babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » the media   » Am I the only progressive who finds Keith Olbermann annoying?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Am I the only progressive who finds Keith Olbermann annoying?
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 November 2008 08:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In another thread a few months ago, I mentioned that Olbermann gets on my nerves with his overwrought ranting shriekfests. (I used a rather sexist phrase to describe it in the other thread, which I won't do again here.)

Anyhow, I'm killing myself laughing over a hilarious Saturday Night Live spoof of Olbermann. Since it's live and I'm watching it now, I don't have a clip of it, but I'm sure it'll show up somewhere online soon.

So does anyone else share my distaste for this guy, or am I the only lefty on the planet who wishes he'd take a valium or ten?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 November 2008 09:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yes. (meaning no.) Yes I concur. Olberman is them, dressed up as us.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 November 2008 09:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah. He's basically a Democratic Bill O'Reilly, which I guess is the point.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 02 November 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally I love em. (I also laughed at the SNL skit BTW... who knew I'd respect Ben Affleck?) But back to the point, Olbermann was the ONLY guy in the MSM talking about the potential of the Diebold voting machines being rigged/hacked in '04 (or was it 00?). He won me over right there and then. Besides, the "left" (as per the U.S meaning of the word)NEEDS a popular demagogue to counter the bullshit right wing domination of the airwaves. The fact that he's now beating Bill O'Reilly in the ratings pleases me to no end. And the fact that O'Reilly is blaming the Nealson ratings company for conspiracy is even funnier.

Quite frankly I wish Team Orange here had someone of his caliber and popularity doing the same thing. Friday, he even had two of my personal heroes on the same day (John Cleese and Micheal Moore). And, to me at least, he's calling the Republicans to task quite fairly (and hilariously) while pointing out their utter hypocrisy time and again.


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 02 November 2008 10:47 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
Personally I love em. (I also laughed at the SNL skit BTW... who knew I'd respect Ben Affleck?) But back to the point, Olbermann was the ONLY guy in the MSM talking about the potential of the Diebold voting machines being rigged/hacked in '04 (or was it 00?). He won me over right there and then. Besides, the "left" (as per the U.S meaning of the word)NEEDS a popular demagogue to counter the bullshit right wing domination of the airwaves. The fact that he's now beating Bill O'Reilly in the ratings pleases me to no end. And the fact that O'Reilly is blaming the Nealson ratings company for conspiracy is even funnier.

Quite frankly I wish Team Orange here had someone of his caliber and popularity doing the same thing. Friday, he even had two of my personal heroes on the same day (John Cleese and Micheal Moore). And, to me at least, he's calling the Republicans to task quite fairly (and hilariously) while pointing out their utter hypocrisy time and again.


I like him as well. I don't take any pundits seriously--they're entertainment, really.

For me, it's a matter of skewering the right just as hard as they skewer us. They couldn't expect we'd never smack the bullies back, when given the opportunity.

Olbermann's rant about how Bush destroyed the country then "gave up golfing" replete with dates, times and facts--was brilliant.

Mojoroad1--You might also enjoy Cenk at TheYoungTurks on YouTube.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 02 November 2008 11:36 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah. He's basically a Democratic Bill O'Reilly, which I guess is the point.

Both are ying-yangs. Now Colbert on the other hand, had me laughing so hard the other night during an interview with the rock group Wilco. He tries to be on all the time with his persona, but occasionally finds himself entertained with his own faux absurdity.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Both are ying-yangs. Now Colbert on the other hand, had me laughing so hard the other night during an interview with the rock group Wilco. He tries to be on all the time with his persona, but occasionally finds himself entertained with his own faux absurdity.


That segment was pretty durn funny. Some nights I find him pretty 'meh' same with Stewart but when they're on I appreciate it for sheer cathartic laughter.

I haven't seen Olberman that much. Just mainly clips. He can be pretty over the top at times but that is his persona. The SNL spoof was funny. I do appreciate though that he does cover some stories that no one else does and has been ahead of the pack on quite a few this election cycle.
He also converses with the net-roots quite a bit which I think is pretty cool. He seems to pay some attention to what the grassroots is saying.

