Olbermann named Fox's Gibson "Worst Person" for mocking Stewart's "heartfelt anguish" after 9-11
During the August 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News' John Gibson the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, mocking comedian and Daily Show host Jon Stewart's expression of grief in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Olbermann stated that Gibson "played a tape of comedian Jon Stewart's heartfelt anguish from September 20th, 2001, as a New Yorker who lived near the Trade Center, and Gibson and his producer mocked it. He called it Jon Stewart sobbing. That idiot sidekick called Stewart a, quote, 'phony.' " Olbermann added: "Secondly, Gibby: Jon Stewart's expression of pain after 9-11 and yours, Gibby, and mine -- that was the unity. And no matter what kind of administration propagandist I think you are and how I'll mock you for it, I would never doubt the sincerity of your pain. You've got a lot of damn nerve doubting the sincerity of anybody else's."
Gibson mocked Stewart during a discussion of Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky's August 9 column, headlined "To save America, we need another 9/11."
From the August 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: And our winner, John Gibson of Foxed News. In part of this insane discussion that America, quote, "needs," unquote, another 9-11 to create national unity, Gibby played a tape of comedian Jon Stewart's heartfelt anguish from September 20th, 2001, as a New Yorker who lived near the Trade Center, and Gibson and his producer mocked it. He called it Jon Stewart sobbing. That idiot sidekick called Stewart a, quote, "phony."
Firstly, to anybody who subscribes to the theory that this country needs another 9-11 with hundreds or thousands killed -- here's a funny thing. I don't see any of you suggesting you or your family should be its victims.
Secondly, Gibby: Jon Stewart's expression of pain after 9-11 and yours, Gibby, and mine -- that was the unity. And no matter what kind of administration propagandist I think you are and how I'll mock you for it, I would never doubt the sincerity of your pain. You've got a lot of damn nerve doubting the sincerity of anybody else's. John Gibson of Fox Noise, today's "Worst Person in the World."
How is Olbermann any different than Gibson in terms of a "Propagandist"? One thing about Keith, he is a great writer.
I ask myself that question all the time. Difference of course is Gibson does not host Debates, like Keith does. So I guess Keith is a journalist and Gibson is strickly a hack?
Keith is witty and crafty with words. He is also good on camera, so of course he will host debates. That doesn't mean he's a better man, or a great one at that. That's like me telling you I hosted a cookout last weekend. Whoopee. So I can make a good burger, big deal. So KO is good with words, big deal.
Yeah, what does being good with words have to do with being a journalist or a newscaster? Or even being a talking head in the media, for crying out loud? Except for the fibbing and the inarticulate way he speaks, Gibson - on good days when he's not being foolish - is pretty nearly Keith's equal in almost one or two aspects of broadcasting.
Keith has a lot of gall dissin' Gibson like that...
Has Keith EVER done a news story from "the field"......umm...no. He calls himself a "journalist" does he have any formal training in this field....umm...no. His show in a daily exercise in "incestuant amplification". He ONLY has guests that agree with him or buttress his leftist views and his usual 3rd or 4th place showing in the ratings reflect his lack of viewership or interest in his nightly sock puppet love fest. Here is a list of his political guests for your perusial...
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/05/the_list.php
Olbermann is nothing more than a Democratic political hack..........running Clinton political adds in their entirety during the show, free of course, as news? MSNBC can do what ever it wants....and their ratings show it.
Here's some more information about him, unfortunately from a non-partisan site, but it pretty much parallels your Rumsfeld self-interview and shows how much he's actually like Gibson:
Short Keith bio
"Parallel" being a subjective term, of course.
Where are you getting information that puts KO in 3rd or 4th place?
Tweaker, unfortunately their are no Democratic political hacks except maybe Begala or Carville. He is simply a former sports caster who's quick witted political junkie who tands to like Democrats more than Republicans. Just look at his graphics and the name of this segment. He makes no illusions he's to be taken too seriously. Though his commentary can be quite profound.
Democrats are not organized or like minded enough to have the luxury of a group of media parrots willing to regurgitate talking points. People like him may give Democrats more leeway, vote for them, like the party better and use their shows or columns to express that. But please face it we aren't organized enough to have "hacks." Outside the two clowns I mentioned.
No formal training in journalism? Are sports or political journalists not real journalists?
