"Free copy of Fox News!"

The blogosphere is going wild over Keith Olbermann's idea of breakfast-hour entertainment. Chip Franklin quizzed me about it this morning on WBAL. I was about 10 feet away from Keith at a Saturday morning breakfast press session when he put on the Bill O'Reilly mask and made a Nazi salute. I don't agree with a colleague's assessment that it was "hilarious." It seemed beneath him. But then, the whole puppet-theater idea seems beneath him. It's my least favorite part of the "Countdown."

Here's a link from Olbermann Watch with the picture.

Robert Cox, who runs OW, is a decent guy who enjoys playing with dynamite. I belong to the media bloggers' group he heads up. Cox recently sent out a bulletin noting the 100th occasion on which "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" named O'Reilly its worst person in the world. (Something you'd think Olbermann would have thought of first, what with the book coming out and all.) Anyway, I used that email as the basis for a question about bloggers.

QUESTION: Keith, to follow up on that. Right in front of you. When you made the Bill O'Reilly "the Worst Person in the World" for the hundredth time, I got an e-mail from a guy who runs a blog called "Olbermann Watch," pointing out this milestone.

Do you worry about the blogosphere? Do you pay attention to bloggers? Do you worry that they might take something that you say and extract some sort of revenge, the way they did with Dan Rather?

KEITH OLBERMANN: There's, I guess, a risk for all of us -- and by all of us, I mean everybody in the world -- that the blogosphere is going to take revenge. They don't like your shirt. There could be about your blog -- about your shirt tomorrow. The thing that encourages me about this, to some degree, is that with every medium that is seemingly limitless -- every medium begins that way. Everybody's going to have their own television network. There's going to be 3,000 cable networks. Whatever. It is self-limiting. Eventually there's just not going to be enough money to keep all this stuff going. People are devoting a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of energy, and not necessarily getting any results in terms of readership.

The thing does tend to balance out. For every blog that there might be somebody criticizing me, of that one in particular, is the one I know of, there's another one or two other ones where they're desperately and unfairly favorable to me. So if you take it in the whole context, I don't really worry about it. There's very little that can be said about me on the blogs that isn't true and is going to hurt me, so I don't worry about it. I truly try to just go ahead and do what I do, based on some sense of logic which eludes me at the moment.

In other words, as long as the TV audience responds, he's going to ignore the blogs.

And the audience is responding.  Yes, O'Reilly beats him like a porch rug in total viewers but ... well, I'll let Keith take it from there:

In the afternoon in New York, so that they don't have to take them back, the distributors of the New York Post stand on the corners and bark, "Free New York Post. Free New York Post." If you looked merely at a total number of newspapers that you printed and did not have to burn at the end of the day or bring back or recycle or something like that, that would be essentially the total audience number in television. The ones you actually sell are the demographic numbers because that's the ones we base the advertising on.

In total audience, we can be beaten on a given night 7-to-1, 3-to-1, somewhere in that range usually. Three-to-one is a good night that we're down by in total audience. But in that demographic number, we have in the last year moved from third place at 8 p.m., past CNN, into second place, which is, if not unprecedented at MSNBC, it is unprecedented in the last 100 years, 200? OK, five years. (Laughter.)

I'm a little loose with the numbers, as you can tell. On an average night, we might come in somewhere around 150,000, 250,000 in the demographic number. And O'Reilly is somewhere between 400. During times of a lot of news like now, it might be higher, closer to 600. It's competitive.

Are we still getting doubled, tripled, in some respects, every night? Yeah. But in terms of the growth number, our numbers are continually up over the last two, three years. All of Fox's numbers are continually down in that area of the demo, which is, as I said, where you make your money off of. Every other viewer is basically, "Free copy of Fox News."

Comments

[Mark Jeffries]

And besides, the guy can't even spell Aaron's name right.

[Translator please?]

Could someone please translate what he said into English? I'm really worried Keith is off his meds again and has taken to incoherent rambling. WTF was he trying to say here actually?

[Aaron]

That's the problem with unedited transcripts ... it usually makes people seem less coherent than they were.

