MSNBC plays up “the feud”…
The MSN MSNBC group spotted a new ad on MSNBC which plays up the feud between Keith Olbermann and Bill O'’Reilly with the song “Where is the love?” playing in the background…
The ad itself has to do with who had more viewers; Donahue or Countdown? Do note the…ahem…”creative” use of the crawl in some of these images. Looks like things have been wratcheted up again in this feud…
The ad points out that Countdown averaged more viewers in the P25-54 Demo than Donahue did.
However, and this is a big “however”, O’Reilly was talking about Total Viewers and not Demo viewers. In essence the ad dings O’Reilly for something he never said. I’ve tried not to take sides in this saga but in this particular case O’Reilly is not guilty of the charge against him.
Hard to believe the powers that be at MSNBC are playing along with this. Talk about High School Harry - and hey, guess what? Bill O’Rielly’s not playin.
Comment by Sophia — April 2, 2006 @ 11:26 am
LOL! This isn’t high school, this ad is a work of art. Brilliant, just brilliant. It’s too late for Bill to decide not to “play”–he already gave them way too much to work with and this is the result! HE was the one who acted like a petulant high schooler with his stupid campaigns to get Keith replaced with Phil Donahue and cutting radio show callers off at the mere mention of his name. He made the mistake of giving his enemies enough rope to hang him with–and now that they’ve got it, they’re not letting go. Too late, Bill. You can lock the barn door, but the horse escaped long ago!
Comment by tanne — April 2, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
tanne, this is your idea of brilliant? God help you. And what’s the demo primetime growth number of 157K supposed to denote - is it growth in a month, Olbermann’s total audience, his =/- over Donahue, over O’Reilly, or what?
Anyone familiar with any type of TV ratings would feel that the number in itself is miniscule amount, so the ad should have at least explained what the 157K number denotes.
I’ll TRY to refrain from posting on this topic for a while, because for the life of me, I cannot see how this one-sided obsession of Olbermann’s can be characterized as a feud.
Comment by Missy — April 2, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Watch Countdown and see what KO thinks of BO. (once again) KO’s act is so old and tired he reeks of desperation. At least if I watch BO there’s a pretty good chance the “big tease” won’t be about KO.
Comment by Terance — April 2, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
> the ad dings O’Reilly for something he never said.
Following in Olbermann’s footsteps.
Comment by johnny dollar — April 2, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
O’Reilly is hardly squeaky clean on that score Dollar…
Comment by Spud — April 2, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Why does the Olby caricature(screen cap, above)have a thin, girlish figure? Another strange twist in this freak show rivalry.
Comment by Goldfish — April 2, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Still not clear why people are acting surprised at a reaction to BOR’s words and behavior. A few years back he yelled “shut up!” several times at Al Franken when they were on a panel together, then he got FOX to sue him for use of his likeness on Frankens’s book, which promptly got thrown out of court, and a month ago he said he would ask the FEC to investigate Franken’s possible campaign for Senate (I assume he has friends in high places there, just like his friend Bob Wright at NBC). Being called out for his endless factual errors and outright lies, by Olbermann or anyone else, is just good journalism.
Didn’t hear much complaining from the same people when Judith Miller or Dan Rather were called upon to explain their perceived or real indiscretions. It still just comes down to not accepting even ONE voice on ALL of cable news who is not right-of-center.
Comment by museglet — April 2, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
Oh boy, MSNBC may lose ONE WHOLE VIEWER for this campaign…oooh…
As for what Spud said, look, Olbermann is not stupid. He knows the money demo is what counts and if he’s doing better in the money demo than Donahue was, that’s what he and his ads are going to emphasize–no matter what Bill O’Reilly did or didn’t say. Because do you think O’Reilly would ever admit the truth about Olbermann doing better in the money demo? In your dreams!
Missy, the 157 number is bigger than what Donahue’s was in the money demo when his show went off the air–THAT’s where the “growth” is.
As for the “thin, girlish figure” in the ad–has anyone ever heard of a joke?
It’s quite obvious from reading all this who can take a joke and who can’t–i.e., whose first words in the face of anything they don’t understand are “SHUT UP!” Oh, and Spud, looks as if it may be time for you to go back and see how many of your anti-Olbermann comments are coming from the same address.
Comment by tanne — April 3, 2006 @ 8:07 am
What’s weird about the ad, though it’s funny, is that it amounts to MSNBC dissing its own former show. How must Phil Donahue feel about it?
Comment by Huh? — April 3, 2006 @ 9:04 am
If it was the same regime that canned Donahue it would be wierd. As that occurred under Shapiro, it’s not.
Comment by Spud — April 3, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Hey Goldfish… you are right, Olbermann’s body sure does look feminine.
Is Keith trying to tell us something??
Comment by Skippy — April 3, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Oh, it figures. Once again the know-nothings have to come up with a slam against Olbermann and they have to come up with it quick. Hmmm…let’s see…that new ad makes his waist look really small…almost feminine…and we all know that for men, feminine = gay, right? (Oh, please…) So there you have it: Keith Olbermann is GAY! Ooohhh…we said something REAL BAD about him…doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, WE believe it’s true and that’s all that matters…and don’t forget, being gay, if you really ARE gay, is BAAAAAAD. Why? Because WE’RE RIGHT-WINGERS AND WE SAID SO! Ooooh…
So there you have it, folks. Keith Olbermann is gay. How do we know? Because MSNBC put an ad on the air that depicts a cartoonish form of his body and he has a really thin waist. What more proof do you need? LOL!
Comment by tanne — April 3, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
You claim O’Liely was talking about fewer TOTAL viewers, not DEMO viewers. First, please point out where O’Liely said “fewer TOTAL viewers” and not just “fewer viewers”. Second, you could point out the numbers for Olbermann 1Q’06 vs. Donahue 1Q’03, TOTAL and DEMO. I honestly don’t know what Donahue’s numbers were back then, so it could back you up.
Oh, and please use a credible source, not something Mr. Cox would use.
Comment by The Truth — April 3, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Oh, never mind about the Donahue ratings. I assume all the cable news ratings were up in 1Q’06 since the big lie about getting us into war was going full steam ahead, so I assume Donahue may have very well been ahead in TOTAL.
But the fact that Mr. Olbermann is ahead now in the DEMO compared to war-time Donahue speak volumes about that achievement.
Comment by The Truth — April 3, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
I meant 1Q’03, not 1Q’06. My apologies.
Comment by The Truth — April 3, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
tanne message 9: “As for the “thin, girlish figure” in the ad–has anyone ever heard of a joke?”
message 12 by skippy: “Hey Goldfish… you are right, Olbermann’s body sure does look feminine. Is Keith trying to tell us something??”
Tanne message 13: “Oh, it figures. Once again the know-nothings have to come up with a slam against Olbermann and they have to come up with it quick. Hmmm…let’s see…that new ad makes his waist look really small…almost feminine…and we all know that for men, feminine = gay, right? (Oh, please…) So there you have it: Keith Olbermann is GAY! Ooohhh…we said something REAL BAD about him…doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, WE believe it’s true and that’s all that matters…and don’t forget, being gay, if you really ARE gay, is BAAAAAAD. Why? Because WE’RE RIGHT-WINGERS AND WE SAID SO! Ooooh…”
Me now quoting back tanne: “Has anyone ever heard of a joke?”
Comment by The Real Truth — April 3, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
I never said I thought he was gay or effeminate. I just said that this screen cap makes him look feminine and that is bizarre.
Comment by Goldfish — April 3, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
Krazy Keith looks nice with those child-rearing hips. Where the heck is his recently aquired orange face ?
Comment by ObserverDan — April 3, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
Oh, here we go trying to get that “Krazy Keith” moniker to stick. Won’t work–not when his bashers are way “krazier.”
And The Real Truth–I think it’s stupid to a) imply being gay is bad and then b) use the implication that someone is somehow “effeminate” to imply he’s gay and c) to actually think that constitutes a “joke.” It misses the whole point of a joke–namely, that it be funny. Also, it just makes you look juvenile and bigoted. Now why would you want to use “humor” that makes you look juvenile and bigoted?
Comment by tanne — April 4, 2006 @ 7:27 am
Message 13 Tanne: “So there you have it, folks. Keith Olbermann is gay. How do we know? Because MSNBC put an ad on the air that depicts a cartoonish form of his body and he has a really thin waist. What more proof do you need? LOL!”
Me now quoting back tanne again: “Has anyone ever heard of a joke?”
Comment by The Real Truth — April 4, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Real Truth: Yeah, I’ve heard of a joke. But, well, I don’t know how it is where you live, but where I live, jokes are supposed to be clever and funny and make you laugh.
Comment by tanne — April 5, 2006 @ 6:48 am