Fox News

[Devastatin Dave]

I stopped watching Fox news a long time ago. I get my news from tea leaves and the blood drippings of sacrificed chickens.

[TinCow]

Huh, that's interesting. My political compass is skewed to the left as a European, so I personally would consider a comparison of Keith Olbermann to Glenn Beck to be a bit bizzare and unfair. Still, Glenn Beck seems to rely almost entirely on emotion in his programmes, whilst Olblermann at least uses facts to back up what he says. True, he does target the GOP a lot, but then he also criticises the Democrats, as opposed to Beck who blames the entirety of America's problems on the Democratic party and George Soros. I agree that Olbermann has a large ego, but idk if it's just American-sized or if it's actually super-massive. Some of his criticisms fall a bit flat and stretched, but his good ones are pretty good. I rarely like the people he interviews though.

All in all, he seems a lot like the Guardian on TV, which is probably why I like him, as we don't have that kind of news over here in the UK (thank god)

First of all, Olberman is not a newsman, he's a straight pundit. He's got a certain political agenda, and he's pushing it in his show. That's already a big no-no in my book. When op/ed is presented as news, the public suffers, regardless of whether the network presenting it is conservative or liberal. Second, Olberman, like Beck, is very big on descriptors and name-calling. Stuff like that distracts from the facts and plays on emotions. It's pretty much exactly what what 'fake' Steven Colbert likes: feelings, not facts. For me Olberman is Michael Moore with a nightly TV spot.

Rachel Maddow is similar, but not quite as bad. She is also op/ed, pushes a specific agenda disguised as news, and also uses manipulative language to rile up her viewers, rather than inform them. She's nowhere near the level of Beck or Olberman though, and is willing to be a bit more objective on occassion. I see her as a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

[Skullheadhq]

At least say why it it's almost funny, let's make things hilarious

Name three, or if you can't, name one.

[Fragony]

Name three, or if you can't, name one.

Dance with the one you brought, almost funny k, so why

[Xiahou]

First of all, Olberman is not a newsman, he's a straight pundit. He's got a certain political agenda, and he's pushing it in his show. That's already a big no-no in my book. When op/ed is presented as news, the public suffers, regardless of whether the network presenting it is conservative or liberal. Second, Olberman, like Beck, is very big on descriptors and name-calling. Stuff like that distracts from the facts and plays on emotions. It's pretty much exactly what what 'fake' Steven Colbert likes: feelings, not facts. For me Olberman is Michael Moore with a nightly TV spot.

Rachel Maddow is similar, but not quite as bad. She is also op/ed, pushes a specific agenda disguised as news, and also uses manipulative language to rile up her viewers, rather than inform them. She's nowhere near the level of Beck or Olberman though, and is willing to be a bit more objective on occassion. I see her as a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

Beck, Olberman, Maddow & O'Reilly.... all nauseating.

I enjoy Special Report with Bret Baier immensely. All I see are commercials for BMWs and Lexi... although I DVR through most of them.

I loved that show when Brit Hume hosted it. Once Bret took over, I felt that its standards began slipping. Regardless, it was the only show on Fox that I had any use for.(when I still had cable)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Olbermann and Maddow have been painted as caricatures far from what they really are. If you are comparing Olbermann to be a liberal Glenn Beck, than you really have no idea what you are talking about. There are clear lines between saying what you think is the truth from some known facts and saying what you think is the truth from your own perspective. There are clear lines between skewing, lying and propaganda. If you cannot distinguish them and accurately judge the words of a former sports newscaster who just wants a view to be heard, and a former shock jock born again christian who insinuates that everyone who disagrees is the worst kind of evil, than you do not have have an accurate grasp on reality.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I guess it doesn't even matter now since Olbermann's show just had its last episode.

[PanzerJaeger]

I loved that show when Brit Hume hosted it. Once Bret took over, I felt that its standards began slipping. Regardless, it was the only show on Fox that I had any use for.(when I still had cable)

It definitely has a perspective, but it did under Brit as well. You should check it out again, Bret has really found his stride, and the investigative pieces are pretty good - plus they have Steve Hayes on the panel.

