Opinion: Protest week…
Is there something in the water? First far left blogs launch a boycott on Chris Mathews and demand an apology. Now Johnny Dollar demands an apology for Keith Olbermann playing (and I’m paraphrasing here) fast and loose with the facts surrounding an O’Reilly attack on MSNBC and Rick Kaplan.
Let’s cut through the bull. Dollar is right in that Olbermann either misconstrued or confused the O’Reilly TPM because O’Reilly doesn’t talk about MSNBC Vermont coverage. However, this mistake is probably understandable given the way O’Reilly smoothly segued from a report about Cashman, and how FNC covered it and got attacked, to a ragfest on MSNBC and Rick Kaplan before again segueing back to Cashman. I myself had to re-read the transcript a couple of times to properly separate the two disparate events which O’Reilly joined together (deliberately in my opinion, otherwise the MSNBC rant is a non sequitur to the Cashman story.)
So in my opinion nobody comes out looking squeaky clean in this episode. O’Reilly tossed an MSNBC/Rick Kaplan slam into a completely unrelated story that didn’t even concern MSNBC. And Olbermann didn’t articulate properly what O’Reilly was doing.
And who died and made Johnny Dollar God? WHO?
Comment by Dude — January 28, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Where have all the grownups gone. This is so stupid. Is there any place in the blogsphere for serious talk regarding
the news. I think this story has been on all the 24/7 cable
networks. Do either of them think they actually changed
the situation. The pressure came from the locals in Vermont.
Try local paper sites on the web, and you will discover
the outrage in Vermont that prompted the judge to impose
a stronger sentence. I think there is a tendency for tv
folks to get swollen ego syndrome. I think most of my
classmates and friends are sick of both of them. They
seem to have some issues big time. Get therapy before
it is too late.
Comment by Future TV mogul — January 28, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
P.S forget to mention this is problaby going to get uglier.
We don’t have all the data just yet for the month of January. But is looks like Headline News is set to squeak
by MSNBC for # 3. Somehow I think O’reilly won’t be able
to resist. Only to have Keith talk about how old FNC viewers
are because his audience is younger and actually leave the
house. Personally, I think they might want to knock it off.
Some of us involved in the year long project of tracking the
media think there is surfing going on with the 24/7’s. O’reilly numbers are either flat or down say 1%(no matter
in my book). But there is an interesting picture developing
after 9 pm. He draws more than 2 mil on most nights. But
the show after him is loosing a chunk of his viewers. I
think Hanity and Greta might also be down. Paula Zahn is
problbay down. Not sure about King, maybe flat or down 2 %.
The 10pm time is really weird. Some one has a theory that
Greta wiil be down because a chunk of viewers are turning
the channel at 9pm. MSNBC will cheer for the demos as their
birght spot. And CNN is problably thinkng it was smart to
move Cooper to 10pm because he seems to be developing a
following of the youngest audience of all . The teens like
me. A relative of mine who is in the biz tells me that
the most coveted group is actually 18-49. 25-54 is out
there too, but 18-49 is buffo.Of course the year is young
and we can’t champion any network or program . So until
2007 is about to roll in who knows how things will end up.
One of us theorizes that if the Cooper decision had not been
made MSNBC would likely top CNN in demos. Althought I don’t
udnerstand why it is a surprise that Dobbs viewers would be
older than Abrams or Zahn’s viewers older than Countdown.
Duh ?
Comment by Future TV mogul — January 28, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
…and don’t forget Future TV mogul when natalie holloway is found Greta will be very quick to accept the prize for the discovery. They are all in it for the glory NOT for the good.
Comment by Uncle Sam — January 28, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
1. Johnny Dollar does not appear to be asking for an apology for himself, but instead seems to want Olbermann to apologize to his own audience and to O’Reilly. I heard exactly what O’Reilly said, which was that no NETWORKS reported on the story. He did NOT include cable networks in that statement, but once again, Olbermann tries to inject himself in the story.
As usual, the Keith-defenders will state that Olbermann is so great because he corrects himself at times. Maybe that’s true, but he’d NEVER correct himself at the expense of an attack on a conservative. He’d rather let the distortion/mistatement stand than to mess up a good story line about “evil conservatives”.
