Joe Scarborough challenges Bill O'Reilly to debate, KO to Bill-O: "come on down"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 8, 2007 - 2:55pm.
Media
Hello Everyone:
The media wars are really heating up now, especially between MSNBC and FOX News!
Here is some previous documentation where the media war between CNN and FOX News blew up when Lynne Cheney accused Wolf Blitzer on CNN of media bias:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9291
TRANSCRIPT & ANALYSIS: Lynne Cheney on CNN accusing "Media Bias" and Much More!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 28, 2006 - 2:49pm.
Lynne Cheney played up this incident big time on Bill O'Reilly's show:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227885,00.html
Second Lady Lynne Cheney on Her CNN 'Slapdown'; New Children's Book
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Right below is the MSNBC Scarborough Country video from Thursday, January 4 where Joe Scarborough went after Bill O'Reilly very hard for his attacking all of NBC News by name and below the video is the transcript of that dialogue which is an excellent read in my opinion!
Scarborough really did an excellent job in my opinion. He asked a really good question to Neocon Bob Kohn "Isn‘t this really about—he‘s (Bill O'Reilly) angry at Keith Olbermann?"
He also let Kohn have it with this forceful statement:
"And I‘ll tell you what. In the end, I guess the thing that made me the most angry about it is not because I‘m a liberal, it‘s because I‘m a conservative. It‘s not because I oppose our troops, it‘s because I support our troops, because I represented our troops for eight years on the Armed Services Committee! The people who are going to be suffering on this aren‘t people at Fox News or MSNBC, they‘re going to be the 19-year-old kids that are going to be touring Sunni neighborhoods, trying to keep things in order, and getting blown up because of the sectarian violence that‘s going to continue ripping apart the country, probably at a more intense pace because of the sloppy way that execution was handled! I think it was a disgrace. I think it was a PR disaster. But that‘s just my opinion."
Here is the portion of the transcript below where Joe Scarborough openly challenged Bill O'Reilly to a debate:
SCARBOROUGH: Bill O‘Reilly, just attack Rosie. You‘re way off base on MSNBC, on NBC and certainly on me. And I challenge you to debate me anytime, anyplace, anywhere, and find one thing I have said on this program over the past year that is not consistent with the conservative congressman who was against military adventurism when I was in Congress, that was against exploding deficits, that was against reckless spending and against turning Congress into the type of swamp that we Republicans have turned it into over the past six years!
That doesn‘t make me liberal, that makes me conservative! That may make you, though, a suck-up, if you defend the Republicans that have done that to this country and to our party over the past six years!
Here is the Bill O'Reilly's FOX News "TALKING POINTS" transcript from last Friday, January 5 where he attacked NBC News and MSNBC again by saying that NBC has "a vested interest in seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq. No doubt about it." and also went after Chris Matthews by name:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242346,00.html
Last Chance in Iraq
Monday, January 08, 2007
"And then there's the press. Unfortunately, many in the media now have a vested interest in seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq. No doubt about it. If Iraq were to turn and go America's way, President Bush would rise in the polls and Republicans would have a better chance in 2008. The left-wing media does not want that to happen.
NBC News is leading the way in that regard. Listen to this question by Chris Matthews:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS MATTHEWS, NBC NEWS: What would justify sending 30,000, 40,000 more GIs into the streets of Baghdad to kick down doors and kill Sunnis? What would convince you that was the right policy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Kick down doors and kill Sunnis — very nice. Listen to this comment by Tom Brokaw about Saddam's execution:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM BROKAW, FMR. NBC NEWS ANCHOR: He was a god awful man, Saddam Hussein, and he did have a trial. But to not have control of the execution and to have it really just fuel more sectarian violence at a time when we're trying to dampen that is not helpful, which is an understatement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Well, Brokaw was wrong. There has not been a rise in violence since Saddam's execution, according to Stratford, a non-partisan group that analyzes Iraq.
One final thing about NBC News: The Center for Media and Public Affairs study concluded that network favored John Kerry more than any other network in the 2004 election.
So next week when the president announces his new Iraq strategy, expect overwhelmingly negative coverage from NBC News and others. I hope I'm wrong.
And that's the Memo."
Here is where Keith Olbermann replied to that rant from Bill O'Reilly and called him out by name to "come on down and do it like a man:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16526025/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Dec. 5
Read the transcript to the Friday show
That‘s ahead, but first time for COUNTDOWN‘s latest list of nominees for Worst Person in the World.
A bronze tonight for Bill-O. His paranoia about NBC tonight reaching the stages of tertiary syphilis, attacking Chris Matthews and me by trying to push around Andrea Mitchell on the air, then telling her, we‘ve checked you out. You‘re OK. Like some 25 cent addition of Senator Joe McCarthy. Or like you could carry Andrea Mitchell‘s pencil. Listen, big boy, you want to hit Matthews or me, come on down and do it like a man, not like a Bill O‘Reilly.
It did not take the Neocon media rapid response team "NewsBusters" very long to come out and defend Bill O'Reilly to their large audience:
http://newsbusters.org/node/9994
Andrea Mitchell: No Bias at NBC, CBS or ABC, Matthews Not a Liberal
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on January 5, 2007 - 20:44.
You can really expect to see this media war heat up even more in my opinion!
I think it would probably be a good idea to write to Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and to Joe Scarborough at MSNBC to encourage them for taking a tough stand against Bill O'Reilly, for not taking any of O'Reilly's crap, and to continue to call on O'Reilly to openly debate his ideologue positions:
hardball@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
joe@msnbc.com
I know could take down that idiot Bill O'Reilly in a fair debate on neutral ground with a real moderator and I am sure that Matthews, Olbermann, or Scarborough could do the same!
It is also worth noting that MSNBC is probably doing even more than FOX News is to go after criminals and child predators (which Bill O'Reilly's program focuses on a lot) with their special documentary series:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036750/
MSNBC DOC-BLOCK
MSNBC does this series IN ADDITION to their News Programs so they can focus more on real news that affects people's lives and talk more about what is happening in the world!
This media debate is very important because whoever controls the media will for the most part control the agenda and much of what is talked about in the news all the way up to 2008!
Whoever is able to do that better in the media will influence more impressionable people. These are the main people who are up for grabs in the 2008 election!
MSNBC is NOT perfect by any means but I appreciate them standing for up to Bill O'Reilly and FOX News, for defending themselves against their attacks, and for fighting back against extreme right wing media bullying tactics which I have not really seen any other network or news anchor do yet!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9331
OPEd: USA TODAY: Next move in Iraq?
Submitted by Wes Clark on November 21, 2006
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9C853934-3CB2-4E40-A986-F71B6D9C7E79&f=00&fg=
MSNBC Video
1/4/07: "Bill's Battle" on Scarborough Country
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16485138/
'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 4
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
SCARBOROUGH: Bill O‘Reilly‘s at it again, saying just about an hour ago on his TV show that NBC News is, quote, “far left.” Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O‘REILLY, HOST, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”: You have a major shift in a major news organization. “Today” show, very powerful, Brian Williams‘ news, they have “Dateline NBC,” two cable networks. It‘s a business decision to go to the left.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: And this follows earlier comments made on his radio show today that there‘s not a single conservative at NBC News and everyone at this network hates President Bush. Listen to what else he said.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
O‘REILLY: Bush can‘t win, no matter what he does! NBC News, “The New York Times,” “The Washington Post,” they‘re going to say he‘s an idiot. There‘s no sense of balance or fairness in their reporting. That‘s activist journalism!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Bush an idiot? I‘ve never said Bush is an idiot.
Chris? If I ever said—do you think Bush is an idiot?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely not.
SCARBOROUGH: Absolutely not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We would never say that, nor have we ever said that.
