« Truthseeker77's attack against Olbermann debunked! | truthseeker77's Blog | Answering Tom Wright »
Survey: Olbermann Democrats' favorite election news reporter; O'reilly least favorite (that explains the hysteria!)
Most Democrats remain neutral when asked who their favorite election news reporter is; but mong Democrats who named a favorite Journalist, Keith Olbermann is king, a just-released Pew survey conducted earlier this month found:
On the other hand:
Readers unhappy with the treatment of their favorite fallacy-prone journalist called the blogger "b*tch", "f**ing this or f**ing that", among other expletives, while wondering why their comments should always accompany other members' post.
Member David Seaton voiced similar complaints about these classless TPM commenters.
Link to survey.
At the top of the Democrats' list is Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (6% of Democrats named Olbermann). Democrats also favor ABC's Charles Gibson, Tom Brokaw, CNN's Anderson Cooper and Brian Williams (each was named by 4% of Democrats).The findings are interesting considering that Olbermann was dropped from his anchor chair earlier this year by MSNBC when "things fell apart during the conventions" according to the Huffington Post. The progressive site went on: "Olbermann began to have difficulty keeping his opinions in check, or simply stopped trying."
On the other hand:
O'Reilly is the Democrats' least favorite election journalist - 10% named him. Another 7% of Democrats named O'Reilly's network, the Fox News Channel, as their least favorite election news source, and 6% named radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.This may explain the behavior among TPM members ensuing from a recent blog post reporting Olbermann's flawed argument in responding to a comment by Bill O'reilly in regard to the double standard he saw in the left with respect to non-black voters who were against gay marriage and African Americans who hold the same view.
Readers unhappy with the treatment of their favorite fallacy-prone journalist called the blogger "b*tch", "f**ing this or f**ing that", among other expletives, while wondering why their comments should always accompany other members' post.
Member David Seaton voiced similar complaints about these classless TPM commenters.
Link to survey.
Advertisement
Come one truthseeker. Wouldn't a more honest headline have been Olberman is the "Favorite Election News Reporter" of 6% of democrats who responded to PEW survey?
For the record, the only time I see Olberman is when, rarely, clips shown on CNN since that is the only network I receive. Further, for the record, I didn't respond to your posts about Olberman and O'Reilly because it's a subject in which I have no interest.
Of the commentators I observed ruing the campaign I found David Gergen to be by far the best, probably because he seems to be the least ideological.
November 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come one truthseeker. Wouldn't a more honest headline have been
_____
Probably. But "truthseeker" isn't honest even in his use of "truthseeker" as a handle.
And note that he continues the far-right lunatic fringe assault on truth and standards by characterizing Olbermann and O'Reilly as "news" when instead they are EDITORIAL/OPINION. Credible commentary routinely keep the two separate.
Clue, "truthseeker":
One does not apply the slogan "fair and balanced" to news, because news is about fact, not editorial/opinion. "Man bites dog" is news, without regard for whether that reality is "fair and balanced".
One applies the slogan to non-news/EDITORIAL/OPINION -- which does not guarantee that such is ACTUALLY balanced; and going out of one's way to say it is is reason to suspect it isn't.
And FOX "news" -- it lies that it is that -- is not at all "fair and balanced".
Otherwise, I don't watch Olbermann, though if I wanted political editorial I would watch him before I'd watch FOX. (How many times must it be PROVEN that O'Reilly is a LIAR before one CEASES BELIEVING he tells the truth? Is that simply question with obvious answer over the head of "truthseeker"?)
Also for the record: I would never and therefore did not recommend this yet-another-instance-of-childish-"truthseeker" self-talk.
November 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right in the way you define news and opinion. Unfortunately, the networks don't get it. Your example would often result in the Headline, or crawl:
MAN BITES DOG / BUT DID DOG ASK FOR IT?
Fair and balanced has nothing to do with facts in a perfect world. In my old age I am beginning to acknowledge, however that even facts can be colored by subjective interpretation. It is the job of the media to rise above that.
Example: Giving Sarah Palin a forum to express her "ideas" (including all kinds of advice for Barack Obama) after she avoided all such scrutiny while she was running for the second most important job in the world, could be a search for "facts." On the other hand, it could simply be a ratings war. However, the fact that no one challenges her on ANY of her pronouncements shows that they are afraid of being shut out as they were when she was running for VEEP.
This question of access is the biggest problem relating to an accountable media. If the fear of being cut off influences their coverage, their coverage is compromised from day 1.
November 16, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who's been to university -- even if only first year -- learns how to "bracket" one's biases. FOX (as mmost prominent example) milks the viewer's ignorance by stating the FACT that "everyone is biased," BUT leaving out that it can be honestly, openly, directly addressed and countered.
And that "bracketing" isn't difficult: one openly details one's own position, and whether it is underlying or set aside -- the latter not at all difficult to do.