I guess it doesn't even matter now since Olbermann's show just had its last episode.

[Subotan]

First of all, Olberman is not a newsman, he's a straight pundit. He's got a certain political agenda, and he's pushing it in his show. That's already a big no-no in my book. When op/ed is presented as news, the public suffers, regardless of whether the network presenting it is conservative or liberal.

Why is it a big no-no? How does the public suffer? Sure, he has opinions, and they influence what gets on his show, and the way he shows it, but it's not as if Olbermann was anybody's sole source for news.

I would also argue that Glenn Beck goes further than op/ed and is not only peddling news and op/ed, but also an unhealthy dose of paranoia and conspiracy theories, which are only strengthened by the inclusion of news and op/ed.

Second, Olberman, like Beck, is very big on descriptors and name-calling. Stuff like that distracts from the facts and plays on emotions. It's pretty much exactly what what 'fake' Steven Colbert likes: feelings, not facts. For me Olberman is Michael Moore with a nightly TV spot.

He does to a degree, but again, it's nowhere near to the level of Glenn Beck. Again, looking at this from a European perspective, there is no way in Hell that Glenn Beck would ever be allowed anywhere near a studio on this continent, but although I think Olbermann's programming in the USA would not be permitted over here either, he wouldn't need a large change in the way his show works for it to be permitted on tv here.

I guess it doesn't even matter now since Olbermann's show just had its last episode.

;_;

You do realise that his slot is being replaced by Larry O'Donnell, a self-described socialist, right?

[TinCow]

Why is it a big no-no? How does the public suffer? Sure, he has opinions, and they influence what gets on his show, and the way he shows it, but it's not as if Olbermann was anybody's sole source for news.

I would agree with you if I thought that most viewers also sought out true news. However, it is my understanding that an embarassingly large number of Americans only get their news from these op/ed shows. In fact, it's so bad that most Americans think that Beck, O'Reilly, Olberman, and Maddow actually are objective news sources.

[Lemur]

In minor Foxish news, looks like their prime clown, Glenn Beck, is busy inspiring more shooters. Not content with having egged one unstable person to shoot at the Tides Foundation, and another to go on an anti-police rampage, he's now singling out a 78-year-old sociology professor and declaring that she is an enemy of humanity. No, really.

Glenn Beck has been railing against 78-year-old CUNY professor Frances Fox Piven for weeks now, claiming she co-authored a devious plan to overthrow the government in the 1960s. Now, some of his fans are issuing death threats against her. [...]

So, inevitably, the crazies started targeting Piven, whose work poses an enormous threat to American undergraduates trying to stay awake in intro sociology, and that's about it. Seems they think they can somehow prevent her from writing an article in a political journal in 1966 that maybe thirteen people outside of Glenn Beck fans have thought about since then? But it's a testament both to Glenn Beck's skill at making **** up, and his fans' ability to be crazy, that some Americans actually care enough about a sociology professor to threaten her.

[Fisherking]

Lemur, do you actually listen to this stuff to tell us about it or is it Google?


If you listen, I can’t believe your level of dedication. No, really!

[gaelic cowboy]

WTF how is this fellow not carted of to the insane asylum asap I mean really this is too much.

I love the way he basically zeroed in on one aspect of her career from way back when, I mean she prob does not even endorse that theory anymore but Glenn allows for no growth or evolution in a persons beliefs at all.

[Lemur]

Lemur, do you actually listen to this stuff to tell us about it or is it Google?

A mixture. I saw the article about Beck and the sociology prof on Digg, follwed the link and looked at the article, remembered that there were two other shooters with direct ties to Beck. One (Byron Wiliams) easy-peasy, yielding pages of relevant Google results, although I took a few minutes to find the most complete version available. The second shooter, Richard Poplawski, was much more difficult to source.

There's always a moment when I pick a source, however. Do I go with mainstream? Firsthand reportage? Maybe a more broad-scoped overview? Decisions, decisions. Every source has its downside, you see.