IMDb database: "Olbermann's first book, "The Major League Coaches," was published when he was 14. He began his career while still in high school as a play-by-play announcer for WHTR. Began college at age 16 and graduated with a Bachelors of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University at the age of 20."
"He has written for dozens of publications, including The New York Times, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, Sports Illustrated and Playboy, and authored a book with his "tag-team partner" Dan Patrick entitled "The Big Show - A Tribute to ESPN's SportsCenter". "
Keith was also a contributing writer to Salon.com
The definition of propaganda according to Merriam-Webster does not distinguish between lie and truth. It is propaganda either way if it advances a cause or hurts another.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=propaganda
The difference between Gibson and Olbermann is that Gibson is not honest. It is unbelievable to me that conservatives give Gibson's lies equal weight with Olbermann's truth.
Furthermore to demonstrate that Gibson is lying is that his evidence that Stewart was insincere is that he criticizes Bush. Criticizing Bush automatically makes you a liar in Gibson's mind.
Skip - You raise a good point...one that seems to get lost in the fray (above).
The difference is intellectual honesty. I defy anyone to find where Olbermann perpetuates outright lies, regularly and without conscience... like Gibson. That's the difference. They two are not equal.
Greek.....thats to easy.....heres an Olby lie...or two...
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/countdown_with_74.php
Olbermanns favorite method of lying is the lie of omission where he tells his viewers part of the story and then spins it in a way that is favorable to who ever he is trying to make look good.......
Example: If I told you BOB sold his boat and gave half of the proceeds of the sale to charity you would think BOB was a nice guy...but what I did not tell you was that BOB stole the boat from JOE and then sold it and split the moneies............Krazy Keith does this all of the time and his viewers have no clue.
Wow this link you provided only exhibited how ignorant the Olbermann hater is. Novak was told by Armitage that Plame worked for the CIA, he called the CIA who encouraged him no to print it, despite what Novak says. He not only disregarded that he also outed her front company in a separate article which severely compromised years of intelligence work and destroyed a source of information regarding the proliferation of WMD in the Middle East. Yet some are claiming that because Novak was the only guy this information was shopped to to actually compromise national security and reveal it, and because Armitage was the source this some how exonerates Libby and Rove from also shopping this info. Apparently to "journalists" who thought better of revealing it.
The Guy with the Olby compulsion has confused what lies are. What is he "omiting" that would contradict anything he said exactly.
I agree Green
Although I never saw that particular episode of The Daily Show(I was like 11 at the time lol)...I do not believe Jon would be insincere about it. Gibby is trying to pick a fight which in the end will only do more to help out Stewart. Jon is used to the critism....he will just make a parody of it like he did with the whole O'Reilly incident. Personally I respect Jon alot...He's smart and knows what he is talking about. He invites those who disagree with him(Jon McCain like 9 times) as well...
I like Olbermann, but I have thought the same thing - how is he different than, say Bill O'Reilly, who is not a journalist but a political advocate? Or Lou Dobbs, who ostensibly is a journalist, but has such obvious bias that I can't take anything he says seriously anymore?
I see it this way:
- When Olbermann takes on Gibson/O'Reilly/Hannity/Coulter/et al., he is debunking propaganda. What he says about those people is either corrections of their factual misstatements or take-downs of their failed arguments. His opponents do no such thing: they mock, dehumanize, misdirect, bluster, and yell, but they do not use satire to take apart a crooked line of thinking - they merely question the sincerity of the arguer.
- Dobbs takes on immigrants, who have little voice for themselves in the media. O'Reilly makes up his opponents (if you really believe there is a war on Xmas, you need help). Hannity is a serial misdirector who lobs bombs free of all context and nuance (he is the master of the out-of-context quote) to shore up those conservatives who are in power.
Olbermann does little of this - at least, I've seen little of it. His primary target is those in positions of power and influence who abuse their trust. He will speak to what he perceives as motives - and we can debate whether that is wise - but he grounds his attacks in facts, and he points his attacks at those who shape our country's dialog and policies.
In a way, he is no different than Jon Stewart, or Bill Moyers, or even Michael Moore. All are advancing an agenda - the salient question shouldn't be whether they are or not, but whether their arguments have merit.
