Opinion: O’Reilly wades into the April Ratings…and trips himself.
Bill O’Reilly came alive last night to try to lay the ratings smackdown on CNN and MSNBC…
The ratings for April are in, and here at “The Factor,” we improved our total audience over April 2005. A nice achievement since the pope died last April, and there was huge interest in that story. We thank you all very much.
But if you read some of the FOX-hating print press, you’d never know how well we’re doing, actually, because the writers in The Los Angeles Times and Rocky Mountain News, among others, want to prop up our competition.
But Brian Lowry, a TV writer for “Variety” is an honest man. And he chides CNN and MSNBC for misleading the public. Says Larry, “Whichever midget is taller, the truth remains that the vast majority of young adults have no interest in either.”
And here’s more truth. Last Thursday evening, in total audience, “The Factor” beat CNN by more than 300 percent and MSNBC by an astounding 500 percent.
“The Factor’s” third rerun at 4 a.m. actually beat MSNBC’s 8 p.m. original.
“Hannity & Colmes” and “On the Record” with Greta also clobbered their competition.
So the next time you read nonsense about cable news ratings, please understand it is disseminated by people who despise this network. What counts is millions of Americans continue to choose FOX News over the competition and that, of course, is never ridiculous.
FNC does clobber the competition in the Total Viewer category and there O’Reilly is right. O’Reilly is also correct that FNC does not get its due in terms of how successful it is and that people are always looking to take it down over something or another.
But he’s also being rather…um..selective…in how he’s parsing the Lowry article. Read it here. Here are some of Lowry’s other comments from that article which O’Reilly might not find so pleasing…
Seldom mentioned, however, is the fact that cable news is equally geriatric. Indeed, Fox News Channel and CNN are two of only three leading basic networks (the other being the Hallmark Channel) whose median viewer age is over 60.
____________
In that context, Fox and CNN’s content sounds more like retirement-home residents lamenting what’s wrong with kids today than catering to their audience.
____________
Just don’t put lipstick on the pig, as Van Susteren did last year by calling missing persons “an epidemic.” It’s only an epidemic, frankly, if you glean all your news from her nightly police blotter and sister of woe Nancy Grace on CNN Headline News.
The point is Lowry’s article was about how all of cable news skews old and that chirping about youth demographics, as the O’Reilly selected quote mentions, is silly. But you wouln’t know that from O’Reilly’s diatribe which makes it sound like Lowry is blasting CNN and MSNBC for having comparitively weak ratings when held up against FNC’s Total Viewer number. Here is the full Lowry quote in context…
The cable nets’ older profiles have also yielded absurd exchanges about demographic superiority, such as the boast that more young adults view MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann than CNN’s Paula Zahn. Whichever midget is taller, the truth remains that the vast majority of young adults have no interest in either.
Lowry doesn’t chide the networks for misleading the public as O’Reilly claims. Lowry chides the networks for having a stupid argument over which network has more Demo bread crumbs. O’Reilly then compounds that mistake by using FNC’s Total Viewer dominance to buttress Lowry’s criticism about CNN and MSNBC’s spat about Demo numbers. What does Total Viewer domination have to do with The Demo? Nothing. I wonder if Lowry will write about that now…
Geez, You’re getting way to deep here.
When people talk about ratings you never hear them say the demo stuff on air. They just talk about the total ratings and let the advertisers worry about the demo numbers, the public doesn’t care about all that mumble jumble.
Comment by Lurker — May 9, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
All you hear about is how good Keith Obermann is and how good Anderson Cooper is. If that was the case their ratings would be thru the roof. People love to bash FOX News even though their ratings ARE through the roof. It is getting real old and I think people see thru it.
Comment by Noelle — May 9, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
The worst offender is TVNewser, which only says something about O’Reilly, Zahn, or Grace if it is negative. I never see anything on the kid’s site except if he wants to challenge something one of these three people say. Yet Olbermann and MSNBC get a free pass (when’s the last time the kid challenged one of the dozen attacks and lies Olbermann floats around every week), and somehow the third place network is doing better than the first and second place ones.
