.....becoming unwatchable? I've liked Keith since his Sportcenter days but for the last few months or so, he has become absolutely infatuated with "Fix News" and Bill O'Reilly. His sarcasm and obsession with Fox and Bill really makes for bad t.v. My wife and I now tune in just to make bets on how long it will take him to say something about O'Reilly. The longest he has gone is 12 minutes - and thats with commercials. And a couple of nights ago, I didn't think his rant was ever going to end. I actually felt sorry for him. If I wanted to watch Bill - I'd tune in to Bill. Maybe I'm just out of the loop. Did these guys have a blowup or something that I missed? Don't get me wrong - I have seen Fox reporters speak negatively about MSNBC, but Keith seems to take it to another level. I get the impression that he watches Fox all day and night and then forms his show around that. I also understand that MSNBC and Fox both want us to believe that the other guy is wrong, and they are right, but its tough to watch a grown man be so sarcastic and silly. I wish he would go back to reporting real news. He is one of the brightest and funniest guys on television - I miss that from him. This is the same reason I can't listen or watch people such as Rush Limbaugh. I enjoy a good debate but when one guy just sits there ranting and puking his political bias, it makes me want to commit suicide. Or should I just chill?
I think the Bill O'Reily thing comes from the fact that they are in the same timeslot. It's a competition that has become personal between the two of them. It is a little tiresome. I usually only watch the first segment of Olbermann and then move on.
I've seen enough of both to know I can't stand either. Olbermann was a funny mofo when he was reading ESPN's copy but he's turned into a grade-A, humorless, cock sucker. O'Reilly has always sucked ***.
Oilfield - thats actually what I was thinking; some penis envy in play because of the ratings. But I don't know which to believe - Fox says they are #1 and MSNBC claims the same. I guess if we can figure out who is actually #1 will give us the untrustworthy one.
O'Riley used to be a clear number one, I think the water is muddied now. I think Olberman just loves to point out what a hypocrite O'Riley is and how he displays his hypocrisy nearly daily. All the while with O'Riley assuming the role of moral paragon.
you know how a woman can be a real ***** and a man comes across as a real *******...olbermann comes across as a ***** and o'reilly comes across as an *******. that is how i would compare the two. olbermann is more mean. o'reilly has actually mellowed out quite a bit over the last year.
Olbermann only saw his ratings rise when he started on the "Special Comments", going after Fox, etc. It's all about the ratings. He's overdoing what he's seen work.
Did anybody catch the "Oh God" comment he made under his breath when Bobby Jindal walked out for his state of the union response?
Olbermann lost it for me during the campaign when his bias was so clear to see. O'Reilly has always been a first-class jerk who won't let his guests finish speaking. I stopped watching him 2 years ago.
They are both epic douchebags. IMHO the distinction between the two is that O'Reilly is only presented by Fox as a talk show host. MSNBC actually sends Olbermann out in the field to cover campaign events and provide "news." It is one thing to a commentator have a show where he gives you his opinion. It is another thing to have that same biased ******* comment on the news in real time, such as during the DNC or RNC. It is disgusting. Fox did not send O'Reilly to anchor its coverage of the DNC in Denver. It sent Brit Hume and Shepard Smith, neither of whom interjected their personal opinions about the candidate or the party in question. Who did MSNBC send to anchor? Mathews and Olbermann. Can we ever forget Mathews mention the tingle that Obama sent down his leg? It was a farce! Fox of course had their pit bulls like Hannity on hand to conduct their shows from the site, but the live coverage was by actual newsmen. CNN's coverage was the same way. I'm sure Anderson Cooper is probably liberal, but he doesn't express any such viewpoint while covering an event. Thus, while O'Reilly is an ***. He at least is kept in the proper forum. Olbermann is an *** without any boundaries. Advantage: Fox.
Why do people keep bringing up number of viewers into these discussions? If a guy has 20 milliion viewers does that make him smarter or more in-tune with reality? It's like some of you view the world as a team sport.
I thought you were saying by implication that Keith Olbermann is in tune with reality. I'm glad to be wrong in this instance.
Bill O and olbertwink are by far the worst of the bunch. Mostly because they're humorless, hatefilled, and claim to be non ideological. Anyone stating that they dont claim to be objective simply haven't watched the show(s). Olberman claims that he doesnt vote because he wants to "stay objective". Simply "knowing where the're coming from" doesnt change that they try to sell that there is no bias. I dont see how anyone can enjoy either of these programs. Is there anything more retarded than when olberman quints through those emoqueer glasses and parses his lips when he really wants to get his dumb point across. Reminds me of my mom when I was 9. Comparing Rush to either of those two is BS. Rush is in entertainer mode most of the show which makes it enjoyable. When it comes to TV, glen beck is the best IMO. The guy is humble, and is in comedy mode 75% of the time.