He is definitly biased in terms of his perspective and doesn't mind saying so which in my opinion is okay. You know what your getting going in. It's pretty funny how the right and people like O'Reily are reacting, especially with the upswing in his ratings, screaming, "Liberal, liberal, bias bias!"...um yeah people, no kidding, that's the point, it's not a big secret or anything. Unlike O'Reily types he isn't about the fake, 'fair and balanced' line.

My new favorite though is Rachael Maddow. She rocks. She is uber smart, doesn't scream and get all worked up but still packs a mean punch when she gets going.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 02 November 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thing is, the American "left" has actually tried to build a serious media presence to counter both the hardline conservative media (ie, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the extremists) and the generally right wing bias of the mainstream media. Air America, for all it's imperfections, has been a credible response.

Here in Canada, when someone suggests doing more about media bias than simply whining, we either get paeans to the marginalia of the alternative media or further whinging about how it would be too hard.

If we're serious, then a moderately left national daily - sort of an NDP-leaning National Post - and social democratic talk radio etc. are essential.

But it's easier to sit on the margins and whine.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 02 November 2008 02:34 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm:
But it's easier to sit on the margins and whine.

Not only easier, but an essential alternative without the proper level of funding support.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 November 2008 02:42 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not only easier, but an essential alternative without the proper level of funding support.

Nonsense. What helped propel Olberman to the top of the rating was Youtube and the wonder of embedded media. One appearance on MSNBC and he is everywhere on the Internet.

What has the driven the CBC rightward, on the other hand, is the low cost method of incessant phone calls and griping from knuckle-draggers. Something the rest of us could do too.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 02 November 2008 02:58 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm:

If we're serious, then a moderately left national daily - sort of an NDP-leaning National Post - and social democratic talk radio etc. are essential.

But it's easier to sit on the margins and whine.


That would be lovely but name WHO is going to pay for it before assuming anyone is "whining"?

If you're serious, get on board with The Real News Network and put your money where your sarcasm is...


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 02 November 2008 03:01 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Nonsense. What helped propel Olberman to the top of the rating was Youtube and the wonder of embedded media. One appearance on MSNBC and he is everywhere on the Internet. What has the driven the CBC rightward, on the other hand, is the low cost method of incessant phone calls and griping from knuckle-draggers. Something the rest of us could do too.

Pretty much can describe anyone who can get a moment's notice by getting political on a MSM network. The CBC owes its existence to the establishment, and feathers it's own nest by catering to the will of the influential.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 03:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah but he gets his facts wrong and is a sexist blowhard.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 02 November 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Nonsense. What helped propel Olberman to the top of the rating was Youtube and the wonder of embedded media. One appearance on MSNBC and he is everywhere on the Internet.

What has the driven the CBC rightward, on the other hand, is the low cost method of incessant phone calls and griping from knuckle-draggers. Something the rest of us could do too.


Olbermann, Colbert and Bill Maher all benefited from YouTube and embedded media clips. In Maher's case, he wasn't even shown on American TV. In Colbert's case the Viacom vs. YouTube fight could have hurt him badly had YouTubers not back slapped Viacom nearly into bankruptcy.

There are ways to push the media. However, Canadians don't get the required millions of views to do so simply due to lack of population.

So rightwards it all goes.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 03:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is a classic Olberman piece, where he is a sexist blowhard, and of course, accuses Rice of getting her facts wrong in a loudmouthed and patronizing verbal assault.

Not only is he obnoxious, but its he who gets his facts wrong.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 02 November 2008 03:44 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Here is a classic Olberman piece, where he is a sexist blowhard, and of course, accuses Rice of getting her facts wrong in a loudmouthed and patronizing verbal assault
Not only is he obnoxious, but its he who gets his facts wrong.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


That's why pundits are entertainment and opinion--not news anchors...


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 04:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sure. But the question is wether or not he is annoying. And by extension is he really progressive, at all? Sure, he attacks all the "right" targets, but what do his means and methods really represent, and are they "progressive" or "left" as it is sometimes alledged?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 05:08 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Sure. But the question is wether or not he is annoying. And by extension is he really progressive, at all? Sure, he attacks all the "right" targets, but what do his means and methods really represent, and are they "progressive" or "left" as it is sometimes alledged?