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re a Connecticut Republican. We are conservative people. OK. So my question is this. Why does Bill O‘Reilly hate NBC so much? Here‘s Bob Kohn—he‘s the author of the book “Journalistic Fraud.” We also have Mike Barnicle. He‘s columnist for “The Boston Herald” and an MSNBC contributor, so he, too, must hate George Bush!
Bob Kohn, why does Bill O‘Reilly hate me so much? Why does he hate NBC so much?
BOB KOHN, AUTHOR, “JOURNALISTIC FRAUD”: Well, I think Bill O‘Reilly would do well not to use unqualified terms like “everybody,” and I don‘t think that‘s the substance of what he‘s trying to say.
SCARBOROUGH: But Bob, he did say, though, tonight, he said, There is not one conservative at NBC. Bill knows that‘s a lie. He knows he‘s attacking me when he says it. He knows I‘m saying the same things now that I‘ve said for four terms in Congress and three years on TV. Why is he lying about my record, to paraphrase Bob Dole?
KOHN: Well, I said that he shouldn‘t—should not—do that, OK? He should not use unqualified terms. And maybe he‘s going overboard, I think, in saying “everybody.” I don‘t think he‘s specifically accusing you.
SCARBOROUGH: Isn‘t this really about—he‘s angry at Keith Olbermann. He can‘t attack Keith Olbermann on the air anymore...
KOHN: No.
SCARBOROUGH: ... and so he‘s got to attack all of NBC.
KOHN: No, no. I think what he‘s saying is very specific examples of what‘s happening at NBC, and it is moving decidedly to the left.
SCARBOROUGH: How‘s that?
KOHN: To give you an example, the other day, this Richard Engel story that was on the “Today” show, on Brian Williams‘s show, and I think you repeated it just the other night—Richard Engel, the NBC News reporter, not a commentator, specifically said in his news report that the execution of Saddam Hussein was a PR disaster. That was his opinion.
O‘Reilly is seeing NBC take opinion and put that into its news
stories. That‘s the same criticism that he had—that I had, especially -
with “The New York Times” and others. So what—he‘s simply a media watchdog, OK? He‘s a media watchdog, and he‘s simply bringing...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Why doesn‘t he watch himself? I mean, Bill O‘Reilly gives his opinion every night. I love the guy for it. I love that he puts himself out on the line. A lot of people hate him. I‘ve got no problem with that. Just like when liberals put themselves on the line, I love that, too. I like people that fuel the debate. What‘s wrong...
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: I don‘t have a problem with you or Olbermann or anybody else or Bill O‘Reilly expressing his opinion. I don‘t think that‘s what the complaint is. He is suggesting, and there are examples, clear examples recently, and one I just mentioned, of a news reporter at NBC biasing the news. That‘s a problem. I think he‘s got a good point here.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, so you‘re saying...
KOHN: Using words like “everybody,” accusing you, I don‘t think that‘s correct.
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re saying...
KOHN: I think he shouldn‘t do that.
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re saying that Richard Engel shouldn‘t be able to look at a situation I think most people would say was a PR nightmare?
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Today George W. Bush said he wishes it had been handled better. The Pentagon was embarrassed. The State Department was embarrassed by it. A reporter can‘t say...
KOHN: I think we can argue that point.
SCARBOROUGH: ... this is a PR nightmare?
KOHN: I think you can argue that point. I think—because if you take this and put this into perspective, this was an Iraqi problem. The Iraqis did it, OK? This is a fledgling democracy. We didn‘t do that with Timothy McVeigh because we got 200 years of democracy and experience.
SCARBOROUGH: And all I‘m saying, you know...
KOHN: That country...
SCARBOROUGH: ... we can debate that. And I don‘t mean to...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I don‘t want to cut you off here, but I want to move on to another point, but we can debate that...
KOHN: And it shouldn‘t be in a news story~!
SCARBOROUGH: ... but don‘t attack...
KOHN: It shouldn‘t be in a news story!
SCARBOROUGH: But don‘t attack Richard Engel. I don‘t think...
KOHN: He‘s a news reporter!
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: ... drawing a conclusion that the president‘s drawn and everybody else has drawn.
KOHN: No, no. He shouldn‘t be expressing his opinion in a news story.
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
KOHN: That‘s a big problem.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, let‘s listen to what Bill O‘Reilly said about NBC‘s chief White House correspondent, David Gregory, earlier today.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
O‘REILLY: David Gregory, the White House reporter for NBC, was called out by Tony Snow a few weeks ago and said, Look, you‘re blatantly partisan. That‘s what Snow said to Gregory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: OK, and Mike Barnicle, again, I‘ve always defended Bill O‘Reilly on this show, up until he said we were Marxists, communists or whatever he‘s saying, we‘re against the war, we‘re against the president. I‘ve supported this war from the very beginning, I just hate how stupidly it‘s been run.
What O‘Reilly didn‘t tell people, that was—that Tony Snow—again, I think a very good man—apologized to Gregory. Now, take a look at what he said after calling Gregory partisan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You and I had a conversation last week that got a whole lot of play in a lot of places, where I used the term partisan in describing one of your questions. And I‘ve thought a lot about that, and I was wrong. So I want to apologize and tell you I‘m sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Mike, you know, Tony‘s a great man for doing that. We all knew—as soon as “partisan” left his lips, we knew he had made a mistake. But why would O‘Reilly go on today using words about Tony Snow that Tony Snow had retracted himself?
MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, Joe, I‘ll use the word “everybody,” as Bill did on his program, as in everybody has the right to have a couple of bad days and make a few mistakes in their life. And Bill made a couple of mistakes here in his broad indictment of NBC News and right there of David Gregory.
The larger issue involved here that you were speaking with Bob about earlier with regard to Richard Engel—Richard Engel needs no defense or lectures on journalism from anyone. Richard Engel is doing a terrific job at covering a very difficult war to cover. And by labeling what happened with the Saddam Hussein execution as a public relations disaster is not opinion, it‘s fact-based.
KOHN: Oh, come on!
BARNICLE: It‘s fact-based. And every...
SCARBOROUGH: You don‘t know the difference between opinion and fact!
Oh, come on!
BARNICLE: And every—OK, you tell me why it wasn‘t a public relations disaster, Bob.
KOHN: Well, we can debate it, OK? I don‘t think that‘s the issue.
BARNICLE: No, no. No debate. No debate.
KOHN: I don‘t think...
BARNICLE: You tell me why it wasn‘t a public relations disaster.
KOHN: I don‘t think it was.
BARNICLE: You accused Richard Engel—you accused Richard Engel...
KOHN: I don‘t think it was a public relations—OK...
BARNICLE: ... of injecting opinion into a news report. Tell me why it was not a public relations disaster.
KOHN: Let‘s talk about this. Historically, OK, people are going to remember what Saddam did in his life, how many hundreds of thousands of people he killed, not how he died, OK?
BARNICLE: No, no. Let‘s talk about...
KOHN: That‘s not going to be the issue.
BARNICLE: Let‘s talk about you maligning Richard Engel.
KOHN: OK, I‘m maligning Richard Engel because he‘s inserting his opinion in a straight news story. “The New York Times”...
BARNICLE: Tell me what...
KOHN: ... does it all the time.
BARNICLE: ... opinion...
KOHN: That‘s a problem.
BARNICLE: Tell me what opinion he inserted. You are alleging that the Saddam Hussein execution, the way it was carried out, was not a public relations disaster?
KOHN: All Richard Engel...
BARNICLE: That‘s what you‘re alleging?
KOHN: All Richard Engel had to do was say that somebody else said.
He could have quoted people. He could have asked people what they said. But because he says it and because “The New York Times” says it and other people start repeating it, it becomes a public relations disaster.
I actually think it‘s the opposite. I think it was a brilliant thing that happened. As a matter of fact, it was the best thing that...
