3/21/09 11:50 PM

Tuesday Links & Open Thread

Latest cable news links [6:18 pm]:

Monday's numbers.

Chris Matthews is enthused.

Pix: Jonathan Hunt in China.

Ben Stein's money honeys.

Cable news quotables.

An unfortunate online ad.

John Gibson commentaries show up on The Live Desk.

Was Wolf listening? Yes, says Wolf.

Weekend numbers. Ranker.

Q&A: Alina Cho.

Bret Baier's DePauw lecture.

Monday's new shows reviewed. TVN summarizes. David Gregory's hair. Video: Joe chows down.

Bottom-dwelling with MSNBC? Did Keith Olbermann lie about Bill Kristol?

MSNBC is too far right?


Olbermann's "fawning interview"?

Tonight's "worst person in the world".

Greta to be sued? She reports from the Obama speech.

Slanted Iraq coverage?

Use our valuable bandwidth to post your comments about any and all cable news topics in today's open thread. Standard rules apply.

On The Mark
So much material overnight ....
The Gregory show was, in fact, good. Solid. Balanced. Informative. Entertaining. Gregory hosted extraordinarily well. He seemed to be able to elicit much information and discussion from his guests in a non-intrusive, but focused manner. I can only hope this standard is maintained.
Scarbrough is more and more a buffon, and I am frankly ready for him to go. On his own show, he bullies his staff, and on other shows he has a whiney, disruptive demeanor. He has grown full of himself.
Baier does show enormous potential, and he has a good presence. I sense that he is always well-prepared and that he has tremendous respect for the truth. I can only hope he escapes FNC before he becomes branded. A good career move for him might be a period on network news, where he can make an independent name for himself, as I am sure he will, then a move back to FNC, perhaps to replace Hume when he at long last heads off to the tar pits.
Nothing on Kristol, I notice, but in fairness his deplorable, despicable, sloppy work was in the NYT and not on cable news. However, I am increasingly convinced that this is the typical Kristol. Lazy. Pontificating. Disagreeable merely to be disagreeable. Defensive. And, most importantly, wrong so often. I fail to see how he adds anything to the written or broadcast word, except, perhaps, that on a panel he does bring out the best in Williams.
Olbermann's take on Spitzer and BOR was amusing, and he seems to have hit an essential truth. Where, indeed, does BOR come off engaging in such a topic? There was an irony in all of this that BOR, not surprisingly, missed. Now, I know that Olbermann is seen as Lucifer incarnate in these parts, the source of all evil in television journalism and the world at large. Frankly, many of you tend to empower Olbermann, as I think his relative popularity is far more a feature of his detractors than of his fans. I certainly wouldn't defend his journalistic credentials. In fact, I find Olbermann largely irrelevant, boring, tiresome and tedious. Disingenuous. But, even a spastic carpenter hits the nail on the head from time-to-time, even a broken clock is right twice a day. He hit the nail, he told the correct time on this one.
The larger issue, I suppose, is: Can a media personality credibly comment upon a "sin" he or she so willingly shares with the sinner? BOR and Bennett are merely prime examples of those who believe their own serious moral and ethical short-comings are transcended by their own senses of self-worth. Having said that, I don't find it necessary or advisable to muzzle miscreants, as we all are, as long as we all understand from whence they come. The content of the BOR article was sophomoric, absurd, ironic. In a sense, he inflicted his own punishment upon himself. Olbermann simply, a bit too gleefully and crudely, called that to our attention.
March 18, 2008, 8:08:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark,
You could of saved time and just said you hate FOXNews, your bias shines through
March 18, 2008, 8:40:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Olberman had no choice but to be insane. His viewers are all far left nuts, no one else could watch his show. If he lost the KOS group he would have no. Anything shy of, "I hate Bush, I hate Oreilly etc." and they wouldnt watch.
March 18, 2008, 9:12:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Olbermann, who lied about Kristol last night, has no business doing an entire segment on O'Reilly that is nothing but personal attacks. I take it you didn't see the irony in Olby claiming Kristol reported a story without verifying it, and then Olby himself reading at length from unadjudicated, unproven allegations in a civil suit that was never brought to trial? Just what in the wide world of sports does all this stuff have to do with What O'Reilly Said about Spitzer? Nothing, it was just personal smearing, based on falsehoods and one side's allegations in a civil suit.
You know, one could easily dredge up the same crap about Olbermann to embarrass him. Bill O'Reilly has never done that because O'Reilly is not a classless jerk.
March 18, 2008, 9:42:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Typical Keith going after O'Reilly. But what did he say about Bill Kristol?
Also, I followed the link to the Richard Cohen article about Keith giving a fluffy interview to Obama. Cohen is one guy I rarely agree with, but was he right on with the whole Obama debacle! He had an excellent grasp of EVERY aspect of the story. It's a MUST READ unless you're totally infatuated with Obama and cannot objectively see how his association with his pastor is truly a huge problem. It speaks to his lack of judgment and perception of what is being said and with whomone looks to for leadership.
March 18, 2008, 9:58:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply

and with whomone = and with "whom one" looks to for leadership.
Apologies once again!
March 18, 2008, 10:00:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
In fairness, I did implicitly compliment FNC for its use of Baier. FNC is not without value. Barnes, Kondrake, Krauthammer, others, make valuable contributions.
How did Olbermann lie about Kristol? I suspect I know your answer, and to the extent he may have assigned and by analogy did assign some improper motives to Kristol, I do find that a mischaracterization. Kristol was simply being lazy and sloppy, using a notoriously unreliable source he couldn't bother to check out. Of course, Kristol does not write news. The standards for commentary are much lower, and Kristol did not exceed the minimum standards.
I agree Olbermann is a classless jerk. He did present an amusing, interesting piece I would not have otherwise discovered. Kristol appears in the dailies I typically read, BOR does not.
I disagree that BOR is not a classless jerk. Indeed, he shares this trait with Olbermann. Perhaps, that explains the animus between the two.
March 18, 2008, 10:10:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> How did Olbermann lie about Kristol?
I've added a link in the main article, though you'll note I use a question mark, which is my way of suggesting that it is more of an opinion or analysis piece. However, since it's my piece I'm linking to I can't exacdtly squirm out of it that easily!
It just amazes me that people like Olbermann are not satisfied with attacking Kristol for citing a source that isn't the best, which is arguably a fair criticism. They have to rewrite what Kristol said so they can make it sound even worse. Olbermann does this all the time. His history of factual errors is legion. What he did with Kristol was to change what Kristol wrote, just so he could slam him that much harder.
March 18, 2008, 10:15:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
I think your criticism of Olbermann is fair in this matter, Johnny. I hold him and his work in very low regard, as a general rule.  
I do find it interesting that so many people believe if you are not a fan of FNC, you must like Olbermann, and vice-versa. I think it is possible to simply like good journalism regardless of the source. We can disagree as to the level of obectivity FNC may have or the amount of partisanship on MSNBC, and the like, and still turn all of this into something less than a personality cult. I am not saying you do that, and I don't think many of the posters do. Some do, however, it is a simplistic and false dichotomy.
Thanks for the link and explanation.
March 18, 2008, 10:47:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply

A Running Commentary
In follow-up to my post last week bemoaning the demise of "Tucker", I think Lanny Davis' comments on the final episode summed up why Carlson was so much better than Olbermann and others. Regardless of his personal position, Carlson asked pointed and fair questions to all sides. Whether because of bias or not, Olbermann didn't exactly push for an answer on the crux of the issue when given the chance to interview Obama directly (as noted in the Cohen’s Wash Post piece linked here). If the same interview had occurred on Tucker, I have to believe Carlson would have responded with “yeah, but come on, are you telling you had no idea your pastor was saying this stuff?”
March 18, 2008, 11:51:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply

just curious if you support a FOX NEWS ANCHOR of comparing obamas pastor to hitler?? its not like his pastor started a war or killed millions of jews-fox news radio hosts and anchors are acting like obama is the only one that does great things and gives great speeches-how about mccain or anyother canidate that gives speeches-i know that obama has women fainting but so does actors/actresses/singers
am i off base somewhere??
March 18, 2008, 1:01:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply

so on your post on olbermann watch you flat out say olbermann is lying about bill kristol but on here you ask? intersting-unless its just a ploy for readers to click the link-but hey thats only my opinion!! who knows i'm probelly wrong (wouldnt be the 1st time)
March 18, 2008, 1:19:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
The Olbermann Watch piece is an opinion/analysis piece. Over here I do this daily links post where I don't analyze, I just point people to interesting stuff. My own opinion is yes, he did at least shade the truth about Kristol, but I want to hear what others think.
As for "comparing obamas pastor to hitler", I think people have got to start thinking critically. The first step would be to understand the difference between a comparison and an analogy.
The purpose of an analogy like the above is not to say the pastor = hitler. It is to point out the flaw of an argument being made: so-and-so does something good therefore you shouldn't criticize him when he does something bad. That's a diversion and a logical fallacy. The analogy applies the same argument to something extreme to point out the fallacy of the argument, not to equate the pastor with hitler. It demonstrates, albeit in a rather extravagant fashion, that because somebody did A, B, and C doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of his doing X, Y, or Z.
March 18, 2008, 1:22:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

so whats your opinion? did he lie or not?? you linked to your own piece-on olbermann watch your opinion his he lied but hear you asked-but as for the second-why does it always half to be to hitler?? what is there no one that they can use?? cant they use JFK or Martin luther or someone else-like i said why does always have to be hitler??
March 18, 2008, 1:31:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I think I just gave my opinion above, but I'll give it again. Olbermann misquoted what Kristol wrote to make it sound worse than it was. I am comfortable calling it a lie, but I concede that others might find it a "shading of the truth". One thing is clear: it wasn't honest.
Yeah, I agree, why do they always use Hitler for these analogies? I guess because when you want to present a reductio ad absurdum to point out the fallacy of an argument, Hitler pretty much remains the ultimate extreme example. It is overdone.
March 18, 2008, 1:36:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
I was going to comment, but it looks like the far-left trolls have hijacked this thread. I'll comment anyway:
Drobny on HuffPo: "Other than Keith Olbermann, MSNBCs lineup is decidedly right of center." Are you kidding me?
March 18, 2008, 1:41:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Maybe by that he means Dan Abrams only attacks Bill O'Reilly every OTHER day!
March 18, 2008, 1:43:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

guess they cant find anyone else-on the record-i do hate it when anyone is mentioned/compared to hitler or nazis (bush/oreilly to name two easy ones)  
fair enough to your link to your own post. (to be perfectly honest-i would do the same)
March 18, 2008, 1:46:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply

The online ad link is priceless. Much rofling ensued.
And thus concludes my stunningly insightful thoughts on today's top stories.
March 18, 2008, 4:01:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Yeah. I wonder how many others got that same ad. That's funny, but I feel bad laughing about it.
March 18, 2008, 5:36:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Earlier today, I read the transcript of yesterday's "Countdown"...at least the BOR bashing part. That was awful. This has been said so many times by others, but Keith is a vile human being. I have no idea how he's able to sleep at night or respect himself in the morning.
March 18, 2008, 6:33:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

So Johnny why did Bill pay her $10,000,000 dollars to go away? Why didn't the culture warrior stand up and defend himself over such a serious matter? Why does he masturbate with a vibrator up his ass? Why do you defend him? Do you masturbate with a vibrator up your ass?
March 18, 2008, 8:49:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Daytona: I think that you would feel more at home over at news hounds. The mindless left seems to hang over there.
March 18, 2008, 9:17:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You cite me a legitimate source that says he paid her ten million and I'll answer your question. But I'm not waiting for you to be able to document something you made up.
March 18, 2008, 10:16:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply

At the end of Hannity's radio program, he mentioned that this week H & C would be a "Colmes free zone" because Alan was on vacation.
So Kirsten Powers was the guest host. I always thought she was somewhat reasonable (for a liberal), but I couldn't believe it - she was even more obnoxious than Alan! Time after time, she defended Obama and felt his explanation for not knowing all of the pastor's rhetoric was plausible. And even after citiing text from Obama's book, Kirsten STILL defended him and stated that he may not have know all about the pastor.
It's hard to believe, but I actually missed Alan Colmes tonight.
Conversely, Juan Williams has been right on target and has been very astute in assessing this situation. Good for him (for once)!
March 18, 2008, 10:19:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
She was just channeling Alan.   
By the way, I used to watch "H&C," but rarely do. This is because I find Sean irritating and also the constant crosstalk drives me nuts.
March 18, 2008, 10:59:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Peg C
I try not to watch H&C it is bad for my health  
Hannity needs to be in a sanitarium .
He is so focused on destruction of human soul.
He will self implode one of these days.
March 18, 2008, 11:17:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Melissa T
The O'Reilly court case was was briefly around in regard his settlement, but it disappeared fast form circulation.
No surprise. It was not in the best interest to have it around for long.
We do not belived Bill a Saint of course
March 19, 2008, 7:06:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Well even if it was $10 why in the hell would he not fight it? I'm waiting.  
Also, you seemed to skip the masturbating with a vibrator part.
Do you not believe the conversations were taped?
March 19, 2008, 7:07:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
oh God.. who cares.
Nothing is more disturbing than these hateful obsessed Leftists.
March 19, 2008, 7:12:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Here is a link for those of you who may have forgotten about Bills lawsuit.
Now here is a challenge for all 3 of you fox news die hards out there. Fox has been on for 10 years right? Can anyone please provide me with 3 instances of Fox speaking up for a black person? Or a Mexican? Or a gay?  
Or a Muslim? You all seem to know everything about Fox being the premier site for all things Fox News. I'll even let you include Condi and Gonzo to make it easier for you.
I'm waiting but I won't hold my breath.
Think about what that says about all of you.
I'm thinking KKK.
Prove me wrong.
March 19, 2008, 7:34:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Why Vince Why? Tell me.
March 19, 2008, 7:45:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Jeez, any time Geraldo is on you'll have a half dozen instances of speaking up for a Mexican. Jeanine Pirro did the first reporting that exposed the overcharging of the Jena six. And last time I checked, Fox defended Juan Williams much more than three times for attacks leveled against him.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to document that $10 million claim. Did you give us your source for that figure? I must have missed it.
As for what you think that says about "all of you" (nothing like a glittering generalization when you want to smear someone), what does it say about you? You come hear and violate the commenting rules. You obviously don't pay any attention to the posts, since you insist on giving a link to a story that we already have a link to. Then you toss around the KKK charge.
Hey, wait. That sounds loike US of KKK A. Could Daytona maybe be Jeremiah Wright? If he starts telling us how Aids is a creation of the eeevil US government then we'll know for sure.
March 19, 2008, 9:16:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Can anyone please provide me with 3 instances of Fox speaking up for a black person? Or a Mexican? Or a gay?  
Oh how I love identity politics.
The Left is stuck in their world of stereotypes and bigotry and then lash out when the rest of the country has moved on.
March 19, 2008, 11:42:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You know I shouldn't have even dignified that question. How exactly does "Fox" "speak up" for someone? Do the Articles of Incorporation get up out of the wall safe, stride over to a microphone, and start orating? The entire construct of the question is ignorant and preposterous.
March 19, 2008, 11:58:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Uh, Hello? Is nobody going to comment on Ben Stein's article on the Money Honeys? I thought he was spot-on.
March 19, 2008, 1:59:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Missy-H&C is suppose to be a fair and balanced debate show-so of course one side would defend obama and the other side wont-and your surprised by that?? thats why fox calls it fair and balanced (even though sometimes i think its not)
March 20, 2008, 9:02:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply

[message deleted for rules violation: personal attacks]

Edited By Siteowner
March 20, 2008, 9:52:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply