Dammit, Olbermann, the FACTS matter more than the money!

[ambushed]

I've watched Countdown for years, and in my opinion, Olbermann's gotten far more correct than not. But his batting average seems to be sinking fast...

I have been ever more disappointed as I see his apparently terminal Foxsession disorder repeatedly ruining his judgment and his show.

The particular vapidity that has me hot and up in arms right now is his apparently new-found obsession with judging a a factual issue based on where the funding comes from -- "following the money" (as if he's an actual investigative journalist) -- rather than the factual/scientific merits of the issue.

First, there's this -- and a big FUCK YOU, KEITH! from me on this one: Brian Deer responds to Keith Olbermann (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/brian_deer_responds_to_keith_olbermann.php#more), which needs no further elaboration, just more contempt heaped upon Olbermann for that calumny. (And my best wishes go out to the heroic Orac and his family, whose mother-in-law passed away yesterday).

Then, tonight he attacked the right-wing bullshit machine for making blatantly ludicrous claims about how Obama's snuck some provision into the stimulus bill to let him overrule your own doctor's decisions "right at your bedside" from Washington. But does he present it that way? No, he mostly just indulges in his new-found obsession with deciding factual matters based much more on the financial backing of those making the claims than on the actual facts!

Instead of simply and effectively debunking the bullshit by simply showing what the bill actually says, he went into conspiracy crackpot mode and argued most vociferously of all that we can be certain it's crap because the cheerleader is associated with "Big Pharma" (interesting parallel with item one, eh?)

What an ass!

Grow up, Olbermann. I'm no fan of either Fox or the pharmaceutical lobby either, but you can't discover truth by simply inverting everything Newscorp or the pharmaceutical companies say, idiot!

Fuck that noise!

[CairoCarol]

Who paid you to write that OP?

[Jackmannii]

I have connected the dots, and they spell out O-L-B-E-R-M-A-N-N-I-S-A-N A-S-S.

At least on the Brian Deer/Keith getting led around by the nose by antivaxers thing.


Dunno about the Big Pharma conspiracy deal - is there a link or such?

[Johnny Angel]

I do find it telling that as he goes off the deep end, Olberman is losing credibility with his fan base. That never seems to happen with O'Reilly -- his viewers are all the more loyal the more full of shit he gets. I remember the 90's all too well to suppose that liberals are somehow more rational. And yet a trend does seem to be emerging that defies the pattern I had previously perceived -- that the people in power tend to let their wingnuts off the leash, and the ones struggling to emerge from the shadows put forth their moderate, rational voices. So far, less than a month into an Obama administration, we're not seeing a new rash of Political Correctness from the left, but we are seeing a lot of desperate histrionics from the right.

But I suppose I should give it time. In the meantime, somebody needs to get Olberman a puppy, and possibly some medication.

[BJMoose]

This Deer thing is hard to figure out. To that end, here are the relevant bits from Olbermann (Wednesday Countdown transcript) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29160146/) and Deer (link in the OP):

The bronze to Brian Deer. He wrote the “Times of London” report that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had alleged altered key research linking the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine to autism in children, which earned Dr. Wakefield a spot on this list yesterday. The “Times of London” did not bother to mention that the British investigation into whether or not Wakefield did that was as a result of a complaint by Brian Deer. The guy who wrote the article about the investigation never mentioned that he was the individual who precipitated the investigation. The truth about the doctor‘s research may be in doubt here, but not Deer‘s vast conflict of interest, nor the “Times of London‘s” journalistic malfeasance.

It is untrue that, as you say, I am the complainant against Wakefield in UK disciplinary hearings. I have ample correspondence to prove this. As a journalist with public as well as professional duties, I was approached almost five years ago by the UK doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council, and asked if I would supply them with my journalistic findings, post-publication, at that time concerning Wakefield. This I did, in a manner familiar to journalists, both in the UK and the US, in dealings with statutory regulators. There can be no possible issue about this, or any justifiable allegation of misconduct on my part. Nor could there be any justification for your suggestion that this would somehow disbar me from continuing my investigations into Wakefield's activities, or that I had improperly concealed my previous actions, or that my prior supply of journalistic findings invalidated findings reported last weekend which are not yet charges faced by Wakefield. Your item implied that, in reporting my new findings, I was somehow merely reporting my own prior allegations. This is utterly false, and grossly damaging to my reputation. To assist your employer to commercially profit by recklessly attacking me appears to have been your intent.

