Olbermann: O'Reilly's "real anger and real fear rests in the dread that someone is quoting him correctly"
During the April 25 broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for America during the April 23 edition of his television show. Olbermann stated: "Bill O'Reilly has issued another fatwa -- this time against the journalism watchdog website, Media Matters, proving, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that he has a flow chart and the access to the color red." Olbermann observed: "Nothing Media Matters has ever posted about Bill O'Reilly has failed to withstand independent vetting -- not a missing comma, not a missing context." He added: "In an age in which we rightly fear being inaccurately quoted or misinterpreted, it would seem that Bill-O's real anger and real fear rests in the dread that someone is quoting him correctly."
During his show, Olbermann displayed the flow chart O'Reilly had used on his April 23 show -- as Media Matters documented -- to accuse progressive financier George Soros of, in O'Reilly's words, influencing "the political process" by funneling money through his "complicated political operation" to Media Matters, which then "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people." Olbermann asserted: "In the Fox News 'Noise' investigation, Media Matters is some sort of major cog in an evil liberal spider web -- one of his guests [conservative talk radio host Monica Crowley] describing it as part of 'an incredibly well-oiled machine.' " In fact, as previously noted, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization. If Soros wanted to fund Media Matters, he or Open Society Institute (OSI) -- a grant-making foundation he established in 1993 to conduct his philanthropy -- could simply write a check directly to Media Matters, as he and OSI do with numerous entities.
Olbermann also noted O'Reilly's April 13 appearance on the Irish network RTÉ One's The Late Late Show, stating: "Thanks to Media Matters, you can watch Mr. Orally confronted last Friday the 13th by his own words during an interview on Irish television." Olbermann then played a video clip of the conversation taken from the Media Matters website, which showed Late Late Show host Pat Kenny asking O'Reilly about his reference to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqis as "prehistoric." O'Reilly replied that he "d[idn't] remember saying that" and challenged Kenny about where he had gleaned that information. When Kenny answered that he "got it off the website," O'Reilly responded by calling Media Matters "an assassination website." He later claimed that Media Matters frequently takes him "out of context." As Olbermann noted, however, Media Matters documented O'Reilly's references to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric."
Also, despite numerous requests to appear on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly still has not extended an invitation to Media Matters President and CEO David Brock to discuss O'Reilly's accusations and ad hominem attacks, nor has O'Reilly offered any evidence for his claims that Media Matters has "distorted comments" made by him or any other media figure.
From the April 25 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: In one of the most memorable of the Monty Python sketches, an unusually intense [late actor] Graham Chapman, replete with a pointer, an easel, and a vivid panel with three brightly colored bars, fairly screams at the audience: "In this graph, this column represents 23 percent of the population. This column represents 28 percent of the population, and this column represents 43 percent of the population." To which [actor] Michael Palin replies, "Telling figures, indeed."
Our third story on the Countdown: Bill-O meets Python.
Bill O'Reilly has issued another fatwa -- this time against the journalism watchdog website, Media Matters, proving, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that he has a flow chart and the access to the color red.
"In this graph, this arrow represents 23 percent of the population. This arrow represents 28 percent of the population, and this arrow represents 43 percent of the population."
And they all prove somehow that liberal billionaire investor George Soros digs into his pockets to fund groups that eventually make the mainstream media do stories that make O'Reilly look dumb.
In the Fox News "Noise" investigation, Media Matters is some sort of major cog in an evil liberal spider web -- one of his guests describing it as part of "an incredibly well-oiled machine."
You want to see oily? Thanks to Media Matters, you can watch Mr. Orally confronted last Friday the 13th by his own words during an interview on Irish television.
[begin video clip]
KENNY: Yeah. Some of the things that you've said and -- either on your radio show or on your TV show: "Advice to the poor, it's hard to do it, because you got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to do that?"
O'REILLY: Well, where did you get that, because I don't remember saying that?
KENNY: That's Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly; 11/06/2004.
O'REILLY: By whom? Who put that out?
KENNY: Well, we got it off the website.
O'REILLY: OK. The website you got it off is called Media Matters, which is an assassination website.
[...]
KENNY: But you do have views on, say, the Iraqi people. Did you say that thing about the Iraqi people -- that they're "prehistoric"?
O'REILLY: No, I don't remember saying that at all.
[end video clip]
OLBERMANN: I do. Being the mainstream media tools that we are, we scrolled around Media Matters and found the full quote about the poor from his radio show dated June 11, 2004. It is in full: "It's hard to do it, because you got to look people in the eye and tell them that they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period."
Ah, but what about his calling the Iraqis "prehistoric"? Remember, Alberto Gonzales O'Reilly did not recall saying that. That's OK. Media Matters has a tape.
O'REILLY [audio clip]: When 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it. You're not going to win. You're not going to win.
And I don't have any respect, by and large, for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
OLBERMANN: Did you say excuses? Yes, we have one of those, too.
When word got out about his embarrassing Irish TV interview, here's what the big giant head had to say about it in his April 19th column: "When I asked the man why he was quoting from an obviously biased source, he blinked nervously and put down the cards."
Once again, here is the interview. Do you see any nervous blinking on the part of the host? Maybe some Bill-O projecting. It doesn't look like any blinking.
Nothing Media Matters has ever posted about Bill O'Reilly has failed to withstand independent vetting -- not a missing comma, not a missing context.
In an age in which we rightly fear being inaccurately quoted or misinterpreted, it would seem that Bill-O's real anger and real fear rests in the dread that someone is quoting him correctly -- someone besides Andrea Mackris.
two words: absolutely correct.
Three words: Fa, Bu, Lous.
four words: out f'ing stand ing.
The Falafel Guy FATWA
I highly recommend using this in everyday conversation, and as much as possible.
Good idea. I can't remember how many times, just today alone, I've used that phrase in my normal conversations - thousands.
Yeah. Kinda just rolls off the tongue.
I disagree. One of the things I like about Media Matters is that it doesn't stoop of using cute nicknames for its targets. I'd have a lot less respect for it if it was covered with "Bill-O," "Coultergeist," and the like.
I'm not talking about reporting, I'm talking about regular conversation. There is a time & place for such cuteness.
What is a FATWA?
Fatwa -- noun, an overweight guy in Washington State.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fatwa
"absolutely correct."
I second that observation... O'Reilly's underlying problem, aside from being crazy, is that he exists in an insulated world in which he controls the content of his stage-managed show and the microphones (which he is prone to turn off on guests who get the better of him). Limbaugh is the same way... any intelligent, articulate liberal would clean their clocks in a real debate. O'Reilly is a frightened little boy whose insecurity is showing because he is being revealed, through his own words, for the biased lightweight he actually is. Just like Limbaugh... Ever notice the pose of superior intellect that Limbaugh and O'Reilly share? What a joke!
kieth please call orielly out and debate him and if he refuses tell us about it. u are so correct he hates it when the truth of his lies are exposed
he is a coward .tell him u will pick a neutral station and debate him or limfat .they hide behind control of the mic .they are afraid to venture out and debate.at least hannity debated sharpton.
orielly never says what the context was he just says he was taken out of context
ALSO HE REFUSES TO HAVE DAVID BROCK OR ANYONE FROM MM ON HIS PROGRAM
THATS A COWARD .DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WILL TELL ME WHY
hate to burst your bubble, but it is MMFA who refuses to present themselves to him.
here's a thought.. IF that is true, who would fault MMFA? O'Lielly's show is a sham and a disgrace... like the host...
franken had a standing invitation to o'reilly, to debate on either show. i think bill was afraid he'd get spanked again like he did at that book convention.
Come on. Even Molly Ivins did a better job than Stuart Smalley in that double-team effort against O'Reilly, and Ivins was so drunk she was drooling.
That is completely disgusting, and disrespectful. Molly Ivins died of cancer , show some respect you disgrace.
Even O'Reilly demonstrated significant respect for Ivins that day. He knew he couldn't carry her purse.
Molly Ivins had more class, style, wit, and respectability on her worst day than O'Reilly has ever had. And more than you could even imagine having.
ok kevin, then why was o'reilly afraid of franken. wouldn't he love the chance to show him up? or brock? why won't o'reilly have him on the show and say you lied here or here about me? oh, i forgot. o'reilly can't do that.
I'm not sure if it says more about the pathetic nature of O'Reilly or the absolute greatness of Ivans if the champion of the Right can't hold his own in a verbal spar against a drunken writer.
I'll say it says more about Ivans. She's f'n incredible.
Do you have any facts to back up she was drunk? Did you know that Molly Ivins is dead and she is not here to defend herself from slime like you?
KEVIN…Frankness Unfortunately Collects Knowledge. YOU, Attempted to Show Simply. However, Only your Low self-Esteem could demonstrate the inane manner by which you employed…such mindlessness crudely. Pray in the future, your cerebral blockage does not migrate any lower. Then future attempts at your “personal” cogitation will result in a lower form of frankness. The outcome will be [posteriorly] fetid and deemed as having come from its source.
Addendum: To alleviate your ongoing maledictions, sit upon a bituminous slag heap. Any further remonstrations will be quenched conflagrantly.
Cute, didn't somebody early on point out how the extreme leftists uses cutesy little phrases and name-calling, but fail to make credible points? Thank you for confirming that claim.
Smalley and Err America - two failures that are made for each other.
Genghiz and his keyboard. A moron and his best friend.
My comment on Smalley and Err America was based on facts and the twin failures of the host and the medium.Your comment about me is your opinion (irrelevant though it might be). Facts trump opinions. Get used to it.
Care to show us these "facts" again?
I must have missed them.
Smalley was sacked by Err America and the radio channel filed for bankruptcy. I guess these are successes in your book.Here are a couple of somber facts: Smally was considered to be a joke by even the far left fringe on Democratic Underground. When the fringe elements at DU consider you to be a joke, well....you're truly a joke. The fact that Err America couldn't last in the free market speaks volumes about the power of leftist ideology in the marketplace of ideas.
Error No. 1: Franken wasn't "sacked". He quit his show to run for office in Minnesota.
Error No. 2: DU thinks the whole Republican party is a joke. By your standards, that makes the whole Republican party a joke.
Error No. 3: Air America is still on the air, every day, 24 hours a day. But moreover, market performance does not reflect ideological worth. If that was true, we'd have Sanjaya for president.
