About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for misrepresenting poll on gay rights group endorsements

August 17, 2007 3:26 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On Countdown, Keith Olbermann named Bill O'Reilly the "winner" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for falsely asserting, as Media Matters for America documented, that a poll by "Pew Research or something like that" "says that most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group."

45 Comments

On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "winner" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for asserting on the August 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that "a new poll" -- which O'Reilly said was issued by "Pew Research or something like that" -- "says that most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group," as Media Matters for America documented. In fact, a Media Matters search turned up no Pew Research Center poll on the topic, nor any poll asking a nationwide sample whether respondents would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization. However, as the News Hounds blog noted in response to O'Reilly's claim, an August 6-8 Quinnipiac poll of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania found that a majority of voters in each state responded that support for a presidential candidate by "gay rights groups" "doesn't ... make a difference" in their level of support. Further, the poll found that less than 35 percent of respondents in each state said that the endorsement of a gay rights group would make them "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate.

During the show, Olbermann cited the results of the Quinnipiac poll and added: "So when you said, 'A new poll says most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group,' but the poll actually shows that less than one-third feel that way, is it the truth that you hate, Bill, or just the math? And Pew, Quinnipiac, what's the diff?"

As Media Matters also documented, during the August 15 edition of his show, O'Reilly read an email from Cindi Creager of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) that criticized him for "erroneously report[ing] that a poll found most Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization." However, while O'Reilly noted that the poll was taken "in a few states," not nationally as he had earlier suggested, he did not acknowledge that his original assertion that the result applied to a "majority" of respondents was false. Rather, he simply cited the Quinnipiac poll results from Florida -- which found that 28 percent of respondents would be "less likely" to support a candidate endorsed by a gay rights group, while 60 percent said it "would make no difference," and 10 percent said it would make them "more likely" to support such a candidate -- and added, "That's what I was referring to."

Olbermann also named O'Reilly the "runner-up" in his August 16 "Worst Person" segment for "[s]till fighting the website Daily Kos long after it won," in Olbermann's words. Olbermann was referring to the August 14 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, during which O'Reilly read from a posting he said was "found" on the "hateful website" Daily Kos, which stated: "If Jews love the US so much- how come their #'s in the military are dismal? Instead of selling one's soul to be diamond brokers, investment bankers..." After reading the posting, O'Reilly asserted: "Doesn't get much more anti-Semitic than that. Does it?" However, while O'Reilly attributed the posting to Daily Kos member "dhonig" by showing his name underneath the quote, "dhonig" did not actually make the comment in question. Rather, in a February 13 post, "dhonig" criticized the comment, which was posted on July 17, 2006, by another Daily Kos user, "PEARSAYS." Indeed, after reprinting the comment, "dhonig" wrote: "Was there some kind of contest to see how many stereotypes could fit in one paragraph." In an August 15 post on the blog My Left Wing titled, "Bill O'Reilly Defamed Me," "dhonig" explained the situation in detail, noting that the comment attributed to him by O'Reilly "was one of the hateful quotes I was criticizing."

As Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, here, here, and here), Olbermann frequently mentions O'Reilly in his "Worst Person" segment.

From the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, Bill-O, still fighting the website Daily Kos long after it won. And he's bought himself some possible legal trouble. To suggest that the site is anti-Semitic, he read a posting and attributed it to a "dhonig." The snippet was awful, quoting, "If Jews love the U.S. so much, how come their numbers in the U.S. military are so dismal? Instead of selling one's soul to be diamond brokers, investment bankers."

Problem is, Mr. Honig did not write that. He was quoting that posting by an anti-Semite who was promptly thrown out of the website. Mr. Honig was trying to help the self-policing, and what he wrote was, quote, "Was there some kind of contest to see how many stereotypes could fit in one paragraph?"

And here's your problem, Billy. Mr. Honig's an attorney, licensed in three states and before the Supreme Court, and he says you've defamed him. Also, there's that little ethical nightmare headline, "Bill O'Reilly attacks critic of anti-Semitism."

And our winner -- oh, he hasn't had a twofer in a while. Nobody knows that better than he does. Well, he's done it again, making stuff up. "Now, a new poll says that most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group. What is that poll? Pew Research or something like that? But anyway."

Oops again. The Pew Research Center has taken no such poll. We're thinking Orally is referring to a Quinnipiac poll from a week ago of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Not a national poll, just in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Its Question 18 reads, "If a presidential candidate is supported by gay rights groups, does that make you more likely to vote for that candidate, less likely to vote for that candidate, or doesn't it make a difference?"

