Comments on: O'Reilly vs. Olbermann Through Wednesday, March 19

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:25:02 +0000

C’mon guys loosen up, who cares who’s winning in the ratings. They’re both not serious news networks, they’re entertainment, and if you don’t see that you’re being taken for a loooong ride.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:25:02 +0000

C'mon guys loosen up, who cares who's winning in the ratings. They're both not serious news networks, they're entertainment, and if you don't see that you're being taken for a loooong ride.

By: petegazynya

petegazynya — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:36:26 +0000

touche’ Jim…the left needs to stop the name calling…just makes them look immature and out of ideas

By: petegazynya

petegazynya — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:36:26 +0000

touche' Jim…the left needs to stop the name calling…just makes them look immature and out of ideas

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:28:55 +0000

Oh, Mike…. one more thing:
When you wrote “…. none to bright”, your lack of brightness and lack of education was revealed. It should have been “none too bright.”

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:28:55 +0000

Oh, Mike…. one more thing:
When you wrote “…. none to bright”, your lack of brightness and lack of education was revealed. It should have been “none too bright.”

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:02:00 +0000

Duh, Mike…. you really missed it, Buddy.
Most people would have been keen enough to know that I wasn’t defending BO for his shouting, but pointing out that KO never has an opposing view to even encourage his audience to look at different sides of an issue. As I said, both KO and BO are more like echo chambers for their own views, except at least BO will have guests to give another side.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:02:00 +0000

Duh, Mike…. you really missed it, Buddy.
Most people would have been keen enough to know that I wasn't defending BO for his shouting, but pointing out that KO never has an opposing view to even encourage his audience to look at different sides of an issue. As I said, both KO and BO are more like echo chambers for their own views, except at least BO will have guests to give another side.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:41:15 +0000

I like them both when I get the chance to watch. I would prefer to be aligned with viewers of KO than BO. BO viewers are elderly, red necks, and none to bright.

Right in this thread Jim explains that BO is fair and balanced because he ‘shouts down his guests”.

That’s whats known as red meat Jim. It requires just a bit of intellect to know that.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:41:15 +0000

I like them both when I get the chance to watch. I would prefer to be aligned with viewers of KO than BO. BO viewers are elderly, red necks, and none to bright.

Right in this thread Jim explains that BO is fair and balanced because he 'shouts down his guests".

That's whats known as red meat Jim. It requires just a bit of intellect to know that.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:10:37 +0000

Looks like the ugly Rachel Maddow and the despicable Keith Overbite show theiir true colors. On a side note Overbite threw Imus under the bus but once again proves hes a disgusting obnoxious buffoon with no ratings

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/185

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:10:37 +0000

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:06:34 +0000

Ah, Steve — I don’t see any of that as political, but rather the nature of both economics and human nature. Sadly, in capitalism SCALE just makes sense. There’s no getting around it. It makes good, good sense. There are downsides to it,sure, but there are plenty of upsides too.

“Freedom” and “Capitalism” aren’t perfect but they at least allow you to move out of the industrial northeast and midwest and go live somewhere else.

The reason they don’t is the same as the corruption as far as I’m concerned, human nature. It’s easy to say “if you don’t like where you live, move”, but it’s also easy to say stuff like ‘if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more.” Saying is easy, doing is harder. But we have the choice, right and freedom “to do”.

Starbucks vs. neighborhood coffee or O’Reilly vs. Olbermann — it is still a free country.

P.S. if those people had DVRs and On-Demand, they’d find more interesting programming than they could ever hope to get through.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:06:34 +0000

Ah, Steve -- I don't see any of that as political, but rather the nature of both economics and human nature. Sadly, in capitalism SCALE just makes sense. There's no getting around it. It makes good, good sense. There are downsides to it,sure, but there are plenty of upsides too.

"Freedom" and "Capitalism" aren't perfect but they at least allow you to move out of the industrial northeast and midwest and go live somewhere else.

The reason they don't is the same as the corruption as far as I'm concerned, human nature. It's easy to say "if you don't like where you live, move", but it's also easy to say stuff like 'if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more." Saying is easy, doing is harder. But we have the choice, right and freedom "to do".

Starbucks vs. neighborhood coffee or O'Reilly vs. Olbermann -- it is still a free country.

P.S. if those people had DVRs and On-Demand, they'd find more interesting programming than they could ever hope to get through.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:49:08 +0000

There’s a huge range of possibilities between criticizing big business and being anti-capitalism. I’m a big proponent of supporting small businesses, they add to the vitality of communities, are usually run by people who are invested in their town/city and who care about their employees (i.e., see them more than an expense), employees are usually happier working with small, independent business owners because they’re treated fairer and have more flexibility for things like raising a family or needing sick leave, owners are happier because they have more control over their own lives, and competition thrives much better and is more in-tune with the consumers. Not to mention, small businesses add to the character and uniqueness of their local areas.

My problem is with big businesses, namely their corrupting powers, shunning of competition, and exploitation over their employees and the communities they’re involved in. That’s one of the reasons why I see little real differences between republicans and democrats, they’re both bought by huge conglomerates like GE or United Technologies. In fact, many government workers take jobs with the companies they’re supposed to regulate once they retire from the public sector. I see things like this as hugely problematic and in direct conflict with the goal or our government. With the power of lobbyists over policy makers and big businesses’ incessant need to maximize profits the interests of average folks like us, and our communities suffer. The implications manifest themselves in our communities and daily lives in numerous ways (growing crime, families falling apart, environmental disasters, etc.). If you live in the industrial northeast or mid-west you can see these implications on a daily basis in most of the cities. There’s actually a sizable amount of research on this stuff, but much of it’s in social scientific books and journals and it doesn’t reach the public domain. As a result, it not anywhere near as vocal as big business reps who’d like us all to think that what’s in the best interest of big business is in the best interest of the public. I suspect that’s probably one of the major reasons why people have such a hard time critiquing big business, or seeing the huge amount of gray area between free market capitalism and strict socialism. It’s funny because I hear people praising big business in areas like media, while they scan through the 200+ cable stations can can’t find a thing to watch.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:49:08 +0000

There's a huge range of possibilities between criticizing big business and being anti-capitalism. I'm a big proponent of supporting small businesses, they add to the vitality of communities, are usually run by people who are invested in their town/city and who care about their employees (i.e., see them more than an expense), employees are usually happier working with small, independent business owners because they're treated fairer and have more flexibility for things like raising a family or needing sick leave, owners are happier because they have more control over their own lives, and competition thrives much better and is more in-tune with the consumers. Not to mention, small businesses add to the character and uniqueness of their local areas.

My problem is with big businesses, namely their corrupting powers, shunning of competition, and exploitation over their employees and the communities they're involved in. That's one of the reasons why I see little real differences between republicans and democrats, they're both bought by huge conglomerates like GE or United Technologies. In fact, many government workers take jobs with the companies they're supposed to regulate once they retire from the public sector. I see things like this as hugely problematic and in direct conflict with the goal or our government. With the power of lobbyists over policy makers and big businesses' incessant need to maximize profits the interests of average folks like us, and our communities suffer. The implications manifest themselves in our communities and daily lives in numerous ways (growing crime, families falling apart, environmental disasters, etc.). If you live in the industrial northeast or mid-west you can see these implications on a daily basis in most of the cities. There's actually a sizable amount of research on this stuff, but much of it's in social scientific books and journals and it doesn't reach the public domain. As a result, it not anywhere near as vocal as big business reps who'd like us all to think that what's in the best interest of big business is in the best interest of the public. I suspect that's probably one of the major reasons why people have such a hard time critiquing big business, or seeing the huge amount of gray area between free market capitalism and strict socialism. It's funny because I hear people praising big business in areas like media, while they scan through the 200+ cable stations can can't find a thing to watch.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:07:05 +0000

Steve, I DO get the point of your post and you’re definitely right when you say that both BO’s and KO’s programs have such small audiences. The sad reality is that most people are so wrapped up in their own day-to-day routine they aren’t interested in investing any time to thinking about the real issues in our country – Both BO and KO would be better regarded as entertainment programing with very little light – Both are speaking in an echo chamber for themselves and their small target groups.

I don’t share your excessive cinicism (along with Lou Dobb’s), on the evils of business. Are you anti-capitalists, too?

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:07:05 +0000

Steve, I DO get the point of your post and you're definitely right when you say that both BO's and KO's programs have such small audiences. The sad reality is that most people are so wrapped up in their own day-to-day routine they aren't interested in investing any time to thinking about the real issues in our country – Both BO and KO would be better regarded as entertainment programing with very little light – Both are speaking in an echo chamber for themselves and their small target groups.

I don't share your excessive cinicism (along with Lou Dobb's), on the evils of business. Are you anti-capitalists, too?

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:55:20 +0000

Jim, way to miss the entire point of my post. Robert seems to get it. Arguing between KO and BO and who’s better or more honest places an arbitrary, unnecessary, and in many ways harmful constraint on the real issues, which are more about concentrated state and economic power in the hands of a few (couple hundred thousand) elites than what some commentator with a couple million viewers says. Lets be honest, if we had real investigative reporting on issues of corporate or political dominance and how the interests of many of us (including both BO and KO viewers) are sacrificed in light of elite interests there’d be no outlet for them in the mainstream media. It’d be like biting the hand that feeds them. Check out some of the reports by the Center for Public Integrity or the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Ask yourself if some of their reports address important issues for people like us, and if you hear BO or KO talk about them (or if you hear them anywhere in the mainstream media).

http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:55:20 +0000

Jim, way to miss the entire point of my post. Robert seems to get it. Arguing between KO and BO and who's better or more honest places an arbitrary, unnecessary, and in many ways harmful constraint on the real issues, which are more about concentrated state and economic power in the hands of a few (couple hundred thousand) elites than what some commentator with a couple million viewers says. Lets be honest, if we had real investigative reporting on issues of corporate or political dominance and how the interests of many of us (including both BO and KO viewers) are sacrificed in light of elite interests there'd be no outlet for them in the mainstream media. It'd be like biting the hand that feeds them. Check out some of the reports by the Center for Public Integrity or the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Ask yourself if some of their reports address important issues for people like us, and if you hear BO or KO talk about them (or if you hear them anywhere in the mainstream media).

http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:04:08 +0000

Jim, perhaps, but Steve’s comment may be the least infantile comment I’ve ever seen in KO vs BO posts.

BTW, I don’t think his point was that KO and BO are the same, his point was that both are completely irrelevant to most of the country. He’s right.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:04:08 +0000

Jim, perhaps, but Steve's comment may be the least infantile comment I've ever seen in KO vs BO posts.

BTW, I don't think his point was that KO and BO are the same, his point was that both are completely irrelevant to most of the country. He's right.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:57:30 +0000

Oh, yeah, Steve – You’ve never heard KO stoop to name-calling. Like calling the president and other elected officials “idots” and “liars” and “stupid” – He’s infantile!!!
That that isn’t name calling – That’s a characteriztion of his method, not his character.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:57:30 +0000

Oh, yeah, Steve – You've never heard KO stoop to name-calling. Like calling the president and other elected officials “idots” and “liars” and “stupid” – He's infantile!!!
That that isn't name calling – That's a characteriztion of his method, not his character.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:55:04 +0000

Hey, Steve – The reason KO never “shouts anybody down who disagrees with him” is because he never has an opposing view for discussion. He leads into the “questions” for his “guests” (always proponents of his own views) by asking the question in such a way they have to go along. i.e. He gives a commentary and then in essence says, “Isn’t that right?” DUH – Some “fair and balanced” uh…. er… I mean…. that is…. NEWSCAST ????

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:55:04 +0000

Hey, Steve – The reason KO never “shouts anybody down who disagrees with him” is because he never has an opposing view for discussion. He leads into the “questions” for his “guests” (always proponents of his own views) by asking the question in such a way they have to go along. i.e. He gives a commentary and then in essence says, “Isn't that right?” DUH – Some “fair and balanced” uh…. er… I mean…. that is…. NEWSCAST ????

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:28:33 +0000

well written comments, Steve, but I think your argument that KO and BO are basically the same is way off. The diferrence is KO pretends to be a an impartial journalist when he covers political debates for MSNBC. He’s not. He’s a former scoreboard reader and current left wing bomb thrower with no more cred than BO would have if he coverd the debates. With that said, I still think BO would give a more balanced report. AND that ain’t sayin’ much.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:28:33 +0000

well written comments, Steve, but I think your argument that KO and BO are basically the same is way off. The diferrence is KO pretends to be a an impartial journalist when he covers political debates for MSNBC. He's not. He's a former scoreboard reader and current left wing bomb thrower with no more cred than BO would have if he coverd the debates. With that said, I still think BO would give a more balanced report. AND that ain't sayin' much.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:08:58 +0000

As for content, it’s a joke that people actually think either are fair and balanced. Both programs are commentary, cater to audiences whose views are similar to the host’s and who aren’t looking for news or anything that really challenges them in any way. O’Reilly hates everyone who doesn’t see the world the way he does and shouts them down when they challenge him. He’s a despicable joke and is clearly employed only because there’s enough of a marketable audience that watches his show and buy the advertised products. This says nothing about the quality and credibility of what O’Reilly’s saying. Olbermann is clearly MSNBC’s reaction to O’Reilly, though at least he isn’t afraid to criticize the government in time of war, which is important and necessary for a democracy. I’ve never heard him shout someone down or resort to name calling like I’ve seen too often on O’Reilly.

In my eyes republicans and democrats are practically the same, any real differences are minor but appear big because we don’t know how to think outside the box in this country. In the end, practically all politicians are power hungry, either they start that way or their corrupted by washington. They take big money from huge corporate lobbyists, use corporate “research” as data, and basically support legislation that’s written by big business. This is the case for a bunch of areas, including in the FCC, pharmaceuticles, environmental standards, foreign and domestic economic and military policies, etc. What’s disturbing is how these interests somehow become the public’s interests even when there’s little evidence that they are good for the everyday joe and jane. That’s the great irony and neither O’Reilly nor Olbermann speak to this. Infact, Olbermann doesn’t speak to this bigger issue and O’Reilly will act like he’s in high-school and call you un-american or something childish like that.

In the end, these arguement about who’s better, O’Reilly or Olbermann are a joke. In a country of 300 million we’re arguing over a few million viewers, and neither program really helps us be informed citizens of a democracy (or more accurately, republic).

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:08:58 +0000

These numbers are not impressive for either station, and the differences between the two is negligible for the key 25-54 demographic. I think if we broke these numbers down more we'd see the big difference in elderly tv viewers explaining why O'Reilly has about 1 1/2 million more viewers. Probably a lot of World War II generation viewers. As a category, they're much less willing to criticize the U.S. especially in time of war, and much more likely to support the government's foreign policy decisions (regardless of what they are). Younger viewers usually aren't watching television at the same rates as elderly in the evening and that probably explains the key difference in the numbers much more than anything else.

As for content, it's a joke that people actually think either are fair and balanced. Both programs are commentary, cater to audiences whose views are similar to the host's and who aren't looking for news or anything that really challenges them in any way. O'Reilly hates everyone who doesn't see the world the way he does and shouts them down when they challenge him. He's a despicable joke and is clearly employed only because there's enough of a marketable audience that watches his show and buy the advertised products. This says nothing about the quality and credibility of what O'Reilly's saying. Olbermann is clearly MSNBC's reaction to O'Reilly, though at least he isn't afraid to criticize the government in time of war, which is important and necessary for a democracy. I've never heard him shout someone down or resort to name calling like I've seen too often on O'Reilly.

In my eyes republicans and democrats are practically the same, any real differences are minor but appear big because we don't know how to think outside the box in this country. In the end, practically all politicians are power hungry, either they start that way or their corrupted by washington. They take big money from huge corporate lobbyists, use corporate "research" as data, and basically support legislation that's written by big business. This is the case for a bunch of areas, including in the FCC, pharmaceuticles, environmental standards, foreign and domestic economic and military policies, etc. What's disturbing is how these interests somehow become the public's interests even when there's little evidence that they are good for the everyday joe and jane. That's the great irony and neither O'Reilly nor Olbermann speak to this. Infact, Olbermann doesn't speak to this bigger issue and O'Reilly will act like he's in high-school and call you un-american or something childish like that.

In the end, these arguement about who's better, O'Reilly or Olbermann are a joke. In a country of 300 million we're arguing over a few million viewers, and neither program really helps us be informed citizens of a democracy (or more accurately, republic).

By: ADAM

ADAM — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:48:17 +0000

Looks like Keith Obamalover Overbite gets low ratings in the sack as well

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

By: ADAM

ADAM — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:48:17 +0000

Looks like Keith Obamalover Overbite gets low ratings in the sack as well

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092006/gossip/pag...

By: mike brockman

mike brockman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:35 +0000

How come we don’t hear about the big scandal over Obama’s passport anymore? Just a few days ago KO and Schuster were hyper ventilating over the “breaking news” that Obama’s passport had unauthorized access over at the State Department….lol. No downfall of the Republican party, Keith? Oh, too bad. Your lack of journalism experience shines its ugly ass everyday. And like that other guy said, in an earlier comment, you really are the little lemming, so ready to jump off any news cliff that shows conservatives in a negative light-regardless of the truth.