So you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You'd do well over at Powerline. Try it.
ed schultz has done very nicely in some markets. so it's hardly a failure of liberal talk. and if he and others were on the same amount of stations as some of the conservatives.... in a lot of areas, stations that carry o'reilly, hannity and others get fractional ratings.
Your OPINION, not fact, was based in that dark, dank, place in your anatomy you usually keep your head. Its hard to call Franken a failure when he has won five emmys, co-written a hugely succesful movie, When a Man Loves a Woman, has written several hugely successful books and has more talent on a bad day than Orielly could ever dream of. The main failure I have seen is your apparant inability to tell the difference between a fact and a vacuous, baseless assertion. I suggest you give reality a try. Take it for a spin around the block there is always the chance you might enjoy it once you learn to recognize it.
My Lord, do you guys live on this website, or is it just the last thing you do at night and the first thing you do in the morning? Pathetic! I hope they are paying you well. You drone on and on recycling the same diarrhea in every way imaginable, and attack like rabid wolves anybody who dares to disagree with you. Your argument might be somewhat credible except for the fact that you put out nothing but insults and childish rantings. Try getting away from this hate-filled website and out into the sunshine. Sunshine is good for the soul, no matter how black your soul may be.
Fact is: Liberal talk does not succeed. Why is that so hard to admit?
BTW, your hate-filled posts are exactly why Liberal talk does not succeed. Who the hell wants to listen to that all day?
Wait, wait, wait!
Has MMFA misquoted or misrepresented BO in anyway?
Have you ever heard O'Reilly cite specific examples in which he can unequivocally show that he actually was misquoted or the context of his words grossly distorted in meaning? Uhhh... no.
Aside from the many other bad things O'Reilly represents, he is a coward. He hides behind a stage set and microphone, actually a bully pulpit, and spews misinformation, distortions, lies and acrimony towards liberals on a daily basis. But when taken to task he whines like the coward he is and attempts to wiggle out of his dilema with even more distortions and lies. He will even deny saying things he actually said! Be a man, Bill... I thought you were a warrior. You act like a spoiled momma's boy who thinks he's "special".
LOL, prove it bozo :)
Based on the evidence, DR's bubble is rock solid.
David Brock has requested an appearance at least 3 times but O'Reilly has yet to accept:
May 19th, 2004
August 9th, 2004
Dec. 16th, 2004
Granted, these letters date back to 2004, so the situation may have changed. Do you have a source to support your assertion?
"hate to burst your bubble, but it is MMFA who refuses to present themselves to him."
-----
Sometimes it's so easy to prove my handle that I wonder why there are any wingnuts left to refute.
Here's MMfA's comment on the very page Doughpro apparently hasn't read or couldn't understand:
"Also, despite numerous requests to appear on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly still has not extended an invitation to Media Matters President and CEO David Brock to discuss O'Reilly's accusations and ad hominem attacks, nor has O'Reilly offered any evidence for his claims that Media Matters has 'distorted comments' made by him or any other media figure."
Perhaps I should change my handle to "Pity For Illiterate Wingnuts."
You ass, do you believe everything you read? Have you ever watched O'Reilly? Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
MMFA ranthreads here saying that David Brock or someone from MMFA wanted to come on BO's show and present their side of things it was BO who refused. That was during the time that BO would not even speak MMFA's name. He just referred to them as those left wing slime merchants.
DOUGHPRO:
I believe that Brock and others have extended an OPEN INVITATION to O'Reilly to appear on HIS show at any time, any topic. It is O'Reilly who refuses to expose himself to factual rebuttal and challenge.
He, who often accuses OTHERS of "hiding under their desks" instead of "facing" him, has a list of people, including Brock, whom O'REILLY refuses to face.
O'Reilly is serially revealed as both a propagandist and a coward.
Maybe they are both guilty of the same crime. Maybe neither wants to subject themselves to the close scrutiny of the other. You know that no matter where they sat across the table from each other, you would still have two versions of whatever occurred. Kind of like interpreting the Bible.
Olbermann would never have the courage to debate O'Reilly. Olbermann is a dishonest coward and he has already seen how O'Reilly turned Stuart Smalley and that midget from the New York Times into mincemeat.
your boy is the one who cuts off the mic of anyone disagreeing with him.
O'Reilly is not my boy. However, at least he has the courage and integrity to have opposing viewpoints on his show. Olbermann only has guests who reinforce his anti-American and anti-troops viewpoints. Olbermann is a moral coward.
You have some mistakes in your post; I'll correct it for you:
Olbermann only has guests who reinforce [American values]. Olbermann is a great American].
LOLOLOL... Kevin, please don't use "courage" and "integrity' in the same sentence with "Bill O'Reilly." I'm having trouble keeping from laughing too hard and going into back spasm. Anyone who ascribes the qualities you cite to Bill O'Reilly must not be watching the same Bill O'Reilly who appears nightly on FOX News. Maybe you should call your cable guy...
Anti American view points?Could you be very specific in telling us how Keith Olbermann is Anti-American? If you have links to reputable sites that would be very helpful for your case.
You mean like when O'Reilly said that Americans slaughtered Nazis during WWII at Malmedy? Or when he invited terrorists to bomb San Francisco? Or when he cut the mic on the son of a man who died in 9/11 because O'Reilly didn't like what the son was saying about his own father's political views?
Those American values?
Again. You are one of those people not bright enough to understand the distinction between who we ARE as a country and what some administrations DO. Critising what is done is not criticising who we are. Those with something above a room temperature IQ understand this. Bush is NOT America, neither is conservatism. Critising them is not anti American. I know idiots think that supporting our country has something to do with chanting its name. Patriots understand it has to do with assuring each administration uphold the values we associate with our country. I fear concepts like this will continue to be beyond your capacity for understanding.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that hating the behavior is what we do. We hate what Bush has done. We hate the way the Republicans and the neo-cons are damaging our nation and harming our children's future. It's not an irrelevant personal hatred that makes us cringe when we hear about the latest misdeeds of the right wing. That would be the way that the right wingers act, with personal attacks and personal hatred.
Hey, guys, I'm going to be Kevin for a moment:
At least Bill O'Reilly works for a fair and balanced network. And he doesn't worship bin Laden like Keith. I know this for a fact. Keith has a bin Laden shrine in his bedroom. And Keith builds IEDs and sends them to Iraq. Every liberal who ever lived sends Keith their money so he can build those bombs. BOR, W, Chuck Norris, and Cheney are going to stop him though. Those four are America's greatest, bestest, bravest fighters ever. They're warriors. Kev out.
Classic Holly
So you were in Keith's bedroom too?
Are you going to start a website also saying how lousy of a lover he is?
I have newfound respect for you after that one...
Oh, yes, Mr. Helmet has a funny bone, but Mr. Helmet, are you wondering if I or Holly-as-Kev was in Keith's bedroom? I hope it's the former, since Keith is dreamy and I wouldn't want to creep out dreamy Keith by being in my Kev persona and doing the BOR superiority dance.
Well, now you're talking some sense...
Do you actually know the names of the people you attack?
"Do you actually know the names of the people you attack?"
-----
He doesn't even know the content of the debate they had in which O'Reilly was soundly outclassed. How could he know the names of those who defeated O'Reilly?
Wrong, actually it would be quite entertaining. BO likes to physically intimidate his opponents since he's such a big guy, but Keith is even bigger. There won't be that element in the debate, what BO did in Krugman debate was shameful. Bill acted like a schoolyard bully, screaming and pointing in the face of the much smaller Krugman, he also did that with Jeremy Glick. I wanted to beat Billl up on both those occassions and even though I'm only a 5'3 little women I'd go toe to toe with him when he started acting like that.
Lynn
That is very true, I never understood how tall BO was until I saw him next to Bush in an interview. I am sure he is a very mean person upclose.
Lynn, this is off-topic, but I must confess that I always enjoy your comments.
Back on topic: I suspect that BOR, a traditional bully, does use his size, bombast, and bluster to intimidate. And if BOR ever ended up in a dark cyber-cerebral alley with you, I wouldn't want to be the one to count his cyber-cerebral pieces.
Franken ate his lunch YOU are a dishonest moron
I think O'Reilly's real fear is that more and more of his followers/fans will learn about him sexually harrassing Andrea Mackris. He's worried people will see him for the "culture warrior" fraud he really is.
Bill has even added newspapers to his personal media black list for simply pointing out the Mackris incident. That's why he goes on about Media Matters or others making their "personal attacks" against him. He turned Olberman into his media arch-enemy when Olberman dared to mention Bill sexually harrassing, then paying off, Andrea Mackris.
I don't think they care. His lemmings usually tune that stuff out, pretend it never happened or blame it on the alleged 'librul media.'
I suspect that fans of his (you know, the ones ratings show are averaging age 70ish) think that harrassng women IS part of our culture. Such fans are still pissed off about that women's lib thing.
As far as I am concerned O'Reilly is a criminal.
Why is there no post yet saying why is this here?
It appears as though yours is the first.
Thanks for your restraint. It is appreciated.
Tommy, you're slacking !
King, why is this here?
Thanks Pete. I was fishing for that. I thought the usual suspects would show up with the usual complaints so I asked why is there no one saying why is this here.
I'm sorry if anyone thought I was asking why is this here? I wasn't
We all know why this is here!
Actually, MMFA and Olbermann promote each other and, in fact, support each other's endeavors - primarily being combatting JA's like O'Reilly. There are no by-laws or rules that say MMFA cannot promote a fellow fighter of moronic misinformation... just as there are no rules saying that Soros can give money to whomever he so pleases. Just my piece.
Well done by Olbermann
I watched this last night on Countdown, and allthough I still have "issues" with MMFA and Olbermann being plugged by them I was very greatful that Olbermann stuck it to OLielly last night. The facts are the facts and o'reilly can not even hide and go to Ireland to spout his lies. What he calls a "smear" web site, I call an Important part of how we monitor our media and democracy in the Bush years. I am so greatful to MFMA for exposing haters and helping eliminate hate like Imus.
Well Said Dorris:
Except I don't have the issues against Media Matters you seem to have. If I win the lottery and if O'Really is correct, I'm sending my winnings to Soros so that Media Matters can Establish its own TV Show to expose people on the more powerful medium.
Tom ... Worrier said WHY? is there no comment yet.
