Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Criticism section[edit]

The wording makes it sound as though Bill O'Reilly is a prominent Republican. While he may lean right, he's not a Republican at all.Sadistik 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I needed a good laugh. MageKing17 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You can hardly call someone an independent who has always voted Republican and has (from what I can tell of his opinions and not what he tries to make us believe in order to try to cover-up FOX's obvoius bias)never even considered voting for a Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.31.97 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot say someone isn't independent just because he won't vote for a particular Political Party. Least of all in my state where you don't register as a Party member. --209.172.30.158 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone investigated his voter regisration in NY. Turns out he is a registered Republican.69.181.214.234 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proof? Prove it! --209.172.30.158 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

who cares about oreilly what about Keith's left biased and criticism of him, there should be a section on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.118.176 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New Section[edit]

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. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Should also note that the anonymous blog referred to by the Page Six column is accessible "by invitation only". So much for openness. jvalatka
(unindent) I'm surprised no one here has pointed this out yet, but can the slander, sorry, gossip page of the NY Post really be considered a reliable source? FYI the illustrious NY POST is owned by News Corp, you know, the people who own Fox News, whom Keith's show & network directly compete against and go after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.95.7.190 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The woman does exist and it is easy to verify it...it is a true story about Olbermann and that my friends makes it impossible that it is slander. If you guys would spend more time on reputable resources like real encycolopedias and dictionaries you would know that slander requires saying something untrue about someone. This story has much more possible reliable citations than much of the anti-Oreilly slander that really is on wikipedia. Clearly it is the bias of the admins on this page that keep a criticism section off the Olbermann page (Olbermann has by now received far more reputable cricitism--i.e. something other than moveon.org or another leftist website--which criticize Olbermann...what about the New Yorker article by a thirty year veteran LEFTIST reporter blasting Olbermann for making a mockery of leftists. Yet for sommmmee reason we find none of this on the Olbermann page and Oreilly's criticism section is longer than his accomplishments (Oreilly actually went to Harvard...Olbermann went to some shitty liberal arts school). Not to mention Oreilly continues to absolutely destroy Olbermann in the ratings...only the two lowest rated Fox shows receive less viewers than "Countdown". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

cornell is a shitty liberal arts school? if leftist is the most important feature of this reporter you do not name, your bias is plain. if you are dissatisfied with these articles in their current states, why don't you actually cite some sources and change them instead of complaining for others to do it for you. 68.210.57.224 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Life[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It's funny how Mr. Obermann ingores the truth when it comes to causes he stands behind. Like reporting that Michael J. Fox supported a candidate that voted against stem-cell research instead of one who did, just because of their party affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmihelic1977 (talkcontribs) 09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections moved to Talk Page[edit]

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."[1] Olbermann has since apologized for the email saying he had been stupid and should have known better[2], but Cosby did reply saying: "Keith got it wrong. I'm not that nice."[1]

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. [citation needed] In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. [citation needed] This documentation now sits in the Baseball Hall of Fame. [citation needed] Olbermann at one time opposed Pete Rose being admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, [citation needed] but recently changed his stance due to the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball. [3]

This is completely unsupported. These {{Fact}} 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

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)

It also ignores Keith's honest explanation and continues to passively attack him by bringing up past qoutes about Nazism. He wasn't giving a Seig Heil! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.77.20 (talk)

So, since Keith provides an excuse that must be true right? There's enough ass kissing in this article already. I doubt you've seen the picture after reading your excuse there. Talk about censorship. Don't want to make top dog Keithy look the least bit bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.189.69 (talk)

Placed a cleanup tag since the section is supposed to be about the o reilly feud but seems to be equally about the feud and the "salute." BT14 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another missing section[edit]

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[edit]

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)

So Olbermann making many controversial assertions is a reason that he shouldn't be held responsible for any of them? More controversies should result in more coverage, not less. Otherwise, the casual reader would assume that Olbermann is not controversial when, as your comments make clear, he undeniably is. Bill O'Rielly has also "made many assertions that could be considered controversial" but that doesn't mean his controversy and criticism sections were deleted. In fact, last time I checked, there's a whole seperate article devoted to the controversy around that opinion maker. Cg-realms 2:26, 21 October 2007 (EST)
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)
Entertainment News Journalists are always biased. They are hired for their personalities. MSNBC has more Republican hosts on air than Democrats. Just to clarify, Keith has only called himself a progressive. He's attacked people from both sides plenty of times. But, after putting up with Tucker all day and turncoat Matthews(softballing people like Ann Coulter), Keith is a relief in the afternoons. Tucker did call Keith a liberal once, though. But that's Tucker...what the hell does he know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.77.20 (talk) 01:12, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
As the world's leading authority on Keith Olbermann, this talk about Ronals Rumsfeld is inaccurate all around. While no fan of Keith's the Rumsfeld Special Comment was a seminal moment for Keith Olbermann, his career, his identity as a voice of the anti-war left in the U.S. and the ratings of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Keith himself has told interviews that this was a major event. It was also historical in another sense, it marked the first significant use of political blogs to promote a television program (other than a debate or convention). Keith "leaked" the special comment to so-called blue blogs like Crooks and Liars to get that word out that he had something special to say. This moment as an "event" is also fraught with mythology. The fact is that few people watched the Rumsfeld Special Comment that night for a very simple reason - it was the Thursday before the Labor Day weekend, the last week in August, which is traditionally the lowest week of television viewing each year (hint: many people are on vacation or otherwise enjoying the last full week of summer vacation). In fact, the night after the Rumsfeld special comment, the ratings for Countdown were among the lowest in the history of the show. That entire week the ratings were extremely low. In fact there was talk of canceling the show because after a brief spike in the first quarter of 2006 due to NBC/MSNBC coverage of the Winter Olympics, Keith's ratings had gone steadily lower. The last week in August was the bottom. That week also then became the basis for a massive amount of misleading reporting about Keith's ratings. In the weeks AFTER the Rumsfeld special comment, MSNBC began putting out press released claiming massive ratings growth for Keith. Some of the data and calculations they used were actually fake but there WAS an increase. MSNBC's PR department (and Keith) grossly inflated the increase by benchmarking the "growth" from that last week in August when Keith was only on-air two nights (he later told interviewers of writing the Rumsfeld special comment while stuck on a plane at LAX on his way back from vacation) and one of those night was the lowest rated night EVER of Countdown due to it being the Friday of Labor Day weekend which is the lowest rated night of the year each year. The gauzy (phony) ratings increase became the basis for a PR blitz proclaiming Keith's "skyrocketing" ratings in the aftermath of the Rumsfeld comment. The fact is that more people viewed the special comment on Crooks and Liars in the month after then watched on MSNBC that night in August. Regardless, the hype worked. Keith began doing a series of Special Comments which were duly promoted on the blue blogs, building a frenzy of excitement among left-wing blogs and their readers. Keith's ratings did go up over the next four months, peaking in the 25-54 demo in December 2006 (they've been on a steady decline since). Ironically, Keith continued to show ratings growth in TOTAL viewers and his overall numbers continue to climb to their current level of about 750,000 viewers per month making his show, by far, the highest rated show EVER on MSNBC. I say ironic because for years Keith ridiculed other networks, especially Fox News but also CNN, because THEIR ratings growth was largely outside the 25-54 demo. The average age of Countdown viewers is now about the same as CNN viewers and only slightly younger that viewers of Fox News (about 1 year average difference). With all that said, there is no doubt that the Rumsfeld Special Comment should receive special mention in Keith's entry. A footnote should also be given to Keith's Katrina Special Comment (not called that at the time) which was actually his first "essay" - lambasting President Bush over the Katrina recovery effort. My recommendation is that the Rumsfeld special comment deserves its own section in this entry because it largely defines Keith Olbermann as an on-air personality in many different ways. BTW, I am NOT going to document any of this or make any edits. I learned long ago that making edits on this entry are a waste of time because the entry is monitored by Olbermann fans whose primary purpose seems to be to turn this entry in a promotional vehicle for Keith (although I will say this entry is MUCH better than it was two years ago). All the supporting documentation can be found on Olbermann Watch which I will mention but not link here.[[User:rcox1963] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcox1963 (talkcontribs) 13:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-USA Fame[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Paul -- I suspect your old English teacher would point out that essays don't generally do a lot of "imparting" of instances, or of anything else. My old English teacher, Mr. Purdy, would have suggested something along the lines of "The writer recounted an instance..." 38.115.185.2 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)LNelson

Yea but you're both amateurs so why are you pretending like you know what you're talking about? This is why wikipedia is so pathetic and college professors have to warn their students that it's against the rules to use it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

24 Reference[edit]

==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.[4]

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[edit]

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[edit]

== 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)

The title of this section, if not the section itself, is slightly absurd. Would you have a section on the pope labeled "allegations of Catholicism" or a section on Hitler labeled "allegations of anti-semitism?" Of course Keith is biased. Would anyone watching the show think he wasn"t?Badmintonhist (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Propose Removal of "News Anchor" From the Bio[edit]

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)
hardly worth it then, was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.207.31 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A.D.D.?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?

Even if true, the Karma story would not qualify as sexual harassment. It would be a one night stand. You can't harass someone by refusing to see them or speak to them again. In that situation, Karma would be the harasser. CuteGargoyle 09:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings trends[edit]

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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)
Assuming "Olbermann Watch" can't be trusted since it is "partisan website," ALL of the "Media Matters" sources on Wikipedia should be removed too using the same logic. However, in this case if the clip is taken out of context then it should not be on here because it would be misleading.Cobrapete 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters is not an equivalent organization to Olbermann Watch. Olbermann Watch is an opinion site by a guy who doesn't like or respect KO or facts in general. Media Matters only deals in facts, and does not allege bias ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.139 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters only deals with facts and doesn't allege bias? That's news to me! I can't play the audio on my computer, but I visit Olbermann Watch regularly and while biased, it does seem to be pretty reliable. I believe that both Olbermann and Media Matters have very little respect for facts and are no doubt biased, but that doesn't mean everything they say is a lie. Both websites (Olbywatch & MM) are politically skewed but both happen to provide facts as well. We have to be careful to check where those facts are coming from due to the nature of the websites. By the way, Media Matters alleges bias on a regular basis (and almost all of their targets, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. label themselves as conservatives). As far as the clip, if he was being sarcastic than that should absolutely not be used to label him. However, IMHO, Olbermann is, by just about anyone, a liberal in the modern sense and if there is any evidence of him non-sarcastically labeling himself as one he should be labeled as such in his biography. SouthJerseyConservative (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Media Matters explicitly states (http://mediamatters.org/about_us/) that their purpose is to correct Conservative misinformation. As such they would appear to have a partisan agenda. That doesn't mean that what they say isn't true. It doesn't mean that they don't deal in facts. But it is their aim to selectively choose what they do and do not deal with, from an explicitly non-conservative viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.1.202 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost fell off my seat reading that media matters only deal in facts. Yeah, right and Keith Olbermann does a lot of overseas reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.226.92 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio isn't reliable to begin with, at least not in the real world. Markthemac 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

KO was named the 67th "most influential US liberal" by the Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/uselection/nosplit/liberals61-80.xml --CSvBibra 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, as long as it is written neutrally, and sourced. As far as I know, they aren't really disputed facts about either Hannity or Olbermann. "Liberal" may be seen by some as un-PC, so left-of-center is probably more appropriate. - Crockspot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Hi Helper2008, if I could take a moment to explain my take on this. . .I have seen some KO footage of his Countdown show (don't have cable so not a whole lot), my impression is that he is more anti-current WH administration policy than he is 'liberal'. One would not have to go back very far to find people on the right-wing end of the spectrum espousing the same type of views: 1) distrust of expansion of federal power (surveillance), 2) secret courts viewed with suspicion, 3) wish for less 'world policing' or international entanglements. Perhaps he actually is liberal, I think that will become more self-evident as time goes by. Particularly if a Democratic candidate is in the White House. It would be interesting at that point to see (if there is any) the re-alignment of republican positions, and with regard to KO: how that re-alignment relates to KO's own commentary. I could be convinced at this point in time if KO's views on issues more typically associated with left vs. right (e.g. public housing, the poor, affirmative action, education and health care) were known, and had multiple reliable sourcing. R. Baley (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I just said below that I wasn't going to argue the point, but reading your reply, I cannot help myself. You are engaging in an original research thought process as your rationale for opposing this inclusion, while we have two reliable secondary sources that characterize him as a "liberal" and as "left of the scale" respectively, plus we have a primary source of KO actually calling himself a "liberal" on audio. Observing how he behaves if a Democrat takes office as a justification for allowing this in or not is also original research. It matters not one bit what we observe. What matters is what reliable sources say, and we have two secondaries and a primary saying he is a liberal. Can you find any reliable sources that dispute this, and say he is not a liberal? - Crockspot (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I wonder, do claims from Olbermann himself count? Because I can find several off the top of my head, though I'm not sure if everyone would count that. In his own words' defense, however, considering him a partisan the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc is flawed logic, as they themselves are personally-avowed Conservatives, whereas Olbermann insists otherwise. --Ademska (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing the sound byte was just made up by right-wing nut jobs.

Ah yes, he pulls the "I'm not a [insert political ideology here], I'm neutral, I'm just rational". I suppose if Ann Coulter came out and said she was not conservative but neutral and went on bashing liberals the way she does you would believe her too.

How about this article?[15] Does it meet your standards? --Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann is named America's 67th most influential LIBERAL-[16]--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann is a 'liberal hero'-[17]

Keith Olbermann disproportionatly criticizes conservatives over liberals-[18]

This man is clearly a liberal-[19]

Whether he admits it or not, he IS a liberal.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Salon link simply is an interview with Olbermann revealing his deep distrust of the Bush Administration. Hardly a strictly liberal view anymore, despite what the likes of Media Research Center and The Daily Telegraph would have us believe. This issue has been discussed on this talk page over and over. The general consensus appears to be that we do not slap a liberal label on Olbermann because 1) its clearly an arguable point, 2) Olbermann himself does not self-identify as such, and 3) the "Accusations of Bias" section adequately addresses the issue.-Hal Raglan (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Whether he admits it or not, he IS a liberal"?! Wow; replace "liberal" with "communist" and this sounds like it came right from the mouth of McCarthy. The article's fine the way it is. Sjenkins7000 (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the world's leading authority on Keith Olbermann, let me just address this rather odd discussion. The audio clip is a direct link from a post which explains that it is a clip from ESPN Radio's Dan Patrick Show. The clip was taken from a podcast on espn.com. As is my policy, I am not going to reference that or edit the entry because editors like Cathal will simply revert any entry that does not comport with their goal of using this entry to promote Keith Olbermann. Keith does not say, as is claimed despite the audio evidence, that Keith said "Oh, I believe in child labor laws, but, oh yeah, I'm a liberal." That's not what he said. The statement was simply "I'm a liberal".
I have to agree it is laughable to claim "Media Matters is not an equivalent organization to Olbermann Watch. Olbermann Watch is an opinion site by a guy who doesn't like or respect KO or facts in general. Media Matters only deals in facts, and does not allege bias ever." First, the notion that Media Matters does not have an agenda is absurd on its face. It is true they "deal in facts" but the organization was created specifically to mimic Media Research Center which also "deals in facts". Both sites take facts - excerpts from print publications, audio or video clips - and then present those facts in a way that is intend to support a specific agenda (MRC=right-wing; MMFA=left-wing). At is happens Olbermann Watch also "deals in facts". I would defy the editor who disparaged Olbermann Watch to find a single post out of the 4,000 written over the past 4 years that is not "dealing in facts". We watch the show, report what happens on the show and then offer our take on the facts of what happened on the show. We provide accurate, in-context quotes, link to transcripts, provide audio and video clips, link to other news web sites and blogs, etc. That someone here does not like the conclusions that we draw from the facts is irrelevant. Anyone who doubts the veracity of this audio clip is more than welcome to google for the original post then use that date to pull up the podcast from the ESPN archive and listen for themselves. As noted by other editors above this is hardly necessary because numerous additional sources have been cited confirming what is obvious from watching Keith Olbermann on TV - that he is liberal. Or maybe you think that Keith is blogging on arguable the most aggressively partisan liberal blog in the world - Daily Kos - because he couldn't find anywhere else to post blog comments.
I would close by once again noting that Wikipedia entries are not meant to be fan sites.[[User:rcox1963] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcox1963 (talkcontribs) 14:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Depth Perception[edit]

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[edit]

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. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC First mention[edit]

"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. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences difficult to understand[edit]

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[edit]

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! TalkWork 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! TalkWork 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! TalkWork 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! TalkWork 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! TalkWork 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
He's not notable (low ratings, uncited sources, incredibly biased) 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

(outdent)Just because a notable person says something, it does not mean that the statement is notable, it's the coverage that the statement got that makes it notable. Besides Olbermann, the only people I've seen noticing Olbermann made the demand are liberal and conservative bloggers, neither of which are particularly reliable sources. That seems to indicate the "Special Comment" isn't particularly notable. This is especially true for the amount of space it eats up in the article. I can see it being a sentence in a larger section covering his criticism of the Bush Administration, but as that section stands now, it's really only worthy of a link in the External links section, if that.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The event was responded to by many notable blogs of the left and right, and look at the editorial in Investor's Business Daily. You cannot discount blog response from notable blogs when the response was as widespread as it was. Blogs in the year 2007, esp. highly notable ones, are not chopped liver. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference that could be added as to the time when Keith Olbermann "enveloped" President Bush"? I don't recall that happening, and I've researched post-9/11 coverage and do not find any evidence of it happening.2candle 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Article's Organization is a Mess[edit]

Anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up and making it more coherent? It is completely disorganized, and the headings are not parallel. For example, "Return to sports broadcasting" is between "Feud with O'Reilly" and "Controversies," and it is given equal weight as a main heading. And then it goes into "Baseball," "Smoking," and then "Ratings"? WTF? Another example, "Career at ESPN" is one heading. Why not a "Career at MSNBC"? Why is that called "After Sportscenter"? Really, the whole article is organizationally a complete mess. Hobo-nc 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about making a main heading for all of his sportcasting--ESPN, Fox Sports, the new Football gig, etc., and the having all of his news/commenator stuff as another main heading? Hobo-nc 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think controversies should all be categorized together? Hobo-nc 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Controversy sections tend to behave like trivia sections and tend to be a sign of a poorly written article. Ideally criticisms/controversies should be integrated into the existing prose in order to maintain NPOV and hopefully improve the overall quality of the article. The ultimate intent is to include the criticism/controversy in the article, while not giving it undue weight at the same time. Other than that, the layout changes you've implemented are an improvement over the cluster that existed before. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Olbermann having his appendix out, even though it was cited. Having an appendix removed is hardly an uncommon or notable achievement unless there are complications. Also, an event that happened in 2007 does not belong in the "Early life and career" section. And in the same section, the paragraph starting with "The 6-foot-4, 250-pound broadcaster" may need to be removed if it cannot be cited, if the paragraph is kept in the article, it should say what year the weight problems happened. Windsorwindsor1 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article history[edit]

Am I the only one experiencing a very strange problem with the article history? When I click back through the flurry of recent edits, I get transported from here ([[20]]) to here ([[21]]), where the title at the top of the page says: Wikipedia:Wikipedians, Keith Olbermann. Obviously, this makes no damn sense. Any ideas what went wrong? ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia wide problem.[22] From what I've seen, it's only if you try to select the article page while viewing a diff. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

California[edit]

Can anyone explain why this is part of the California project? FWIW, Olbermann isn't a Californian nor a personality that folks associate with California? The tag is odd at the top of this page. Can we remove it? Hobo-nc 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing projects from a page tends to annoy those on the project, so best to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to find any indication, Hobo-nc, that you followed Bobblehead's advice and inquired over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California about this issue. Therefore, I have reverted your deletion of the WikiProject California template. In future, please consult with others before making such changes. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For someone who calls himself an anarchist, you sure are a fascist. Typical. Anyway, I have added a magical request to the High and Mighty California Project People, before whose puissance we must all bow. I told them that if they don't object by the end of the week, I am removing the tag. That project is pretty neglected, so I won't hold my breath. Anyway, what's wrong with the facts being sufficient in this case? Why does possible "annoyance" of someone trump the facts and truth? Otherwise, anyone can tag anything they want and no one is allowed to remove it, no matter how inane it is? I might as well tag this article as part of the One-Legged Inuit Hairdressers' Project. Don't use facts to argue against this new tag--someone might get "annoyed," apparently the biggest violation of wikipedia. Hobo-nc 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't the least bit of interest in your bloody opinion, so sod off. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There you go again, telling people what to do. Why don't you live up to your declaration and take your wikibreak? I guess this makes you a liar and a fascist both. Congrats. Hobo-nc 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on the contributor. --OnoremDil 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody over there raised an objection. It's gone now. Hobo-nc 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

what up now theoldanarchist? good work hobo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Caught Tampering with This Page[edit]

Fox News has been caught tampering with Olbermann's biography on wikipedia. [23]. THAT is a low blow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobert bfm (talkcontribs)

The edits they're talking about happened in 2005. --OnoremDil 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It actually happened here on Jan 16 of this year. It was only 4 (3 just tidying up) edits that just added a link to the now non-existant mention of the Malmedy controversy in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page. Does not seem like much tampering from what easily could have been done. MrMurph101 19:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This same person/persons have also been making edits to remove potentially embarrasing information from several Fox News personalities, including deletions of references to their criminal/civil court experiences. I'd also add changing text from "some conservatives" to "conservatives," (implying all of them) to just point to one example, is more than just "tidying up." It clearly changes the meaning of the article, and when you review all of their edits on this and Fox News personality pages in context, they're designed to cast more favorable light on Fox and cast a more critical light on Fox's arch-enemy Keith Olbermann. That's closer to page vandalism and censorship at worst, major conflict of interest at best. Their edits should be exposed for readers to let them know a Fox News employee was responsible for making them. I suspect the new Wikipedia Scanner tool will expose a whole lot of this kind of thing. Of course, that this happened at all guarantees it will become an issue on Countdown.wny 1628, 15 Aug 2007
I think you have totally missed the point. "Tidying up" meant minor edits to correct links and grammar, not smoothly change the context of any particular phrase. I apologize for not being more technical. I found these edits through wikiscanner by the way. These four edits to this article are pretty mundane in the grand scheme of things. IP's from Fox News have about 5000 edits to wikipedia and a lot were random subjects and many not even remotely political. This does not mean that Fox or any other organization is comprosing wikipedia with any type of POV pushing. The great thing about wikipedia is that any of us peasants can carry the same weight to this project than any elite group can. They can try but they'll never be able to dominate what content is here as long as wikipedia stays the way it is. MrMurph101 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This whole wikiscanner controversy is a bit overblown. Judge the edits by WHAT THEY ARE not who posted them. It is extremely easy to see if someone is gaming an article no matter what IP they post from. Follow wiki guidelines, maintain NPOV, and be civil and no edit will ever be a problem that can't be fixed, especially on a high profile page like this one. --Rtrev 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you there. MrMurph101 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


  • but snarly personal remarks by a badly sourced news corp isn't exactly what wikipedia needs either, it's an encyclopedia not a person attackopedia. Markthemac 02:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

If we introduce Glenn Beck as conservative, we will introduce Olbermann as liberal. Weatherman90 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The introductions on other pages are irrelevant here. According to WP:A, Olbermann should be described as he is by reliable third party sources. Cite them if you continue to add this, something that has been inserted constantly for as long as I've watched the page and removed by dozens of different editors. GoodnightmushTalk 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The MRC is not a reliable source. It is already cited in the allegations of bias section, where it is presented with the accurate caveat that it is a conservative watchdog group, and not an independent and reliable source. Keith Olbermann is not a liberal presenter. GoodnightmushTalk 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A passing and unsubstantiated 3 word reference in that one source isn't enough to justify such a claim in a BLP, but I'm not going to continually revert. At the very least you'll want to change the link to Liberalism in the United States from Liberalism, until it is removed by another editor. GoodnightmushTalk 03:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed liberal tag. The Glenn Beck reference is ridiculous, as Beck is a self-described conservative and nobody on this planet would disagree with that description. Although I understand that other articles aren't necessarily "template" material, please see the Bill O'Reilly page for how to deal with someone whose political leanings are allegedly ambiguous. While most people tend to agree that O'Reilly is a conservative, O'Reilly self-describes himself otherwise, as do several editors who will revert any attempt to insert that descriptor into that article. As this article makes clear, Olbermann does not agree with the liberal label, so we can't just slap that descriptor into the opening paragraph as indisputable fact. Let the reader decide. The article does address the issue with the "Allegations of Bias" section. Please don't revert w/out further discussion. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So because Beck has the integrity to call himself what he is, Olbermann's conceit MIGHT be in denial of strict facts (and the only people who will call him on it are the people who are Partisans and don't like him anyway), that means the comparison lacks validity? That's crazy shit. For crying out loud, Olbermann was practically sucking on a certain Presidential candidate's private parts last night. Wikipedia has no integrity on this point which is why I rarely waste time trying to make a change. --209.172.30.158 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a perennial problem with political commentators. (I edit several pages of controversial political figures) The usual way to deal with this is to use the descriptors that sources cited use. Otherwise you are inserting your own opinion (even if it is a widely held opinion it doesn't matter). As far as the intro goes it is best to use discretion. Let the content of the article make the case for his political biases. There is no need to explicitly label. I even have a bit of a problem with the way they handle it on the O'Reilly page. It would be fine to discuss political party affiliation but not necessarily in the intro. That at least is my take. --Rtrev 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

stats about viewership[edit]

I slightly tweeked this to try to remove the color commentary and tried to stick to just the numbers/percentages. Anyways, --Tom 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

regarding coughlin/olbermann[edit]

deleted what I originally wrote because Olbermann corrected himself during the half-time show. (NBC Sports)

ADL letter[edit]

The ADL, while a respected organization, does not seem to fit into the category of a WP:reliable source. Should this be here? Dlabtot 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no pictures?[edit]

Wikipedia just doesn't like consistency from one article to the next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.204.10 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we hate consistency, of course. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 23:46, December 6, 2007

Proposed change to lead[edit]

I propose changing the sentence

He currently hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, an hour-long nightly newscast that reviews selected news stories of the day along with political commentary by Olbermann.

to

He currently hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, an hour-long nightly newscast that reviews selected news stories of the day along with left-of-center political commentary by Olbermann.[5][6]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b Thomson, Katherine (2006-06-14). "It's 'Putdown With Keith Olbermann'". New York Daily News.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Carter, Bill (2006-07-11). "MSNBC's Star Carves Anti-Fox Niche". The New York Times.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ T Kyle King (2006-04-19). "By Any Other Name". Retrieved 2006-10-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Olbermann Denounces '24'". Newsbusters. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 
  5. ^ "The most influential US liberals". The Daily Telegraph. 2007-03-11. Retrieved 2007-12-15. 
  6. ^ Parry, Robert (2007-09-25). "The Left's Media Miscalculation (Redux)". Baltimore Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-12-15. 

The last two notes in the reference list (Telegraph and Baltimore Chron) are the only ones related to this change, and they actually source the entire sentence (which is currently unsourced), not just the "left of center" part. The others notes are displaying from further up this talk page, ignore them. Comments? - Crockspot (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The wikilink that "left of center" links to can be to Progressivism instead, if people prefer that. I had it to Liberalism initially, but that links to a more worldwide perspective of liberalism. - Crockspot (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, lets leave the lead paragraph the way it is, without the POV interpretation. Inserting this is no different from slapping the "liberal" descriptor in the lead. The "Allegations of Bias" section exists to address the issue, and does so adequately.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I support Sean Hannity being referred to as a "conservative" rather than a "neoconservative" because that is how he identifies himself. The word "liberal" has a negative connotation, and no hard and fast criteria for identification that is universally accepted. If Olbermann does not accept the label, I don't think it should be applied in this context. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Describing Olbermann's political commentary as "left of center" is the same as saying he is a liberal. This is a not-so-sneaky way of attempting to insert the same labelling into the lead.-Hal Raglan (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How does "liberal" have any more of a negative connotation than "conservative"? Have a look at the Liberalism, Modern liberalism in the United States, and Progressivism articles. I see no negativity there. Also note that Canada has a "Liberal Party", as does the UK, and I believe Australia as well. It seems like a double standard to me. Olbermann has called himself a "liberal", which is on tape and linked above. It's not a big secret. But I'm not going to argue the point. I presume from the comments above that no one will have a problem if I work those two sources into the "charges of bias" section. It would be a pity for them to go to waste after I formatted them up and all. - Crockspot (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that one is already used in the section. I'll work the other one into that paragraph. - Crockspot (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Keith Olbermann does not identify himself as a liberal. In fact, he's very vehement (as he usually is) about not being a liberal. I could cite a thousand sources, or you could just Google it. --Ademska (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I like your contribution to the “charges of bias” section. Thank you for your time, effort, and research. I’ve really appreciated your participation in this discussion. Helper2008 (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly rating mention[edit]

I've taken this to his user page, so I thought I'd also bring it up here. User:Badmintonhist is repeatedly adding the fact that O'Reilly's ratings are larger than Olbermann's to the article, alleging the ratings difference causes the enmity between the two men. I'd just like clarification on the current consensus, since this has been removed several times. My take on this is that although the ratings fact is true, it is not relevant to the Keith Olbermann article. If you're saying the ratings are a factor (no pun intended) in the enmity between the two broadcasters, that has to be reliably sourced. Otherwise, it's original research. Without explaining the significance of the fact, it doesn't belong on the Keith Olbermann page. Thoughts? Redrocket (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is a factor in Olbermann's anger toward O'Reilly. Mr Olbermann gets angry at just about anything that violates his exquisite sensibilities. His lower ratings could hardly bother O'Reilly, by the way, much less "cause enmity." The point is obvious, and hardly "original research." Hosts of a more popular show don't want to give their competitors free publicity. Hosts of a less popular would be more inclined to criticize their more popular competitor as a way of creating a "buzz" about their own show. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything you've said could very well be true. However, without a reliable secondary source, it's still original research. Someone would have to prove the ratings differential caused the enmity, and that it's not just a matter of two people who differ in their political opinions, station affiliations, or anything else. Redrocket (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By your "logic" then one. should also remove the fact that Countdown occupies the same time slot as The O'Reilly Factor. Someone would have to prove that this fact caused the enmity, and that it isn't some other factor. Stop being ridiculous. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. It's not ridiculous to assume Olbermann and O'Reilly never got along, based on their political viewpoints. Does Olbermann also have a rivalry with everyone else in his timeslot with better ratings? That's a lot of rivals.
Saying one thing caused the other is sill WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, unless it's properly soured somewhere else. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that that both Olbermann and O'Reilly's pages make frequent references to Olbermann's tirades against O'Reilly, mentioning that they are competitiors and that O'Reilly has higher ratings is by no stretch out of line. I'm sure there are no shortage of sources that will testify as to who has higher ratings. Alternatively, we could scrub Wikipedia of references to their feud, if neutrality is suddenly a key issue here. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here. If you want to say that they occupy the same time slot or that O'Reilly has higher ratings, that is fine. These are verifiable facts. But saying that one of these is a factor in their "feud" (or whatever it is), would be drawing a conclusion. That is original research. I think that's the issue here. Henrymrx (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are feuding yet occupy the same timeslot is incredibly significant, and not original research. That is like saying that if a man is caught murdering an acquaintance he caught sleeping with his wife, then assuming that the infidelity played a factor is "original research." Rather, without evidence to the contrary, it would be safe to assume that the infidelity played a role, just as one can assume that O'Reilly and Olbermann's proximity to one another is a factor here. It's an obvious point, yet one that does not assert that the only reason they feud is because of their timeslot. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not assume things on Wikipedia. Our original research policy, along with our rules against synthesis and our requirements of reliable secondary sources, prohibit making such assumptions or drawing such conclusions. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning that O'Reilly and Olbermann share the same time slot and/or that O'Reilly's ratings are higher is not the same as concluding that it is a factor that has caused the one who wears glasses to insult the one who doesn't on a nightly basis, but it is a bit of information that is worth knowing in that context. Incidentally, I was the one who removed the "time slot" information from that section of the article. Editors such as Redrocket and Hal Raglan who objected to the "higher ratings" information, curiously, had no apparent objection to information that would fail to pass the same absurd test that they applied to the "ratings" information. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's not the same as concluding it caused the rivalry, then why is it relevant to the article at all? If Olbermann catches O'Reilly in the ratings, should that be mentioned on the O'Reilly page?
And again, please be civil. Please discuss things politely to try and reach consensus. There's no reason to call someone else's side of the story "ridiculous" or "absurd".

Civility and Olbermann are strange bedfellows indeed. To answer the last question, if O'Reilly engaged in nightly tirades against Olbermann on the night after Countdown's ratings passed the Factor's ratings then it would be obligatory to mention the ratings development in discussing the tirades development! And, yes, it would be absurd not to. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, civility and you is the combination I'm asking for. On articles like this one, and O'Reilly, and Hannity, and the like, things get very heated from time to time. Civility is necessary to keep things encyclopedic.
And as for the discussion, calling that scenario absurd is still your personal opinion. An encyclopedia is based around secondary sources, and not speculation, original research, and synthesis. From an encyclopedic perspective, assigning emotional responses to outside stimuli is a bit of all three. Redrocket (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By that logic in reporting ,say, a physical assault by Bill O'Reilly upon Keith Olbermann one shouldn't mention their feud. To do so would be "assigning emotional responses to outside stimuli." Not encyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, that would certainly be noteworthy. Not sure what you're trying to say with that one. If you said that O'Reilly punched Olbermann because he didn't like him calling him the worst person in the world, that's WP:OR unless it's properly sourced. Perhaps he slugged him because he took his parking space, or wouldn't stop talking about baseball, or any one of a thousand other reasons. In any case, if it's not sourced properly, it's not verifiable and not encyclopedic. Redrocket (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Red, if you refuse to be intellectually consistent then we can't reason together. I'll give it one more try. Mentioning the prior feud between Olbermann and O'Reilly in the event of an assault by one on the other would indeed be "noteworthy" and relevant. In and of itself, of course, it wouldn't explain the whole thing. There would be all sorts of other specific factors, perhaps, that led one of them to put a headlock on the other. It would even be possible, if not very likely, that the fight had nothing to do with with their prior feud, but a reporter on the scene, or even an encyclopedist, would surely mention the feud. The fact that Olbermann's show runs directly opposite O'Reilly's and that it had a far smaller audience than O'Reilly's show might have had nothing at all to do with the fact that Olbermann picked a(n as yet not physical) fight with O'Reilly, but it is certainly a fact worth mentioning. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been consistent in my reasoning on this matter. I'll give it one more try also. No one knows when or where the feud between these two men started. Saying Olbermann hates O'Reilly because O'Reilly has better ratings is original research.
Neither I nor my pal Dr Strangelove have said That Olbermann hates O'Reilly simply because O'Reilly's ratings are higher. Are you actually reading our statements? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


By the way, thanks for calling anyone who disagrees with you a "quasi-cultist pretending to be objective." [24] That's a good way to show you're unbiased, and willing to work with civility and respect for your fellow wikipedia editor.

It is impossible not to label this discussion absurd as that is what it is. Absurd. Information about their timeslot and ratings is 100% relevant to a feud between two commentators that share a timeslot.

I've notcied this nonsense a lot on Wikipedia, where it is okay to dedicate entire pages to people who criticize someone on the right while anything that simply isn't favorable (doesn't have to be negative) towards someone on the left is promptly scrubbed by an array of editors who insisit their neutrality despite loads of evidence to the contrary.

It should be stated again: mentioning O'Reilly and Olbermann's timeslot and ratings is NOT irrelevant to the article. If the tables were reveresed and Olbermann had vastly superior ratings and O'Reilly were the one going on regular rants against his opponent, then it would still be quite fair to mention this. Like Badmintonhist aptly pointed out, mentioning this is NOT the same as concluding that they only fight because of ratings, but in absence of some definitive source that can magically spell out exactly what caused their arguments, their timeslot and ratings war is a KEY piece of information. A reader with no knowledge of either man would greatly benefit from knowing these facts.

If it were known that, say, O'Reilly once slept with Olbermann's girlfriend, or that Olbermann hates Irish names, or that O'Reilly thinks only geeks like baseball, then those could be included too, because they'd be relevant information to a reader having to make their own case. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The question I have is if ratings is really that important for the Keith Olbermann article, or if it should be contained in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article instead? If the answer to that question is that it should be included in the Keith Olbermann article, then the only thing that can be included in this article is that they share the same timeslot and that O'Reilly's ratings are X, while Olbermann's ratings are Y. Drawing a conclusion from that information is a synthesis of information and violates the original research policy.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Before the information about their respective ratings was deleted no conclusions were drawn. It was simply stated. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I see no problem with simply stating their shared timeslot and ratings as a matter of fact. Really, I don't even see how one can have a big section on both O'Reilly and Olbermann's page without mentioning AT LEAST that they are competitors, while the ratings is simply listing a fact about their viewership. It is wholly possible that even if Olbermann were crushing O'Reilly in the ratings that he'd still regularly devote huge portions of his show to O'Reilly, and that O'Reilly would still pretend Olbermann doesn't exist.

I think of it this way: if I were a student assigned to write an article on their feud relying entirely on Wikipedia, what would I want to know? Their timeslot war and the ratings of their programs would be key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrangelove57 (talkcontribs) 18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In every school I've ever been around, Wikipedia is not a valid reference. Situations like this are the reason why, and that's why wikipedia has rules of reliable sources and original research. Redrocket (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not technically getting any disagreement from me Redrocket. The fact remains that info about their timeslot and ratings is verifiable, and is valid in a discussion about Olbermann and O'Reilly. If someone puts it up and adds commentary to the effect of "It is certain that O'Reilly and Olbermann's feud stems from their status as competitors," then go ahead and scrub it. However, a properly sourced line revealing this information in a neutral manner is perfectly acceptable. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Best way to include ratings information for "Countdown" is to include it in a separate section in the article. To include it in the "O'Reilly - Olbermann Feud" section, especially as previously written, undeniably creates the impression that the ongoing feud "stems from their status as competitors".-Hal Raglan (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the inclusion of that info automatically creates that impression. It's an obvious bit of information but, as has been argued before, isn't conclusive on its own.

If it were to be placed in another area, though, I'd suggest listing his CNN competition as well. 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it would most definitely leave that impression. In fact, that appears to have been Badmintonhost's intent, based on his edit summaries. At one time, the "Countdown" article listed the ratings of Olbermann's show and his competitors. That same info could simply be copied and placed into this article. As long as it is done w/out any editorial asides, that should resolve any POV problems.-Hal Raglan (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a stone fact leaves that impression, then I guess that says something about the scenario. But nonetheless, it appears we're sorta quasi maybe edging towards some sort of agreement. Should someone place the three shows and their ratings in a neutral manner, are there any objections? Also, if this was done here, I see no problem doing it on the other entries, such as O'Reilly's. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just re-read this article and the ratings issue is already addressed in the "Return to MSNBC on Countdown" section. I think the POV can be toned down by simply using some basic facts/figures, but other than that I believe the issue should be considered resolved.- Hal Raglan (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just done a "cut and paste" of an earlier version. However, somebody needs to do some research for more current ratings info.- Hal Raglan (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly comments to a listener[edit]

Aside from the fact that the March 2006 comments from O'Reilly do not necessarily relate to Olberman, it should be noted that radio shows such as that of Bill O'Reilly are often on a time delay. The intent is to prevent inappropriate language or comments. Therefore the reason that O'Reilly talked about Fox Security cannot be adequately ascertained. The only reliable sources of what Mike said would be the show staff or the caller. MMfA did not accurately report on this fact. The comment should either be removed or edited. Since any newsworthiness would be removed in editing, I believe it should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biccat (talkcontribs) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any objections to this, so I went ahead and made the suggested change. Biccat (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RFCU[edit]

Although offtopic in the literal purpose of this page, I've noticed a lot of newly created and/or seldom used accounts that appear to be single purpose accounts only being used to push an agenda. Whilst I'm not going to make an outright accusation (they could each be a legitimate agenda-warrior) , if anyone would like to collaborate on a checkuser request please contact me here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivial info[edit]

Comment. Can we please remove all the "trivia", ie skipping 2nd grade, how many credits he took his last semester, not knowing about graduating until day before, ect, ect.(actually almost the same thing happened to me :) but I digress). I too agree that the specific college he attended isn't that big a deal except that it was made a big deal by a taking head in order to smear the man. I hate to keep factual info out of a bio for that reason, but in this case, just list his University and remove all the other "trivia" and move on to the next "talking" point. Hasn't this been discussed and beaten to death enough? There has to be better ways to improve this bio. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I tweeked it a bit. Do we need the Harvard rejection BU scholarship stuff? I would remove it as trivial, but left it in for now. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I reverted one very minor edit, but the rest seems right to me. Also, I tend to agree with your point about Harvard/scholarship stuff too -- interesting, perhaps, but ultimately is probably trivia, except the second grade/graduate at 16 thing is probably somewhat significant (in that it's not very common). I'd leave that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed that back to read Cornell rather than Ivy League. I left the 16 part. Just as we don't want to "stress" the ag school, no need to stress Ivy League. Can we just remove that sentence all together and be done? Anyways, Tom (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Article organization[edit]

I normally wouldn't hesitate to be bold and try to improve an article myself, but given the, uh, attention to detail on the talk page I decided to start a talk section instead. Most of the article is made up of subsections of "biography". It seems like it would be better to just remove the biography header, or restrict the biography to early life and early career, maybe merge personal life under that section. Any thoughts? Recognizance (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the whole article is a biography, it makes more sense to delete the "biography" section header and promote all its descendants. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
...which I have just done. It looks better already. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Why is there no Controversy section in this article? 173.79.6.49 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because there isn't much in the way of noteworthy controversy to report on. Warren -talk- 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there's a fair amount of controversy about the man which I'm sure has been raised by "reliable sources" from time to time. I'm sure that between his practice of never interviewing "hostile" guests, regularly insulting his rivals on other networks, telling the President of the United States to "shut the hell up", and openly cheerleading for one side and jeerleading the other while covering their political events, he's done things that could reasonably be described as controversial. It merely requires a motivated editor to the work. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that most of the controversy criticism is espoused from sources beyond what is traditionally considered reliable. Certainly there exist segments of the population that are critical of Olbermann, however I think most of the criticisms appear on the fringe. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
What you're describing are his political views (which we cover in this article) and criticism of how Countdown is run (which is covered in the article about the show), not controversy. The latter is generally defined as a prolonged dispute or debate carried out between parties. Olbermann's built a reputation for yelling from the sidelines, but what controversies has he been involved with that run outside the context of his television show? Warren -talk- 03:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[Removed post which violates our policies for [[WP:BLP|articles about living people]

Could the person who removed the above take a look at this? Thanks. 13:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann arbor street (talkcontribs)
I removed that post. Next time, you might want to try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As I tried to say before, it merely requires a motivated editor or two. Olbermann has certainly done plenty of things every bit as controversial as anything appearing in ... say, the extensive list of controversies for Bill O'Reilly. These would include using the Hitler salute while holding up a mask of O'Reilly to his face at a public function [25], seeming to refer (later denied) to U.S. troops in Iraq as "cold-blooded killers" [26], and naming the cancer-fighting, soon to be dead Tony Snow as one of his "worst persons in the world" [27]. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as I noted above, Badmintonhist linked no reliable secondary source to substantiate his claims of significant controversy. A single letter from the ADO is a primary source, not indicative of a notable controversy; the Countdown link is also a primary source (and thus, the criticism is Badmintonhist's original research -- also not indicative of a notable controversy); a single snippet in The Cleveland Leader's editorial section about a segment on a TV show doesn't qualify as a notable controversy in a biography. Nice try... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, I think you're using the word "controversy" in a way that extends beyond its true dictionary definition. A cable commentariat yelling at a TV camera isn't "controversial", no matter what they say. Other people have to engage the discussion, and it has to be a recognized two-way thing. Please look up the dictionary definition of the word -- and note its synonyms while you're at it: quarrel, altercation, dispute. What you're linking to here isn't establishing "controversy"; it is commentary and/or criticism. Warren -talk- 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah Blax, Surely you realize that the purpose of the talk page is to make suggestions that may improve the article. Its purpose is not necessrily to present definitive proof of the worthiness of those suggestions or overwhelming numbers of reliable secondary sources for any proposed factoid. You're a good researcher. I'm sure you could come up with sufficient reliable sources to show that your hero, Mr. Olbermann, that is, has been involved in some noteworthy controversies if you cared to do so. Incidentally, the Hitler salute controversy was in one of the Olbermann articles for many months. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't to be used as a holding tank for criticisms that are otherwise unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially given WP:BLP. You've made no suggestion on improving the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure I did. I suggested that an an enterprising young editor such as yourself, might profitably work on material for a controversies section in the Olbermann article, or perhaps for a separate Olbermann criticisms/controversies article such as the one that exists for O'Reilly and certain other commentators. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)There were some sources of criticism beyond the scope of right wing bloggers and commentators last summer. One of them was added to the Countdown article from LA Times tv critic Rosenberg about his lack of guests with opposing views. There was also a New Yorker article critical but not scathing by any means. I thought about bringing them in but believed it would be better to truncate the CofBO article of extraneous stuff(which most agree but there is a standstill about how to do it). KO criticism is mainly handled in the Countdown article which seems the proper way to do it. I have suggested that BO criticism should be mainly put in the Factor article since the main controversies/criticisms are usually what both say or do on their respective shows. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Countdown article incorporates criticism of the show. Other criticism, as notable and appropriate should be worked into this article. Separate "controversy" sections are poor form and should be avoided - they should be discussed, in a balanced fashion, in the appropriate portion of the article. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And of it's host. The genesis of most of the criticisms/controversies come from their respective shows which is where most of this material should be worked into. MrMurph101 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Guettarda meant to say is that separate controversy sections are poor form and should be avoided when editing articles on "progressives". They generally have not been avoided in articles about prominent conservative commentators. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comment is as mature and productive as it is unsurprising. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. I said nothing of the sort. Please assume good faith and avoid incivility in the future. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
None of this addresses the point that controversy/criticisms sections (or separate articles on controversy/criticism) are quite common for conservative commentators but quite uncommon for liberal commentators - even for "bomb throwing" liberals such as Olby and Randi Rhodes. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article, not general article policies. You might want to try the Wikipedia:Village pump. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that's because conservative political commentators generate more controversy than liberal ones? Certainly the conservative commentators are more popular in the ratings game; Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are all widely known in radio & television, much more so than.... well, who? Michael Moore? Keith Olbermann? errm.... Arianna Huffington, I guess? Warren -talk- 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
As a godless European socialist... I don't really watch or listen to that right wing crowd but I have watched a bit of Countdown through iTunes, now I don't know if it's true or not but I've gotten the impression through Olbermann that he's about equal in the ratings to O'Reilly and Limbaugh... Though that perhaps is only certain days? chandler · 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe your question is beyond the scope of this article. You can probably find some details at Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The O'Reilly Factor, though ratings info on Wikipedia is often woefully out of date. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The Factor beats Countdown in total viewers, but in the critical 25-54 democraphic, they are very close (although the Factor still has more). See this from 3 days ago. Raul654 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
My "question" was mearly as a respons to Warrens comments about ratings, not meant to be a new section. chandler · 16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps, but no evidence has been presented that they have generated either more or less controversy. There seems to be a rather smug assumption at work here that if Wikipedia presently has far more articles and sections of articles devoted to controversies involving right-leaning commentators than to controversies involving left-leaning commentators then this must reflect reality. I have no doubt that liberals find many things said and done by conservatives to be controversial. I also have no doubt that conservatives find many things said and done by liberals to be controversial. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, you may have a valid point there. I humbly request that you develop the controversy section yourself. I eagerly await the results of your efforts. =) Henrymrx (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It might reflect reality, it might not, but there really is no scientific way to measure it. I feel pretty confident in asserting that conservative commentators have the louder and more widely-heard voices in the spectrum; there's plenty of statistics to back that up. A fair case could also be mounted for an assertion that the most popular conservative talk radio hosts have been doing it longer than the most popular liberal talk radio hosts. Limbaugh has been on the air, doing what he does, for twenty-five years. O'Reilly, twelve years. Savage, fourteen years. They've all been doing this full-time, professionally, for long enough to have racked up significant criticism and controversy. Further, they all use combative, explicit language that is plainly divisive and derogatory towards large swaths of people (both within the United States and without), which is a sure-fire wire to attract controversy.
Mainstream liberal commentators don't use the same sort of tactics to get their views across. It's pretty hard to picture a Rachel Maddow or an Arianna Huffington or an Alan Colmes publishing a mean-spirited book titled "Conservatism Is A Mental Disorder". It's hard to picture a Keith Olbermann, an EJ Dionne or a Maureen Dowd claiming with all sincerity that (e.g.) female students who come to downtown San Francisco from a private school to feed and provide services to the homeless "can go in and get raped by them because they seem to like the excitement of it..."[28] .... nope, that's pretty much exclusively the purview of Michael Savage and other conservative commentators.
Now, before you say, "ah ah ah, but what about Al Franken?" Here's some food for thought: You know who do routinely make mean-spirited and controversial statements about conservatives? Liberal comedians, that's who! Lewis Black, Jeanene Garofalo, Bill Maher, George Carlin (though I suspect he'd rather dislike being called a liberal), Jon Stewart, Robin Williams in his own way, Al Franken, and so on and so forth. It's a weird phenomenon, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone's put together a study on this by now, but it does seem like many liberal commentators are actually comics. Because comics wrap their absurdities and observations with humour, and present themselves as entertainers first and foremost, they for the large part avoid any serious controversy because they don't ask to be taken seriously.
And that's why articles on conservative commentators have more criticism than liberal ones. It isn't some Great Imbalance caused by Liberal Bias On Wikipedia. It's just what these prominent conservative commentators do... they attract attention to themselves with their behaviour. Liberals commentators... well.... don't. Warren -talk- 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point. But regarding "conservatism as a mental disorder", there's always John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Er... Michael Savage is a "mainstream" conservative commentator? You mean like George Will and David Brooks who also have controversy sections in their Wikipedia articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither the Brooks article nor the Will article should have "controversy" sections. The issues should probably discussed, but not listed in a controversy section like that. But those issues should be discussed in those articles. If other articles have problems, the solution isn't to make these articles worse. There's nothing wrong with discussing notable controversies related to Olbermann here, although we'd need to consider what belongs here, and what belongs at the Countdown article. But we don't need a list of poorly sourced trivia. We need substantive discussion that's sourced to reliable third-party sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I consider Savage to be mainstream, yes. He's quite popular. In terms of ratings, he's up right there with Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh. He's also published a bunch of best-selling books. Warren -talk- 03:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no point to continuing the pissy back-and-forth with Badmintonhist. He's made his agenda clear, but his comments are of no value towards improving this article. The best way to deal with trolling is to starve them. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, there isn't, bc you won't listen to any side but the voice in your head. Badmintonhist isn't arguing a political POV he is simply stating that admins, like yourself, have their OWN POV and will not change it. Ann Coulter is a beep, no question. But so is Keith Olbermann. For instance, Keith consistently ridicules and belittles AVERAGE conservative citizens (this was JUST SHOWN in his treatment of the tea parties). To say that he isn't mean spirited, just like Ann Coulter, is to betray your own agenda. 173.79.6.49 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean those average conservatives who were protesting that their taxes would be lowered? Most of the people there didn't even know what they were protesting. Most that came out of it seemed to be "Obama isn't american" "Obama is hitler", which looked ridiculous to outsiders. chandler ··· 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh my God...I'm melting. What a world! What a world! Badmintonhist (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Blaxthos, I suspect Badmintonhist isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Actually, I'd rather he stick around in spite of our past disagreements because he's not going to let the article wander off in unduly endearing directions, as is often the case with Wikipedia articles on topics that amass a fanbase (try reading a few car articles... it's awful). That's a good thing, just as much as the article needs someone like you to stop it from becoming a morass of badly-written criticism written by people who dislike Olbermann. It'd be good if we focused more on fact-gathering, research and article-writing than being unkind to eachother. Warren -talk- 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me, Warren. I don't think Badmintonhist should go away (or is going anywhere). My point is simply that there is no constructive purpose of his making offhanded "yes way there are too Olbermann controversies" comments on this talk page. Everything he's listed is a criticism of a television show, not a controversy surrounding its host. Couple that with his oft-made caustic and sarcastic remarks and I just don't think there is any productive value in continuing this thread. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There isnt a criticism section because Olberman is a liberal. Check the profiles of any liberal journalists like Olberman, Helen Thomas, Eleanor Clift, etc. Compare these with George Will, John Stossel, Krauthammer, etc. Not only do conservative journalists have criticism sections, but they usually devote space to featuring other people who are critical of the article subject. It hurts the credibility of wikipedia that this is the case, but that is the reality. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What about Michael Moore? MrMurph101 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

i think you're arguing for a lost cause. Wikipedia is great for factual information but it is obviously not a pure encyclopedia which is without bias. This goes for its reporting on contemporary figures and on religious issues. I've learned to take it all with a grain of salt. Liberals, Atheists, and basically any progressive people who promote an ideology of changing the fundamental fabric of America and religious values--these people will be praised and held up as heros of our times, while the other side will be shown as fringe, bigoted and simply the worst bad word-conservative. Just let it go, the people decide for themselves as can be seen by the fact that O'Reily has been the top rated primetime news show for over 9 nears. Strange since he and his viewers are simply fringe people who don't represent the common American. In case some one thinks these comments are unhelpful to the discussion, perhaps you can at least remeber them as you do your future edits and you can prove me wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Novel idea[edit]

Rather than argue about why there's no controversy section, how about suggest what should be in a controversy section, why it should be in a controversy section rather than incorporated into the article, and why it should be in this articles and not in the Countdown article. And, of course, why it's relevant and doesn't create undue weight problems. And, obviously, since this is a biography of a living person, make sure that all claims come from credible, reliable sources. You know, instead of complaining about some vast conspiracy. We're all volunteers here, if you believe something should be in the article, please contribute to the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann attended Cornell College of Farm, not the Ivy leaugue school claimed by Keith Olbermann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johno7777 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Johno7777 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please see the numerous discussions above for consensus on that issue. Dayewalker (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Johno7777, as I said in the comment to which you replied, please provide reliable sources in support of your assertion. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you are quoting WP:RS. Suppose one of the US' leading newspapers reported that Ann Coulter made a stink about Olbermann's degree being "worth less" because of the college that awarded him his degree. If that were to happen, there would be no WP:RS concern, but this article still should not differentiate the particular college. It is nonstandard practice on Wikipedia: just take a look at articles of other Cornell alumni. That degree of detail would be undue weight, unless the reason for reporting the detail (i.e. it was Coulter's opinion) was explicitly given in the article's text. Switzpaw (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS is a component of one of our core policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Johno7777's assertion fails WP:V. So there's no need to make the far weaker argument based on "convention". The first requirement is that you pass WP:V. Only after you've gotten past that burden do you bother to talk about other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and then you move onto guidelines like the WP:MOS and then onto unwritten conventions. Don't start with your weakest argument. Start with your strongest. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely no point in encouraging SPA's to return with reliable sources showing what college Olbermann attended when Wikipedia will continue to state the University conferring the degree, as it does in hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a "criticisms" section for criticism of Olbermann?[edit]

I know there used to be, but now it's gone. There is one for Glenn Beck and no one seems to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.197.131 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's been much discussion above, as you can see. One reason might be, the (at least recent) criticism usually seems to come from unreliable sources on the subject perhaps chandler · 05:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That New Yorker article in which Cronkite excoriated KO was reliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.100.157 (talkcontribs)
Do you have a link for this or what date is article, ect, otherwise I am inclined to delete your post. --Tom (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tom. I'll give this 24 hours, then it's gone if we don't get some confirmation that the article exists. Ward3001 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the IP means this New Yorker article: [29] Although, it's not Cronkite making the criticism, it's Cronkite's last executive producer. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If that's the article, the term "excoriate" is a long way from accurate. I don't think the article is even terribly critical. It presents some of the risks and problems that MSNBC has encountered with Olbermann's bold statements, but much of it is just a factual presentation of some things that have gone on behind the scenes with Olbermann and MSNBC. If this, indeed, is the article the anon refers to, I still plan to remove the statement about Cronkite excoriating Olbermann because it is grossly misleading. If anyone wants to use the New Yorker piece in the Olbermann article, be my guest as long as it's done with accuracy and balance. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
wikt:Excoriate seems to be a fairly good definition for what Sandy said about Olbermann in that article, IMHO. The guy said Olbermann wasn't a newsman or a reporter, that he doesn't do anything original, and that if he did on CBS what he does on MSNBC he'd be fired. Heh, them's fighting words where I come from.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If Olbermann claimed to be a news anchor or even a traditional news reporter, I would agree. But he doesn't. Olbermann fully acknowledges that his role on MSNBC isn't straight news reporting. In the context of what he does, I don't think the New Yorker piece "excoriates" him. At times it presents him in a negative light, but it does not (from Wiktionary) "strongly denounce or censure" him. This may be a moot point anyway, as we don't even know if this New Yorker article is what the anon is referring to. Ward3001 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI this article states that he is a news anchor. Switzpaw (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. My personal opinion is that he is not a "news anchor" in the sense of those who have anchored nightly news programs on CBS, NBC, and ABC (e.g., Cronkite, Brokaw). He comments and editorializes, but he is not the primary "reporter" of news as would be found on the programs I mention. I suppose it's a matter of the meaning of the word "anchor". I see him as a program host, not a news anchor. In terms of whether the New Yorker article "excoriates" him, I think it's misleading to use that term based on a statement that he would be fired if he handled anchoring of CBS Evening News the same way he handles Countdown; they're two completely different types of programs. Most of the hosts of news commentary programs (e.g., O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) would be fired if they handled CBS Evening News the way they handle their current programs. Stating that he is being "excoriated" because that is pointed out is inaccurate. Ward3001 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


I am planning to develop a new section called "Controversies of Keith Olbermann," must like Bill O'Reilly has as a link on his biography page on Wikipedia. Some bafoon keeps removing my listing of controversies. I want to post these controversies so that we can all do some research getting more sources. Will the Gods defending Keith Olbermann's Wikipedia approve of a "Controversies of Kieth Olbermann" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal00Q1 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm your buffoon. I've explained to you twice when you posted it as an IP, then again when you posted it the first time, then again on your page. Just in case you haven't seen the edit summaries or the polite posting on your page, you can't just post a laundry list of unsourced complaints on a biography page.
As I told you, I'm certainly not opposed to discussing criticism of the subject, but simply making an unsourced laundry list of things Olbermann may or may not have done isn't the way to go about it. If you think something should be added to the page, bring it up on the talk page with proper sourcing to show it is a legitimate controversy. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)