Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu
  • “Keith Olbermann is the right person at the right time, and doing it in the right way,” MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams said.

    No doubt. Keith is giving voice to the frustrations many of us on the left feel towards the MSM. His editorials of late have been just devastating. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about they’re widely available at YouTube).

    It’s nice to see a newser who’ll call a lie a lie.

  • Gary

    I really like Olbermann and Scarborough is a superior talking head–I can respect him. However, I watch CNN for facts and get my analysis from Comedy Central. I was sure CC was the network you were going to cite.

    Comedy Central is more than happy to replay lies from many different angles. Just calling it a lie is well, not good enough.

  • Kim Ritter

    I’m glad MSNBC is finding its niche. Love Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Joe Scarborough—but Tucker Carlson is still an insufferable little prig-even minus the bowtie!

  • SnarkyShark

    Oblerman is this generations Edward R. Murrow. He may not even come close to filling those shoes, and I have chuckeled at some of his more over-the-top dramatics, but he picked up the torch when the other fawning syncophents in the media were much too frightened.

    Who dares wins.

    Way to go Keith.

  • Gary, good point re: Comedy Central, though it seems to me that TDS and CR are doing their good work despite their parent company, witness Viacom’s decision to pull their material from YouTube.

  • JEFF

    Don’t worry folks. The spike in the liberal network, MSNBC’s numbers is only temporary. Check those numbers in December and let me know what you think then. But keep being positive, I’m not used to that from liberals.

  • SnarkyShark

    Don’t worry folks. The spike in the liberal network, MSNBC’s numbers is only temporary.

    And youre an expert on future TV ratings performance how?

    Personally, I put my money on U-Tube combined with some web based Daily show/press parody channel.

    Or maybe AM radio is the ticket. Sure seems like a lot of people are stuck there.

  • Jon Hendry

    The main problem with MSNBC is that it’s often a dumping ground for lame old NBC tape like “Headliners and Legends”, as if what America wants to see on a Saturday is an in-depth bio of Brooke Shields.

    Too much of that and viewers get conditioned to expect boring filler all the time, and they don’t bother checking that channel.

  • Pyst

    Man it sucks, I don’t get MSNBC all I get is crappy ole CNBC.

  • Rubyeyes

    Thanks for the well wishes Jeff. I suspect numbers will be lower in December because the War on Christmas will be in full swing so we won’t have time even for Keith.

  • Eric

    I was trying to figure out what was the big deal with this. Fox still kicks the hell out of MSNBC so……..? That the numbers are going up would seem to have more to do with more real programing than using that canned crap they were. Not that I watch much but that was because of the canned crap.
    Really why do people really believe it matters? Most people don’t really care about this kind of BS. You whatch TV and stop when a show catches your eye. You don’t worry about politics, well I and most of America don’t anyway.

  • JEFF

    Eric, these libs like Snarky play these rating games way too much. They get caught up in this kind of stuff. Ratings, Polls, Schmolls??? When they are going their way.
    Snarky, I never said I was an expert on anything, especially T.V. ratings. It was just my opinion and I’m very well intitled to that, don’t you think Snark? But, I would like you to keep track of MSNBC at see what happens just for the hell of it, K?

  • SnarkyShark

    Eric, these libs like Snarky play these rating games way too much.

    Yep, thats what I do. Sit around obsessing over ratings.

    Whats that you say. I dont even own a TV set anymore?

    Go figure.

  • SnarkyShark

    It was just my opinion and I’m very well intitled to that, don’t you think Snark?

    I think your entitled to make yourself look like a fool with all the opinions that Rush gives you.

    In fact I wish you would post more of your opinions as you practically are the living embodiment of an unhinged dittohead, and supply contrast to any wavering centerist to as why Nov 7 can’t come fast enough.

  • C Stanley

    Gary:
    However, I watch CNN for facts and get my analysis from Comedy Central. I was sure CC was the network you were going to cite.

    Hey Kim: Remember that recent discussion we had when you laughed at me for saying that the comedy shows were having a big effect on people’s political opinions? I rest my case.

  • SnarkyShark

    Hey Kim: Remember that recent discussion we had when you laughed at me for saying that the comedy shows were having a big effect on people’s political opinions? I rest my case.

