Olbermann awards O'Reilly the "Worst Person" "runner-up" for comments about Spain, UPS
March 31, 2009 9:58 pm ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Isn't O' getting a little tedious here?
And if he claims one more time that BOR defends rapists and kidnappers, or that his reporters "stalked" a woman who actually spoke with them, I'm gonna scream-- this from a guy who repeatedly called good-looking 20-year old girls sl**s.
(MMFA won't let me quote Olbermann...)
p.s. reference:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/11/olbermann-gets-worst-pers_n_31456.html
Plus Somerby, et. al.
"...this from a guy who repeatedly called good-looking 20-year old girls sl**s."
As your link shows, that's a lie.
O'Racist has defended pedophiles....on many accounts. That's a fact and it's on the record. O'Racist took the side of pedophiles that were caught in "to catch a predator"...he took the side of the pedophiles because NBC caught these creeps. On another account he claimed that Sean Hornbeck enjoyed his situtation...which was kidnapped and raped by an adult. These are the facts.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170009?f=s_search
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702060010?f=s_search
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702120007?f=s_search
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608040004?f=s_search
Reality once again evades faillibrul. No surprise what-so-ever.
BTW, you forgot to screech, "he was taken of context!!!"
Followed by, "his ratings are super awesome!!!!!"
You're welcome for the help.
Why are they bogus? What is wrong with them? I mean, since they either have a full transcript, or that handy video attached to them, what can you say is wrong with them or how can you call them bogus? I'm interested, because you asked for this, you got them, and then made no argument against them.
My arguments are almost always backed up by facts, unlike your own.
O'REILLY: The kidnapping of those two boys should be front-page news in your house if you have kids. I actually hope I'm wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long.
What is so terribly wrong with that statement, as always you are brainwashed about O'Reilly and will grasp at anything to criticize him.
O'Racist went on record and stated pedophiles were set-up and entrappedby NBC and Chris Hanswn. O'Racist went on record and stated that a victim enjoyed being raped and kidnapped by a pedophile. O'Racist defends pedophilia. Fact.
But I know you libs don't believe in punishment for pedophiles.
Lying troll.
So by your insane efforts at reasoning, you must be FOR sexual harassment because O'Reilly has perpetrated that.
Yes, yes. You're absolutely right. We liberals (and our judges) just love pedophiles. After we exonerate them of their charges, we have them over for tea and dumplings.
Don't be a troll.
I'm not really following this nonsense, but from what little I'm seeing of it, is UPS an element of the story because they withdrew sponsorship from o'reilly's Fox show?
If so, then that strikes me on two fronts:
One, it sure is power, the power of the sponsor, isn't it? And that power descends to us, as the lifeblood of all businesses, our consumer dollars being the lifeblood of their revenues and profits.
And two, it sure is a dose of this guy o'reilly's own medicine, isn't it? I mean, isn't this the Boycott Guy, who wants to boycott France and Spain and who knows who else that he opposes, for whatever craven reason?
I mean, if UPS withdrew their sponsorship from his show, aren't they simply boycotting him?
Again, I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly, because I don't really care.
But if if the UPS element to the story is as I just described it, then it's kind of funny, and interesting too: the power of the boycott, and how the Great Boycotter got a taste of his own medicine!
And if I'm misunderstanding the UPS element to the story, then good, because as I said I really don't care.
Olbermann will never be credible as long as he keeps attacking OReilly. 4 of 5 nights Bill O is on the list of 'Worst person' and occasionally will dedicate a full segment on attacking him just as he did earlier this week as his #1 story after Bill made a big deal about his show being #1 for 100 months.
KO is obsessed with this guy and it's getting old. He makes himself look jealous and whiney. When will he move on and report real news. He is even still hung up on Bush with his segment 'Still Bushed.'
KO has the ability to be relevant but I don't think it will happen until he stops trying to elicit comments from Bill. He's wasting his time. Please stop and be relevant. Grow up and quit acting like a buffoon.
And try voting next time, maybe people will take you more seriously.
Olbermann's 'obsession' with O'Reilly is not poorly placed. O'Reilly represents an inability amoungst his viewers to see the world in any measure of sophistication. Part of his appeal is that he boils everything down to black or white, up or down, or good or bad. At the same time, he's a strong user of peer pressure. He says "C'mon" a lot when he's speaking with someone who disagrees with him in order to diminish the worth of their position in, at least, the eyes of his viewers. His "Talking Points Memos" aren't news: they're instructions.
Those of you that would say that O'Reilly's a tool of the Republicans, or some conservative bunch mixed in with Fox News, should remember that O'Reilly's ego takes primacy of place. And his ego dictates that his position is the right one. His ego is supported only by the fact that people listen to him. That's why he became a journalist.
Pay attention to his commentaries. Pay attention to his interviews. Watch the Glick video. Watch the Geraldo-and-immigration video. Everything he says is designed create a sense that if you don't agree with him, you're an idiot AND you're a loser. Now, the design is poor, granted. However, his simplified version of the day's events attracts an audience that is simple enough to fall victim to his peer pressure.
Remember the kids at school that hung around with the bully for reasons you couldn't understand? That's Bill O'Reilly's audience. Someone like Olbermann should be around to knock O'Reilly on his ass and let the kids that hang around with him know that he's not so tough or smart as he says.
That being said, Olbermann's performance here is still something with which anyone could (and maybe should) take issue. Olbermann, along with anyone else that did, was right to point out the ethical mess that is O'Reilly's involvement in the Foundation. However, the line between 'keeping the pressure on' and 'milking it' is a fine one.
Olbermann's donation to the foundation should never have made it out of his mouth on air. It smacks of abuse. Olbermann came dangerously close to sounding like he was using a donation to a rape-victim foundation to further his own feud with O'Reilly. It was unprofessional at least and he should clear the air and apologize for it.
O'Reilly wouldn't.
It's nice to have someone state their points without attacking.
I do agree with several of your points. I do agree that he does fly off the handle should you not agree with his pov. That drives me nuts sometimes and feels it takes away from the interview or debate. That said, I really like BO and I like his passion. It's absurd to think anyone would agree 100% with someone like him. I don't trust anyone who thinks their favorite media personality or political affiliation is infallible. That's intellectual dishonesty.
Great point about KO's disclosure of his charity donation. Completely tasteless. I hope his donation was an honest one and not driven for his own personal gain, otherwise, why boast about it? I'd like to know when he made his donation.
This isn't even a debate, KO vs. BO or liberals vs. Fox news. It's become nonsense, namecalling, lying, strawman tactics, and ad hominems. On both sides.
Hang on.
Bill O'Reilly's passion is for himself. It's not for truth or justice or fairness. That's why he flaunts his ratings.
Remember, I said he represents an inability amongst his audience to see the world through anything but the most simple of lenses. He ignores context, prevents debate and maintains simplicity at the cost of truth. He attracts a less-sophisticated audience and has to maintain that simplicity, if not focus it, in order to keep them around. He represents an inherent problem of the mass media: The people will consume that which makes them feel better rather than that which will be better for them. Today's world cannot allow for the kind of ignorance off of which he thrives. If he's going to make a (good) living off of encouraging stupidity, then he'd better be prepared for people like Olbermann heaping the injustice of it on him.
Also, Olbermann's constant picking at O'Reilly is not that with which I took issue. I took issue with his latest performance. It was a sloppy play that could have caused collateral damage and better should be expected of him.