The combined response in those three states -- 30 percent said it made them less likely to vote for the candidate; 10 percent said it made them more likely to vote for the candidate; 58 percent said it made no difference.

So when you said, "A new poll says most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group," but the poll actually shows that less than one-third feel that way, is it the truth that you hate, Bill, or just the math? And Pew, Quinnipiac, what's the diff? Peabody, Polk. Loofah, falafel. Whatever. Bill Orally, today's "Worst Person in the World."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by CaseySpring (August 17, 2007 3:28 pm ET)
         

      Do not forget to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight at 8pm on MSNBC.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by neondesert (August 17, 2007 3:42 pm ET)
           

        Subtle.  Yet snarky.

        I like it!!!  Kudos!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (August 17, 2007 3:45 pm ET)
           

        Commercial addendum;

        If you don't have the full 60 minutes to devote to Countdown, you can skip the Worst Person segment, about 45 minutes into the show.....it will be here the next day.

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (August 17, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
         

      A twofer! This is a new record for Bill!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (August 17, 2007 4:26 pm ET)
           

        A Trifecta for Billy

        Is is possible?  Yes it is!  For the Super Moron.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (August 17, 2007 8:58 pm ET)
           

        He's had twofers in the past.

        My favorite line went something like "O'Reilly either hates the truth or hates math."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (August 17, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
         

      Keith's obsession with all things O'Reilly is borderline freaky.

      Keith seek help.

      Maybe MMFA will publish your blog from whatever mental institution you end up in.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (August 17, 2007 4:03 pm ET)
           

        You have more than one patient, Doctor. 

        There's nothing "borderline" about O'Reilly's frequent tendency to dish out baloney.   The  man is a seemingly endless source of self- induced contraries and gotcha's. 

        Perhaps if Bill didn't make it so easy for Keith to become "obsessed", he wouldn't have to heed your prescription.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (August 17, 2007 4:10 pm ET)
             

          With the entire world of bad guys/gals to choose from [oh other than MSNBC employees & Dem/Libs] are you telling me that it's not a tad obvious when O'Reilly wins an award practically every other night, that Keith isn't a bit obsessed?

          Nah, borderline freaky. My diagnosis stands.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (August 17, 2007 4:29 pm ET)
               

            Maybe its just me, but I think playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor was a pretty good clue that the award is tongue-in-cheek - not to mention the hyperbolic title of the award. 

            I don't think the award is an actual official designation as Osama bin Laden or Kim Jung-Il would seem to make the list every night.  The problem is that those guys don't really release all that much new material on a regular basis so Fox "News" bozos will have to do.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (August 17, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
                 

              Tongue & cheek or not, are we all gonna really pretend that Keith doesn't have it in for O'Reilly? Not that I'd stick up for Billy-Boy, the guy is a buffoon. But Olbermann's little feud with his FOX competitor is not exactly a state secret.

              There are any number of bozos out there Keith could tag for his silly award every evening...his over-awarding of O'Reilly spells an obvious O-b-s-e-s-s-i-o-n to me

              Report Abuse
              • Author by LarryE (August 17, 2007 4:55 pm ET)
                   

                I don't think "obsession" is the right expression, more like "refusing to put up with the crap." BillO makes a big deal out of the relative size of his audience, so that makes him a big target. And there is certainly no shortage of material there.

                At the same time, I'll say the truth is that the two of them dislike each other and that may factor - no pun intended - into it. You may consider Olbermann "obsessed," but O'Reilly is the one who had a petition going to get Olbermann fired. (The petition was still up a couple of weeks ago.) 

                Report Abuse
              • Author by bittermarv (August 17, 2007 9:03 pm ET)
                   

                Jeter, you might want to actually watch the Worst Person segment.  Olbermann has three people per night:  worse, worser, and worst.  So when Olbermann is hosting Countdown, that's three people that get the nod.  Five times a week.  That's fifteen people a week.  (Some are dupes, of course, such as last night.)

                So while O'Reilly, a high profile idiot who happens to occupy the same time-slot as KO, does make the list often, there are a lot of other people who also make the list.  O'Reilly doesn't make it nightly.  Or necessarily even every week (though I'm sure if one were to make the effort, they could find something of O'Reilly's on a daily basis that would be "worst" material.)

                So I think you're a bit overstating things to call it an "obsession." 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 20, 2007 2:36 pm ET)
                     

                  What would you call it?  He goes after him every night.  I'm not saying Bill O doesn't go after KO every now and then, but it's not every night.  He (KO) doesn't help himself when he has to slam Bill O every night to make himself appear a little more credible.  If he must go after Bill O every night, the material he uses obviously isn't enough to stand on by itself.  

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by LarryE (August 17, 2007 4:50 pm ET)
                 

              The segment is satire, generally meant to poke fun at some offensive remark or another. As a fan once pointed out, if Olbermann finds something genuinely offensive, instead of ending the bit with by going "worst person in the woooorrlld!" he just quietly says "worst person in the world."

              Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (August 17, 2007 4:51 pm ET)
               

            Just in case MMFA is the only exposure you get to Countdown, or if you're new to Countdown altogether, here's a little viewer's guide I worked up for you...

            The REAL "world of bad guys/gals" is covered during the first half hour of the program.  This portion of the broadcast consists of what's commonly known in journalism as the stories that are "making headlines".

              Very bad people, often far worse than those cited in the "Worst Person" segment, are given attention during this opening portion of Countdown.

            These headline stories are also infrequently given greater scrutiny by Olbermann during his "Special Comments". 

            To summarize, take into account:

            1. The content of the opening segments,

            2. How late the "Worst Person" segment happens in the broadcast,

            3. The usage of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor as background music during "Worst Person", and

            4. Keith's obvious jesting, taunting and ridicule during "Worst Person", 

            then do the math and decide for yourself whether or not the "Worst Person" description is one of banter and witticism, or is intended to be literal.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (August 17, 2007 5:11 pm ET)
                 

              Pete,

              Thanks, your summary is appreciated, but I've watched Olbermann in the past so I know the drill.

              Let me put it another way.

              Let's say I decided to present the Moonbat Of The Day awards to posters here.

              And let's say you & I fought a great deal, hated each other, mocked one another etc.

              And every other day I presented the award to Pete592.

              Now with all the other Moonbats I have to choose from here, I have a feeling you, and the others might think I was just a tad obsessed with the one poster I really can't stand.

              Personally I don't give two hoots about the Keith vs Billy feud, but I do think Keith is obsessed with his competitor. Of course O'Reilly I'm sure sits & seethes over Keith.

              Hey I just wish I was making either of their salaries ;-)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Godless (August 17, 2007 5:39 pm ET)
                   

                Just to interject my two cents...

                Jeter, your analogy is false. It is not about hating and mocking one another. It is about exposing the lies and misrepresentations of the other, which KO does without peer. O'Reilly screws up his facts daily. If one day O'Reilly suddenly stopped lying, obfuscating, etc., KO would no longer be justified in bestowing his daily award to him, and would cease doing so. Until that time, we'll just have to enjoy...

                And I wish I were making BOTH their salaries! 

                 

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Godless (August 17, 2007 6:02 pm ET)
                   

                Jeter, Your analogy is false. It is not about hating and mocking one another. It is about exposing the lies and misrepresentations of the other, which KO does without peer. Unfortunately for O'Reilly, either he, his crack staff, or both, screw up their facts royally almost daily. If one day O'Reilly suddenly stopped lying, obfuscating, etc., KO would no longer be justified in bestowing his daily award to him.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (August 17, 2007 6:19 pm ET)
                   

                You, like others who attempt to psychoanalyze Olbermann, are playing fast and loose with the meaning of "obsession". 

                If I received the "Moonbat" award every other day, as opposed to every day, it would not be obsession. 

                Obsession is the domination of one's thoughts with a single person, idea, or desire. This is why the diagnosis of "obsession" fits neither Olbermann's trivial "Worst Person" silliness nor your hypothetical, or actual, self. 

                If every single post you make was in direct, personal reply or reference to me and you awarded me "Moonbat of the day" every single day, then I would be inclined to diagnose you as obsessed.   But I think a think a mermaid doing the splits is more likely than an anonymous "moonbat" like me dominating your every waking thought.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by nomobush (August 17, 2007 8:21 pm ET)
                     

                  If the liberals who post here had a "biggest loser in the world" award that we gave to the most obnoxious poster from the right side of the aisle, it would go to many of the same posters over and over again. That would not be obsession, but it would be reality, because there are several posters who would repeatedly deserve the award.

                  Olbermann's award is not meant to be taken literally. It's hard to imagine that his critics don't understand that.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (August 19, 2007 8:53 pm ET)
                       

                    If the liberals who post here had a "biggest loser in the world" award that we gave to the most obnoxious poster from the right side of the aisle, it would go to many of the same posters over and over again.

                    Wow what a brilliant deduction. Let's see, there are maybe a half a dozen regular Conservative posters here. Guess it stands to reason the same posters would get the award over & over again.

                    I think YOU deserve an award...I'll let you guess what it might be for.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by jeter2 (August 19, 2007 8:54 pm ET)
                     

                  Pete,

                  Defining an obsession is a hard call. Let's say some guy followed his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend around every other day. I think the cops might figure the guy is obsessed.

                  Keith can't get Billy off his mind.

                  I dunno, maybe it's love? You know what they say about hate & love. Thin line.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (August 17, 2007 4:28 pm ET)
           

        Keith is a True Patriot

        It's not freaky at all.  Keith is doing a great service to America.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Godless (August 17, 2007 4:05 pm ET)
         

      I 'd like to see KO create a new daily segment on Countdown: "The Daily O'Reilly Lie." He would never run out of material.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Godless (August 17, 2007 4:29 pm ET)
         

      KO is no more obsessed with O'Reilly than O'Reilly is obsessed with dailykos, the NYT, and his new sycophantic sidekick: the pseudo-intellectual Dennis Miller.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by FNC Liberal (August 17, 2007 4:34 pm ET)
         

      Bill is slowly cracking up. He's lost sponsors and a speaking engagement with a prominant group.

      Mr. "Loofah" better hope that Fox News Channel keeps him on, because no other news network would take him. Why would they since he slanders them on the air daily?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pbg (August 17, 2007 4:50 pm ET)
         

      "What's the matter?"

      "It's that dog!"

      "You really have a thing about that dog."

      "It BIT me!"

      "I think you're becoming obsessed with that dog."

      "Theree's blood!"

      "I think dwelling on one problem over and over again is not the healthiest thing in the world."

      "It bit me yesterday! And the day before that!"

      "You should really think about getting out of your rut with this dog thing."

      "Nearly every day, as I'm walking up my walk, it runs out and bites me! It tears my pants legs!"

      "Dog, dog, dog. This fixation on the dog is impeding your conversational prowess. Every time I talk to you, it's 'The Dog Bit Me!'"

      "That's because The dog bit me!"

      "Honestly, what's the matter with you?"

      "What's the matter with me is I'm getting bitten by that dog, that's what's the matter with me!"

      BONUS QUESTION: Whose dog is it?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave_chicago (August 17, 2007 5:08 pm ET)
         

      Most people think O'Reilly IS, in fact, the Worst Person in the World. I know because a poll by Pew Research -"or something like that"- says so.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by LarryE (August 17, 2007 5:11 pm ET)
         

      There was a poll done by USA Today and Gallup back in March which asked people if they'd be will to vote for an otherwise-qualified person who had a certain characteristic. Ten different characteristics were mentioned, one of which was being homosexual. Maybe that's the poll O'Reilly was thinking of.

      Unfortunately, that doesn't help him because 1) that was about the candidate, not endorsing groups, and 2) only 43%, a good number but certainly not "most," said a candidate being homosexual was a deal-breaker.

      By the way, among all 10 categories, which touched in religion, race, gender, age, and martial status in addition to sexuality, in only one case did a majority (53%) of those polled say they would refuse to vote for that candidate: if that candidate was an atheist.

      We may have separation of church and state de jure, but we sure don't have it de facto. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (August 17, 2007 6:11 pm ET)
         

      Is there any doubt O'Reilly is a flat out liar?

      He didn't even come close to describing the results of this poll (or who took the poll for that matter}.

      Usually there's a little "truthiness" to these right wing liar's stories but in this case O'Reilly is jumping without a parachute and the results aren't pretty.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Chromium (August 17, 2007 9:01 pm ET)
         

      So let me get this straight:

      Bathtub Boy thinks that Bill O'Reilly has a "problem" because he defamed an anonymous poster who now has revealed himself?

      One way not to be defamed is not to reveal yourself, kind of like not revealing that your wife works for the CIA to partygoers.  Just a thought. 

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (August 17, 2007 9:47 pm ET)
           

        It's difficult to tell if you're lying or if you just didn't bother to read the story. The poster wasn't anonymous. His diary is posted under his real name, D. Honig.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (August 17, 2007 11:57 pm ET)
             

          He's lying the idea Wilson told people at a party that his wife was a CIA agent is ludicrous on the face of it. One guy made that claim and SHOCK he couldnt produce a single person from the  party to confirm it. Its another one of those its useful for propaganda so it becomes true for that reason alone things.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (August 18, 2007 12:57 am ET)
               

            Considering "bathtub boy" is what John Gibson calls Olbermann, it is pretty safe to conclude missourishowme is not always particularly choosy about where he gets his information from either.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 18, 2007 3:35 am ET)
                 

              Har! Always nice of them to show up.

              When I ask myself "Who the hell falls for the crap spouted by (Gibson/Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh etc.), nobody's that gullible, one of them is helpful enough to stop by with a big "Sucker" sign on.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Chromium (August 18, 2007 12:06 pm ET)
                 

              Actually, I am quite choosy.

              Remember, both Bathtub Boy and John worked together at MSDNC, so John has firsthand knowledge of when KO did not show up for work and had to be covered for.

              And, yes, I do believe that Wilson bragged about his CIA wife at a party.  Loose lips sink ships, and when you throw in alcohol, the lips get looser.  I find the "no he did not say that" position untenable, especially with his indescretion with submitting the NYT op ed piece and his claims about what Cheney's office supposedly had requested. 

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (August 19, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
                   

                That is because you couldnt care less about truth, facts or reality and believe things based on how useful they are for propaganda value. IF he had told people at that party it should have been easy enough to cough up a couple of people who were told instead of ONE partisan making the claim. THAT NEVER HAPPENED not one corroborating witness. It was NOT indiscreet to point  out the Bush administration was pimping a story they had good reason not to believe. The CIA had told Bush to take this same claim OUT of a speech in Cincinatti a couple of months before. His claims about what Cheneys office requested is exactly what they requested that the CIA send someone to Niger to check the claim out and the CIA sent him. You are repeating long ago debunked and refuted warmed over propaganda parrot talking points that wouldnt fool a reasonably well informed sixth grader. What is untenable is ANY claim there is the slightest EVIDENCE beyond the claim of ONE partisan with a good reason to lie that Wilson EVER outed his wife at any party. I mean they kept the secret so well that none of their neighbors knew but was tossing it around at a party? You believe it because you WISH it were true no other reason.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by Chromium (August 18, 2007 12:00 pm ET)
             

          Dear Mr. Casino,

          You mean to say that a person who posts under the name "Joe Blow" really has the last name of "Blow"?

          Any prudent person who wants to avoid "defamation" uses pseudonyms.  

          Signed,

          "Someone who's last name ends in E but otherwise is completely different than MissouriShowMe" 

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (August 18, 2007 3:17 pm ET)
               

            You began by claiming that dhonig posted anonymously, and now that it's been pointed out to you that he doesn't, you're saying that it's his fault that he was defamed because he didn't post anonymously. Never mind that O'Reilly took a viciously anti-semitic comment that dhonig did not write, and falsely attributed it to him. It's dhonig's fault that O'Reilly defamed him. You're an idiot.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Missouri Democrat (August 18, 2007 3:28 pm ET)
               

            You are an embarrassment to thinking Missourian's and I bet you think Boy Blunt is the greatest thing to hit Missouri since the state was created.  Geeze!!!!!

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (August 19, 2007 1:26 pm ET)
               

            So you claim he posted anonymously, it was shown he posted his name. NOW with NO evidence or reason to believe it wasnt his name other than you dont want to give up that propaganda parrot talking point you are just going to CLAIM with nothing to back it up that it ISNT his name. You do know that is pathetic right?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by laissezfairesucks (August 18, 2007 5:39 am ET)
         

      Can someone explain why a Gentile suggesting that more Jews should enlist to fight in a war so many of them support is anti-Semitic, and not simply critical of an ethnic group that seems content to sit on the sidelines as armchair warriors while Gentiles spill their blood in direct benefit to Israel? The truth is that the US military has an abysmally low enlistment rate of Jews.

      (BTW: Israel just was awarded another $30 BILLION in US foreign aid this week, the NY Times article noting that Israel's economy is vibrant and growing. This at a time when America's economy is declining and her soldiers are commiting suicide in record numbers...Some cynical observers might not be forgiven for wondering if Israel is not actually exploiting the United States as an economic colony?)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Craig (August 18, 2007 6:54 pm ET)
           

        The problem is with the old stereotypes, like the Jew who sells his soul for money.

        And it doesn't matter if the poster is a Gentile or not.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by traveler2559851 (August 20, 2007 8:45 am ET)
         

      C'mon, Keith, just keep on bashing O'Reilly. He really deserves it.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.