    Oh you are quite right CS. The Daily Show is huge among a certian segment of the population.

  • Kim Ritter

    CS- They should get their analysis from Fox News instead for a “fair and balanced” interpretation trice blessed by Rupert Murdock, right?? Maybe its in reaction to O’Reilly, Hannity or Hume!(couldn’t resist the snark-sorry!)

  • C Stanley

    Uh, can we desist with the snark, Kim? You do remember when you were incredulous at my suggestion that Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert were starting to have the same kind of influence that Limbaugh has had, don’t you? I think your reaction was something like: “You’ve got to be kidding- what they do is just comedy!!”

    You see, while humor and satire have always had their place in political discourse, I think today’s lightweight intellectual environment and entertainment driven media are giving way too much power to those forms of political expression. It’s now a situation where nothing is beyond the pale in terms of painting political opposition in the most negative way possible, because hey, it’s all just a joke, right?

  • jjc

    CS, last night Stewart lampooned one of the PA Dems running for Congress for his ad using a picture of his daughter while discussing Sherwood’s mistress problem. Don’t remember the guy’s name but I thought he deserved to be made fun of.

    Frankly, I think the MSM is much more at fault in regards to the problems with political discourse than the satirists. I don’t like Rush but I have to live with him as long as some other people do.

  • C Stanley

    jjc,
    I don’t think those types of personal attacks are appropriate on either side. To your point that Stewart is a bipartisan offender: in his case I probably agree but I don’t watch any of them enough to know for sure. My impression is that he would be attacking Dems more if they were the ones having the opportunities to screw up more right now. But I’m opposed to the whole lot of it. Not that I think it should be censored, but just like with the lousy quality of entertainment, I think that people need to realize that we’d all be better off asking for higher standards instead of allowing ourselves to be sold out to the lowest common denominator segment of society.

  • Kim Ritter

    CS- I really don’t think that you can pass off the satirists on Comedy Central as having low standards, especially since you admit that you don’t watch them. I’m not going to argue with you about the quality of entertainment on TV in general, since I actually agree it does cater to the lowest common denominator of society.

    But I don’t see how you can put Colbert and Stewart in that category. A lot of fairly intelligent people enjoy those shows. A sample from Colbert’s recent guest list: Madeline Albright, Frank Rich, Joe Scarborough, David Gergen, Ned Lamont, Mort Zuckerman, John Dean, Chris Matthews and Thomas Ricks. Not exactly a bunch of morons. At least watch the shows first, so that you are in a position to offer more than what you just wrote.

  • Kim Ritter

    You see, while humor and satire have always had their place in political discourse, I think today’s lightweight intellectual environment and entertainment driven media are giving way too much power to those forms of political expression. It’s now a situation where nothing is beyond the pale in terms of painting political opposition in the most negative way possible, because hey, it’s all just a joke, right?

    CS- But not too much power in the 90’s when Rush was just kind of humorously abusing Clinton at every opportunity. You seemed to think that back then he was pretty funny.

    Comedy Central tends to be the most popular among the under 25 set, who are also the least likely to vote. I do think that most people, even Gary-realize they are watching satire.
    OTOH, I wonder how many of Rush and Hannity’s listeners realize they are listening to cherry-picked partisan demagogery???

  • C Stanley

    CS- But not too much power in the 90’s when Rush was just kind of humorously abusing Clinton at every opportunity. You seemed to think that back then he was pretty funny.

    Kim,
    That’s exactly my point! I’ve already told you that I used to listen to Limbaugh and at first, found some of his bits to be funny, but I came to the realization that listening to him all the time does distort one’s objectivity. It is so one sided to keep hearing someone poke fun at the opposition that one begins to think that the opposition is incapable of intelligent thought or behavior. That is what I now see happening in reverse with the humor from the left.

    And you criticize me for not watching these shows enough. How often, honestly, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? Daily? Weekly? I doubt it. Whatever the amount of exposure is, you feel it is enough to give you an idea of what he’s about. Likewise, I’ve seen enough to have an opinion even though I qualify that and say that I don’t know exactly the extent of the stuff that I feel is over the top.

  • Kim Ritter

    CS_ I actually have listened to more than I could stomach of Limbaugh. I was on the road a lot last year, and listened to him daily bashing the Dems. and Republicans who weren’t conservative enough. Unlike Colbert, he never had guests from the other side-but he did have Rumsfeld , Tony Snow, Cheney, and Michael Cherotoff on. I get him- believe me-he has a very clear agenda.

    I deliberately listened to Limbaugh, Hannity and Michael Savage on talk radio, because I was fascinated with what I saw as blind support for his point of view. I don’t see the satire on Comedy Central as anything approaching Rush’s daily rages and destructive distortions, but at least I can criticize him from a position of personal knowledge.

    My overall opinion is that he shills for Bush-he disagrees on a couple of issues but overall is in their camp. He isnt’ even subtle in putting down his opponents. I’d say the MJF bit was fairly typical. He just misjudged the reaction of Middle America (I don’t think his own audience had a problem with it) and had to apologize.

  • C Stanley

    Kim,
    Do you not think that Olberman is one sided? He’s probably in my mind, the most like a lefty Rush.

  • Kim Ritter

    I think he’s left of center-he’s a big Bill Clinton supporter. I don’t see him being as vicious as Rush. He’s attacked this administration, but not all conservatives or all Republicans. But because there is a lot to criticize with Bush, I see at least some of it as deserved. Olberman is worried that the current regime is too authoritarian, because they have tried to discourage dissent about the war, and feels they are a threat to democratic values. I guess I agree with that. I don’t see distortion of facts but strong objections in very strong terms to the status quo.

    I don’t see him in the Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore camp. But I will admit that those who are far right would probably get a different impression.

  • C Stanley

    Kim,
    What I’m specifically addressing is his bias. I understand your point that it isn’t necessarily a bias against conservatism per se, or against the GOP in general, but still a clear bias against the policies of this administration. And I also get that you don’t think there is any justification for the opposing viewpoint, but likewise there were some cases of abuse of power under Clinton and you still would probably have felt that Rush’s listeners were driven to that belief by his rhetoric and that by not having a pro-Clinton viewpoint expressed, his listeners were being led to certain conclusions.

  • JEFF

    Whats that you say. I don’t even own a TV set anymore.

    LMAO, why snark, tired of the right wing bias in the media or not enough Soros for you?

    Ok, I’ve played your intertaining game long enough. I’ve collected enough data to figure out that there are a bunch of christian hating libs out there. And, that this world may not be better off with a bunch of bible thumping, bible belt idiots running around.
    So, with that said, I would like to join you guys. You have convinced me that the only way to last is to buy some yellow paint, a brush and also buy a friend to paint that streak down my back.
    Have fun on your feel good blog!
    NHFA

  • Kim Ritter

    CS- I think what you’re trying to point out is that both are equally biased—Rush towards Clinton, Olberman towards Bush—is that it? I couldn’t say, because I never heard Rush in the 90’s bashing Clinton. Yes, I think Keith is a Bush critic–but I don’t know how long–I only started watching him about 6 months ago, and even now don’t watch regularly. I guess I wouldn’t want that show to be my only source of information, but as Caliblogger put it:

    It’s nice to see a newser who’ll call a lie a lie.
    He feels that the MSM has given the administration a pass and refuses to do so. I think his commentaries are honest and heartfelt-not manipulative like Rush’s program. He does voice the frustration of the powerless over what he sees as abuse of power, and is critical of policies that he sees as non-reality based.

  • Kim Ritter

    Uh– that should have read against Clinton, against Bushyou get my drift, LOL those preelection hormones are kicking in, LOL!

  • SnarkyShark

    Tommy is that you? We missed your smiling countance so very much.

    Not.

  • egrubs

    And I also get that you don’t think there is any justification for the opposing viewpoint, but likewise there were some cases of abuse of power under Clinton and you still would probably have felt that Rush’s listeners were driven to that belief by his rhetoric and that by not having a pro-Clinton viewpoint expressed, his listeners were being led to certain conclusions.

    It’s not the lack of an opposing viewpoint so much as the lies.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com