How do you extend a question about him being annoying or not into a question about whether he's progressive exactly? That's connected how?

Anyways, no he's not 'progressive' by babble standards, nor a leftie leftist. He's a liberal by USian definition of the word which pretty much encompasses everyone who doesn't vote Republican.
Where he is on the political spectrum in comparison to how we define 'progressive' 'left' etc etc I don't know exactly. Probably somewhere around the center with a lean to the right.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 05:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's pretty simple, really, words and the way they are used have meaning.

And we are on Babble, and not on US TV, so I guess we can use the standard we have here, no?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 05:34 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It's pretty simple, really, words and the way they are used have meaning.

And we are on Babble, and not on US TV, so I guess we can use the standard we have here, no?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Never said that we shouldn't which is why I answered your question on whether the guy is 'progressive'. He isn't by babble standards

Whether a referendum on his progressive cred or lack of is relevant to whether one finds him annoying or not, is another question, which is why I asked it for further clarification on what you are trying to get at with the connecting the two.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 November 2008 05:49 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In an ideal world with an ideal media, Olbermann wouldn't be necessary. But, we don't live in such a world, so he is. He says things and asks questions that need to be said and asked. So he's a little over-dramatic (Affleck's portrayal on SNL was only slightly exagerated)... I'll gladly take that as an antidote to the poison that comes across the rest of the airwaves.

BTW, whether you're an Olbermann fan or not, you should definitely tune into MSNBC for the Rachel Maddow show, which airs following Countdown.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 05:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He's annoying because he's a loudmouth who is also actually full of shit. But how is he full of shit?

Now of course Olberman could easily have checked his facts, and found out that Rice was indeed correct on the issue that Olberman is tackling. Of course this only makes Olberman look like a fool. But one has to wonder, would he really have launched into such a tirade were he considering the words of a white male Doctor of Political science, who is indeed the second or third most powerful person in the US goverment?

For some reason I think not. When faced with a black woman, Olberman presumes that his authority of his own recollection must be superior to the extent that he seems to feel not the slightly inhibition in stepping on the gas, without a second thought, or checking his facts. He in fact presumes that Rice is an idiot. Well that's just a suspicion. So what of it?

Even if Olberman is merely a bullying loudmouth, regardless of the gender or colour of his target, please tell me what is progressive about the bullying, groundless smearing and sexist hazing using patronizing invective?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 06:10 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
In an ideal world with an ideal media, Olbermann wouldn't be necessary. But, we don't live in such a world, so he is. He says things and asks questions that need to be said and asked. So he's a little over-dramatic (Affleck's portrayal on SNL was only slightly exagerated)... I'll gladly take that as an antidote to the poison that comes across the rest of the airwaves.

BTW, whether you're an Olbermann fan or not, you should definitely tune into MSNBC for the Rachel Maddow show, which airs following Countdown.


I agree especially on the Maddow part. Love or hate Olbermann his success in the antidote department paved the way for Maddow to come on board, the station being more willing to take a chance on an even more unabashedly liberal/lefter leaning/intelligent/non-ranting (however one wants to define it) person.

What's interesting about this move was that it was predicted to fail, the general feeling (don't know from where) that there just wouldn't be a big enough audience on the 'liberal' side of the spectrum, in relation to the Fox News realm of the media spectrum.

She's not regularly beating out Larry King and on some nights her ratings are higher then Olberman's.

O'Reily's increased nutty ravings about NBC are just an indicator of how threatening it is. On some nights they're even beating out him.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 06:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Threatening to who? The other clowns?

There is nothing about Olberman that threatens the status quo. In fact, he merely reinforces the status quo norms of psycholigical abuse.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 06:17 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Even if Olberman is merely a bullying loudmouth, regardless of the gender or colour of his target, please tell me what is progressive about the bullying, groundless smearing and sexist hazing using patronizing invective?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]


Who is arguing that he's 'progressive' in the first place? He's not a progressive. I'm not sure anyone in this thread is trying to say that he is.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 06:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am pointing out the connection between modes of behaviour and progressiveness. In a word: "Process." His sneering, hazing, abusive personality is not progresssive. His sneering, hazing, abusive (not to mention ignorant) personality is what is annoying about him.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 06:24 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Threatening to who? The other clowns?