Compare how Gibson took down Stewart with how Olbermann took down Gibson. Gibson simply mocked Stewart, calling into question his sincerity. Olberman, however, destroyed Gibson's catalyst for attacking Stewart ("We need another 9/11"), AND called him on questioning Stewart's sincerity with no evidence to the contrary. Gibson attacked Stewart; Olbermann attacked Gibson's argument, then attacked Gibson by holding him accountable for that argument. There's a difference.
Having said that...
I do wish we could actually have some news on the teevee that is devoid of all of this bias, both left and right. As it stands now, I think Moyers and Olberman and Stewart are desperately needed voices to counter the onslaught from the right. I think their modus operandi is far different than the right's.
But why can't we have a reasonably objective news source on the tube? Is there really no market for it?
One last thing: since Olbermann doesn't eat his own, he's allowed to stay on the air. He's not being a hypocrite for laying off of Carlson - he's being an adult. Other adults understand that this is how the world works, and it has no bearing on the merits of Olbermann's commentary.
Well said, thank you.
I have a suggestion. Do not engage the righties that are willfully ignorant. What Gibson said is wrong, hateful and everyone -- regardless of affiliation -- should condemn it. Can't you righties simply say that Gibson sucks for being so callous. Nope you can't. And that's what sucks about trying to hold civil discourse with you.
Here's the difference. Gibson purposely using deciet and/or ignorance gleaned from RNC talking points because he believes it is alright to bend the truth or be willfully ignorant for the greater good. He probably believes his deceit is justified for the greater good. Olbermann is a partisan. Doesn't trust the RNC and is careful to look deeper into their shenanigans. He favors the Democrats but hasn't exhibited a willingness to repeat talking points to further their causes and is compelled to look beyond the talking points and jingoistic phrases, The Democrats don't have the knack or ideologically driven base to support that.
The subect here is Gibsons comment about John stuart. Not what you think about OLBERMANN personally. Alot of these comments attack the messenger and not the message. You waste my time and others when you can't keep on topic. Not only that but it also shows your total disregard for logic. Can't you see that when you shift subjects from the actual message to the messenger that intelligent people see immediately that you are a waste of space when it comes to intelligent debate?
Interesting.
Wonder why Keith didn't hand out any awards to Chris Matthews for being sexist and/or his flirting on air?
Oh wait, silly me....Chris works for MSNBC.
These Olbermann awards are worthless.
So are these Olbermann threads.
When you work for FOX Noise you are a target in the World of Olbermann. Matthews can use profanity, say things far worse than Gibson and Bill OReilly that are highlighted every day and Olbermann looks the other way. Smells of hypocrisy.
Smells of hypocrisy.
Ya think?
Funny how Tucker never gets called out by Keith either.
Keith and his arch enemy Billy are really just two peas in a pod.
Do not forget Pat Buchanan.
Jeter, JLyons, Casey, I can't argue with you, but how many people do you know who would take a stand against their companies personnel, management or policies?
I'm in my late fifties and I can count on one hand how many times I've seen someone bite the hand that feeds them.
And most of those times, it was me. And it never worked out too well for me.
Not that it ever stopped me from doing it again. :)
King,
Yeah I get what you're saying BUT it seems to me that Olbermann & his producer or whomever came up with the idea of Worst Person In The World awards, would have foreseen that by excluding MSNBC employees there would eventually be charges of hypocrisy.
I think they knew it would be hypocritical, but I also think that they never expected to be raked over the coals for something so obviously tongue-in-cheek and hyperbolic.
It is hard to take such an "award" (The Worst Person in the World?) seriously and I doubt they thought anyone would (besides maybe some idiot like me).
; )
Hey Jeter.
Just because KO selects those from other networks makes him a hypocrite? Why? Are you saying he has to include ever hypocrite out there? Can't you choose which hypocrites you would like to expose? He is not the one saying he is "fair and balance".
Well Mike,
I just figure if you're gonna have an award for the Worst Person In The World, then Everybody In The World should be eligible.
Call me crazy, but that makes perfect sense to me...
"...it seems to me that Olbermann & his producer or whomever came up with the idea of Worst Person In The World awards, would have foreseen that by excluding MSNBC employees there would eventually be charges of hypocrisy."
And you would risk getting fired over that concern? And then what would you do, try to get hired somewhere else so you could criticize their employees on the air? Nice plan.
And you would risk getting fired over that concern? And then what would you do, try to get hired somewhere else so you could criticize their employees on the air? Nice plan.
OR
Here's a simple solution: Don't do it.