The other day, he had the nerve to post an L.A. Times article where Olbermann analyzes the ratings of his competitor, YET HE HAS LOWER RATINGS THAN ALL OF THEM! TVNewser never bothered to point out that Olbermann is in last place.
By the way, the only area MSNBC remotely competes with CNN is the 25-54, and it’s still not really that close. Coincidentally, TVNewser started focusing on those numbers within the past year. Funny, when I read Reuters and Variety articles about which TV shows had the best ratings, they don’t even mention the 25-54 demographic!
People are definitely starting to see through TVNewser’s spin. Kudos to this site for allowing people to post comments, while TVNewser takes the cowardly approach of only posting select comments. Notice how anti-MSNBC and anti-Olbermann posts never seem to make it on there?
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Interesting point about TV Newser - I am going to have to keep an eye on that…
That said, I agree with Noelle. Keith and Anderson seem to be the media darlings, yet obviously people are not watching their shows. Somewhere there is a disconnect - probably between what networks want people to watch, and what they actually watch.
Comment by Skippy — May 9, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Here are last week’s ratings averages. May 1-May 5. No spin, just facts.
1. The O’Reilly Factor: 2.08 million
2. Paula Zahn Now: 608,000
3. Nancy Grace: 486,000
4. Countdown with Keith Olbermann: 402,000
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
The article states that the average age of those who watch FNC and CNN is 60. But it’s not like MSNBC attracts the MTV crowd - it’s average age is 57, a MERE THREE YEARS YOUNGER than its competitors.
And benllv, you are so right about TVNewser. I have NEVER seen him write anything but great praise about Olbermann, and whenever Keith utters a syllable, Newser jumps in to quote him as if the Lord Himself had spoken. Unbelievable.
Comment by Missy — May 9, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
TV Newser is biased and rarely writes negative things about MSNBC, especially Keith Olbermann. He never notes it when Olbermann is doing poorly in the ratings or when he comes in last place, but he always posts all of the negative things Olbermann says about other networks. My frineds in the news end of the TV business all say the same thing about him — he shields MSNBC from negative press while focusing on CNN and Fox.
Comment by Chris — May 9, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Geez, You’re getting way to deep here.
When people talk about ratings you never hear them say the demo stuff on air.
Well the article talks about the demographic and refers to CNN and MSNBC’s Demo tiff. Meanwhile O’Reilly goes out of his way to mention Total Viewers. He knew what he was doing.
Given the above I don’t think it’s out of bounds or looking too deep to call O’Reilly on this one…
Comment by Spud — May 9, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
O’Reilly “trips” himself?! How many seconds into his show? It makes no difference whether he has 2 million viewers or 20 million, the emperor STILL has no clothes, and confirms it every day.
As for TV Newser, he provides news and ratings information, and makes comments on just about all of the TV news “personalities”, in an entertaining and professional manner, just as Spud does. Period. And how many times must it be explained: “25-54″ is broken out of the totals for a reason–that demographic is ALL the advertisers who provide income to the networks care about, and base their deals upon. The overall viewing totals are interesting, but not relevant to any discussion involving who is “far ahead” someone else. I believe “Wife Swap” has 10 million total viewers a week. So you can keep telling Spud and Brian the “good news” they are missing out on, but you really should save it for the Daily News, Olbermann Watch, Free Republic, Powerline, FOXNews.com, etc., etc., etc.
And by the way, Cooper, Olbermann, Shepard Smith, and only a few others are actual JOURNALISTS, not talk radio brought to TV.
Comment by museglet — May 9, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
With all due respect, and I mean that because I enjoy your site, sometimes you seem to parrot TVNewser. You don’t need to. TVNewser has a clear bias against any 8 p.m. cable news personality without the initials “K.O,” and he chooses to write about certain subjects because he has an agenda. It’s a one way street over there, and most people are smart enough to see through his juvenile intentions and logic.