There is nothing about Olberman that threatens the status quo. In fact, he merely reinforces the status quo norms of psycholigical abuse.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


If by the other clowns you mean the Fox newsy types then yes, that's what I said. If by threatening the status quo that the right winger propaganda outlets have had on the media, then yes he is a threat to that.

You're reading a heck of lot more into my comments then are actually there.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 06:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They are part an parcel of the same animal. You are merely feeding the animals at the circus by pretending that this is anything other than enterainment. As if the war between the clowns is actually a war between the clowns, and that who ends up in possession of the rubber chicken is worthwhile point of contention.

They are calling the election the "Ballot Bowl" on CNN, what more do you need to know?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 November 2008 06:30 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's the Affleck as Olbermann clip that Michelle referenced. Pretty funny stuff, whether you like Olbermann or not.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 06:34 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I am pointing out the connection between modes of behaviour and progressiveness. In a word: "Process." His sneering, hazing, abusive personality is not progresssive. His sneering, hazing, abusive (not to mention ignorant) personality is what is annoying about him.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I get what your pointing out and since you keep pointing this out in reference to my comments I keep trying to point out that it has little to do with what I've been commenting about. I'm not debating his progressiveness or not, you're basically arguing a point that was never made.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 06:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Here's the Affleck as Olbermann clip that Michelle referenced. Pretty funny stuff, whether you like Olbermann or not.


Yeah, and he's an idiot too.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 06:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElizaQ:

I get what your pointing out and since you keep pointing this out in reference to my comments I keep trying to point out that it has little to do with what I've been commenting about. I'm not debating his progressiveness or not, you're basically arguing a point that was never made.


I didn't debate you, you debated me.

I made the point. You interogated the validity of my point:

quote:
Originally posted by ElizaQ:

How do you extend a question about him being annoying or not into a question about whether he's progressive exactly? That's connected how?


I pointed out that I thought that his "behaviour" is annoying AND that his "behaviour" is an expression of non-progressive values. That in fact, what makes him annoying are the very same things that make him not progressive.

Do you find sexism annoying?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 06:54 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
They are part an parcel of the same animal. You are merely feeding the animals at the circus by pretending that this is anything other than enterainment. As if the war between the clowns is actually a war between the clowns, and that who ends up in possession of the rubber chicken is worthwhile point of contention.

They are calling the election the "Ballot Bowl" on CNN, what more do you need to know?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Excuse me? The only one pretending anything here is you at this point, pretending or thinking that you're reading something that you're not. Did I ever say anything about it being 'hard' news, or that pundits are nothing more then political entertainers? Nope.

Commenting about the dynamics at play, as much as you seem to hate and despise the situation that brings about such commentary, isn't 'feeding any animals' it's simply commenting about what appears to be going on. Sorry that you find that so durn repulsive that people like me dare even comment without first firmly making a meta declaration of how horrible and awful and non-progressive the state of US media discourse is in the first place.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 07:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The US media is what is up for discussion. I didn't ask you to make any declarations. Your statement:

quote:
If by threatening the status quo that the right winger propaganda outlets have had on the media, then yes he is a threat to that.

Indicated that you see Olberman, as someone who has helped the process of inserting a "progressive" discourse into the US media by threatening the stranglehold of the right on the US media.

I demured from this assertion. You are right, the "right" does have a stranglehold on the US media, but it is my view that "Olberman" is one of their creatures, whose primary purpose is to create the impression that legitimate debate is in progress in the US media: "Punch and Judy" would not be "Punch and Judy", without either "Punch or Judy".

All that Olberman has contributed is more stupid shouting, abuse and invective.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 07:11 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]
I didn't debate you, you debated me.

I made the point. You interogated the validity of my point:



No I didn't originally interrogate. That was a question. A clarification question. Impossible for me to question it's validity because I did not understand the point. All questions do not equal interrogation.