Anyway, if you ever don't like a source I link, just let me know. There are always more.

[HoreTore]

I pity the fool that challenges Lemur to a battle of Google-fu.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even though it's on MSNBC, you should give Morning Joe a try. It's an actual news program with real political commentators on both left and right who respect each other and discuss the actual issues involved instead of putting pundit spin on everything. I feel smarter after watching it, rather than dumber. That's a positive review for a news program these days. (I agree with you about the rest of MSNBC, the evening shows are just as bad as Fox News.)

I concur. Morning Joe is, at best, faintly leftist in outlook on social/international issues, with Joe leaning rightist on tax/economy. There is still pundit spin and talking points, but not quite as unchallenged or monotonously as on the other 4 networks. Thoroughly concur as to most FOX and MSNBC programming aside from this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A mixture. I saw the article about Beck and the sociology prof on Digg, .

People still use Digg after v4?

[Lemur]

People still use Digg after v4?

I know, I know, I should move with the cool kids over to Reddit, but old habits die hard.

[Subotan]

Old habits died pretty easily for me when they banned my account and deleted all my posts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know, I know, I should move with the cool kids over to Reddit, but old habits die hard.

If you are looking for news and not any user generated content, just keep a fine tuned Google News account.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Old habits died pretty easily for me when they banned my account and deleted all my posts.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Ice]

The only news I watch is local. Wall Street journal is owned by Murdoch, but he hasn't corrupted it too much yet with his bull crap. I get my news from there, but most news is garbage. I find it amusing when cnn runs stories with headlines like "Police attack black minority", and when you read the story, the guy had a pound of crack, three guns, and was firing on officers. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

All in all, he seems a lot like the Guardian on TV, which is probably why I like him, as we don't have that kind of news over here in the UK (thank god)

The guardian is pretty bad though in my experience...but I'm very intolerant.

Olbermann and Maddow have been painted as caricatures far from what they really are. If you are comparing Olbermann to be a liberal Glenn Beck, than you really have no idea what you are talking about. There are clear lines between saying what you think is the truth from some known facts and saying what you think is the truth from your own perspective. There are clear lines between skewing, lying and propaganda. If you cannot distinguish them and accurately judge the words of a former sports newscaster who just wants a view to be heard, and a former shock jock born again christian who insinuates that everyone who disagrees is the worst kind of evil, than you do not have have an accurate grasp on reality.

I have seen some pretty awful stuff from Olbermann. Wouldn't describe him as someone who "just wants a view to be heard", that's really not accurate.

I used to enjoy that approach to politics but I find that even stuff like the daily show is barely watchable.

Entertainment----------------------------------------------big gap---------------------------------------------politics

Is how it should be. Conan making jokes about McCaine's favorite 4th of july memory being "yelling at red coats to get off my lawn", or dedicated discussion. Entertainment is light, serious politics is pleasurable in a much different way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have seen some pretty awful stuff from Olbermann. Wouldn't describe him as someone who "just wants a view to be heard", that's really not accurate.

I used to enjoy that approach to politics but I find that even stuff like the daily show is barely watchable.

Entertainment----------------------------------------------big gap---------------------------------------------politics

Is how it should be. Conan making jokes about McCaine's favorite 4th of july memory being "yelling at red coats to get off my lawn", or dedicated discussion. Entertainment is light, serious politics is pleasurable in a much different way.

I agree with what you said except for your first sentence. I would like some links to some of the awful stuff from Olbermann, if you don't mind.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree with what you said except for your first sentence. I would like some links to some of the awful stuff from Olbermann, if you don't mind.

Ack, all the stuff I saw was on tv, don't know if I can find it on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW3a704cZlc

"...in exchange for injecting new vigor into the infantile, moronic, disproved for a decade 3 cart monty game of an economic theory purveyed by these treacherous and ultimately traitorous republicans"

etc

It's just angry rhetoric. Doesn't belong on the air. Imagine a country where that kind of thing was never aired, and imagine their reaction to our news.

[Major Robert Dump]

I agree with what you said except for your first sentence. I would like some links to some of the awful stuff from Olbermann, if you don't mind.

Well, for example, when the terror plot against Fort Dix was busted, Olberman stated that it was overblown distraction from Bush's real problems because the terror plot would have never worked because Dix was full of soldiers with guns. In reality, Dix is a National Guard training hub where pretty much everyone except for a few civilian police are using M-16A2s with blanks as their training tools. Olberman made it sound as if the attack was against Fort Knox, when in reality some terrorists with real guns and real bullets could have killed scores of citizen-soldiers who had nothing more than dummy rounds and smoke grenades.

When this discrepency was pointed out by pundits from Fox News and USA Today-- and I am no fan of Fox News -- Olberman simply never replied. This is just one example.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ack, all the stuff I saw was on tv, don't know if I can find it on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW3a704cZlc

"...in exchange for injecting new vigor into the infantile, moronic, disproved for a decade 3 cart monty game of an economic theory purveyed by these treacherous and ultimately traitorous republicans"

etc

It's just angry rhetoric. Doesn't belong on the air. Imagine a country where that kind of thing was never aired, and imagine their reaction to our news.

What etc.? He said they were traitorous in the heat of the moment. That makes him Glenn Beck? That was one sentence in a 12 minutes long speech the rest of which for the most part was pretty solid. The only other point of contention was him saying, "I admit I would not fight the point that the domestic policy of this presidency mimics the foreign policy of Chamberlain, but..." And that in itself might be the tamest thing I have heard from an opinionated news source in recent times.

Has Glenn Beck ever apologized for statements that turned out to be wrong? Olbermann has.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfFeZkWvJQY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TljM4PTr7SI

I have actually seen that special comment the day it came out, so I remembered it, but I sat through it once again with a critical eye to see if I had been blinded by my biases. However, I can still cannot see how you can take an outburst from a 12 minute speech and say, "Well this is the kind of thing Glenn Beck would say for his entire hour program every day so they are basically the same."

Looking at that clip only reinforced in my mind, how big the differences between Olbermann and Beck really are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL5tjGK-x-g

Oh yes, Olberman is so exactly like Glenn Beck.

EDIT: I won't argue against saying that Olbermann is more of a left wing O'Reilly, but Beck, nope.

[HoreTore]

It's just angry rhetoric. Doesn't belong on the air. Imagine a country where that kind of thing was never aired, and imagine their reaction to our news.

Europe?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, for example, when the terror plot against Fort Dix was busted, Olberman stated that it was overblown distraction from Bush's real problems because the terror plot would have never worked because Dix was full of soldiers with guns. In reality, Dix is a National Guard training hub where pretty much everyone except for a few civilian police are using M-16A2s with blanks as their training tools. Olberman made it sound as if the attack was against Fort Knox, when in reality some terrorists with real guns and real bullets could have killed scores of citizen-soldiers who had nothing more than dummy rounds and smoke grenades.

When this discrepency was pointed out by pundits from Fox News and USA Today-- and I am no fan of Fox News -- Olberman simply never replied. This is just one example.

1. Source please if you don't mind.
2. I don't take any sort of "discrepancy" pointed out by Fox News seriously, so please have the source come from USA Today if you don't mind.
3. Am I to believe that in a National Guard compound which also acts a critical mobilization point for reserve and National Guard troops and also contains "the largest single federal prison in America" that they would not have more than enough armament somewhere on that base or even collectively among all the soldiers who spent their time on the base to annihilate 6 men with anywhere from moderate to no training in firearms? I am sure that extreme professional terrorists who have been training for such a mission could do quite a bit of damage, but that wasn't exactly the case. Which is why I would like to read to hear Olbermann's words for myself to see where exactly he was coming from, instead from second hand, no offense to you.
4. How does this compare with allusions to Nazi's, Communism and Socialism coming from Glenn Beck?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I wasn't replying to the conversation about whether he was the equivalent of beck. It's inaccurate but he's bad enough that I can't be bothered to object.

And everything I saw is him in that same tone (I guess only the special comments get on youtube?).