My New Hero In American Political Commentary

[zumpano21]

I've never heard of this guy until a few days ago, but this guy is GOLD. Here's a couple of clips as he goes after the NEOCONS:

Rumsfeld: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9PxJN7XUQVQ

Ann Coulter:

Bill O'Reilly (aka Satan): http://youtube.com/watch?v=nM_yMT5V8SI

ENJOY!!!

[Fanpuck33]

Keith Olberman used to be Sports Center's best anchorman. These days he is simply a tool. He's simply a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly. He speaks his mind and doesn't really take anyone else seriously. I think he's worse than guys like O'Reilly because he spends more time making fun of people like O'Reilly and Coulter than he does reporting the news.

And trust me, while I often agree with what people like O'Reilly and Coulter say, I hate the way they go about things just to get ratings.

[Pierre the Great]

Yeah okay fanpuck I doubt you were saying that on the same show he had during the clinton sex scandal because during that time I highly doubt anyone was calling him 'liberal'. He went after Clinton.

[zumpano21]

Yes, absolutely - both sides are definitely guilty of using parlour tricks to gain ratings.

What I find troubling is how authoritarian O'Reilly and Rumsfeld come across as. Both of these guys equate dissent to their opinions as dangerous. Rumsfeld has gone as far as to suggest dissent with his handling of Iraq is fascism while O'Reilly openly bullies callers to his radio show with threats to call police when they do something he doesn't like.

And O'Reilly has been proven to be a fabricator - many times over - yet he still has the top rated news show in the States. This I find fascinating because obviously a large proportion of the US is either blissfully unaware of his fabrications or they simply don't care. Combine that with the ability of this certain segment of the US population to elect a government that prides itself on crusading through the Middle East and you have one hell of a problem - as we're seeing today.

From what I've seen of Olbermann, he simply counterattacks what these people say - and they provide him with tons of ammunition. If you can provide me with an example of where he's clearly fabricating something, go for it! I can take it. haha

[Fanpuck33]

I just find it impossible to take him seriously. He left a great gig ESPN to become a "serious news anchor" on a cable network, and he bombed horribly. He tried to go back to sports on FSN, but his sports followers had long given up on him, so he bombed there too. He ended up with a show designed to allow him to use use humor, but that doesn't seem like the kind of show that should be on a cable news network, more like Comedy Central. I'll admit I haven't seen his show a lot, but everytime I have while flipping through channels, he's almost always saying something that isn't serious.

Yeah okay fanpuck I doubt you were saying that on the same show he had during the clinton sex scandal because during that time I highly doubt anyone was calling him 'liberal'. He went after Clinton.

And O'Reilly has gone after Bush about how Iraq was handled. What's your point.

And O'Reilly has been proven to be a fabricator - many times over - yet he still has the top rated news show in the States. This I find fascinating because obviously a large proportion of the US is either blissfully unaware of his fabrications or they simply don't care.

I've never heard anything like that, except from Al Franken, and those two just have a personal vendetta on one another. Being a conservative, I get quite a lot of flack for being on the same side as O'Reilly, but I've never heard anyone call him an out and out liar.

[KoZed]

All those "mainstream" commentators -- not just American ones but all of them -- are complete clowns; regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. Their opinions often make even less sense then that of the common people because they have something to sell and a partisan view to push. Its even worst than the HNIC Leafs sellouts who try to pass themselves as hockey purists.

Its simple: you can't be objective when you're tied down and trapped within a definitive rhetorical continuum and are entrenched in mud-slinging debates. Its just high school stuff.

If you want real, substantial political comments you have to dig deeper and go with people who have a deeper academic knowledge on which to base their discourse. They'll sometime still lean toward partisan views, but at least they often stay within a more rigorous arguementative framework that has some sort of general coherence and factual obligations.

[revvvrob]

ENJOY!!!

na - didn't really enjoy the pieces.

to me - he's just doing the same thing any other editorial commentator does - takes a story and spins it until it is good for ratings.

at least in his o'reilly slam he had more than he own opinions to back him up.

[Pierre the Great]

O'Rielly is on record for telling senator McCain that he "knows nothing about torture"

O'Rielly has gotten history wrong with Malade.

The problem I have with conservatives is that they always blame the 'liberal media'. What liberal media? The same people they call the liberal media pushed and supported the war in Iraq. I don't call that liberal.

And look on your local AM dial. All conservative talk. So much for being 'liberal'. Then when Air America came around (I think they did it wrong to begin with. They should have just syndicated all there shows so they could sell it to other markets not start individual radio stations).

But when they started the conservatives started to whine.

People are tired of the conservative talkers aproach of yelling. Plus most people who are non conservatives listen to people like Rush just for laughs. I don't know how people take him seriously. He's an entertainer. He's just saying things people want to here. Its like Howard Stern.

[Fanpuck33]

O'Rielly is on record for telling senator McCain that he "knows nothing about torture"

Well, McCain basically thinks torture is an ineffective way of gathering information, and that just isn't true. It might be a horrible thing, but if done correctly, it does what it is meant to do.

The problem I have with conservatives is that they always blame the 'liberal media'. What liberal media? The same people they call the liberal media pushed and supported the war in Iraq. I don't call that liberal.

Wow, what media were you watching that supported the US going into Iraq?

People are tired of the conservative talkers aproach of yelling. Plus most people who are non conservatives listen to people like Rush just for laughs. I don't know how people take him seriously. He's an entertainer. He's just saying things people want to here. Its like Howard Stern.

I can't stand Rush. He says a lot of things I agree with, but says them in such a way that I'd be embarrased to say so.

KoZed is right, nobody in the media can really be taken too seriously. No news reporting is truly objective. The liberals will always complain news is too conservative and vice versa. Nobody will ever be happy. The real problem is that the two sides have grown so far apart that there is so little ground that both sides truly work together on. Until the two sides get within at least a few pages of each other, we're going to have the same problems, no matter who is in power.

[Pierre the Great]

The New York Times corporation supported the Iraqi invasion.

I like to watch the BBC. Some righties think that its slanted to the left but its not. Its neutral. But sometimes neutral seems anti govt, for example. There just reporting the news and you decide what to think about it. CBC does the same but they end up being Liberal apologists for some reason.

[zumpano21]

I've never heard anything like that, except from Al Franken, and those two just have a personal vendetta on one another. Being a conservative, I get quite a lot of flack for being on the same side as O'Reilly, but I've never heard anyone call him an out and out liar.

Well. When a Globe and Mail reporter (Heather Malek) wrote that Canada should offer asylum to marines who abandon the US army, O'Reilly brought that reporter on his show and threatened Canada with a trade boycott that would devastate the Canadian economy. He quoted the "Paris Business Review" as showing that the American boycott of France devastated the French economy. Problem is, no such publication exists. Ouch.

And then there's the whole Malmedy thing where he mixed up the US army and Nazi soldiers with respect to war crimes. He was blatantly wrong but never admitted it and furthermore, FOX tried to cover it up for him.

The guy's just way over the top which irks me but when you throw in these kind of incidents, it just makes him slimy. Especially the whole falafel/loofah sponge thing which makes him look like an ass.

Edited September 2, 2006 by zumpano21

[House11]

that's why I don't watch the news ... to many opinions and not enough facts ... and the mainstream news only reports on what's "popular" and not if its news worthy.

[zumpano21]

that's why I don't watch the news ... to many opinions and not enough facts ... and the mainstream news only reports on what's "popular" and not if its news worthy.

To be a stickler, these aren't news shows, they are political commentary shows and as such, carry bias. I just don't like outright deceptive or bullying techniques employed by the aforementioned neocons when someone doesn't agree with them.

Dissent is a great thing, opens your eyes to different opinions, allows you to learn but these guys are driven by finances and being exposed as wrong hurts the bottom line.

Edited September 2, 2006 by zumpano21

[Fanpuck33]

I think these kinds of political commentary shows do more to hurt the country than help it. Hearing different points of view is essential to American politics, but these types of shows simply further divide the two sides. Instead of simply sharing different ideas, they attack ideas they disagree with, instead of simply discussing them civily.

[Pierre the Great]

Then what do you watch and listen to Fanpuck I'm curious?

[Pierre the Great]

I think Jeremy Paxson is better in my opinion.

Anytime when you start an interview with George Galloway with "Are you proud to have got rid of one of the few black women members of parliament" always gets a good laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5tunBGmDQ

Or this Paxman interviewing John Howard who refuses to answer his question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is

Classic stuff.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Pierre the Great

[Colin]

The real problem is that the two sides have grown so far apart that there is so little ground that both sides truly work together on.

Extremeism. The first step away from democracy.

[KoZed]

Extremeism. The first step away from democracy.

But its always extremists who are driving issues.

That's why any good government needs to be centrist. Progress is in the middle, not at the extremes. You can't govern efficiently when you're sold out to an ideological slant, weither it be left or right. (Yeah, I'm a Realpolitik fan)

[Pierre the Great]

Exactly A government should be in the middle but take ideas from both sides to help the country. For example the green party will never form a government BUT they will change the 4 other parties views on the environment because the other 4 (Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Tory) would and will see them as a threat. So they'll put environmentalism in the fore front.

Little parties in the parliamentary system act like lobbyists. Except you can send the big hanchos messages by voting for them.

Anyway thats what the Liberals have been doing ever since the Trudeau era. They don't know how to define themselves so they just take ideas of PCers and NDPers and mix it together.