I then went on in that same comment and answered and actually *agreed* with you on the point of him being not progressive but for some reason that agreement was questioned and here we are...you're still arguing with me about him not being progressive when there was never an argument in the first place. I initially agreed with you on the point of him not being a progressive.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 07:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There you have it, we agree. Olberman's abusive, hazing and overt sexism is not "progressive", and is annoying by the same token. I also find the fact that he is an idiot annoying, but I am not going to go so far as to say that being an idiot is not progressive.

BTW: To interrogate, is to "question".

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 November 2008 07:20 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are ways to push the media. However, Canadians don't get the required millions of views to do so simply due to lack of population.

So rightwards it all goes.



I don't buy that. The left always has excuses on why it can't succeed in media -- even cheap, easily accessible, both for providers and consumers, such as the Internet.

The reason the Left is generally unsuccessful in media is because the Left is obsessed with purity to the extent that the Left is perceived as a collection of humourless, sullen, overly analytical, wet blankets.

Look at this thread as good evidence.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 07:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seriously dude, I am not in it for appearances. To me that is half the problem. I don't find Keith Olberman entertaining. I find him stupid, vein, stupid, obnoxious and stupid.

At best he is an intellectual Mr. Bean.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 02 November 2008 07:36 PM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

The reason the Left is generally unsuccessful in media is because the Left is obsessed with purity to the extent that the Left is perceived as a collection of humourless, sullen, overly analytical, wet blankets.

Look at this thread as good evidence.


Ha - exactly. I watch Olbermann because I like to see the foxnewsians and the repubs get a taste of what they are so good at dishing out. Maybe he's not a lefty, maybe he's so backwards it looks frontwards, but I am not watching him for his progressive (or lack of) credentials. I watch for the entertainment factor and because anything that pisses off Bill O'Reilly is okay with me.


From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 07:38 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]There you have it, we agree. Olberman's abusive, hazing and overt sexism is not "progressive", and is annoying by the same token. I also find the fact that he is an idiot annoying, but I am not going to go so far as to say that being an idiot is not progressive.

No we agree on the not 'progressive' part in general. Not on those exact reasons why you think he isn't progressive which is why I didn't actually debate the specific reasoning. Please don't put words in my mouth like that.
Just leave it at the we agree that he isn't a progressive.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 07:42 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]The US media is what is up for discussion. I didn't ask you to make any declarations. Your statement:
Indicated that you see Olberman, as someone who has helped the process of inserting a "progressive" discourse into the US media by threatening the stranglehold of the right on the US media.


No I did not say anything of the sort. I never said anything whatsoever about a 'progressive' discourse. I didn't even use the word progressive to describe it at all. I used 'liberal' bias as a descriptor on purpose. If I had meant 'progressive' I would have referred to it as such.
That's what I meant about reading more into my comments then what was intended.

quote:

I demured from this assertion. You are right, the "right" does have a stranglehold on the US media, but it is my view that "Olberman" is one of their creatures, whose primary purpose is to create the impression that legitimate debate is in progress in the US media: "Punch and Judy" would not be "Punch and Judy", without either "Punch or Judy".

All that Olberman has contributed is more stupid shouting, abuse and invective.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Which is a totally fair comment and for the most part I agree with you. It's just not a fair comment on what I was specifically talking about. I do not in any way think that Olbermann is an example of progressive discourse.

I do however see people like Maddow getting closer to intelligent and non hysterical debate in terms of the MSM which while miniscule in comparison to the overall problem isn't much but it is something. She's proving that hard hitting and intelligent debate with a little entertainment thrown in can actually occur and get positive reactions. She's proving that one doesn't have to act like a clown or a bully pundit and that pyschological abuse as you call it and still be popular.
Whether that will lead to some large scale change in the status quo remains to be seen.

Olbermann, clown or not did help make, even that little bit possible. In saying that I'm not giving Olbermann some sort of 'progressive' blessing.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 November 2008 07:42 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Seriously dude, I am not in it for appearances. To me that is half the problem. I don't find Keith Olberman entertaining. I find him stupid, vein, stupid, obnoxious and stupid.

