Bush (merge x4)

[Arc-Light]

Read "the obvious" as "the same opinion I have on issues that I don't know all that much about"

Yet it still makes sense.....even if some dont like to hear it.

 

[Superman4ever]

I've only watched this guy once before, but after that load of bias opinion, he still calls himself a journalist?

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it unprofessional. That's childish. Again, Edward Murrow, Walter Cronkite, who are pretty much "the bar" when it comes to journalism all had commentary.

Moreover, all his "bias opinion" are supported by proven facts.

 

[bell110]

But he does call them "pin heads". t:

Give O'Reilly credit for at least having people on his show that he will debate.

Olberman only has people on who agree with him. What's he scared of?

O'Reilly debates with people who are no good at debating. And if someone does bring up a valid point, he switchs the subject. He's does nothing but verbally bully people.

 

[Superman4ever]

O'Reilly debates with people who are no good at debating. And if someone does bring up a valid point, he switchs the subject. He's does nothing but verbally bully people.

And if he gets someone credible on a topic, he over shouts them and simply cuts there mics when he's had enough or feels slightly threatened.

 

[MetalloX]

Olberman is an *******.

Its funny how the very people that bash O'Reilly - whose style is far less biased, aggressive and immature than Olberman - are the very ones that salute Keith.

A moron on the fascist right hates olberman.
Big suprise.

 

[Superman4ever]

A moron on the facsist right hates olberman,Big suprise.

Damn...ouch!

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Read "the obvious" as "the same opinion I have on issues that I don't know all that much about"

read " I don't know that much about" as " hold a view different from stormin norman's"

 

[kronos251]

Another political pundit.........

 

[That'ssuper!]

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it unprofessional. That's childish. Again, Edward Murrow, Walter Cronkite, who are pretty much "the bar" when it comes to journalism all had commentary.

Moreover, all his "bias opinion" are supported by proven facts.

Childish, how bout sattirical, doesn't immature to me. By the way, I disagree with it because:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
jour·nal·ism

/ˈdʒɜr

nlˌɪz

əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jur-nl-iz-uh

m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.


Nowhere in there does that involve commentary, which is bias, only reporting, the man is not a journalist.

 

[Superman4ever]

Childish, how bout sattirical, doesn't immature to me. By the way, I disagree with it because:

You might want to try less gibberish next time.

And your definition of Journalism applies to many journalist/news station then. From CNN to Fox to Sky, there's bias every, especially since MAJOR corporations (pushing there agenda for their business) control them.

what was your definition again?

jour·nal·ism /ˈdʒɜrnlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jur-nl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.

Good luck in life!

EDIT: Just for fun, the other definition of Journalism (from the same source)?

4. writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.

Olbermann IS a journalist. He's expressing the views of many people across the world, that Bush is a BAD president and he brought facts to back his claim.

 

[Addendum]

Again, the last segment of his show sometimes has his "special comment" otherwise known as an editorial. It doesn't negate the segments that preceded it, which was news reports with a discussion after the reports.

Edward R. Murrow sometimes gave a commentary when it was warranted, such as those he gave which were directed at Senator McCarthy. Walter Cronkite would also give a commentary at the end, if it was regarding a news story that he felt merited it.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Nowhere in there does that involve commentary, which is bias, only reporting, the man is not a journalist.

I take it you've never heard of op-ed? The "Special Comment" at the bottom-left corner probably wasn't there just for the hell of it.

As for Olbermann himself, yeah he has biases, I won't deny that. But, unlike another "reporter" on FOX news, he seems to actually use some verifyable evidence and support rather than ignorance and distortion.

I think "fascist" might not be the most correct term (I like Jmspice's alternative of "extremist), but he does throw out some good questions.

If the telephone companies' cooperation with the government was lawful, then why do they need emmunity?

If thier domestic spying network was so vital to the safety of the American people, why was Bush willing to let it die unless the House accepts it?

That's what I got from this anyway. I would be curious to see if those who disagree could answer those questions.

 

[That'ssuper!]

You might want to try less gibberish next time.

And your definition of Journalism applies to many journalist/news station then. From CNN to Fox to Sky, there's bias every, especially since MAJOR corporations (pushing there agenda for their business) control them.

what was your definition again?

jour·nal·ism /ˈdʒɜrnlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jur-nl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.

Good luck in life!

EDIT: Just for fun, the other definition of Journalism (from the same source)?

4. writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.

True, but when it states as a business its referring that they operate for it as a career, but not as a group pressing for their agenda.

The second definition applies in quoting a popular slant as part of research, not giving commentary as opinion directly to an audience.

 

[Addendum]

You've never before heard of journalists giving an editorial? That concept has never crossed your mind?

 

[That'ssuper!]

You've never before heard of journalists giving an editorial? That concept has never crossed your mind?

When he includes it in the middle of a factual story while not stating it is commentary, he is giving opinion disguised as a true occuring story. Of course, there are exceptions when he does state it after ten minutes of commentary. This is not journalists for a formal media have a opinion section to a newspaper to share its views, journalisitic media follows the idea of unbiased reporting of fact. This is why so many coorperate news media have talk shows, so they can include clearly biased opinion. Newspapers even have a place designated for movie, political, public reviews etc.

Plus from watching clips of his broadcasts on YouTube for the "Worst Person in the World" countdown commonly targets members of other news media for opinions he disagrees on rather than using logical fact. Glenn Beck of CNN and Bill O-Reilly of Fox News seem to be "discussed" more than criminals each day. A journalist is unbiased and judgemental in reporting a story, what Obermann does seems to be targeting individiuals and passing it off as part of news. He does not insert any statement that this list is his opinion, but rather assumes it to be fact. I found a clip from that weird guy Glenn Beck's show where for once he actually uses fact and proves that Olbermann's broadcast did little research to prove a statement was true, when his program jumped to conclusions in the same countdown I mentioned. You can't call him a journalist still when he attacks others with using little logic (as in specifically quoted fact), but rather pathological (as in pathos) arguments.

Let me see if I can find the clip...

 

[gap5ewl]

Kieth has some good points but when you do think about it, he is the liberal version of Bill O'Reilly.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

When he includes it in the middle of a factual story while not stating it is commentary, he is giving opinion disguised as a true occuring story. Of course, there are exceptions when he does state it after ten minutes of commentary. This is not journalists for a formal media have a opinion section to a newspaper to share its views, journalisitic media follows the idea of unbiased reporting of fact. This is why so many coorperate news media have talk shows, so they can include clearly biased opinion. Newspapers even have a place designated for movie, political, public reviews etc.

Plus from watching clips of his broadcasts on YouTube for the "Worst Person in the World" countdown commonly targets members of other news media for opinions he disagrees on rather than using logical fact. Glenn Beck of CNN and Bill O-Reilly of Fox News seem to be "discussed" more than criminals each day. A journalist is unbiased and judgemental in reporting a story, what Obermann does seems to be targeting individiuals and passing it off as part of news. He does not insert any statement that this list is his opinion, but rather assumes it to be fact. I found a clip from that weird guy Glenn Beck's show where for once he actually uses fact and proves that Olbermann's broadcast did little research to prove a statement was true, when his program jumped to conclusions in the same countdown I mentioned. You can't call him a journalist still when he attacks others with using little logic (as in specifically quoted fact), but rather pathological (as in pathos) arguments.

Let me see if I can find the clip...

SPECIAL.

COMMENT.

I'm sorry, man, but it's kinda obvious.

 

[That'ssuper!]

SPECIAL.

COMMENT.

I'm sorry, man, but it's kinda obvious.

Of course, there are exceptions when he does state it after ten minutes of commentary.

Like I said, there are exceptions .

 

[StorminNorman]

read " I don't know that much about" as " hold a view different from stormin norman's"

I think I am actually one of the most tolerant ones on this board.

 

[Addendum]

Of course, there are exceptions when he does state it after ten minutes of commentary.

Like I said, there are exceptions .

ah.

So you got nothing

 

[C.F. Kane]

You know, I was reading that piece where a man watches punditry for 24 hours (I posted it in another thread). This Olbermann piece was one of the things he commented on.

 

[Kelly]

A moron on the fascist right hates olberman.
Big suprise.

You are pushing it on this forum, chill out.

 

[Matt]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/house-panel-tak.html

I hate the idea of the Congress using impeachment for political gain, as it would keep going back and forth every time a president and Congress were not of the same party which is why I have been against it to this point. But I honestly do not see another option...

White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton and FORMER White House Counsel (who is now a private citizen) have both refused to comply with subpeonas to testify before Congress regarding the firing of several US attornies for political reasons. These were valid subpeonas and within the right of Congress. Congress in turn filed contempt charges against them. And the Bush administration and their Attorney General Michael Mukasey have refused to carry out the contempt charges.

I honestly do not see what other option there is. President Bush is blocking legitiment legal Congressional investigations into the shady dealings of his administration and is essentially leading to a show down between Congress and the Executive Branch in the Courts...and if the Courts rule against him, what will he do? Say "So what? Who will enforce it?" The Courts have neither the power of the sword or the purse.

I do not see any other option but impeachment as nothing is getting through to this President. When he is publically ignoring his obligation to enforce the law as our Chief Executive...and not only that, but aiding and abetting the criminal action of ignoring a subpeona...he is spitting in the face of The Constitution and the oath he took to uphold it.

I honestly think it is time for impeachment because this is a scenario when it SHOULD be used (unlike the Clinton fiasco or even the war...which Congress also agreed to).

 

[The Senator]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/house-panel-tak.html

I hate the idea of the Congress using impeachment for political gain, as it would keep going back and forth every time a president and Congress were not of the same party...but I honestly do not see another option...

White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton and FORMER White House Counsel (who is now a private citizen) have both refused to comply with subpeonas to testify before Congress regarding the firing of several US attornies for political reasons. These were valid subpeonas and within the right of Congress. Congress in turn filed contempt charges against them. And the Bush administration and their Attorney General Michael Mukasey have refused to carry out the contempt charges.

I honestly do not see what other option there is. President Bush is blocking legitiment legal Congressional investigations into the shady dealings of his administration and is essentially leading to a show down between Congress and the Executive Branch in the Courts...and if the Courts rule against him, what will he do? Say "So what? Who will enforce it?" The Courts have neither the power of the sword or the purse.

I do not see any other option but impeachment as nothing is getting through to this President. When he is publically ignoring his obligation to enforce the law as our Chief Executive...and not only that, but aiding and abetting the criminal action of ignoring a subpeona...he is spitting in the face of The Constitution and the oath he took to uphold it.

I honestly think it is time for impeachment because this is a scenario when it SHOULD be used (unlike the Clinton fiasco or even the war...which Congress also agreed to).

There is a seemingly endless list of reasons why Bush deserves to be impeached, from warrant-less wiretapping to his decision to prevent friends like Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from testifying. This is just another incident to add to the list, and unfortunately Congress won't do anything about it.

 

[Marx]

Unlike a decade ago, this Congress isn't out for a headhunt. I highly doubt that they will impeach him, what would be the point? Bush and Cheney have no regard for anything or anyone anyway.