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

You don't get it do you?

They all want the ratings, they all want to sell. Hannity, O'Reilly & co are doing the same thing everynight to keep their ratings up. People like sensationalism and that's what they're feeding in order to have and keep higher ratings and sell products. There is no difference.

Oberman sent the soap powder to himself, so he could get headlines. He new perfectly well a news competitor would runt the story.

What I find hypocritical is how he complains that the Post leaked the story.....

but do you hear him going on about how Armitage leaked Plamb identity?

No.

but do you hear him going on about how a classifed documnet with dem/lib talking points (NIE report) was leaked?

No.

did you hear him complain about Sandy Burger smuggling top secret documents out in his socks and pants?

no.

did you hear him complain about Hillary saying her husband would of done more if he received notice of Alquida plans to use air planes? (Which he did in 1997)

No.

Is it alright for him to give a 'nazi-slaute' like he has been doing the past few months?

The guy is a sham, ratings going lower and lower, trying to get himself some attention so poeple will by his book so he won't have to go on unemployment in 5 months.

Ferretman2,

I find the first part of your post 100% relevant to the discussion . But the last sentence is irrelevant. IMO shooting the messenger is a hobby here, and I try to keep myself out of that (although I think I've failed at times).

Just an advice people, you get more credibility (from me at least) if you attack the points the person has made (in this case the points Olbermann made in his posts), not for attacking him, his motives or his personality. That's what a discussion is about. If you go after the player instead of the ball you get fouled in football and basketball. On ATS you lose credibility if you do that IMO.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You don't get it do you?

Actually, I think I do get it. I also think that you and I are closer in agreement on this than you might think.

They all want the ratings, they all want to sell.

I absolutely agree with you. 100% totally. No disagreement at all.

There is no difference.

What I am having a hard time with is that people are heaping praise on Olberman as if he is some etherial champion of the left. When in fact, what I see is a fella who has poor ratings and is selling a book. Now that I have seen the additional information on him about his having SOME past political analysis work, I will add to my thoughts that he is also VAMPING for another show, since his current one is so lame.

There are two differences that I see.

- Chris Matthews and Hannity are successful. They don't have to go off their rockers and loudly pump out 1/2 the story to sell things. If they were to do a half baked job (like Olbermans show) they would be able to do it in a much better way so as not to appear lopsided. (I know that sounds funny .. but they are more professional about how they tell their version of 'truth')

- Olberman is highly obnoxious and is irritating to watch. Matthews and Hannity are polished and professional - even if you and I don't agree with some of the things they say - they are usually professional. However Olberman is usually just a wannabe and he comes across like fingernails on a chalk board.

oh .. and that signature closing of Olbermans .. LAME. Hate it.
That's a personal pet peeve.

Edited to fix quotes


[edit on 9/28/2006 by FlyersFan]

What about the CONTENT of his editorial? Any thoughts on that? Not why he may have said what he said, but what he said. Not who he is, or was, or is trying to be, but what he said.

You have successfully avoided the message by focusing on the messenger, another favored tactic of the crowd.

Now, are you an individual of your own opinions on ISSUES, or just other people?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You don't get it do you?

Actually, I think I do get it. I also think that you and I are closer in agreement on this than you might think.

They all want the ratings, they all want to sell.

I absolutely agree with you. 100% totally. No disagreement at all.

There is no difference.

What I am having a hard time with is that people are heaping praise on Olberman as if he is some etherial champion of the left. When in fact, what I see is a fella who has poor ratings and is selling a book. Now that I have seen the additional information on him about his having SOME past political analysis work, I will add to my thoughts that he is also VAMPING for another show, since his current one is so lame.

There are two differences that I see.

- Chris Matthews and Hannity are successful. They don't have to go off their rockers and loudly pump out 1/2 the story to sell things. If they were to do a half baked job (like Olbermans show) they would be able to do it in a much better way so as not to appear lopsided. (I know that sounds funny .. but they are more professional about how they tell their version of 'truth')

- Olberman is highly obnoxious and is irritating to watch. Matthews and Hannity are polished and professional - even if you and I don't agree with some of the things they say - they are usually professional. However Olberman is usually just a wannabe and he comes across like fingernails on a chalk board.

oh .. and that signature closing of Olbermans .. LAME. Hate it.

That's a personal pet peeve.

Edited to fix quotes


[edit on 9/28/2006 by FlyersFan]

100% CORRECT! Keithy boy is an obnoxious bufoon! This is all SCHTICK! None of you can ignore the fact he has a sagging tv show, and a book that is Number 58 (yesterday) on Amazon. Nobody cares what he has to say. I listen to Mathews and Hannity. They conduct themselves very professionally, as opposed to Mr Oberbuttman who acts just like a raving lunatic. Just understand, he doesn't care no more about you than the man in the moon.
Just trying to get over and make money (Yes, like all of them! It's their business!)

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Oh, so none of his points are valid because he has an agenda in selling books?

Please folks, he is only voicing an opinion. Albiet, an opinion that is so well made, folk are now resorting to attack the man's character, as they are finding it tremendously difficult to attack his words. There is one particular bit which I found especially funny was when the Op lambasts another journalist, and suggests he should try another profession: You should try selling seeds...via mail order.

Priceless.

All we are saying is that (as with anyone), you have to look towards the motivation related to someone's opinion. It IS very apparent that this man's motivation is to sell books and increase ratings. It's just like watching NASCAR for the wrecks! The more a person rants/raves, the more people will watch to see the train wreck. Purely entertainment.

BTW, that applies to all of the talking heads. Not just Oberbuttman.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
What about the CONTENT of his editorial?

Already answered. I quoted rockpuck on the previous page.

You have successfully avoided the message ...

No I didn't. Like I said, I agreed with rockpuck and quoted him on the previous page. The video was highly slanted and did not show the entire truth. Parts of truth yes. But not the entire truth. Supposedly Olberman is supposed to want to tell the entire truth. He only got it partly right.

favored tactic of the crowd.

'the crowd' eh? Yeah, right. Rightbackatchya

Now, are you an individual of your own opinions on ISSUES, or just other people?

Now, are you an individual who understands that Olberman is part of the issue, or are you just not wanting to see that becausee that fact is an uncomfortable truth?

I ask again, any comment on the CONTENT? You know, what he said, not who he is, or what his show is like.

MESSAGE, not messenger.

I thought not.

EDIT to add:
Missed your response while I posted to KIA, FF.

Yes, these days the message varies according to the messenger. I heard an opinion recently stated that critical thinking has killed the truth and all that is left is opinion. Each of us is responsible on our own for justifying what opinions we believe these days, and many who disagree with a certain opinion resort to sniping at the one delivering it.

Now, which of us doesn't want to see facts that are uncomfortable truths?

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Icarus Rising]

Just checking out some other stuff here at Google:

video.google.com...

I find the Keith very interesting and I think he has some VERY valid points. I don't know much about him but I for one am not going to resort to ad-hominum attacks and childish myopic fascinations with motivations.

I'll get back with more after I watch more of his material.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I ask again, any comment on the CONTENT? You know, what he said, not who he is, or what his show is like.

MESSAGE, not messenger.

I thought not.

Actually, it is hard to listen to the content, because I can't get passed the fact he's acting like a mentally derranged lunatice!!!
The content of his insane special comment is exceptionally left of center and is increadibly unprofessional and disrespectful. I have no problem with what he says. He's entitled to his opinion, JUST like FOX News, (or does that freedom not extend to them? For the record, I do not agree with his comments, and dismiss them like I would from any other ranting raving loon. Hmmm, where do we have one of those???? Iran?

Attack the message not the messenger...hmmmm, isn't that what you do when you hear something you don't particulary like from a conservative?
Just call it the way it is, and be objective and truthful.

You thought what exactly?

Check this out:

www.answers.com...

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

Hint Hint.


This particular video is my favorite so far.

video.google.com...

I thought you would rather focus on the messenger than the message. You are, imo, using the fact that you disapprove of the messenger to discount the message.

He is telling the truth, face it.

Our President, George W. Bush, is a liar and very possibly a war criminal, and deserves to be impeached and possibly imprisoned for his treasonous acts against the United States of America while he has held its highest office.

They're employing a straw man argument in Keith and its pretty obvious. So its either feed into it or ignore it.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I thought you would rather focus on the messenger than the message. You are, imo, using the fact that you disapprove of the messenger to discount the message.

He is telling the truth, face it.

Our President, George W. Bush, is a liar and very possibly a war criminal, and deserves to be impeached and possibly imprisoned for his treasonous acts against the United States of America while he has held its highest office.

You're trying to derail the thread....
You cannot examine someone's message without first examining their motives! That's all I'm pointing out. Keithy-boy's motives are quite obvious to most....SELL BOOKS/INCREASE RATINGS nothing more, nothing less. That's a fact whether you like it or not!

As for your attempt to derail this discussion, you make it very clear what side you are coming from. Personally, I have no problem with that. However, War Criminal and Imprisonment? Come on now, no way you can logically make that arguement. This is not the thread for this discussion. No response required.

Keith blasted Bush and Fox News is the topic of this thread.

You are saying he did it for ratings and book sales.

I am saying he did it because its the truth.

How is that derailing the thread?

Hey you all..

Is this behavior a requirement to be admitted into the Liberal Club:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I think I sense a pattern here.

So what if that is his motivation?

Does it in any way change the message?
Is it any more nefarious than the president giving scheduled speeches to secure approval ratings? Should we automatically discount what the president has to say just because hes giving that "les shores up them there votes in New York" speech? Even if, that speech is the most coherent and rational speech that ever came out of his mouth? Of course not!
Unless a persons motives are sinister, and I doubt selling books or *gasp* getting rating for your TV show is sinister, then using a persons motives for their actions makes no sense unless you somehow don’t agree with them. It’s called a straw man argument. And you two, (FF / KnowItAll) are using Keith as the straw man.

Are you gonna attack my BTS rating also now?


[edit on 28-9-2006 by xEphon]

Knowitall
Keithy-boy's motives are quite obvious to most....SELL BOOKS/INCREASE RATINGS nothing more, nothing less. That's a fact whether you like it or not!

Oh really? Because you say so?


What makes you the authority of discerment.. how do you know that's Keith's 100% motivation as you so desperately make it out to be?

Perhaps you have no other way to try and shoot Keith Olberman down.


Although I might questions peoples motivations YOURS is perfectly clear. Curious how you bleat and shrill about how this thread is being hijacked when in fact YOU are the one attempting to do just that.

UH OH....NEWSFLASH from Amazon.com:


Keithy-boy's book at 63 TODAY...DOWN from 58!!!!!!!!!

OOPS! I wonder what's in store for tonights show?

Ah, almost forgot, I'm betting the lack of his book sellings is some "Right-Wing" Conspiracy! I think I just gave some of you a new thread title!

BTW

O'Reilly's Book is NUMBER 7!!!!!
www.amazon.com...=sv_b_2/104-1442126-5061538?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I think in sports terms they call that SCOREBOARD!!!