FOX's pawns, of course, such as the dishonest troll "truthseeker," either don't know the difference between and unbiased reportage, or simply lie about it. I'm betting it's simply lock-step ignorance malrepresented by those who demand it as various covers for renunciation of thought. Of intellect itself. Call it "viewer loyalty". Call it "patriotism". Call it "idological purity". Call it "reg'lar folks" against the "eltitists" -- which latter include those who are able to distinguish between, on one hand, facts, and on the other, biases/biasings.
And, for the record, as this instance of "truthseeker"'s dreck has only one "recommend," we can be certain that one came from "truthseeker" -- yet another underscoring of his dishonesty, self-promotion -- and bias.
November 17, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet we are supposed to be proud of America because Obama was elected, despite the fact that Obama received the vote of a minority of Americans.
He received 52% of the vote among registered American voters. That's a minority.
Would it be more accurate instead to say that we are proud of the significant minority who voted for Obama?
November 16, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He received the majority of votes of those who cared, informed, and involved enough to vote. How do you think elections should be handled, TS? What would be your method of getting the opinions of 100% of Americans?
My mother didn't vote, but then she thinks that Nixon is still president. Do you think I should have dragged her to the polls? How about all those people who just don't give a shit? How about all those people who haven't taken the time or trouble to register? Should their voice be heard when they don't bother to show up?
The people who voted, did so because they cared. Why put that down? Oh. You put everything down. I forgot.
Tell me, TS, What would make you proud?
November 16, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, truthseeker, that's what you do. You change the subject. You set up the "strawman", of which you recently complained, rather than addressing the comment.
No one has suggested in the comments anything about being proud of America. My comment specifically criticized your headline as misleading and you changed the subject.
November 16, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you apparently are the only one who has recommended your post.
November 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must have Olbermann syndrome, right?
November 16, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am unfamiliar with the Olberman Syndrome as I do not watch him.
My point is simply that within the public discourse one should be fair and accurate, regardless of one's point of view. Those who shade the truth in the public discourse do a disservice to themselves and to the public.
November 16, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"truthseeker" can't even manage to be consistent, and therefore coherent, let alone "fair and accurate". He ranted against ACORN based upon the easily-refuted LIE against ACORN told by his fellow America-haters -- that they were engaged in "voting" fraud. Now he rants the falsehood that Obama was elected by a minority.
He hasn't the slightest notion of the meaning of INTEGRITY.
He neglects to note "Rove's Rule": winnig by 51 per cent is sufficient.
And neglects to include the fact that fake "Great Communicator" Reagan was elected by a minority.
So "fair and balanced" troll "truthseeker" presents the claim -- false on its face -- out of context that Obama, impliedly uniquely, was elected by a minority.
Lying "truthseeker": Assuming arguendo that Obama was elected by a minority, and it is the fact that he is far from the only one who was, then it isn't news that he was. And for other reasons it is neither news NOR CONTROVERSIAL.
Nor is it "fair and balanced" to make issue of it as if he were the only president elected by a minority -- and therefore were even an issue -- or as if it were even relevant -- or -- speaking of "hysterics" and FAKE CONTROVERSIES, "truthseeker" -- legitimately controversial.
For the record, the only "recommendation" for this instance of "truthseeker" dreck is that by "truthseeker" himself, which is of course dishonest, and egocentric self-promotion -- the result, ultimately, of a "truthseeker" survey-of-one intended to deceive.
November 17, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking the opportunity to yet again change the subject -- into yet another a cheap shot personal attack against a person NOT PRESENT TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
COWARD, and typical of functionally illiterate FOX/Limbaugh-dupe slugs.
November 17, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, first things first. Would you mind telling me what you think of Olbermann citing "first time voters" statistics" in response to a comment by O'reilly which didn't address this issue? I'm dying to know!
November 16, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief, I'll address it, if you'll drop it. It's getting tiring hearing you rant about something you plainly didn't understand.
He brought up first time voters exactly because O'Reilly didn't. It wasn't a "strawman", it was an alternate explanation. O'Reilly was placing the blame at the feet of blacks. Olbermann was saying that the statistics were even more strongly skewed among first-time voters. It's a contrast, not a comparison. (However, an even more apt contrast would be voters over the age of 65.)
November 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, you lied when you implied that I suggested that those "in the comments" were the ones that addressed the issue of being proud of America. I was referring to those who have done it in other posts, in news articles, etc, although i didn't specify it.
You set up a straw man.
November 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words, you changed the subject from the subject of this thread.
As to what Olberman said about what O'Reilly said, or whatever, since I don't watch either of them, I don't really give a shit.
November 16, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, did you notice I didn't bite on the "you lied" bait you laid out there.
You really are pathetically transparent.
