Olbermann began his political show as a way to respond to what he saw as right-wing propoganda being portrayed as news on Fox News. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for him to become the very thing he detested, but on the other side of the political spectrum.
While I really enjoy him calling out the hyper-partisan Fox News and right-wing radio 'commetators' and pointing out the flaws in their arguments, I really don't enjoy when he makes his own hyper-partisan left wing commentary, which has evolved to the point where it now dominates his show.
I believe this is the second time Olbermann has been suspended. If I'm not mistaken he got into it with Joe Scarborough during the 2008 Republican National convention when, after Scarborough finished a particular synopsis of events Olberman, on air, told him to "get a shovel".
Hopefully he's back soon and remembers that you don't fight fire with fire, you fight it with water.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
His sensationalism needs to be toned down - but I'm still completely in the dark as to what makes him the 'very thing he detested'. Does he make things up?
His sensationalism needs to be toned down - but I'm still completely in the dark as to what makes him the 'very thing he detested'. Does he make things up?
He detested that Fox News became the propoganda wing of the Republican party. Over time he has done the same for the Democrats. It's hard to say whether he is as guilty of making stuff up as Fox News, but at a minimum, he has certainly been actively involved in exagerating the Republican's flaws while glossing over the Democrats failings.
In terms of actual news from a MSNBC 'personality' I find Rachel Maddow much more fair and balanced (to borrow a term). However, Olbermann is endlessly entertaining but not quite in the train-wreck-sort-of-way as Glenn Beck.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
He detested that Fox News became the propoganda wing of the Republican party. Over time he has done the same for the Democrats. It's hard to say whether he is as guilty of making stuff up as Fox News, but at a minimum, he has certainly been actively involved in exagerating the Republican's flaws while glossing over the Democrats failings.
In terms of actual news from a MSNBC 'personality' I find Rachel Maddow much more fair and balanced (to borrow a term). However, Olbermann is endlessly entertaining but not quite in the train-wreck-sort-of-way as Glenn Beck.
Prove it. Limbaugh and Beck both race bait, make things up, and incite violence. Olbermann isn't on the same planet.
You say he glosses over Democratic flaws, yet here he is going after Democrats, hard.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
Not entirely sure if you're asking a loaded question.
Not at all. Just wanted to point out that there are probably contributors that support Democrats as well but they aren't listed anywhere because that doesn't fall under the evil GOP/FOX NEWS conspiracy.
Cowperson's post is all anyone should ever need to see in this regard anyway.
Olbermann violated his contract with MSNBC and that is why he was suspended.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Not at all. Just wanted to point out that there are probably contributors that support Democrats as well but they aren't listed anywhere because that doesn't fall under the evil GOP/FOX NEWS conspiracy.
This goes without saying. People will, and have the right to, support the side of the debate of their choosing from a financial perspective. How these people do their jobs and present information is where the problems lie.
Quote:
Cowperson's post is all anyone should ever need to see in this regard anyway.
I wouldn't agree with that claim at all. I don't want to discount Cowperson's contribution to the forum as he always provides thought provoking content, but Cowperson's post is pretty specious to be quite honest. He's relying on extremely flawed information from biased sources and out dated information.
The study he links to is 25 years old. I'm not sure if anyone took time to read the study but the methodology is flawed, which the researchers admit, and they rely on this flaw in their discussion of their findings. Later studies also point to the glaring flaw of sample selection and manipulation of the subjects. "These studies acknowledge, the news reports, the topics covered and the participants in the experiments were selected, in part, to ensure that passions would be activated by engaged partisans" (Peffley, Avery & Glass, 2001). Later studies have concluded that the hostile media effect exists, but is more conditioned by both the content of the story and the knowledge of the reader. Framing and agenda setting theory hold more sway that the hostile media effect as the hostile media effect is is usually a result of long term exposure to sources who routinely use framing and agenda setting practices.
The most interesting facet of this study is it was done in the early 80's, prior to the scrapping of the Fairness Doctrine, meaning that mass media was still required, by law, to present both sides of a story and allow equal time to the contrary position to provide rebuttal.
It is also important to note that the majority of the information about journalistic voting practices comes from another out dated report published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in 1981 and republished by conservative activist Brent Bozell under the guise of the mislabeled Media Research Center (MRC). Bozell is also responsible for NewsBusters, Parents Television Counsil and CNSNews, which was Conservative News Service and later rebranded as Cyberbast News Service so as not to tip it's bias, which routinely creates a circular reference chain in their stories. The American Enterprise Institute is also a very right leaning organization and has been known to take liberties with their research. No where on the MRC site do they provide the method or raw data for the statistics presented. It is hard to take any of this information seriously when the actual studies are not included to verify the findings, identify any bias in the sample/population or if the stats selected were cherry picked.