BARNICLE: You do?
KOHN: ... could have happened for Iraq—absolutely—because what the president of Iraq was trying to do was to show, in telling Bush, No, I‘m not going to delay the execution, I‘m going to do it now, he was...
BARNICLE: How old are you, Bob?
KOHN: No, don‘t start...
BARNICLE: How old are you, Bob?
KOHN: Don‘t start the ad hominem attacks.
BARNICLE: Let me tell you...
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: Let me give you my argument, OK? Let me finish what I‘m having to say. Because the president of Iraq wanted to demonstrate to the world that he is his own man. You may not agree with that, but he‘s trying to have his own public relations expression to the world that, I‘m going to make this decision.
BARNICLE: All right...
KOHN: Now, he made it.
BARNICLE: ... here‘s the reality...
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: I don‘t think it was a disaster! I think this was good for history...
BARNICLE: Bob, here‘s...
(CROSSTALK)
BARNICLE: Stop the shouting. Here‘s the reality of it. The way he died made Saddam a folk hero among savages whose only intent is to kill Americans. So more Iraqis are going to have more resolve to try and kill more Americans because of the way Saddam Hussein was executed, like it was a chapter in “Deadwood” HBO!
SCARBOROUGH: And I‘ll tell you what. In the end, I guess the thing that made me the most angry about it is not because I‘m a liberal, it‘s because I‘m a conservative. It‘s not because I oppose our troops, it‘s because I support our troops, because I represented our troops for eight years on the Armed Services Committee! The people who are going to be suffering on this aren‘t people at Fox News or MSNBC, they‘re going to be the 19-year-old kids that are going to be touring Sunni neighborhoods, trying to keep things in order, and getting blown up because of the sectarian violence that‘s going to continue ripping apart the country, probably at a more intense pace because of the sloppy way that execution was handled! I think it was a disgrace. I think it was a PR disaster. But that‘s just my opinion.
Bob Kohn, thank you for being with us. Mike Barnicle, thank you for being with us.
Bill O‘Reilly, just attack Rosie. You‘re way off base on MSNBC, on NBC and certainly on me. And I challenge you to debate me anytime, anyplace, anywhere, and find one thing I have said on this program over the past year that is not consistent with the conservative congressman who was against military adventurism when I was in Congress, that was against exploding deficits, that was against reckless spending and against turning Congress into the type of swamp that we Republicans have turned it into over the past six years!
That doesn‘t make me liberal, that makes me conservative! That may make you, though, a suck-up, if you defend the Republicans that have done that to this country and to our party over the past six years!
Can‘t we all just get along? We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/arts/television/11keit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
MSNBC’s Star Carves Anti-Fox Niche 
Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times
Keith Olbermann, in his office: “You don’t punch down. If you’re in my position, you punch upwards.”
By BILL CARTER
Published: July 11, 2006
He is either the leading man of MSNBC or its leading agent provocateur, but Keith Olbermann has no problem embracing either role.
“You can’t spell momentum without Olbermann — or something like that,” he said in a telephone interview, with a typical sprinkle of wry in his voice.
The momentum reference related to MSNBC’s recent aggressive positioning of the program “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” as the centerpiece of this all-news cable network’s latest effort to become more competitive with Fox News Channel and CNN.
MSNBC revamped its prime-time schedule two weeks ago, shelving many of its prime-time hosts in favor of documentary-style programs but retaining “Countdown,” a program the network cites as its great growth story.
That growth, while coming from a base that Fox News would find disastrously puny, is demonstrable, especially among the group that is chiefly sold to news advertisers: people between the ages of 25 and 54. For the last quarter, Mr. Olbermann, who is 47, has seen his ratings in that group grow by more than 30 percent.
The growth has not been unfailingly steady, as competitors at Fox and CNN pointed out. They noted that Mr. Olbermann did better in February and March than he has since. Still, for the year, Mr. Olbermann has managed to climb past CNN into second place in the news channel competition at 8 p.m. among that 25-to-54 group. That qualifies as a feat for MSNBC, though Mr. Olbermann’s show remains little more than a dot in the rearview mirror of Fox News.
Even from that far back, he seems to have been able to honk his horn loud enough to raise hackles at Fox, which, Mr. Olbermann enthusiastically acknowledges, has been his precise intention as well as a useful marketing strategy.
He was especially able to redden the neck of the time period’s king, Bill O’Reilly, starting this winter, when the two men engaged in a widely discussed barb-filled feud.
Mr. Olbermann began frequently naming Mr. O’Reilly as the winner in a segment he calls “The Worst Person in the World,” tweaking cable news’s most popular host for such excesses (according to Mr. Olbermann) as his declaration last year (in jest, Mr. O’Reilly said) that a resolution passed in San Francisco to ban military recruitment in schools was so un-American that he was inviting Al Qaeda to blow up Coit Tower.
The worst-person citations eventually riled Mr. O’Reilly enough that he began a petition drive directed at Mr. Olbermann (though he did not mention him by name; he has apparently never mentioned Mr. Olbermann’s name), suggesting that he be replaced by a long-ago MSNBC host, Phil Donahue. Mr. Donahue’s ratings, Mr. O’Reilly said in February, eclipsed anything MSNBC had achieved since. By the next day, Mr. Olbermann was celebrating the petition and offering to sign it himself. Now he gleefully notes that Mr. O’Reilly (whose name he has no trouble uttering) only helped his cause by taking the bait and responding to the gibes.
“You don’t punch down,” Mr. Olbermann said. “If you’re in my position,” he added, referring to his initially microscopic ratings next to Mr. O’Reilly’s, “you punch upwards.”
Every time Mr. O’Reilly took umbrage at the slams, it seemed to add a bounce to Mr. Olbermann’s ratings — one reason, perhaps, that Mr. O’Reilly’s reactions seem to have tailed off more recently. Nobody at Fox News wants Mr. Olbermann to get any more of a draft from Mr. O’Reilly’s popularity.
Mr. Olbermann thinks he knows one reason behind his gains. He believes that Mr. O’Reilly’s audience, which is still huge, is aging. He noted that Mr. O’Reilly’s total viewer ratings are basically flat, while his numbers in the younger audience group have been dropping — down about 15 percent for the last quarter. “There is no other conclusion to draw than he is not adding younger viewers,” Mr. Olbermann said.
Of course, in terms of numbers of viewers in that younger age group, Mr. O’Reilly is still playing in another league, with about three times as many as Mr. Olbermann. But that does represent a small slice of the total audience for Mr. O’Reilly.
MSNBC’s research claims that the median age for Mr. O’Reilly’s audience is 71, while Mr. Olbermann’s is 59. (Fox and CNN both report that the only figures they get for median age of shows with older audiences is “65 plus,” and that Mr. O’Reilly’s audience falls into that category.)
The age discrepancy has led Mr. Olbermann to dish out even more mockery in his attacks. “It’s slipping away from you,” he said, addressing Mr. O’Reilly on a “Countdown” segment last month. “You don’t know what to do. You can’t even lie well any more. Seriously: I understand. It’s called panic.” He added, “You begin to see the audience dying off, and the creases deepening in your forehead.”
Lately Mr. O’Reilly has resisted giving Mr. Olbermann the satisfaction of more attention. Mr. O’Reilly was on vacation last week, so Fox responded through Irina Briganti, the spokeswoman for the channel. Her comments, matched with Mr. Olbermann’s biting remarks, reflected how corrosive the byplay has become.
“Because of his personal demons, Keith has imploded everywhere he’s worked,” Ms. Briganti said. “From lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O’Reilly and all things Fox, it’s obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith’s recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion.”
The references to personal demons and implosions touched on Mr. Olbermann’s résumé, which includes an array of positions over the last decade. At times he has been in public disputes with employers. More recently he landed in gossip columns after some nasty e-mail messages he sent were published. In one, he mocked the intelligence of the MSNBC host Rita Cosby; in others, he used vituperative language in responding to e-mail critics.
Mr. Olbermann apologized for the e-mail exchanges, saying he had been stupid and should have known better than to engage in such confrontations. He said he wouldn’t be e-mailing viewers again.
But the e-mail incidents offered an opening for critics like his antagonists at Fox to point to earlier evidence of a volatile nature. Certainly Mr. Olbermann has evoked a lot of strong reactions in his career.
He first came to the nation’s attention at ESPN, where his fast-paced commentary and sharp writing established a pattern: younger audiences liked Mr. Olbermann; traditionalists despised him.
Mr. Olbermann said, “People who didn’t like what I was doing would call and say: ‘Is this guy a jackass or what?’ You can tailor what you’re doing or saying to other people’s expectations, but you’re going to wind up acting.” He freely admitted, “The reaction of the audience has not been paramount with me.”
Still, Mr. Olbermann became a star at ESPN. His “Sports Center” work with his partner Dan Patrick became a trademark of the channel: sports delivered with irreverence and insouciance, like Mr. Olbermann’s home run call, “It’s deep, and I don’t think it’s playable.”
Mr. Olbermann acknowledged that his departure from ESPN in 1997 led to a “nuclear war.” The channel said he had abused the company’s rules; he said the company had a “corporate ‘all we have are the rules’ mentality.” At that point he began his first tenure at MSNBC, in a news show that mainly consisted of covering the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton administration.
“I did that for 218 straight days,” Mr. Olbermann said, recalling his rising frustration. From there it was back to sports for, of all organizations, Fox. When that ended after about two-and-a-half years, Mr. Olbermann landed at CNN briefly as an interim host.
Then, in 2003, MSNBC needed a temporary replacement for one of its hosts. “It was a three-day fill-in stint,” Mr. Olbermann said. “Thirty-nine days later I had a four-year contract.”
The “Countdown” show began as a prelude to the invasion of Iraq, but Mr. Olbermann decided it was an ideal format for him. He counted down the news stories of the day, in whatever order he pleased, adding his own spin and style.
Gradually, the show took on more of Mr. Olbermann’s persona, which meant stories were delivered with either mock outrage or ironic amusement. And unquestionably the chief target of the outrage was the Bush administration and its defenders.
Mr. Olbermann said he believed that the turn in public sentiment toward the administration clearly began to bring more viewers to his show. “We saw a certain cultural shift,” he said, adding that it was a “sea change, if that’s not too unfortunate a word, around the time of Hurricane Katrina.”
That a rabid audience can be built for a political discussion show from the left, as it has so effectively been done on talk radio and on some of Fox’s programs from the right, has not been demonstrated before, unless you count the fake news shows on Comedy Central. Mr. Olbermann said the administration had created enough disaffection to keep both his ratings and his outrage up.
“The country gave this president every imaginable benefit of the doubt,” he said, about the period following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. “He abused it. You know what Lincoln said: You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of time. But it looks like you can’t fool all of the viewers all of the time, endlessly.”
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/tv/dailypulse/071106/_a/cable-clash/20060711101609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Photos: MSNBC | AP
Olbermann vs. O'Reilly. It's a classic cable news feud, full of bad blood and playground-style jabs. And now it could get even more interesting. Olbermann's show has shown some ratings growth this year (though it still lags behind O'Reilly's). And, it's one of the key pieces in MSNBC's new strategy to best CNN and Fox. How nasty has the feud gotten? Who will win? And who is Keith Olbermann? Dig in below. See Story From The New York Times
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/tv/articles/_a/msnbcs-star-carves-anti-fox-niche/20060711071609990001
Join the Discussion: Daily Pulse Blog | Post Thoughts
http://journals.aol.com/dailypulseblog/citizenjournalism/
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=564139&func=3&channel=News
Who would you rather watch?
Bill O'Reilly 53%
Keith Olbermann 47%
Total Votes: 238,076
Note on Poll Results
Who has the brighter future?
Bill O'Reilly 51%
Keith Olbermann 49%
Total Votes: 236,024
Note on Poll Results
For some time, Olbermann and O'Reilly have been going at it. Here are some of their jabs.
Chester Higgins Jr., The New York Times
Starting last winter, Olbermann begins frequently naming O'Reilly as the winner in a 'Countdown' segment he calls "The Worst Person in the World." 
AP
Olbermann has worked on several cable news and sports shows during his career. Have you followed him?
The Answers:
1. True, he worked for Fox Sports.
2. He anchored 'Sportscenter' from 1992 to 1997.
3. He covered the Lewinsky scandal.
4. 'Countdown' debuted in 2003.
5. He was 14 when his first book was published.
6. He graduated from Cornell.
Sources: msnbc.com, nytimes.com
This is the video of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Andrea Mitchell of NBC:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242540,00.html
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Most Ridiculous Item
We've been telling you that NBC has taken a sharp turn to the left, not only in their news department but also in their entertainment programming. Listen to this from "E.R."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: ... who might have been responsible for the attack, obviously. We will do the...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't even look at this.
LAURA INNES, ACTRESS: Don't you think she's a role model? Not for me. But she never mentions...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If Shaquita (ph) needs a role model, she can turn on "Oprah."
INNES: But what if Shaquita (ph) wants to be secretary of state?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then she can look at Madeleine Albright.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Now that scene was completely unnecessary to the narrative in "E.R." It was thrown in there simply to demean Secretary Rice. This kind of thing is happening more and more at NBC, and these two men are the reason.
The programming chief, Jeff Zucker, presides over both news and entertainment and supposedly answers to Robert Wright, although many believe Wright is on his way out.
Word is some members on the board at General Electric are getting fed up with these cheap shots. And we are trying to get some of those people to go on the record about it.
We'll keep you posted on this ridiculous situation at NBC.
—You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to:
Joe Scarborough and company ripped Bob Kohn apart in my opinion!
I think there should be a lot more of this kind of dialogue happening:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16541962/
'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 8
Read the transcript to the Monday show
Guests: Michael Crowley, Joan Walsh, Ron Haralson, Cristina Gibson, Jill Dobson, Steve Adubato, Tina Dirmann, Bob Kohn, Paul Waldman, Craig Crawford
SCARBOROUGH: But first, speaking of obsessed, more of Bill O‘Reilly‘s crusade against NBC News and now NBC entertainment shows like “Law & Order” and “ER.” We‘re going to take a look at the real reason he‘s picking on the peacock.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: Bill O‘Reilly‘s strange obsession with NBC continues. He‘s already gone after everybody here, from David Gregory to Brian Williams, even throwing Al Roker under the bus. His contempt for all things NBC even led him to go after the show “Law & Order” this afternoon on his radio show for a supposed left-wing agenda. And tonight, he went after the hit NBC show “ER.” Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: NBC is taking a sharp turn to the left, not only in their news department, but also in their entertainment programming. Listen to this from ER.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We might have been responsible for the attack, obviously. We will do the...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can‘t even look at her.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think she‘s a role model?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not for me...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If Shakita (ph) needs a role model, she can turn on Oprah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, but what if Shakita wants to be secretary of state?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, then she can look up Madeleine Albright.
O‘REILLY: Now, that scene was completely unnecessary to the narrative in “ER.” It was thrown in there simply to demean Secretary Rice. This kind of thing is happening more at more at NBC, and these two men are the reason. Programming chief Jeff Zucker presides over both news and entertainment and supposedly answers to Robert Wright, although many believe Wright is on his way out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: So why has Bill O‘Reilly singled out NBC for rage? Here now is Bob Waldman. He‘s a senior fellow at the media watchdog group, Media Matters. And Bob Kohn, he‘s the author of “Journalistic Fraud.” Also, MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford. He‘s the author, appropriately enough, of “Attack the Messenger.”
Paul Waldman, let me begin with you. You studied Bill O‘Reilly for an outfit that Bill would say obviously leans left. Why is he obsessed with NBC? Why has he now expanded it beyond NBC News? Why is he now going after NBC Entertainment, when, of course, we could go after FOX Entertainment shows and movies all night that have their own liberal bias?
PAUL WALDMAN, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Well, maybe it‘s because his attacks on the NBC News division have become so ridiculous. And this all started when NBC decided that they were going to call the civil war in Iraq a civil war.
Now he‘s mad because an NBC reporter said that the execution of Saddam Hussein was a P.R. problem for the United States, which it is. And so what we find is, when people actually state the facts but they happen to be facts that don‘t reflect too well on the Bush administration, he calls it “liberal bias.” And there...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, hold on a second. You know what, though, Paul Waldman? What we have to point out, too, is if NBC News is biased, then the guy who‘s really my favorite columnist, Charles Krauthammer, who works for FOX News, who‘s won a Pulitzer Prize, who‘s been long-called one of the smartest conservatives, a neo-con, this is what he had to say also about the hanging.
He said, “It was a rushed, botched, unholy mess that exposed the hopelessly sectarian nature of the Maliki government.” And, of course, Krauthammer was one of the reasons why I supported this war from the beginning, Paul. And now he says the hanging has shown that this government in Iraq is not worth more troops.
Why doesn‘t Bill O‘Reilly go after the “Washington Post”? Why doesn‘t Bill O‘Reilly go after FOX News? They have Krauthammer on their payroll, don‘t they?
WALDMAN: Yes. And, you know, as they once said on “The Daily Show,” the facts have a well-known liberal bias. And I think this is the problem that Bill O‘Reilly has.
When things don‘t go well for the Bush administration, anybody who says that is obviously carrying water for the liberals or the Democrats, and so he‘s lashing out at NBC. But, you know, I noticed, Joe, that you challenged him to a debate, which he has not yet said that he‘s going to meet that challenge.
SCARBOROUGH: And, of course, here‘s my challenge. My challenge to Bill O‘Reilly, because he said there wasn‘t a single conservative at NBC News—I think Tucker Carlson and I would both disagree. And I said I would be very willing to debate Bill O‘Reilly anytime, any place, anywhere, and we can debate who the real conservative was and who the Republican suck-up was, because I‘m saying the same thing now that I was saying back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, when everybody was calling me a right-wing lunatic. I haven‘t changed; everybody else has.
WALDMAN: And, you know, Bill O‘Reilly likes to say that, if you attack somebody but you don‘t have the courage to face them, then you‘re a coward. He calls people cowards when they won‘t come on his show. He‘s attacked Media Matters. We‘ve asked to appear on his show to answer his charges. He won‘t do it. He‘s criticized NBC. You‘ve challenged him. He‘s not going to do it, because the fact is that the coward is Bill O‘Reilly.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I‘m not going to call him a coward, but I will say this: I‘ve always defended Bill O‘Reilly, and then he said that somehow NBC News, the people that I worked for, and myself, also, were aiding, basically, the enemy, that we were supporting the enemy when we called this thing a civil war.
Hey, I called Bosnia and Kosovo a civil war back in ‘95, ‘96, ‘97, and the sectarian violence in Iraq is at least as bad as the sectarian violence right now—as it was in Kosovo as it is now. Now, O‘Reilly tried to corner Andrea Mitchell into naming one conservative at NBC News. Take a look at this exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O‘REILLY: Can you tell me one conservative thinker at NBC News?
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: How do you define conservative?
O‘REILLY: Well, traditional values, maybe supports...
MITCHELL: Are you talking about commentators or are you talking about...
O‘REILLY: Anybody. Give me anybody. Is there anybody over there who‘s conservative, in your opinion?
MITCHELL: Yes, I think there are a lot of people who are...
O‘REILLY: Give me one!
MITCHELL: ... who are privately conservative or privately liberal.
O‘REILLY: Give me one.
MITCHELL: But we don‘t judge ourselves by how we approach the news.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘REILLY: OK, I just look at all your on-the-air talent in “The Today Show,” and I love those guys, all right? They‘re all liberal, every one of them.
MITCHELL: I disagree.
O‘REILLY: All right? They all admit they‘re liberal, Andrea. Have you asked Lauer, and Vieira, and Ann Curry? They‘ll admit they‘re liberal. And when Katie was there, she admitted she was liberal. Come on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Bob Kohn, can you name one conservative that‘s employed by NBC News?
BOB KOHN, AUTHOR: Joe Scarborough.
SCARBOROUGH: Thank you, buddy. Ding, ding, ding, ding, you win! Why is Bill O‘Reilly doing this? Is this really about the fact that he‘s very angry that he went after Keith Olbermann, Keith Olbermann went after him, and they started this feud that‘s going to make Keith Olbermann a very rich man?
KOHN: No, I think Bill O‘Reilly considers himself a media watchdog. And there are a lot of media watchdogs out there, like Media Matters. And when he sees something he doesn‘t like or where there‘s something that‘s biased, he calls them on the carpet.
I think it‘s very clear that NBC News has become—has been leaning to the left very sharply over the—particularly over the past six months. So he‘s just a media watchdog. And, by the way, Bill O‘Reilly...
SCARBOROUGH: Hold it.
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: No, you hold on.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, go ahead.
KOHN: OK, one sec, because a minute ago I think I heard you say that he never criticizes FOX Entertainment. Well, he has. As you remember, he highly criticizes FOX Entertainment for trying to put on that O.J. interview a few weeks ago.
You know, I was on this show saying that FOX Entertainment made a mistake, that Murdoch should have allowed that interview, because in the furtherance of the truth. You disagreed with that, but you and O‘Reilly agreed. And O‘Reilly made a public battle, and I think he was responsible for Murdoch‘s not showing that interview. And they dropped that O.J. Simpson book.
So O‘Reilly does criticize both sides. He does it all the time. And because he‘s criticizing NBC for being biased—he‘s done that against “The New York Times”—I think you‘re making a big deal, really, out of nothing here.
SCARBOROUGH: Making something out of nothing? The guy has basically said that we support terrorists in Iraq. I think it‘s very significant.
KOHN: No, look, I watched NBC News tonight, and Brian Williams this evening had a story about Bush‘s proposal to increase troops in Iraq. He had three experts on the air discussing that proposal; not one of those experts supported Bush‘s plan. They all were against it, so that‘s bias. There‘s no...
SCARBOROUGH: You know what, though? Here‘s the problem. Hold on a second. You know what, Bob Kohn? You and I for years have been attacking networks because they will take a position that 90 percent of Americans support and they‘ll always make sure that they get one person—if 90 percent of conservatives support it, they‘ll get one conservative then liberal supporting that 10 percent proposition.
And yet here we have a situation where a current “L.A. Times” poll—a recent “L.A. Times” poll shows only 12 percent of Americans support the Bush troop surge. Well, it‘s kind of hard to get somebody that‘s going to go on as an expert that‘s going to support this troop surge with...
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: Oh, come on, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Come on. Come on.
KOHN: Tell me that NBC News couldn‘t find one person in Washington, one expert who could have supported the Bush administration. Give me a break.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I guess the more important question is: Should they?
KOHN: Come on.
SCARBOROUGH: When you‘re talking about a surge where all five Joint Chiefs are opposed to it, and only 12 percent of Americans support it...
KOHN: Three of—no, that‘s not fair and balanced. You have three experts on. You can have one of them that supports it.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what? I will remember this, Bob, the next time we have a position where conservatives are on the side of 90 percent of the American population, and you complain because NBC News puts one liberal and one conservative on there.
KOHN: Yes, when the public supported the tax cuts, they were railing against the tax cuts. We‘re never going to see that happen. We‘re never going to see NBC News—Andrea Mitchell is completely wrong. You‘re never going to see fair and balanced at NBC News, particularly these days, because Brian Williams is losing out to Charles Gibson on ABC. His ratings are going down.
SCARBOROUGH: Losing out? My god. Give me a break. I mean, listen, I‘m not going to debate NBC‘s ratings. You can go on TV Newser every night and see how we do in the mornings, see how we do on “Meet the Press”...
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: Take a look at Brian Williams.
(CROSSTALK)
CRAIG CRAWFORD, COLUMNIST, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY”: The argument that I‘m hearing here is a classic example of trying to say that to be objective you have to be neutral. There‘s a very big difference between the two.
I mean, sometimes the truth is just not neutral, because somebody is hurt by it. Somebody gets hurt by the truth, and you can‘t be neutral. I mean, the objectivity is to present what is the facts of a story.
SCARBOROUGH: Craig Crawford, you‘ve worked here for 10 years, Craiger. Is NBC biased?
CRAWFORD: And to say NBC is being partisan because the news it‘s reporting is not favorable to the Republicans, because it‘s not neutral, doesn‘t mean that they‘re not being objective. Now...
KOHN: I didn‘t suggest that.
CRAWFORD: I worked for this channel. I‘ve worked for MSNBC for 10 years. I‘ve known lots of people at this channel. I‘ve talked to them many times off the air. I know plenty of people who are conservative or who are liberal.
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: Oh, come on. You‘re an NBC analyst. You‘re getting paid to do this.
CRAWFORD: You know, it‘s a phony argument. It‘s a red herring...
KOHN: You‘re getting paid. You‘re an NBC analyst.
(CROSSTALK)
CRAWFORD: ... to say that somebody is not objective because they‘re a liberal or because they‘re a conservative.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Bob...
CRAWFORD: And, you know, this guy doesn‘t even want to hear what somebody else has to say, which is typical.
KOHN: I want to see NBC News report the news and to at least give us fair and balanced experts telling us one side, why they think one person thinks it‘s a good policy, why another thinks it‘s a bad policy, and I‘ll make up my own mind.
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: ... NBC News had three experts on saying that they all think the policy is...
CRAWFORD: Not every story has two equal and opposite sides. And that‘s what you‘re arguing...
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: Day after day after day, that‘s what‘s going on. NBC is turning way to the left.
SCARBOROUGH: Day after day after day?
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: ... their ratings are going down. Yes, for years. Come on, Joe, you agree. You‘ve agreed, NBC, ABC, CBS...
SCARBOROUGH: The ratings are going—you know what? Not to blow our own horn, but if you go on TV Newser tonight and look at ratings, year to year—and I think it‘s the latest post—I think Olbermann is up 50 percent year to year. I‘m up 48 percent year to year. O‘Reilly is down 24 percent. All of the FOX shows are down over the past year. Who‘s going up and who‘s going down? I don‘t think it‘s a close call.
KOHN: Oh, a close call? Come on. O‘Reilly has 2.5 million viewers every night. Olbermann has what, 600,000?
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re the one that‘s talking about trends.
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: That‘s nearly five times the audience?
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Bob Kohn, no, but we‘re not talking about apples and oranges. You‘re talking about NBC News is losing right now because they‘re going liberal. What I‘m telling you is our ratings have gone up. “Meet the Press” is still the king on Sunday morning.
KOHN: I‘m not talking about “Meet the Press.” I‘m talking about Brian Williams.
SCARBOROUGH: “The Today Show” is the kind, and Brian Williams is still holding his own. He has been for quite some time.
KOHN: Just barely. Just barely. Charlie Gibson has been gaining on him.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, just barely, number one, just barely.
(CROSSTALK)
KOHN: You know. You have to admit it. Come on.
SCARBOROUGH: I‘ll end up with you, Paul. All right, Bob, we don‘t always agree, but we usually do, but tonight I just can‘t agree with you.
Paul Waldman, finally, the question is—because Bob Kohn said NBC News needed to be fair and balanced. Is Bill O‘Reilly fair and balanced?
WALDMAN: Oh, of course not.
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, Bill O‘Reilly said that he takes a position.
KOHN: Bill O‘Reilly is a commentator.
WALDMAN: And the fact is that NBC News isn‘t liberal. I mean, at Media Matters over the past two years, we‘ve located over 1,100 instances of conservative misinformation being passed through on NBC News. And NBC and MSNBC. And you have conservative hosts—you don‘t have any liberal hosts...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Now this is a liberal organization? Come on.
WALDMAN: That‘s a way of not dealing with an argument that you don‘t happen to like. And the fact that President Bush‘s voice is balanced by some people who disagree with President Bush is not liberal bias. That‘s the facts.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. We‘ve got to go. Bob Kohn, I‘m usually with you. You‘re usually on the side of the angels. Tonight, though, we knew that you were so powerful, we teamed up on you three to one, just to prove how liberal we really were. Well, I‘m a conservative, right? So I think it‘s two conservatives, two liberals. But you did a great job. I appreciate you being here tonight. Sorry to team up on you.
Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Craig Crawford. Greatly appreciate it.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10039
Sad: Scarborough Scampers to Defend NBC's Anti-Surge Bias [Video]
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on January 9, 2007 - 10:23.
Is there no bridge too far for Joe Scarborough to cross in defending charges of liberal bias against his NBC/MSNBC employers? On last night's Scarborough Country, Joe adopted a position so sycophantish, even Keith Olbermann might have been embarrassed by it.
Scarborough suggested that NBC News had done the right thing in assembling a panel on the Iraq surge composed exclusively of experts hostile to the President Bush's proposal. Scarborough's suggestion came in the course of a segment on Bill O'Reilly's revealing interview with Andrea Mitchell last week, during which he confronted her on NBC's liberal bias. Video: Real (4.3MB) or Windows (5MB) Plus MP3 (795 KB) Scarborough was debating the issue with the smart and plucky Bob Kohn, author of Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News. Scarborough had actually engaged in a bit of panel-packing of his own, with Kohn left to assert NBC's liberal bias alone against three others that denied it: Paul Waldman of the liberal Media Matters, MSNBC consultant Craig Crawford and of course Joe himself. Kohn kicked off the exchange with Joe this way:
"I watched NBC Nightly News, and Brian Williams this evening had a story about Bush's proposal to increase troops in Iraq. He had three experts on the air discussing that proposal. Not one of those experts supported Bush's plan. They all were against it. So that's bias."
Scarborough's first ploy was to assert that in light of weak public support for the surge "it's kind of hard to get somebody that's going to go on as an expert that's going to support a troop surge."
Kohn laughed that lame line out of the water: "Oh, come on, Joe. Tell me that NBC News couldn't find one person in Washington, one expert, who could have supported the administration. Give me a break."
Defeated on that notion, Scarborough hit a new low with this outlandish assertion: "I guess the more important question is: should they? When you're talking about a surge where all five Joint chiefs are opposed to it, where 12% of Americans support it?"
That's right. Self-proclaimed conservative Joe Scarborough suggested that NBC News did the right thing in assembling a panel on the surge that excluded any supporter of President Bush's proposal. What some guys will do for a paycheck. Joe, this is sad.
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at
Mark Finkelstein's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories: Scarborough Country | O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | Brian Williams | FNC | Foreign Policy | Iraq | Joe Scarborough | Media Bias Debate | MSNBC | NBC | NBC Nightly News
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16541963/
'Tucker' for Jan. 8
Read the transcript to the Monday show
Guests: Jonathan Alter, Jack Jacobs, Ellen Tauscher, Amy Argetsinger
CARLSON: Jack Jacobs, in addition to being a decorated soldier and a veteran of corporate America, you‘re also a student of human behavior. And I wonder what you make of the meltdown occurring in public of Bill O‘Reilly. I want to play you a clip. This is an interview that he did with NBC‘s Andrea Mitchell. It comes after a number of years of needling from Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann has set out to drive Bill O‘Reilly crazy, and apparently he succeeded. Take a look at this clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You‘re entitled to your public and private beliefs, you are. And I don‘t have any quibble with that. But if it‘s all one way, if it‘s all of them across the board, then I‘m saying where is the diversity?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So Andrea Mitchell goes on. That doesn‘t quite capture the intensity of this interview. She goes on his show to sell her book. Right in the middle of it he starts going crazy about NBC News is bad. Here‘s my question to you, if year after year you‘re being needled, right, so Keith Olbermann is trying to get under his skin, aren‘t you wise to resist and try to ignore it and not take the bait?
JACOBS: Well, it depends on what you‘re after. If you‘re after people standing around a water cooler saying that you, Bill O‘Reilly, are really a cool guy and you‘re even tempered and intelligent, and all the rest of that stuff, well, of course you hold back. But at the end of the day if what you‘re after is viewers, then you—then you go by the old adage that says that any publicity is good publicity, and the more of a lunatic you act like, the greater the likelihood is that people will be watching you next time around. So there is a little bit of showmanship in all of this.
ALTER: He has got a book out, Tucker.
CARLSON: I think in the end it helps MSNBC. I think Bill O‘Reilly has helped this network quite a bit, Jonathan Alter, don‘t you? And why don‘t the people at Fox, who are very smart, and some of them—no, I‘m not a huge fan of the network, but some of them are decent, and some of them actually are intelligent people. Why don‘t they say to Bill O‘Reilly, stop, don‘t respond.
ALTER: They can‘t. they tried to say that to him, Tucker, when he sued Al Franken. Do you remember that whole thing? They said to him you have no case, Bill. Don‘t sue. It just gives Al Franken publicity. He wouldn‘t listen. He is like the Macy‘s Day blimp, balloon in one of those parades. He is so full of himself, he is so inflated. It‘s coming out of his ears, he is so full of it, that they can‘t possibly bring him down to earth.
So, he‘s going to do this and it‘s going to help Keith. I think it‘s great for “COUNTDOWN,” it‘s great for MSNBC. He keeps feeding it. His numbers keep going down. Keith‘s numbers keep going up. The status quo is great for MSNBC.
JACOBS: You know, this has developed over a period of time. This developed over a period of time when O‘Reilly first popped on Fox. I think it was 18 months to three years before he had any ratings that were larger than those that are usually reserved for watching a test pattern. Roger Al (ph) stuck with him because he thought eventually the bombast would take hold. It did, but, you know, there is a finite life to everything. It is great news for Keith and for MSNBC.
Analyzing O'Reilly
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=46D44A0C-B242-4A1A-AE2C-53AEC8A0955D&f=00&fg= (09:40)
Here is the transcript of this video, this is a very interesting dialogue in my opinion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16561139/
'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 9
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
SCARBOROUGH: Coming up next: Bill O‘Reilly says that NBC reporters‘ body language -
oh, there I go again, right—that‘s my right hand—proves we‘re liberal. Well, we‘re actually going to break down Bill‘s body language to see what we uncover.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARYN STARK, PSYCHOANALYST: I‘m obsessed with this point about being a liberal and I‘m going to let you know, and I‘m going to use my fingers for emphasis. And I‘m going to make a lot of noise and a lot of fury about nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: So do O‘Reilly‘s actions prove his attack on NBC is full of hot air? We‘re going to show you what Bill‘s saying tonight and ask our expert what he really means...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: It‘s official, Bill O‘Reilly is obsessed. The Fox News “culture warrior” has been on an absolute rampage against NBC, MSNBC, and all things peacock recently, claiming that this network has taken a dramatic turn to the left. He even brought on NBC‘s Andrea Mitchell last week and tried to get her to confess to NBC‘s deep-rooted Bush-hating. But when one of Washington‘s most respected journalists stood her ground, O‘Reilly continued those attacks, this time by bringing in a body language expert. Here‘s what O‘Reilly had to say just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O‘REILLY, HOST, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”: I was basically putting forth that NBC News has gone left big-time and there really isn‘t anybody over there who‘s a conservative thinker. It‘s pretty simple.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Well, we decided to bring our own expert in, psychotherapist Caryn Stark, to analyze Bill O‘Reilly‘s body language and figure out what‘s behind his obsession with NBC. This is what we learned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARYN STARK, PSYCHOANALYST: He‘s making emphasis. He‘s screaming. And he starts flailing his hands around, and that‘s typical primate behavior, that shows that, This is my territory, I‘m protecting it. What he‘s doing with his finger right now, if you want to freeze that for a second—that‘s saying, I‘m making my point, I‘m angry. And that‘s rage. OK, you can continue.
Oh, I love that one! If you could freeze what he just did with his fingers and the way that he wiped them across his eyes? What he‘s telling you there is, I‘m clearing the plate, I‘m really looking at this, but don‘t take me very seriously.
He obsesses about his point. He mentions liberal. You‘re going to see it again. There you go, over and over again. I‘m obsessed with this point about being a liberal and I‘m going to let you know, and I‘m going to use my fingers for emphasis, and I‘m going to make a lot of noise and a lot of fury about nothing.
So I don‘t think we have to pay too much attention to what he‘s doing because he‘s enjoying himself and he‘s doing a lot of, Here‘s my territory, and I‘m going to protect it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: You know, this is all so new to me. Very enlightening. So why is Bill O‘Reilly obsessed with NBC and the peacock, and where will this war lead? Here now, John Fund, he is a columnist for “The Wall Street Journal,” and MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford. He‘s the author of the book, “Attack the Messenger.”
Craig, we have been seeing these Bill O‘Reilly teases all day, that he‘s going to look at Andrea Mitchell‘s body language and prove that we‘re all liberals. What, my friend, is behind Bill O‘Reilly‘s obsession with NBC? Why are we the latest enemy on “The Factor‘s” list?
CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:
You know, this guy, he‘s like the Evil Knievel of TV news. I mean, he‘s based everything on stunts, you know, and once you do that, you got to have a new stunt every night. So I guess we‘ll have ouija boards next.
I mean, look, this is an old formula for Bill O‘Reilly, is to take on a network—he was after CBS for years, and CBS—I guess that got tired and so now it‘s NBC. He‘s based a show on hating somebody. I mean, he‘s built an audience of people who want to hear that, and he delivers every night and it‘s all about hate. It‘s like any other addiction, you know, you got to feed the habit.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, John Fund, you‘ve been on this show a good bit. You know that I usually side with Bill O‘Reilly. At least—if I don‘t side with him, at least I defend him. But a body language expert? I mean, has this guy completely lost it?
JOHN FUND, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: It‘s a slow news period for politics. I guess you got to fill it with something.
SCARBOROUGH: It is?
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: A slow—this is about as hot and significant as it gets!
FUND: A lot of cable news doesn‘t want to cover the significant issues. That goes for all channels.
CRAWFORD: Well, Fox doesn‘t want to cover the Iraq war. That‘s been pretty clear.
FUND: No, no. They do cover it. But there‘s a point to what Bill has to say about bias. Let‘s look at your last segment, Joe. You started out by saying that 61 percent of the American people oppose the president‘s plan to increase troops. Then you went to a multiple-choice poll, and you said that showed 88 percent oppose the president‘s plan.
You‘re a former congressman. You read polls. You know that‘s not quite the way you do it. It‘s like me saying the morning after the president‘s speech, when his support will temporarily go up, that that represents lasting public.
SCARBOROUGH: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: ... John Fund...
FUND: Regardless of whether it‘s 61 or 88, you had three guests, they all oppose the president‘s plan. You oppose the president‘s plan. I count that as four to nothing.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, first of all...
CRAWFORD: You know, here‘s—here‘s what...
SCARBOROUGH: No, hold on a second. I need to defend myself.
FUND: Four to nothing!
SCARBOROUGH: First of all, John, you don‘t—John, you don‘t know whether I defend the president‘s surge plan or not. You also...
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: You know you‘re opposed to it! It‘s four to nothing!
SCARBOROUGH: You do not know whether I‘m opposed to that plan or not.
I‘ll talk to you about it after the show. Patrick Buchanan actually supports the surge plan.
FUND: No, he—he just said it would be a disaster! He opposed...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no. He didn‘t. OK, well, John, you need to listen a little more closely. And look, again, I know you‘re a fair guy. When you read the transcript tomorrow, you‘ll know what he‘s saying is, pulling out of Iraq is a disaster...
FUND: No, no! He said...
SCARBOROUGH: ... because it‘s going to cause...
FUND: He said it probably wouldn‘t work...
SCARBOROUGH: ... problems throughout the region.
FUND: He said it probably wouldn‘t work and it would be a disaster for Iraq.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, well, listen, trust me...
FUND: It‘s four to nothing!
SCARBOROUGH: Pat Buchanan has been fighting the president‘s fight, even though he opposed this war from the beginning, from the very—at least for the past several months. But again, John, getting back to the point of Bill—well, first of all, are you saying I‘m biased? Are you saying I‘m liberal? You‘ve known me for a very long time.
FUND: There‘s a point about what Bill O‘Reilly is saying about all of the networks...
SCARBOROUGH: But you‘re talking about me.
FUND: ... and Andrea Mitchell—Andrea Mitchell...
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think I‘m biased?
FUND: I think you‘re a host with an analytical point of view that‘s trying to get the best out of your guests, so a lot of what you do is stir the pot.
SCARBOROUGH: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Here are the facts, though. Hold on a second. I‘ve got to point...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I‘ll get to you, Craig, in a second. But 12 percent of Americans told “The LA Times” three weeks ago that they supported this surge, 12 percent of the Americans told “USA Today” they support that surge. Now...
FUND: You yourself...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: ... Alabama, but that also means...
FUND: You yourself reported a poll...
SCARBOROUGH: ... that 88 percent...
FUND: ... that showed 38 percent...
SCARBOROUGH: ... of Americans oppose it.
FUND: ... support it. You yourself...
SCARBOROUGH: The surge?
FUND: You yourself showed a poll...
SCARBOROUGH: There‘s another...
FUND: ... saying 38 percent supported increasing the president‘s plan for troops.
SCARBOROUGH: They‘re different polls.
CRAWFORD: Joe, you...
SCARBOROUGH: There‘s one that says—wait a second. Go ahead, Craig...
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Make up your mind!
CRAWFORD: Joe showed a poll last night about how the majority of the people, an overwhelming majority, think the Democrats...
FUND: The point is...
CRAWFORD: ... have no plan.
(CROSSTALK)
CRAWFORD: ... point that John‘s making about the equality of results here. You know, I‘ve always bought the conservative argument in social programs that equality of opportunity should be provided, not equality of results. That‘s always been the arguments against quotas. I always find these conservative media bashers want to turn that around when they talk about the press. It‘s a quota system they want.
FUND: No!
CRAWFORD: For every person on this side, you got to have that side.
You know, the truth is not always neutral. I mean, many times there is a consensus view, and that‘s what objective journalism is about, finding the truth. And you don‘t have equal, opposite sides on every single argument. And in this particular case, the troop surge—it‘s very difficult in this town to find somebody who‘s going to come and actually argue in favor of the surge of troops.
FUND: I can give you...
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, John...
FUND: I can give you 30 members of Congress. I can give you the names of them right now.
CRAWFORD: And they‘re on the air.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, but there are actually 535 members of Congress, though.
FUND: I can give you 30 names off the top of my head!
CRAWFORD: But I mean, this is the kind of argument that—you know, I mean, you say that every time we talk about evolution, we have to talk about intelligent design.
FUND: Oh...
CRAWFORD: This is what‘s been pushed upon the media now. They‘ve been bullying the media for so long on this idea that neutrality is the same as objectivity.
FUND: What you‘re describing is bias!
SCARBOROUGH: And John Fund, I want to show you this—hold on a second.
FUND: You‘re describing bias!
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on! I want to clarify this again because, again, John, as you know, we‘re usually on the same side. We‘re not on this one. This is the Gallup poll out today. How many people support sending more troops? Twelve percent of Americans. Twelve percent of Americans, which, if you add up the other numbers again, that‘s fairly close to 85 percent of Americans.
So the suggestion, John, that somehow I‘m being biased because I have the same concerns that over 80 percent of Americans and a heck of a lot of Republicans, a heck of a lot of conservatives have—to somehow suggest that I‘m stacking this against the president or that NBC somehow is on the far left fringe of American political thought just isn‘t accurate, is it.
FUND: Joe, once again, you showed two polls. One showed 38 percent support for the president‘s plan. Then you took that down to 12. Any poll can be manufactured...
SCARBOROUGH: I didn‘t take...
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Yes, you...
SCARBOROUGH: What do you mean, any poll—I didn‘t take that down to 12! That‘s the Gallup poll. I wish I had that much power.
FUND: Joe, what was the first poll you showed? It showed 61 to 38.
Was that true or not? That‘s the first poll you showed.
SCARBOROUGH: I don‘t...
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Then you had this garden-variety poll which broke it up into six different categories and you got it down to 12 percent. I‘ll make you a prediction. After the president‘s speech, and it may be a temporary boost, on Thursday morning and Friday and Saturday, the president‘s—support for the president‘s plan is going to go up. You yourself said he‘s going to pain the Democrats into a corner. So let‘s not depend on polls as to whether or not we have one person representing the president‘s point of view on these programs. You had four people on that segment. None of them support the president‘s surge plan.
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re wrong. John, thank you for being with us. Craig Crawford, thank you for being with us.
CRAWFORD: You bet.
SCARBOROUGH: I disagree with you, John, this time, but we will see what happens.
"left/right" but is really about "a neoconservative war fought by strange ideologues" as is mentioned in the transcript below!
If the media can hit that point home and connect with it, then the chances will be much better that the GOP Neocons will lose in 2008 because most people in the country who are in the mainstream will NOT buy that crazy ideology anymore in my opinion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16385321/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Dec. 28
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
Updated: 6:45 p.m. CT Dec 28, 2006
Guests: Barry Werth, David Gergen, John McCaslin, Karen Hanretty, John Harwood
MATTHEWS: I don‘t think it‘s left/right anymore. I think when you hear people like President Ford, as you‘ve pointed, chime in posthumously, and people like Bill Buckley—William F. Buckley and George Will, I don‘t hear a lot of traditional conservative support for the war.
HANRETTY: Chris, I totally agree that Republicans are starting...
MATTHEWS: No, traditional Republicans would never have brought us into this war. This a neoconservative war.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Karen, this is a neoconservative war fought by strange ideologues with their own strange objectives. This is not a party, a Republican Party that would have supported this war traditionally. Ronald Reagan would not have taken us over there. Gerry Ford would not have taken us over there. I don‘t know which Republican president would have led us into the desert, put the American Army stuck in Iraq. Only one president did that with the help of Dick Cheney and the neocons.
We‘ll be right back with Ron Regan—Ron Reagan and Karen Hanretty.
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)