Can't include everyone in the world to be eligible for the award? Then scrap the idea.
OR
Give it a different title: Worst Person In The World That Doesn't Work For MSNBC And Is Probably Not A Democrat/Liberal
Don't want to do either? Then Keith & his apologists can just suck it up & take the criticism.
O'Reilly claims to be Fair & Balanced...he isn't.
Olbermann gives out an award for the Worst Person In The World...yet he excludes a certain segment of people in the World that will even be considered.
Both are guilty of hypocrisy.
By that standard, nobody on any network can criticize people without criticizing those on their own network, while the risks of doing so are obvious.
Several people have this bizarre obsession with the title of the segment, as if it's supposed to be taken literally or defines the parameters of the field. It's a damn joke title, for God's sakes. This isn't hard to figure out.
If someone on FOX had a segment called "Moonbat of the Week", that would imply that people on FOX would be eligible for that as well, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not "Moonbat of the Week who doesn't work for FOX" or anything like that. But if they never highlighted anyone who appeared on FOX, that would just be plain wrong. If you can't apply it to everyone, then don't do it.
Ridiculous.
By that standard, nobody on any network can criticize people without criticizing those on their own network, while the risks of doing so are obvious.
No. Now you're just being disingenuous.This is a special segment designated to award the Worst Person In The World. Big difference. If you don't include everybody in the world then it's a sham.
If someone on FOX had a segment called "Moonbat of the Week", that would imply that people on FOX would be eligible for that as well, wouldn't it?
Moonbats are Liberals that have drunk too much kool-aid & are tipping over even further to the Left than usual. So if FOX had such a segment titled Moonbat Of The Week, at least we'd know what part of the population was eligible. And since Conservatives wouldn't be, then that would obviously exclude 99.9% of FOX employees who as we know are by & large Conservatives. And quite frankly I can see them giving Colmes an award.
Several people have this bizarre obsession with the title of the segment, as if it's supposed to be taken literally or defines the parameters of the field. It's a damn joke title, for God's sakes. This isn't hard to figure out.
Joke? Then why does MMFA present it here as if it's important? If it's nothing but a hahaha, why give it any credence at all?
But it does make me smile to read Liberals insisting "It's a damn joke". Yeah, whenever we tell you guys something is just a damn joke, we get pounded.
Ridiculous.
“No. Now you're just being disingenuous.This is a special segment designated to award the Worst Person In The World. Big difference. If you don't include everybody in the world then it's a sham.”
Again, it’s obviously not supposed to be taken literally.“Moonbats are Liberals that have drunk too much kool-aid & are tipping over even further to the Left than usual. So if FOX had such a segment titled Moonbat Of The Week, at least we'd know what part of the population was eligible.”
Yes, and it would include people who appear on FOX.
“And since Conservatives wouldn't be, then that would obviously exclude 99.9% of FOX employees who as we know are by & large Conservatives. And quite frankly I can see them giving Colmes an award.”
Um, yes. So you can imagine them thinking that Colmes was eligible for that award, but if they never mentioned his name on that segment, would you consider it wrong? I would find it understandable, for the reasons repeatedly mentioned.“Joke? Then why does MMFA present it here as if it's important? If it's nothing but a hahaha, why give it any credence at all?”
The title is a joke. That doesn’t mean that the substance of the item isn’t valid, does it now? I don’t care who you are or what you think about Olbermann, pointing out the nature of Gibson’s behavior is a valid criticism. You agreed that Gibson's comments were reprehensible, so I’m not sure where you expect to go with this argument.“But it does make me smile to read Liberals insisting "It's a damn joke". Yeah, whenever we tell you guys something is just a damn joke, we get pounded.”Is anyone really offended by “worst person in the world”, which is obviously an exaggeration? That would be a little oversensitive, don’t you think? That’s a pretty obvious difference from comments that are racist, sexist, slanderous etc. which are passed off as jokes to deflect criticism. Obviously there are times when there are overreactions to genuinely harmless jokes, but that doesn’t mean that Olbermann’s title isn’t a harmless joke itself, to which you are overreacting.The more relevant concern here is whether the criticism is valid or not. The nature of the industry precludes complete purity, where everyone can criticize anyone or anything without consequences, even if the criticism is valid. So what do you suggest, exactly? The complaint about the title is nonsense. Anything he used, “jerk of the day”, “idiot du jour”, whatever, anything of that sort implies that everyone is eligible, because there’s nothing about it that suggests any restrictions. It carries exactly the same meaning, even if it doesn’t use the exact words “in the world”.
Really, if Matthews said something truly obnoxious and wasn’t on the list of “jerk of the day”, wouldn’t it be just as possible to say “Matthews isn’t a jerk just because he’s on the same network?" If not, why not, precisely? And what if it wasn't a "special segment" at all? What if he just pointed out these things, without noting the similar or worse behavior from people on his own network? Wouldn't that still be hypocritical and therefore grounds to suggest he shouldn't criticize anyone in the media at all? Sorry, but the nature of the corporate media just doesn't allow for such restrictions and still allow valid criticisms of outsiders. Some level of hypocrisy is inherent to the system.
So what about any of that is disingenuous or ridiculous? Do tell, please, I can’t wait to hear.
(Not sure why that printed that way, let me paste the microscopic parts again. If it doesn't work now, you'll just have to copy it and paste elsewhere to see.)
Again, it's obviously not supposed to be taken literally.
Um, yes. So you can imagine them thinking that Colmes was eligible for that award, but if they never mentioned his name on that segment, would you consider it wrong? I would find it understandable, for the reasons repeatedly mentioned.
The title is a joke. That doesn’t mean that the substance of the item isn’t valid, does it now? I don’t care who you are or what you think about Olbermann, pointing out the nature of Gibson’s behavior is a valid criticism. You agreed that Gibson's comments were reprehensible, so I’m not sure where you expect to go with this argument.
Is anyone really offended by “worst person in the world”, which is obviously an exaggeration? That would be a little oversensitive, don’t you think? That’s a pretty obvious difference from comments that are racist, sexist, slanderous etc. which are passed off as jokes to deflect criticism. Obviously there are times when there are overreactions to genuinely harmless jokes, but that doesn’t mean that Olbermann’s title isn’t a harmless joke itself, to which you are overreacting.
You obviously are missing my point & I'm definitely not getting yours. I'll give it one more quick response then I'm done. We'll have to just agree to disagree...
Again, it's obviously not supposed to be taken literally.
I see. But when Conservatives joke around they are always supposed to be taken literally, according to the Liberal posters here and it's a different story? Got it. Here's an idea for Keith-- change the name of the segment if you can't include everybody. Simple.
Um, yes. So you can imagine them thinking that Colmes was eligible for that award, but if they never mentioned his name on that segment, would you consider it wrong? I would find it understandable, for the reasons repeatedly mentioned.
Yes I would consider it wrong. I doubt you'd find it understandable. Nor would MMFA--it would get a thread here....And further more I can see them giving it to Colmes without a second thought. On FOX you'll find O'Reilly & Rivera knocking heads. Hannity & Rivera. Hannity & Colmes. They aren't afraid to disagree or call to task fellow employees like Keith & MSNBC are.
The title is a joke. That doesn’t mean that the substance of the item isn’t valid, does it now? I don’t care who you are or what you think about Olbermann, pointing out the nature of Gibson’s behavior is a valid criticism. You agreed that Gibson's comments were reprehensible, so I’m not sure where you expect to go with this argument.
Valid certainly. But by eliminating an entire segment of possible & worthy recipients made up of MSNBC employees & Democrats & Liberals, it is basically lacking in honesty. If Tucker deserved it, but Gibson got it...well I suppose you'd figure that was just hunky dory?
Is anyone really offended by “worst person in the world”, which is obviously an exaggeration? That would be a little oversensitive, don’t you think?
It's not the title so much as it is the fact that Keith only awards folks that aren't protected because they are fellow employees or share Keith's ideology & agenda. Is that really too hard to understand???
Well said J,
When Limbaugh says anything, it is taken literally by the foot stomping liberals here. But hero Olbermann is given a wide latitude in his rhetoric and not to be taken literally, or seriously.
Typical double standard we've come to expect.
Agree 100% Tommy. I'm done putting up with this nonsense.
When Rush calls Edwards the Breck girl it's funny. I'm so tired of the whining from the left telling us it's a smear or a slur & that we can't laugh at it.
"I see. But when Conservatives joke around they are always supposed to be taken literally, according to the Liberal posters here and it's a different story? Got it. Here's an idea for Keith-- change the name of the segment if you can't include everybody. Simple."
Part of the issue is that the effect of a joke is a factor here. Your example of Rush's "Breck girl" is valid as a joke, but the effect is clearly to associate Edwards with femininity or homosexuality, while Romney's looks are portrayed as a clear benefit to him. That's not as serious of an example as many cases where things are dismissed as "jokes", though. It's also obvious you missed the previous post by me, since you don't address how changing the title would really help anything.
"Yes I would consider it wrong. I doubt you'd find it understandable. Nor would MMFA--it would get a thread here....And further more I can see them giving it to Colmes without a second thought. On FOX you'll find O'Reilly & Rivera knocking heads. Hannity & Rivera. Hannity & Colmes. They aren't afraid to disagree or call to task fellow employees like Keith & MSNBC are."
I would disagree with MMfA if they argued that a FOX employee should risk their careers for the sake of not appearing hypocritical. As a matter of principle, fine, but pragmatically, absolutely not. "Knocking heads" in political dialogue is clearly not the same as highlighting comments for derision.
"Valid certainly. But by eliminating an entire segment of possible & worthy recipients made up of MSNBC employees & Democrats & Liberals, it is basically lacking in honesty. If Tucker deserved it, but Gibson got it...well I suppose you'd figure that was just hunky dory?"
Not hunky dory, just basic reality. You do what you can within the system without getting fired.
"It's not the title so much as it is the fact that Keith only awards folks that aren't protected because they are fellow employees or share Keith's ideology & agenda. Is that really too hard to understand???"
Um, what? Why did you point out the "big difference" between what Olbermann is doing and any similar criticism then, based on the "special segment" and the title? Why call it a "sham"? Yes, it's certainly hard to understand that you're not that concerned about the title when you make such great efforts to make points about it. "...change the name of the segment if you can't include everybody."
If it's about him not targeting liberals, that's fine, but that's you moving the goalposts. Your point was that he should chastise people he works with. I pointed out he could not only get fired, but have trouble getting hired again for doing that. Then your idea is that he shouldn't do it at all.
And that brings us back to what I said before;by that standard, nobody should ever criticize anyone else in the media because they're bound to be hypocrites. Supposedly, that was "disingenuous" of me to say, but I'm not seeing what else you're suggesting. Change the title? But the title isn't the main issue, it's that Olbermann won't pick on MSNBC employees, right?
So what else is there, then?
J,
Don't you know the rules by now, at least here. It's only elitist politically correct liberals that can properly identify whether something is a "joke" or not. You, nor I, have the leftist sensitivity to make that determination.
In other words, shut up and be quiet.
Who said that? Argue each case on its merits. In the "worst person in the world" case, by no stretch of the imagination is that supposed to be taken literally.
By your rules, since you are being intrusively argumentative (or whatever the phrase was), I should have the right to insult you however I see fit.
But I won't.
Each case on it's merits? Oh, really. Oh, let's not. Let's just make a blanket rubberstamp of every single item posted here by a conservative talker that it is absolutely, undeniably, irrefutably NOT a joke.
There, settled. No need to bother with this "each case" nuisance. This is much easier.
Another strawman. Many of the examples you're surely thinking of imply a certain truth or convey a false impression. That's why they're offensive. Also in many cases there's a history involved, where there have been serious statements made by that person which have the same thrust to them.
But again, each case on its merits. I'm not making any blanket statements, so don't imply that I'm doing so, please.
All jokes imply a certain truth, that's what makes them funny, otherwise they would be - huh?
And the conservative talkers highlighted here are all well known for their mocking and humor toward liberals. Anyone that gets offended, for the most part, is just being too damn sensitive. Consider the source.
Truth is a basic foundation for humor. If you have a deep voice, and someone imitates you in a high voice, is that funny? No, because that's not how you sound at all.
That's exactly what exaggeration for the sake of humor is all about. Olbermann isn't saying that anyone is the worst in the world, he's just pointing out that someone is being a jerk.
On the other hand, you have Rush posting a picture of Bin Laden identified as a Democrat. What's the basis for the humor, exaggeration? What truth is that based on? What makes it funny, exactly?
Whether something is intended as a joke or not, the political effect or offensiveness are still valid concerns. The fact that Rush does this sort of thing all the time doesn't make it any better.
Tommy, I hear ya. From here on in, if the "joke" isn't too offensive [in my own opinion] I am gonna defend Rush, Coulter & the rest.