[Jason]

He's saying that Fox has a huge total audience, but most of them are old people who advertisers don't care about. (Apparently, old people are the equivalent of people who take free copies of the New York Post to keep the circ up.) But that in terms of the important demos, MSNBC is more competitive and has passed CNN in that respect.

[Jim Treacher]

I don't agree with a colleague's assessment that it was "hilarious." It seemed beneath him.

That's where he lives now.

[Sweetie]

Is Keith's 'pitch' really that he's getting destroyed in overall viewers but O'Reilly only beats him two to one in the key demographic? I've got a suggestion. Why not just admit you're getting your ass kicked and move on to something else? Like your inability to find anyone right of center to lock horns with on your show. Amen choruses belong in churches, not on news shows.

[Robert Cox]

Mark - my bad, I do KNOW Aaron's last name but screwed it up anyway. I have now fixed it.

As far as KO's ratings, let me speak as a recognized authority of Keith Olbermann (my mother is SO proud of me for that!). Keith's numbers HAVE increased in total viewers off their lows in late 2004 (roughly 250,000) up to about 450,000 around the time MSNBC was broadcasting events like Curling during the Winter Olympics and have been in steady decline since March - back towards the 350,000 range. He did beat Paula Zahn in 1Q06 and 2Q06 but mostly because of the Olympics and because her ratings took a sharp drop in 2Q06. Her ratings began to right themselves in June and over the past two months KO has fallen to third in the 25-54 demo (again) and is back behind Nancy Grace in total viewers.

[Big Man]

Why don't newspapers or the networks check their facts? Olby's claims can be proven true or not. Still, they give him a pass.

Usually Olby gets beat 7 or 8 to 1. When has he ever, ever been beaten by 2-1?

I say, never. He's never been that close

[Aaron]

Nice try, hamhead. I checked KO's claims with NBC stats guy Tom Bierbaum later that day. Bierbaum didn't have his numbers handy but he confirmed the healthy uptick of 2Q and, as Bob noted, a subsequent downtick, though 3Q is not over yet.

[Dorrie Summers]

Consider Olbermann's sponsors: airlines, investment firms, computer companies, I could go on, but they're geared to affluent people for the most part. It would confirm what he claims about the demo, one would think. I don't know who sponsors O'Reilly -- can anyone tell me?

Another question: O'Reilly also clobbers C-SPAN in sheer viewership. Do his higher numbers prove that O'Reilly is smarter than C-SPAN's Brian Lamb or provides a superior product? I don't think so.

Nothing about the Factor challenges viewers. There's nothing substantial about it -- just bombast. With Countdown, you get entertainment and substance. Thoughtful questions are asked and guests are given sufficient time to answer them. Often Keith is surprised by the answers he receives. I like that.

[Mark Jeffries]

I know what you're getting at, but C-SPAN's irrelevant when it comes to ratings discussions, because they don't subscribe to Nielsen and live in purposeful ignorance of their own ratings, thanks to being not-for-profit, 100% non-commercial, totally funded by subscriber fees and not expected to get ratings at all.

[Aaron]

Plus, you can say the F word on C-SPAN.

[Dorrie]

Thanks for answering my post, Mark. My purpose in that one paragraph was to show how sheer viewership isn't any indication of a program's quality, using C-SPAN as proof. I don't think anyone could credibly argue that in a test of creativity and intellectual firepower, O'Reilly would come out the winner in a side-by-side comparison with Lamb, do you? So -- Nielsen, schmielsen! Tiffany's doesn't have as many customers as Walmart; oh, woe is me... guess it's time they shut their doors, LOL.

The point is, there's a place for a smaller, smarter cable news network. Of course there is! As long as it can stay afloat -- and from what I've observed of the type of sponsors it now attracts, perhaps it can -- MSNBC should stay put and keep striving, and keep Olbermann right where he is.

[rich]

Keith runs a real news show, unlike the right-wing hack, O'Reilly...There's not shouting & screaming, no interrupting, etc., just interviews where one person talks at a time in a civilized manner....

O'Reilly made the stupid remarks about the Coit Tower, about saying the professor who disagrees w/him that he should wind up face first in the Charles River....O'Reilly is a punk & a total a-hole, I truly feel sorry for anyone who watches his garbage..

[Jason]

I think that Keith is the real lunatic. Come on the guy put up a nazi salute! KO should just shut up about the ratings. He'll never win, not even in the key demos. I think O'Reilleys numbers speak for themselves. Lets face it, the super left wingers are just jealous that O'Reilley, who by the way is way more moderate than right wing, is winning. He's also one of the only pro-American guys out there. After a tough day at work I think a lot of people like to be told that they work and live in a good country, no wait, the best country on this earth. Its as simple as that.

[Dorrie]

Jason -- Portraying O'Reilly as a "heil"-ing brownshirt was Keith's way of reminding everyone that O'Reilly defamed American WWII soldiers on 2 separate occasions (the second after having already been corrected) by claiming that Americans murdered unarmed German prisoners at Malmedy -- when in fact it happened the other way around: it was the German soldiers who shot the American prisoners.

Even if O'Reilly were man enough to admit his error and apologize, that still wouldn't be sufficient to make amends for his then going on to use that appalling distortion to excuse the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines at Haditha.

Not only did the WWII incident NOT happen as O'Reilly said, but there was no moral equivalency had events actually occurred as he related them -- yet you describe this soldier-slanderer and war crimes defender as "pro-American"!

I can't fathom your criteria for patriotism, Jason, but I'm sure the standards to which WWII veterans adhere are much, much higher.

[Jason]

Dorrie- I was unaware of the whole WWII thing and yes O'Reilley does get over the top many times himself. However, even with the WWII thing, I still enjoy O'Reilley's assessment most days on the news (I usually only tune into the first 5 minutes of the program for talking points). Its not like other news anchors haven't screwed up before or made an idiot of themselves. I would call KO's whole debacle very unprofessional and I'm sure he won't be apologizing for it. This in turn makes him look like the bad guy because O'Reilley has no reason to go after him. He'll call him MSNBC's smear merchant and get on with it. KO just does it for publicity. And newsflash, his ratings are sinking. In fact I personally can't stand to watch MSNBC because it is so subpar to Fox or CNN. It offers about half as many different shows and totally goes over to taped stuff on the weekends. As for the pro-American thing I meant fox in general. It has some very respectable news anchors who are patriotic yet not over the top (Bill Hemmer and Shepherd Smith). Fox is number one because they make the news relatable to Americans. Finally, I'm guessing you and I will never agree which is why its great we live here in America: we will have 4 cable news choices for news, 5 if you count CNBC which is...I don't know what to call that.

[Dorrie Summers]

Jason,
So the stock answer, no matter how low O'Reilly stoops -- be it intentionally attributing Nazi war crimes to American GIs (twice), sending the authorities after callers who speak Olbermann's name, inviting al Qaeda to blow up SF's Coit Tower, or harrassing female colleagues with dirty phone calls -- as long as the Big Giant Head has the highest ratings, that automatically makes him "pro-American" and okay in your book? And anyone who can't beat O'Reilly in the ratings and holds him to account for the above-named offenses should APOLOGIZE, you say? Seems to me something's wrong when being on the "winning" side demands so many moral concessions. It's like fans who don't care how many sterioids and human growth hormones a player takes, as long as he keeps those home runs coming. Sorry, but I'm not willing to go down that road with you.

[Jason]

Dorrie the only thing I'm saying is that Mr. Olbermann is going to remain behind O'Reilley no matter how much he tries to taint him in the media. By the way, the whole sexual harrasment thing never turned out did it. The only reason I knew about this is because it was all over the media. Like I said I don't watch very much of his program and not all that often. But what I see is usually just him telling us how it is. If Olbermann thinks he's holding Bill accountable, go ahead. I didn't say that KO should apologize, I'm just saying he won't for a debacle that makes him look like a bad guy too. Most people truley don't give a hoot. The man speaks his mind. Does it get out of hand, yes. Do most people look past his flaws, of course. Why? Because MOST of the things he says is the way it is. He plays the role of devil's advocate for both the right and left. Has he made mistakes, yes. When you are as passionate about issues as he is and likes to go off on things then mistakes are going to be made. Its just the way he is. I don't expect his fans to leave him any time soon. No he's not for everyone. Like say yourself and the other 300,000 people who watch KO, and I suppose you could say the 500,000 or so who watch Paula Zahn. If you would've read my post correctly you would've read that I wrote that I believe that its Fox in general that is more pro-American, not just O'Reilley alone. I'm honestly not an avid O'Reilley watcher. I usually watch the Fox Report and then tune in for 5 minutes or so of Bill. Fox just try to tell it in a way that it affects Americans, therefore making it relevant to us. For me its more of an MSNBC vs. Fox thing than a KO vs. O'Reilley thing.

[Dorrie]

Jason, O'Reilly's victim got a big fat settlement, didn't she? (Estimates ranged between 2 and 10-million.) And Mackris's phone answering machine transcript showing BOR's lewd talk was all over the Internets. The Big Giant Head just hasn't committed PICTURES yet -- which apparently is the distinction for you. And speaking of distictions, I hope you can grasp the difference between repeating a slander you've already been corrected about (that it wasn't American soldiers who murdered Nazi prisoners at Malmedy as O'Reilly insisted, it was the other way around) and an honest mistake. That's a critical point you seem to be missing (dismissing?) here.

So most of the things O'Reilly says AREN'T the way it is -- he just has a real credulous audience composed of folks P.T.Barnum was talking about when he said there's a future O'Reilly viewer born every minute (or words to that effect).

Contrast Bill's dismal record with Keith's, and the kind of stuff KO gets wrong -- like getting punked by a satirical website posting a "study" showing the effect on parental IQ of raising children, or being fooled (as many people were) by a mom pretending to be her own AIDS-stricken child in phone interviews. Oh yeah, and his staff put the wrong photo up once when he was doing "Worst Person" (for which, please note, Olbermann apologized without needing to be prompted).

The above comparison demonstrates the difference in the quality of reporting we get from Olbermann as opposed to the distorted-to-fit-the-spin tripe that O'Reilly serves up every night.

[Jason]

Dorrie-
As I stated O'Reilley does get it wrong at times. Yes he goes off in his tyrannical raids. I told you I was unaware of the whole WWII debacle which is really unfortunate because according to Keith, the only people who watch O'Reilley are people who are WWII age. But this is not what I am trying to point out to you. What I am trying to point out is that O'Reilley does get it right most of the time. About 90 percent of the people he goes after are loonatics who are basically anti-Bush people that make outrageous claims like Israelis are terrorists, etc. Also I'm sure 2 million dollars is pennys to fox and O'Reilley, because you know what, they make money at that network. MSNBC is lucky to have Bill Gates and NBCU around to help pay the bills. I notice that you still don't have any answers for my opinions and the truth that the numbers actually reveal about Fox news. It is the number one news network because it connects with its audience in ways that MSNBC only wishes it could. As for your statement about O'Reilley's viewers being gullible and unintelligent, O'Reilley goes after middle America. This is the same middle America that ranks well above the rest of the nation in test scores in schools. So I'm less intelligent because I watch O'Reilley and Fox? I think not. MY test scores prove that wrong. I think Mr. O'Reilley and Fox are also smart for going after the intelligent hard working, and moderate middle America. Yes O'Reilley got it wrong on a story. You've proved your point. However, you've also proved that you're somebody who doesn't look at the big picture. You just respond to the parts that you want to.

[Dorrie]

Jason, the answer to every question involving morals and viewer's intelligence isn't MONEY and RATINGS. (I capitalized those words to reflect their importance in every one of your arguments so far.) I don't care if O'Reilly had between 2 and 10-million in his checking account to pay off a woman he subjected to disgusting behavior.** How can mere income blind you to his moral degeneracy?

O'Reilly's moral decay is also reflected in the matter that occasioned the above blog: Ask yourself why it's so necessary for you to mischaracterize O'Reilly's having repeated his slander of American soldiers, after he'd already been corrected about it, as "getting it wrong."

The first time may be "getting it wrong." The SECOND time would have to be deliberate distortion of the record, would it not? In otherwords, he was LYING.

Moreover, O'Reilly went on to attempt to use that lie (BOTH TIMES) to defend the recent behavior of American Marines at Haditha in Iraq.
Twice.
As in two times.
After having been told he was wrong the first time.
Get it?-- he deliberately slandered dead GIs in order to defend live war criminals.

Now, if you're really looking for someone who has the best interests of this country and its people -- ESPECIALLY its military -- at heart, don't you think you could do a little better than soldier-slanderer and war crime defender O'Reilly?

Would it not make more sense to put your confidence in a man who's holding O'Reilly to account for what he said?

When will Bill O'Reilly admit he lied about Malmedy and apologize? We patiently await his mea culpa...

**Note: In contrast to O'Reilly's despicable treatment of female colleagues at Fox, Olbermann incurred his employers' displeasure and put his job on the line at ESPN by calling attention to the serious problem of sexual harrassment at that network, and testified on victims' behalf on more than one occasion.

[Jason]

Dorrie I guess we're going to just have to disagree. I would like to know why you are so worried about O'Reilley. You obviously don't watch his show or do you considering how much you know about him? Is that all there is to Keith Olbermann's show? Again I'm willing to put aside the crazy antics here and there because some of what his says is really how it is. NOBODY is perfect. Did you even read the parts in my previous posts about how yes O'Reilley does get it wrong sometimes? Didn't think so. I'm sure you'll now go on and attack my morals and intelligence. Anyways I've made my point. Its that I simply like Fox better than the rest. O'Reilleys on Fox so occasionally I tune into him and find some of the things he says more pro-American than other networks. Even Aaron agrees that Fox wins because they know their target.

[Dorrie]

Jason, you still can't explain how O'Reilly can "get it wrong" about Malmedy TWICE, after he's been corrected about it the first time. Or how deliberately slandering 84 dead GIs to make some lame defense of war crimes in Haditha makes him "pro-American." See, the NUMBER OF TIMES he lies isn't the point -- it's what he lies ABOUT that reveals his sordid character.

Perhaps you heard recently about his calling a girl who got raped and murdered "moronic" because she was drunk and wearing a top which revealed her MIDRIFF. After that "falafel" thing, I could believe it, but I can't believe he's still on the air -- just one of those 3 blunders would've been a career ender for any TV host who wasn't making lots of money for Fox.

I consider O'Reilly and Malmedy a good test case for "conservatives" and all their high talk about character and truthfulness and not holding with "situational ethics" and "moral relativism." See, we've had that baloney rammed down our throats for 10 years... and in the end O'Reilly is what it all comes down to for you folks. Bill-O -- soldier slanderer, sexual harrasser, rape victim mocker -- he's your example of what it is to be "pro-American." It's so revealing and predictable. What Sam Spade said in the Maltese Falcon really is true, whether referring to that little punk who was following him or Bill O'Reilly: "The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." :-)

[Jason]

Dorrie-
How many times do I have to tell you? I was originally unaware of the whole WWII thing. I think it is very unfortunate if this is indeed the case. I'm guessing you're getting your info from KO so I'm still a bit skeptical of the whole deal. I didn't say he was perfect but many times he does get it correct. This is especially true in dealing with homeland security. He exposes people who are weak on the issue and the recent debacle in London has proven that being tough on issues, like O'Reilley is, often works. I did hear of the whole rape victim thing. While I think it is horrible that women are raped in this country and in no way defend rapers, the woman was drunk. He was trying to make the point that she should protect herself from these types of people. Didn't she have a friend with her that night? His points are sometimes so raw that even I wonder how he stays on the air. But the point is that many many many people in this country like the point raw. I've never really bought into the whole conservatives are better than others headline. I'm a moderate independent who finds Bush and the brain washed congress horrifying mainly because of the price of oil and the inability to plan for what happened after we invaded Iraq. I was all for the invasion and sticking it to the UN but the planning was very poorly done. I do feel that Bill O'Reilley is more in the America can do what it wants category than in the America is the greatest country on earth because of all the great things we have accomplished. I find FOX NEWS in general not just O'Reilley more pro-American. They have some truley great reporters from Shepherd Smith to Gretta Van Sustren to Bill Hemmer. These three are just the start. Brit Hume is another good honest reporter who simply tells it like it is. I'm honestly not trying to pick fights, I just am sticking up for the network I like. Again the thing that makes me scratch my head the most is how the number one news network can be so attacked. Are the others really that jealous? I would hope not. I wish people would see past O'Reilley when thinking of Fox.