'

O'Reilly vs. Olbermann Through Thursday, February 21

Categories: '

Written By

February 24th, 2008

022108oreillyvsolbermann.gif

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2008 Nielsen Media Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • Dean

    Olbermann has more brains in his left nut than O’Reilly or anyone that watches him. All this graph points out are that there are more stupid people than smart people. Duhhhhh.

  • Dean

    Olbermann has more brains in his left nut than O'Reilly or anyone that watches him. All this graph points out are that there are more stupid people than smart people. Duhhhhh.

  • http://www.excruciatinginertia.blogspot.com David Gifford

    Dearest Frank:

    “Do you folks think for yourselves? No, lambs, Fox and O’Reilly do NOT offer truly contrasting viewpoints, and NO, Fox is NOT fair and balanced, etc.”

    Granted. You DO realize, of course, that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, et al, or NOT fair and balanced? Even with FOX on the air, television is not fair and balanced simply because you have one conservative leaning channel, FOX, amidst a lethargic sea of liberal leaning channels. Funny how no liberal ever complained that the networks were not fair and balanced before FOX showed up. Heck, for contrasting viewpoints, the networks would trot out a bleeding hearted liberal to debate a radical left winger. And THIS was fair and balanced television for the longest time, according to bleeding hearted liberals. Now FOX has come along and kicked ratings butt, and all the libs can do is throw out labels, call people names, insult viewers and bleat their shrill cries of “BIAS!” and “UNBALANCED!” and “NOT FAIR!” against FOX when all along EVERY OTHER CHANNEL was biased, unbalanced and not fair all along…and they never said a word. Not a peep.

    No, it's never been fair and balanced they wanted, it was the eradication of conservative television.

    Why lie? Just admit it, you libs.

  • http://www.excruciatinginertia.blogspot.com David Gifford

    Dearest Frank:

    “Do you folks think for yourselves? No, lambs, Fox and O’Reilly do NOT offer truly contrasting viewpoints, and NO, Fox is NOT fair and balanced, etc.”

    Granted. You DO realize, of course, that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, et al, or NOT fair and balanced? Even with FOX on the air, television is not fair and balanced simply because you have one conservative leaning channel, FOX, amidst a lethargic sea of liberal leaning channels. Funny how no liberal ever complained that the networks were not fair and balanced before FOX showed up. Heck, for contrasting viewpoints, the networks would trot out a bleeding hearted liberal to debate a radical left winger. And THIS was fair and balanced television for the longest time, according to bleeding hearted liberals. Now FOX has come along and kicked ratings butt, and all the libs can do is throw out labels, call people names, insult viewers and bleat their shrill cries of “BIAS!” and “UNBALANCED!” and “NOT FAIR!” against FOX when all along EVERY OTHER CHANNEL was biased, unbalanced and not fair all along…and they never said a word. Not a peep.

    No, it’s never been fair and balanced they wanted, it was the eradication of conservative television.

    Why lie? Just admit it, you libs.

  • mani

    Olbermann is a genius at focusing on the real issues. No media is fair and balanced. But, all you Billy lovers are what I call psychotic. This because you deny any form of self criticism and are on the majority incapable of doing so. It is common with people that are insecure and not properly loved/educated. At a social level this has had a huge impact on the way America deals with its issues: through denial, blame, scapegoats, lies, etc… etc… KO offers an insight into what it is to live by pure principles like that when you learn when you are loved and well educated. This is the main reason I believe that we don't agree, and why Bill'O should be taken off the air. Yes, I know you don't agree, go read a book or something.

  • mani

    Olbermann is a genius at focusing on the real issues. No media is fair and balanced. But, all you Billy lovers are what I call psychotic. This because you deny any form of self criticism and are on the majority incapable of doing so. It is common with people that are insecure and not properly loved/educated. At a social level this has had a huge impact on the way America deals with its issues: through denial, blame, scapegoats, lies, etc… etc… KO offers an insight into what it is to live by pure principles like that when you learn when you are loved and well educated. This is the main reason I believe that we don’t agree, and why Bill’O should be taken off the air. Yes, I know you don’t agree, go read a book or something.

