10 replies to this topic

[acidhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs...feature=related


Olbermann apologized to viewers shortly after the GOP convention aired a blatant propaganda video invoking 9/11– which erroneously linked Iran with 9/11, and readily showed burning buildings and victims of the attacks in the name of spurning on towards "victory" in the War on Terror and electing John McCain:

"If at this late date any television network had of its own accord shown that much graphic videotape– I speak as someone who lost several friends there– it, we would be rightly eviscerated at all corners, perhaps by the Republican party itself for exploiting the memories of the dead and for perhaps trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and it was probably not appropriate to be shown."

Edited by acidhead43, 10 September 2008 - 03:49 PM.

[IrishAidan07]

acidhead43 on Sep 10 2008, 12:54 AM, said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs...feature=related

I like Olbermann, actually. I think he is bias at times, but it's nice to have someone offset O'Reily.

[Incorrigible1]

IrishAidan on Sep 10 2008, 01:53 AM, said:

I like Olbermann, actually. I think he is bias at times, but it's nice to have someone offset O'Reily.

Again, O'Riley commentates, Olbermann, up until his pathetic performance at the conventions, was a newscaster. Big difference. Olbermann is a silly fool. He's certainly not a newscaster. Journalism cheers his sacking.

[CosmicStaR]

Incorrigible1 on Sep 10 2008, 01:55 AM, said:

Again, O'Riley commentates, Olbermann, up until his pathetic performance at the conventions, was a newscaster. Big difference. Olbermann is a silly fool. He's certainly not a newscaster. Journalism cheers his sacking.

He is not a silly fool but you my friend--you seem to be one.

[IrishAidan07]

CosmicStar on Sep 10 2008, 02:59 AM, said:

He is not a silly fool but you my friend--you seem to be one.

No, he's not.

I think Olbermann's show was a commentary/news program. I think he has every right to express his opinions on his own show, just like O'Reily. I will say, however, that Incon has a point. At the RNC convention, Olbermann was there as a newscaster - they had guests to commentate. But Olbermann threw in quite a bit of commentary, as did Matthews, and now MSNBC has banned both of them from any live political events. They were overwhelmingly bias, especially when it came to Mrs. Palin.

Edited by IrishAidan, 10 September 2008 - 07:05 AM.

[Caesar]

What did Matthews do

[IrishAidan07]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/378...lbermann09.html

I don't know exactly what Matthews did, but here is an article on the matter.

[acidhead]

Caesar on Sep 10 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

What did Matthews do

For that statement, and presumably others, Olbermann and Hardball’s Chris Matthews, who apparently aided the former in his discussion, will no longer be primary anchors during MSNBC’s 2008 election coverage, but will be mere correspondents for David Gregory, who is cozy enough with the Bush Administration to dance unashamedly with Karl Rove.
Tom Brokaw, who was reporting alongside Olbermann when the statement in question was made, may have had a role in his ousting. The Washington Times states:

At a panel in Denver, sponsored by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Mr. Brokaw said that MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann demonstrated bias in their election reporting: "I think Keith has gone too far. I think Chris has gone too far."

If biased news reporting were really a crime, there would not only be a staffing shortage at every TV network, but Fox News headquarters would be struck by lightning. All of the major news networks are completely subservient to the establishment two-party dictatorship and, as such, incapable of acting in the public’s best interest anyway.

MSNBC isn’t left-leaning, it’s a corporate mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, alongside CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC etc. ad nauseam. Olbermann was merely a Howard Beale-figure– good at grafting a segment of the population opposed to the establishment media’s stronghold into its viewership circle.

Not only is the cry of ‘bias’ a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but it is the case of making a pariah out of the one MSM anchor who tells some truth inside a pit of vipers– Olbermann was, for instance, the sole televised anchor to report on a Cheney staff meeting where staging a false-flag incident was admittedly considered. The manufactured crisis would have sacrificed Navy SEALS to provocate war with Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFdgzPbtF3o

While Cheney admittedly considered crafting terror outright, and murdering Americans in the process, Olbermann is the one attacked for having the gall to criticize the acts of exploitation.

please note: Chris Matthews was not defended in this article.

article written by Aaron Dykes (infowars.com)

[Cleomenes]

acidhead43 on Sep 10 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

While Cheney admittedly considered crafting terror outright, and murdering Americans in the process, Olbermann is the one attacked for having the gall to criticize the acts of exploitation.

What?  

[rideron]

"If at this late date any television network had of its own accord shown that much graphic videotape– I speak as someone who lost several friends there– it, we would be rightly eviscerated at all corners, perhaps by the Republican party itself for exploiting the memories of the dead and for perhaps trying to evoke that pain again."

It's 'graphic' because it's a recording of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO US THAT DAY.

A blunt reality record of what was inflicted upon us that day is 'exploiting the memories of the dead"?

"Exploiting" it??? Is Olberman saying that Making you LOOK at it, and realize it is TRUTH, it DID HAPPEN, is exploytive???

Isn't that the point?

Like in, "Remember Pearl Harbor?

Does Olbermann think the right thing to do is pretend it never happened?, that we should 'forget about it"?

The TRUTH of Olbermans rant is that he realizes that MAKING PEOPLE REMEMBER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and COULD HAPPEN AGAIN; is 'exploiting' the fact that electing someone who wants to sit down and talk with these people, instead of KILLING them, is a dangerous thing to consider doing.

[Incorrigible1]

acidhead43 on Sep 10 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

While Cheney admittedly considered crafting terror outright, and murdering Americans in the process, Olbermann is the one attacked for having the gall to criticize the acts of exploitation.

Since it's "admittedly," I don't spoze you've got a link. I mean, if it's "admittedly," then there should be proof, eh? I'll not hold my breath waiting.