At best he is an intellectual Mr. Bean.



Sure, I know. But who besides you is Left enough for you? And what is the alternative? Is it preferable to leave the airwaves and the ink to the right so that in our silence, and eventual slavery, we can be authentically superior?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 07:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElizaQ:

No we agree on the not 'progressive' part in general. Not on those exact reasons why you think he isn't progressive which is why I didn't actually debate the specific reasoning. Please don't put words in my mouth like that.
Just leave it at the we agree that he isn't a progressive.


Oh so you don't agree. That is what I thought. Therefore, since you have repeatedly enouciated the fact that you "don't" agree, why are you insisting that I stop discussing a point that, in your words, "no one is making."

I was making a point about how discourse is engaged in as a term upon which progressiveness can be judged. You seemed to be saying that being "annoying" and being "not-progressive" are not necessarily the same thing. Fair enough. But just because it is not always the case that being "annoying" and being "not-progressive" are not necessarily linked, does not mean, for example that sexism is not annoying, as much as it is regressive.

I would say that one of the things that makes sexism not-progressive are the same things that it manifests itself in annoying behaviour. For example, not being listened to, being hazed with patronizing language is annoying.

This is why I asked you, "is sexism annoying"?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 07:56 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:

Ha - exactly. I watch Olbermann because I like to see the foxnewsians and the repubs get a taste of what they are so good at dishing out. Maybe he's not a lefty, maybe he's so backwards it looks frontwards, but I am not watching him for his progressive (or lack of) credentials. I watch for the entertainment factor and because anything that pisses off Bill O'Reilly is okay with me.


Yes there is something to be said for a little catharsis now and then.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 07:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Sure, I know. But who besides you is Left enough for you? And what is the alternative? Is it preferable to leave the airwaves and the ink to the right so that in our silence, and eventual slavery, we can be authentically superior?

The mainstream media is already in the hands of the right. What silence? Everyday I come here and see leftists yammering away at each other without end.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 07:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:

Ha - exactly. I watch Olbermann because I like to see the foxnewsians and the repubs get a taste of what they are so good at dishing out. Maybe he's not a lefty, maybe he's so backwards it looks frontwards, but I am not watching him for his progressive (or lack of) credentials. I watch for the entertainment factor and because anything that pisses off Bill O'Reilly is okay with me.


You mean dishing out daily doses of unadulterated bullshit, half truths and smears in a loud voice?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 02 November 2008 08:13 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Everyday I come here and see leftists yammering away at each other without end.


That's so funny. Claim everyone's not left enough then stereotype all here as leftists yammering at each other.

Which is it?


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 08:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When did I stereotype everyone like that?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 02 November 2008 08:16 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Oh so you don't agree. That is what I thought. Therefore, since you have repeatedly enouciated the fact that you "don't" agree, why are you insisting that I stop discussing a point that, in your words, "no one is making."

I was making a point about how discourse is engaged in as a term upon which progressiveness can be judged. You seemed to be saying that being "annoying" and being "not-progressive" are not necessarily the same thing. Fair enough. But just because it is not always the case that being "annoying" and being "not-progressive" are not necessarily linked, does not mean, for example that sexism is not annoying, as much as it is regressive.

I would say that one of the things that makes sexism not-progressive are the same things that it manifests itself in annoying behaviour. For example, not being listened to, being hazed with diminishing language is annoying.

This is why I asked you, "is sexism annoying"?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Cueball, this is ridiculous. I agree that he isn't a progressive. I SAID it in the beginning. I never said anything otherwise. Take it or leave I don't particularly care.

I did not engage in any way with the specific reasons why YOU think he isn't progressive because it his 'progressiveness cred' was never a question in my mind or relevant to the comments I made about Olbermann in the first place. The only engagement I had with that specific question was just asking for clarification about the connection you made with his progressiveness and being annoying. I never questioned your specifics or tried to prove them invalid so there is nothing to argue with me.

You've made your points about why you think he isn't progressive. As I said in previous comment, I get what you are saying on that reasoning. I have no interest in debating beyond that, especially if it has to do with any sort of discussion about sexism which will just completely derail this thread if it hasn't already been.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 02 November 2008 08:22 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
When did I stereotype everyone like that?