  • http://wherewemakeourstand.blogspot.com Jackson

    @ David Gifford and others

    Obviously every news channel carries a bias. The large majority of it is of the money making variety. To claim all the other channels are liberal is ridiculous. CNN will run whatever story they think will get viewers, that's what it's all about. Fox and MSNBC are a little different in that respect. I would consider myself extremely liberal but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that Olbermann (and please, stop making up silly names for him, we're not in 4th grade any more) represents the straight news, without any bias. I realize that he's biased, and I get my news from multiple sources. I watch Keith because its funny and I agree with him. The biggest problem I have with O'Reilly is that he will invite a person of opposing viewpoint onto his show and then intentionally misrepresents their views. check this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bA66lP2GkiE
    for a bit of analysis of his “interview” with Richard Dawkins. I'll admit that I think the poster is lying in the description when he says he likes O'Reilly's show, cause I don't think the analysis is that of someone who could (I maybe wrong though), but nonetheless the analysis is valid. Also, I would add that at the end, when O'Reilly makes the statement that he “[doesn't] think any of those guys had any moral foundation” he is completely manufacturing something Dawkins never said. He is putting words in his mouth. He is lying. Keith maybe just as much about entertainment as news, but he doesn't lie like Bill does and that is the difference.

  • http://wherewemakeourstand.blogspot.com Jackson

    @ David Gifford and others

    Obviously every news channel carries a bias. The large majority of it is of the money making variety. To claim all the other channels are liberal is ridiculous. CNN will run whatever story they think will get viewers, that’s what it’s all about. Fox and MSNBC are a little different in that respect. I would consider myself extremely liberal but I’m not going to delude myself into thinking that Olbermann (and please, stop making up silly names for him, we’re not in 4th grade any more) represents the straight news, without any bias. I realize that he’s biased, and I get my news from multiple sources. I watch Keith because its funny and I agree with him. The biggest problem I have with O’Reilly is that he will invite a person of opposing viewpoint onto his show and then intentionally misrepresents their views. check this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bA66lP2GkiE
    for a bit of analysis of his “interview” with Richard Dawkins. I’ll admit that I think the poster is lying in the description when he says he likes O’Reilly’s show, cause I don’t think the analysis is that of someone who could (I maybe wrong though), but nonetheless the analysis is valid. Also, I would add that at the end, when O’Reilly makes the statement that he “[doesn't] think any of those guys had any moral foundation” he is completely manufacturing something Dawkins never said. He is putting words in his mouth. He is lying. Keith maybe just as much about entertainment as news, but he doesn’t lie like Bill does and that is the difference.

  • David Gifford

    I agree that O'Reilly is entertainment, not news. So is Larry King, Alan Combes, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Katie Couric…and on and on and on. You, Jackson, at least admit as much. I think, though, the reason you don't see other channels as biased as you see FOX is the same reason that fish don't know they are wet. Liberal thinking is what you are, it's all you've known, it's what you were raised on. An illustration is simple: we had a president that invaded a foreign, sovereign nation to oust his pet peeve dictator, and not one liberal put on his/her sandals to march for peace, to protest the invasion, printed up a bumper sticker, flooded the net with rants nor anything else of the sort. That's because that president's name was Bill Clinton. The place was Kosovo and the dictator was Milosevic.

    When Bush did it, oh, the liberals were incensed. Remember? Clogging entire sections of cities with their protests, down with war, PEACE, etc etc etc. Curiously silent when Clinton went to war, they rushed for their sandals and marched immediately when Bush did. It was never about a hatred for war, a love of peace, nor any of that other nonsense. It was a hatred of Bush, and all the other nonsense was a smokescreen. And the liberal media went with it.

    How many times did you hear about Bush being a C student, how dumb he was, too stupid to be fit for high office, etc? Can you count the times? Do you find it odd that the bleeding hearted liberal media never ONCE also reported that Bush's first opponent, Al Gore, was ALSO a C student? Or that he'd flunked out of grad school, failing 5 of 8 classes? OR that Bush's second opponent, Kerry, was a C student also? Why didn't this make them stupid? And more importantly, why didn't the unbiased news outlets, the ones other than FOX, tell the nation about their C grades? Didn't honest and fair reporting demand that the public knew they were stupid, too?

    Do you remember the famous Barbara Walters interview of the two candidates in 2000, Gore and Bush? Her first question to Gore: “Does it hurt you that people question your integrity?”

    But the first question to Bush, “Are you stupid?”

    Or why didn't the news outlets continually call Florida for Bush instead of Gore? They had no idea who'd won, why not call it for the conservative candidate instead of liberal one? No bias? Hardly? And why not report, afterward, that after 2 government recounts and 3 independent recounts, that Bush won Florida EVERY TIME? That's 5 for 5, not including the running count on election night.