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
>
EXACTLY!!!
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
O wow, it really amazes me. FNC lovers just love to whine when others point out the truth and they don’t like the results. They whine and whine how ‘every one is against them’. Get a grip people. You take the good you take the bad you take them both and there you have the facts of life.’
And by the way, BO claims to be the king of no spin, BUT demonstrats every night he’s the king of all the spin. O the lies.
Comment by Fred — May 9, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Actually, no one here is defending O’Reilly or FOX, or at least I’m not. What I’m saying is that a pro-MSNBC/Olbermann blog like TVNewser is trying to stir up negative press toward FOX and CNN personalities about ratings, while at the same time giving positive press to MSNBC commentators like Olbermann, who are INDISPUTABLY LAST IN THE RATINGS!!!
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
It appears to me to be a competition for last place.
We seem to have one fair and balanced network; and a zillion liberal networks. Scarbourough and Carlson are pretenders. If someone decided to go conservative for real, they would really make out.
Comment by erljr — May 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
I’m sorry museglet, Olbermann is a “journalist?” Seriously? A person who has a “Worse, Worser, Worst” segment on his show is supposed to be perceived as objective? He is the epitome of talk radio brought to TV. I’m not an O’Reilly fan either, but Olbermann is just as guilty as Billy boy is.
Comment by OverHere — May 9, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
This is my first visit to this site…I found it in an attempt to discover the truth about ratings as related to the O’Reilly / Olbermann ‘feud’. First, thank you for hosting this site. Second, I find the debate interesting as another example of how deeply split we are in the USA. I find O’Reilly entertaining, but get my news elsewhere. I cannot understand how Olbermann survives. He was at best a marginal sports guy and no better than O’Reilly was at the time, as a TV-Tabloid host. The difference is very apparent at least to me: O’Reilly does fact check his statements and he obviously has a deep staff. Olbermann tries to get slanted opinions from those he interviews, and he NEVER has a credible opposing view…at least O’Reilly always has opposition…Olbermann is not intellectually strong enough to trade agruements with an armed opponent…sad that he doesn’t see how pathetic he looks.
Comment by Jim McLaughlin — May 9, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
With all due respect, and I mean that because I enjoy your site, sometimes you seem to parrot TVNewser.
ER…excuse me…I had this up before he did. Minutes before he did (because I spent an hour working on it)…but before he did. So in if there was any “parroting” it was done by him since I was first, though in his case he concentrated on O’Reilly not talking about his show’s demo decline which I chose to not bother with as that fruit was hanging so low it was nearly touching the ground.
In any case I don’t see how the fact that in this case we both happen to agree about an article for different reasons means we’re parroting one another.
The only reason I jumped on this at all was because I had read the Variety column last week so I knew the quote O’Reilly cited and knew that it was being pulled out of context.
And just becuase I yell “BS!” about something O’Reilly wrote doesn’t mean I’m parroting TVNewser’s so called “pro MSNBC” position, if there really is such a thing and I don’t think there is. I’ve gone after Olbermann as well when he gets something wrong…most recently when he used the wrong pro-immigration protest to attack Brit Hume’s comments. So I can’t possibly be parroting a pro MSNBC tone if I attack Olbermann now can I?
Comment by Spud — May 9, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Aw, man, what a bunch of jokers some of you are.
The “I Hate Brian of TVNewser Because He Doesn’t Hate Keith Olbermann Like I Do” club is foaming rabidly at the mouth again.
First of all, it is not true that “All you hear about is how good Keith Obermann is and how good Anderson Cooper is. If that was the case their ratings would be thru the roof.” When are you Fox fans ever going to learn…ratings do not necessarily equal quality? And it’s not really Cooper you have a problem with, anyway…because he’s not the one whose ratings are going up, is it? Admit who really frightens you…Olbermann, because he’s trending up.
Second, benllv, the idea that Brian never says anything positive about anyone but Olbermann is nonsense pure and simple. I read him regularly and he says plenty, both good and bad, about plenty of people. I’ve also seen him run stories in which people have tried to put the crap to Olbermann, so don’t lie to me about what I have seen.
Also, like it or not, folks, the 25-54 demo DOES mean something. They don’t call it “the money demo” for nothing. Face it: in that area Olbermann’s going up and O’Reilly is going down. You guys have tried to explain it away for months and it hasn’t worked. You’ve tried to wait for it to go away, and it hasn’t. Now you have no other alternatives but to simply denounce the “money demo” as meaningless and talk raw ratings all the time. Really, you’re running out of options.
And no one cares what your “friends in the news business” say about Brian–speak for yourselves, thank you very much.
Trying to bias people’s opinions by saying that “smart people see Brian for what he is” is just trying to put the Emperor’s New Clothes on your opinions. Don’t tell me that if only I were “smart,” I would be able to see the clothes. I’m not that easy to manipulate.
“One fair and balanced network”? Someone believes Fox is “fair and balanced” just because they use that as their slogan? Talk about simple-minded…
As for Olbermann, he’s a journalist, all right–ten times more of one than O’Reilly could ever dream of being. “Jim,” you don’t fool me for a second by pretending to be new; you expose yourself and your pro-Fox, anti-Olbermann bias in about five sentences. First, you say you don’t get your news from O’Reilly, then you say Olbermann doesn’t fact-check and O’Reilly DOES? (Yeah, he sure fact-checked about that dead publisher at the Syracuse Post-Standard before telling people to call the guy!) You say Olbermann never has opposition and O’Reilly does? (Yeah, some opposition when you yell over them and tell them to shut up!) Olbermann isn’t intellectually strong enough to trade arguments with an armed opponent? Excuse me, I think you have your guys with a last name starting with O mixed up…O’Reilly’s the one on Fox, Olbermann’s the one on MSNBC…Your arguments are what looks “pathetic” to me, because you came in here trying to look like a neutral newbie and then exposed your real agenda right away.
As for poor Spud…you might as well get used to it, pal. Anytime from now on that you have anything to post that even implies anything about Olbermann that might NOT be negative, that might imply that he has any modicum of intelligence, that he is not the Son of Satan or that his ratings might actually be rising in any fashion…you are going to be swarmed and attacked by the anti-Olbermann squadron, not to mention be accused of merely “parroting” the Eevul Brian. Just ask Brian himself…he is your bellwether. It happened to him first, and if you don’t toe the party line and begin posting only items that deride and ridicule Olbermann, they will make you pay!
As for me, I’m going to go watch Olbermann and watch him lay into O’Reilly for the way he cooks the ratings books!
Comment by tanne — May 9, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Well, benlv — you are at least as biased as bri bri, and you spew just plain lies. Like I’ve said before, BillO.. is that you?
Comment by WestCoastBlogger — May 9, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Tanne…thank you for your analysis of my note. I went to fact check as I went to several sites like this one to get a glimpse into the pysche of this ‘feud’. Perhaps I could point out to you that within a hundred words you stated that ratings mean nothing but that ratings for the 25-54 demo mean something…
And a question…why would I attempt to represent myself as a “neutral newbie”? Apparently you play little games on line …disguise myself? How absurd. Why? Am I trying to seduce you or others into thinking that I am either a liberal or conservative? You think far too much of yourself…I don’t give a shit…if you want to defend Olbermann or O’Reilly …I could care less. You expose yourself as someone with too much time on your hands. The difference between us is that I was actually doing 30 min worth of research to know what I was talking about…you spend your life being self indulged and angry…you are exposed as the pathetic one today. I will never see your response…but knock yourself out…hope you type the night away…loser.
Comment by Jim McLaughlin — May 9, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
tanne, Jim Mc Laughlin sure has your number!!!!
Comment by Missy — May 9, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
What’s funny about some of the people on here is that they immediately paint you to be a “Fox Fan” when you point out that TVNewser’s obvious biases. He posts positive articles from newspapers and blogs about Keith Olbermann, yet he rarely posts negative comments from newspapers and blogs about Keith Olbermann. Case in point: the Lloyd Grove fiasco. He finally posted the article after significant pressure, but made sure to tow the Olbermann line by saying Grove “personally attacked” Olbermann. Of course, Olbermann went after him first.
When the damning Howard Kurtz article was printed, TVNewser did not print those paragraphs, and made the article out to be some type of journalistic debate. The web headline was “The Anti-Bush Anchor” and Kurtz pointed out numerous times that Olbermann is a commentator and not an anchor, a fact that TVNewser and Olbermann continue to deny.
Another fact: when someone sends in a positive comment to TVNewser about Olbermann or MSNBC, he will usually post the response. Negative comments are almost never posted.
I guess I shouldn’t hold a college kid who’s never worked a day in the business to such a high standard. Olbermann, on the other hand, deserves to be criticized. Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Bill O’Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Al Franken and others host shows that are clearly opinion broadcasts. They do not purport to be news anchors or straight journalists, they host opinion programs. Olbermann is heavily criticized because he hosts one of the most heavily partisan shows in recent memory (Kurtz reaffirmed what everyone else can see) and CLAIMS IT IS AN UNBIASED NEWS PROGRAM. Then when he gets called out on it he says it’s a vast right-wing conspiracy and that he can prove he’s not biased because he hosted a show about Monica Lewinsky. As if people wouldn’t remember that he QUIT THE NETWORK BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SCANDAL ANYMORE.
TVNewser is just an immature blog that’s sadly read by a lot of people in the industry who don’t realize how lacking in credibility the source is. Olbermann, though, will continue taking heat until he’s man enough to admit that he is an opinion commentator and not a news anchor.
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
By the way, one other troubling trend on TVNewser is his suddenly launched campaign against CNN. According to his posts, the network is in “serious ratings trouble.” Yet how can MSNBC, which trails CNN in ratings, not be in “even more serious trouble.” When’s the last time you saw anything on there about MSNBC being in the toilet and in danger of cancellation?
Spud does a good job on this site and anyone says people criticizing TVNewser are attacking him is an outright liar. People are just sick of the pro-MSNBC TVNewser propaganda machine.
Comment by benllv — May 9, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
So, Missy, Jim McLaughlin “has my number”…yet he’s the one who’s gone running away crying to his mommy after ONE post from me challenging his authenticity? Right!
Let’s take a look at what the whining crybaby says. He claims I said that the ratings mean nothing except for the demo. Not true–what I said is that they don’t prove the quality of the program the way Fox fans believe they do, and that because Olbermann’s are rising in the demo, Fox fans don’t want to talk about that. And it’s true!
Second, I accused “Jim” of posing as a neutral newbie when he wasn’t because he exposed himself within five sentences as a Fox supporter despite a weak attempt at saying he doesn’t watch O’Reilly for his news. Pathetic…and look at how he proves me out with his vicious attack after I criticize him once…he accuses ME of playing games online (which I don’t do), claims he “did research” and I didn’t (yeah, right), accuses me of having too much time on my hands (despite the fact that he is posting here too), and then says “you spend your life being self indulged and angry” when he doesn’t even know me personally. And makes it obvious that he’s picking up his toys and going home…yet he can’t depart without calling me a “loser.” Well, I think we can all see what happened there. He’s the loser, he got exposed, he can’t play the game in disguise so he’s not playing. Goodbye and good riddance.
Then we have benllv. He’s trying to prove Brian is pro-Olbermann biased by saying that “He posts positive articles from newspapers and blogs about Keith Olbermann, yet he rarely posts negative comments from newspapers and blogs about Keith Olbermann. Case in point: the Lloyd Grove fiasco. He finally posted the article after significant pressure, but made sure to tow(sic–that’s “toe,” benllv) the Olbermann line by saying Grove ‘personally attacked’ Olbermann. Of course, Olbermann went after him first.”