Sorry, again, you've probably never said "everyone". Nice deflection.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 08:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElizaQ:

You've made your points about why you think he isn't progressive. As I said in previous comment, I get what you are saying on that reasoning. I have no interest in debating beyond that, especially if it has to do with any sort of discussion about sexism which will just completely derail this thread if it hasn't already been.

This is a discussion about Keith Olberman. I introduced a clip of Olberman pretending to know something about WWII in response to some statements made by Condeleeza Rice on how congress funds its wars. I charachterized those comments as sexist, in the way that he used them to dismissed Rice's academic achievements, and repeatedly refer to her as having high school qualifications. Both the presumption of superiority, and he manner were sexist, imo.

I also said its possible, but I thought unlikely, that he would have said such things, and been so sure about his "facts" had Rice not been female. But that was an aside to the main issue. The main issue was how Olberman used his false premise to smear Rice, in what I thought was a sexist manner.

I found this annoying on three counts:

1 The manner in which he presented his case was sexist, imo.

2 He presumed a position of authority and shot his mouth off about something that he was wrong about.

3) He was trying to assert that Rice was an idiot. Rice, may be a lot of things, but she is not dumb.

I found all of those things annoying, and in the case of the first it was annoying because it was sexist. And his sexism led to the other two which I also found annoying.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 08:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

Sorry, again, you've probably never said "everyone". Nice deflection.


What the fuck is going on here? This is friggin thread about Keith Olberman. I don't think anyone here actually thinks that Olberman is any kind of leftist.

Somehow, in the middle of all this, my assertion that Olberman is not a leftist is being translated into my saying that everyone here is not a lefitst.

And now the thread is about me. Wow? I someone going to come out of the woodwork and call me a Liberal poodle because I don't think Keith Olberman is entertainig, or funny or progressive.

Bizarre.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 02 November 2008 09:08 PM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cue, I think the thread is becoming about you only because every second post is by you. Michelle asked if anyone else found Keith Olbermann annoying. Some babblers answered that they don't find him annoying and it really sounds like you don't want to accept that.

Some of us like him. Some don't. Nothing you say or do or post is going to change what junk tv we watch before bed. It's seriously not that important.


From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 09:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try reading the last few posts for content.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 November 2008 04:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay folks, enough bickering. Cueball, you've made your point. I agree with it, but I think ElizaQ has the right idea about moving on.

It really doesn't have to be like this on babble. We don't have to turn everything into a fight.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 03 November 2008 04:45 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
What the fuck is going on here? This is friggin thread about Keith Olberman.....
And now the thread is about me. Wow?
Bizarre.

I'll take a stab at it, if only for my own amusement. Earlier in this thread you said this:

quote:
I am pointing out the connection between modes of behaviour and progressiveness. In a word: "Process." His sneering, hazing, abusive personality is not progresssive. His sneering, hazing, abusive (not to mention ignorant) personality is what is annoying about him.

Which I thought was interesting, because I recalled that the term 'sneering,' had taken on a life it's own in this thread. That, in turn, was a reminder of Michelle's comment in the Thanks For Nothing thread, where in part she stated:

quote:
We're getting dragged into conversational patterns that are shaped by our past interactions.

Admittedly of course, this observation was slow to take form over the morning coffee, so I might have missed the point entirely in responding to your question.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
enemy_of_capital
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15547

posted 03 November 2008 07:15 AM      Profile for enemy_of_capital     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Keith Olberman blows. There I feel better.
From: Mississauga | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 03 November 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I dont like him. I love the SNL Skit
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 04 November 2008 05:51 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree especially on the Maddow part. Love or hate Olbermann his success in the antidote department paved the way for Maddow to come on board, the station being more willing to take a chance on an even more unabashedly liberal/lefter leaning/intelligent/non-ranting (however one wants to define it) person.