    Can you ignore that, except for FOX, out of the 70-some “news journalists” employed by the liberal networks, which are all other channels but FOX, that every single one has ties to liberal politics, including the left wingers Katie Couric, Matt Laurer, Dan Rather, Rivera and the list goes on and on. There is one, ONE, that doesn't and has ties to conservative politics: Diane Sawyer.

    Again, this is leaving out FOX. And I could go on with the blatant and obvious radical left wing bias of all channels but FOX. It isn't hard.

    This is why I have to choke myself every time I see a liberal leaning citizen scream that FOX is biased. They are ALL biased. Incredibly biased, incredibly myopic, serving their own interests as well as entertainment. It's just that when it's liberal, it just doesn't strike a liberal as being that far out of line. When it's conservative bias, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Fish don't know they are wet…they've always been wet. But they sure know when they are dry.

  • David Gifford

    I agree that O’Reilly is entertainment, not news. So is Larry King, Alan Combes, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Katie Couric…and on and on and on. You, Jackson, at least admit as much. I think, though, the reason you don’t see other channels as biased as you see FOX is the same reason that fish don’t know they are wet. Liberal thinking is what you are, it’s all you’ve known, it’s what you were raised on. An illustration is simple: we had a president that invaded a foreign, sovereign nation to oust his pet peeve dictator, and not one liberal put on his/her sandals to march for peace, to protest the invasion, printed up a bumper sticker, flooded the net with rants nor anything else of the sort. That’s because that president’s name was Bill Clinton. The place was Kosovo and the dictator was Milosevic.

    When Bush did it, oh, the liberals were incensed. Remember? Clogging entire sections of cities with their protests, down with war, PEACE, etc etc etc. Curiously silent when Clinton went to war, they rushed for their sandals and marched immediately when Bush did. It was never about a hatred for war, a love of peace, nor any of that other nonsense. It was a hatred of Bush, and all the other nonsense was a smokescreen. And the liberal media went with it.

    How many times did you hear about Bush being a C student, how dumb he was, too stupid to be fit for high office, etc? Can you count the times? Do you find it odd that the bleeding hearted liberal media never ONCE also reported that Bush’s first opponent, Al Gore, was ALSO a C student? Or that he’d flunked out of grad school, failing 5 of 8 classes? OR that Bush’s second opponent, Kerry, was a C student also? Why didn’t this make them stupid? And more importantly, why didn’t the unbiased news outlets, the ones other than FOX, tell the nation about their C grades? Didn’t honest and fair reporting demand that the public knew they were stupid, too?

    Do you remember the famous Barbara Walters interview of the two candidates in 2000, Gore and Bush? Her first question to Gore: “Does it hurt you that people question your integrity?”

    But the first question to Bush, “Are you stupid?”

    Or why didn’t the news outlets continually call Florida for Bush instead of Gore? They had no idea who’d won, why not call it for the conservative candidate instead of liberal one? No bias? Hardly? And why not report, afterward, that after 2 government recounts and 3 independent recounts, that Bush won Florida EVERY TIME? That’s 5 for 5, not including the running count on election night.

    Can you ignore that, except for FOX, out of the 70-some “news journalists” employed by the liberal networks, which are all other channels but FOX, that every single one has ties to liberal politics, including the left wingers Katie Couric, Matt Laurer, Dan Rather, Rivera and the list goes on and on. There is one, ONE, that doesn’t and has ties to conservative politics: Diane Sawyer.

    Again, this is leaving out FOX. And I could go on with the blatant and obvious radical left wing bias of all channels but FOX. It isn’t hard.

    This is why I have to choke myself every time I see a liberal leaning citizen scream that FOX is biased. They are ALL biased. Incredibly biased, incredibly myopic, serving their own interests as well as entertainment. It’s just that when it’s liberal, it just doesn’t strike a liberal as being that far out of line. When it’s conservative bias, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Fish don’t know they are wet…they’ve always been wet. But they sure know when they are dry.

  • richard

    Hate America agendas have a very limited audience. It killed Air America Radio. MSNBC is in financial trouble. Olberman would be long gone otherwise but he' s the best they can afford.

  • richard

    Hate America agendas have a very limited audience. It killed Air America Radio. MSNBC is in financial trouble. Olberman would be long gone otherwise but he’ s the best they can afford.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures