MSNBC's Keith Olbermann blasts Bush and Fox News (video)

"To sell books"
"To push his own agenda"
"To get ratings"

To prove Santa real
To find the Easter Bunny

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Im notincing a sad trend nowdays,in which the facts and arguements are no longer the points being argued.But instead its the person and motives which get attcked.

Open your eyes people!
Stop looking for excuses in which he might be doing this.And look at WHAT he is saying.Its barely important who says it,but its dire that you open your eyes and ears to see and hear that what is being said is true.The things that are being said,have the added benefit to be proven through research and a silent unbias thing called a "fact".

My hats off to him.

Originally posted by Black_Fox
"To sell books"
"To push his own agenda"
"To get ratings"

To prove Santa real
To find the Easter Bunny

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Im notincing a sad trend nowdays,in which the facts and arguements are no longer the points being argued.But instead its the person and motives which get attcked.

Open your eyes people!
Stop looking for excuses in which he might be doing this.And look at WHAT he is saying.Its barely important who says it,but its dire that you open your eyes and ears to see and hear that what is being said is true.The things that are being said,have the added benefit to be proven through research and a silent unbias thing called a "fact".

My hats off to him.

Motivation is everything! How can you take the words seriously when everyone full well knows that it is only being said to generate buzz for his show and his book. He's only done this "Special Comment" thing twice b4. Interestingly enough, a week b4 his book was out, and then again the night b4 his book was out. HMMM, now that's an interesting coincendence. Perhaps, we have a new conspiracy for you people!

What motivated him to write his book, his ratings? Your argument is circular, and therefore false.

Many people are so controlled by their party affiliations they can't see outside the 'box' their party platform, and the politicians they back, have put them in. Only their party, and their platform, can define the issues for American politics. It is a form of peer pressure.

Any opposing viewpoint that is a threat to their self-supported supremacy is immediately labeled as coming from some sinister, self-motivated, self-promoting, ulterior motive. That is a form of projection, this administration's stock-in-trade.

Are you working for the "Bush Forever" campaign? Just funnin' witcha.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Motivation is everything! How can you take the words seriously when everyone full well knows that it is only being said to generate buzz for his show and his book. He's only done this "Special Comment" thing twice b4. Interestingly enough, a week b4 his book was out, and then again the night b4 his book was out. HMMM, now that's an interesting coincendence. Perhaps, we have a new conspiracy for you people!

The truth with my numbers? Go to Nielsen media and spend a few bucks to find out what I just told you. The percentages may be a bit off, but everyone on these boards as well as I do know that FOX News' ratings have shot down dramatically in the recent months, and it just so happens MSNBC and good ol' Olbermann's have gone up.

As for you saying...

He's only done this "Special Comment" thing twice b4. Interestingly enough, a week b4 his book was out, and then again the night b4 his book was out.

If you watched Countdown, you'll know there is MANY times where he'll do the Special Comment. To name a few, he ripped apart Rumsfeld, ripped apart Bush (on 9/11), ripped apart Dick Cheney, ripped apart Anne Colterman (sp?), and ripped apart FOX News/Bill O'Reily.

Yeah, of course this is all going to help his ratings and book sales... but he is also sincere and you can tell in his demeanor on television. What other newscaster besides O'Reily do you ever see get that riled up? And the only reason O'Reily gets that riled up is because every guest he has basically lays it on him.

So don't sit here and rant about your anti-liberal media and the only reason he did it was for the ratings. At least he has the guts to stand up and be a patriot when the rest of our country sits and watches.



P.S Sorry admins if I am breaking any sort of rules, not meaning to cause meaningless arguments...

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Bandit,

Well certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. That's what makes this county so great!

Well that's great!!!...... One thing though.

I do not live in your country.

However, I'd like to see proof of their bigotry and lies.

Just check into the lies they have spread about Aruba during the holloway case.

I'm betting that you like to watch the Communist News Network.

That's funny... Sometimes it looks to me like the Conservative News Network. Sometimes Lou Dobbs makes Bush look like a liberal.

The ratings only matter in that MOST people (this is borne out in ratings) don't particularly like to watch liberal leaning media.

Nope it's not like that at all. Most people would rather watch trannies fighting over a dude on Jerry Springer, or a reality show, than watch a documentary about an ancient civilisation on the History channel. That's how it is. The media is a product, which has to be sold unfortunately. It's hardly about telling the truth.

This is true in all forms of media (radio, print and television). Most are on to the culturally biased media, and don't like it.

It goes both ways.

All most can do is call names. (both sides). That's unfortunate. All I'm seeking to accomplish is most on this thread are praising good ole Keithy boy. You fell for it to....He's just trying to sell books, and not doing a very good job at that.
It's just all Plublicity my friend. Don't fall for the sales pitch.

Don't insult my intelligence. It's always about the publicity, about the ratings.. About the MONEY it brings it. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC care more for selling their product and bringing in revenue than anything else. That's how it goes. Ann Coulter has a razorblade tongue and is heavily biased because it sells. It makes her money. Everytime she opens her mouth on tv, whether she's right or wrong, she's selling her books.... So what's the difference between her (the rest) and Keith Olbermann when they're giving the opinion on tv? Especially when they call it like it is in this case?

Like I said. Don't insult my intelligence.

Keith is not looking to sell books- he's telling it like it is.

How can seemingly intelligent people not see things for what they are???

Pluheeeze. Year after year of posting and reading facts havent even begun to effect some of you.

Hello.

You should be entitled. Or should you? You should be entitled to your home, money, and food or whatever but you shouldnt be entitled to lack of common sense. It ought to be a crime, i tell ya...

Wether he is trying to sell books, raise his ratings or whatever else you Bush defenders are trying to pass off yet again....He is speaking some sad truths and spilling the beans. Yes i know for some its hard to swallow and for some its treachery against your god-chosen candidate but its the truth. He is the worst piece of garbage to come down the pipe in decades and his administration along with it. In a little over 4 years they have brought America down to the depths in popularity, in respect, humanity, democracy, freedom, lawfulness and in tradition. History will decide who/what type of person you supported and stood behind and it will not be pretty. The legacy this administration will leave behind will be felt by our children and theirs as well possibly. Their errors in judgement and ignorance of facts will be paid for by us for decades. Millions count down the days till this harbinger of death and destruction is out of office. I only wish it was done in a way that is suited him and that would preferably be through impeachment or in a war-crimes tribunal.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
An interesting opinion piece from a cable network reporter.

Yes, an interesting opinion piece indeed.
One given by not only a cable network reporter but one that is so far left that if he was anymore left, he would fall off the edge of the earth. Reminds us of some neocons who give their opinions pieces or commentaries on cable news networks. The only difference would be that those so-far-right-as-to-fall-off-the-edge-of-the-earth-neocons are not cable network reporters or are they....?

Anyhow, I guess a stinging opinion piece is a stinging opinion piece, best served on a cable news network channel whose ratings are the lowest of all cable news networks. Stinging indeed.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Seekerof]

Just because he needs rating has nothing to do with anything. If you agree with his statement, why are you cutting down his message even if it is sincere or not? HE'S A NEWSCASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter. Personally, I think he is being sincere- and the fact that he can sell books shows that he won't be left out on the street if he gets fired from MSNBC or asked to leave for speaking the truth on the issues. His 1984 parallel was brilliant and balsy- that is really what we are faced with!

And so the backlash begins;

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Olbermann had to know something was coming. Having watched his op-eds, he was both forceful and convincing with his charges.
Now the question is, is this a lone wolf upset by his comments or upper-echelon message thats meant to be a "shot across the bow" warning for Keith to step back in line? Very interesting!

Originally posted by n1ghtwalker
Keith Olbermann in 08'

Seriously, this guy could very well be the greatest patriot we have right now. He is amazing for putting his thoughts out there. The thoughts of all of us. We don't want an Orwellian society.

Freedom. The Constitution. Thats what I stand for; Its what we all should be standing for.

Hmmmm... I agree with a little on what he is saying. He is a very good speaker.. very good indeed, but that is all I feel..

What I do not agree with is he turned everything into republican vrs democrat ideology.. I think it is dangerous.. this blame game our society is entering.. how far can partisianship go before a new civil war? The left and the right, fighting it out in words, pointing fingers and the energy put into this speach where he uses words like "henchmen" and such to refer our President..

The only thing I have to say as to Bush not doing anything about bin laden, if Bush did not organize or let it happen, was that Bush was in office 8 months, Clinton had 8 years, that is a fact.

Since 9/11 the partisianship has gotten extreme, at a level unseen in our country before since the civil war. This man called the president a dictator, trying to establish an orwellian society, while I agree that Bushes policies are extreme, this is getting out of hand.

Hes a good speaker. This man is back seat driving the presidency, showing disrespect at a new level, notice at the end how he says "sir".. I don't know what to think though.. I do agree with alot of it. I hate partisianship though, and I disagree about the clinton thing.

sooooo.......
Is it bad if someone gives to charity only because they want to be known as a good person?
Should they have never given to charity at all?
And is it bad if someone speaks out against things for less than pure motives?
Should they have never spoken out at all?

I can't believe that people in this thread are confusing the validity of his comments with his motivations for making them.

EVERYONE has an agenda. Everyone. I personally didn't agree with everything he said and my whole view on the situation is still up in the air. Thus my agenda is to figure everything out to the best of my knowledge and eventually form an opinion one way or another.

But to shoot the messenger because he's getting paid is being ignorant. It's the message that counts ... this thread should be about discussing it.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Fiverz]

Originally posted by QuietRenegade
And so the backlash begins;

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Olbermann had to know something was coming. Having watched his op-eds, he was both forceful and convincing with his charges.
Now the question is, is this a lone wolf upset by his comments or upper-echelon message thats meant to be a "shot across the bow" warning for Keith to step back in line? Very interesting!

The threat was pathetic someone would stoop so low and endanger their own freedoms just to scare the guy...

What I find more distrubing is the NY post article they wrote on him, and while I may not agree with everything he did say, I feel he was right in responding to the Post.

The NYPost is obviously herassing him, how dare the man speak out against Bush like that, no doubt Bush saw the video, the NY Post then went out to make him look like a crazy man. Am I wrong, any one else get that impression from the Post article?

Just a quick reminder of a survey conducted at the start of the Iraq occupation that showed that people who watched a lot of Fox tended to be misinformed...

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

...Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

Now it's entirely possible to blame it all on Fox. But, really, rational people would compare a number of news sources and try to figure out which assertions are factual and which are not. One is therefore led to the conclusion that a surprising number of people on this board are not entirely rational... which would seem to be supported by the utter lack of attention to logic they display.

For example, it's widely known that ad hominem attacks do not engage with the logic of an argument itself, they merely attempt to deflect attention from the merits of the argument by diverting attention to the motives, real or imagined, of the person making that argument. It's a kind of category mistake. And despite the fact that people are repeatedly calling attention to that category mistake there is a continuing refusal to engage with the actual arguments and a continuing resort to ad hominem attacks.

And actually, we can find academic research that backs this up, and even a popular book by a conservative that uses that research to explain this phenomenon. The book is John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience, and the academic research is to do with the phenomenon of
right wing authoritarianism.

It is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. "It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader."

2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. "It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."

3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. "Traditional ways are best."

I've highlighted part of the second point because I believe that the attack on Olbermann is empirical evidence indicating that RWA people will support (and may have perpetrated) such an attack.

The studies also suggest that people who score highly on tests designed to assess RWA attitudes are not especially good at joined-up thinking:

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

* Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
* Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’
* Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
* Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
* Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
* Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

* Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
* Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
* Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
* Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
* Be hostile toward homosexuals.
* Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
* Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

3: Profound Character Flaws — RWAs are more likely to:

* Be dogmatic.
* Be zealots.
* Be hypocrites.
* Be bullies when they have power over others.
* Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
* Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:

* Believe they have no personal failings.
* Avoid learning about their personal failings.
* Be highly self-righteous.
* Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

It's not a terribly attractive picture when you look at it like that, is it?

But it does explain why Fox News' ratings are unlikely to fall below 23 percent.

I am a moderate with a lot of conservative beliefs, the neocons nowdays though really give me a bigger pain in the rear than the left.

This was not left or right but what is the damn truth!! What is wrong with some of you people? Can you not see the truth anymore? This was the best newscast I have ever seen. A glimmer of hope that we may one day get our country back.

Yes!

"And now for a special announcement..." and then Olbermann proceeds to rip the Bush administration a new one. This guy is great, he has cajones that rival Colbert's. I think dissent is healthy for the political process, especially in the times we're in right now.

Originally posted by QuietRenegade
Olbermann had to know something was coming. Having watched his op-eds, he was both forceful and convincing with his charges.
Now the question is, is this a lone wolf upset by his comments or upper-echelon message thats meant to be a "shot across the bow" warning for Keith to step back in line? Very interesting!

Your link is further proof there are people out there that are more then willing to threaten, harrass , cajole and manipulate people for the sake of their beliefs. These right-wingers are just as dangerous as their right-winged enemies the Islamic jihadists. I believe these people would stoop to new lows in order to force their lifestyle and beliefs on the rest of us.

I hope they catch this guy who did this and let him serve as a example to the rest of the neo-cons out there who think they can bully everyone else into seeing things their way.

Fox news is so pathetically controlled you almost would rather believe they really are that stupid rather than so yellow bellied. And hey, if Keith wrote a book he certaintly isnt doing anything wrong on new by promoting himself to sell books. Furthermore, the potential backlash for his behavior far outweighs whatever he might gain from it. And this is NOT the first time hes lashed out like for all u who think hes just trying to make himself noticed. He's done this at least a couple time over the last half year. Im proud some people wont be muzzled.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
What motivated him to write his book, his ratings?

- Ratings for his crappy show.
- Money from the book.
- Boost ratings and therefore he gets paid more.
- Make buddies with gullible lefties. (*not all lefties are gullible) who run Hollywierd
- To try not to look LAME anymore (*he failed .. he still looks lame)
- Impress a girl??
- tick off someone he knows and doesn't like on the right?
- took a bribe to do it??

hey .. who knows ... the list of possibilities could go on and on. I certainly do not think that his motivation was out of the goodness of his heart. He didn't suddenly become the 'champion of the people' politically. Baaah

[edit on 9/28/2006 by FlyersFan]