Is Keith Olbermann the Next Edward R. Murrow?

he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ed Murrow would have taken on the neocons and the rest of the Israeli lobby.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being born at the end of the Eisenhower administration, I have no recollection of Murrow, so I cannot say whether or not Keith is the new Murrow. But I do watch and appreciate Countdown, tongue in cheek and all. The show presents itself IMO as a parody of countdown lists, with a healthy dose of anti-Bush, anti-Republican critique. His 'Special Comments' are the best thing on "news-like" tv, as evidenced by the snippet included in the article. I watch the show for its 'newsiness' factor, though I do consider it 'advocacy' journalism. From borrowing Murrow's tag line to co-opting David Letterman's toss at the camera, I choose to consider it 'homage', rather than blatant thievery. He may not be the new Murrow, but we need more Keith Olbermans on television.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just playing devils advocate...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The networks are an anachronism run by stupid, soul-less ambition freaks with one thing in mind, and it ain't quality information for the masses.

Olberman wouldn't last ten minutes in such an environment and should build his audience on cable along with Stuart and Colbert as the new news paradigm. We can read the rest online.

Network news died at the hands of the infotainment specialists under a corporate mandate of dumbing down those already stupid enough to think that they were getting something "news" worthy.

In the age of "on demand", who needs "the networks"?

F'em.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great piece! The best way to describe Keith Olbermann (in my opinion anyway) would be as a cross between Edward R. Murrow and Ernie Kovacs. That puts it perfectly.

Good luck to Dan Rather in his law suit against the one-time "Tiffany Network". The man took a stand and paid a heavy price - just as Edward R. Murrow did fifty-two years earlier.What George Clooney's recent movie bio on Murrow failed to depict was the fact that his famous March 1954 broadcast that exposed the lies of Joe McCarthy was, for all intents and purposes, the beginning of the end of hia career at CBS. In 1960, bitter and frustrated, he left the industry that he and Fred Friendly literally invented and went to work for the Kennedy administration as the head of the US Information Agency. He died of lung cancer on April 27, 1965 at the age of fifty-seven.

Have the execs at Black Rock even seen the Clooney film? If they haven't, they probably should. We all should. It is a cautionary tale for our own times as well. In 1954, there was only one Joe McCarthy. Today, the congress, the White House and the main stream media are riddled with Joe McCarthys. They have hijacked our national conversation.

The best way to end this little posting of mine would be to quote Murrow himself:

"This instrument [Television] can teach, it can illuminate, yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extant that human beings are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it's nothing more than lights and wires in a box."

Thank Heavens for Keith Olbermann!

Good night and good luck.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm amazed that the Bush storm-troopers in the corporate media have not shut Mr. Olbermann up or shut him down. Maybe, just maybe, we have some freedom left after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this article raises great ideas, but is flawed in that it continues the myth of Murrow. Interesting that when the CIA declassified 4 years ago th truth about Joe McCarthy (turns out he was not only correct, but the first government whistle blower) it caused no books, articles, zip, zero. In fact in the new issue of the STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE CIA magazine, it is revealed that the lack of response from the media and academia led to the decision to release The Family Jewels files.

Murrow was rewarded for his role in bringing down Joe with a plum CIA assignment in Latin America. Then he he ended up in JFK's White House plotting the murder of Castro.

The CIA revealed the question no one on the left or right ever asked....I guess they were all too busy pontificating and spinning to ask- where did McCarthy get his list of names from?

Before I die I hope someone, somewhere actually reads the CIA admissions ( they call it THE CIA VS McCARTHY WARS, not the red scare or any such nonsense).

The CIA has even confessed to ruining a Senator, creating a false reality, creating propaganda here- all against their charter.

The files also reveal that most of our major news services, were set up by OSS.

This is not a major revision of the article here. I guess its only a footnote to the message of the story. But it would be nice before I die for writers to acknowledge the CIA's dirty tricks campaign, and how easily they manipulated what we call, reality.

They even have the story of what really happened- ON THEIR WEBSITE.

Can truth come before the illusions we cling to? Maybe someday. Maybe someday.......

CIA Admits It Framed McCarthy To Save It's Butt

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Travel in the Mid-west and many of the local cable systems offer CNN and FOX but neglect to offer MSNBC. Having had a fire, I'm temporarily on local cable rather than my DISH and have lost my news. There is so little truth on the networks, that KO sounds like radical opinion in comparison, while I perfer to remember my conservative grandparents opinions on life and hear the similiarities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just because Olbermann "takes on" the current administrations policies, launches personal attacks against the President (granted, easy to do), does not put him anywhere near the same league as Edward R. Murrow.

Murrow was ground breaking and his analysis was thought provoking. Olbermann is not nothing more than the “left wing” copy of Shawn Hanniety, with a little comic value!.

Expressing an opinion does not necessarily give you credibility.

Our standards should be higher than this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

His eloquent Special Comments are, by far, the most informative and justifiably outraged responses to Bush*t& Co's attempts to distort and destroy our democracy. Mr. O and Bill Moyer are (and will be remembered as) the light givers and bell ringers of our time.
MSNBC's Countdown program with Mr. O has become THE must watch program on television and in our household. We write him weekly and give our thanks for his courage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was August 30, 2006 and the subject was Donald Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion the day before. In his comment, Keith took Mr. Rumsfeld apart and displayed for everyone just what confused assemblage of dishonesty, arrogance, sadism and denial the man is. And he was only representative of an administration made of the same stuff that is exponentially more dangerous.

Anyway, as I sat watching Keith speak to the camera, I felt for the first time in nearly 40 years that what I was hearing and seeing was a direct reflection of what was fomenting in my own brain. Even more encouraging than his words, however, is the fact that there is a receptive and expnding audience for them. Who knows how long this Olbermann Era will last on television, corporate considerations being what they often are (and he is employed by a corporation after all) it could end abruptly. I hope it doesn't, because he speaks to and for an audience that seldom has such an intimate connection through the medium. And I can't help but believe that the longer he remains available, the larger that audience will grow and the more empowered it will become and perhaps this little cable news show will play a significant role in effecting some badly needed cultural change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not until Olbermann's hour is on actual network-news, and not cable. As ubiquitous as it may seem, cable is still a relative luxury, and Olbermann's image reflects this class-structure more than Edward Murrow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I admire K.O. and the way he delivers the news makes me equally as passionate about how he feels. I have a few criticisms, but fist Katie...

On the other hand, Katie Couric is uninspiring, even insulting, especially when she delivers the medicine of the day, followed by pharmaceutical company ads. She is part of the white male club that controls and packages news like its the lastest gadget we should buy. Many women in power are forced to be part of the club, otherwise they would not be offered $15 million contracts. She plays by the rules.

Olbermann doesn't play by all the rules, but he is still much apart of the system he so passionately tries to distance himself from. Like all news programs, it's not what they say, but what they don't say that matters. There are certain voices that are not invited to speak on Olbermann's program, like any voice that might question how far Olbermann's politics go.

Olbermann is a neo-liberal, deeply entrenched in Billary Clinton libertarian economic politics. If he'd take a stand on single-payer universal (Medicare for all) health care and attack so called "free trade" it would make him more of a people's anchor than a lackey for weak Democrats.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That doesn't prevent him from being a pillar of journalism in his own right -- if he'd just stop pretending he's Murrow, he'd be way ahead of the game.

And as long as he's ending every night with a Brittney or OJ or whatever distraction story is currently in vogue he'll be more an entertainer than a journalist. The opportunity cost of this frivolity is enormous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need good honest news reporting and we also need commentary. We MUST know the difference (paraphrased). Combining the two has gotten us into trouble. O'Reilly and Olbermann are NOT news reporters. I much prefer Olbermann because he tells me what he thinks, and it's alot like what I think. I don't like O'Reilly. Another important difference. Comments and lies are not the same. Good old news reporting is all but gone. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have plenty of useless commentary on FoxNews. I don't think that's what sets Olbermann apart. What makes Olbermann, Morrow, and Cronkite worth watching is their adherence to relevance and striving for truth. It's clear from all the consultants that what Curic is striving for is ratings.

We need news whose purpose is to reveal truth and inform the public on matters that help us be better citizens. News succeeds when it fulfills that function. Commentary is important -- but public service is the point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To suggest that we dispose of the idea of objective journalism in favor of some alternative system of 'news advocacy' is to engage in the same race to the bottom that gave us Fox News and the new CNN. Certainly the CBS news might be more entertaining with a few puppet shows and scripted outrage but the idea of it seems off purpose from getting people information they need.

As for Olbermann being the next Murrow, I am certain that he would be flattered to hear the comparison, but it is simply inappropriate. Murrow worked in a time when people listened to or watched the news and read the newspapers. His comments were contextualized within an arena of facts. Olbermann is not so lucky. He is but another sideshow in the cable news circus, providing us with the alternating comedy and tragedy that we find so enticing.

To suggest the evening news follow the cable news lead, and generate more entertainment appeal in their 'product' might sound attractive when its our guy in the anchor's chair, but what happens when the other networks catch on and place O'Rieley opposite him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love K.O. I enjoy his show profusely, and find him completely correct on the vast majority of occasions. But shifting to a format of analysis is incredibly dangerous. Specialized shows on narrowcast networks is a safe place for this sort of thing to occur, but we must remember that National Networks are, by definition, Conservative. Conservative agendas, ideals, propaganda, and policies time and time again tend to benefit corporations. We all know that Republicans and conservatives in congress prefer to pass laws to help corporations and not people, that's where the money is.

Therefore, peeling back the thin red veil of objective news coverage invites a widespread increase of the practice in which the likes of Fox News so readily and publicly engages: Sending memos on what to cover and how to cover it. In an age where people still get the bulk of their news from the 'Nightly News,' whatever network on which it may air, we are inviting a conservative slant to everything. This sort of thing is very dangerous to the American Public. It could very easily be Fox News as an hour-long nightly program, feeding information to everyone.

The very topic of admitting the disappearance of objective journalism is a hot one as well. Should we? Should we not? Is it better to maintain the farce so as not to cause uproar with the demolition of the status quo? Or is the diminution of objective journalism and the recognition thereof more important to a free society?

Remember this one simple facet of the argument: Networks choose who relays information to the public. Do we really want the admission of opinionated coverage and the selection of opinionated commentators made by worldwide conservative networks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like him, but do consider him a bit irrelevant. Where was he 6 years ago? The people who were talking like him 5 or 6 years ago are the ones I respect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Add to the "tens of MSNBC viewers" the 327,000+ who have watched K.O.'s brilliant j'accuse (Special Comment of July 3, '07 on Libby's pardon) on YouTube.
Since the author's advice to do away with phony 'objectivity' will not likely be heeded any time soon by the major networks, we can at least take solace in the fact that a lot of the people not watching the evening news on TV are getting it elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those of us in America who cannot afford cable (I am writing this from a public computer) would love to see the likes of Olbermann on the networks. The best thing about not having cable is I am insulated from FOX News-ganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equating Olbermann to Murrow is like saying a dancing elephant is wildlife. Murrow was a journalist above all else. Olberman is a showman.

I don't mean that as a criticism of Olberman. I like his show. But he's not the new Murrow.

It hardly matters. The idea of shifting Olberman to the leaky boat that is broadcast news is a backward-looking move. Broadcast is on the way out. It will linger for a long while, gradually withering, but the future lies in the fragmented audiences which are proliferating for cable and the internet.

That trend is huge.

In the era of fragmentation, Olberman's style shines. He speaks to his own base, like O'Reilly, and is pretty much ignored outside of it, also like O'Reilly. Both speak effectively to their bases, which is the key to their successes.

This is the new journalism: it bears little resemblance to the staid Murrow age of captive national audiences, and it features showmanship which appeals to fragments only. But it's heartfelt, and that's something broadcast TV has not seen since Murrow left CBS all those years ago.

Heartfelt journalism on broadcast TV is impossible now. The networks are just too tied into the need to please advertisers. And there isn't much good news for those advertisers, either. Audiences are tanking. The only thing keeping those advertisers loyal is obsequious servitude to their interests by the networks. The last place I'd want to see Keith land is in that corrupt and dying land.

Olberman is right where he needs to be - the right place, at the right time. Through internet exposure his reach is extending. Already his influence on national thinking is superior to anything the networks call journalism.

Couric's "drug of the day" show - Cronkite journalism watered down to shameless advocacy for advertisers - is a twitching corpse. Let's not throw Keith in the coffin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I weren't a happily married woman, I'd propose to Keith Olbermann. His "special comments" are Murrowesque. They are well thought out and well written, and (for me), always right on the mark.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...Keith Olberman was a sports newscaster in (conservative) San Diego. I'd watch him when I visited with my dad (a bit of a stoic) and laugh outloud. My dad, on the other hand, didn't like blustering or obstreperous persons. But then, he didn't like my politics, either.

You go, KO!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... why do Americans - and other *Christians" believe in LIES?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CBS:

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 42,293,974 6.30 $1,409,235,213 30-Jun-07
STATE STREET CORPORATION 26,939,601 4.01 $897,627,505 30-Jun-07
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 21,237,777 3.16 $707,642,729 30-Jun-07
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) 19,499,694 2.90 $649,729,804 30-Jun-07

Yeah. They split from Viacom. Now they're "independent".

Viacom
FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC 40,997,931 6.52 $1,706,743,867 30-Jun-07
MORGAN STANLEY 38,284,682 6.09 $1,593,791,311 30-Jun-07
NWQ INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC 32,035,851 5.10 $1,333,652,477 30-Jun-07
WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLP 28,251,102 4.50 $1,176,093,376 30-Jun-07
HARRIS ASSOCIATES L.P. 26,646,806 4.24 $1,109,306,533 30-Jun-07
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 19,221,186 3.06 $800,177,973 30-Jun-07
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) 17,689,895 2.81 $736,430,328 30-Jun-07
STATE STREET CORPORATION 16,609,855 2.64 $691,468,263 30-Jun-07

The corporate media will always blow. It's not about ad revenue any more so much as it is about protecting the shareholders other interests:

ExxonMobil

Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 253,686,695 4.57 $21,279,239,976 30-Jun-07
STATE STREET CORPORATION 175,171,950 3.16 $14,693,423,166 30-Jun-07
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) 163,453,936 2.95 $13,710,516,151 30-Jun-07
FMR CORPORATION (FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CORP) 117,097,255 2.11 $9,822,117,749 30-Jun-07
AXA 90,424,307 1.63 $7,584,790,871 30-Jun-07
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 78,676,542 1.42 $6,599,388,342 30-Jun-07
Mellon Financial Corporation 75,793,990 1.37 $6,357,599,881 30-Jun-07
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION 70,864,489 1.28 $5,944,113,337 30-Jun-07
CAPITAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY 60,289,500 1.09 $5,057,083,260 30-Jun-07
WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLP 57,064,607 1.03 $4,786,579,235 30-Jun-07

Sigh... not a topic fit for discussion, thou you here a few mentions now and again. The corporate media is just a PR arm of larger interests...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I mostly agree with the gist of this piece, and about Olbermann's brilliance, I think it might be a mistake to concede to the Right proprietary rights to the suspect ideal of "objectivity." Certainly objectivity is a myth, for all the specified reasons; there is no such thing in a pure form. Nonetheless, most of us expect reporting to make a conscientious effort to relay all relevant aspects and details of an event. Yes, someone has to be the arbiter of relevance, and so forth. But we want that someone to convince us that he/she isn't deliberately distorting or cherry picking. The problem with conceding too readily that a news broadcast will not be founded on some such principle is that it invites the objection that what's relayed is unalloyed leftist opining. That isn't what we get from Olbermann, of course. His slant is considered, principled, and grounded in fact (insofar as "fact" is available and visible). "Objectivity" is an iconic concept--like patriotism in a way. In the public arena you have to lay claim to it, or at least to being in touch with it, in order to gain a hearing with many people who haven't thought through the problematic nature of the notion. Right wing commentators, who are among the most biased and distortive, have no qualms about invoking it, and they would only exult in a situation that granted them territorial imperative in this regard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... I will not place him on the same level with Murrow until he addresses the Israeli/Palestinian issue in an unbiased fashion.

Don't hold your breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bigshots who pay Olbermann know this.
It brings in the ratings and that's all they care about.

NBC owners and executives all voted for Bush and the big tax-breaks for the rich.

But as far as anyone really doing anything to end the war in Iraq, Countdown is only an illusion.
It's talk and entertainment and bad-mouthing the chimpy administration that's being fobbed off as some show that really cares about the Iraq debacle.
No one is really doing anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They could simply hire Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly - and they would have destroyed ABC and NBC. Poor little Older-man is a blip compared to those guys. But then, the CBS knows that this would be suicidal - the dems in the Congress would do their best to revoke CBS license. You all know the drill - "public airwaves", "public interest", and all other excuses for censorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you learn in a journalism class is that any news which deals with people of color is called "negative news". So the idea that news is objective goes out the window the minute you walk into a class. The other thing you learn is find someone who shares your opinion, ask the questions you want to answer, and voila you've just written a subjective piece without being a part of it. Molly Ivens was right, every story is based on either one's view of the world, or their bosses view of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Objectivity isn't possible, but as an ideal it remains essential. Dealing with the world as it really is, confronting the facts (yes, constructing the facts, through an open process of research), stripping away spin, must remain our central aim. Otherwise we accept a world in which the biggest bullshitter wins. Recognizing the limits of our ability to attain objectivity, the constraints imposed by our personal prejudices, cognitive imperfections, and social loyalties is hard, but possible. Luckily, each of us has a slightly different set of imperfections and limits, so together we can be smarter than we are individually. That's the power of KO - he insists on identifying how he feels, and letting us know. Because we know he's got a viewpoint, and he shows it, we can critically engage with his work. Spin and bullshit undercuts democracy; open statements of anger, emotion, and position foster democracy. KO knows his heart and his mind, and he knows his audience has both a heart and a mind as well. As a result his approach engages and empowers us, as viewers and as citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was an avid watcher of Mr. Morrow and am an equally avid watcher of Keith. Keith is, by all accounts, his own great journalist who feels this country has been taken to the toilet by the Bush administration and HE IS RIGHT!! HE IS A KEEPER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Olbermann's journalist hero is Edward R. Murrow, so the comparisons are natural. But, having watched film and tapes of Murrow (I barely remember seeing him in the 1950's,) I believe he was never the firebrand that Olbermann has become. He certainly didn't have the sense of quirky yet well-informed humor KO possesses. I am an avid cable news viewer, 52, who has been glued to news programming (especially politics) since my first memories of television. I am actually a lifelong news junkie. No-one-no comedian, no reporter, no commentator has ever impressed me to the extent that Keith Olbermann does. (I do like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert!) I am very happy that Countdown has been stealing the "demo" (ratings) from O'Reilly in the last few weeks as more people discover the show. Personally, I never miss Countdown. It is my opinion that, despite its occasional silliness and its pop celebrity segments, it is the best show on television. Period.
I do not, however, want to see Olbermann take over the network news (although he would be a great guest anchor.) Network news executives would attempt to emasculate his commentary. Network news, though needing a sharper edge, is still the province of the "cable-challenged" and the retiree class, and therefore, must retain a certain non-bias. Brian Williams is perfect for this format. Charles Gibson is fine, as well. Katie Couric loses the time-slot because the format does not fit her personality. I, and many of my friends and relatives, lost interest in The Today Show after she left. Bob Schieffer was perfect on CBS during the transition, post-Rather. I actually try to watch the CBS Evening News, and usually start out on CBS, since I have seen many of each day's NBC reports on MSNBC during the day (I work at home and always have a news channel on.) But, poor Katie's story line-up is often not in the order I am looking to watch, such as, when there is breaking political news and CBS starts out with a story about how trans-fats are being phased out (or something like that)...I often switch back to MSNBC or CNN, anyway, since network news is so toothless. Those on Sunday morning talk shows and on afternoon cable news, Russert, Stephanopoulis, Matthews, Blitzer, etc., are forced to maintain a middle of the road objectivity (except those on Fox) while their guests are expected to argue from opposite sides.
Keep Olbermann where he is. Keep him on Sunday Football Night, too! And, I can't wait to see him throughout another election season! Also, everyone should watch his Special Comments on YuoTube or MSNBC.com/Countdown.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most of you do not remember the Fairness Doctrine. I do. I am now as left wing as a welfare check. When they had the FD, I would vote conservative on some issues. Why, you might ask? On any public airways an opinion was given, an opposing view point was required to be given. Sometimes the conservative made more since. When view points are challenged in the open, the stronger position had CREDIBILITY.
Since Ronald Reagan, the right wing republican view point has lost it's crediblity when it can't be tested, or challenged.
I have to dismiss their views outright. That gives the left much more crediblity. To a thinking person, the Left wins by default. Their views face stronger opposition when all the news sources are right wing.
We need to bring back the free market of ideas, not ideologies.
Untill things change, we have to hype up the Obermans, and others on the left, or we will loose them to.
We'll be left with tabloid gossup and whats on sale at Wal-Mart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friends! I think Mr. Olbermann has saved us from Mr. Bush & Co. with out his voice Mr. Bush & Co. would have been king and we could of kissed our a-- good by. I think he is the best news person of all times, just think with out him where would we be? In my mind he is the best ever. Bill Davidson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

,...for KO, Amy Goodman, Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert there would be no news that was not right wing. Were it not for them there would be NO accurate news in America. And thatis why I and so many others read news from sources outside of America's MSM.

If CBS really wanted to improve their news ratings, possibly going to number one, they would do such things as Mr. Kitman wrote about.

If Katie Couric spoke truth to power she would be the number one newscaste in America, along with KO, Amy, Jon and Colbert.

Other than the right wingers, the 59 million, the rest of America actually HUNGERS for the truth, facts, real information and some factbased analysis. Instead all 'we the people' get is right wing theo-corporatocratic fascism. And based on that there is no way we can make the right or at least more correct decisions. But the right winger death agenda for profits and theocracy is all we get; and all we will ever get as I see nothing on the horizon to even hint otherwise.

The religious right actually think they are about the work of God, so their is no stopping them. They are the current iteation of the Nazis. Their training of children is a clear example of the Hitler/Nazi 'lebensborn' mentality; especially the quiverfull people.

Sig Heil must be music to the ears of the red state voters of Indiana, Texas, Florida etc, etc, etc.

Kitman and most of the posters on this forum have nearly everything, all their POVs exactly correct. The quisling trolls who spew their right wing agenda onthis forum beter wake up or America will cease to exist. But then mayhap that is exactly what they want. And thats why I don't live in Indiana and stopped going to church, years ago.

The last, nearly seven Bushie years have been a downer to behold and there is more of the same yet to come.

Bushco have eight more countries on their list of countries to be attacked, and they are doing their best to attack Russia and alienate as many countries as possible becoming very successful throughout most of Europe and the ME.

They are creating an abundance of future enemies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1,000,000 Iraqis and Afghanis would still be alive.

That's a fact, and a shameful one that they will never live down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]