A Tribute to Olbermann: Why He Is Different From the Pundits at Fox News

[Flaylo]

Mitchell Bard: A Tribute to Olbermann: Why He Is Different From the Pundits at Fox News



That's the difference between Olbermann and his Fox News counterparts. When Beck claims that radicals in the Obama administration want to kill 10 percent of the American population and overthrow the U.S. government, or Sean Hannity uses bogus footage to exaggerate attendance at a Tea Party event, or Fox News hosts give credibility to those claiming that the health care reform law included "death panels" or that the president wasn't born in the United States, they are not shining a light on anything. Instead, they are using the cloak of "the press" to lie, exaggerate and use innuendo as a way of promoting an agenda.

And one of the strengths of Olbermann's show was that he didn't only take on government officials, but he devoted part of nearly every program to fact-checking the lies being spewed by major right-wing media figures like Palin, Beck, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Again, Olbermann was consistently looking to shine a light on the facts.

 

[Avatar4321]

Difference? Low ratings, low facts, angry rhetoric.

 

[Flaylo]

Difference? Low ratings, low facts, angry rhetoric.

Low ratings and low facts? You must be retarded out of your mind.

 

[Claudette]

Difference??

He pushes the left and apparantly not very well.

Low ratings.

Mayby his next gig won't pit him against O'Reilly at 8P M-F.

 

[martybegan]

Mitchell Bard: A Tribute to Olbermann: Why He Is Different From the Pundits at Fox News



That's the difference between Olbermann and his Fox News counterparts. When Beck claims that radicals in the Obama administration want to kill 10 percent of the American population and overthrow the U.S. government, or Sean Hannity uses bogus footage to exaggerate attendance at a Tea Party event, or Fox News hosts give credibility to those claiming that the health care reform law included "death panels" or that the president wasn't born in the United States, they are not shining a light on anything. Instead, they are using the cloak of "the press" to lie, exaggerate and use innuendo as a way of promoting an agenda.

And one of the strengths of Olbermann's show was that he didn't only take on government officials, but he devoted part of nearly every program to fact-checking the lies being spewed by major right-wing media figures like Palin, Beck, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Again, Olbermann was consistently looking to shine a light on the facts.

All this boils down to is you thinking your hyperventilating blowhard is better than the other peoples hyperventilating blowhards.

 

[California Girl]

The only thing Olberman shone a light on was his own ignorance.

Yet again, the OP "thinks" (assuming he does actually think) that whatever the HuffPuff says is true. I often wonder whether the OP realizes that he demonstrates absolutely no critical thinking at all. I would be embarrassed if that were me. I never get my opinions from other people.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Difference? Low ratings, low facts, angry rhetoric.

Let's examine your post Avatar.

Low Ratings? So you say, if that is true why did MSNBC award him with a huge ($30 Million) contract, and why do you and other RWers so demean him and MSNBC?
Answer. You and others attack MSNBC because they report facts with an attitude and a sense of humor. As a General in the army of the willfully ignorant such reporting confuses you, if you were to actually listen and consider what is reported an attack of cognitive dissonance would afflict you.

Low Facts: Really, then why do you and your willfully ignorant brothers and sisters attack the person and not the message. Why not ask the question and provide an annotated answer? Because to do so would require you to think critically; something which faithists abhor as it causes cognitive dissonance.

Angry rhetoric or passionate reporting? It's all in the eye of the reporter. Using two dysphemisms (angry and rhetoric) clearly demonstrates your bias.

 

[Truthmatters]

Fox and ratings?

How about gauging them by their commitment to the truth.

Olberman was the only guy telling us the truth about Iraq.

Fox fired reporters for refucing to lie and then won a court case against them by convincing a right leaning judge that there are no laws against news lying to their viewers.


Yeap ratings , no wonder you guys like to just stick to ratings as a measure.

 

[California Girl]

Fox and ratings?

How about gauging them by their commitment to the truth.

Olberman was the only guy telling us the truth about Iraq.

Fox fired reporters for refucing to lie and then won a court case against them by convincing a right leaning judge that there are no laws against news lying to their viewers.


Yeap ratings , no wonder you guys like to just stick to ratings as a measure.

Now, that is a lie, truthmatters. Repeating something that has been proven to be false is lying.

And, if Fox were fighting for this mythical 'right to lie', how come ABC, NBC, CNN etc all participated in the law suit? And... why do you continue to ignore that fact?

 

[Mad Scientist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/a-tribute-to-olbermann-wh_b_812770.htmlThat's the difference between Olbermann and his Fox News counterparts.

The big difference?

Fox News Pundits: Employed.
Keith Olberman: Unemployed.

Keef wanted more money than MSNBC was willing to offer so he left. Does that mean MSNBC wanted him gone or does it mean Keef just wanted to leave no matter what the offer was? Who cares? He's gone either way.

But now he has more time for what he's really good at: Sports.

 

[blastoff]

It's not the end of the world. Keith is still around every night in his drag persona, Rachel.

 

[Nosmo King]

Difference? Low ratings, low facts, angry rhetoric.

Let's talk about this. First: low ratings. Does someone need high ratings to be factually correct, credible, right? Is that the standard? Nielson ratings? If this were indeed the case, let's try another example. ITunes. Who gets higher iTunes sales: Lady Gaga or Mozart? Why Lady Gaga of course. Does that make Lady Gaga a greater musical talent?

Next, low facts. Obermann consistently pointed out where other pundits came up short on their facts. Could you supply some evidence Obermann was short on his?

And finally (and most hypocritically) angry rhetoric. Obermann certainly applied anger (more accurately frustration) to his delivery. Do you find him more egregious in this than say Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or any other right wing pundit? Should Olbermann set the bar for cordiality and comity among talk show hosts? Why hasn't any of the aforementioned right wing pundits taken this to heart? It seems angry rhetoric is the coin of the realm for political pundits. Why are you holding Keith Olbermann to a standard you will not apply to Conservative talkers?

 

[Oddball]

Next, low facts. Obermann consistently pointed out where other pundits came up short on their facts.

Except when it came to himself and other leftist pundits.

Olbermann's War

 

[hjmick]

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how folks on both sides of the political spectrum believe, beyond a doubt, that the news service they watch is the most accurate, most factual, most honest news source around. Seriously?

Pull your heads out of your collective asses.

You're hearing what you want to hear. You are listening to sources who share your beliefs and outlook. Your choice of news source is pandering to you and the way you think, of course you think the other guys are wrong, lying, or stupid.

Here's a news flash...

Keith Olbermann is a partisan hack and he suck balls.

Here's another news flash...

Sean Hannity is a partisan hack and he suck balls.

Deal with it...

 

[del]

Difference? Low ratings, low facts, angry rhetoric.

and unemployed

 

[del]

Fox and ratings?

How about gauging them by their commitment to the truth.

Olberman was the only guy telling us the truth about Iraq.

Fox fired reporters for refucing to lie and then won a court case against them by convincing a right leaning judge that there are no laws against news lying to their viewers.


Yeap ratings , no wonder you guys like to just stick to ratings as a measure.

why do you perpetuate this lie, quimslobber?

why, why, why?

 

[Truthmatters]

Olberman was correct about his reporting on the Iraq war.

There were no AQ ties or WMDs.

 

[Jackson]

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how folks on both sides of the political spectrum believe, beyond a doubt, that the news service they watch is the most accurate, most factual, most honest news source around. Seriously?

Pull your heads out of your collective asses.

You're hearing what you want to hear. You are listening to sources who share your beliefs and outlook. Your choice of news source is pandering to you and the way you think, of course you think the other guys are wrong, lying, or stupid.

Here's a news flash...

Keith Olbermann is a partisan hack and he suck balls.

Here's another news flash...

Sean Hannity is a partisan hack and he suck balls.

Deal with it...

LOL< I don't think I would express it quite that way, but I do agree with you!

 

[Meister]

Next, low facts. Obermann consistently pointed out where other pundits came up short on their facts.

Except when it came to himself and other leftist pundits.

Olbermann's War

I wonder if wry will read this article.

 

[Sallow]

Difference? Low ratings, low facts, angry rhetoric.

Let's examine your post Avatar.

Low Ratings? So you say, if that is true why did MSNBC award him with a huge ($30 Million) contract, and why do you and other RWers so demean him and MSNBC?
Answer. You and others attack MSNBC because they report facts with an attitude and a sense of humor. As a General in the army of the willfully ignorant such reporting confuses you, if you were to actually listen and consider what is reported an attack of cognitive dissonance would afflict you.

Low Facts: Really, then why do you and your willfully ignorant brothers and sisters attack the person and not the message. Why not ask the question and provide an annotated answer? Because to do so would require you to think critically; something which faithists abhor as it causes cognitive dissonance.

Angry rhetoric or passionate reporting? It's all in the eye of the reporter. Using two dysphemisms (angry and rhetoric) clearly demonstrates your bias.

If the ratings were so low, why exactly did Comcast buy MSNBC?

Answer is pretty clear. The right is using what they always use to squelch dissent.

Money.