November 16, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't "bait". It was the truth, since I never claimed that anyone in the comments section had brought up the "proud of America" issue. You made that part up.
November 17, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pathetic.
November 17, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re-read what he wrote, and try excerpting the part that is the "lie". Go ahead, try it.
November 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He received 52% of the vote among registered American voters. That's a minority.
_____
No, it is not, as 52 per cent is the majority of REGISTERED VOTERS.
What were your complaints about ACORN again, asshole?
AND:
Those who are NOT REGISTERED VOTERS include, as examples, those who, for various immigration reasons, cannot legally vote -- as YOU would want it, hypocrite; and those too young to vote.
So yet again you are lying in order to attack the majority, and democracy itself, America-hater. To attack our "system of laws, and not of men" (John Adams) -- which means, Constitution and laws.
November 17, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also for the record I did not recommend this post.
November 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the record: I have never and would never "recommend" any instance of "truthseeker" dreck, so it is safe to assume that he "recommend"s his own in effort to deceive that people would actually suggest others read his sociopathic detritus.
November 17, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"a recent blog post reporting Olbermann's flawed argument"
You're offering us another sack of chicken manure, "my friend."
I rarely resort to name calling, but for you to even suggest, , that your prejudiced position was somehow correct just proves what we already know. You're a egomaniac who assumes your opinion is a fact and none of us is ever going to change that.
You just can't figure it out, that none of you sophomoric arguments hold any water with this enlightened crowd. You are like the drunken football dad who stumbles over to the opponent's bleachers to cheer for your team, just to start a fight.
But just for the sake of redundant repition, let me repeat an earlier post on an earlier thread.
Keith's argument was, as many of us have pointed out, nothing more or less than uncovering one of those Fox News gross generalizations and issue adjacencies that O'Reilly has always been such a coward to use.
O'Rielly doesn't have the guts to speak directly, he couches his meaning in a dog-whistles and bigot-code that leads the limp-minded droolers he calls his fans to leap to false assumptions and conclusions. Sometimes those conclusions are pernicious and sometimes downright unpatriotic.
Back in the 80's and 90's, I worked in a very small-market radio and TV operation for 15 years, and I will tell you that adjacency is one of the most pernicious and common "fool all of the people some of the time" ploys that the mdeia has adapted from their advertising bag of tricks.
As a progressive working for very conservative station owners, I can attest to the fact that they take great delight in scheduling Democratic campaign ads right next to jaw-dropping news stories from the dark side..
Why do you suppose Fox always put an OJ or a Brittney or a Lohan story following anything they did about Kerry? Why do they run a crawl-line about child molesters when Barbara Boxer is on the screen for an interview?
The "adjacency" of those stories and crawl lines linked them together in the minds of the audience. And the more numb the mind, the more that adjacency link held.
So when Keith exposes one of O'Rielly's typical mindbending drivel, that's his job. The fact you think Keith's argument was flawed suggests that you either aren't sophisticated enough to recognize the word-association games O'Rielly used here, or you are trying desperately to make people think less of Keith, just because you are a sore loser and you know what a big role Keith played in the public's awakening via his special comments.
One thing you mentioned in an earlier desperate post that I was sorry to hear is that Keith earns $4 million a year, which will make it all that much harder for a netroots-connected upstart news media to hire him away as our news anchor.
Keith's on my short list of three people who, in a very provable way, contributed mightily to the changes we have seen since 2004. Keith, Melanie Sloan of C.R.E.W., and our own Josh Marshall, will go down in history as three real people who took on the liars and the cheats and the mongers and made them pay dearly for their sins against democracy.
Add an honorable mention to three of the smartest ladies on the blogs, (and they are all on one blog) Christy, Jane and Marcy at FDL. And Digby still gets it right, nearly every post. Brad Friedman hits my list of toobz heroes, too, his dogged pursuit of voter-fraud fraud kept more than one watchdog on their trail.
If not for these people and so many other courageous bloggers, we would have seen a George Allen/Bill Frist ticket in 2008, that may well have perpetuated the Bush years, even worse than McCain threatened to do.
Give it up, Liemaker, go blog where you can have an influence other than embarrassing yourself and drawing all this negative attention. You remind me of a child who breaks things just to get attention.
November 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stepping aside all the petty bickering above for a moment...
Can we PLEASE stop abusing the term "reporter"? It has a specific meaning - it doesn't mean just anybody in the media - but someone who goes out, investigates stories, and reports back on what they've learned.
Olbermann and O'Rielly are NOT reporters. They are commentators, talking heads, blowhards, whatever you want to call them. Argue all day about who you find more persuasive, more in line with the facts.
But please don't confuse opinion & belief with reporting & fact. It always, always leads to intellectual rot and political decay. It can happen just as easily to the Left as it has lately with the Right.
November 17, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink