Keith Olberman and Al Gore Bitter Divorce

[SB Shock]

Keith Olberman and Al Gore are breaking up. :(

Just weeks after Keith Olbermann launched his nightly program on Current TV last June, his team was complaining that the network founded by Al Gore and attorney Joel Hyatt wasn’t living up to its promises to support a professional cable news show.

The whole atmosphere “more closely resembles cable access than that of a cable news show,” and the problems were “causing low ratings

Olbermann never came close to the more than 1 million viewers he had averaged at MSNBC, but his Current show was drawing more than 100,000 in the prized 25-to-54 age group last summer—and that gradually dwindled to 30,000.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/01/keith-olbermann-s-angry-e-mail-trail-traces-breakup-with-current-tv.html

[SubGod22]

Is anybody surprised?















Didn't think so.

[WuDrWu]

If they could both just drop dead, that would be even better.

[pinstripers]

that's not a very nice thing to say about those two basterds

[MoValley John]

If they could both just drop dead, that would be even better.

Not really. Al Gore has been marginalized by the Democratic party and really isn't taken seriously anymore. He has no credibility. As for Keith Olberman, everybody, even most leftists consider him nothing more than a sellout to the Democratic party and a man without an original thought. Together, neither of them carry any credibility and no longer bring any value to the liberal cause. I cannot think of the last time a liberal bolstered an argument, be it on a political message board or broadcast media, by citing a quote or action from Al Gore or Keith Olberman. As I am a firm believer in reading and considering the merits of ideas and complete ideologies from both conservatives and liberals, I expect to have access to, and do listen to all viewpoints.

Broadcasting, even at CNBC, does try to look at multiple sides of any issue, so any conservative should be elated when the liberal viewpoint is being carried in the leaky buckets of Al Gore or Keith Olberman. Now while CNBC is much more liberal than Fox has ever been conservative, you still will see the occasional conservative viewpoint presented. Sometimes, even favorably. It is their very weak attempt at this thing called objectivity. Having Keith Olberman back on CNBC, blathering and spewing his incoherent ideology, is good for conservatives.

If either of them were to die, the liberal message would still be heralded by someone. The best a person with conservative convictions could hope for is that the liberal message was being delivered by incompetents like Gore and Olberman. Be careful of what you wish for, if Al Gore and Keith Olberman get less air time, another liberal will get more. Probably with much more credibility and the ability to better sell that liberal agenda.

[WuDrWu]

Not really. Al Gore has been marginalized by the Democratic party and really isn't taken seriously anymore. He has no credibility. As for Keith Olberman, everybody, even most leftists consider him nothing more than a sellout to the Democratic party and a man without an original thought. Together, neither of them carry any credibility and no longer bring any value to the liberal cause. I cannot think of the last time a liberal bolstered an argument, be it on a political message board or broadcast media, by citing a quote or action from Al Gore or Keith Olberman. As I am a firm believer in reading and considering the merits of ideas and complete ideologies from both conservatives and liberals, I expect to have access to, and do listen to all viewpoints.

Broadcasting, even at CNBC, does try to look at multiple sides of any issue, so any conservative should be elated when the liberal viewpoint is being carried in the leaky buckets of Al Gore or Keith Olberman. Now while CNBC is much more liberal than Fox has ever been conservative, you still will see the occasional conservative viewpoint presented. Sometimes, even favorably. It is their very weak attempt at this thing called objectivity. Having Keith Olberman back on CNBC, blathering and spewing his incoherent ideology, is good for conservatives.

If either of them were to die, the liberal message would still be heralded by someone. The best a person with conservative convictions could hope for is that the liberal message was being delivered by incompetents like Gore and Olberman. Be careful of what you wish for, if Al Gore and Keith Olberman get less air time, another liberal will get more. Probably with much more credibility and the ability to better sell that liberal agenda.

I hate it when you take my feel good moments and turn them into rational and well thought out ideas. Stop confusing me with the facts!!!!

[DUShock]

Please pass the popcorn!

[Wu du Nord]

Now while CNBC is much more liberal than Fox has ever been conservative.

I'd be interested in seeing how one accounts for a claim of this kind. Do you have a source?

[MoValley John]

I dont feel like playing right now, but I will provide you with a starting place if
you so choose to do some legwork. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

UCLA reasearch. Very well done. A bit dated, but little has changed. To summize, Fox is the only network with a conservative bias. That said, it is only two to three points to right of center. ABC balances out Fox, a few ticks to the left. MSNBC is much further left.

From the link, you can dig up all of the tables and charts if you wish.

[MoValley John]

One more thing, and to be more accurate, MSNBC did not exist at the time of the research, but ADA. a liberal organization, uses the methodology from this paper to track media bias. They have for years. Go there if you really, really want to know where MSNBC fits in the picture. A little clue, even ADA can't polish MSNBC's scores.

[Wu du Nord]

Count me amazed. That is a shockingly bad topic for quantitative analysis. Wow. I simply do not understand this bizarre fetishism of numeric reductions (scores) that prevails in many academic circles. I guess it would be funny, but the findings of this type of research are so frequently used as mindless clubs in daily conversation that the reach is well beyond what the intellectual rigor of the investigation warrants.

And, yes, I did read the whole page you linked.

Now, I feel sad for everyone.

[pinstripers]

Fox FEELS farther right to some, simply because it is so far right of NBC, not because it is far right of center. Our nation has lost the concept of balance, in all areas.

[Wu du Nord]

Not to be overly pithy, but I'd suggest that the notion of balance is irremediably problematic as a metaphor.

[MoValley John]

Not to be overly pithy, but I'd suggest that the notion of balance is irremediably problematic as a metaphor.

Okay, while I agree with your statement, you have now given me something in which to work. While I agree with your observation, and not to be too pithy myself, I don't think that metaphor is your best choice of words. In my opinion, balance is irremediably problematic as a journalistic goal, value or requirement.

At the risk of you invoking Godwin's Law, okay, blatantly trolling to see if you invoke Godwin's Law, going back to the late 30's, would it have been better journalism, or even more accurate journalism for a reporter with the AP, or then UPI, assigned to the Berlin desk, to report with balance, what was taking place in Germany. Certainly, Hitler would have appreciated it, but at the same time, truthful and accurate reporting would be lost all in the effort of providing balance. Not all stories are balanced and should not be reported with an attempt at balance. Outside of politics, I don't want a story of a mass murder, rape, or any abomination reported with balance. I don't want to know the merits of the bank robber. If he robbed the bank, I want him punished and I don't want his story told with any balance. I don't care if he has a poor child at home with a sick child and he was desperate, what he did was wrong and I don't need balance to enter the story.

With that, everybody has a bias on everything. Wichita State fans has a bias toward the Shockers, Missouri State fans have a bias toward the Bears and every political journalist has his or her bias toward a candidate, party and left and right philosophies. There is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, if a reporter reports using bias and also presents all of the facts and does not make up or create news and facts, in many ways, we are better for it. It is also why I don't begrudge MSNBC for being blatantly liberal and I do watch MSNBC. I also don't have any issues with Fox leaning to the right. I do think the reporter should have an obligation to present his or her bias and it is up to the consumer of the news to also know the bias of the person reporting.

On the other hand, I do find it sad that Obama "Declared war" on Fox. It is his job to be president, it is the media's job, regardless of bias, to report, and it is the consumer's job to be able to disseminate fact from opinion and bias. Neither of the Bush's, nor did Clinton complain about the media and their bias. Reagan didn't, neither did Carter, Ford or Nixon. Looking at Reagan specifically, Helen Thomas was extremely pointed in her questions and beyond biased. Helen reported with a slant and Ronald Reagan went out of his way to accommodate her. Reagan never held a press conference without calling on Thomas. The interaction between the two was quite comical at times. Had Reagan addressed the bias with the same strategy as Obama has with Fox, he would have had her banned from the press room. If not that extreme, he would have never called on her during a presser.

[Kung Wu]

A couple points ...

I don't want a story of a mass murder, rape, or any abomination reported with balance.

But the murderer has feelings too -- that much cannot be denied! And .. what if the victim deserved it? For example if he was a greedy, rich, white, oil baron? Certainly we can have a modicum of balance even in a juicy murder story?

Wichita State fans has a bias toward the Shockers ...

As a counterexample I give you one @KC Shox:. Wichita State fan without a single fiber of bias toward WSU in his bones, what-so-ever. Not that your point is invalid, but freaky anomalies do happen. And no, @KC Shox:, I am not calling you a freaky anomaly. I'll leave that to @ABC:.

Points of clarification complete, carry on.