This is a lie of the first order. Grove and his assistant personally attacked Olbermann first. Grove went after Olbermann on the basis of Olbermann’s remarks in a C-SPAN interview that had nothing to do with Grove at ALL. Grove claimed that Olbermann, and I quote, “deeply distrusts the top brass at NBC and its parent company, General Electric, judging by his interview with C-SPAN’s grand inquisitor, Brian Lamb. ‘There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all,’ he claimed, without naming names. ‘Moral force and money often do not mix in the slightest.’”
THAT is what he said. Grove accused Olbermann of “deeply distrusting” his employer. From THAT quote. Now I’m sure you will say that all he was doing was telling the truth…but no. Grove was speculating in order to make a personal attack on Olbermann. Nowhere is it implied in that quote that Olbermann deeply distrusts anyone. On the contrary, if you read his quotes IN CONTEXT, you can see that what he’s doing is the contrary: he is praising NBC and GE for not (like Fox) letting their personal opinions rule the news or the slant on it that they air.
We won’t even get into what Grove said about Rick Kaplan. Let’s examine why Olbermann attacked Grove’s assistant. Because, in Olbermann’s words: “Last week, an awful item appeared in the column in which she helps Grove shovel manure about the personal lives of two producers at another NBC broadcast. The producers aren’t famous, they aren’t public figures, and a freshman student in J-School somewhere would question why they were subjected to public scrutiny. But they were. In a column partially written by a woman who recently left the company for which they - and I - work. So, on top of disgraceful de-contextualizing quotes, there is the issue of a bald-faced conflict of interest.”
So, you see, Olbermann didn’t draw first blood here. Grove and his assistant did. Perhaps Brian from TVNewser was aware of that, and hence he wasn’t as eager to give Grove an equal forum.
As for the Howard Kurtz article, maybe Brian chose not to print the paragraphs that were pieces of crap exposing Kurtz as a shill for the conservative right to whom calling Olbermann “anti-Bush” was a discrediting attempt.
Olbermann is NOT a commentator. He is an anchor who makes comments. Deal with it. And admit it: you wouldn’t have a damn problem with his comments if they were pro-right, would you?
I can’t say whether Brian does or doesn’t post Olbermann-critical comments, because I don’t spend all day pelting him with them in an attempt to get him to run them like some people probably do.
Benllv betrays the true underlying story here toward the end of the tirade…envy. Benllv seems to realize that TVNewser, whether Brian has credentials or not, is gaining in industry respect. Oh, how that must gall you, huh? NOW I see why you have to work so hard to discredit Brian. He’s just like Olbermann…a, he’s on the wrong side of the political fence as far as you are concerned, and b, his popularity is GROWING. Well, this MUST be stopped! He MUST be discredited RIGHT NOW, before he takes over and convinces everyone that you’re wrong! LOL!
And TVNewser has not “launched an attack on CNN.” That’s absurd. Brian has tried to read the tea leaves regarding trouble over there, but he has done it without attack and without glee (such as Fox partisans would have)…asking what is going on over there without trying to make it sound every day as if they are about to go off the air. Whereas, Fox fans aren’t happy with a news source unless it implies that CNN and MSNBC are both about to go right off the air for miserable ratings because Fox is king of the mountain and nobody really wants, or needs, any other news source. *sigh*…
Spud does a fine job. And one of the reasons is that he realizes you can do something similar to what someone else is doing WITHOUT having to engage in personal attacks against him or trying to put him out of business. In other words, he follows the exact opposite of the Fox way of working. Good for him.
Comment by tanne — May 10, 2006 @ 7:14 am
tanne,
Your idol Keith continues to want to bring up O’Reilly and any changes in either program’s ratings. But who really cares? O’Reilly is a conservative commentator, and it’s highly unlikely that ANY of his viewers would ever defect to watching Olbermann, whom I now believe has evolved into a “far left ankle biter”.