DoughBoy ... Why are you changing the subject to Rudy? Are you really and truly the O'Really Fan I think you are? If so, how embarrasing is that for you.
Just pointing out Olbermann's tastelessness. The two happened to be on the same segment.
Also, I find it interesting that OReilly seems to cover a lot of issues of the day, not just the democrat party's inefficiencies and brain deficits, whereas OB seems to concentrate a spew of venom mainly to Republicans and OReilly. Prove me wrong?
You throw around nonsense like "brain deficits" and expect someone to take it seriously? Democrats, since taking control of the Congress, got down to the business of the people right away, and are delivering. What's to take issue with?
Olbermann carries a torch for certain issues. If a Democrat steps over the line on free speech, racism, or goes corrupt, Olbermann will be far more likely to call 'em out on it than any of the Republican teet-suckers that dominate the media have over the last six years.
For more than half a decade, we watched as the Republican party took control of all three branches of the government. And what did we hear from conservative talking heads? That Democrats were destroying America.
So before you take on Olbermann with your substance-lacking attacks on Democrats and a baseless charge of bias, how about cleaning up your own house?
Tell me what the Dems have delivered. All I have seen so far are failed attempts to bully a president into passing a worthless spending bill that tells the terrorists to lay low until this day when those irritating troops will finally be gone, playing footsie with a known dictator, constant screaming for certain individuals to testify under oath, chomping at the bit when one of their own suffered a stroke, attempts to pass off global warming theory as a consensus, and don't even get me going on the raising the minimum wage lies. As soon as they planted their asses in after the election they immediately started chaos and have done nothing but work on 2008 elections. And they have the nerve to say the American people have spoken and this is what they want. Ask me what I want, please. What a waste of my tax money.
Where is their outrage over (alleged) corruption in the case of Jefferson and the 90k in his freezer, or the Clinton suckass who stole documents from the National Archives? Didn't think so. They pander to their base, and you eat it up. Look up the words liberal and conservative, they feed off each other. They close session, pat each other on the back and leave us all guessing what their real intentions are.
That's all a different subject, DoughPro. By the way, do you mind if I just call you Doughp? Great, thanks...
None of your questions or assertions above, nor answers to them, would do anything to advance your assertion of O'Reilly being more centrist in his "reporting" than Olberman.
I suspect you derailed because you ran out of track. Nice job, Doughp.
Call me anything you want. I am able to take anything you dish out. I don't whine about being called names, I usually leave that to the weenie liberals.
Yeah, right.
You leave the name calling to the "weenie" liberals.
Because we're hot dogs? Because we're like small dachshunds?
Or because you clearly participate in name calling when can no longer debunk our posts!
We get enough of it from moron conservatives like you.
Doughpro, I'm not going to mess with you, man. Not if you have the capacity to call me "a weenie." Oh, no. I know a bad hombre when I see one.
"Doughp." Neon, you are one funny cat!
I think I will go on over to washingtonpost.com for some intelligent debate. It gets a little tiresome dealing with the juvenile mentality that blocks any chance of reason breaking through. You know what they say, if you aren't a liberal in your twenties you don't have a heart, if you aren't a conservative in your forties then you don't have a brain. I find great joy in knowing that when you all do finally get some brains that you will have to deal with weenies (slang for a weak or ineffectual individual) just like yourselves. No wonder nobody pays any attention MMFA. It really is a worthless source.
The worse you can come up with on the Dems is Jefferson and some Clinton aide taking documents? That's pathetic. If I started listing the corruption of the GOP over, say, the last year, it would dwarf your little list. In fact, there is so much of it, that individual instances get lost in the pile. Delay, Libby, Gonzalez, Ney, Cunningham blah blah blah. It just goes on.
To call opposition to the 27% approval rating "decider" by the people's elected representatives bullying is so through-the-looking-glass laughable as to be entirely unworthy of response - but I couldn't resist.
"Just pointing out Olbermann's tastelessness."
-----
Then I guess I should "just point out" that you are seeing things that don't exist.
"OReilly seems to cover a lot of issues of the day"
Oh, please...! O'Reilly tends to cgive extended coverage to sensational tabloid type stories while giving little serious analysis to important issues that actually affect us. While Olbermann does include silly, fluff segements on his show, he actually provides excellent coverage, analysis and discussion of serous issues... and he lets other people talk. O'Reilly tends to just tell you what he thinks and that's the way it is... end of story. True, Olbermann does occasionally give a sermon, but on most important stories he asks good questions and then steps back out of the way and lets others go with it. On the other hand the O'Reilly show is all about.... well, O'Reilly.
Ahem!
What is your problem with sermons - at appropriate moments?
At the "holy roller" church where I voluntarily attended a few dozen services over the years from age 7 to about 13, the sermons were the highlight. Not the occasional "tongues", nor the riotous renditions of rousing hymns - but the sermons!
I usually agree with the content of Keith Olbermann's homilies... but, as in church, some of them go on too long.
...I find it interesting that OReilly seems to cover a lot of issues of the day, not just the democrat party's inefficiencies and brain deficits, whereas OB seems to concentrate a spew of venom mainly to Republicans and OReilly. Prove me wrong?
- doughpro1604643
Hmmmm. O'Reilly: obscure judges who've ticked him off, generally by applying the law according to legal principles, Alec Baldwin's kid, Rosie O'Donnell is treasonous & stupid, gangsta rap lyrics, newspapers who've done him wrong.
Olbermann: Iraq war, Gonzales' poor management or perjury, Bush or Cheney's latest conundrum/contradiction/untruths, contradicting flat out lies from Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Boortz, et. al, then the soft stuff like American Idol and Britney Spears.
As much as Olbermann's interviews with so-called comics about the soft news annoy me, I'd say that the first 40 minutes are devoted to topics a heckuva lot more important to my daily existence than O'Reilly does. This, of course, is just an off-the-top-of-my-head comparison. Would you like to wager based on actual story topics for, say, a week?
There is no comparison with the ReNAMBLACans total incompetence and outright moronity.
I agree Doris. I have my issues as well.
But I saw this last night.
I tip my hat to Olbermann. Outstanding piece.
**What say you Mr. O'Reilly?**
he says nothing since Olbermann is the name that must not be spoken out loud.
Very well said Doris
"And they all prove somehow that liberal billionaire investor George Soros digs into his pockets to fund groups that eventually make the mainstream media do stories that make O'Reilly look dumb."
Oh Bill, we don't need Soros for that, you make yourself look dumb on almost a daily basis. But the best part is that even when you try to save some face, you end up making yourself look even dumber.
Tell you what, if you want to save yourself some face, just preplan your entire show and read from a teleprompter, just like Bush does for his speeches.... course, like Bush you'll probably mess that up and make yourself look dumb anyway.
MMFA is hittin' it big time.... I.. I only hope their fame and success doesn't go to their head- keep on keepin' it real, MMFA!
Fox Noise claims to "fair and balanced" and Olbermann is calling them on it. All I can say is, give 'em hell Keith.
Olbermann's program is anything but "fair and balanced". So if that is his charge against Fox News, it's the pot calling the kettle black. Although, I don't think that is his beef here with his arch nemesis - O'Reilly deserves the ridicule for his ridiculous little flow chart silliness.
As for Keith, he is far less ego driven than O'Reilly, and does his program with substantially less bravado and goes nowhere near Bill in puffing up his chest.........but "Countdown" is as agenda driven and one-sided as most anything on Fox, just the other way.
but does keith represent himself as anything more than what he is? i think a news outlet that is anything but fair and balanced should not claim it.
I would agree with you on this one. Actually Olbermann hardly ever has anyone from the Republican point of view on his program. I know he had Ashcroft on a few months ago. He is completely one sided. I have major problems with FOX but even O'Reilly has Al Sharpton on , John Kerry has appeared on his show other Democrats like Chuck Rangel also appear. I never saw O'Reilly as a mouthpiece for the GOP , he is just a liar. Olbermann like it or not is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
"I never saw O'Reilly as a mouthpiece for the GOP , he is just a liar"
You been livin in a box? HES BOTH.
"Olbermann like it or not is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party."
Why cause he calls conservatives on their lies day in day out? Or cause he regularly exposes and corrects attacks and falsehoods spewed at democrats and/or left-leaning pundits?
As if there's no mouthpieces in the media (READ: FOX NEWS) for the republican-party... biased much? Cause they brought in Al sharpton.. to bash him of course as they do all of their "liberal" guests... they're NOT a mouthpiece for the right?? So the left is the ONLY one with pundits towing ITS party line and ATTACKING the opposition? Is that what your saying? I think ... well... your an idiot if you think that.
So I am an "idiot" because I share a different view than you have. Thats wonderful. Your argument is weak. If you do not see that Olbermann is a talking point for the Dems , you are an misinformed. There is nothing wrong with that either , he is allowed to be that.
No, your an idiot because what you say is not supported by any kind of facts or dare I say common knowledge. Your implication that NOBODY on fox news is a hack for the republican party because they bash a democrat every now and then on their shows is complete and utter nonsense. Maybe I should have said braindead, that would have been more accurate.
Well that is where you are again misguided . Or I can get nasty and say your an idiot. FOX is very one sided, I never said they were not. Hannity is the worst offender as well as BO and Hume, the disgusting Gibson etc. Of course they are hacks and please show me where I said FOX was not a hack. All I said is that I feel before being a GOP hack I think O'Reilly is a liar first. The onlyone brain dead is you.
"I never saw O'Reilly as a mouthpiece for the GOP , he is just a liar."
<SARCASM>
Righhhttt... I'm the one whos braindead
</SARCASM>
Well if you do not think Bill O is not a liar that is your right.
"Well if you do not think Bill O is not a liar that is your right"
Are you losin it Doris? What the heck is that? If I dont think that BillO is NOT a liar? Your brainfried or something?
No but I am afraid you are. O'Reilly is a liar and its sad you do not see that.
Doris - here's what you said...
"I never saw O'Reilly as a mouthpiece for the GOP , he is just a liar."
and...
"All I said is that I feel before being a GOP hack I think O'Reilly is a liar first."
You did not say that he was both a liar and a GOP hack, but the most important (or first thing) he was is a liar.
The other poster pointed that out to you.
In this posting by Media Matters, we're talking about how Bill O'Reilly refuses to accept reality. Olbermann and Media Matters are attacked for accurately portraying what he says and how it conflicts with the truth and reality.
