Olberman vs Beck
 

Olbermans blog or post on DailyKos..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...out-Glenn-Beck

What is he going to do with the minute audiance he has left?
Don't those people understand that they just play into Glen Becks hands, and into the hands of all the other consvervative talk show/radio hosts? With the ruckus that those no brainers from MSNBC, DK and so raise it is no surpise that the audiance for the conservative shows is getting bigger and bigger, because everybody wants to see/hear what all the fuss is about. :up:

Seriously, I find it hilarious. Everyone who is complaining about rightwing nutjobs ought to take a look at those DK guys. :shifty:

LOL smacks of desperation to me.

How can some alchoholic ex DJ beat the living crap out of a polished and refined Jornalist like Olberman :D

Owww.. the irony.... :haha:

In my opinion, any one who listens to Oberman or Beck for anything but entertainment purposes is being foolish.

They are both buffoons or court jesters. They are there to entertain us, not inform us.

They are mildly amusing, but neither should ever be confused with a reliable news source or deep analytical commentary. :nope:

I often wonder the same thing. But then I remember that, in terms of ratings, Gene Simmons Family Jewels and Jon & Kate Plus 8 rank higher in the United States than shows like NOVA or entire channels like National Geographic for that matter. Point being, people are intellectually simplistic and only watch TV for entertainment anymore. And what could be more entertaining than watching "some alcoholic ex-DJ" yell and scream and jump up and down live on the news?

:hmmm:

Hey I like Nova ! :yeah:

A FELLOW BROTHA! WELCOME, SON, WELCOME!:woot:

I very rarely watch any news much less Olberman or Beck. However, my grandmother did give me a copy of Beck's Common Sense" and I did find it very informative. I believe if Beck did away with the antics many peopl would take him more seriously. BTW National Geographic does not even come with my basic Cable services anymore. It is considerd a "premium" channel. You can only imagine how pissed I am at Comcast.:nope: I used to love to watch explorer on sunday nights.

I was wondering why you didn't mention NASCAR in what is just shy of an eletist rant. You may not have meant it as such, but you are on the border. It is that attitude which is oh so prevelent on the left which is your down fall.

Most folks, myself included, don't appreciate being told we view TV for entertainment only because we are some how lesser persons by missing the biased programming you mentioned. TV is entertainment bud. It was and is designed for no other reason, and I dislike the assumption that it was meant for some higher purpose that only a few are aware of, or can comprehend.

Perhaps I am reading too much into your post, but the elitism is the left's real problem.

I see the problem being that there are many people who view learning and science as "biased" since it conflicts with their particular worldview. You may say elitism is the left's downfall, but the opposite criticism can be leveled at those on the other side of the political spectrum: anti-intellectualism is accepted, and even celebrated. Scientists, economists, philosophers, physicists, mathematicians and the like are derided as "elitists" and out of touch while folks like plumbers, soldiers and "the regular joe" are held up as the only ones with any insight at all and the only ones worth listening to.

As for television...the only information you're going to get from television news is that which fits into a sound byte. Its garbage for understanding the world around us.

Besides, when we get down to what "elitism" actually means..."elite" means the best....I'd be proud to be called "elite" any day.

Well in all fairness the Ivory Tower complex is quite often real.

Because NASCAR has nothing to do with the news itself. And I lol'd at the "elitist" part.

Oh I did.

And it's the exact opposite which is leading to the downfall of the right.

Ok, how exactly is NOVA biased? Hm? It's a science program. National Geographic is the same thing. MSNBC? I could see your point on that. But as far as NOVA and NatGeo are concerned, they're not "biased". You're only saying that because they're conflicting with your views- on one issue... or many. The exact amount is irrelevant.

I'm hardly your "bud".

Wrong. Television was originally created as a means of communicating video footage and audio across long distances for whatever purpose. The first TVs played news programs, then you got sitcoms and more news programs... and then you finally had commercials enter the mix.

You dislike many things, but this issue hardly revolves around either of us.

Well it was. Read up on it sometime. TVs were created originally to communicate video footage across long distances. I learned that in high school FFS; where have you been?

If you think that both sides aren't filled with elitists, your head is stuck so far up your ass I doubt a septic tank of lube could ever free it.:nope:

Thank you for spending so much time replying to my post Silent Hunter. It is certainly more than I would have spent on you. I have always been of the opinion that the longer the response to any subject the less practical the argument and the weaker the ground. I betcha many aggree.

Thank you for confirming my hypothisis. I think you are my bud!!:salute: :up:

You think soundbites make better arguments than actual arguments? Are you serious?

No. But too much talk only shows the weakness of the argument and often devoles into into contradictions. You have seen it I'm sure.

An example.

Mr. Obama recently stated that most people are happy with their health care. If that is the case why change it?