing. True journalism should be based on ACCURACY and NEUTRALITY, which O'Reilly is absolutely incapable of. O'Reilly gets one million viewers....so what? That is a small minority of viewers when you think about it. I don't normally watch KO(other than his satirical WORST PERSON segment), but KO RARELY CLAIMS to be "neutral". Do you have to actually state your liberal in order to be considered liberal? I mean he cites progressive sites like this one and news hounds often in his segments, and his guests are primarily left leaning (for example, Jonathan Alter). O'Reilly constantly site right leaning groups(like Family Research Council, MRC, etc), but still claims to be objective. Sorry no dice from me....
Olbermann claimed to be neutral during an interview on C-Span. That's where I got it from.
YOU said hardly anyone watches him. He IS the top rated viewer on his network and O'falafel is dwarfed in ratings by both NETWORK news AND a cartoon sponge. People ARE watching Olberman and more and more each month are while less and less are watching O'Reilly. If you think ratings mean so much then the ratings trend means something too.
Many things can be said about Keith Olbermann, but "idiot" is not one of them. He lays out sharp, intelligent criticism of the President and his policies, which is always much more interesting to me than the "O'Reilly's a d!ck" segments. I don't have a TV, so I just download what I am interested in.
Now, it's fine if you don't see things his way - but I don't see any evidence of lack of intelligence. He just sees the world differently than you do.
"Many things can be said about Keith Olbermann, but "idiot" is not one of them."
You're right. I apologize. I shouldn't have used a personal attack like that. It just infuriates me that Olbermann constantly bashes O'Reilly merely because O'Reilly kills him in the ratings. That seems very unprofessional to me. But you're right that he's not an idiot. I shouldn't have called him a nut either. I was just angry after I read what he said. What Olbermann does on his show is actually very calculated. He's trying to get O'Reilly to respond to him to increase his ratings. So far, O'Reilly hasn't talked about Keith directly.
I think it is pretty much a ratings ploy... I also think he is trying to infuriate guys like you and fire up guys like me, pretty much the reverse of what, say, Hannity tries to do.
Contrariwise, it seems to me that Bill O'Reilly is exactly the same off-air as he is on-air. There is some integrity in that, though I think an @$$hole with integrity is still an @$$hole...
You know this HOW. Oh yeah, I forgot, your amazing mind reading powers again. Your baseless assertions are all you have what is your evidence again that Olberman inst offended as a REAL journalist by O'falafels lying, hypocrisy, and offensiveness? Wait I am asking for evidence from the king of baseless assertions you pulled this right out of your rectal database where you get 90% of the stuff you post what was I thinking?
"and if the higher ups in MSNBC had any intelligence at all,"
A BO fan is talking about "intelligence"! That's an oxymoron. BO's show is not about intelligence. It's about bottomfeeding intellectually lazy people.
Studies have shown that O'Reilly's audience is one of the most intelligent audiences in the country. The ranked at the very top of the most intelligent audiences in the country. Only a few were higher, and one was Rush Limbaugh's audience.
[link to people-press.org]
[link to mediamatters.org]
Also, according to CNN, Nielsen Media Research statistics show that when directly compared with O'Reilly Factor viewers, "Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.":
"Daily Show" viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O'Reilly's audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.
And THIS study shows FOX viewers to be the LEAST knowlegeable on six specific policy issues
[link to 65.109.167.118]
Or as World Public Opinion showed from that data
[link to www.worldpublicopinion.org]
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
Looks to me like FOX viewers overall is the least informed audience in the media world as for Limbuagh lets go to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania:
We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they felt. . . .Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.
The words you used for describing the people who could answer three questions is laughable. "Top of the most intelligent audiences"? You got to be kidding! Is this the bar you set for topmost intelligence? Do you consider yourself one of those most intelligent audience too, Truth Detector? If so, you are far way from detecting truth!