Have you caught that disease from O'Reilly, because that's what you are doing here! Your dislike of Olbermann is unreasonable and unsupported by the facts, and you allow that dislike for him to color your interactions on any thread that relates to him. Hopefully you can work on that bias.
I do not have a dislike for Olbermann, I like him alot. I have a major dislike for O'Reilly as do most of us. That said, why is it so bad for me to say and point out that OReilly is a liar before a GOP Talking point? He lies. Is that not true? Also what is wrong with Olbermann being a Democratic Party Talking point? He is , and there is nothing wrong with that. Geez you guys are sad.
After that, you are asking me to leave if I cannot bring intelligent conversation here? Why bother?
You have repeatedly stated your dislike for Olbermann, Doris over and over again. As another poster said, you have a hair-up-your-butt attitude towards Olbermann. Here are a few examples of your comments followed by a few other poster's comments who have also recognized your attitude.
My feeling on Olbermann is different than yours , he is not the voice of progressives.. Wednesday January 31, 2007
we are again forced to read a MMFA plug for the repulsive Olbermann.. Tuesday January 30, 2007
I agree about FOX, just because I am being critical of Olbermann.. Tuesday January 30, 2007
I agree, Olbermann is a disgrace...it is getting so tiring seeing MMFA promote the Olbermann show, the guy is a corporate whore. Friday April 6, 2007
You cant be critical of Keith Olbermann on MMFA...Wednesday February 7, 2007
Olbermann will not do it because he is a phony and a corporate whore...Friday April 6, 2007
Olbermann has completely lost it..Monday February 5, 2007
Doris, you really have a bee in your bonnet for KO. ..Friday April 6, 2007
Gosh Doris..!? Is there anyone you don’t hate? Your having so much fun here being so negative about all sides of the political spectrum? You don’t seem to like anybody. I hope you don’t hate me too. I’ve defended your posts on numerous occasions. I’m so happy that your personal standards are not applied to Media Matters, Olbermann and your long list of other people and companies you dislike....Wednesday January 31, 2007
time has changed doris's tune. here's her on the jan. 25 abc news.com "was hillary behind the obama smear?" thread: "i think it's still a valid question. was hillary behind the smear? she says no, why can't news organizations ask it? it's not like her people are not capable of smearing people". kinda speaks for itself, no?...Tuesday February 13, 2007
We know you have a thing for KO. We used to see you post your 'hatemonger' rants under your old name...Tuesday March 13, 2007
I'm aware of your non-fondness for Keith Olberman... Monday February 12, 2007
Being critical of Olbermann on occasion does not equal "hate". You are sounding like Bill O'Reilly and thin skinned. I have made my voice clear on this subject today. If you do not like it that is your right.
Here's what I said.
"Your dislike of Olbermann is unreasonable and unsupported by the facts, and you allow that dislike for him to color your interactions on any thread that relates to him. Hopefully you can work on that bias."
Here's what I meant
"Your dislike of Olbermann is unreasonable and unsupported by the facts, and you allow that dislike for him to color your interactions on any thread that relates to him. Hopefully you can work on that bias."
Unlike you, I am wholly consistent. If you don't like having your inconsistencies pointed out, then stop being inconsistent. I was consistent, and factually accurate. Another person called you out for your comments about Bill O'Reilly being inconsistent, and you denied the obvious facts.
Again I am not sure what your point is other than to take attention away from the masterful report on the Olbermann show. If you feel you want to debate whay little old me thinks personally about someones show that is fine but I think I am irrelevant in the entire picture. My bottom line is clear , O'Reilly is a liar. If you want to debate that or have a difference of opinion on that I would be glad to discuss further.
It would be you who distracted the audience from the topic at hand, repeatedly, with your personal attacks on Olbermann because of your dislike of the man.
It would be you who called him repulsive. It would be you who has been called out on your personal attacks on Olbermann by more than 5 regular posters here, and by me, a regular reader until I retired last week.
You misspoke about O'Reilly, and you maligned Olbermann repeatedly. Another poster pointed out your misleading comment about O'Reilly, and after they called you out on that mistake, you denied it. I pointed it out, and also pointed out your dislike of Olbermann.
If you had not distorted the truth in the first place, or admitted your error in the second place, or denied reality the third, fourth or fifth time, this would no longer be an issue.
Look in the mirror, Doris. Look in the mirror. I know what I have done. It is you who is, and has been, denying reality.
Wow you wont give it up will you? I praise Olbermann and you keep attacking me. This post was about the great report on Countdown last night and OReillys lies. Why can you not support this?
Doris, you mangle the truth again.
I praised the article by Media Matters very shortly after it was posted. There is no doubt that I support Olbermann and do not support O'Reilly. No doubt, that is, by anyone who can read and be honest. You are not being "attacked" because you praised Olbermann, along with criticizing him, on this particular story by Media Matters. That would be ignorant.
You are the one who distorted the truth, who has repeatedly attacked Keith Olbermann, who has an unreasonable dislike for the man, which I documented, and it is you who has been repeatedly called on for that obvious dislike of the man.
You misstated what you said about O'Reilly, even after being corrected by another poster. I then documented your distortion, and you then went off on me, rather than admit to your errors and acknowledging your previous behavior. That's plan to see by any intelligent person. Leave it to you to distort what happened today to try to falsely make yourself look innocent.
Look in the mirror.
You remind me of Karl Rove. I will tell you one thing, you are a troll. You attack an established poster, personally attack, get off topic and it is not going to work. I bet you work for FOX Security? Mission, disrupt the site?
Confusing
I am confused, Doris is the one for months that went after Imus and was so proud when he was fired. Now she is being attacked for not being who she is? I have had issues with Doris's liberalism , this is a new one.
Kind of elaborate for a troll, no?
Anyway, he does have a point in that Doris contradicted herself.
there's only one way to settle this: whoever ends up posting the first comment which results in a comment box so skinny there's only one word per line, their argument becomes the new universal truth.
Good luck, all.
Do you realy think that's a good idea?
Because, I can just hold a conversation with myself, you know.
But anyway, "spass beiseite" I really like Keith. Every time I watch him, it becomes more evident that he is:
Intelligent, Honest, Knowledgeable, and Sane--everything the rightwing media figures are not--despite not being 'unpartisan'.
I like Keith too, and being critical of someone you like should be the norm. Look how the Republicans were never critical of Bush and he got us into the most immoral war in Americas history. 3300 Americans dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If we all decided to remain quiet and never be critical of anyone then we are all in trouble. Your opinion is welcomed and valid!!!
I think the point [of those otherr guys] was that your comments about Olberman from earlier posts seemed a bit agressive for you to like him. I'm only commenting on this now because they were promptly accused of being trolls. It was a valid point, even though it doesn't seem that important to me...
It is not important in the grand scheme of things. I do not think they are "trolls". I just think there are bigger issues to discuss than how I may feel about Keith. Its mindboggling to be that I am the topic for 40 plus threads.
Trolls run by FOX news can be very elaborate.
Evil
I do not think this person is a troll or working for FOX security, that is alittle far fecthed. One or two people on here continue to attack me for not being me, when I am being me ;-). I am a proud anti war progressive and will continue to monitor and read and participate in this site. I am sorry if they do not like that sometimes I dare to be critical of things that they do not like. I never thought I was being critical if you read my post early on I stated I loved the report from Keith. Yet I was attacked because I dared to say he supports the Democratic party. Now I feel Hannity and Brit Hume are talking pieces of the GOP , am I wrong? What amazes me is the amount of time this person spends on me when people on this thread attack and violate the memory of Molly Ivins, they show no outrage about that . It shows some on here have a personal vendetta against me over political thought. Scary but it is a blog.
Thanks again.
Oh, and one more thing. When I agree with someone 99% of the time, or when I don't dislike someone, I never say things like
They are....
phony and a corporate whore
or that they have
completely lost itor that they area disgraceor that they are repulsiveCall me weird, but I don't say things like that, repeatedly, when I like and respect people, and neither does anyone else I know. When I dislike someone heartily, I might say some of those things.So what Doris may not like Olbermann, does that make her less of a progressive thnn you or I? I personally do not like Olbermann either, I can not stand his face . I do not like his sports program at 2pm on ESPN Radio. Does that mean we are not "Progressives"? You should be ashamed of yourself. I voted for Bill Bradley over Al Gore in 2000, does that mean I hate Al Gore?
She hates Olbermann, and has expressed that hate on multiple occasions.
She denied that hate. Then she put another poster down unfairly.
I called her on it, as others have done in the past.
That was my point. If you can't grasp that, go back to school and take a class in critical thinking.
Thanks for the words Evil, but I am a grown up women. I do not hate anything other than his stupid war in Iraq. If others want to attack me and change the subject of the board that is their right and my right to not debate them.
Anyone that can still defend O'Reilly even after this latest lie is beyond my scope of thought.
She can claim she's a progressive, and you can as well, and you don't have to like Olbermann one bit.
What she gets called on in these snipes are her unsubstantiated comments about Olbermann -- like calling him a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. If my viewpoints happen to intersect more often than not with the DNC, does that make me a mouthpiece for the DNC? No.
Then she refuses to actually stand behind, support, or even debate the points she makes, and she trots out the ol' "it's you're right to disagree" and "I have my opinion, that's my right." Like those things were ever in dispute.
She's intellectually dishonest when it comes to Olbermann, she gets called on it, and then posts nonsense for two pages. It's her pattern. Whatever.
Wow , I am that important ?
Read, rinse and repeat, Doris.
You spout nonsense, get called on it, and then claim that it's okay to have an alternative opinion that's not based on reality, and you deny any responsibility to defend your nonsense.
It's not that most anything that gets mentioned on this website is earthshattering. What happens here is that misinformation gets pointed out and refuted. Even misinformation that comes from you. That doesn't make you important. That makes you wrong, and then it makes you a numbskull for not being willing to acknowledge your errors and your biases.
My first point on this subject suggested that you needed to recognize how your biases color your every post about the connection between Olbermann and Media Matters. That still holds.
I knew you were Bittermarv. Why could you just attack me with your original name?
Wow.
You're delusional too?
Multiple people have noticed this trait of yours, and this dislike of Olbermann. I quoted several of them, going back many months.
Your delusions make you believe that all the people that criticize you for that behavior are all the same person?
I think we get your game , its ok.
I get the game Doris, this is someone who has decided to disrupt the board. He works with FOX Security, just ignore him. These Conservatives will stop at nothing.
i got the same stuff from evilrepublicansnow, who very conveniently shows up when "doris" is throwing out her accusations when she's challenged.
I get the same stuff from 10 different trolls when I was supporting Imus 2 weeks ago. This site is full of trolls.
I support my friends, ones who have stood beside me. I have plenty of times disagreed with Doris. You love to personally attack people on here, I have seen you in action. You also remind me of Karl Rove.
You're accusing them of working for the Repugnants, but not proven anything. The point was that Doris contradicted herself. Then she accused her critics of being one and the same person. I hope you don't think I am really someone else...
"Or I can get nasty and say your an idiot."
-----
Or you could have gotten grammatical. But you chose not to.
I do not get your point.
I think there is no point, it is just another example of someone playing games.
I think the point was that Doris had typed "your" when she should have typed "you're"; a very common error.
But maybe I'm just having delusions of grammar.
If you do not see that Olbermann is a talking point for the Dems , you are an misinformed.
Doris, what evidence do you have that Olbermann goes beyond just being liberal (and therefore favoring the Democrat points of view and being critical of Republican points of view) and knowingly broadcasts Democrats' talking points ? And what are those talking points, btw ? Be specific.
Since "The truth has a well known liberal byass," KO could fairly be called "liberal" or a proponant of the Dem point of view. Since wingnuts like O'Rielly habitually lie to make their points, it's understandable that a wingnut troll like you would see something nefarious in KO's exposition of Dem ideas and facts.
Nothng makes a pathological liar madder than exposing his lies.
Incidently, I think it's unwise for any Dem to appear on Oliely's show. Debate the jerk in a fair format - sure. Allowing that jerk to shout down, turn off the mike and employ his various unfair tactics is just feeding the beast.
It's very telling that the coward Oliely won't even debate Brock even under those circumstances.
The idea that a truth-teller like KO should engage a wingnut liar to obfuscate and confuse completely misrepresents the concept of "balance."
In the first place, dispite the fact that three fourths of the American people have rejected the lies propagated by the liar-in-chief, well over 90% of the media in this country is dedicated to expositors of his point of view.
Secondly, it is not "fair" or "balanced" to give equal weight to a talking points liar. Honest debate is a very good thing. It informs and enlightens. Shouting matches with ideologues who have only a passing acquaintence with truth and no interest in representing it accomplish nothing but mudding the waters - something to be desired if reality is in complete opposition to your worldview ( as with Oliely's) but not if your purpose is to inform - as Kieth does.
Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you didn't feel the need to be rude to reasonable people, DT.
Look I think I may have taken it too far by calling Doris an idiot and braindead and I apologize for that, but seriously,
Did I not just post that BillO is BOTH a liar and a Mouthpiece for the GOP? Doris, how could you possibly arrive at the conclusion that I think BillO doesn't lie? Please... enlighten me?
Of course you did.
It's Doris who is being inconsistent, not you.
It's Doris who has such a dislike for Olbermann that she cannot see the forest for the trees, and apparently she has such a high opinion of herself she rejects all constructive criticism.
How come I have never seen you before? Who are you? Also I should be flattered that you decided to change the subject to me , but I am not. Little old me is not above the subject. If you do not want to discuss OReilly and his lies, kindly do not fillabuster with long drawn out posts.
Doris, you changed the subject to you when you disputed the accurate characterization of your comments by another poster. You're not a pot calling the kettle black here, but rather a pot calling flower black. It was you who distracted the discussion to you.
Also, I have discussed the true topic of this posting by Media Matters, as well as other postings today. I don't deserve any scorn from you for not having done so, but it doesn't surprise me that you would make that false accusation in order to make yourself look less culpable.
And oh yea, whether or not you have seen me before is entirely relevant, isn't it?
No, it's not.
I just retired after more than 30 years of working for a major manufacturer, and until summer really hits, I have nothing much to do with my days, so I decided to register and post today. I have read this site for years. During my workdays, during slack times, and during boring conference calls that I had to 'attend', I would often read this site, but work rules prohibited me from posting during the day, and during the evening I spent time with my wife and watching primetime TV. I have not yet found a thing on daytime TV that interested me, and since we moved right after I retired, I don't have any local male friends to pal around with yet.
Will you make any more attempts to distract us from the topic at hand, Doris, or will you finally admit that you dislike Keith Olbermann, and admit that you didn't say what you claimed to say about O'Reilly in the way that you claimed you said it?
I do not dislike Olbermann. Sorry you dislike me.
I dislike your behavior. I don't dislike you.
I already provided direct evidence that not only do you dislike Olbermann, but I provided direct evidence that others have been calling you on that behavior for months and months.
You called him repulsive. You called him a media whore. You called him a phony and a corporate whore. You called him a disgrace. You praised O'Reilly and mocked Olbermann when Bill O was being totally outrageous about that kidnapped boy. For you to now claim that you don't dislike him is laughable.
What you have been proving is that when confronted with direct evidence of your misdeeds and misinformation, your claws come out. What you have been proving is that you do dislike people and it's not about their behavior. It's personal for you. You've made that abundantly clear.
Of course I don't want to discuss this post. That's why I posted the comment below long before I said anything to you, because I don't want to discuss the point of this posting by Media Matters! How observant of you! <snark>
I appreciate that both Media Matters online and Keith Olbermann on TV are in a fight to the death over misinformation.
It's clear that Bill O'Reilly, and many others, are horribly afraid to have the truth be known. They hate having their lies and misstatements exposed for all to see. For too long, those kinds of comments went uncorrected. As a result of that neglect, too many bad things happened. Our nation is better off with this type of coverage.
....
- NotThatGeorge / Thursday April 26, 2007 01:48:03 PM EST
What's really funny is that you are doing the exact thing we condemn O'Reilly for.
I am doing the same stuff that we praise Olbermann for.
And you are clueless to both things. You deny your responsibility, and claim that I am lacking in responsibility when I both posted on the subject and called you on your misstatements.
That's really funny.
What is funny is that you are a troll and most know it. You attack established posters and get off topic. Fox Security?
What's funny is your support of Doris.
What's funny is your delusions that suggest that I made her go off topic, since it was her that did so. It was I who was sticking with the facts, and she that made it personal, and now you suggest that it's my fault, so I must have somehow made her go off topic?
Notice that I documented a clear falsehood from Doris, and there was no reply from her.
Evil did reply though, with an off topic smear. Doris suggested that I was unwilling to comment on the main point here, and when I provided direct evidence that I had, she clammed up. Funny how that works. Her clone did, though.
don't take those "people" too seriously. in my opinion "doris" is a complete fake. "she" makes enough generalized posts about the evil media to establish her credibility, and then she'll trash guys like keith. she and tommy seem to carry on these contrived arguments all the time. she claims to be a 60 some year old woman, but a couple weeks ago she replied to a post with "w t f". not very nice language for a sweet old dear like herself.
There was nothing else to reply to, you stated your opinion and I stated mine. I do not know what else you want me to say. Anyway it was enlightning, I think I am off topic of the thread though , it was not about me but the outstanding report on Countdown that Olbermann did about BO the liar. You apparently wanted to turn it into "feelings" i have for Olbermann, that do not exist. I like him and watch his show. I can be a fan of someone and be critical. I think of it this way. My son is a huge New York Giants fan, but he yells and screams every Sunday, saying they are bad, bad plays, yet he likes them. Anyway enough said I have more important topics to discuss like this terrible war, the MSM allowing lies about the Democrats. You play your games and if you want to discuss real issues other than me I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.
Doris,
You're mad because the media actually has someone who leans left doing coverage alongside all the right-wingers? You have Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, etc. all giving the right-wing slant to the news on a nightly basis, but you find fault with the one left-leaner who has his own cable news show???
Even if we added 3 more Olberman's with shows each night, the news is still highly slanted to the right.
I am not mad.
Doris ... When you say "I'm Not Mad!" ... It reminds me of the infamous line uttered by President Nixon ... "I'm Not A Crook!" and of course he was one of the biggest Conservative Crooks of all time. Or current President is well on his way to replacing Nixon for that honor.
When you first came on this WebSite I came to your defense on many occations, but after thinking about your comments over the long run, I am confused at best, but mostly I'm very opposed to your attacks on so many positive voices speaking the truth to powerful liars.
Why does a progressive like yourself spend so much evergy attacking your own side?
Sam
I was and will continue to give my opinion. If people do noy like it that is their right. I am a Progressive and my number one issue is this terrible war. If some on here want to make me the issue they have way too much time on their hands.
Hi Doris:
I did 4 tours of war zone duty for your rights. Among those rights is your freedom of speech, but I hope you'll forgive me for not being able to figure out the madness of you methods.
I'm a progressive too in addition to being an independent. My fellow troops in Vietnam died in Vain the same as thousands more are dying today in Iraq in a war that is devastating Americans and Iraqis.
If that is your main issue your concerned about, then why are you so busy attacking people who are fighting on your side.
No I'm not loaded down with extra time, but I made time to address your attacks because I just can't figure it out. Sorry about that. Your attacks against your own side are puzzling to me. From now on I'll just keep it to myself.
Sam
Thank you, and your views will always be respected by me. Again I like Olbermann, I have been upset in the past about his inaction with Imus, however he is a great writer and hosts outstanding show. My opinions are not personal. I can be critical of someone but still love them. Just like i was to my kids ;-).
Doris:
I hope the termination of Imus is just the tip of a huge iceburg. A marketplace correction that will begin to terminate the long list of TV and Radio People who are much more offensive and damaging than Imus was.
Imus will be back and I hope he dedicates his new agenda to good causes.
Bill Moyers is coming out of retirement. I see that as a great refreshing and a historical event. He's back on PBS on Friday nights. I encourage everyone to support Bill Moyers. He doesn't spin things right or left, he just reports things as truthfully as humanly possibe.
It's not easy to report the truth in todays news climate. Todays news arena will attack the truth if it does not support the current President and his Occupation of Iraq.
Sam
I agree with you, I noticed how FOX and other right wing haters have allready started the attack on Mr. Moyers. How great it was that PBS has restored a truthful voice to Americas airwaves.
Sam
Why do progressives on here spend time tonight attack one of their own ?