What's interesting about this move was that it was predicted to fail, the general feeling (don't know from where) that there just wouldn't be a big enough audience on the 'liberal' side of the spectrum, in relation to the Fox News realm of the media spectrum


Agreed. But unlike some I think Olbermann IS a good journalist as well as pundit. Yes, he "Special Comments" are over the top, and that's precisely the point. As for "he who shall not be named" mention of "sexism", by cherry picking some old clip, I've cherry picked one of my own. ...

I defy anyone NOT to call this real hard nosed journalism, and to call him sexist after (while talking about Palin) watching this clip.....

And finally yesterday's responce to him and McCain on SNL..... (I'll just link it, but it's funny, and affleck sent him a card thanking him.)


Laugh so you don't cry Olbermann on SNL

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 04 November 2008 06:56 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is MSNBC available in Canada?
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 04 November 2008 08:26 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup, through satellite and digital cable in Canada. Me? I have bunny ears in Muskoka. (which atm means I get Global-clear as a bell, a fuzzzy (mostly) b&w CBC and an almost unwatchable CTV. That said I get all my U.S news from the net. (MSNBC.COM is streaming the election coverage tonight W Olbermann, Maddows etc. FYI).

Gonna go over to my partners moms (I hope) to watch the election (she has satelitte) cause one of the kiddies is having her room redone and is sleeping in our computer room


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sky Captain
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15353

posted 08 November 2008 04:13 AM      Profile for Sky Captain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TVParkdale:
If you're serious, get on board with The Real News Network and put your money where your sarcasm is...

Oh yeah, The RNN....a so-called 'news channel' that couldn't even live up to its promises of being on television by 2007, and now is just a 'NET'work that's on the internet, living on the sufferance of YouTube-and all because it couldn't give up it's mantra of 'no ads'. Don't get me wrong-it's a good channel, but is it where Paul Jay said it would be? NO!!! How does being only on the Internet help Canadians unseat harper and the neocon cabal? At least Air America admitted that it needed advertising, and brought on ads to pay for its expansion. But RNN? Oh no, we Canadians have high ethical standards, and ads are evil!

Oh well, what else is new?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Sky Captain ]


From: ANS Yamato, Sector 5, Sol System | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 08 November 2008 07:31 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sky Captain:

Oh yeah, The RNN....a so-called 'network' that couldn't even live up to its promises of being on television by 2007, and now is just a 'NET'work that's on the internet, living on the sufferance of YouTube-and all because it couldn't give up it's mantra of 'no ads'. Don't get me wrong-it's a good network, but is it where Tony Jay said it would be? NO!!! how does being only on the Internet help Canadians unseat harper and the neocon cabal? At least Air America admitted that it needed advertising, and brought on ads to pay for its expansion. But RNN? Oh no, we Canadians have high ethical standards, and ads are evil!

Oh well, what else is new?


If it was on "real" TV I wouldn't see it anyway since I don't own a television set. That aside...


I'm well aware how "behind the times" most activists are regarding the internet. Here's their best friend since the invention of the printing press and most of them are *clueless* how to use it to it's best advantage. I find them splintered all over the 'net.

The "right" has been much smarter about it for much longer.

And the intertube kittehs are even smarter about pushing their agendas to the top.

I like RNN. The internet is the new "cable". YouTube is prime internet real estate. 22% of internet users visit DAILY for an average of 17 minutes per day according to a survey someone sent me.

Now, whether RNN has a way to "up' their ratings remains to be seen. To do THAT they'd need to get enough internet savvy web-ites to push it up.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Blairza
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15227

posted 08 November 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for Blairza     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, I sense that lots of folks on the left find Olbermann bombastic, arrogant, shrill and sexist.
I however love the guy because I've been watching him since he was a sports director at a local station in la in the 80's. The same whithering sarcasm and hyperbole that he uses today in national politics he applied to LA Sports. Some got so angry that they tried to blackball him from press conferences. That backfired when he moved to the CBS affiliate which was to important to the NFL to cut out. When Magic Johnson announced he was Hiv positive Olbermann shocked viewers by weeping on the air. No one suspected the guy had a heart. He's a main stream star due to his years at ESPN, but still he got there by shoving his broadcast style down the throats of more timid broadcasters.

From: Sonoma, California | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca