Talk:Keith Olbermann

Archives
1, 2, 3

New Section

Does anyone think this should be added: [1]. It's not important, but the story received a lot of play in some circles, so perhaps it is notable?OPen2737 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the kind of thing that goes in the Wikipedia. WP is not a gossip column. --Rtrev 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering Olbermann's attention to the personal life of O'Reilly, it seems the Post article should be included in the interest of balance. 2candle 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page six is not a reliable source especially when you consider that the entire article is based on an anonymous blog post.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the article.[2] His mistreatment of women here and in other citations (Rita Cosby) seems noteworthy in that there is a pattern of behavior. 2candle 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Rita Crosby content and this one is that the Rita Crosby incident got a mention in a reliable source, this one did not.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If Olbermann's own weblog can be used as a source in the article, surely the same weight can be given to his alleged victim. His problems with women could be the seed of other behavioral problems, such as his self-destruction at ESPN and his often altered view of reality exhibited at MSNBC.2candle 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious by your comments that your intention is to push a POV with the goal of slandering the man. Comments such as "self-destruction at ESPN" and "often altered view of reality exhibited at MSNBC" give away your position. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

Why doesn't this Wiki Article list his family, religious and heritage background? --Kilowattradio 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any (proper) sources about that information, although I did just stumble upon his religious beliefs in one of his blog posts on MSNBC dating two years ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844293/#050129a —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WBHoenig (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Sections moved to Talk Page

In November 2005, Olbermann and O'Reilly both attended a charity fundraiser thrown by New York Yankees manager Joe Torre. Although both were in the same room at the same time Olbermann noted that "[O'Reilly] never got within 20 feet of me" and that, "every time I looked up, [O'Reilly] would suddenly look down". Olbermann also alleged that FOX News had been distributing his phone number and that someone had hacked into his e-mail.

True, not true?? Needs citation. --Rtrev 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

===Comments about Rita Cosby=== Olbermann wrote an e-mail to a viewer stating, "Rita's nice, but dumber than a suitcase of rocks." Olbermann has since apologized for the email saying he had been stupid and should have known better, but Cosby did reply saying: "Keith got it wrong. I'm not that nice."

Another move to Talk for discussion. Is this really a notable part of his bio? I say no. Discussion? --Rtrev 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am moving another section here for discussion.

Olbermann also criticized documentarian Ken Burns, pointing out dozens of claimed inaccuracies and anachronisms in Burns’ television series Baseball. In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Olbermann at one time opposed Pete Rose being admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, but recently changed his stance due to the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball.

This is completely unsupported. These tags have been hanging here for a while and it doesn't really seem notable. The only citation (to dawgsports.com) is to a blog that has a serious axe to grind in general. Without proper citation none of this seems notable or worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Rtrev 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing section

Where is any mention of Olbermann's role on Sportscenter, or any of his time spent at ESPN/ESPN2? This is a very in depth article, I find it hard to believe there isnt even a paragraph dedicated to this, especially considering the controversy surrounding his leaving, as well as many on and off air fights with coworkers and management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.102 (talk • contribs)

The article was recently the victim of an over eager vandal and it appears that not all of the vandalism was caught. Thanks for noticing the missing sections. --Bobblehead 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi salute

where the discusion about his fascist salute gone>

In the archived talk pages.-Hal Raglan 13:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This section of the article is particularly weak, esp. since it is written in a non-chronological fashion. Why? Hobo-nc 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another missing section

What happened to the section about his feud with Geraldo? Fuck you, Wikipedia Fascists! --Werideatdusk33 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over Controversies->Comments about Donald Rumsfeld

RE: [3]

I guess I started this war, so let me state my opinion -- hopefully the other participants will join me. I can see why this section was added 2 or 3 months ago, but since then, Olbermann has made many assertions that could be considered controversial. I don't see anything particularly notable about the Rumsfeld accusations, and there's no mention of the "controversy" that supposedly ensued, so I think the section should be removed. Any thoughts? CalebNoble 09:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Olbermann has said plenty of things, and this is not the place to document all of them. No one has made the case that this was particularly noteworthy or controversial. From the way known conservatives keep re-adding it (without comment), you'd think it reflected poorly on him, which seems pretty unlikely, considering. I don't see any good reason to keep it though, and none has been offered. Derex 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree that this is a complete non-controversy. If its so important for these individuals to keep reverting the section, you'd think they would want to explain their reasoning here.-Hal Raglan 13:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI User:CalebNoble, has invited User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Olbermann.2FRumsfeld_edit_war into the fray. Also usersAaron and Derex This is okay as far as wikipolicy.

I don't see anything wrong with this section, it clearly states it is Olberman's opinion. Which begs the question, does User:CalebNoble support Rumsfield?

There seems to be a lot of trivia about Olbermann on this page, including the Keith_Olbermann#Baseball section.

I won't bother quoting wikipolicy to support my POV, but it is only a matter of time before somebody does.

User:CalebNoble, if you dislike Olbermann, instead of deleting sections, I recommend finding dirt on Olbermann and post it in the Keith_Olbermann#Controversies section, (with references). I would support the addition of referenced material, but I don't support the deletion of referenced material, even if it is against my own POV. Travb (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not I support Rumsfeld is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. (For the record, I think he should have been fired at least a year ago. I was elated that the Dems took Congress, but I don't support either party. I think Olbermann is highly biased, but I thought my removal of the section would probably please his supporters.) I removed the section because I thought it was incorrect to call the comments a "controversy", and it seemed non-notable. CalebNoble 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kewl User:CalebNoble, thanks for the clarification, happy editing. I am going to unwatch this page. I agree Olbermann is highly biased, thats is why liberals find him so fun to watch. Travb (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-USA Fame

Olbermann now appears to be getting some attention here in the UK. In December 2006, radio host Danny Baker mentioned Olbermann as his nomination for "Man of the Year". Although I listened to this radio show, I'm not sure how to reference it and work it into the Olbermann article. Any advice ?

I don't think you can, as his show is not seen in the uk.

--Crt101 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tycobbuk 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Petty Grammatical

My old English teacher would probably have corrected "In the essay, it imparted an instance..." to read, perhaps "The essay imparted an instance..." Look, I said it was petty.Paul Niquette 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

24 Reference

==Attack on '24'==

On the January 16, 2006 edition of Olbermann's show, he attacked the popular FOX television series 24, accusing it of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared". He suggested the show actually has a political agenda to aid the Republican Party, rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann even suggested in a subtle manner that the show should be taken off the air with the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying 24 should be taken off of TV because it's naked brainwashing?"

All of this was in response to its January 15 broadcast in which a small nuclear weapon is detoned in Los Angeles by a terrorist group.

This seems to be completely not notable. This is an extremely recent event that has not yet become a major source of news or an important factor in Olbermann's biography. If anyone really feels this should be included then lets discuss it here. Olbermann says a lot of things that annoy people this is hardly notable in the grand scheme of things. --Rtrev 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly notable enough as criticism to be included in the 24 article, but certainly not here. If somebody insists on reinserting this, he/she will need to explain why Olbermann's remarks regarding a TV series are more important than all the other various editorial commentaries he has made throughout the years that are not mentioned in the article.-Hal Raglan 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. I think that this is part of a pervasive "BLP non-notability creep" where a lot of trivial information gets put in BLP's because there are poor guidelines on how to manage notability of elements within articles and that people feel that any "controversy du jour" is de facto notable. The burden of notability rests on the addition of new material. --Rtrev 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann 24 controversy

Thought I'd advise anybody who may be interested that Olbermanno has created an article called Keith Olbermann 24 controversy. The article had to be subsequently rewritten by several editors in order to tone down its outlandish POV problems. It seems to be pretty NPOV right now, but I think if it has been determined that this "controversy" isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the Olbermann or 24 main articles, it definitely shouldn't rate a separate article. Take a look at it and see if you agree.-Hal Raglan 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of bias section

== Allegations of Bias == Each segment typically involves a correspondent giving an impartial report which is then followed by Olbermann giving analysis/commentary and discussing the issues with guests (most of whom tend to take Olbermann's side). There is rarely any debate on his show, and his guests don't challenge his views. In an interview with [[GQ]], Olbermann names Edward R. Murrow, who in one segment of his broadcast read the headlines and in another did an analysis of them, as his inspiration. However it should be noted that Olbermann doesn't consider his show to be an impartial news broadcast like the network nightly news but rather a talk and analysis show. Independent of any of the other segments, Olbermann does devote a section to hollywood news/gosssip that he calls "Keeping Tabs." Other segments of the show not in the "countdown" include his list of the three most newsworthy people (usually in the middle of the broadcast) and the three worst persons in the world (usually right before segment one). Typically one or more spots on the "Worst Person in the World" segment include right-wing members of the media. Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh frequently appear on this list. In 2006, Olbermann published a compilation of his "Worst Person in the World" segments. It is because of these frequent appearances that many on the right accuse Olbermann of a "left-wing media bias." Despite the allegations, Keith Olbermann denies any bias on his show and is quoted as saying of his show: "It has nothing to do with a political point of view." The Media Research Center compiled the recipients on his World's Worst List and found 174(88%) conservative figures/ideas were attacked compared to only 23(12%) liberals. <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20060627.asp | title= The “Worst” of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann | publisher=Mediaresearch | accessdate=2006-27-06 }}</ref>

I moved the whole section here for discussion and placed it at the top my discussion is below --Rtrev 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am adding back the allegations of bias section. His identification in the public eye is tied to his show on MSNBC, and much of that image is tied to the public perception of his left leaning bias he projects on the "Countdown With Keith Olbermann." The left tend to love him, the right tend to dislike him, this will put into record the reasons why. --Groovyman 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has only one cite. It needs more. It contains original research which is not so good. And I am not sure it is notable in this article. It seems like it would belong better in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article. However, most of these points are already covered there. If we can clean it up, do a rewrite, fix the problems, and get some consensus either for or against its inclusion that would be fine but as it is it should not be in the article IMHO. --Rtrev 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to repeat a section already adequately detailed in the "Countdown" article. And the existing version seems pretty NPOV, unlike the one that the mostly anonymous editors are trying to repeatedly insert into this article.-Hal Raglan 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't going to be edited, cleaned up, and improved sitting here, so I am putting it back in with requests for citations and let people reading it make improvements. --Groovyman 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it from the article again per the old arguments. Besides the obvious problems, this bit is written as though it were part of an article about the show, not the host. If an accusation of bias section belongs, which it probably does, it needs to be started from scratch or very near it. Goodnightmush 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am putting it back in. Keith Olbermann's entire persona in the public is based on his perceived bias, this is relevant to any Keith Olbermann Biography. If there should be corrections, the community should be allowed to read and fix it themselves.--BluevState 17:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the section above is WP:POV and largely uncited. It can't be included as is. --Rtrev 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the section ultimately covers the exact same ground as the Accusation of bias section in the Countdown article. The only thing that is different is when his VP wondered if he should have had Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken on the show on consecutive nights. That doesn't seem like his boss is questioning his bias, just if it's prudent to have liberals on his show at all at a time when being liberal was a sin. --Bobblehead 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it does cover some of the same ground, if it is important to understanding the public personality of Keith Olbermann, it needs to be there. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles that tread the same ground other articles. Should we remove from George Washington biography, the chapter on the French and Indian Wars just because it is covered under "French and Indian War" in Wikipedia? Covering relevant material in more than one article is not against any Wikipedia rules. --Groovyman 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying Keith has a liberal bias is akin to saying Rush has a conservative bias. Isn't it self-evident in other parts of the article, making in-depth discussions of such bias simply overkill? I don't think Keith denies being liberal. Why should he? It's a political philosophy, not a disease. K. Scott Bailey 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush's Wikipedia page does devote sections to his conservative outlook, as it should.  ::--Groovyman 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to write dispassionately about Olbermann's liberal political philosophy in a category without such an unabashedly pejorative title ("Allegations of Bias"), I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. If there were a section in Rush's Wiki titled "Allegations of Bias", wouldn't it seem to be overkill? Everyone KNOWS he's biased. HE knows he's biased. The same goes for KO.K. Scott Bailey 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote at the end of this section has been reversed. Instead of "I'm a Liberal, not an American" (as it reads right now) it is supposed to be "I'm not a Liberal, I'm an American" the sourcing is correct just copied wrong. I am changing this. --Lakeshark 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I copied the orginal quote correctly. It was apparently vandalized by 207.69.137.11, who appears to have made more than a few "modifications" to the article. Azathoth68 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose Removal of "News Anchor" From the Bio

First, let me say I made the change, and had it reverted because an editor felt like it would "cause an argument." Why? I'm not an Olbermann-hater. I think he's funny, talented, and smart. But he's NOT a "news anchor." That title is reserved for people like Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, et al. Keith is a commentator and a sportscaster, NOT a news anchor. For the sake of accuracy, his bio needs to reflect that. K. Scott Bailey 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While Countdown does feature a great amount of opinion and commentary like say Tucker, it is absolutely a news show. It features detailed reports on stories unlinke other political commentary shows. He anchors a news program, therefore he is a news anchor. Or so I see it. Goodnightmush 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith's Countdown is not much different than O'Reilly's show. Both men are smart--though I'd take Keith in an IQ battle--and both are extremely opinionated. I think common understanding would indicate that "news anchor" is a title best reserved for people whose job entails straight reporting sans opinion. By the definition used to loosely categorize Keith as a "news anchor", Jon Stewart and--gag!--Bill O'Reilly would qualify as well. Both discuss legitimate news items. However, it is not my contention that both should be categorized thus. It's my contention that such an austere title be reserved for the Cronkites, Brokaws, and Jenningses of the world. It would seem a more apt description of such men, wouldn't you agree?

The term is definitely more suited to such men, but Olbermann does seem to fall within the bounds of the term. His show, while similar, is substantially different from the Colbert Report and the O'Reilly Factor. It dedicates a great deal more time to reporting the story, rather than giving a very brief outline and length commentary. However, you do have a point. I'd be interested to hear what some other people have to say on it. Goodnightmush 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Understand, I'm not coming from a position of hating KO or anything like that. I'm just interested in being as accurate as possible, asnd it seems like "commentator and sportscaster" is MUCH more accurate than "news anchor, commentator, and sportscaster." Additionally, aside from their opposite political positions and the fact that Keith is a bit more witty than BOR, I don't see a substantial difference between the two shows. Both comment on the news of the day. Both do bits (KO's "Worst Person in the World"; BOR's "Talking Points Memo") that are COMPLETE commentary. The same goes for Stewart. He comments on regular news stories, with wiseass remarks. It just seems to me that--in the interest of accuracy--the phrase "news anchor" should be reserved for a more austere personage than the "citizen commentator" that the above men respresent.K. Scott Bailey 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am once more removing "news anchor" from his description, based upon this quote from the article:

Keith Olbermann does not consider his show to be an impartial news broadcast like the network nightly news but rather a talk and analysis show.

Please do not revert without similar explanation.K. Scott Bailey 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That line you just quoted from the article is completely unsourced. I will add "news anchor" back to the opening paragraph. Please do not remove it again unless there is a solid consensus to do so.-Hal Raglan 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please "source" an article, book, or ANYTHING that shows he is a "news anchor." To place a JOB TITLE in this article, shouldn't the burden of proof lie with those claiming he does that job? Here's the fact: HE DOESN'T DO THE JOB OF A "NEWS ANCHOR"!!!! I like Keith, but that's just the truth! Watch the show. He doesn't function as a "news anchor." He doesn't CLAIM to function as a "news anchor." Why do you all insist on leaving that job in his bio? If there's no explanation for why it's there, should it not be removed? Consensus or no, based on the above--and general common sense--I am removing "news anchor" from the article. Please do not insert in unless you have sourced where he does the job of a "news anchor." K. Scott Bailey 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "He doesn't function as a news anchor"? The dictionary definition of "anchor" is: a person who is the main broadcaster on a program of news, sports, etc., and who usually also serves as coordinator of all participating broadcasters during the program [4] Olbermann certainly peforms those duties on his show. Moreover, his show is the closest thing to a traditional "newscast" you can find on primetime cable; he is at least as close to being an "anchor" as is Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, or Brit Hume. He also coanchors MSNBC's special coverage of important events like the State Of The Union. And if that isn't enough for you, MSNBC officially lists him as "MSNBC Anchor, Countdown with Keith Olbermann". [5] I'd say that's about as definitive as you're going to get. Azathoth68 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, K. Scott Bailey, the burden of proof falls on you, since you are the lone voice here arguing to remove "news anchor" from the list of descriptors for Olbermann. Please note that there appears to be a general consensus that Olbermann does, in fact, perform the functions of a news anchor, so any further removal of that job title should not be done unless you can convince of us your argument.-Hal Raglan 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting the passsage, until verified because I have read elsewhere, they he considers his show a news analysis show. He doesn't. He believes it's hard news and also believes he's non partisan - a load of crap. Until someone can prove that he considers his show an "analysis" one, it's gone. It's way too bold to state with a simple, "Oh by the way, we need a citation for this generally untrue claim. We'll get to it." Abacab 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proof: watch his show. Then watch clips of Cronkite, Brokaw, et al (all unquestionably "news anchors"). Then tell me what KO does is a "news anchor." I have no earthly idea why you all are so invested in keeping that job title in there, when that's not what he does. And the burden of proof is on the person arguing for inclusion. You are asking me to prove the negative, which is a logical fallacy. Document where he has been called a "news anchor" by a verifiable source, or leave it out. I am removing it again, until such documentation for inclusion is provided.K. Scott Bailey 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

These two[6][7] call him a news anchor for what he does on Countdown and this one call his a news anchor for his work on ESPN [8]. MSNBC's profile on Olbermann says "MSNBC anchor" [9]. In fact many of the articles on the site by Olbermann say "Anchor, 'Countdown'" such as this article [10]. And for those who say O'reilly doesn't count as a news anchor, you're wrong, just see how many g-hits that gets [11]. Gdo01 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If O'Reilly and Olbermann count as "news anchors" then the words mean nothing. Calling someone an "anchor" is FAR different from calling them a "news anchor." On ESPN, KO anchored a sportscast. On MSNBC, he anchors a commentary program. The job description "news anchor" has to have meaning. Applying it to everyone who sits behind a desk and talks about news is removes all meaning from the term. By this loose definition, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and countless others are "news anchors." That you all are having such a difficult time simply applying common sense to this discussion (i.e. watching his show and comparing it to actual recognized "news anchors" like Cronkite and Brokaw) may be highlighting a flaw of Wikipedia: missing the forest for the trees. We are so intent on keeping this one little pet portion of his job description in the article that we can't look objectively at his job and note that he bears little or no resemblance to any recognized news anchor.K. Scott Bailey 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the watering down of the term "news anchor" but your commentary on anchor meaning something other than news anchor is wrong. Look up anchor in any dictionary. The closest word it will direct you to is anchorman or anchorwoman which either means the last person in a relay, a moderator, or a person who presents news. There is no such thing as a "commentary program anchor." Gdo01 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And I am arguing that common sense be applied. If such can not be done, then the words themselves lack meaning. KO is very good at what he does, but that is not being a "news anchor." What then do we put on the pages of people who actually anchor a news program, such as Brian Williams or Charles Gibson? How do we differentiat between the two? Should we also insert "news anchor" into the bios of all people for whom news plays some part in their programming? As I said, words MUST have meaning. As such, common sense must be applied to this case, removing a clearly non-applicable job title from the bio, for the sake of clarity. (It's fortunate that I am not a vandal. Otherwise, one could make a serious case for visiting all of the applicable Wikis and adding "news anchor" to their bios, as a form of protest at the watering down of the meaning of words here on Wikipedia. It makes no logical sense to call KO a "news anchor" any more than it does to refer to Sean Hannity as such. As vandalism's not my thing, though, the bios of Hannity, Franken, et al are safe.)K. Scott Bailey 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you'd to take a look at the News presenter article. Olbermann, O'reilly, and Nancy Grace are among there with "the greats" in newscasting. Gdo01 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott Baily, unfortunately your definition of news anchor isn't supported by reliable sources and even more unfortunately, the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia is verifiability, not factuality. If a reliable source saying O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. are news anchors can be found, then they can be called a news anchor. You've got yourself in a race you can't win here, alas. --Bobblehead 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who should have to prove a case here. The people who want to place "news anchor" as one of his jobs should have to show that he functions as a news anchor. Citing a source doesn't "prove" anything. Point to instances in which he functioned in the traditional role of a news anchor. There should be a factuality standard for Wikipedia--if, as you contend, one does not exist--that keeps problems like this from arising. Are you asserting--as it appears you are--that Wikipedia is less concerned with factuality than sourcing?K. Scott Bailey 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But your own personal version of "common sense" is not the same as "factuality". And of course facts need to be always sourced in an encyclopedia. Why do you believe your opinion should have priority here over simple, sourced facts? Editors have repeatedly provided you with citations that describe KO as a news anchor, so now its up to you to "prove" everybody else is wrong. You haven't even come close to doing so.-Hal Raglan 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's a good thing I'm not a vandal, or there would be MANY commentators who would have "news anchor" appended to their bios. I should remind you, I like KO. I just recognize what he does, and it's NOT being a "news anchor." To paraphrase a famous quote, "Mr. Raglan, I know news anchors, and KO is no news anchor." In all seriousness, KO is a talented, intelligent commentator and sportscaster. What this really reminds me of is the Rush Limbaugh Nobel Nominee discussion. It is a sourced fact that he's a Nobel Nominee. However, simple common sense tells us that it's a ploy. Sourced? Yes. But a common sensical approach tells us that such a description does not belong in his article. It's the same reasoning that applies here. Common sense tells us that Keith doesn't function as a "news anchor" any more than Brian Williams functions as a "sportscaster." Several in this thread have acknowledged that it seems to stretch the bounds of what can be defined as a "news anchor" to label KO as such. Yet the label--however erroneous--stays. It's clear that people are willing to set aside what they recognize as common sense, simply because MSNBC posts the word "anchor" (they don't call him a "news anchor")in a puff bio. Keith is great at what he does. He's just not a news anchor.K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there is no other appropriate interpretation for anchor other than news anchor, thats why people like Chris Jansing are just referred to as anchors on MSNBC's website eventhough she's obviously a news anchor. I'm sure that looking up the other MSNBC's news anchors, you'll see that they are called anchors. There is no way to deny that MSNBC thinks he is an anchor. Common sense arguments won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia since that straddles if not completely violates WP:OR. Gdo01 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you denying that EVERY local newscast has a "sports anchor"? Or that guys like Dan Patrick at ESPN are referred to as "sports anchors"? Additionally, common sense does not even come CLOSE to "original research." Common sense is what it is: a sense of something that is common to all sensible people. Some people lack common sense, and others choose to ignore it. It would appear that Wikipedia--in this case, at least--falls into the latter category. That's fine, but it still doesn't make any sense. That there can't be a provision in Wikipedia to account for common sense is disappointing. It's too bad that there's nothing in Wikipedia's system that allows us to differentiate between Brian Williams (an actual news anchor) and Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, et al (commentators). As a person who loves words, and values their meaning, it is extremely disappointing.K. Scott Bailey 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine I'll concede sports anchor and weather anchor and traffic anchor but do you think that MSNBC was seriously thinking of anything other than news anchor when they called Olbermann an anchor? That should be "common sense." You frankly have brought nothing to the table other than your "common sense" doctrine and lamenting that there isn't a "common sense" doctrine. If you have a problem with Wikipedia not accepting your "common sense" doctrine then you should take it to WP:HCP. Until there is nothing more to discuss here. There is a verifiable, official and therefore reliable source calling Olbermann an "anchor" of a show that is a "newscast"[12]. I guess he would be a newscast anchor otherwise known as a news anchor. Gdo01 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So because his employer calls his show a "unique newscast" of which he is the "anchor", I must simply acquiesce to your view, common sense notwithstanding? I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how it makes logical sense to use the phrase "news anchor" for both men like Cronkite (of whom the title was first used) and KO (who does a completely different job). Not once does MSNBC even use the phrase "news anchor" for KO, yet that bio is cited as a "source" for continuing labeling him as such. When this fact is pointed out, you fall back on the (apparently non-existent) "common sense doctrine" that I have proposed should underly all decisions as an unwritten rule. You should make up your mind whether the CSD exists or not. If it does, "news anchor" should go. If it doesn't, "news anchor" should still go, as I have seen no citation of any verifiable source that refers to KO as a "news anchor."K. Scott Bailey 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My jab at the CSD was just an example of how it can be manipulated and I didn't advocate using it. I actually stated that he is an anchor of a newscast which is correct and citeable. No one has cited "news anchor" yet, its just there on its own merit for the moment. I'll gladly change the intro to say "newscast anchor" and cite that but that won't survive long on the front page since for most people "newscast anchor" = news anchor. And just to make it clear, the CSD does not exist. Gdo01 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's rather sad that using common sense has to be codified in Wikipedia bylaws before one can use it. It's almost laughable, it's so ludicrous.K. Scott Bailey 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the cited article never calls him a "newscast anchor" either. It simply calls him an "anchor" of a "unique newscast." If one insists that no form of common sense can be applied here, even "newscast anchor" can not be accurately applied. A "unique newscast" in this case, would have to refer to KO's "Countdown", which is a commentary program. Olbermann DOES "anchor" this program.K. Scott Bailey 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[13] Gdo01 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. MSNBC has clearly disregarded what he actually DOES (comment and make pithy remarks on the news) and in the process completely watered-down the meaning of what a "news anchor" does. Yet they DO (for whatever reason) label him thus. My objection to the inclusion is therefore withdrawn.K. Scott Bailey 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A.D.D.?

Does Keith Olbermann have A.D.D.?[14] after 5 mins in.. (might be a joke though) --ShadowSlave 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a joke since I doubt his whole staff has ADD. Anyway, if it were true, you would need another source other than a joke during an MSNBC promo. Gdo01 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why only one picture that covers his face?

If that can be found, shouldn't there be a better picture of him at the top of the article?--Occono 09:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Wears a toupee" from Television Appearances

Fake hair is hardly relevant, and even if it was, why would it belong in a section titled Television Appearances?

--Mbruno42 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't always caught when it first happens. Thanks for removing it. --Bobblehead 17:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm a bit new to this (read a bit as that was my first edit haha). --Mbruno42 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Mark Levin was criticized by Keith Olbermann for nominating Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. Keith Olbermann named him the “Worst Person in the World." Levin his radio show criticized Keith Olbermann harshly by calling him "Keith Overbite" and moked him by pointing out his low ratings and calling him a pervert. He also criticized his looks saying it was a joke that he won an internet poll for best looking news show host and accused him of being bald and wearing a wig on air.

I reworded that section to remove weasel words and improve tone, but realized it doesn't belong on the page at all. Keith names hundreds of people Worst Person in the World. Levin struck back and this, if a significant event at all, would belong on his page. Goodnightmush 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

Should there be something here about his personal life -- the allegations of sexual harassment, his relationship with a much younger woman, etc.? If you're going to bring up things like his comments about Rita Crosby, which aren't necessarily a part of his professional life, then don't other elements of his personal life belong here? PolskiSaysWhat 05:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We're confined by what can be properly attributed in reliable sources. The Rita Crosby flap made it into a reliable source so it was left in. --Bobblehead 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That same "reliable source" re Cosby was the same source re the groupie story. So why is one allowed in and not the other? Olbermann has never denied the story. And it is true that he lives with a much, much, much, younger woman, 23 to his nearly 50. And that has been in countless publications, straight from Olbermann's mouth. So why is it not there?

Ratings trends

It seems that there is a disagreement about how to present Olbermann's ratings. One side wants to mention the large increase from a year ago and the other wants to mention the drop from Novemeber '06. I think both are valid to mention but it should be dedicated in its own section. It seems to be used as a POV battle in regards to how he's performing against O'Reilly. Just state the facts in proper context and be done with it. MrMurph101 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MrMurph101. If ratings are to be used in the O'Reilly feud section, they should really stick with a comparison between O'Reilly and Olbermann. If the intent is to compare Countdown to the other shows at the 8PM timeslot, it should probably be moved to the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article.. --Bobblehead 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Olbermann's ratings being included in the article, but I'd like to make a two points:

• If ratings are to be specifically placed in the O'Reilly feud section, to avoid violating WP:OR, they should come from a source that mentions the ratings with regards to the feud.
• If we're just going to include general ratings statistics then they should be placed in a more general section, like where User:Goodnightmush just put them. Lawyer2b 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do the Olbermann fans cherrypick the data? Why are you afraid of the actual stats? Just show them. Hobo-nc 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"I'm a liberal"

Why is this being reverted?

http://olbermannwatch.com/audios/liberal.mp3

Keith clearly states "I'm a liberal."

What is "unreliable" about this sound byte. It's about reliable as it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CasualO (talk • contribs)

First of all, I do not trust anything that comes from "Olbermann Watch," and, since it is a partisan website, it does not meet Wikipedia qualifications for verifiability. That aside, if one actually listens to the sound file, one can hear that Olbermann is being ironic. He is responding to the accusations from conservatives that he is a liberal, i.e., "Oh, I believe in child labor laws, but, oh yeah, I'm a liberal." This is not a situation in which Keith clearly states, with no equivocation, no irony or self-mocking, and no joking, "I am a liberal" or "I subscribe to a liberal philosophy," etc. This is not an acceptable reference for the assertion that he is a liberal. ---Cathal 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Olbermann is a liberal, it shouldn't be difficult to find a neutral, reliable secondary source that describes him as one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Depth Perception

There's no mention of his eye injury on this page, though it is on the Countdown With Keith Olbermann page. In 1980, he ran headfirst into a subway door, permanently damaging his depth perception. It's also mentioned on his IMDB page.

Controversies: Osteopathy

I removed this new section for the following reasons: First, it was poorly written and its tone was not encyclopaedic; Second, the press release from the AOA did not respond specifically to Olbermann's comments, but to the general media attitude that Paris Hilton's osteopath was not compitent to be offering psychiatric advice, and was not "really a doctor"; Third, as compared to the other material in that section, this is very minor indeed. If other reputable sources exist indicating a specific response to Olbermann's comments, then a short entry could be written about this, but I would still question its importance in the larger scheme of things. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC First mention

"Olbermann wrote a weekly column for Salon.com from July 2002 until being rehired by MSNBC in early 2003. On his return to MSNBC,... " I cannot find anywhere earlier in the article that mentions previous employment at MSNBC. I question why these two sentences say "rehired by MSNBC" and "return to MSNBC" without earlier mention of a previous employment at that network. I would edit the page but it might merit discussion if there is in fact missing information that should mention prior employment with MSNBC. Regularjohn44 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I realized it might be just a wording error, maybe implying that the "rehire" and "return" was not referring to MSNBC, but to television. In either case it is confusing. Regularjohn44 07:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had not noticed it previously, but on looking again, the sentence is certainly unclear. A rewording is in order. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences difficult to understand

Could the following be reworded for clarity:

However, in February 2007, Olbermann launched a new blog, The News Hole. Countdown's format, per its name, involves Keith Olbermann ranking the five biggest news stories of the day or sometimes "stories my producers force me to cover" as Olbermann puts it. This is done in numerical reversal or counting down with the first story shown being ranked fifth but apparently the most important. The segments ranked numbers two and one typically are of a lighter fare than segments ranked five through three. The first few stories shown are typically government/politics/world events. The last two typically involve celebrities, sports, or the bizarre. On February 15, 2007, Olbermann and NBC agreed to a contract that would keep Olbermann at his current position as host of Countdown through 2011.[8]

--Anchoress 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for President's Resignation

Seriously, this is supposed to be part of an encyclopedia entry? I don't get it. I mean, every time he makes a "special comment," it should be added to an encyclopedia? It is out of place. Hobo-nc 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. When a national news anchor calls for the resignation of the President and Vice President, it's highly notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, he's not a "news anchor." Second of all, he is a partisan on the order of Rush Limbaugh. Every time Rush calls for someone to resign, it's notable for an encyclopedia? I understand that liberals cream their jeans over Olby, but get real already. This is unfit for the article. Hobo-nc 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann is a national, primetime news anchor on a mainstream cable news channel. Yes, his opinion segments have increasingly taken on the current administration, but again, it is highly notable that an anchor on a prime-time newscast is calling for the resignation of the President. Only a partisan bias could deny this plain-as-day event. This was not inserted as "agreement" with the position. It was presented as a notable fact. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When a news anchor looks into the camera and says Mr. President resign i'd say its pretty important Gang14 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

His show is not news but "news commentary" or "analysis." He's a TV equivalent of a newspaper columnist. But more importantly, I ask you this: if it is sooooo noteworthy, as you claim, then why has not a SINGLE major newspaper reported it? The "biggest" article was by the Orlando Sentinel's TV columnist on his online page, so this is neither news reportage or in print, nor is it in a major publication. No LA Times, no NYT, no Chicago papers, no WaPo--nobody is reporting it. Get a grip: Olby preaches to the choir of his 700K viewers and the DU. A big lefty circle jerk is not for an encyclopedia entry: it's simply not news and no one besides the Olby fans care. Hobo-nc 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a rationale for removal. It's clearly notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, you have weakened your position by using politically biased language -- this will naturally color how anyone views any action you take in the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stevie: so what if I used biased language on the talk page? You still didn't answer the question. "Because Steve says so," is no more a standard than, "I don't like it." What are your sources or criteria for noteworthiness? Again, it has not been reported in a single major newspaper. None. Nada. Zip. Please explain, and cite examples. The burden of proof is on you, since I already illustrated it's LACK of noteworthiness, since no one is taking note except you. What are the criteria? Hobo-nc 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't care if KO said it or not--I just don't think it's encyclopedia material: it is too granular. Perhaps a whole section on KO's criticism of the President is called for instead. That has been his M.O. for several years at Countdown, and it would make for a much better read. Then, this one un-noteworthy editorial is contextualized in KO's whole schtick, and it makes the article make more sense, flow-wise. As part of a larger section, it may make sense (c.f., Politics of Bill O'Reilly). Hobo-nc 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you where we agree first: Granularity. Certainly, a "Criticism of the Bush Administration" (or similar) section would be a good idea, with this blurb in it. Otherwise, some things have obvious notability -- it's not that I say so, it just is due to the straightforward magnitude of it. A highly notable person calling for the resignation of the President is a notable event. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not notable (low ratings, uncited sources, incredibly baased) for one thing. And every time he makes a 'special comment' being critical of the Bush Administration is so common place you could fill 10 pages of the nonsense he expresses as his opinion. It should be removed. Tanninglamp 16:00 9 July 2007