Hi peghen1428
That's exactly what I'm trying to find out, but Doris makes the attacks, not me. I'm just trying to find out why she attacks people who support her side of many issues. For example, Keith O. is against the failed Bush Administrations invasion and accupation of Iraq. I believe Doris agrees with Keith O. but she keeps attacking him time and time again. You tell me why because I surely don't know.
Sam
I was more asking why Doris was being attacked by fellow progressives.
maybe because of the statements she makes?
I read on here that she seems to be one of the few who was after Imus, I was for him and she attacked me. Was I defended when she went after me for supporting Imus? I also see on this thread that she is defending the late Molly Ivins. Molly Ivins has been smeared on this post yet some people on here are attacking Doris. I did not realize this was Media Matters for Doris. Its like the Tommy thing, everyone gives Tommy all this power. Its insane.
This is the Tom and Doris Show:
Because the sqeaky wheels get all the grease. But did I really have to tell you this.
Why in the hell do you like such an Ugly Anti-Female and Racist man like Imus.
I'm not attacking her? I was just asking her some questions. I've already posted that I respect her freedom of speech.
Brian,
Fox News could make the same claim - that the media is saturated by those outlets leaning left, so why the problem with them?
Anyone could make that claim, but the empirical evidence does not support it. You have been around MMFA long enough to see some of this evidence.
Darnit, I don't take all my "evidence" from one website that purports to show only one side of the coin......sorry.
let's just look at some of the "evidence" tommy. in 2000, the media went out of it's way to portray gore as a liar, and bush as a sure to be centerist. the media ignored the evidence that the bush administration was hyping the wmd threat. the aluminum tubes were a complete fabrication. that evidence was freely available at the time. need i go on?
Give some examples of outfits saturated by the left? Please, inquiring minds want to know. And please be specific about how they are even close to being what Fox "news" is.....a propaganda organ for the Republican party. You can not include "outfits" that report news that's truthful (are there any?). I know that's a foreign concept to you, but truthful reporting doesn't have a bias. It just seems that way to rightys.
NY Times, LA Times, Wash Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN......I said they "leaned" left, I didn't say they didn't lean the other way occassionally.
The mainstream media leans left in their reporting and the way they cover issues. Frankly, I could care less - just making an observation. If you see it differently, fine by me.
Tommy, you know I respect you but now your drawing straws. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that those very news stations have been every increasingly slanting to the RIGHT not the left. CNN? MSNBC?!! Left leaning? NO. "Occasional" Right leaning? how do you define occassional? I don't think you can give me an actual figure could you? Yet everyday on mediamatters, newshounds and thinkprogress I see egregious examples of right bias coming from ALL NEWS outlets. Until you can debunk a good percentage of these examples let say 51% to eliminate a majority, I would say that you have no leg to stand on.
I have also visited newsbusters, newsmax, instapundit, drudge, to get some alternative views and liberal media bias examples and they have some. However, alot of these websites have a documented history of making up lies, and quoting blatantly false or questionable sources. Ive yet to see any REAL evidence against or DEBUNKING of 99.9% of what MMFA puts out.
The specific example you can cite to debunk Rethugs calling the MSM "liberal" is the buildup to the pre-emptive strike on Iraq. The MSM gave Bush and his Administrations lies and absurd observations about Iraq and Hussein a free pass, and didn't question any of the lies or absurdities they spouted.Bill Moyer's Journal had a great piece on this last night on PBS. Here is the link with full video and full transcripts (enjoy).
Buying the War
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html
P.S. Tommy - as Julia and many others have said before, just because a media outlet reports the truth from time to time (instead of being an open mic for the White House), doesn't make them "liberal", it means they are once in a blue moon, doing their job.
No you are stating an opinion as fact. One I strenuously disagree with. I used to call the LATimes pravda west. It is NOT a left leaning paper. It is a POWER leaning paper. A status quo paper. Its not a fact just because you delusionally THINK it is.
Keith Olbermann a mouthpiece from the democratic party? I've heard this from a lot of people, even his fans, and sometimes, i find myself agreeing, when i watch him, especially in his choice of guests. Mainly, this argument comes from those who don't like him.
The problem is this: some things aren't a matter of opinion or political convictions anymore. People who claim he's far-left, or a mouthpiece of the DNC, imply (willingly or not) that everything is a matter of opinion, especially if it includes facts with which they're not comfortable. There are too many examples of this (global warming, evolutionism, situation in iraq, etc. etc.). My point is this: if conservatives manage to get you in a debate about things that are just not debatable, because they're established facts, then they win. Period. The only thing I've seen Keith do (or at least almost always), is point out straight, honest truth, and call people out on their smears, propaganda and lies. There is no room for debate there, and people should stop pretending there is.
Doris,But all the other shows on MSNBC lean right of center, although none of the hosts are as bad as anything Fox has to offer. Hardball's Chris Matthews clearly has a preference for macho Republican men. Scarborough and Tucker Carlson are professed conservatives although I find Scarborough to be much fairer in his "analysis" and in his guest line up. Olbermann balances out the menu if you ask me. Olbermann is the only show that I can point to of all the cable shows that is unabashedly left leaning. The truth is both CNN and MSNBC have been sucking up to the right ever since Fox came on the scene, it’s ironic that MSNBC’s highest rated show is left leaning.
Lynn
I could not agree with you more.
"Olbermann like it or not is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party."
Doris, I respectfully disagree. I don't see Olbermann as pro-Democrat but, rather, as the truth police in hot pursuit of the Republican Party, which happened to exclusively control this country until recently. I read a long time ago that, off-camera, Olbermann was more of a righty than a lefty. But I think he's seen the mendacity of the Republican Party... and calling them on thir dishonest machinations is like shooting fish in a barrel for him. How personally outraged he is, who knows? But his show is informative and it's great entertainment.
I do not disagree with your statement . All I know is that compared to O'Reilly , Olbermann is a breath of fresh air. O'Reilly and his FOX cronies have been pushing an imoral war for 4 years. I will say again that I do believe Olbermann does speak Democratic talking points, and I do not have a problem with that. After all CNN, FOX and others on MSNBC spew the GOP line all the time.
I have only one issue with your comparison with O'Reilly and Olbermann. O'Reilly has said time and time again that he is an independent and that he goes after both sides. Which is to your point that he is a liar. He only goes after Democrats. But Olbermann has never made a claim that he goes after both sides (though he has gone after Democrats before) nor does he claim that he is an independent. If you want to say that Keith Olbermann is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party that's cool. I'd much rather have him in my corner that O'Reilly.
When Keith reports the news, he tells the truth. Bill does not.
When Keith writes and reads his commentaries, they are based on the facts, data, and reason.
Truth has a liberal "bias." - Colbert
Tommy, are you kidding? Are you watching the Keith Olbermann show? He clearly amuses himself with his snide remarks, his idiotic "worse" list and his droning on and on. He is an arrogant ass.....AND HE'S GOING DOWN!
Someone alert MSNBC and ESPN: Winchell's is planning a media coup...
Scary stuff.
And please, if you insist on remarking on all of my posts, would you please stop referring to me as if I were a man, and learn to recognize sarcasm? Nothing more irritating than a bully whose sense of humor doesn't extend beyond his own meager attempts at one.
I agree with that. That's why I thought playing off your "GOING DOWN" would somehow indear you to me because I recognized the sarcasm with my "alert msnbc" comment. I guess I was....wrong. *sniff* My affection is unrequited.
I do take issue with you thinking I refer to you as a man. Where did I do that? Normally, I'm very conscious about being non-gender specific when it's unkown. Was it the "Winchell's" crack? Are you saying that the creation of crullers and maple bars is the domain of men? I apologize, I had no idea.
Hi DoughGirl:
Maybe it was me. I've been calling you DoughBoy. Sorry about that.
Can you bring any intelligent comment to the debate other than hate toward Olbermann?
I'm sorry Dorris. Please accept my apology.
doughpro,
I'd say both Olbermann & O'Reilly come off as arrogant. But at least Keith is amusing. O'Reilly is just arrogant.
Keith very obviously leans Left, but he doesn't resort to lying in reporting the day's events. He just basks in sticking to the Right.
Let's face it, the Right gives him plenty of material.
Baloney. I'd like to see MMFA do a piece on Olbermann's ridiculous claims that all the terror alerts were linked to Bush's political events. O'Reilly's chart has much more credibility than that schtick from Olbermann.
Bunk Kevin,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/150806thenexus.htm
please watch, he left it up to the audience to decide whether they were coincidences or actually viable. Have your facts in order before you level an accusation.
A couple of things about this:
You bet these hacks hate having their words recorded, and being repeated back to them... it makes me think of the Court Reporter (or Stenographer) in criminal proceedings... if the guilty had just one person and one alone, that they could dismiss from those proceedings, it might be the Court Reporter... because then they could just string the proceedings along, day to day and even minute by minute, saying whatever they liked in 'real-time', and then just denying it all, after the fact.
As for this buffoon's express hatred of Iraqis: That's his (and others at Fox) new slant on the life-consuming occupation of Iraq... the buffoon seems to now never get caught cheering on death and the occupation, not since the political winds blew so hard on 11-07-06... now it's simply "they're killers, they're murderers, they're animals" when he goes to talking about Iraq... it's as though he's providing the answer up-front, to a question he figures he's bound to be asked: "Why don't you cheer the occupation of Iraq anymore?" b.o.: "Because they're animals, they're killers etc."
And lastly: This crap about the Irish guy blinking, or whatever it is being claimed... I swear, this buffoon makes it a hobby of his to do two things: One, to try and make whoever it is he opposes self-conscious or nervous or flustered or whatever, and then two, to measure that response, as a kind of 'victory' of sorts... what a joke, only a shallow idiot would think that getting under someone's skin in debate, and provoking an emotional response, was anything positive in debate... would think that was any kind of 'victory' in debate.
Did anyone here catch the viewers' email on the 4/24/07 edition of The O'Reilly Factor? I believe it was the very first letter -- the gentleman asked O'Reilly for the evidence supporting his 4/23 piece on George Soros & Media Matters and that flow-chart. BOR refused and laughed (with that typical, condescending sneer of his), saying something like "Go find it for yourself. It's there. We found it; so can you." This guy just doesn't get it does he? The concept of evidence, proof, facts and at least attempting to back up the garbage you spew is totally foreign to this man. Some journalist!! One might suspect that he copied that flow-chart and the whole hit piece off of somebody else's "homework" -- only thing is, he forgot he might be expected to "show his work" and copied only the "answer." That kind of sloppy work deserves an "F" in my book.
I appreciate that both Media Matters online and Keith Olbermann on TV are in a fight to the death over misinformation.
It's clear that Bill O'Reilly, and many others, are horribly afraid to have the truth be known. They hate having their lies and misstatements exposed for all to see. For too long, those kinds of comments went uncorrected. As a result of that neglect, too many bad things happened. Our nation is better off with this type of coverage.
If O'Reilly were a patriotic American instead of a selfish man, he would appreciate constructive criticism. If he were a real man, instead of a puppet of others, he would not fear having all of his words examined. If he were an honest man, he would not throw out unfounded accusations that suggest that Media Matters is hiding who donates to them, or that George Soros is hiding his support of Media Matters.
But he's not any of those things.
What's funny is that Soros is small potatoes when it comes to donating to political and ideological causes. Richard Scaife has donated ten times that amount, and I did my own chart showing where it went and how it influenced the right-wing media and their own watchdog groups.
Check it out here:
LTR follows the money
In the documentary 'OutFoxed' there is a segment where Bill-O is shown saying he said shut up only once; one time that is all; following that clip is a string of clips showing Bill-O screaming shut up and we mean more than once. It was a scream watching Bill-O look Sill-O.
Olbermann observed: "Nothing Media Matters has ever posted about Bill O'Reilly has failed to withstand independent vetting --
I can rise to that challenge---Here's one:
Overstating The O'Reilly Factor's viewership nearly threefold, O'Reilly claimed to have "6 million people watching me every night"
Source:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605010008
The truth:
2,280,000 in the first showing in the US per night
1,091,000 in the second showing in the US per night
Sums to 3,371,000 in the first two US showings per night. There also is a third showing, plus the people who watch around the world.
Source:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/q107vs06.pdf
Conclusion: MMFA incorrect to write
Overstating The O'Reilly Factor's viewership nearly threefold, O'Reilly claimed to have "6 million people watching me every night"
Olbermann wrong to have observed: "Nothing Media Matters has ever posted about Bill O'Reilly has failed to withstand independent vetting -- not a missing comma, not a missing context."
So your point is... that Media Matters was right?
Bitter:
No, MMFA is wrong, You apparently do not know what 3-fold means
Well, that's it, then. Because MMfA overstated one of O'Reilly's lies in an article back on May 1, 2006, only a year ago, I can no longer watch Olberman.
Thanks, MMfA. You've trashed a perfectly honorable former sportscaster, thanks to your lax journalism standards and fuzzy math. Hope you're all real happy with yourselves...
MMfA overstated one of O'Reilly's lies...
Bill's 6 million figure has yet to be disproven: Publicly published figures for the first two showings in the US total 3.7 million. You may wish to dispute that the remaining US showing plus the foreign viewers total about 2.3 million. If you have data, present it.
But as you note with sarcasm, MMFA has fuzzy math and they could have corrected this by now, but they have chosen not to.
I can only imagine what you'd say if the "liberal media" presented assertions, then challenged the audience to find the facts to dispute them.
Please don't insult my intelligence. I'm a liberal, I base my opinions on the facts I know. I don't choose a side, then search for data to back it up. My opinion from the data I've seen is that O'Reilly exaggerated his viewer numbers. MMfA called him on it. They exaggerated their data, too, but their allegation was still correct: O'Reilly misled. If you don't agree with my opinion, then change it.
I can only imagine what you'd say if the "liberal media" presented assertions, then challenged the audience to find the facts to dispute them.
That is precisely what Mary Mapes did in Rathergate: We "reporters" do not have to prove that the Killian memos are genuine; you viewers have to prove the memos are fake.
Back on BOR and his audience numbers: For television, they have what is called a "broadcast day" that differs from the calendar day. Back in the 60's, an NBC station could have a broadcast day that lasted from 6 am one day through 2 am the next calendar day. They used to have a sign off, usually a prayer and the national anthem.
With 24 hour broadcasting, the broadcast day is not so obvious. But still, when talking about "last night", does anyone on the East coast say they watched Leno last night and early this morning? No, they say, "last night".
KO is wrong: MMFA posted an error not corrected over many months.
QED!
Pardon me for wearing out so soon, but it's late...
Okay, since it's important, even if only to Olberman despisers - you're right. KO said none, you found one. KO was wrong that time.
So, now where does that lead us? Is there a more devastating conclusion to be drawn here? Are we to disregard all the other valid things that KO has said, like the Mapes/Rather episode you referred to?
Actually, if you take the ratings for his premiere episode, it is overstating things "nearly three-fold." If you wanna parse words, then O'Reilly didn't get anywhere near 6 million "a night" since follow up episodes don't appear until the next day.
But I'll give it to you. If this is your example of a time that MMFA was inaccurate, then it's the exception that proves the rule. Not to mention insignificant.
When Olbermann is finally convicted of committing treason, I want to be on the firing squad.
Treason? Please elaborate.
I would of flagged your comment, but I am somehow on probation.
Monk,
How do you know you're on probation? Did MMFA send you an e-mail? Or does it say that somewhere when you post?
Just curious. And staying on my best behavior O:-)
You are truly disgusting.
Doris, please. Have some compassion. This is an individual who is obviously reaching out for attention. Whether abandoned as a child by his parents, or just left out of the "cool" groups at school, or even if affected by spray-can huffing, this person needs our support, lest his mental instability develop into something more insidious. Something that involves firearms or small rodents.
Rather than ostracize, let's attempt to help, shall we?
The man attacked and made fun of Molly Ivins a wonderful writer who passed away from Cancer. He is the lowest form of life.
Molly Ivins was a dishonest writer. I'm sorry she died from cancer, but that does not mean we cannot put out that she played fast and loose with the facts in her columns. Here's just one example:
http://kansasmedia.blogspot.com/2006/10/salina-journals-hypocritical-stand-on.html#links
All you have shown is a blog from a generic source. There is nothing on your link. You have no facts and you spew hate toward a women who just died the past year from cancer. You have no shame. You are the lowest form of life.
Take a Valium, Dorothy. Molly Ivins was a dishonest writer. Dying from cancer does not change that. Just because someone died does not means we cannot point to their sins. If that were the case, there would be no documentaries on Hitler.
Ok, then you won't mind me saying that Ronald Reagan was directly responsible for American nuns being buried in shallow graves in Central America.
Unless you have proof that Reagan was in Central America with a gun in his hand the day the nuns were murdered, then no, you cannot say that. Two completely different situations, obviously.......oh wait, I forgot the obvious is rarely seen by the lefties.
Unless you have proof that Soros was in MMfA's office with a wad of cash in his hand the day the bills were paid, then no, you cannot say that. Two completely different situations, obviously.......oh wait, I forgot the obvious is rarely seen by the righties.
Hyuk hyuk. You guys are funny.
At least we agree on something..........
You can say. It's just not true. I showed an example where Ivins lied about with Odom retired from the military. She said he retired because of the Iraq war. He actually retired from the military in 1989.
Ever find a hair you didn't think needed split?
I shouldn't do this for you, but what the heck... Ivins referred to a group of generals who agreed with Odom that Iraq was a bad idea. In the following sentence, she stated that most of them had retired because of Iraq. Two, separate sentences. The blog tells you how you should interpret it. You complied. The funny thing is that whether Odom retired because of Iraq or not is immaterial to the concept of Ivin's piece. Except to people (I use the term liberally) like you.
Got any more brilliant examples of Ivins lies? Or is that about it? Sheesh, O'Reilly lies more than that ordering out for falafels.
" In the following sentence, she stated that most of them had retired because of Iraq. Two, separate sentences."
No, you're lying. The word "most" does not appear in that sentence. She clearly meant to include Odom in the group of generals who retired over the Iraq war. It was a lie since Odom retired from the militaty 14 years prior to the invasion.
I didn't lie. "Mostly" was part of the paragraph, and affected the use of the subject in the second sentence. And here's where you can see my justification:
Imagine my surprise when I found the complete article, and read it, and realized that "these" were actually the subject of it. Not Odom. Same with "They" in the second sentence. By only taking a small snippet of it, the subject of the article was lost, allowing you - and the blogger who brought it up - to lie about it being a lie. Between the two of you, whether it was dishonesty or poor reading comprehension, you managed to smear a perfectly honorable woman. Congrats. Hope it furthers your political agenda.
Doris is right. You present misleading evidence to support your misguided and biased opinion. You are a liar.
Kev,
Let me amend my previous reply. After warping my mind around a little bit, I realized where you misinterpreted Ivins, and I also realize that it could have been an honest mistake. I take back and apologize for the liar remark in giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Second paragraph, second sentence: Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States."
Let me break this down for you: When she says "some," (the generals interviewed by Whalen) "like Gen Odom, are calling Iraq....", the comparison referred to in the "like" statement refers only to their opinion, or what they're calling Iraq. That's it. That's where the comparison ends. She even begins a new sentence, with "And they (the generals interviewed by Whalen) are...".
I can understand how you could have read the "like Gen..." comparison on through the whole paragraph, but I hope I've shown you where your interpretation was wrong.
Again, sorry for the liar remark.
You have yet to document that she was dishonest. You are dishonest and a partisan hack.
The likes of you aren't fit to kiss Molly Ivens old shoes. Molly Ivens was one of the great truth tellers in the American media. For somebody like you to slime her establishes you as beneath my contempt.
Man?
The standards must have changed...
Oh, that's right. The day O'Reilly referred to himself as a journalist. I forgot. Sorry.
"When Olbermann is finally convicted of committing treason, I want to be on the firing squad."
-----
They should make sure to give you the rifle containing the blanks, so it will match the content of everything you have ever posted on this site.
Maybe we should just since Olbermann to the subway since he's too dumb to know how to ride a subway car. Another bump to the head and that boy will be a complete moron.
Wow, did YOU just call someone ELSE dumb? YOU redefine the term abject stupidity. Your ignorance is legendary and astonishing in its scope. If you lose one more brain cell YOU are a talking monkey.
Poor Kevin. You're projecting harder than a thirty-screen multiplex.
Man you are such an ignorant fascist. The big question is which are you more proud of your ignorance or your fascism?
NEWSFLASH:
O'Really is correct ... Media Matters IS disiminating VILE AND UGLY PROPAGANDA. Media Matters is guilty of this every single time they play O'Really doing his everyday thing on his show.
Media Matters puts this trash out everytime they play O'Really saying what he says. Media Matters shows it Verbatum (Word for Word) and completely in correct context.
Then to add insult to injury M.M. not only exposes this ugly man, but they drag his ugly face thru the truth of the issue at hand. Then O'Really, being in total denial and being the idiot he truly is proceeds to give Media Matters top billing and notoriety on his show.
Bill would be doing less damage to himself if he just donated thousands to Soros or to Media Matters itself.
no kidding.... he's digging his own grave the more he *speaks*...
Yeah - thanks, O'liely. I'm new to this site. I really appreciate you bringing me here.
Wow,
I thought it was really interesting that there is no metion of MMFA mouthpiece Rosie O'donnel being canned on this web site! But oh, I forgot, you guys are not biased.
And what does Rosie O'Donnell have to do with Conservative misinformation? The View is a daytime talk show not a MSM outlet for news.
KC4395
I might give you an axample of my bias. If I felt I understood your statement. Would you please try to restate it
Or maybe we DONT CARE. MMFA, doesnt CARE. Nor is it relevant to this website. Much like YOU arent relevant to bipedal carbon based lifeforms in general
She wasn't canned dufus... do your homeowrk, she was offered an additional 3 years on the view and she declined. She only wanted to stay one more year.
NEXT!!!!
KC did the homework, and an unbiased Donald Trump reported that Rosie was canned.
KC then merely showcased his extraordinary intellect by sharing with us the fruits of his independent and probing investigation.
We are all that much richer for it. Thank you, KC.
In fact she'll be on the air for a number of weeks, until June.
Canned people don't hang around for weeks.
Trump said she was fired for what she said over the weekend, but this was a decision that was finalized last week, before she said anything over the weekend. If she were fired for what she said over the weekend, she'd be leaving before the end of her contract.
Trump is wrong once again.
Do you actually believe that she was offered 3 more years? Where did you get your information?
Wingnuts, a piece of advise, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-04-25-rosie-leaves-view_N.htm?csp=34
Doris... you beat me by 2 seconds! Impressive! Hey seriously, Im sorry I called you an idiot and braindead. Although we do not agree I feel I disrespected you. I see that you are reasonable person and not some wingnut who spouts of theories and hate without evidence. I am truly sorry.
It is ok, I respect your opinion and am sorry I called you "misguided"
I think BillO attacks MMFA and other web sources because he knows from market research that a significant portion of his audience either does not have internet access or won't bother to check out for themselves what MMFA is. He believes many of his audience will take him at his word since he tells them often that they should take him at his word. He is a most convincing speaker, especially among the ignorant sheep that believe they are victims because BillO tells them they are over and over. He reinforces their desire to blame someone for their lack of a wide screen plasma TV and the latest mobility scooter.
latest mobility scooter...that is sooo bad an sooo funny!
"If Soros wanted to fund Media Matters, he or Open Society Institute (OSI) -- a grant-making foundation he established in 1993 to conduct his philanthropy -- could simply write a check directly to Media Matters, as he and OSI do with numerous entities."
I'm pretty sure MMFA doesn't receive money from Soros if they are trying to sollicit it!
Media Matters doesn't get a dime from Soros. And so what if they did?
Those poor Cons don't have any billionaire donors do they? These holy conservatives are out on the street corners with a tin cup just trying to scrape up a few dollors to keep the corporate filth media running.
Gimme a break!
I must admire MMFA's restraint in not putting "someone besides Andrea Mackris" up in the lede.
Preach it, KO! :D
O'Rielly thinks he is Joe McCarthy
Look at the McCarthyite tactics. "I have a list of names." Waving a red folder with unspecified alleged "evidence." Darkly hinting at things that even if true would be perfectly OK. Guilt by assosciation.
I know that "McCarthyism" is an accusation that used to be thrown around a lot, but I've never seen an example so clear cut that it has to be intentional before.
I wish MMA would put together a series of clips from those days - or maybe Keith would do it - to illustrate what I'm talking about to younger audiences. Sure would look great on YOUTUBE!
I watch O'reilly occationally, but only to see the other side. He allows me to see other viewpoints and I must admit he hangs himself so often it is real entertainment. The only problem I have is that some people believe everything he says. It's probably the people that get their news from Jon Stewart.
But Bill does suffer from "foot in mouth" disease, which in his case I think is untreatable and there is NO cure.....
I also must admit I like Fox's slogan.
"We report, you decide"
Fortunately I have the ability to decide but I don't think a great many people do. I think it's the same crowd that LOVE Nancy Grace and since she still hasn't apologized for convicting those "innocent" Duke lacrosse players, as a matter of fact she hasn't even talked about them. And I'm lucky I have a DVR so I can skip through all of Bill's foolishness.
Daniel.............Toronto
The only thing worse than Nancy Grace's commentary is how completely hideous she is. I'm a con and I can't even stand her.
"It's probably the people that get their news from Jon Stewart."
-----
Those people are better-informed than those who get their news from the Fox Noise Channel.
MSNBC and FOX
I do not see a difference.
Well then!
Step right inside here to Mr. O'Really's modeling school and acting academy! You're exactly that fresh new mind we've been looking for!
What features! What personality!
I see great things in your future! Just sign right here, and here, and here.... don't worry about that loofah clause, we'll explain that later.... and here, and...
Lo SOLON,if you haven't seen amessage from a freind, its a couple over.
Thanks for the response to the quote. I suspect there's a few Fire Heads and enablers onto things that reflect the spirit and quality of the FST close by. For the unititiated, a fire head is a fan of the work of the FireSign Theater(spelling varies). Lodes Tones a source was or is out of business unfortunatly. So inclined give it a shot, The Groups site mayhelp for the more discriminate (rubber boots and spiders) shopper. Not a parental advisory, but to the new I'd try the the second album which contains Nick Danger Third Eye, Versis the way I started with Not Insane. I think I can still recite arround 80 percent of it. The grumbling noise you may be hearing is from small population with some familiarity with the work moving away.
I hope you had an oportunity to see them in the recent years. I've been very lucky here. The postMilinium work work is worthy, and some rumers of new work tantalize.
In between ripping on Media Matters, Rosie O and Bill Moyers THursday, Bill O stated that the Iraq war was a mistake and a war we will not win.
The new Cronkite speaks -
Who needs Bin Ladin when we have our own terrorists and Big Lie experts like Guiliani, Beck, and, the masterbater, Bill O'Rielly. Funny how their own words aka LIES freak them out. They are so contemptuous of the average American's intelligence. Aren't they?
Bill O'Reilly bashing American people and their organizations on Irish television. Very American of you Bill.
BOR real fear should be the stalker Olby.Olby has serious problems.Olby can't go a hour with out thinking about his man crush on BOR.
Since no one watch Olby anyways i guess it doesn't matter.
Man-Crush?
Does your mommy know that your on-line again?
Oh, my
Eegah lives!
"
BOR real fear should be the stalker Olby.Olby has serious problems.Olby can't go a hour with out thinking about his man crush on BOR."
"Since no one watch Olby anyways i guess it doesn't matter."
-----
Let me guess; you failed your "English as a Second Language" class, correct?
Drat...Mr. PhoneSex got foiled again.
poor Olby gets dissed by a porn star
Why does no one ever challenge the Rupert Murdoch "Creators Syndicate" Crew connection? Run by Richard S. Newcombe, president and founder of Creators Syndicate, is a Murdoch buddy. Quoting "O'really" is like quoting any of the others on the list. They just spin and spew.
* Michael Barone* Bruce Bartlett* Austin Bay* Tony Blankley* Andy Borowitz* Brent Bozell* Patrick Buchanan* Steve Chapman* Mona Charen* Linda Chavez* Alexander Cockburn* Joe Conason* Larry Elder* Susan Estrich* Joseph Farah* Suzanne Fields* Froma Harrop* Molly Ivins* Terence P. Jeffrey* Lawrence Kudlow* David Limbaugh* Phil Lucas* Michelle Malkin* Roland Martin* William Murchison* Oliver North* Robert Novak* Marvin Olasky* Bill O'Reilly* Miguel Perez* Dennis Prager* Deb Price* Alan Reynolds* Paul Craig Roberts* Debra J. Saunders* Ben Shapiro* Mark Shields*Roger Simon* Lenore Skenazy* Norman Solomon* Thomas Sowell* John Stossell* Jacob Sullum* Matthew Towery* R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.* Walter WilliamsUnfortunately, I didnt catch the live broadcast of Countdown that night because I figured that news novice Allison Stewart was still filling in for Olbermann. ... I commend Media Matters for allowing me to view the segment in its entirety and appreciate both Mr. Olbermann and MMFA exposing Bill Orally for what he truly is. ... A liar and a bigot.
As long as it's an accurate report on O'Liely and his delusional existence, I don't care if it's a hog dog vendor from outside 30 Rock reporting.
Your all a bunch left losers and idiots if you think Bill O'rielly is anything other than honest. He has open invitation to any left wing loon that wants to come on and debate issues without telling outright lies and obfuscating and spinning like a top.
The fact is all left wing media sites like this one can't stand it that his show is the most widely viewed show period. 5 to 7 million, while the other news outlets get only a paltry percentage of that figure. This all about money and ratings that the left is losing wholesale.
People are tired of the left wing biased lies and spinning of the main stream media outlets and want something that is fair and balanced and let's them think for themselves instead of listening to the delusional tripe like is posted on this site.
I don't care much for Bill but Keith never has anyone on his show except those who say amen to what ever he is sying. I really don't think he has the ability to do anything but read from his screen at least Bill has people on and argues with that don't agree with him. Lets be honest her Keith reads good but is a real mommy's boy when it comes to debate.
Lefties had better hope that another network picks up Keith because in another blog here they are out to get MSNBC. Damn, can't keep up with these fanatical left wingers. They are out to get everyone. What a riot.
So the logic is that if 5-7 million dumbas…. I mean PEOPLE have the same opinion, that makes their beliefs correct and makes O’Liely an honest person????
Keith can read with the best, and O'Liley can fabricate with the rest.