I'm tired of being lectured to on what's funny & what isn't according to Liberal standards.
Good.
As I've said, the primary reason Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest are highlighted here at all has nothing to do with identifying their rhetoric in hopes of calling them on it, or stopping it - as is foolishly declared here by many.
But it's because liberals haven't figured out how to silence him through competition or the Fairness Doctrine or how to affect his ratings negatively, so they cherry pick something he says that strikes a nerve in liberals, and then the posters can unleash the most scurrilous insults his way as a way to vent their rage......and of course they cannot fathom it ever being a joke, then it's mention here is worthless.
Get a room, you two.
Speaking of eating one's own and "Fox's Moonbat of the Week"- has anyone witnessed Hannity's "shootouts" with Geralda Rivera? Priceless.
I bet not one of you can name a particular day or even research to find a particular day that Keith left out one of his coworkers that were more deserving than the three he chose for the "worst person" award. With that said, those of you that said Keith is a hypocrite based on this are just foolish. Foolish enough that you need to take that argument to grade school. Maybe there you can convince someone of your asinine assertion.
I bet not one of you can name a particular day or even research to find a particular day that Keith left out one of his coworkers that were more deserving than the three he chose for the "worst person" award
How about IMUS for starters?
Now don't you feel foolish? You should.
Do you even know what 3 people made the worst list the day after Imus's comments? When you tell me what 3 people made it and what for, then we will compare it to Imus's comment to see if he was worthy of supercedeing the other 3. Until then, I won't feel foolish at all.
Now that I think about it, Imus was guilty of name calling. Thats not enough to make the top 3 anyday. Conservative logic bewilders me.
Jeter:
It is true that Olbermann won’t touch the MSNBC talent and yeah money is the reason I'm sure. I am all but certain that somewhere in Keith's multi-million dollar contract it was stipulated that the MSNBC jerks were off limits to him. Now I must be honest I relish Keith's cutting down arrogant blow hards like Bill O’rielly because Bill O’rielly is a bully and I’ve always enjoyed watching people stand up to bullies, but I can understand you dissatisfaction with Keith’s limited list of contenders for his worst persons list and that you consider him a sell out. BTW, Dan Abrams attacks competitors as well, he criticizes their selection of stories, etc., and he makes fun of the other networks on air people particularly the people at CNN including Larry King and Anderson Cooper. I don’t like this at all and I’ve been planning to e-mail old Dan and let him know that I wish they would knock it off and concentrate on making their shows the better, it’s not like they are the greatest or anything. I don’t want him to turn MSNBC into the bully. Dr. Phil who drives me nuts by the way once said that some people will try to build themselves up by bringing others down and he called this leveling. Well it seems that Dan Abrams is using leveling as a ratings strategy. It’s distasteful for news people to behave this way. Maybe I should I will have to stop calling this stuff news anyway it’s more like a collection of shows dedicated to commentary on current events. That said I still like watch Olbermann and since I can’t smack down Bill O’rielly myself I will have to continue to use Keith as my surrogate until that need is gone. (smile)Lynn,
I like Keith better than Bill, which isn't saying much since I find Keith has become a tad pompous & irritating. Sort of like O'Reilly became. Which is why I stopped watching both guys. Occasionally I check in to see what they're both up to during a commercial break. But I never linger very long.
Keith poking at Bill was funny at first, but it's gotten old. Though I can understand why you get satisfaction from seeing Keith give it to Billy-Boy.
I also agree with you about Dan Abrams. I don't want to hear him criticizing other networks or anchors. If these guys are in a bitter competition, let them throw zingers at each other on their own time. Viewers want to hear about issues that are important to us.
It is hypocrisy, but what goes on in general does cancel itself out. When you work for MSNBC, you're a target of O'Reilly, but only by way of innuendo and being indirect. At least Olbermann has the guts to name his targets outright.
You're right.
But do these cable goons think that anybody really cares about their childish little fueds and catfights they have with one another? They all host their own show, each having a platform to stick it to the other one, back and forth, and then back again. I doubt even kindergarten schoolyards get this ridiculous.
If they do think people sit home and cheer them on to fight the good fight against their ratings opponent in the near obscure world of cable commentary shows, they better get an ego check.
As long as sites such as this one continue to promote Olbermann and his antics , the games will continue.
Nah...as long as MSNBC and Fox exist, this will continue.
But I wouldn't want Keith to give up all of his antics. Oddball has pretty funny stuff at times.
J,
Do you still watch Keith Olberman's show? You once said you watched it all the time. I find that extremely strange since you seem so contemptuous of him. When I started feeling like that about Bill O'rielly I stopped watching him and Fox altogether I might add. And yeah I still watch Count Down because Keith is funny and he's entertaining, but I don't consider him a serious news guy. I never have.I disagree. I typically stick up for KO but rarely watch 5 minutes of his show.
I doubt many viewers think that deeply about it. Why do people watch Jerry Springer? Do they really empathize with the "victims" or are they just rubber-neckers? Of course, posters to this forum are probably an exception.
Jeter I consider you a fair dude most of the time. What do you think about the things Gibson said about Stewart?
Monk,
It's very rare that I agree with anything Gibson ever has to say, and I found his mocking of Jon Stewart reprehensible.
Gibson can be a jerk all by himself, but this nitwit Angry Rich brings out the very worst in him.
Yeah,
Kind of like Bernie did for the I-man. I guess some kids never out grow peer pressure.
Today's commentators can be divided into two groups: Those that argue based on facts and have an allegiance to accuracy, and those that make their argument without regard to the facts. Olberman is in the first group. Everyone at Fox is in the second. It is not a matter of your point of view. I differ with the opinions of John Leo, Walter Williams, Tucker Carlson and William Buckley, for instance, but they have an interest in the truth. Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity do not.
Of course they are worthless! It's done for a laugh not reportage.
Hmm...flirting with a correspondent or saying we need another 9/11 ... which is more reprehensible? Gee, that's a toughie.
No matter what you think of Keith, his show or it's contents he said it best:
Gibby: Jon Stewart's expression of pain after 9-11 and yours, Gibby, and mine -- that was the unity. And no matter what kind of administration propagandist I think you are and how I'll mock you for it, I would never doubt the sincerity of your pain. You've got a lot of damn nerve doubting the sincerity of anybody else's.
PearleneI agree with you, we all remember the pain of that day.
Succinct, and oh-so-true. Thank you, Keith, for stating the obvious, which apparently (and sadly) needs to be done on a daily basis at this point.
I noticed the top three threads this afternoon all were on the same subject: Goofy Gibson.
Note to MMFA: Been there. Done that.
Don't you get it, man? This is a gosh-darn war! Either Gibson surrenders or MMFA will be forced to write another unpleasant article. And look out, 'cause I think they mean it.
; )
It's a war...and AA wants MMFA to cut and run! ;D
Yeah! MMFA is fighting him over there, so they don't have to fight him...uh....
Nevermind
If MMFA stops posting these articles, Gibson will follow us home.
Oh yeah, well I'm NOT feeding him or cleaning up after him.
George would never let us keep him anyway.
Please, no. We have enough pets.
Your noticer must be on the fritz again. The first story was on Boortz, not Gibson. But nobody can blame you for not being able to tell them apart. They both spew the same bile.
Boortz is Gibson without the hair? I'll have to give that a whirl in Photoshop.
I'll take Olbermann's hypocrisy over Gibson dishonesty any day.
I believe that the reason Keith never calls out Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, or some of the other true idiots at MSNBC is because the company has a rule that you can't publicly speak negatively about other employees (as do most media companies). I remember awhile back when he referred to Rita Cosby as being "dumb as a bag of rocks" (paraphrasing) and he had to issue an apology.
I disagree with KO on one point here. I seriously doubt the sincerity of Gibson's pain. If his pain is sincere he would not try to suggest another 911 would be good. However, I would not mock him for expressing it. His mocking Stewart is however another clue that his own is not sincere. I suspect he is only using it to gain political advantage.
I can't help but love that guy. (OLBERMANN)
I LIKE OLBERMANN BECAUSE HE IS NOT AFFRAID TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE FOOLS. LET'S SEE HOW MANY OF THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA WILL REPORT ON THE STORY THAT HE BROKE LAST NIGHT HOW THE WHITE HOUSE WROTE THE REPORT FOR THE GENERAL THAT WILL BE RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER ABOUT THE WAR.
why are you shouting ?
Worst person
Hey Gibson: Take that!!!...
Hey KO: Sic him !!! (keep up the good work)