Looks to me like Deer is overreacting. I think all we have here is quibbling over what constitutes a "complaint".

I'll readily agree that Olbermann's snarky style and vendetta against all things Fox (just what happened when he worked for them, anyway?) sometimes get in the way of the story. But since it is usually someone else's ox who is getting gored, it doesn't usually bother me.


Oh, one other thing about the Deer item on Countdown: after the paragraph cited above he says, "The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It‘s my bad for forgetting that. Incidentally, a correction on Murdoch. . . ." He then explains that the transcript of a NewsCorp conference call that has Murdoch saying, "we have never been a company that tolerates facts", which Olbermann has quoted gleefully and often, should have read "tolerates fat". While it must have been obviously to Keith that the transcript was questionable, it is to his credit that he issues a correction as soon as the facts become known to him. If he is, in fact, wrong about Deer, he doubtless will correct himself.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

But I suppose I should give it time. In the meantime, somebody needs to get Olberman a puppy, and possibly some medication.Big pharma tie-in. I knew it.

[Johnny Angel]

Big pharma tie-in. I knew it.
I have never taken a dime from pharmaceutical companies, and questions about my connections to "Big Chew Toy" are irrelevant distractions.

[furt]

you can't discover truth by simply inverting everything Newscorp or the pharmaceutical companies say...But you can get good ratings.

[Billdo]

This is why I love Rachel Maddow. She can cut someone down to size better with a look and a giggle than Kieth can do with a full-on flaming rant.

Elvis Costello progressed from: "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused." Kieth is stuck in disgusted, Rachel tries very hard, and usually succeeds, to be amused.

I find it interesting that on each of her shows lately she's almost always had at least two Senators, Governors, senior Congressmen, or other heavies, while Keith has a whole lot of Richard Wolfe. Also, when she picks up the rare Republican, she treats them very respectfully, even when she disagrees, and they seem to leave happy to have been there.

It'll be interesting to see where their respective ratings go long term.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

I have never taken a dime from pharmaceutical companies, and questions about my connections to "Big Chew Toy" are irrelevant distractions.Hah. I bet you've got slobber all over you, and your hand deep in the biscuit box. And who built that 4,000 sq ft doghouse in your backyard?

[Chefguy]

This is why I love Rachel Maddow. She can cut someone down to size better with a look and a giggle than Kieth can do with a full-on flaming rant.

Elvis Costello progressed from: "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused." Kieth is stuck in disgusted, Rachel tries very hard, and usually succeeds, to be amused.

I find it interesting that on each of her shows lately she's almost always had at least two Senators, Governors, senior Congressmen, or other heavies, while Keith has a whole lot of Richard Wolfe. Also, when she picks up the rare Republican, she treats them very respectfully, even when she disagrees, and they seem to leave happy to have been there.

It'll be interesting to see where their respective ratings go long term.

If they switch the timeslots, Olbermann will be history in short order. As it is, he steals some of her thunder, but she's much better at what she does than he is, and is actually educated in the world of political science.

[Johnny Angel]

Hah. I bet you've got slobber all over you, and your hand deep in the biscuit box. And who built that 4,000 sq ft doghouse in your backyard?
In my job, I have to play host to a lot of important world leaders and their dogs. You don't expect me to tell Stephen Harper his dog's going to have to do without her rub down and her bubble bath, do you? Why do you hate America?

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

In my job, I have to play host to a lot of important world leaders and their dogs. You don't expect me to tell Stephen Harper his dog's going to have to do without her rub down and her bubble bath, do you? Why do you hate America?I've got nothing personal against Stephen Harper, but his dog's a closet socialist.

[Liberal]

I find it interesting that on each of her shows lately she's almost always had at least two Senators, Governors, senior Congressmen, or other heavies, while Keith has a whole lot of Richard Wolfe.And to top it all off, Richard Wolfe is a whore. He says whatever the sitting host wants to hear. He seems to cue off the question. Typical day for Richard Wolfe on MSNBC:

Morning Joe, 9:00 AM

Mika: Don't you think, Richard, and you chime in here too, Joe, and you, Mike, and Pat, you too, what I'm saying is about the whole, you know, there's something amiss that I don't believe we've all discussed enough.

