Keith Olbermann Suspended from MSNBC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elizabeth502
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s be reminded of how cable works. Fox is on basic cable. Anyone and everyone gets Fox as part of their cable package. MSNBC is considered a premium package. One has to pay extra. You cannot get MSNBC in most hotels. It is not streaming in airports. Unless you pay extra, you don’t get the channel. Consideriing this, it’s not hard to figure out why they are not viewed as much as a basic cable channel.
I thought I would check out your claim.

With Comcast, neither FoxNews nor MSNBC are available with Limited Basic; both are available with Digital Starter

With DirecTV, both are available with their entry-level Choice package.

With Dish Network, FoxNews is available in all packages, but MSNBC is only in their two largest packages.

So, your statement is a little off. It assumes that Dish Network gets a pretty large percentage of the market, in order to skew FoxNews’ numbers appreciably.
 
Please post charitably and refrain from name calling

Discuss the issues, not each other
 
With all the name calling and vitriol about the man, I don’t understand what he does that’s so bad. Not owning a TV, I can only wonder, but I have no desire to buy the device to find out.🤷
 
I thought I would check out your claim.

With Comcast, neither FoxNews nor MSNBC are available with Limited Basic; both are available with Digital Starter

With DirecTV, both are available with their entry-level Choice package.

With Dish Network, FoxNews is available in all packages, but MSNBC is only in their two largest packages.

So, your statement is a little off. It assumes that Dish Network gets a pretty large percentage of the market, in order to skew FoxNews’ numbers appreciably.
I don’t think packages are uniform throughout the country. If you are the researcher you claim you are, you might want to check that out. Since my skills are below par, I’ll leave it up to you.
 
I don’t think packages are uniform throughout the country. If you are the researcher you claim you are, you might want to check that out. Since my skills are below par, I’ll leave it up to you.
Nah…I don’t really care. I just thought I would do a quick check because your claim seemed unlikely. If Olbermann/MSNBC fans wish to use that as the reason for their lackluster ratings, I have no problem with it. 👍
 
Nah…I don’t really care. I just thought I would do a quick check because your claim seemed unlikely. If Olbermann/MSNBC fans wish to use that as the reason for their lackluster ratings, I have no problem with it. 👍
Personally, I don’t care either. I’m not defending their ratings. It is what it is.
 
Your consistent defense of the guy’s ratings, shows how much you like the guy.

Just admit you like one of the meanest, angriest people on TV, next to Joy Behar of course, and be done with it. Hiding behind "defending his ratings isn’t fooling anyone.
Just being accurate; whether or not I like or hate him isn’t the point; being accurate is. You could learn something from that.
 
Sorry, the Huffing and Puffington Post is just a liberal blog with liberal contributors that pushes a liberal viewpoint…
Tom, did you take the time to even read the sources that Huffington listed??? The NY Post, one of NY’s biggest conservative newspapers was a source among others.

So much for your “liberal rag” theory.
 
No, I just generally ignore anything and everything that is on there, sourced or not.
 
Ok, thanks for your honest response; at least I know how seriously to take your postings. 🙂
Honesty is the best policy.😉

I will say this, though: the REASON I don’t follow the HuffPo is because it was started by a prominent liberal, is posted on by prominent liberals, and tends towards a liberal perspective.
 
Honesty is the best policy.😉

I will say this, though: the REASON I don’t follow the HuffPo is because it was started by a prominent liberal, is posted on by prominent liberals, and tends towards a liberal perspective.
Don’t homeschoolers entertain various perspectives?
 
Olberman usually saves hyperbole for especially deserving people. Murdoch’s people seem to use it incessantly without realizing it, and usually inaccurately.

The real problem here is that we are increasingly becoming a country with two sets of “reality”. Fox followers will often accept only Fox as authoritative, and reject any source which may be critical of Fox out of hand. (As plentifully shown above.) If MSNBC or NBC or NPR make a mistake of fact in reporting, they know that they will be called out on it because they know their viewers use other sources of information, and other media (including Fox) will point out an error. But Murdoch knows most of his viewers wont go further than Rush Limbaugh to check his facts, so he needn’t be reality based. (Eg. He can tell people Obama is raising their taxes when he is actually cutting them. He can get people who are concerned about the deficit (now) to support tax cuts for the wealthy as if that wont make the deficit worse.And he can convince people that more wealth for the wealthy means more jobs for them when for the last 8 years it has mostly gone into inflating Wall Street Bubbles. The rest of course went overseas.)

How can a democracy function with multiple sets of “facts” and how can a consensus be reached on anything? What are we teaching the world about democracy and a free society?
 
Olberman usually saves hyperbole for especially deserving people. Murdoch’s people seem to use it incessantly without realizing it, and usually inaccurately.

The real problem here is that we are increasingly becoming a country with two sets of “reality”. Fox followers will often accept only Fox as authoritative, and reject any source which may be critical of Fox out of hand. (As plentifully shown above.) If MSNBC or NBC or NPR make a mistake of fact in reporting, they know that they will be called out on it because they know their viewers use other sources of information, and other media (including Fox) will point out an error. But Murdoch knows most of his viewers wont go further than Rush Limbaugh to check his facts, so he needn’t be reality based. (Eg. He can tell people Obama is raising their taxes when he is actually cutting them. He can get people who are concerned about the deficit (now) to support tax cuts for the wealthy as if that wont make the deficit worse.And he can convince people that more wealth for the wealthy means more jobs for them when for the last 8 years it has mostly gone into inflating Wall Street Bubbles. The rest of course went overseas.)

How can a democracy function with multiple sets of “facts” and how can a consensus be reached on anything? What are we teaching the world about democracy and a free society?
I couldn’t agree with you more. It is beyond scary.
 
How can a democracy function with multiple sets of “facts” and how can a consensus be reached on anything? What are we teaching the world about democracy and a free society?
Fact: Thank goodness there is only One Truth, then. 🙂 It tends to help avoid confusion.

But what will society do when they take “truth” out of the picture? Exactly what we are doing today.
 
Don’t homeschoolers entertain various perspectives?
You’ve lost me completely.
Olberman usually saves hyperbole for especially deserving people. Murdoch’s people seem to use it incessantly without realizing it, and usually inaccurately.

The real problem here is that we are increasingly becoming a country with two sets of “reality”. Fox followers will often accept only Fox as authoritative, and reject any source which may be critical of Fox out of hand. (As plentifully shown above.) If MSNBC or NBC or NPR make a mistake of fact in reporting, they know that they will be called out on it because they know their viewers use other sources of information, and other media (including Fox) will point out an error. But Murdoch knows most of his viewers wont go further than Rush Limbaugh to check his facts, so he needn’t be reality based. (Eg. He can tell people Obama is raising their taxes when he is actually cutting them. He can get people who are concerned about the deficit (now) to support tax cuts for the wealthy as if that wont make the deficit worse.And he can convince people that more wealth for the wealthy means more jobs for them when for the last 8 years it has mostly gone into inflating Wall Street Bubbles. The rest of course went overseas.)

How can a democracy function with multiple sets of “facts” and how can a consensus be reached on anything? What are we teaching the world about democracy and a free society?
What we have to accept is that one side speaks the truth and one side speaks lies. There are not “multiple sets of facts”. There is only one truth in every single political issue, and it is absurd to suggest anything otherwise.

Also, you said “Murdoch’s people” use hyperbole “incessantly”, usually “inaccurately”. If by “inaccurately” you mean “not necessarily agreeing with a left of center perspective”, than yes, “inaccurately”. Fox’s shows have more of a balance of conservatives to liberals than MSNBC, CNN, or what have you has of liberals to conservatives.

I can reference the recent election coverage: MSNBC had an all-star liberal line-up: O’Donnell, Olbermann, Robinson (who doesn’t even host a show and is still a lefty), Matthews and Maddow.

Fox kept it simple, with Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier, two unbiased news anchors.

The argument that there are two sets of facts is absurd, and it only makes sense if you are in the middle of the political spectrum, and can thus throw mud both left and right, and accomplish nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top