Williams, debate asset…Olbermann; maybe not?
Big Head D.C. contrasts the numbers MSNBC got for its Brian Williams moderated debate to the numbers it got from its Keith Olbermann moderated debate…
Update: Big Head doesn’t factor in the air times of the two debates which also could have played a role. The AFL-CIO forum was on from 7:00-8:30 while this week’s debate ran from 9:00-11:00. That said, I can’t argue with the idea that Brian Williams makes an excellent moderator and is better suited for the role than Olbermann is.
duh. People enjoy watching real journalists like Williams and Russert, not buffons like Matthews and Olbermann
Comment by eddiebear — November 2, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
It is true, Williams in a news journalist. Olbermann is a talking commentator.
Comment by Aaron — November 2, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
A no brainer.
Comment by StephenMartin — November 2, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
No argument from me, Spud.
Comment by Missy — November 2, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
I think MSNBC got the message about Chrissy’s poor handling of the debate he anchored. But Matthews’ ego is still out of control. He is insufferable.
Williams and Russert were great!
Comment by Cella — November 2, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
OlberNutcase is a massive turnoff to most sane individuals.
Comment by PF — November 2, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Anybody but Babberman. He needs to be with other nuts like Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, and that gasbag named Al Franken. As they say, birds of the same feathers.
Comment by RGL — November 2, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
How could they have thought that having Olby moderate was a good idea? Look how out of place he even looks on Sunday night football. The man is an idiot.
Comment by Tom P — November 2, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
These numbers shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone considering the number of articles that questioned whether Olbermann had any business moderating a debate. Even if you were to ignore Olbermann’s unmatchable bias, he still couldn’t hold a candle to Williams journalistic abilities.
Comment by Caufield — November 2, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
I like Olbermann, but I don’t think a commentator should moderate a debate. It should be left to journalists like Williams. That said, I don’t think the ratings should were because of Williams. Couldn’t it be that we’re closer to election time than the previous debates?
Comment by Justin Williams — November 2, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Does anyone else think there’s just too damn-many “debates”?
Comment by Arthur — November 2, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
KO is a Hillary supporter so he shouldn’t be hosting any debates…plus he’s a lousy moderator to begin with.
Comment by mlong — November 2, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
I do, Arthur… honestly, I haven’t bothered to watch any of them. I don’t vote in the primary (not registered with any party), so I’m not all that interested in hearing a bunch of guys I will never actually vote for talk.
I’ll pay attention when the crowd gets narrowed down.
Comment by ImNotBlue — November 2, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Debates are the only way MSNBC can get ratings. And they still don’t beat Fox. lol
Comment by StephenMartin — November 3, 2007 @ 12:08 am
#11 - Yeah, there are too many debates, but the debates themselves could be far better. All of them put too much of a time constraint on the answers and thus all we get are talking points and bumper sticker slogans. Not to mention the idiotic “lightning round” of MSNBC and the “raise your hand” moments on CNN. Also, lately the networks seem less interested in informing the electorate and more interested in getting the candidates to either attack each other or attack the opposing party. It makes for good ratings, I suppose, but these are supposed to be debates about serious issues, not nightly entertainment. I don’t need to post-debate analysis over who had the best one-liner.
Comment by FishOil — November 3, 2007 @ 12:56 am