Home / Culture and Society / Keith Olbermann and the Partisan Media

Keith Olbermann and the Partisan Media

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Keith Olbermann’s abrupt and unexpected departure from MSNBC and his Countdown show surprised many, and it has brought out a great deal of response with some stunned and regretful, but most gleefully rejoicing his leaving.

Regardless of Olbermann’s apparently huge ego, for those of us who share his ideology, he always managed to impart both intelligence and, as Benedict Declercq noted, in his comment on Barbara Barnett’s article on Olbermann, here at BC, he (Olbermann) maintains “erudition, eloquence, [and a] warm humanitarian approach.”

I know many find all partisan punditry offensive. It is, nevertheless, a permanent part of the landscape. Opinion has long been a part of the print media and right wing jocks have been chewing the conservative woodwork on radio for several years. Political opinion and commentary are relatively new to television. FOX News is riding high with the Republican gains last November, and the rise of the Tea Party phenomenom, with which they were intimately involved. So much of what they “report” is, shall we say, often found wanting in truth, or at best is wildly distorted, there simply MUST be a counter balance.

The partisan programs airing on both radio and TV are pretty much preaching to the choir, but if one side is allowed to proceed unfettered, unchecked, minorities in particular would suffer diminished access and diminished credibility in the economic and political sphere.

What the right claims as Olbermann’s excesses are soft shoe compared to the outrageous and inflammatory nature of accusations and character assassinations coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in particular. Limbaugh is a blustering gas bag, offense oozing from every pore and is effectively, the de facto leader of the Republican party. They won’t crepitate without getting the nod from Rush.

More dangerous is Beck, who some accurately dismiss as looney tunes, but like it or not, he has a huge following of adoring fans who hang on his every word. He has taken demagoguery to new heights.

Of course there are many far more virulent voices on the radio beyond Limbaugh: Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham just to scratch the surface. And then, of course, there is that tall, willowy blond bombshell, Ann Coulter, who baldly claims that all Democrats should be jailed for treason.

Frankly, other than the MSNBC evening line up and Bill Maher on HBO, there is no definitively liberal voice anywhere to be found in either television or radio. The claim that the news media is, by its nature liberal, is a bogus, strawman argument. While in all cases we are dealing with people whose opinions and sympathies are bound to leak through from time to time; the major TV network news organizations take great pains to remain neutral in their reporting and their interviews. Claims to the contrary are specious.

However, in the more and more pervasive land of partisan punditry, there must be a yin to balance the yang. Both voices are necessary. I hate what I hear from the right just as they respond to the left. Much of what comes from both camps is small, petty, and mean spirited. That violence has been brought into the equation is even more troublesome.

Yes, I bemoan the loss of a liberal voice. There were too damn few of them as it was. I presume that Olbermann will eventually land somewhere, but for now at least, we are left to ponder the future without his perspective, his humor, and his humanity in the mix.


Powered by

About Baritone

  • NotoriousRambo

    I like watching Keith’s show it is very informative and is very straight forward unlike Fox News which many of you foolishly watch even though you know you are being lied to makes me think of the war in Iraq a war started basically on lies and was proven so yet we continue to fight there JUST DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.

    I respect Keith’s journalism so much that I got hooked onto his show i was flipping through the channels a year and a half ago seeing what all the major news networks are talking about off course Fox news just made me switch the channel right away then same thing happened with CNN but not as swift as fox I then turned to MSNBC watched the whole episode of “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” and was immediately hooked not only can I see the true sense of journalism from this guy I can also see what he was bringing to the show was the Truth something foxnews is the opposite of.

    I am very disappointed with Keith’s decision cause hes one of the last few real journalists around that will tell it like it is much less so with Jon Stewart who although chooses the satirical route with his show yet he tell you the news without covering up the truth like foxnews yes foxnews. One thing that comes to mind that may be the reason for his sudden unfortunate departure might be the Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting and the not surprising post response from our very patriotic politicians. I couldn’t be more disgusted when Sarah Palin and the likes thereof acted like they had no accountability for what happened even though she proudly used terms like RELOAD! I can see why Keith might not want to be any part of such a corrupt and atrocious system of government where blame is passed onto each other instead of claiming accountability like Keith did and surprisingly John McCain. Although they are not directly responsible for the Arizona shooting they stood up and said something out of their hearts instead of their behinds like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, & Rush Limbaugh have been doing.

    I wish Keith all the best kind of like how i did the same with Dan Rather who was also a journalist I had huge respects for its a shame how we just keep sinking deeper and deeper into the abyss where the truth is very hard to come by its all up to Jon Stewart Now.

  • pablo

    Keith Olberann and his offspring Mr. Rachel Maddow are nothing more than opposition in the left/right paridigm.

    It never ceases to amaze me how utterly naive the so called left is in this country. General Electric, which owns MSNBC, is arguably the world’s largest military industrial conglomerate, as well as being for the past forty years the world’s largest producer of nuclear power plants. And this corporation leads the way on the MSM for commentary from the left? Give me a fucking break.

    What Olbermann and Mr. Maddow will NEVER do is actually strike at the proverbial root of the unspeakable. Here are several examples. The Federal Reserve and 9/11. The FED being the ones that make money out of NOTHING and then lend it out at interest to the taxpayers (YOU), and the 9/11 offical story that is never questioned by Olbermann or his offspring.

    Another example that springs to my mind as I am writing this is GMO food. Nope you won’t hear a peep out of General Electric’s mouthpieces on that god forbidden subject either!

    In point of fact virtually every one of the “left’s” publications whether brick or mortar, or online have been co-opted for years. You have Amy Goodman, who receives a substantial part of her one million dollar a year salary from the Rockefeller Foundation, hence she won’t touch subjects like the FED or 9/11 either.

    Then you have the Nation magazine whose editor’s whole family has been working for the CIA for years. The same goes for the Daily Kos, whose owner is practically in love with the Agency.

    I am no fan of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity or Savage, they can all kiss my red white and blue ass.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Looks like pablo’s been suckered into the same false equivalency that the Right’s been preaching for years, that the left’s “just as bad as us”. What’s worse is that no one on the Right seems to grasp the fact that unlike on the Left, the pundits on the Right exert FAR more influence on Republican politicians.

  • pablo


    I knew you of all people would never be able to grasp such a simple concept. He with the gold rules, in this case its General Electric Corp. Some things never change, particularly ignorance.

  • Glenn always had a problem grasping simple concepts, Pablo. His idea of cogent thinking has always hinged on disproving moral equivalences of all sort and scoring political points. The final result, Democrats 21, Republicans 14 (or is it the Packers v. the Bears, I’m confused now), has always been the sole criterion of what counts as a won argument and moral victory.

    And all this time, we had no idea we had another Vince Lombardi in our midst.

  • What is with your sexist depiction of Rachel Maddow, pablo?

  • pablo


    Don’t think the fact that Glenn was in love with Ronald Reagan escapes me either. hahaha

    yeah a real lib that Glenn, you go boy! Great intellect too. 🙂

  • pablo


    Is it sexist to call a man a woman? Hmmmm, it aint to me, if it is to you and your offended by it my apologies. Now it may be homophobic but certainly it aint sexist, at least not in my book.

  • pablo

    I do admit that I have a visceral dislike of MS/MR Maddow, and I did mean to disparage her in general, that fact that she likes oysters with a pearl too is actually ok with me Cindy. 🙂

    My dislike of Maddow has nothing to do with her sexual orientation.

  • My dislike of Maddow has nothing to do with her sexual orientation.

    Yet the worst you can find to say about her is something that categorizes her sexually.

    You are suggesting that she is ‘manly’, you intend this as an insult. It is an insult about her gender and it implies there is some certain acceptable way of being for a woman. That is sexist.

  • pablo

    Heya Glenn I got one for ya pal. You must have heard of course about the new governor of Hawaii, and his quest for the holy grail. I mean Snobama’s birth cert.

    You may recall several weeks ago Gov Abercrombie said he was gonna produce Snobama’s cert to help him. A week later he said he could not find it. Suddenly low and behold! The gov proclaims it aint legal.

    Now here it gets cute. First off the sitting governor didn’t know that its illegal to produce the cert without Snobama’s permission. Yeah sure he didnt. That has only been the crux of the issue for about 3 years!

    Secondly the gov says he is a friend of Snobama’s since birth. Now was the governor suggesting several weeks ago he was gonna produce the cert without his old pal president’s permission? Think about it Glenn. Or better yet don’t, as that is not really your forte now is it?

    Which is precisely the reason I cant stand most politicians or lovers of Ronald Reagan either. I mean really, whats to like?

  • pablo

    In your book Cindy, not mine, and I have already apologized to you for it since you seem offended, and I certainly was not trying offend you or half of the species.

    As to the worst that I can say about go Maddow, I could go on at length, however sh was never personally the thrust of my argument about GE and the co-opted left.

  • pablo

    I do have a question for you though Cindy. In my humble opinion you are one of the more thoughtful commenters on this site, and believe it or not I do on occasion read your writing.

    Do you think that the 9/11 commission was accurate? Moreover do you think that our government is telling us the truth about that terrible day? I only ask you because I do not recall you ever opining in a thoughtful way on that subject before. Mostly I am just curious.

  • pablo


    Just as making fun of someones gender is not homophobic, making fun of someones sexual orientation is not sexist. Calling the kettle black does not make it black.

    In my world Cindy there are two types of politicos that I can’t stand. The first is the wolves, and the second is the wolves in sheep’s clothing. The wolves don’t pretend, the wolves in sheep’s clothing however do, and I have more of a dislike for the latter.
    Ms Maddow imho is one such person, so is Amy Goodman, so is Noam Chomsky. All of the formentioned politicos are funded by fasi

  • Okay pablo, I will answer your question. I have not seen anything that would convince me that the gov’t ‘directly’ perpetrated the events of 9-11. However, I also do not think the gov’t has revealed the full picture. I personally, at the moment, think the gov’t antagonized the events of 9-11.

    Okay, perhaps you can answer me this. Why is calling a woman Mr. an insult?

  • pablo

    Continuing, as the puter refreshed too soon.
    All of the formentioned are funded by fascists. Chomsky, Goodman, and Maddow. They are not independent beholden to only their own personal philosophy, but are imho prostitutes bought and paid for to present an opposing view. That is my opinion, and I am more than willing to argue it, and present references upon request as to who pays them.

  • I have no problem with that being your opinion, pablo. What I am wondering though is why you would think it is an insult to call a female, Mr.

    One definition of sexism is:

    “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”

    Don’t you agree that calling a female Mr. reinforces the idea that women are feminine only when they fit a particular stereotype?

  • My point is, you say it isn’t a sexist comment, but then what else would make it an insult?

  • pablo

    It was an insult Cindy, but was not meant to denigrate half of the population. I could not argue persuasively that my comment was not homophobic, so I won’t even try. If I were to call a gay man Mrs. for instance I dont think you would be calling me sexist, homophobic ok. Sexist? Nah.

    I do not recall asking you if you thought that our government was directly responsible for 9/11 as I do Cindy. I simply asked you if you thought they were telling us the truth. How about JFK? RFK? MLK? Did you know for instance that there was a court verdict regarding MLK’s death being the result of a conspiracy theory Cindy? Or did you know that there were actually two federally funded government studies on JFK’s assassination? The second one found that more than likely JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. I just wonder if you actually are aware of stuff like that Cindy.

    Again if you would like references to the above truths, I will be happy to provide them for you. I am referring to MLK’s trial, and the second report by the federal govt regarding JFK’s murder.

  • pablo

    Cindy 18

  • pablo

    I do find it interesting as well Cindy that you also failed to address the main point of my argument about the left being co-opted. Instead you are acting as if I insulted you because you are a woman, when I most certainly did not!

  • Baronius

    Baritone – What about CNN, PBS, and NPR? What about the broadcast networks’ morning shows? And the Sunday morning talk shows?

  • Clavos

    Baronius, how dare you interrupt pablo’s inane and repetitive digression to try to bring the thread back on topic!

    You righties are so arrogant…

  • pablo,

    The ‘left’ generally (as in liberal) is not so much co-opted, imo, as it was never independent of the problem to begin with.

    Also, I didn’t feel you insulted me because I am a woman. I felt your comment is insulting to women, generally. In the same way calling a male a ‘girl’ or a ‘pussy’ is sexist and insulting to females, generally.

  • M

    pablo, have you looked into wikileaks for questionable connections?

  • pablo

    Some things never change Clavos eh? I see your up to your usual charming self. Makes me so glad I don’t live in Florida, I had to travel half way across the globe to get away from your ilk, and it worked!! There aint even a whiff of a clavos within 300 kilometers of me!! Ahhh the life of an expat, aint it grand?

  • Bar – What about them? They are news/broadcast organizations. The notion that any of them are leftist is, as I indicated, bogus. I watch CNN, and PBS, and listed to NPR quite a bit. I find nothing obviously liberal or leftist in anything I’ve seen or heard on any of them. The same holds true for Tic,Tac&Toe – NBC, CBS & ABC. The belief that they are leftist is only a construct of the conservative mind. You see or hear nothing on any of those networks akin to what one would encounter with FOX or MSNBC.

  • I seem to remember Dan Rather of CBS losing his job for being a partisan hack…but your memories may vary….

  • pablo


    Questionable connections regarding what? On the subject of Wikileaks just what does Assange really stand for? I see nothing of substance, except the left fawning all over him.

  • M

    Connections to hidden power structures — reasons to question Assange’s independence

    …a conspiratorial vetting, so to speak

  • M

    (oh — and M is for Mark

    did a detailed time/motion study and determined that if I left off the ark then I would eventually make up enough time not to have wasted it on this comment

    how ya doin’, pablo?)

  • You’re underestimating, Pablo, the fallout that’s most likely to result from WikiLeaks activities, and never mind now what the Left is making of it: that’s never been of consequence. Just because it doesn’t fall (quite yet) into your brand of conspiracy theorizing, it doesn’t mean it’s insignificant. My bet is, as of now it’s most positive development on the horizon. Just wait and see.

  • pablo

    I am doing just fine Mark. Thanks for asking. Your sentence in comment 30 say it all regarding Assange:

    “Connections to hidden power structures — reasons to question Assange’s independence”

    There aint any, and nothing of any real substance concerning any of amerika’s satellites either. Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Africa. All of the dirt that has been release has been highly censored, no real blood and guts evil. The one thing that I did like from Wikileaks was about a year ago, when they released the video of US servicemen gleefully murdering innocent people from a helicopter. That was about it imho. I do feel that almost all real opposition to the unspeakable is controlled. I am a huge fan however of one Alex Jones and have been for about ten years. I also like Webster Tarpley who knows more about politics than just about anybody that I have ever come across.

    Assange? He stands for nothing, he reminds me of a clone. No character, bland, and more than likely an intelligence asset.

  • Clavos

    Some things never change Clavos eh? I see your up to your usual charming self.

    As a conservative, I see it as my duty to remain a constant in an ever-changing world, Paulie.

  • Just for the record, pablo:

    If I were to call a gay man Mrs. for instance I dont think you would be calling me sexist…

    Yes, I would consider that sexist. In fact, if I had such a double standard, I would consider that, in itself, to be sexist. To apply a social way of being to a person based on their male or femaleness is sexist. Gay males ARE males so are gay females. To single out our varied modes of being males and females based on traditional stereotypical, and/or heterosexual stereotypes is sexist.

    Masculinity and femininity must both include all the ways of being of of ALL men and women, not merely those who are heterosexual. Homophobic comments, such as you describe yours, are nothing but a type of the larger category–sexist comments.

  • Gay males ARE males so are gay females.

    LMAO! Well you know what I meant. Gay females are also females.

  • pablo

    Hmmm if you say so Cindy. 🙂 Perhaps I could have chosen a better way to denigrate Ms Maddow. Frankly I could care less that she has sex with other females. Now if I found her attractive I more than likely would be interested!

  • pablo

    Roger here is a recent radio clip of Webster Tarpley suggesting that Assange is an intelligence asset. I doubt you will listen to it though, as far as I know you never peroused the terrorism/illuminati book that you said you would either. Anywho here it is. I find Tarpley’s analysis of issues of the day highly cogent, and usually spot on.

    Julian Assange Is A CIA Mossad MI6 Asset WikiLeaks Is Secret Operation Webster Tarpley

  • pablo


    Perhaps what you should have said is:

    “As a conservative, I see it as my duty to remain with a constant closed mind in an ever-changing world, Paulie.”

    Then you and I would finally be in agreement on one subject!

  • Hi Pablo, happy new year to you.

    I’ve already brought this up with other more frequent visitors to the site but had no reaction or response yet – have you been following what is going on in Tunisia?

    To summarise briefly in case not – a Tunisian guy read a Wikileaks collection of documents and then set himself on fire publicly as a protest against all the corruption in a country which had once been a progressive force but then gradually slipped into a dictatorship.

    Mass, largely peaceful protest has quite surprisingly already brought down the dictator and his corrupt government.

    Normally that would have been the end of things but these wise protestants weren’t finished.

    Instead of allowing the deposed President to quietly slip in a proxy, the Tunisian people are demanding – and it looks like they will get – a complete removal of anyone and everyone even remotely connected to the former dictator.

    Even better, these protesters all want an end to corruption and government waste plus greater democracy and freedom.

    It doesn’t seem to be ending there as this kind of protest is spreading to other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan amongst others.

    This might be the most exciting political development in the entire Arab world and the rest of the Middle East for many years…

  • I’ll definitely give it a listen, Pablo, but here’s my stance. Assange’s motivation, whether real or imputed, is irrelevant. The likely fallout is all that matters.

    In his defense, one might argue that it is more than reasonable for Assange to take the journalistic cover and present himself not as any anarchist intent on toppling the world’s tyrannical governments but only as a voice for greater openness and transparency; in fact, not to do so would mean a virtual suicide. But even this consideration is neither here nor there and form no integral part of my argument. So again, I’m going to stick with my original pronouncement that it’s the consequences, again whether intended or unintended, that matter. Indeed, even if
    Assange proves to be just another pawn in the larger scheme of things, he and the WikiLeaks had done less harm than good (for people, not even evil people, aren’t always in the position to calculate the consequences of their own conniving and more often than not, their grandiose plans tend to misfire). Of course, you’re free to disagree.