By: mike brockman

mike brockman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:35 +0000

How come we don't hear about the big scandal over Obama's passport anymore? Just a few days ago KO and Schuster were hyper ventilating over the “breaking news” that Obama’s passport had unauthorized access over at the State Department….lol. No downfall of the Republican party, Keith? Oh, too bad. Your lack of journalism experience shines its ugly ass everyday. And like that other guy said, in an earlier comment, you really are the little lemming, so ready to jump off any news cliff that shows conservatives in a negative light-regardless of the truth.

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:54:48 +0000

Keith Obwonkenobee rants and raves and is so angry at FoxNews and Bill O’Rielly that nothing he says makes sense. He and MSNBC need to look at the ratings and KO KO. Foxnews is number 1 and MSNBC needs to learn not to have a negative angry bias toward the news.

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:54:48 +0000

Keith Obwonkenobee rants and raves and is so angry at FoxNews and Bill O'Rielly that nothing he says makes sense. He and MSNBC need to look at the ratings and KO KO. Foxnews is number 1 and MSNBC needs to learn not to have a negative angry bias toward the news.

By: Larry LeBlanc

Larry LeBlanc — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:07:22 +0000

I just watched Keith Olbermann’s pathetic rant
against Bill Orielly on Olbermanns’ “Worse Person in the WOrld” segment. Keith —did it ever occur to you – N O O N E G I V E S A
D A M N !!!!!!!! Your Feelings about Bill O. are your own private tantrams..P L E A S E
Y O U A R E B O R I N G U S T O D E A T H
W I T H Y O U R C H I L D I S H R A N T S
A B O U T T H E O T H E R G U Y O N F O X !

By: Larry LeBlanc

Larry LeBlanc — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:07:22 +0000

I just watched Keith Olbermann's pathetic rant
against Bill Orielly on Olbermanns' “Worse Person in the WOrld” segment. Keith —did it ever occur to you – N O O N E G I V E S A
D A M N !!!!!!!! Your Feelings about Bill O. are your own private tantrams..P L E A S E
Y O U A R E B O R I N G U S T O D E A T H
W I T H Y O U R C H I L D I S H R A N T S
A B O U T T H E O T H E R G U Y O N F O X !

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:20:36 +0000

Great question Bernard…………….lol…………Good night and good luck!!!!!!

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:20:36 +0000

Great question Bernard…………….lol…………Good night and good luck!!!!!!

By: Bernard

Bernard — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:40:49 +0000

Why no more reporting on the Obama passport scandal? What is Olberman and MSNBC trying to cover up?

By: Bernard

Bernard — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:40:49 +0000

Why no more reporting on the Obama passport scandal? What is Olberman and MSNBC trying to cover up?

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:35:15 +0000

Olberman made MSNBC spend 5 hours on the Passport story that was caused by a Obama supporter……..lol

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:35:15 +0000

Olberman made MSNBC spend 5 hours on the Passport story that was caused by a Obama supporter……..lol

By: Any

Any — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:10:52 +0000

I used to watch MSNBC/CNN etc but now I can’t turn off fox. I am sick and tired of watching them kiss Barrack Hussein Obama’s a**. Go Fox give us more scandal on the golden boy. I can’t wait.

By: Any

Any — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:10:52 +0000

I used to watch MSNBC/CNN etc but now I can't turn off fox. I am sick and tired of watching them kiss Barrack Hussein Obama's a**. Go Fox give us more scandal on the golden boy. I can't wait.

By: Any

Any — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:06:25 +0000

Turns out that the guy who was peeking at the passports works for the Obama camp. What’s up with that?

By: Any

Any — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:06:25 +0000

Turns out that the guy who was peeking at the passports works for the Obama camp. What's up with that?

By: Kris

Kris — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:45:13 +0000

Judging by these numbers week after week, the so called “key demographic” of 25-54 seems to favor more often…Bill O’Reilly. Poor, poor, Keith O. He likes to tout these numbers as always in favor of his show; guess he better re-read the numbers or someone needs to show him how to actually READ the numbers…he is such a loser and deserves to get beat like the dog he is each and every week. Someone here mentioned “Skewed”..you are right, Keith IS skewed…not Fox News. Get it right.

By: Kris

Kris — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:45:13 +0000

Judging by these numbers week after week, the so called “key demographic” of 25-54 seems to favor more often…Bill O'Reilly. Poor, poor, Keith O. He likes to tout these numbers as always in favor of his show; guess he better re-read the numbers or someone needs to show him how to actually READ the numbers…he is such a loser and deserves to get beat like the dog he is each and every week. Someone here mentioned “Skewed”..you are right, Keith IS skewed…not Fox News. Get it right.