Joe: Shut the fuck up, Mika. Damn. Take another valium and drink some more liquor. What's she's trying to say, Richard, is given George W. Bush's stated mission in Iraq before all the Democrats twisted it into some sort of anti-American bumper sticker about WMDs. I mean, who said anything about WMDs before the Democrats started harping on them?

Mika: That's what I was [...unintelligible mumbling...]

Richard: Uh, yes Joe and Mika. I think President Obama feels a close kinship to the former president, having spent a good deal of his transition time more or less courting the Bushes along with his wife, Michelle. There were several visits, and I'm sure Americans were wondering at the time the same things you are.

Andrea Mitchell Reports, 1:00 PM

Andrea: And my next guess. T. Is. Richard Wolfe. The associate editor of the [...unintelligible slurring...] or something, I can't pronounce it. But Richard...

Richard: The Daily Rhoedenshire

Andrea: The. Daily. Roto. Shear. But. What. I mean. The president said he was going to appoint Republicans. As you know. But. Did. Was. Do you think? Is the president doing what he said? Or. What about the polls? I don't know if you've seen this morning's poll. I can't remember what it was. But. Oh well.

Richard: The Gallup poll

Andrea: M. Right. A gallup poll. But. What. This. What do you make of it?

Richard: I think you've raised an important point, Andrea. It's very clear that this is a popular president. But we all know how fickle the American people can be. And I think you've put your finger right on the problem.

Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5:00 PM

Chris: Richard, I know you're an expert on the Inside the Beltway kind of stuff and I didn't grow up here but I grew up in a town called Scranton Pee A and we didn't know about any of this kind of stuff but my grandfather! Ha! You didn't know my grandfather! He coulda jacked you up and spit you out just like he could both of us I mean I'm not saying anything about you personally I think you're a great guy. You're what we call one o' the good guys, Richard. Ha! But here's my question and I honestly can't think of anyone else I'd rather ask it to than you, okay hang on Senator Shrum, I'm gonna let you speak if there's time, but Richard? Whadda ya think?

Richard: [...dumbfounded stare...]

Chris: I mean whadda ya think about all these goings on with the Obama cabinet? Huh?

Richard: Well, Chris...

Chris: Why is he having so much trouble? Is it just me or this how America sees it?

Richard: I think it's how we...

Chris: 'Cause I don't get out a lot. Which I think is a lot of the problem here in Washington. We reporters don't really get out a lot except to hang out together in local pubs. I know I see you there a lot. Ha! But it really isn't all pall-sy wall-sy, is it?

Richard: [...opens mouth...]

Chris: It's not just some mutual admiration society, is it?

Richard: [...lengthy pause...] Um, you're right, Chris. We do become out of touch, and start talking about one thing while the American public is talking about something else altogether. Like the stimulus package...

Chris: Senator, what's your take? I mean, is Richard crazy? Or what?

Countdown with Keith Olberman, 8:00 PM

Keith: Richard, many thanks for joining us.

Richard: My pleasure, Keith.

Keith: Richard, just giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, despite their rather dubious reputation, how are we to read this ... political intransigence ... that they've displayed in the House and perhaps to a slightly lesser degree in the Senate? Doesn't it take two to Tango, as they say? Isn't partisanship a two way street?

Richard: Yes, Keith. You make an excellent point. The Republicans are not only shameless, but remorseless in what appears to be some sort of irrational hatred of this very inoffensive president.

Keith: He really has bent over backwards, to use a cliche, hasn't he? I mean, what's he supposed to do, shine their shoes? Do you think it's possible that all but three Republicans in the Senate and all of them in the House are racist bigots?

Richard: [...momentary shock...] Well, I do think it's a fair question, Keith. It's certainly one we could ask them.

Keith: Yeah. Next time one of those troglodytes musters up the grit and courage to come on this show, I'll ask the question. It hasn't happened yet, but hope springs eternal, I guess. Maybe someone will accidentally give a Republican this address mistakenly instead of the address for False News.

Richard: Hm... I see your point, Keith. One can't really argue with that.

Keith: Many thanks, Richard.

Richard: Happy as always to oblige, Keith.

Keith: And now tonight's Worst Person.

Comedian Rush Limbaugh comes in with the Bronze tonight for announcing today that he has documented evidence of an Obama love child. The drug-addled commentator did not supply the extra information that the Obama love child in question is the child of Suhapra Longhorne Obama of Cheddar Grove, Oregon and Sepistia May Horstense-Obama of Niahoke, Kansas. The Jackass.

Tonight's silver is awarded to... Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. Her praise today of President Obama and his leadership with respect to the Recovery legislation was tepid at best. She referred to him as "a great leader" which is a quality shared by practically any tyrant in history. I won't Godwinize my own segment, but you get the drift.

And coming in at number one! Taking home the Gold: Rachel Maddow, whose annoying cheerfulness is exceeded only by her shameless ingratitude. It is I who gave the bitch her start by inviting her on my show, and then introducing her to all the bigwigs, enouraging her, recommending her to other hosts, practically single handedly interrogating her... rather, integrating her into the MSNBC community until the time came that I gave her the ultimate hand-up: a personal recommendation that she host her own show. My magnanimity was tied to the hope that I would have a kindred spirit carrying the torch for our Lord and Savior an extra hour of prime time. Instead, she has become an independent thinker and, from time to time, even mildly criticizes him as though she had standing to do so. For her treason, Rachel Maddow is our Worst. Person. In the WORLD!

Good evening Rachel.

Rachel: Hi, Keith! And thanks for that honor. And thank YOU for staying with us tonight. I'll be having an exclusive interview with President Obama and Michelle.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Those were some outstanding impersonations, Liberal, of numerous MSNBC figures, flawless, really.

Where's that 'golf clap' icon when you need one?

[Billdo]

If they switch the timeslots, Olbermann will be history in short order. As it is, he steals some of her thunder, but she's much better at what she does than he is, and is actually educated in the world of political science.

Yes, but he had much better reports from the pre-Superbowl media circus. Her sports segments are decidedly sub-par.

For her treason, Rachel Maddow is our Worst. Person. In the WORLD!

Good evening Rachel.

Rachel: Hi, Keith! And thanks for that honor. And thank YOU for staying with us tonight. I'll be having an exclusive interview with President Obama and Michelle.

That was great, Lib. I can totally see Rachel chirpily saying that on the hand-off.

[Liberal]

Thanks, guys! :)

[Boyo Jim]

In my job, I have to play host to a lot of important world leaders and their dogs. You don't expect me to tell Stephen Harper his dog's going to have to do without her rub down ...

Don't forget her happy ending. :p

[Invisible Chimp]

Keith Olbermann has turned into a real life Howard Beale.

[Zoe]

Liberal, that is so right on the money!

It amuses me to think that we spend our days watching the same programs. Damn! When do we have time to post on here?

[Biggirl]

I don't get to watch Andrea or Morning Joe but now I feel I have. Spot on Lib.

A co-worker of mine loves Olbermann and always teases me about my girl-crush on Rachel. I told him Rachel is a wonk and Keith is a muckracker. Both have their attractions but I like the cute wonk better.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Lib, I'm worried about you. Isn't watching that much bloviation, enough to be so spot on,* bad for your health?


* Judging by the reactions of other Dopers in this thread, since I avoid such bloviators like the plague of addlepated locusts they are.

[Starving Artist]

Great job, Lib! I almost never laugh out loud at something I read on the computer, but I did this time. Twice!

[Stink Fish Pot]

It's so nice to see some well deserved criticism of this hack. He's not funny, even though he believes the funniest and smartest guy in the room.

His obsession with Fox is what has really undermined him. If you remember, he was an ESPN anchor, and he jumped ship to head up Fox Sports when they started their network. Well, ole' Keith wasn't as good as he thought he was, and he was fired. Because he SUCKED. Like many people on ESPN do. But because ESPN is so big, they make some people think they are better than they are. Olbermann fell into this category, and he digs at Fox on a daily basis. It's pathetic and petty. And it's ruined his show.

He's as biased as anyone he accuses on Fox. How anyone who has half a brain doesn't see that is deluded. Based on this thread, it seems many people do see it and have grown tired of his act. We can only hope he gets fired firm MSNBC and disappears into his well-deserved oblivion. I think it would be hilarious if Bill O'Reilly survived Olbermann. That would be the ultimate ego slap for the legend in his own mind.

[Tuckerfan]

Then, tonight he attacked the right-wing bullshit machine for making blatantly ludicrous claims about how Obama's snuck some provision into the stimulus bill to let him overrule your own doctor's decisions "right at your bedside" from Washington. But does he present it that way? No, he mostly just indulges in his new-found obsession with deciding factual matters based much more on the financial backing of those making the claims than on the actual facts!

Instead of simply and effectively debunking the bullshit by simply showing what the bill actually says, he went into conspiracy crackpot mode and argued most vociferously of all that we can be certain it's crap because the cheerleader is associated with "Big Pharma" (interesting parallel with item one, eh?)

What an ass!"Conspiracy"? Hmm. See, here's an interesting thing. The pharmaceutical lobby has done a lot in the past when things like national healthcare, and the importation of drugs into the US from Canada have come up. At one point they apparently hired novelists to write a romance novel involving terrorists funding their operations via prescription drugs imported from Canada. (http://65.69.77.33/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14538)

Now, I realize that this is probably going to sound crazy to some folks, but maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to know that certain groups are lining up now to oppose any medical related issues. ISTR that during the campaign, Obama talked about expanding healthcare coverage for Americans in some manner or the other. I think also, that the concept of the US joining the rest of the developed world in adopting socialized medicine, is somewhat controversial. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=503766) Which seems strange, since they'd go along nicely with our socialized roads and schools and military.

So, could someone explain to me in small words what I missing here? I mean, you know, it seems to me that if Olbermann is right in his comments (and I don't know that he is) about someone misrepresenting what's in the stimulus package as it relates to how doctors get certain information and that the person wrote a letter to an organization funded by the pharmacutical industry asking for money to help support them, this should be news. You know, in the same way that someone who got money from a company like Blackwater or Haliburton and suddenly announced that a country like Iraq had WMDs would be news. (I'm assuming such a thing would be news, but maybe I'm wrong.)

I guess I'm just foolish in thinking that because someone is being paid by people with a particular mindset, that this might just color what they have to say. And I suppose that thinking they might object to anything which would force them to change their business model (even slightly), would be enough to get them to start sending out lackeys is totally misguided on my part, even though corporations in other industries have done the same thing. Serves me right, I suppose, for believing that old saying which goes "Forewarned is forearmed."

I'll have to confess that I was not paying close attention to Olbermann when he mentioned Deer (I put Olbermann as "entertainment" and not "news," like I do with The Daily Show) and I thought that he was saying that Wakefield's theories were first reported by Deer and that if Deer had done his research then, Wakefield might never have gotten any kind of cred. As I said, however, I was not paying attention to Olbermann when the subject came up, so I have only the barest of ideas as to what he said about it.

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/press-ably-picking-apart_n_166707.html She is a spokesman for big Pharma and works with them. She is merely lying to start the fight against a change in our medical system.

[ambushed]

"Conspiracy"? Hmm. See, here's an interesting thing. The pharmaceutical lobby has done a lot in the past when things like national healthcare, and the importation of drugs into the US from Canada have come up. At one point they apparently hired novelists to write a romance novel involving terrorists funding their operations via prescription drugs imported from Canada. (http://65.69.77.33/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14538)

Now, I realize that this is probably going to sound crazy to some folks, but maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to know that certain groups are lining up now to oppose any medical related issues.

... snip ...

So, could someone explain to me in small words what I missing here?
The point of my OP -- and this is coming from a general Olbermann fan -- is that on those two occasions at least, Olbermann spent little or no time on accurately reporting the facts and instead focused far more on trying to debunk the claims by proxy or some magical transitive property by linking the authors to what he saw as financial conflict of interests.

My point is that a falsehood is a falsehood and a truth is a truth no matter who funds the person making the claim. I am not claiming that following the money and reporting on funding sources is not relevant or should not be reported at all; only that facts and truth must prevail, no matter their source or the source of their funding.

But as a result of his stupidly misplaced over-emphasis on funding sources over facts, Olbermann:

(1) Fucked over Brian Deer and everyone else sane enough to know that vaccines don't cause autism after credulously believing the almost infinitely despicable liar David Kirby, who convinced Olbermann that Deer's earth-shaking exposure of the latest scandal involving the ever-more blood-soaked Andrew Wakefield was bogus because (he apparently told Olbermann), Deer had a financial and other conflicts of interest. It was all a contemptible lie and it wouldn't alter the facts if it were true, but Olbermann clearly sided with the liar Kirby and his "follow the money" bullshit to the detriment of children and parents everywhere.

(2) Spent far more time trying to debunk Betsy McCaughey's absurd "secret provision" claims based almost entirely on her links to pharmaceutical companies rather than on the far more effective and devastating tactic of simply showing the bill's actual language in context and explaining what it really meant.

Why am I so angry with Keith's seemingly new-found obsession with financial conflict of interests rather than facts and reality? Because that's the most common "argument" used throughout crankland to discredit scientific facts and findings of all sorts!

Some examples just off the top of my head...

"Joseph Newman did create a free-energy machine, but NIST and the government are being paid off by the oil companies to keep the truth from coming out!"

"Homeopathic medicine has a cure for every known disease, but the AMA and "Big Pharma" don't want you to believe it because they'd lose too much money!"

"Power lines do cause cancer clusters, but the electric companies deny it because it would cost them too much money to fix!"

And, of course, the child-killing bullshit du jour:

"Vaccines do cause autism, but "Big Pharma" and the government continues to deny it because they'd lose too much money in lawsuits!"
I'm sure we can all think of many other examples. Sure, financial conflicts of interest are very real and do result at times in very real harm. But you cannot debunk a claim merely by emphasizing a financial conflict of interest and leave it pretty much at that.

[Tuckerfan]

So, let me see if I've got this straight:

1.) Olbermann is to blame for parents being too stupid to listen to their doctor about vaccinations.

2.) Decided to focus on an aspect of the story which you feel was unimportant when it came to Betsy McCaughey's comments about the bill.

Am I wrong here? Because first of all, I gotta say that anyone who considers a show hosted by a man who spent a good portion of his career as a sportscaster, and routinely has segments entitled "Worst Person in the World" where he mocks, and deliberately does bad impressions of noted figures given that award, to be "hard news," is not realizing that the show is best viewed as entertainment, much the same way that The Daily Show should be. Yes, there is some accuracy to elements of the program, but I think that even Keith would admit that the entertainment aspects of the program are the main emphasis. (After all, he's done entire episodes dedicated to nothing but recapping the bizarre news stories of the year. Can you imagine The New York Times doing something like that?)

Next, how much coverage in all media did Betsy McCaughey's comments get? My primary news sources are NPR and the BBC, with the occassional AP/Reuters/USA Today story thrown in. My entertainment based "news" sources are Olbermann, TDS, the SDMB, and a few other message boards I frequent. To date, the only mention of Betsy McCaughey I've heard has been here, and the episode of Countdown which inspired this thread. IIRC, Betsy McCaughey's were made on Fox News, I seriously doubt that a significant portion of Fox News viewers ever see more than a few seconds of Olbermann, so it is highly unlikely than any of them see any of Keith's comments about whatever it is that they're misinformed about. If you're going to be Pitting anyone it should be people who labor under the impression that Countdown is hard news. It clearly isn't, and one should treat anything Keith says as potentially suspect.

[ambushed]

So, let me see if I've got this straight...Nope. Not at all. Not even close. In fact, it would take an extreme effort to get it any less straight.

I write: My point is that a falsehood is a falsehood and a truth is a truth no matter who funds the person making the claim.

Then -- Bob help us all! -- you offer a "rebuttal" that argues in the final analysis that the truth or falsehood of these claims are unimportant or even irrelevant because the claims came from the mouth of someone you personally don't respect (based on the oh-so-compelling reason that he also announces some sporting events) on a show that you personally contend contains no hard news whatsoever (apparently because the show contains a segment or two of light diversion).

The rational mind boggles!

You know, I'd accept that your comments may have some validity and consider them worthy of serious debate, but since you're obviously in bed with the pharmaceutical industry (no one could write something so vapid and wildly off-point if they were not one of "Big Pharma's" paid guinea pigs), your obvious financial conflict of interests completely invalidate everything you wrote.

I won't be bothering to reply to you any further in this thread, but don't stop blathering on my account...

[Tuckerfan]

Nope. Not at all. Not even close. In fact, it would take an extreme effort to get it any less straight.

I write:

Then -- Bob help us all! -- you offer a "rebuttal" that argues in the final analysis that the truth or falsehood of these claims are unimportant or even irrelevant because the claims came from the mouth of someone you personally don't respect (based on the oh-so-compelling reason that he also announces some sporting events) on a show that you personally contend contains no hard news whatsoever (apparently because the show contains a segment or two of light diversion).

The rational mind boggles!I'd demand a cite proving that you have "rational mind," but you've already stated you're done with me. I will note, however, that Olbermann spends a great deal of time making self-depreciating comments, and even ran the SNL clip of Affleck mocking him. Anyone thinking that Olbermann is "hard news" is misguided, as even Olbermann points out! And knowing that someone, who is quite clearly a crank, is being funded by the pharmacuetical industry isn't an "insignificant detail." Because it means that no matter how many times its pointed out that this person has their facts wrong, they're still going to be rearing their ugly head, because they've got someone out there funding them. And when that "someone" has a lot of money, it means there's a good chance, we'll be seeing a lot of that particular idiot.

You know, I'd accept that your comments may have some validity and consider them worthy of serious debate, but since you're obviously in bed with the pharmaceutical industry (no one could write something so vapid and wildly off-point if they were not one of "Big Pharma's" paid guinea pigs), your obvious financial conflict of interests completely invalidate everything you wrote.

I won't be bothering to reply to you any further in this thread, but don't stop blathering on my account...How droll. Just because I won't join your little hissy fit about someone whom you think should be a perfect purveyor of truth, you throw out some hysterical insults. I gotta a question for you (not that you'll bother to answer me): If you're so pissed about this, why haven't you fired off a letter to Olbermann? Its not likely that he or anyone connected with his show will read this thread, so why waste your time ranting here? You might be able to have some impact if you wrote him. You certainly stand a better chance of making a change, than doing it here.

[want2know]

Lib, that was priceless! I'm a big MSNBC fan, and I thought it was hilarious! I look forward to seeing you on "Worst Persons" since, by now, I'm sure someone has probably e-mailed your post to MSNBC. :D

[Ogre]

I'm of two minds. Yes, Olbermann is a spittle-flecked maniac. Yes, he manages to comfortably miss the point a lot of the time.

But I despair that merely presenting the merits and facts about something that most of the populace won't understand anyway is insufficient. I think there's real value in revealing where the money is coming from. Chris Mooney, in The Republican War On Science, does a good job of covering this, with lots and lots of cites. The misuse of science as funded through corporate "watchdog groups" and back-door conservative flim-flammery (Data Quality Act, anyone?) has gotten so bad that sometimes following the money leads to very revealing realizations about the bias of what you are looking at.

[Tuckerfan]

I'm of two minds. Yes, Olbermann is a spittle-flecked maniac. Yes, he manages to comfortably miss the point a lot of the time.

But I despair that merely presenting the merits and facts about something that most of the populace won't understand anyway is insufficient. I think there's real value in revealing where the money is coming from. Chris Mooney, in The Republican War On Science, does a good job of covering this, with lots and lots of cites. The misuse of science as funded through corporate "watchdog groups" and back-door conservative flim-flammery (Data Quality Act, anyone?) has gotten so bad that sometimes following the money leads to very revealing realizations about the bias of what you are looking at.

You mean like discovering that many of the groups denying global warming "just happen" to get a significant portion of their funding from certain energy companies. . .

[Ogre]

You mean like discovering that many of the groups denying global warming "just happen" to get a significant portion of their funding from certain energy companies. . .Most definitely. Makes me ill.