Let's look at the same survey again,
College grad listen to NPR: 38%
College grad listen to Daily Show: 37%
College grad listen to Larry King: 30%
College grad listen to O'Reilly: 27%
College grad listen to Fox News: 23%
National avg of college grad listening news: 27%
Now the conclusions:
1. Number of college grad listen to O'Reilly show is 3% less than Larry King, 10% less than Daily Show.
2. College grad listening to O'Reilly is just equal to national average 27%. Not an extraordinary thing, right?
"Studies have shown that O'Reilly's audience is one of the most intelligent audiences in the country. "
That must be due to the liberals who watch it for laughs, or by "the country", they meant unpopulated woodsy areas with the occasional Unabomber-style shack
" Only a few were higher, and one was Rush Limbaugh's audience."
I do believe that Rush's audience must be high.
Meant "his audience"
They asked three questions:
1. which party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives;
2. the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State ;
3. the name of the current president of Russia.
Anyone who answered those three questions right was deemed "knowledgeable."
Otherwise, the percentage of college grads who watch the O'Reilly Factor is equal to the national average. Not bottom feeders, but not rocket scientists either.
We just witnessed an implosion. Thanks for the laugh. Stick that dangling eyeball back in your tiny skull.
...or brighter. At least Keith Olberman is smart... and funny.
This comment section has become a debate about the worth of two popular commentators. Who cares which one is the most popular of the twos? The issue is that O'Reilly stupidedly declared that a 10-year-old abductee made the willing choice of staying with his abductor because he liked it. First of all, O'Reilly never talked with the boy, and has no evidence of any sort to back up his statement. Second, if O'Reilly instinctively sensed that the boy decided to stay with his captor because it was a better life than what he had at home, the boy shouldn't be put down for it; on the contrary, O'Reilly should be concerned about the extreme confusion and pain the 10-year old must have been in then and would still be in now. All O'Reilly's comment shows is how much of a total, cold and dumb jerk O'Reilly truly is. It has nothing to do with how much more popular he is to another commentator. I feel for that boy who is being portrayed as a willing victim after the ordeal he just endured. Good going, Mr. O'Reilly -- real big of you.
He made it, he should have to back it up.
However, there are questions to be asked.
The kid asked questions on the web site his parents set up looking for leads. He asked "how long are you going to look for your son?" He used the name Shawn Devlin. He also went to a police station to report his bike was stolen, yet said nothing about his abduction. Police stopped him for riding his bike in the dark and he lied about his birthdate by 10 days.
If O'Rielly were smart , he could diffuse the whole problem by interviewing some psychologists on the whole topic.
He was a kid. Abducted by an ADULT. You have no idea what threats and emotional manipulation, or humiliation had conditioned this kid. He was the VICTIM, he deserves the benifit of the doubt. I mean look how easy it was for the rightwing screechmonkeys to brainwash YOU and you are, supposed to be an adult
One of the better shows on cable news TV these days.
Based on the posts I've read so far, the Olberman/O'Reilly feud is in the minds of the posters herein.
What about the issue of O'Reilly's outrageous comments regarding the abducted children? His were the kind of statements that one would expect from the like of Ann Coulter, who gets plenty of air-time as a guest, but does not have her own show on a major cable network. O'Reilly might as well have said Jon-Benet Ramsey was asking for it.
I think Olberman, in his fashion, rightfully puts responsibility on the Facts Lose Network for the content they publish. Where is the outrage? When are they going to fire this guy?
Bill-O is his own worst enemy, not to mention the record holder for 'Worst Person In The World' dishonors. Keep hitting him where it hurts, Keith!!!
how the neo-con trolls attack KO:
1) His viewing audience is smaller than BO 2) He "always" attacking BO 3) His show needs BO to exist 4) He's a liberal pretending to be politically neutral 5) He's boring 6) He's always attacking Bush
Yet, not ONE troll had anything to say about BO's disgusting remarks concerning the boy, Hornbeck. I guess when your hero is indefensible, all you can do is attack the messenger.
Now, that's pretty pathetic.
You are a true warrior and patriot in the dumbing down of America.
Sometimes, me thinks the Republican faithful exist in an alternate universe; one where opinions carry as much weight as concrete facts. "The braying of a jackass, full of wind and fury and signifying nothing" pretty much sums up the secret of BOR's success.
He now admits he violated FISA:
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Truth and Ratings often do not go hand in hand. Ratings--that is, the gauge of how many people watch a television or radio show, is a fickle thing, and it almost never has anything to do with truth. At least not anymore. Maybe when Cronkite or Murrow was reporting the news, people tuned in to hear the straight story, but nowadays newscasts are trying to compete with fictional markets like American Idol, or 24, or Dancing With The Stars, which BO always has a problem with. I think a big reason why BO's ratings are so high has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with people wanting to watch tabloid style television where the host might blow his lid and start screaming at people. Bill's a volatile host, and any sort of thing could set him off, and I think people watch him for the same reason they watched Jerry Springer. If truth, or facts were the litmus test for a succesful show then Congressional Hearings on C-Span would wipe the floor with BO, and KO, and Hannity combined, because you don't get any reportage or interpretations by watching that show, you just get the "facts." I also happen to think that Al Franken's show dealt mostly with facts, and pored over legislation, and things of that nature, but his show is/was? as boring as hell. I know I'm gonna get slammed for slamming Al, but let's be honest--his show puts you to sleep. So does Sam Seder's show. The only one worth listening to is Randi Rhodes, and that's (again) because she gets people on the air with whom she disagrees and shouts at them, and it makes for great radio. The difference with Olbermann is that he appeals to a certain stripe of American that likes to hear reasoned debate, and calm, collected analysis. Olbermann doesn't scream and flail, and threaten to boot people off his show, and there's a sort of intellectual left-wing segment of society that enjoys his calm demeanor.
Bill O'Reilly's comments about the young kidnap victim are abusive and ignorant and for some reason he still has a job. This man doesn't deserve to be on the air and the fact that he is speaks volumes about the low quality of TV Broadcasting Americans are willing to pay for. Whose mind is being controlled now. Will someone please put Bill Reilly out of his misery--he is an SS officer incarnated!
The Pope, or The Troops, you can pretty much say whatever the hell you want in the media. That's a bit hypocritical but I think it's true, when you look at the reaction to Bill Maher's statements, or Sinead O'Connor's actions. I think if Sinead ever mounted a comeback and wanted to go on SNL, they'd STILL banish her. Why is it that you can get fired for attacking "conservative" icons, or at least the way they're spun as conservative icons, but you can't get fired for attacking a potentially emotionally disturbed kid from Missouri?
He has more integrity that your whole midiamatters. Thank God for people who say what they mean not what that hand up their butt wants them to say.
and I'm interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
And name of Billy O'falafel in the same sentence? Please seek the help of a mental health professional immediatly
about the Shawn Hornbeck ordeal is NOT him stating the truth or "standing up to the man" as Carlieb (sp) was stating yesterday. It's just insensitive, cruel, ignorant tripe.
He obviously knows nothing about the complex psychology of child abduction. He can't even discern the boundries of his own behavior in being an alleged sexual harasser. You O'Reilly apologists need to get a grip.
It's time we had commentators taking on the major right wing spin puppets of tv and radioland as well as the puppeteers manipulating them! I congratulate both KO and MediaMatters for helping (to) out these goons!
I dont understand why olbermann is still on the air.His ratings are low and he is stalking BOR.Maybe he should go back to hiding ubder his desk.
Hiding under his desk i mean.
You should have stayed with the first comment. It made more sense.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person on Earth.
You can talk abou how KO's ratings are up, but the fact is everynight he is second ,third or fourth place.Not one time has KO ever, i mean ever beat BOR in the key demo for the hour.How long has KO been on the air??? So why is KO still on the air??
O'Reilly is SCUM! Like all 11yo kids want to be abducted..and basically USED as a SEX slave at the whim of this pedophile...it's sick! Maybe O'Reilly is revealing his own wishes when he was 11yo..? He doe NOT deserve to be on TV period!