2. Future TV Mogul, ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? The problem was that very FEW people in Vermont cared ANYTHING about the light sentence for the pervert. The politicians of Vermont and the media up there were ridiculing O’Reilly for getting involved in the story. O’Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Dan Abrams and others did a fantastic job of staying on this story until a somewhat better outcome was achieved. But those in charge in Vermont showed very little concern at all for the injustice of the original sentence. We can thank cable news for bringing the story to the nation’s attention; it was the NATIONAL outcry that eventually shamed those in Vermont to see that a more just sentence be carried out.
Comment by Missy — January 29, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Yes I think Olbermann should apologize to O’Reilly. He has refused to do so in the past even when confronted with proof he misquoted him, and I suspect he will refuse to even acknowledge his error this time around as well. The very fact that someone like me (who is very, very biased) or newsbusters raised the issue is enough to make him dig in his heels and allow the false report to stand.
You can get an idea of what I suspect is Olbermann’s perspective on this by checking out the update posted by TVNewser to his original report on this. “An emailer” objects because the gaffe was pointed out by Republicans (and therefore can be ignored), and goes on to say, hey, check the record: Countdown DID report the story before O’Reilly. Like, who cares?!? Nobody, including O’Reilly, ever said otherwise. The whole issue of Keith serving up another arrogant misquote is cast aside. I mean, does anyone really doubt who “an emailer” really is?
Comment by johnny dollar — January 29, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Spud,
This is a stupid issue if there ever was one, but what’s worse is not noticing some obvious factors that don’t involve parsing transcripts.
First, Olbermann’s claim to have aired the Cashman story before O’Reilly is predicated on the fact that Countdown mentioned Cashman first, by designating him Worst Person in the World.
Now the WPITW segment is about a minute and a half, and has been awarded to a woman advocating “DIY funerals” and a politician who wanted to sell the naming rights for state parks. I’m not so sure you can qualify naming Cashman WPITW as covering a story about the lenient sentencing of a child molester…
Point two, when does Olbermann NOT take a shot at O’Reilly and FNC? Countdown does this so assiduously that it’s impossible not to conclude that one function of the show is to be a televised version of blog sites, such as Olbermann Watch, or Times Watch, which exist to monitor a media entity.
Now O’Reilly inspires more eye-rolling than a 50 year old rap artist, partly because he thinks he belongs on a national monument. But in this latest fracas between O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann, you don’t have to look too deeply to see that O’Reilly has the point.
Comment by Cecelia — January 29, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
Well, looks as if the Faux fans are again exhibiting their usual biases…so what else is new? Any excuse to rag on Olbermann is one they will take…
Kids, I think Spud has the best line on this one. Olbermann may be stretching the point a bit but O’Reilly went off on a rant that gave him reason to come to the conclusion he did. By needlessly dragging MSNBC into the fray just to criticize them again, he left himself wide open for another self-defensive jab from Keith. Had I been Keith I might have let this one ride. But sheesh, the fact that he didn’t is hardly worth demanding an apology about. I say, give a time-out to both and forget about it.
Comment by tanne — January 29, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
Olbermann reporting something that never happened as fact = “stretching a point”. Yeah, looks like not just Fox fans are exhibiting their usual biases.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 29, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
tanne, are we still supposed to be laughing at your adorable use of the term “faux” once again?
And I don’t suppose you care that Olbermann again got O’Reilly’s comments totally wrong. O’Reilly stated that the BROADCAST NETWORKS didn’t cover the story, and then went on later about Rick Kaplan running a lousy cable outlet. But he said NOTHING about the cablers or MSNBC not covering the story - we all know they did. At least I know Scarborough, Abrams and Carlson did.
So Keith should be a man for once and admit that he was wrong. I know you think he’s such a hero because he makes retractions once in a while, but he’s probably never done so when attacking a conservative, because it would ruin his story line. We shall see.
Comment by Missy — January 29, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
I have no trouble buying that Olbermann misconstrued what O’Reilly said, because it easily misconstrued in the first place.
Would that John Gibson had received such largess…
Comment by Cecelia — January 30, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Tanne,
If I were Keith Olbermann you would scare the bejesus out of me.
Comment by Cecelia — January 30, 2006 @ 10:42 am
I think it’s possible Olbermann simply misconstrued O’Reilly’s comments. Though that would suggest that he is rather sloppy and careless about what he puts on the air. The test, though, is what he does about it. If he corrects the record, then he can be given the benefit of the doubt. If he lets the false report stand, then clearly his intent is to deceive.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 30, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Missy, no, you are not supposed to laugh at the “Faux” comment. I didn’t say it to get a laugh, I said it because it is true. Fox News is fake and only its duped fans don’t know it.
All of you guys are stretching YOUR point WAY past anything Olbermann could ever have done–just because you’re so thrilled to have gotten hold of some little tidbit of something he said that might give you SOME way of making him look like a bad guy, if only you twist and distort it past all recognition first.
Missy, you say “O’Reilly stated that the BROADCAST NETWORKS didn’t cover the story, and then went on later about Rick Kaplan running a lousy cable outlet. But he said NOTHING about the cablers or MSNBC not covering the story - we all know they did. At least I know Scarborough, Abrams and Carlson did.”
But he DID use the occasion as another excuse to rag on MSNBC and Rick Kaplan–including making a gratuitous swipe at their ratings. Now why did he do that, if not to drag MSNBC needlessly into the discussion? THAT was what left the door open for Olbermann to say “Look, buddy, we mentioned this story as an example of someone being the ‘Worst Person in the World’ before YOU did.”
To me, that doesn’t constitute misconstrual. The ONLY thing that might be considered “misconstrual” is that he said O’Reilly accused MSNBC of not having covered the story. He should commit hara-kiri on live TV for THAT? I don’t think so. Then again, it might be nice to see him say: “I apologize for misconstruing what Mr. O’Reilly did. He didn’t actually accuse us of not covering the story. He simply used his back-patting over his supposed role in the fate of this judge as yet another excuse to take a gratuitous swipe at MSNBC and its ratings. THAT is what he really did. Please forgive me for soiling his honor by lying about what he said.” Now THAT would be interesting to see!
Intent to deceive? Please, Johnny. If anything, Olbermann is making O’Reilly look better than he deserves to look. He actually made it sound as if O’Reilly had an excuse to even be talking about MSNBC rather than just bringing them up for no reason.
John Gibson? Nothing he said was “easily misconstrued.” It was all out on the table, and Olbermann called him for it.
And Cecelia…I figure that Keith Olbermann doesn’t know who I am. But that if he did, he wouldn’t be scared of me, because I’ve given him no reason to be. The last thing I worry about is what his enemies think would “scare” him. I’m too familiar with that tactic of shouting supporters of anyone down by claiming to speak for the person they support, and implying that the supporter is so “fanatical” or “nuts” that even the person they support would run screaming in the other direction from them (I’ve seen it used on others). It’s a favorite one for some slimeball people to use, but it doesn’t work on me. So you’ll have to try some other cheap tactic to frighten me into silence. Not that any of them will work.
Comment by tanne — January 31, 2006 @ 7:31 am
There’s something wrong when a national news “anchor” can report a phony quote that somebody never said, and people defend it. “Look, we mentioned the story first!” So what? Olbermann ridiculed O’Reilly for a statement O’Reilly never made. O’Reilly talked about Rickk Kaplan and MSNBC ratings, not about who covered it first. He talked about how the network newscasts didn’t cover the story, NOT MSNBC’s coverage. Olbermann was wrong, plain and simple. And using it as a pretext for another arrogant attack on O’Reilly made Olbermann embarrassingly, humililatingly wrong.
Anyone who thinks correcting a false story is equivalent to committing hari-kiri on tv has no business pretending to be a journalist. I’ve seen O’Reilly make corrections, I’ve seen Tim Russert make corrections…all kinds of responsible people who care about telling the truth correct the record when they made a mistake. The people who report something that isn’t true, then refuse to correct the record, are the ones for whom scoring points against their “enemies” is more important than their own ethics. To them, when it’s a choice between admitting a mistake or letting a false story stand, they’ll let it stand. That’s when it becomes more than a mistake, when it becomes a deliberate lie.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 31, 2006 @ 11:08 am