    Anyway, I rest my case.

  • pablo

    Happy New Years to you too Mr. Rose.

    Here is a clip of Tarpley on Tunisia, I am not well enough informed on the subject to actually weigh in with an opinion at this time.

    Tunisian Wikileaks Putsch CIA Touts Mediterranean Tsunami of Coups – Webster Tarpley

  • pablo


    My bad on the above link, I had not listened to this clip, and I dont think the Tunisia information comes until the second or third clip. Sorry bout that.

  • Clavos

    “As a conservative, I see it as my duty to remain with a constant closed mind in an ever-changing world, Paulie.”

    I do agree with you, Paulie. My mind is definitely closed to your conspiracy hallucinations.

    And always will be…

  • Clavos, that seems rather an over-statement to me; I seriously doubt Pablo is actually hallucinating. You’re not, right, Pablo?

    He does go further than I would be comfortable doing but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t grounds for serious concern about many trends in contemporary politics wherever you look in the world.

  • “Over-statement.” I like the use.

  • Cindy, I applaud you in your attempt to have reasoned discourse with Pablo, but I believe he is on about the same wave length as Ruvy. He sees conspiracied behind every tree and around every corner.

    And as to his opinion of Rachael Maddow, he hasn’t a clue. Maddow is actually my favorite on MSNBC, even above Olbermann because I find her the most diligent and the most thoughtful of all of them. Pablo’s description of her is wholly sexist and does nothing to enhance his arguments against her. It is all part and parcel to his conspiratorial fears. I sense that Pablo is one who would be wearing a tin foil hat and fearful of ever stepping outside his bomb shelter.


  • I seem to remember Dan Rather of CBS losing his job for being a partisan hack…

    Which supports Baritone’s contention that CBS, NBC, ABC etc are not partisan, doesn’t it, Andy?

  • #47:

    Then there’s Pablo’s fascinating idea that Julian Assange, rather than working to expose the great global conspiracy, is actually a part of it.

    Does he get extra points for doubling up on the paranoia?

  • No, no, it’s all a part of the “paranoia” conspiracy, so actually he gets triple points. I’ts sort of like Scrabble.


  • It’s simply a matter of the usual jealousies and internal squabbles. Alex Jones, Pablo’s indisputable idol, must have suffered from an epileptic fit to have been outdone by Assange. Hence Alex’s vitriol and accusations to the effect that Assange is not his own agent but an instrument of the powers that be. And Pablo, the true believer that he is, buys the whole story lock, stack and barrel.

    It’s as simple as that.

  • (smiles @ lock, stack, and barel)


  • r

  • Well, I suppose ya gotta stack them barels before ya lock em up. 🙂

  • Roger Nowosielski (#51), when you state that Alex Jones “must have suffered from an epileptic fit to have been outdone by Assange,” you imply equivalence between their activities, as if they are competitors.

    I wish you’d explain that a little. Do you mean Alex Jones has published more secret government documents than WikiLeaks but no one paid attention? Or do you mean that Julian Assange is even more of a paranoid liar than Jones, and that WikiLeaks’ disclosures (such as the Baghdad Apache helicopter gunship slaughter) are merely manifestations of Julian’s delusions?

    I really don’t get how Jones has been “outdone” by Assange. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting they’re nothing more than publicity hounds striving for celebrity–a cynical interpretation that gravely underestimates their convictions, however deluded those may be.

  • I simply mean, Alan, that Alex Jones, at least that’s how I read him, would like to be regarded as unequal when it comes to unraveling and bringing to light the latest in government complicity, duplicity and conspiracy. So yes, Alex is a publicity hound and jealous of his place in the sun, though he may be sincere as well. About Assange, I simply don’t know.

  • Then by relegating Julian Assange to the level of conspiracy theorist, like Alex Jones, you do a disservice to the truth. As you yourself have repeatedly emphasized, we should concentrate not on imputed motives but on actual effects. By that light, WikiLeaks’ “collateral murder” video is real and undeniable. Alex Jones, by contrast, specializes in the unreal and refutable. It’s wrong to casually lump these two men together.

  • I haven’t done so, lump them together, that is. As I said, I don’t know about Assange’s motives, again, not that it matters. In any case, if Assange is a conspiracy theorist of sorts, it’s of a much subtler kind than ordinarily understood, as per his manifesto. I believe I posted a link to that document on my “Bye-bye” thread.

  • El Bicho

    “I seem to remember Dan Rather of CBS losing his job for being a partisan hack”

    You remember wrong or is that more sarcasm? He’s been considered a partisan hack since tangling with Nixon, so what took so long if that was the reason?

    Pablo, of course calling Maddow “Mr.” is an insult. Can I call you a paranoid, delusional moron and just say it ain’t an insult to me so it’s okay?

  • pablo

    59 el bicho

    Perhaps you can show me in this thread where I said that I did not mean to impune Maddow. I most certainly did, and said as much several times. I am all ears pal. Moron a bit like calling the ole kettle black wouldnt ya say?

  • As far as I’m concerned Pablo, your back peddling on the “Mr. Maddow” issue amounts to too little, too late. That was what you led with when describing Maddow. That was your first thought. And original and clever as it was, the cat was already out of the bag (the last written to enrich this comment with mixed metaphors.)


  • pablo

    Wow you too eh Baritone? Pehaps you can show me my backpedaling. I meant to disparage Maddow, I did not think and I still dont think that it was sexist, I thought it could be construed as homophobic, and said as much. I never said that I did not mean to insult her, as I most certainly did. Perhaps you and el bicho should go have a cup of coffee together and talk about intelligence or the lack therof. 😉

  • Rather may have been CONSIDERED a partisan hack before the Guard issue, but he as fired for BEING a partisan hack for that particular piece of “journalism”.

    But you did in fact admit that there are partisan hacks in network TV…and apparently have been since the 70’s!

  • Dr. D in comment 48…not really, they let Rather stay on for years spewing his particular brand of partisan bullshit…it took a lot of yelling and screaming to get rid of him in the end…

  • Andy, be specific. Site for us, if you will, particular examples of Rather’s “partisan bullshit.” Make a list. You certainly wouldn’t be so irresponsible as to make accusations without detailed proof to back them up. Would you?

    I hear this fucktwat, craptart, dipwad bullshit (Hey, I’m just trying to keep up with Andy) about the so called “liberal media” constantly, and yet I have NEVER seen one iota of proof. It is nothing more than a mantra the Right constantly repeats to itself in the belief that by doing so, it will make it true. Perhaps the media didn’t insert their heads far enough up Reagan’s or the 2 Bush asses, as you all apparently desired, but that hardly makes them across the board liberals. I saw no let up on Clinton, nor have they been particularly deferential to Obama. And since most all of you claim that you never watch the “main stream media,” what could possibly lend any credibility to your accusations? Oh, wait, I know. You get all the straight poop from Rush and Glen and Bill and Sean and the vivacious Ms. Coulter.
    Oh, and various righteous, well informed and yet totally impartial, conservative web sites on the “internets.”


  • So, because you don’t see it means it doesn’t exist?

    I’ve told all of you time and time again I don’t listen to the assholes you keep spouting about…and I surely don’t make up really shitty curse words like you attempted to do.

    About the most blatant attempt at partisanship that I’ve heard from Rather was a few weeks ago when he said that Carter was a great president on morning joe. But I’m not gonna scour the internet(s) for YOU.

    But I guess you’re STILL denying he got fired for partisanship?

  • I mean really, I could say the same thing to you. Prove to me that they’re NOT partisan!

  • And lastly, I’m as irresponsible as they come,so of course, I’d do just about anything a liberal fucktard would accuse me of!!! Wouldn’t I???

  • Baronius

    Well, there was Rather’s hostile interview with Bush Sr., his use of obviously false evidence against Bush Jr., his continued defense of the false evidence, and his fundraising for the Texas Democratic Party. That’s off the top of my head. I could look into more things, if you want.

  • It is incumbant upon YOU to provide proof of your accusations. One doesn’t stand up in court and accuse someone of a crime leaving the accused to prove otherwise. Or did you miss that little detail in your high school civics class?

    Rather’s firing was for what ultimately was deemed poor journalism, not partisanship.

    So, if Rather had said that Reagan was a great president, that’d be okay? The fact is that Rather is now in a position professionally to render his opinions. He was not and did not do so when he sat in the anchor chair. I am neither a great fan of nor apologist for Dan Rather. However, it was always my opinion that he was a newsman first – a bit dotty in his dotage, but still foremost, a newsman.

    At least I watch network news. I feel that lends my opinions far more credibility than those of one who doesn’t.

    As for my “curse words:” It would hardly have been worth writing them if I didn’t “out curse” you, now would it? Technically speaking, I don’t think they are curse words, but rather, obscenities. I find them far more effective than mere profanities or scatological references. Ya gotta dig a little deeper to get to the gold.


  • Clavos

    …there are partisan hacks in network TV…and apparently have been since its inception!

    There. Fixed it for ya…

  • Baronius

    This is a fun one. Consider the tone of each story:

    “On the anniversary of Roe versus Wade President Clinton fulfills a promise, supporting abortion rights….It was 20 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark abortion rights ruling, and the controversy hasn’t stopped since. Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years.”
    – Dan Rather, CBS, Jan. 22, 1993.

    “This was President Bush’s first day at the office and he did something to quickly please the right flank in his party: He re-instituted an anti-abortion policy that had been in place during his father’s term and the Reagan presidency but was lifted during the Clinton years.”
    – Dan Rather, CBS, Jan. 22, 2001.

  • Bar – I’ll admit that Rather’s last years at CBS were fairly messy, but considering the particular incidents you cite: As memory serves, Bush Sr. may well have deserved the hardball interview. The accusations regarding Bush Jr’s military service, the evidence was never proven “obviously false.” The source was not altogether reliable, but the documents were never proven to be false. That Rather remains supportive of it makes sense in that light. He did NOT “fundraise” for Texas Democrats. He spoke at a fund raising gathering, When confronted with the accusation, he claimed not to have known the event was a fundraiser. Maybe, maybe not. However, again, none of this was adjudicated in court.

    Also, technically, Rather was not fired from CBS. They did remove him from any reporting duties – effectively providing him an office with little or nothing to do. Rather opted out in a mutual decision not to renew his contract.

    I feel that Rather became a liablilty, not so much owing to his partisanhip, but to his state of mind. Rather, when it comes down to it, is a rather strange bird. Ever since his “What’s the frequency, Kenneth” incident, there was a doubt in my mind and many others on all sides as to his mental competency. Neverhteless, it was only the last few years of his anchor position that things began falling apart.


  • Bar – Your #72. That’s the best you can come up with? Should Rather NOT have reported on these events? How are these leftist? How else should Rather have worded them?

  • El Bicho

    “But you did in fact admit that there are partisan hacks in network TV…and apparently have been since the 70’s!”

    There have always been partisan hacks, so I am not sure my admission of it means anything since I never said anything to the contrary

  • Andy,

    So was it the partisanship that got Rather fired, or the yelling and screaming?

    Compare the Rather incident with Fox News, most of whose pundits display partisan hackery day in, day out and are almost invariably unrepentant. They invariably get yelled and screamed at as well, but they don’t get fired because despite Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan, the network is partisan and makes no pretension otherwise.

    Reporters on nonpartisan networks like CBS are perfectly entitled to carry out a little journalistic waterboarding of those in power – as long as they do it with the same zest no matter which letter of the alphabet comes after the pol’s name, and as long as they’re reasonably sure that their information is good.

    Once Rather was deemed to have crossed the line into partiality – he let his personal opinion of Bush blind him to the unreliability of certain evidence – he was let go.

  • B-tone @ #74:

    It’s in the choice of words and imagery. Take, for example, Rather on Clinton, who he says is “fulfilling a promise”. It implies that Clinton is his own man and acting with integrity.

    In contrast, here’s Rather on Bush, doing “something to quickly please the right flank in his party”. The picture conjured up here is of a man who is not in control, and is acting not from his own beliefs but to shut up dissenters.

    Also, the term “abortion rights”, which Rather uses in the Clinton op-ed, has a much more positive ring to it than the “anti-abortion” of the Bush report.

    It’s not blatant, but it is slanted.

    Disclaimer: I offer this not as a political opinion, but as that of an English nerd. 🙂

  • Cannonshop

    Funny how fast the subject drifted from Olbermann to Pablo, to Alex Jones, to Rather.

    Dan Rather got let go because of EXTREMELY shoddy workmanship-not because he was a partisan hack, but because his “Documents” were assembled on a word-processor that wasn’t available at the time he claimed they were written and assembled.

    Y’see, Microsoft Office didn’t exist in 1972…

    Olbermann, on the other hand, was let go for very different reasons-violating company policy would probably top that, along with sliding ratings, and for all anyone REALLY knows, he may have been let go because of internal disputes and office politics within MSNBC- Now, I’m not saying he isn’t a political hack, nor that he hasn’t been a barrel of bluster for the years he’s been on the air-he was, and is.

    But, as long as he made gains in ratings, or showed his bosses at MSNBC that he was generally on a trend up in that regard, his job was, pretty much, safe-remember, cable ‘news’ is mostly a “Journalism-like Infotainment Product”, and commentators like Olbermann, Limbaugh, Beck, or Maddow live and die by their Neilsen ratings. (this is why Limbaugh does not have a television programme-he did, for about half a season in the early nineties, but it never broke even…nobody really enjoyed watching a fat man bloviate for half an hour.)

    It may be interesting to see where Olbermann goes from here-does he write a book, go into radio, sign with another network, or run for office?

  • Doc – I think that’s a pretty fine line you’re drawing. Is it necessarily partisan to imply that a president is as you say “his own man and acting with integrity?”

    Bush’s actions were certainly made to adhere to his own set of campaign promises, particularly to his fundamental religious supporters.

    So neither statement can be said to be inaccurate, and the supposed “slant” you allude to more than likely went right by the majority of the respective audiences of those particular newscasts.

    “Anti-abortion” and “abortion rights” are terms used almost interchangably in the media, often simply depending on the particular context in which it is to be used. I think your suggestion is imparting far too much calculation or cleverness on the part of either Rather or his writers, akin to the use of supposed subliminal messages via images projected on the screen too briefly to be consciously comprehended. 🙂

  • Clavos

    Doc – I think that’s a pretty fine line you’re drawing.

    I disagree.

    I think Doc’s was an excellent (and completely impartial) analysis.

  • Olbermann’s departure certainly had little to do with ratings. His was still the highest rated show on MSNBC. As we know, Olbermann had been at odds with NBC and MSNBC management for a long time, culminating in his suspension over the political contributions he made last Oct/Nov. That certainly did not sit well with Olbermann. The disputes were ongoing. It has been at least suggested that while Comcast supposedly had no role in his dismissal, the management at MSNBC decided they did not care to carry the weight of Olbermann with new ownership coming on board. Hell, once in place, some have suggested that Comcast might shut MSNBC down altogether if they decide its not carrying its weight financially. I certainly hope not, but such a move would, I think, be a business decision, not one based in ideology.


  • Baronius

    “Today marks the end of four years of the Ken Starr investigation, and still counting. Cost to taxpayers so far: 40 million dollars, and counting.”
    –Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News August 5, 1998.

    “Ken Starr relentlessly pursues Bill Clinton and his presidency,”
    –Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, August 19, 1998.

    “So he slogs on.”
    –Dan Rather, speaking of Kenneth Starr, Rather Reporting, April 22, 1998.

    The Lawrence Walsh investigation into Iran-contra lasted seven years:
    “And the special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, kept digging tirelessly, seeking convictions and, when convictions weren’t to be had, seeking justice…. If crimes are committed in the government, then someone ought to be held accountable–that’s the American way. So Walsh kept pressing.”
    –Dan Rather in The Camera Never Blinks Twice, 1994.

  • Okay Bar – Rewrite all of those so that there is no possibility that they could be considered partisan.

    And Clav, I of course, don’t agree. 🙂

  • Perhaps all journalists should not be allowed access to any adjectives or adverbs. Perhaps they should be not allowed to include any emphases in their reading. Actually, the best of all possible worlds would be having it written and read by a robot, but also having no qualifiers in the text.

    Rather just didn’t show enough love for Starr.

  • Is it necessarily partisan to imply that a president is as you say “his own man and acting with integrity?”

    No, B-tone, not necessarily. One would need to examine a wider range of Rather’s reporting. The sample size here is small.

    Baronius does provide us with other examples in #82, but they’re one-sided so they’re not of much use. “Relentlessly pursues”, for instance, can be interpreted as a positive phrase just as easily as a negative one.

    What might be interesting is to compare those with Rather’s thoughts on the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame saga.

  • I think your suggestion is imparting far too much calculation or cleverness on the part of either Rather or his writers, akin to the use of supposed subliminal messages via images projected on the screen too briefly to be consciously comprehended.

    I think you do Rather and his writing team a disservice. You, as a writer yourself, ought to know that words are often chosen with great care and intended to create an effect… even though the writer is perfectly well aware that not all of his readership will “get it”.

    What about your own trademark sarcasm, which we’ve all seen go completely over the heads of some of your BC foes (and friends)? I think I’m right, am I not, in saying that it’s a rhetorical device, not an accident?

  • Baronius

    Dread, if you want more, these aren’t hard to find. I’m just pulling them off of multiple sites. To me, this isn’t even a conversation; it’s the preliminaries before a conversation. If a person can’t admit that Dan Rather is partisan, there’s no point in discussing media bias. When Baritone makes the distinction between fundraising and speaking at a fundraiser, and says that the National Guard documents were never proven to be obviously false, we’re a long way off from a serious conversation.

  • “If a person can’t admit that Dan Rather is partisan, there’s no point in discussing media bias.”

    I should think this is begging the question, unless one is dead-set on declaring Rather as biased and proceed from there – a rather pointless exercise, IMO, on the order of stacking the deck.

    So yes, perhaps Baritone is on the right track here if the intent behind his comment is to arrive at an agreeable definition of partisanship.

    But that’s just my not so humble opinion.

  • El Bicho

    “Olbermann, on the other hand, was let go for very different reasons”

    Are you really “let go” when you initiate the end of your contract?

  • I never claimed that Rather was or is not partisan. What I did claim and stick to is that he was not overtly partisan in his new casts while anchoring at CBS news.

    As to whether or not Olbermann was “let go” or quit is still open for discussion. I’d venture to guess that he was provided an ultimatum of some sort by the network that he was not able or willing to live with.

    As to where he might land there is a lot of speculation. Some have suggested that he intends to start something online akin to the Huffington Post. Others think he’ll come at us on the radio. Either or both may come to pass, but, ultimately, I think Olbermann likes the camera too much to stay off of the tube longer than may be required of his release agreement.

    Doc – I am not convinced that in consideration of what it takes to put out a daily news program that there is all that much parsing about using this word or that, that phrase or this. My nephew’s X is a news writer for CBS. She seems to like it, but has always characterized it as only barely controlled mayhem. She told us that while the camera is tightly focussed upon the anchor, it is generally a kind of madhouse all around her or him. News copy often gets changed up to and even during the broadcast.

    Not that I’m conceding anything about Rather, but even if I did, it still doesn’t prove that the main stream media has a particularly liberal bias. The news is the news. Oft times the line between fact and opinion is vague. One person’s fact is another’s fiction. Just as those on the right claim that we lefties hear only what we want to hear, if true, the same can and must be said of the right. You tend to read your own bias into what you hear, just as you claim that we do.


  • Olbermann is done on TV. MSNBC was the only network willing to carry his vileness…nobody else will put him on TV.

    I’ll say this about the almost discussion on media bias…I call it an almost discussion, because a few of you, just can’t see the light…it’s hard to see it or hear it, when the folks spewing it are spewing what you want to hear.
    I hear it when it goes against the way I tend to think or feel and I miss a lot of it when it doesn’t. Someone spewing my point of view seems, to me anyway, to sound very level headed, someone spewing something contrary to what I believe is usually spewing partisan bullshit. I watch morning joe pretty much every day, half of what I hear is bullshit and half of what I hear is cowshit. Sometimes, it’s really difficult to distinguish between the 2!

  • A perfect example of liberal bias just now on morning joe…

    David axelrod just came on camera and asked…am I looking at the right camera?

    I guess it was supposed to be a joke on Bachmann last night…the humor was lost on me, but I bet liberals thought it was hillarious!!!

  • Baronius

    Morning Joe…that brings up another type of liberal bias, the way that the token Republicans among mainstream news analysts are always more willing to go after the right than the left. David Brooks is another, along with that former Clinton staffer who does PBS with Mark Shields. I’ve heard of David Frum, but I don’t know if anyone else has. Oh, and Kathleen Parker, of “Parker Spitzer” non-fame.

  • Gosh, all you poor conservatives. I really feel for you. It’s certainly “vile” as Andy would say that David Axlerod would have the temerity to say anything that might smack of a leftist POV. I mean really! Oh, wait a minute, David Axlerod isn’t, nor does he pretend to be a journalist. He works for the President, who, if you hadn’t noticed, is a Democrat.

    It is you who are the big cry babies. I think all of you ought to – just to be safe from all the vileness – either dump your TVs in the trash, or remove any possibility of being exposed to leftist demagoguery by setting the tuner to FOX and programming all other channels out. I know you are all of a particularly delicate constitution, and cannot handle the awful things that come out of liberal mouths. I’m weewy sowwy guys.

    Perhaps the answer is just to have the tea bag House enact legislation that prevents anyone with opinions to the left of Joseph Goebbels from saying or writing anything for public consumption. Preventing them from making any appearances anywhere, and conversely promoting only properly vetted “pure” conservatives to populate the media. Or, perhaps, they should seek out “second ammendment remedies.” Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    You wack jobs seem to forget that it is a two (count ’em – TWO!) party system, and that, believe it or not, you don’t know everything. Somebody of a liberal bent might actually know and understand something you don’t. I know, I know, it’s hard to hear – I imagine your poor little ears are burning as you read. I can envision you all running off willy nilly with your hands over your ears and eyes yelling blather at the top of your lungs in the vain effort to block out all the nasty talk, or meany writing from entering your precious, god fearing heads.

    What delicate little flower do you all remind me of? I, of course, am tempted to say pansies, but actually pansies are very hearty and robust little flowers capable withstanding both the cold and the heat. Not the case with you. Perhaps the hibiscus. It blooms all showy, but just for one day, and then it’s gone.


  • Hey! At least we can recognize it when we see it…you on the oher hand seem to be blind to anything that doesn’t conform to your way of thinking!

    There’s another liberal trick… used all the time by your type here… you pull out one line and then attack it, completely ignoring the rest of the comment. In your comment above in 94 you SPEW shit like I need to watch fox all the time or I watch fox all the time or I should watch fox all the time and in the first line I said I heard him say it on morning joe… so, you obviously have a comprehension problem as well!!!

    The point was, [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor], that Joe himself said he wouldn’t allow that kind of stuff on his program, but he only stops it when it’s a conservative slamming a liberal, not the other way around.

    I’m far from god fearing and I’m not a tea PARTY type either, but I’ll tell you this much… you fucking liberals and that teabag shit… you wonder why people always want to punch you in the face… that would be one reason right there. That holier than thou bullshit attitude.

    When someone disagrees with your type you get all condescending like you honestly believe you’re better than someone else.

    It’s like Barry telling folks “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” It’s all bullshit! We get angry because liberals don’t fucking listen… to anything… except their own fucking voices and the voices on MSNBC and in the NYT!

    It can’t possibly have anything to do with government being completely FUBAR, it’s because those of us that aren’t liberal like him and YOU just don’t understand… we’re to fucking stupid to get it. Or we’re racists, or whatthefuckever… it’s never that you just might be wrong, it’s that the rest of us are idiots… FUCK THAT!

    And just to make a point… it’s not the tea party or republicans that are trying to pass legislation to shut people up… it’s liberals… it’s been liberals for a long time… the fairness doctrine? Please!

    And to the comments editors – I resent being called a wackjob… even if I am. I want that comment expunged from 94! Actually I don’t really care, one way or the other.

  • He didn’t call you a wackjob, Andy, just “the whole of you.” Perhaps there’s a lesson in here why an indiscriminate resort to labels is a shortcut to thinking.

  • Baronius

    Baritone – You ask for proof. When I present some, you dispute it. When I present more, you say I complain too much. And, of course, you call me a fascist. Not your finest hour. (Although to be fair, since you call your opponents fascists every hour, this isn’t much worse than usual.)

  • I sense that you are bitter and that you feel the need to cling to something – a gun perhaps. There, that’s better.

    Oh, would it have been better if I’d written “jackoffs” rather that “wackjobs?”

    You know, I could take virtually everything you said above, just changing a few words and apply it to you. Funny how that works.


  • Roger,

    Did you get my message? Egypt is in an uprising. Here is an interesting post on Operation Egypt by Anonymous. To follow in real time, search twitter for tags: #Jan25 #Egypt #Egyptweets

  • I have a few that I cling to…usually throughout the month of December. You should come down here around that time…don’t forget to bring your antlers!

    How would you know? You probably didn’t even read it!

  • Well, actually Andy, I did read it. Also, just to put things in some perspective, I’m not nearly so angry or incensed as you seem to be.

    Bar -Well, of course I dispute them. I think you are wrong. As to your being a fascist, I don’t know, but right wingers are historically far more closely aligned with the tenets of fascism than are liberals.

    The most popular spokesmen on the right make constant references and accusations that progressives are somehow fascists or Nazis, or Hitlerian demagogues. It makes no sense in any historical context, but that’s what they do. You may personally consider yourself not of their ilk, but they nevertheless, are the face and the voice of the right. Glen Beck and Rush and the rest sit on your shoulder, not mine.


  • Costello

    You should ask for 92 to be expunged because you make yourself look like a dunce if you think Axelrod’s joke was a perfect example of liberal bias on Joe Scar (R).

    Exactly how many libs have you punched in the face or are you just another loudmouth talking from the safety of his keyboard? People listen but why would anyone with a lick of sense take serious anything you have to write when you are condescending while whining like a child that people are condescending towards you? Grown up and finish off the GED.

  • Message from Egypt – People Don’t Need Leaders to be Civilized.

  • Ciostello

    Besides, Cindy has it right. What’s happening in Egypt is of much more importance than whining about Dan Rather. It’s no wonder the world is leaving America in the dust

  • Baronius

    Baritone (#101) – First of all, I dispute that. Fascist movements historically promote nationalization of industry and centralization of power, and have labeled themselves as a middle ground between capitalism and communism. They’ve called themselves socialists, and had strong relations with socialist and communist governments.

    Secondly, ask yourself, how would you react if I wrote about “Baritone, Olbermann, and Pol Pot”? Such labeling doesn’t help anything, whether or not I may see some justification in it. The fact that you can’t see it is of a piece with the fact that you can’t see liberal bias in the MSM. To you, comparisons between Bush and Hitler make sense, so if a reporter makes them it doesn’t refect any ideological distortion.

  • Yes, Cindy, it is very encouraging. People are getting tired of their tyrannical governments and appear to be waking up. I hope it spreads like wildfire.

    BTW, Part III should be published shortly, so give it a read when you can. It’s all so pertinent.

  • Grown up and finish off the GED.

    From that line alone I’d say I’m not the one that needs to work o my GED…

  • Baronius

    Costello, I agree that the unrest in the Arab world is important, but there’s no thread about it. I don’t feel bad writing about media bias under an article about media bias.

  • A hell of a point, Ciostello, which is one reason I disengaged from most of BC discussions over what, in the larger scheme of things, are trivial topics. But no, we Americans are so full of ourselves we shall continue to debate trivia, and with the greatest of passion, while the rest of the world is burning.

  • Baronius, when was the last time you felt bad about anything? just asking.

  • Baronius

    This afternoon, a homeless man asked me for change. As I laid into him with the whip I carry in my backpack, I thought about how unfortunate his lot in life is. I suppose I had some of those so-called “feelings”.

  • Backpack? Oh, that’s so… well, liberal. Shouldn’t you be carrying something like a lizard skin brief case?

  • Ruvy

    we Americans are so full of ourselves we shall continue to debate trivia, and with the greatest of passion, while the rest of the world is burning.

    Quoted for truth.

    Nice to see a fellow who makes it a habit to ignore me (and loudly so) admitting to my basic criticism of American self-centeredness. It’s the reason I do not write many articles here anymore. It’s also the reason I usually find these comment threads so boring. I have other reasons for generally ignoring Roger Nowosielski and his comments.

    By the way, Mr. Rose, your comments I found the most interesting. At least you showed an interest that went beyond the idiots on American TV.

    I don’t expect to see anything resembling democracy or freedom emerging in either Tunisia or Egypt. Apparently the new régime in Tunisia is on a witch hunt for all the bad guys – and is asserting that only Islam will cure the country’s problems. In Egypt, the groomed successor to Hosni Mubarak, his boy, fled for London. To me it seems just a matter of time before the Muslim Brotherhood takes power there. I hope they remember the great gift from the working class of the Soviet Union – and all that it implies for them….

    Gotta go! I thought I saw a conspiracy hiding behind a bush a few feet from the house!! Can’t let it get away!!

  • Cannonshop

    112-No, “Satchel” would be Liberal-you know, those one-strap “European” style shoulder bags. Backpacks are neither conservative nor liberal-they’re just handy.

    Besides, a briefcase hardly needs to be opened-it makes an adequate weapon on its own for scourging someone….

  • B-tone – are you telling me I have to get rid of all my backpacks now lest I be mistaken for a lib?

    I know, once I open my mouth all doubts will be dispelled…

  • Oh, I don’t know. I once saw an elderly gentleman cold cock a would be thief, who tried to snatch a women’s purse, with a backpack. Knocked the nefarious fellow out cold. I don’t know what the gentleman had in the bag, but it obviously “packed” quite a wallop. This was on a NYC subway. The local constabulary was summond and relative peace was restored with a short but heartfelt round of applause for the backpack wielder. However, the point being regarding this thread, the backpacker despite has elderly appearance, had both a professorial and “lefty” look about him, if you know what I mean. I’m guessing the contents of the pack included some heavy handed “fellow traveler” literature.


  • To costello in 102- I never said I punched anyone or was ready to punch anyone…again, I’ll leave your comprehension issues alone. I said “you wonder why people always want to punch you in the face.”

    But I have punched a few people in my day. Not so many anymore, I am, after all, over 50 and I’ve become a litle brittle over the years so fighting ain’t such a good idea anymore. And never over politial issues. But I’d be more than willing to pick up a 2 x 4 and whack someone in the head for the right reason or reasons. I usually don’t have to do anything like that. Being over 6′ and at LEAST 225 people tend to shy away from provoking me…

    And I’m sitting in front of a laptop, so that could be a pretty good weapon too. I did by that extended warranty from Best Buy, so however it breaks, it’s still covered for repairs…

  • Boeke

    105-“Fascist movements historically promote nationalization of industry and centralization of power, ….”

    Whereas the All American Way is for corporations to privatize government by making outright bribes by corps legal, ala the SCOTUS Citizens United decision.

  • pablo

    Roger 51
    “It’s simply a matter of the usual jealousies and internal squabbles. Alex Jones, Pablo’s indisputable idol, must have suffered from an epileptic fit to have been outdone by Assange. Hence Alex’s vitriol and accusations to the effect that Assange is not his own agent but an instrument of the powers that be. And Pablo, the true believer that he is, buys the whole story lock, stack and barrel.

    Roger perhaps you should know the meaning of a word before you lable someone with it. Jones is not my idol, and furthermore I do not idolize any person on this earth. You could have used the word hero perhaps and I wouldn’t have squabbled with you about it. At least I name a person in the blogosphere that I like and respect, I cannot recall you doing the same about anyone.

    The rest of your paragraph is just plain garbage, and it just shows that you are far more comfortable spewing out non truths that to actually know what the fuck you are talking about. For the record, and that record is freely available should you decide to check it out, Jones initially was a fan of Assange, and for months said how much he liked him. It was only after him interviewing John Young of cryptome.org who worked with Assange on crypome’s site that he began to have a new and more informed opinion of Assange, and yes John Young of Cryptome.org suspects that Assange is an intelligent asset and knows him personally, as well as having worked with him. That coupled with Webster Tarpley’s analysis of Assange slowly changed Alex Jones opinion of him.

    I buy the story lock stock and baurrel pal? I suggest that you look around at the various pundits on here spouting off their typical brain washed left/right bullshit about politics before you call me a true believer. I don’t deify Jones, I respect any person who stands up to the unspeakable that is the instrument of so much criminal warmongering evil in the world today. Jones does that on a daily basis, and I might add risks his very life doing so.

    I found out well over a year ago Roger that you talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. As evidenced by your words, particularly saying you would do something on several occasions and then not doing so. So keep on talkin Rog, I already know whats up with you.

  • Well, Pablo, I haven’t done that kind of extensive research on Assange as apparently you did, so I can’t dispute you. Mine was only a conjecture, and if I’m wrong about Mr. Jones, I apologize, but as I’ve told you, I regard the fallout as the matter of consequence here, not the actual motivations. So I really don’t see why you’re raising such a storm.

    Again, the potential developments are of greater interest to me than who is doing whose bitting. Call it a difference in our temperaments, if you like, but is this reason enough to dump on me?

  • pablo

    Roger, when you say I idolize someone when I don’t, and when you say that I buy the story , lock stock and barrel you fuckin bet.

  • Actually, pablo doesn’t need a reason to dump on people. That comes as natural to him as breathing.

  • should be “bidding” … sorry.

    But well, Pablo, I have only more or less repeated your own approbation of Mr. Jones. Apologize for the pointed language used, however, though you must understand it was for only for dramatic effect.

    Fair enough?

  • pablo

    Fair enough Rog.

    Oh! Hi Alan, how nice of you to come over to this thread participate, I am flattered, really I am, how sweet of you. 🙂

  • pablo

    I do forget however Alan when you did TV reviews was it The Brady Bunch, or Romper Room? I can’t remember, anywho you were quite good in that forte, with the exception of course of Ventur’s conspiracy show. By the is by Alan did you hear that Time/Warner the producers of that show are not busy removing all past episodes of Ventura’s show as fast as they can, particulary the one that he made about the Police State Conspiracy. Nah you wouldn’t know that, politics aint your forte.

  • Thanks, Pablo. I realize we may not see eye-to-eye on everything, especially as regards how we interpret conspiracies, but I never entertained any doubt as to your sincerely in anything you’ve ever posted. By the same token, I don’t believe I’ve given you a reason yet to question mine.

    As to Assange, I’ll provide in my next post a link to his “Manifesto” in case you don’t already have it.

  • pablo

    Roger another interesting tidbit about Assange is the place where he has been holding fort in London is owned by a group called
    The Frontline Club. The Frontline Club got its funding from George Soros. A fascinating tidbit Soros that many people don’t know, and I did not get this information from Glen Beck who I cant stand, is that Soros got his start in business helping the nazis confiscate and sell property from jews in Hungary, there is an 60 Minute interview out there with Steve Kroft and Soros where Soros actually discusses his shame.

  • So you’re objecting that he’s being defended with tainted money? OK, I get your point.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Frontline Club is a media club that is largely a hub for war and conflict reporters the world over. It’s really more of a building (complete with a restaurant) than an organization, too, and remains a “haven and a forum” for war reporters in London.

    Members pay annual fees and it doesn’t break even. Vaughan Smith has received funding from Soros’ Open Society Institute, but drawing any sort of practical link from the funding of the Frontline Club to Assange is just weird. It’s not really a tidbit about Assange at all, Pablo.

    He’s not “being defended with tainted money” any more than Benazir Bhutto was supported by George Soros because she spoked at a media club that received some funding from one of his countless organizations.

  • Wholesale Guy


    “Regardless of Olbermann’s apparently huge ego, for those of us who share his ideology, he always managed to impart both intelligence and, as Benedict Declercq noted, in his comment on Barbara Barnett’s article on Olbermann, here at BC, he (Olbermann) maintains “erudition, eloquence, [and a] warm humanitarian approach.”

    End Quote..

    Well, I’ll give you the huge ego. I’ll even say, that “KO” is reasonablly intelligent in that he is a very articulate teleprompter reader.

    But, I cannot say for certain how far the “rabbit hole” of his intelligence goes (sorry for the Matrix reference).

    KO, as far as I know, did not like to travel outside the security of his studio and leave the warm embrace of his reflection in the camera.

    Never did I see him on Meet The Press, The Capital Gang (before it was canceled) or any news show that hosts vigorous debate or political opinions that were polar opposite to his rantings.

    Mostly, his show featured those who sang from the same hymnal. And yes, I know that a certain proponent of the right (Rush Limbaugh) does not engage in debate outside the “golden EIB” microphone. However, I would not mind seeing some of his views challenged as well.

    But you would think that someone who rants about the right wing being the evil empire and akin to the Third Reich would want to mix it up once and a while with his sworn enemy.

    Me thinks that Keith did not have confidence in his convictions and probably could not argue his case effectively.

    In addition, like them, hate them, loath them, both O’Reilly and Hannity will have people on their show who offer a different view point.

    And again, yes, O’Reilly has a huge ego and will get mad, shout, cut people off. He is not without sin.

    But I have seen him stumped a few times when presented by a different point of view and a well reasoned challenge to his mindset on a particular subject.

    While he almost never concedes defeat, he will at least put himself out there with those who differ from him and I can tell when his arguments have run out of steam and he is in search of a “clue”..

    There was a time when I tried to give Keith O’s show a chance. I tuned in for a few months to see if there might be something that I was missing.

    Maybe I was just not being “open-minded” enough to absorb his musings and understand his message.

    After watching in stunned disbelief as Olbermann refered to FOX News as worse than Al Qaeda, Bill O’Reilly being featured time and again as one of the worst people in the world, in addition to the constant “Bush” bashing, and his overall “rage-aholic” special comments, I was to tune in no more.

    His obsession with O’Reilly and George W. Bush was particularly troubling and a bit obsessive. It seemed that he was more about the rage, less about the substance.

    I get it Keith, you hate Bush. You told him to “shut the hell up” on your show. He’s a criminal and an enemy of Democracy. Fox News, is the evil empire. Except when you worked for Fox Sports News – lol.

    In terms of Barbara Barnett’s comment about KO’s erudition…

    I really don’t know the “breath and depth” of KO’s understanding of literary works, be them fiction, non-fiction, industry related, or how that understanding applied to enhancing the dialog on his cable show.

    All one has to do is look at a small portion of his published works via Amazon.com to know that he is, well, a shrill idealog.

    For instance, titles like:

    “Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration’s War on American Values” By Keith Olbermann”.

    “Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans by Keith Olbermann”.

    “The Worst Person In the World: And 202 Strong Contenders by Keith Olbermann”.

    Most of his “prose” while straight forward is not much more then rehashed rantings from his TV show.

    There is no “in-depth” or well researched knowledge of say, foreign policy, history, or even politics.

    The only “depth of field” seems to come exclusively from this own bias and void of any subjectivity whatsoever.

    Oh, and did you know that he hates Bush, O’Reilly and Glenn Beck? In case you didn’t he wrote a book about it..

    I tend to find most of the public purveyors of various ideologies to be somewhat amusing actually.

    Sort of like high school for adults. My team is better then your team – lol.

    Your philosophy stinks, mine is better. Your not cool, hip, or smart if your not liberal, or conservative.

    I wish that they could utilize all of their talents and be a little more policy wonkee and a little less Globe magazine.

    Among the chattering classes that make up cable news, no one really takes time to explore the issues and problems that we are currently facing with any clarity or concrete solutions.

    Each side, liberal or conservative exist for sound bites, ratings, and advertising money. Those that can shout the loudest wins.

    I do think KO did scream the loudest, and at times, the most outrageous at MSNBC.

    I would assume that his “crepitate” did make the network a pretty penny over the years.

    And, as a finishing note, I really like this part of your post…

    “Limbaugh is a blustering gas bag, offense oozing from every pore and is effectively, the de facto leader of the Republican party. They won’t crepitate without getting the nod from Rush.”

    Well, that may be – but he is an employed gas bag – lol. Seems KO gets fired or overstays his welcome everywhere he goes. It is absurd to think that Rush Limbaugh is the “titular head of the Republican Party”.

    No more then Micheal Moore, Hollywood, or Bill Mahr are in contention for head of the DNC…

    I don’t want anyone in the media or those with any particular idealogical “bend” to influence the body politic.

    Ideally, problems and issues that effect public policy should be in search of solution not an ideology.

    Besides, influence is is what “special interests” with lots of money are for – lol.

    Personally, I think that everyone – “gas bags”, radio, and cable hosts alike are in it for the money, power, and priviledge.

    Idealogs live off our division and differences. Those who pontificate for a living do not want to solve problems – nor do they have solutions.

    Keeping us in their camps are paramount to their existence and where they derive their money.

    Politicians are no better. As long as I have been alive, over 30 years, we have had the same problems with education, infrastructure, and energy independence.

    Each President from Nixon to the current resident of the white house pontificates about how there will be a “new day” in America with improvement and advances in all three of these areas.

    The first and only job of any politician is to get reelected and not to solve the problems they were elected to fix.

    Why would you need them if they did? They look at us as perpetual victims that will always need their political solutions.

    Bottom line, no matter who is behind the mike or the TV camera, these prognosticating pundits do not have total control or even a heavy influence over a politician or their deliberative body.

    Their influence could be temporarily appeased but they are never followed to the letter. Cash is the mothers milk of politics and is there one and only main constituent.

    Obama has gone back on a lot of his promises despite the protests of what Robert Gibbs called “the professional left”. He also has close to a billion dollars in his reelection war chest.

    It is the voters within their districts that know what their “pols” are doing, and if they deserve another term.

    If Rush Limbaugh swayed the masses with impunity, then no liberal President, congressmen, or senator would ever be elected.

    Same is true for liberals. There would not have been a 66 seat blowout in the house if the gang at MSNBC, the NY Times or any liberal outlet could get majority opinion on their side.

    People might form an idea or two from opinion makers but they will ultimately make up their own minds despite the ramblings of the idealogical driven.

    A good portion of the country were mad at the Dems for a reason, whether you agree with those reasons or not.

    And if the Repubs don’t provide satisfaction the pendulum will swing back again. No one has a lock on political virture.

    And no single ideologically driven cable or radio host can put us in an idealogical “vice” for very long.

    Not even the great “humanitarian” KO – lol….

    Robert C – The Wholesale Guy

  • Jordan Richardson

    At least Olbermann can form paragraphs.

  • Well, Wholesale makes some cogent points about our system of government and our system of journalism. However, little, if any of it, is either new or illuminating.

    Yeah. The system sucks, but for now and the foreseeable future it’s all we’ve got, unless and until the likes of Mr. Wholesale gets out there into the fray and effects change.

    Change to what? All of what we have now by way of politicians and pundits is an apt reflection of human nature. We are tribal by nature and will likely remain so.

    If a huge vacuum came along and sucked up all of our pols and pundits, the void would be filled by pretty much the same. There would be turmoil and some things would get tweaked here and there for better or for worse, but when everything settled into a semblance of normalcy, we would far more than likely be right back where we were before the big suck off.

    It seems to me that Mr. Wholesale kinda gets off on pontification himself – the master of the one liner, if you will.

    Yes, Olbermann is an idealogue as are many on the air waves, and the newspapers, and magazines, and which proliferate the interwebs. In that regard he is no different than dozens of others shouting from both sides of the aisle. Yes, he has written books espousing his opinions and attitudes. So too, have any # on the right which are just as opinionated, just as biased and, in some instances filled with far more venom than anything Olbermann has penned. Yin and yang.

    It just so happens that each of them have their adherents, and yes, it’s about money. It’s ALWAYS about money, Bubba. Surprise, surprise! It’s Capitalism at its finest! I can’t help but wonder why it is that anyone from the right would begrudge ANYONE who makes a buck, by whatever means. That’s the name of your game. Caveat emptor.

    Just another note here. What’s the big deal about teleprompters? Do you imagine that only those on the left use them? Do you imagine that the delusional Mr. Beck just spews all his crap impromptu? Do you imagine that Bush, our “nucular” president, “winged” it when he gave speeches? Yes, he did “fly free” on more occasions than does Obama, but he also repeatedly embarrassed himself and the country along with him with his malaprops and mangled metaphors. In a political and media world which takes every sentence, every word, every inflection, every pause for breath that a politician – especially a president – utters and rips them inside out, scouring every surface, every nook and cranny in an attempt to impart some meaning or significance to them, I think it best that they take care NOT to fly by their seat when addressing the public.

    At the end, Mr. Wholesale, much of your tale is no more lofty nor high minded, nor impartial than that which you apparently abhor.

  • Mr. Wholesale

    Baritone Sez… Well, Wholesale makes some cogent points about our system of government and our system of journalism. However, little, if any of it, is either new or illuminating.” End Quote..

    What can I say. No doubt that the sublime verbal eloquence that exudes from your vaulted voice and vibrates the air around you, contains wisdom only a true prophet can possess. And, from what I can tell from your grasp of semantics, replete with objectivity, can only be compared to the regal writings of Plato’s Republic. I can only offer my apologies if I offended your sizeable intelligence with my “obtuse” observations.

    Baritone Sez… “Change to what? All of what we have now by way of politicians and pundits is an apt reflection of human nature. We are tribal by nature and will likely remain so.” End Quote…

    Really? You think that politicians and pundits are a reflection of human nature; similar to the people you come in contact with in your daily life, or those who make up society as a whole? If you are married, I surely hope that your wife or significant other doesn’t filibuster your efforts to make breakfast. Let’s also hope that your friends and relatives don’t force you do donate to their PAC’s, in order for you to stay within their social circle. If you are not self-employed, or work for a company, I wonder if you could share your “special comments” with your boss and inform he, or she, that they are the “worst person in the world” and expect to keep you job. I think that “P&P’s” are just a slice of humanity that are, in most cases, a dysfunctional part of the tribe.

    While some of us can fall prey to the temptations of greed and the quest for power, the majority of us function as worker bee’s in the societal hive, choosing to raise families, work a job, start a business, serve our community, etc., without an overwhelming desire to mollify narcissistic or megalomania tendencies. In other words, most of us don’t need fame, constant edification, or great wealth to live a contented life. And that is part of the problem with those who serve in our modern day political arena. While I cannot judge the hearts and minds of all members of the house and senate, I will say that those “pol’s” who seek reelection time after time, get appointed to, or comfortable with, being a committee head start develop hubris, indulge their own personal or political agenda and ultimately lose focus of what they are there for ?” public service.

    There are no George Washington’s among the political class who are willing to concede power at any point in their career. If they (congressman ?” senators) are lucky enough to run unopposed, or in a district with voters of the same political strip, they stay in that seat till they pass away. Term limits on both house and senate members could be one way to put keep them from getting comfortable. Since the senate is already a six year term, you could expand the congressional time frame to a “straight six” stint as well. Once your term is up you cannot run again for that seat again.

    If we are tribal, as you say, then it will help to prevent one “tribe” from becoming an intractable part of the political landscape. With the constant rotation of citizen representatives, you at least lessen the impact of lobbyists and special interests so that they do not own any one politician or party. Limited access to power and knowing that you can only run for one term might actually attract people who will not become “comfortably numb” to the public interest and may discourage mega-millionaires who are trying to by themselves a new career. Will it eliminate corruption and prevent people who are already corrupt from entering the system? No, I would not be that naive. Do I think that the congress would act against their own self interest by engaging in a constitutional battle for imposing said limits? Again, that would be a “negative”. But it would be a step in the right direction that I can only hope that it would become a reality in my lifetime.

    Another proposed change that I would like to witness before I leave this plant is comprehensive finance reform, not just the watered down, loop hole ridden, type of legislation that was McCain/Feingold. How does an average person run for office against individuals like John Corzine from New Jersey or Meg Whitman in California who spend millions of dollars on a political seat that only pays thousands? With that being said, I would like to see mandatory public funding for both President and house member alike. Contributions would have to come from individuals only ?” 25 to 100 dollars at a time. Even though I did not vote for him, I thought that the way President Obama raised 87% of his funds through social networking to be very innovative and should be a core model for future fund raisers. Too bad he went back on his promise to accept public funding.

    Also, you can save the tax payer 200 million dollars by not having an inaugural party. Have the supreme court judge swear you in at the oval office, take a few pictures and be done with it. Further improvements could include changing the ubiquitous nature of penning legislation. Don’t write bills that are more than 100 pages long. Stop passing it around to each member in the house so that they can inject their own earmark or pet project which leads to a 2000 page legal monstrosity such as the health care bill that is written in legalize so that no one really fully understands it’s “cause and effect”. Legislation of such enormous complexity like the HC bill, that has the potential to substantially change lives and affect a particular industry, are bound to have their individual mandates subject to a legal challenge. Hence, the current battle over the commerce clause. Some states have challenged the rule and it seems like it is shaping up to be a legal issue that will ultimately wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court. The bottom line with the recently passed health care bill was (as the Clinton health care bill was) that it was too much of change, all at once. Take a more “bite sized” approach to solving the problem in health care.

    A more reasonable approach to crafting a HC Bill might have been to take some of the most pressing problems facing the issue (medical and drug costs, affordable coverage, covering the uninsured) and provide, real, concrete, common sense solutions and put them in “beta” with a sunset provision to make sure that you are producing tangible results. Right now, as far as I can tell from the current law, most of the health care decisions are going to be in the hands of the same industry that was broken in the first place, the insurance companies. I often thought that instead of creating a whole new government insurance option, why not extend Medicare for everyone?

    You could combine it with private supplemental insurance like senior citizens currently enjoy. Yes, you would probably have to raise taxes but if you could employ the Al Gore “lock box” and guarantee that it will not be “dipped into” like the general fund is now, then you have, barring any unforeseen circumstances, at least solved the funding problem. Again, I realize that these may seem like simplistic solutions and the devil is always in the details when it comes to the humongous challenge of health care reform. But, I think with the extension of Medicare for all, you can still keep the insurance companies in the game, (with supplemental policies) and possibly eliminate the enormous cost of privately purchased insurance, especially those with pre-existing conditions.

    Other considerations for “change” would be to follow some, if not all, of the recommendations by the deficit commission co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and former-Sen. Alan Simpson. Increase the retirement age for Social Security to age 69 by 2075. Eliminate all earmarks. Eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Freeze federal workers wages. Reduce farm subsidies by 3 billion per year. Reduce military forces in Europe and Asia by one-third. Eliminate the V-22 Osprey program. Reduce government procurement by 20 billion. Discontinue funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Incorporate tort reform as a way to reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenditure. There is much, much more, and those are just the highlights. No program is sparred, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on.

    However, as Alan Simpson has said: “That while every interest group that testified before his committee agreed that the mounting federal debt is a national tragedy, they would then talk about why government funding to their area of interest shouldn’t be touched.” Full Article: Outside The Beltway.com ?” Alan Simpson Fights Back Against Deficit Commission Critics. And that goes back to my point about power and privilege. The dollar could go the way of Zimbabwe, or an invasion on our soil could be imminent, and the congress and the senate, instead of trying to fix the problem, or getting ready to repel and invasion, will be arguing about whose fault it would be. I just don’t know what it will take to stem the tide of a 14 trillion dollar debt and growing. Again, (if you have made it this far) I want to extend my apologies to you Baritone if my ramblings might have lowered your IQ in anyway.

    Baritone sez… “Just another note here. What’s the big deal about teleprompters? Do you imagine that only those on the left use them? Do you imagine that the delusional Mr. Beck just spews all his crap impromptu? Do you imagine that Bush, our “nucular” president, “winged” it when he gave speeches?” End Quote…

    I don’t imagine, nor do I think that those on the left use teleprompters exclusively. I don’t’ share Mr. Beck’s paranoid theories of Obama, Muslim Caliphates, or any fascist creepy crawlies that he says might be hiding under my bed. Then again, I don’t think that Mr. Bush was responsible for 9/11 either. I was not making it a left or right issue. I know that just about anyone who is a prominent public figure or entertainment personality employs them in their daily broadcasts. My point here was that Olbermann is a very articulate talking head that seemed to be transfixed by it, and the camera. He never deviated from that norm, nor did he have guests on his show who might offer even a modicum of opposing viewpoints. I just thought that someone like KO, who had such a rabid dislike of all things that slant to the right, should be mixing it up with journalists and politicians on shows like Meet The Press so I could see how well he defended his points of view. The only person on MSNBC, besides Chris Matthews or Dylan Ratigan who would venture outside their comfort zone was Rachael Maddow. While she was an infrequent guest on MTP she put herself out there. Just could not understand why KO did not want to spread his brand of liberalism beyond the cable universe.

    Baritone sez… “It seems to me that Mr. Wholesale kinda gets off on pontification himself – the master of the one liner, if you will. At the end, Mr. Wholesale, much of your tale is no more lofty nor high minded, nor impartial than that which you apparently abhor” End Quote.

    Well, that is the Frog calling the Lizard ugly. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. From what I can tell from your posts on this blog and your Indy Boomers blogspot (if – in fact that you are the owner) you seem to get “high on your own supply” as well. Sorry, but I don’t see anything “illuminating” about your
    musings either. Especially your post entitled: “More Senseless Violence”. Just more predictable left wing insipid intellectual sustenance. King of the one liners? Thank you for that. It is good to be the King..

    Mr. Wholesale – My Name Ain’t Bubba ?” King of The One Liners… Oh and Jordan of “At least Olbermann can form paragraphs” fame. I put the paragraphs together now, just for you. It was my first post, and I forgot to use the “preview comments” tool. I am sorry if you had to read just sentences. Must have been hard for you. My bad…