I just find it fascinating. O’Reilly’s program has higher ratings, demo or no demo. And over a period of years, maybe Keith will catch up to him. But the point is that many people watch O’Reilly and are apparently content with the stories he covers and the manner in which he does so. So Keith feels it’s his duty to discredit O’Reilly, O’Reilly’s guests and viewers. We’re all apparently a bunch of morons for watching O’Reilly. We should instead be tuned in to Keith, to hear him attacking O’Reilly on a constant basis.
I thought you libs were all for freedom and right to choose and “tolerance”. Killing a baby is OK, yet you’re against allowing us to choose which TV program to watch? So who is tolerant now?
Keith is who he is; O’Reilly is who he is. Again, there is no danger of either’s viewers ever switching to the other’s program. But I’m sick of Keith attacking O’Reilly and others in the media with whom he disagrees. And he’s the only one, that I know of, who engages in such behavior.
Spud chastized me for this before, but I’ll say it again: I’d rather watch O’Reilly go after the “bad guys” than hear Keith continue on his crusade against O’Reilly. There truly are “bad” people in society, and Keith would serve himself and his viewers much better by highlighting their crimes.
Comment by Missy — May 10, 2006 @ 8:49 am
Tanne…I just couldn’t help mysself…I had to see if I was right in labeling you based on a single encounter of the cyber kind. What did you write there, a thousand words or so? That would be the self indulgent part….and the tone…obviously over-the-top angry. Well I got my day off to a good start knowing that I caused you angst and compeelled you to spend some of your time proving me correct. For the record, I really don’t watch either O’Reilly or Olbermann…it was just an interesting story to me…good luck with your many issues.
Comment by Jim Mclaughlin — May 10, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Just to prove you wrong again:
A perfect example of TVNewser’s campaign against CNN was the snide attack a few days ago about the video they were running showing Nic Robertson in the middle of a violent situation in Darfur. He said CNN was promoting the video and that it was “dramatic, but not particularly illuminating.” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
When Laura Ingraham questioned reporters simply standing on balconies in Iraq on NBC, he ran every negative comment about her possible, including numerous attacks by Olbermann and none of Ingraham’s responses. He says reporters there are brave, etc., remember David Bloom, etc. Valid points, sure. But when a CNN reporter puts his life on the line in Sudan, it’s self-promotion and “not illuminating,” as if this kid has any idea about what real journalism is. Shame on TVNewser.
Comment by benllv — May 10, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Tanne, I mean Keith, go get ready for your show. Maybe if you spent less time blogging under a fake name and worked harder on your show more you’d be successful.
P.S. - Inside Cable News doesn’t take sides with MSNBC or any other network, and it praises AND takes people to task from all the different networks.
Comment by mia — May 10, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
The nuts crawl in, the nuts crawl out…
Missy: First of all, Keith is not my “idol,” I just like him. Second, you can call him “far left ankle biter” or any other name you want; it doesn’t stick, but namecall like a playground kid if it makes you happy. You’re also mistaken about why Keith goes after Bill. He doesn’t go after Bill because of his superior ratings. He goes after Bill because he’s a crybaby and a “rhymes with wussy.” He said so on ESPN Radio today. (Well, he didn’t say the “rhymes with wussy” part; he just repeated the “Heeere kitty, kitty, kitty” from his program of last night!)
I’m not going to call you a moron; if you feel like one for watching O’Reilly, that’s up to you. No one’s stopping you from watching Bill! Go watch him if you want. Us “libs” ARE for freedom! We don’t care what you watch; we just want the right to watch what WE want to watch in peace without having to hear you ceaselessly carp about how we shouldn’t watch the show WE watch because its ratings are so low and its host is so eevul.
“Killing a baby is OK”? Whoa, where did THAT non sequitur come from? Who killed a baby here? Certainly not Keith or me, and I hope not Bill or you.
Your line “I’m sick of Keith attacking O’Reilly and others in the media with whom he disagrees. And he’s the only one, that I know of, who engages in such behavior” is a joke. Bill goes after Keith all the time. Fox goes after other networks all the time–they invented this sort of attack and are masters at it. Now people on other networks are not supposed to defend themselves from it? Keith was not first to attack; on the contrary, he was the first of Fox’s victims to defend himself with such success, which is exactly why he so frightens them. They’re used to their victims licking their wounds and slinking away. Keith doesn’t give them that satisfaction. Well, it’s about time.
And Keith is indeed going after the “bad” people in society–the difference is, unlike you, he thinks that several of them are in the White House. And several of them are on Fox.
Ah, and now old Jim just couldn’t resist coming back for a peek. Guess what–I wasn’t angry, I was having fun! Hard for you to to imagine, eh? You didn’t cause me a moment’s worth of angst. A good time? Yep! Wrong again, pal…so take your issues (you’re the one who’s got ‘em, LOL) and go.
Benllv: You ask what Brian meant when he said CNN was promoting that Darfur video and said CNN was promoting the video and that it was “dramatic, but not particularly illuminating.” I have no idea. Why don’t you be bold and ask him, instead of posing the question here where he may not see it? Maybe what he meant was that the video, while risky, didn’t necessarily shed any light on the situation that made it worth the risk. I mean, just to exaggerate, I could go out in the middle of Baghdad and try to have a barbecue, and some interesting video of it might be made, but would I be proving anything? No. Would I be putting myself at risk? Definitely. Maybe that’s what Brian was saying about the CNN video–if you’re going to send reporters into risky situations, do it for a reason. Do it because there is no other way to get the story. He’s not necessarily accusing CNN of grandstanding.
And mia, dear…thanks for the compliment. You imply that I write as well as Keith. I appreciate that. And for your information, from what I can see TVNewser doesn’t take sides either. Just because someone doesn’t rip apart the people you think he should rip apart doesn’t make him biased, prejudiced or evil. But then again, some people just cannot tell the difference. Sad.
Comment by tanne — May 10, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
TVNewser said what he said and he doesn’t need you to defend him. Nic Robertson was covering alleged genocide in Darfur when locals turned on the crew and thought they were some type of UN peacekeeping force. They attacked and Robertson (a stand-up, straight-arrow reporter with impeccable credentials) was genuinely in danger. It’s incredible video from a corner of the world that most of us have never seen, and from a particular region where genocide may be occurring. If anything, that is just as newsworthy as a car bomb going off in Iraq.
Regardless, TVNewser took a cheap shot and didn’t back up his b.s. with facts. And it’s part of a larger campaign to belittle CNN and pump up struggling MSNBC. And the reason people don’t “ask” him about these things directly is because he’s too afraid to allow comment threads on his site, and cherry-picks positive reader comments and ignores clear evidence of his bias.
I hope Nic Robertson saw that childish rant on TVNewser. It would ensure that the kid never gets a job at CNN after he graduates college, or any other credible news network for that matter. You can’t expect to mock an honest guy who’s risking his life to cover news like that and expect to get away with it.
Comment by benllv — May 11, 2006 @ 12:59 am
How does questioning the video constitute a “cheap shot”? And for someone engaged in an obvious campaign of your own to pump up Fox News by belittling all the competition, I’d say you’re in a glass house throwing stones. You have no proof of how Brian chooses what he quotes. You can’t accuse him of bias just because he doesn’t quote YOU. That’s not how it works.
And you may find that, much to your consternation, Brian does quite well in finding a job. Maybe he even knows that you don’t “graduate college,” you graduate FROM college! Being a literate human being helps!
Comment by tanne — May 11, 2006 @ 7:28 am
this tanne person…
whacko…
Mr. Jim even tells you his name… tells you not to spend all night… lose any sleep… then you spend 8 hours on a book… then you have to respond to everyone.
Good guys 1st name… bad guys last name or ‘pet’ name…
now remember what happened last time you spent the whole night responding, that west coast guy had to fill in for your show. Get some sleep. We can recomend some sleep aids you can get over the counter…
Comment by erljr — May 26, 2006 @ 10:11 pm