Quote:
Olbermann violated his contract with MSNBC and that is why he was suspended.
I wonder if we looked through the contributions of others at NBC, or any other organization, if we would find similar issues though. I agree with this policy and think that all media should be held to the same standard. It is hard to remain neutral when you work for or give to one side of the argument. That being said, what does it say when an entire organization, and the parent corporation, are giving and supporting heavily, one side of the debate?
The 1,000 pound gorilla that has not yet been poked is Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, and the mind boggling decision to allow such corporate gifts to election campaigns. This should be part of this discussion as well. For years we have heard one side of the discussion make claims about activist judges, but this decision was the biggest example of politically motivation activism in the court in over a century. When taken into that context how great a sin is any single individual's contribution when a corporation can so easily give 4,000 times the individual contribution max?
The Following User Says Thank You to Stimpy For This Useful Post:
Prove it. Limbaugh and Beck both race bait, make things up, and incite violence.
Since you asked him to PROVE IT I'd like to see you do it. I have seen these things said about Limbaugh and Beck. SO please prove it. No Youtube clips with quotes taken out of context please. Lets have some solid evidence of them inciting violence and race baiting.
Just and Aside: 1. I neither have the time or inclination to dial up Limbaugh or Beck. I have listened to Limbaugh less than 20 times in my life and usually it is when someone is quoting him. Beck, I have listened to 3 times now after being accused of being a big fan of his. That said I have a hard time believing that they would have such massive audiences if they did such things. I await the evidence!
2. I wonder about all these people that go on about how horrid Fox is yet somehow claim they never watch it.
3. Olbermann, Beck, O'reilly etc..are not news people. They are pundits/analysts. They give opinion. Not news.
4. From what I have read about Olby....he wasn't much loved inside MSNBC. This looks like an excuse to show him the door ala Juan Williams
Last edited by HOZ; 11-06-2010 at 08:24 PM.
Reason: removing yourtube
I remembered when Limbaugh got fired from ESPN for his comments on McNabb for suggesting that the media was over-hyping his talent because he was black. And this is what I got when I went searching!!!!
Limbaugh to the best of my knowledge isn't affiliated with Fox. I don't think he even guests on any of their shows. If he does it is infrequently.
Beck has done some black history specials on his show. He also had Martin Luther King Junior's niece on stage at his rally. I never seen it but, it sounds like she played a prominent role.
I think that the same people who call Beck racist think that anyone opposed to Obama or Al Sharpton are racist.
Hoz, let me save you the time. THE YOUNG TURKS?!?!?! HAHAHA
It's an extremely good analysis where quotes aren't taken out of context.
Boy that was one one-sided affair and very poorly done. Defending Al Sharpton the creator of race baiting? That is beyond the pale.
MLK part seems to be a debate on context, not race. Considering that Beck had MLK relatives at his rally I would lean towards Beck's interpretation. Then the guy misquotes the Bible...
After that it was just Bible studies and misquoting Beck and somehow trying to show, that Beck trying to show Obama is a socialist, is race baiting.
Lets pretend that THE YOUNG TURKS commentator didn't take those quotes out of context or twist them....
Prove it. Limbaugh and Beck both race bait, make things up, and incite violence. Olbermann isn't on the same planet.
You say he glosses over Democratic flaws, yet here he is going after Democrats, hard.
I've found that when one accuses another person of race-baiting and inciting violence it is akin to race-baiting and inciting violence. No question that they make things up. And in this case 'they' is Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann and all of the other hyper-partisan political pundits.
I don't think Rush and Beck necessarily race-bait as much as they pander to the white, male, non-urban listener and play on their fears. Olbermann does the same thing but for a slightly different audience. Both camps find snippets and use them to say "see, I told you this guy was a Marxist/Fascist/Communist/Racist/Corporate Shill/Worst-Person-In-The-World..." They do what I tell my kids never to do which is judge other people based on stereotypes and pre-conceived notions. Do you really think that Olbermann believes that some Republicans are evil, whatever that means? I've heard him say as much. Do you really believe they are evil? I've heard Beck and Limbaugh use the same approach too.
In regards to going after their own: both Limbaugh and Beck heartily criticized G.W. Bush during his precidency, albeit mostly towards the end. They also consistently criticized John McCain during his presidential campaign for not being conservative enough. Olbermann occasionally does the same with Obama but for not being progressive enough. Olbermann is not unique in going after his own. That being said, I don't think he necessarily sees Democrats as one of his own. I think he sees himself as a Progressive Liberal, the principles of which just happen to line up better with Democrats than with Republicans. Conversely, I've heard Beck refer to himself specifically as not a Republican but rather as a Conservative Libertarian, the principles of which just happen to line up better with Republicans than with Democrats. All in all, both Beck and Olbermann serve the same purpose but for different political spectrums. However, when it boils right down to it all they do is create violent division among the electorate when really the Republicans and Democrats essentially have the same platform. They create noise and distraction by focussing on the details of who said what to whom and why that means you can or can't trust them. It bogs people down in the muck of the argument rather than allowing them to see the stinking, fetid political swamp that they inhabit.
By the way, I try to watch Olbermann as much as possible because I find him thoroughly entertaining, intelligent and once in a while illuminating. I tried watching Beck but he was too over the top for me to handle even in a take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt kind of way. I also watched Rush when he had his TV show in the 90's where it seemed like it was his personal mission (along with just about every other Conservative) to take down Bill Clinton at any cost. He was pretty entertaining too. He was even occasionally illuminating. I don't get Fox News on Shaw but every once in a while I'll check out Bill O'Reilly on youtube or if I'm away on business on the hotel TV. He's pretty entertaining too and occasionally has something interesting to say.
We need more 'John Stewarts' in the world and fewer 'Olbermanns' or 'Becks'.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
I think Olberman is among the most cerebral talking heads on TV anywhere. I have enjoyed him since his days at ESPN and his radio show that he co-hosted with Dan Patrick, as he was a guy that departed from the tried and true stuff that every talk show host was doing and articulated his thoughts/arguments really well. On top of that he is/was enetertaining and quite humorous in his delivery and targets.
That being said, what he has become on MSNBC is nothing short of a shame. Anyone who doesn't believe that he isnt doing exactly the same thing as Beck and Hannity need to step back and look at it. He is nothing more than a Democratic lackey, and its quite transparent. It's sad to me because I know he is capable of so much better as his history has shown. I don't necessarily blame him because he is/was getting paid big big bucks to assume that role and run with it, but it doesn't make him beyond reproach in regards to what it is he does. He has become as unwatchable as Beck or Hannity, as unlistenable as Limbaugh and no diffrent than Rachel Maddow or any of the previous listed.
As for him contributing to this candidate or that candidate, no one should really care one way or the other, but when he clearly broke company policy in doing so the way he did, there has to be consequences and he is seeing them.
If anything, this illustrates what the media has become IMO. Its all about putting on a show and long gone are the days of hard-hitting journalism that reported only the story with the facts as they were known and allowed viewers/readers/listeners to interperet things as they saw fit and draw their own conclusions.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Boy that was one one-sided affair and very poorly done. Defending Al Sharpton the creator of race baiting? That is beyond the pale.
The creator of race baiting? Race baiting was around long before Al Sharpton was born. Swoosh. Swing and a miss. Strike one.
Quote:
MLK part seems to be a debate on context, not race. Considering that Beck had MLK relatives at his rally I would lean towards Beck's interpretation. Then the guy misquotes the Bible...
Two points that should be handled separately.
1. The inclusion of MLK's family at the Beck Rally
So if someone has condemned that group, and then trots out members of that same group at a rally, that someone doesn't really have a problem with that particular group? To use a historical example, and not require the evocation of Godwin's Law, when Hitler has Jews and intellectuals at the Nuremberg rally he was really supporting their cause? Singular events do not support correlations.
2. The misquoting of the bible
Which version of the bible? There are numerous versions of the bible available for study, all of them with different texts and words used freely. For example we can look at the last biblical passage used, it is much easier for a camel, and look at the nuances of the different translations and printings.
Swoosh. Swing and miss on both accounts. Strike two.
Quote:
After that it was just Bible studies and misquoting Beck and somehow trying to show, that Beck trying to show Obama is a socialist, is race baiting.
You are correct on that account. This is not race baiting. When Beck called the President a racist on national television, that was race baiting. This was nothing more than trying to perpetuate a media developed myth that Obama is a socialist. This could be considered social class baiting, but not race baiting.
I would suspect that this HOZ fellow would know this. Having read his posts for a while and noting his ability to bait people into arguments I think it is safe to say that on this site he's at the top of the list of master baiters. Even though Beck is recognized as a master baiter I have a feeling that HOZ could give him some stiff competition in trying and tug the title away from his grasp.
Quote:
Lets pretend that THE YOUNG TURKS commentator didn't take those quotes out of context or twist them....
"Williams was pulled over on his way to San Francisco to shoot members the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and Tides, an organization that advocates progressive social change through philanthropy, police said Tuesday."
He tried to deny any link to the likes of Beck but fails in his own defense.
"When asked if it hadn’t been for Glenn Beck and Fox News, whether he still would have planned violence, Williams said that it was because Fox News didn’t do enough to pursue the political left that he became frustrated and felt like violence was the only answer."
"He cited Alex Jones’ InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com, the conspiracy Web site, AboveTopSecret.com, DavidIcke.com, JerimiahProject.com, ModernHistoryProject.org, DiscoverTheNetworks.org, as well as Glenn Beck’s Web site."
Plane crashes into IRS building
Joe Stack was a tea party member and subscribed to the anti-government rhetoric so entrenched in the language used daily by Beck and Limbaugh.
Militia plots against government
Extreme rhetoric played a part in this group's delusions and desires to start a war against the government.
This just happens to align with comments made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) about the census. Red State's Erick Erickson, who is a pundit on CNN, also stated he would shoot census workers if they approached his property. So what happens? A man outside of Austin does the same.
Bachmann also has made insane comments about re-education camps and slitting of wrists in protest over health care reform. All of this is non-sensical ramblings of someone not in touch with the real world.
There is little doubt that inflammatory rhetoric on the right end of the political and media has spiked greatly in the past couple of years. From Sarah Palin and her reload metaphors to Sharon Angle claiming 2nd Amendment remedies the language has been ramped up. Sady, it is having affect. The NRA maintains a site fanning fear about gun ownership keeping membership in that lobby on the edge of reason. The Southern Poverty Law Center, who track home grown terror and hate activity have indicated right wing extremism and radicalism is at its highest levels since the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVey and his militia connections. Time magazine recently completed an expose on Secret Militias and the impact they are having and where the inspiration for their paranoia is coming from. The words that come from the mouths of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle and so on have influence and repercussions.
So yes, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh have incited violence and the evidence is there to support this claim. It is getting worse and not better as the rhetoric continues to become more and more inflammatory.
So, swoosh! A third swing and a miss. I think you're out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Stimpy For This Useful Post:
I think Olberman is among the most cerebral talking heads on TV anywhere. I have enjoyed him since his days at ESPN and his radio show that he co-hosted with Dan Patrick, as he was a guy that departed from the tried and true stuff that every talk show host was doing and articulated his thoughts/arguments really well. On top of that he is/was enetertaining and quite humorous in his delivery and targets.
That being said, what he has become on MSNBC is nothing short of a shame. Anyone who doesn't believe that he isnt doing exactly the same thing as Beck and Hannity need to step back and look at it. He is nothing more than a Democratic lackey, and its quite transparent. It's sad to me because I know he is capable of so much better as his history has shown. I don't necessarily blame him because he is/was getting paid big big bucks to assume that role and run with it, but it doesn't make him beyond reproach in regards to what it is he does. He has become as unwatchable as Beck or Hannity, as unlistenable as Limbaugh and no diffrent than Rachel Maddow or any of the previous listed.
As for him contributing to this candidate or that candidate, no one should really care one way or the other, but when he clearly broke company policy in doing so the way he did, there has to be consequences and he is seeing them.
If anything, this illustrates what the media has become IMO. Its all about putting on a show and long gone are the days of hard-hitting journalism that reported only the story with the facts as they were known and allowed viewers/readers/listeners to interperet things as they saw fit and draw their own conclusions.
Excellent post! I think people tend to miss the point that MSNBC, a very liberal source, and CNBC, a very conservative source, are all operated out of the same building with the same management. It's all info-tainment. The interpretation and actions of the individual are most important in the end. The problem is that the extremists on the left have been effectively eliminated from the discourse over the past 60 years while the extremists on the right have yet to be weeded out. The fringe in the United States more often than not ascribes to the right wing ideology than the left. It is this fringe that is being manipulated to continue the manufactured cultural unrest, and for only one reason. Conflict sells.
