I have to dedicate the John Stewart of the day to Slowpoke, SA, and Hello.  There actually is a huge difference between Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann.  Please enjoy.  This one is just for you guys.  Happy Weekend.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment – Keith Olbermann’s Name-Calling
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

And the question of the day, who is worse about name calling? Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann? Is this part of their audience appeal?

24 Thoughts to “Name Calling Pindit…errrr Pundits.”

  1. Diversity Gal

    Pretty funny stuff…love me some Jon Stewart:)

  2. Witness Too

    It is a boost to the spirit when people can have a sense of humor even when times are rough. I felt the same way when the President showed a sense of humor in his town hall speech yesterday. Our politics is too often dominated by people who get in a tissy very easily, and on command if there is some political gain in it.

  3. Witness Too

    I said this on another thread but again I think that Scott Brown looks like a nice family man. My first exposure to him was his victory speech. I suppose everyone seems nice in a victory speech. But if you are against him that is fine. You should say why though instead of focusing on the things in that video. Olbermann simply didn’t want Brown to win. That’s all he ends up saying in his attack. I’d be more interested in hearing why. For instance, he might think that 60 votes is important in the Senate if anything is to get done. Well we had that for a year and we couldn’t get the health care reform we need. Maybe now Republicans will feel more conciliatory and stop being the party of no. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise.

  4. I am disappointed that neither Slow, Hello, or SA, have weighed in on this video.

    I wondered if it addressed what they were talking about. I almost never (operative word, almost) watch Olbermann. Is this typical of his rhetoric now?

  5. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Well, I’m not sure what to say. There is a vast difference between Keith Overbite and Jon Stewart, won’t argue that point. There’s a big difference between Keith Overbite and Rush Limbaugh, too. Rush is always correct, while Keith is always incorrect. Rush Limbaugh’s radio program has an audience, while nobody, apart from prisons where they can’t change the channel, watches Overbite. Other than that, funny clip!

  6. Second-Alamo

    Don’t be disappointed, it’s the weekend, but it does me good to see a left wing commentator get some of his own medicine! Olbermann, what a grade school ass!

  7. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Honestly, Olbermann is pretty typical of left-wingers…spewing hatred, name-calling, etc. It’s part of their rule-book, written by Saul Alinsky. The funniest part of it is most of it of they busy themselves by accusing everyone else of their own faults.

  8. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    had them, changed it to they. duh.

  9. Witness Too

    My God. Slowpoke do you really believe Rush Limbaugh is always correct? What a strange, warped world you must live in. Olbermann is nearly always factually accurate, where you differ with him I assume would be his politics, and he makes no secret about them. In the old days I would have not liked this. But since Fox News and right wing radio have made politics sprinkled with journalism the norm, then it would stand to reason some left wing version would arise. If it hadn’t, I’m sure that McCain would have won. Perhaps that is why so many are upset at Olbermann.

    I think Olbermann has spent too much time ridiculing Limbaugh, and now some of Limbaugh’s tactics of unfair and unfounded name-calling has rubbed off on him. I hope that Olbermann makes a real apology. I don’t think Scott Brown is any of those things.

  10. Witness Too

    I also think Glenn Beck’s comments toward Sen-elect Brown were unfair.

  11. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Witness Too :
    My God. Slowpoke do you really believe Rush Limbaugh is always correct? What a strange, warped world you must live in.

    I am quite aware that the real world is strange to liberals. Just keep spending yourself to prosperity!!

  12. Slowpoke, I don’t think Rush Limbaugh is usually right. Maybe he has improved. I haven’t listened to him in 15 years or whenever it was he had a TV show. He was generally wrong then…as far as facts went. He took a shred of truth and built a story around it. His facts are often skewed, and opinions, well, he gives opinion as fact. Opinions aren’t right or wrong. They are opinions.

    But then again, that was just my opinion. I honestly haven’t listen to a Rush show since Clinton was president. He set out to destroy him also.

  13. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Witness Too :
    Olbermann is nearly always factually accurate,

    Olbermann is a G0d D@m factual Ty-Ran-O-Saur-Us!!!

  14. RingDangDoo

    @Witness Too

    >>> Olbermann is nearly always factually accurate,

    “Nearly always”!? Bwahahahaha! That’s rich!

  15. Witness Too

    Olbermann’s news segments are factually accurate. You’ll just have to deal with that even if you don’t like it. I doubt you’d be willing to go to Media Matters and see. If there is an error, he corrects it. Now, that said, the reason I go to other news sources most of the time is that there aren’t enough news segments on his show, or any of the MSNBC shows. It’s just people talking. Often they are good reporters who have a lot of information to share. But I’d much rather listen to NPR, watch PBS, or watch CNN. I think the CNN reporting on Haiti has been incredible.

    So you may not like Olbermann because he makes his liberal views very plain. Fair enough. His reporting is factual. The problem is there is 10 percent reporting and 90 percent talk on his show, and much of the talk is opinion or in the case of the clips on the John Stewart show, inappropriately mean.

  16. Diversity Gal

    I actually don’t know too many liberals (and I am one) who regularly watch so-called left wing pundits. While there are more than a handful of very conservative people I know who watch/listen to Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and/or Glenn Beck, I just don’t see the same devotion to punditry in liberals. Does anyone else see this?

  17. Witness Too

    Yes, Diversity Gal, that’s a great point. There are a variety of news outlets for liberals and free thinkers in general. Most of the news organizations are straight-forward in presenting the fact. Having factual information is very important so that we are informed about the issues. For people on the far right, there are a limited number of programs, thus they are very popular and thus they are very powerful. But I do notice an incredible degree of uniformity on the far right. It’s great they can stay on message. But it’s also very easy because their lives are limited to a very narrow and jaundiced selection of information and opinion.

  18. I agree, Diversity Gal. There just doesn’t seem to be the need for most liberals to have devotion to pundits. If there any devotion it is to a favorite columnist or author or organization.

  19. Juturna

    None of these TV/Radio personalities are factual therefore ‘right’ is pretty subjective. They are simply around to make money. They will say or ‘think’ whatever will make them and their networks more. I would hardly think of them as men of conviction. Hardly.

    A favorite columnist?? Really – you mean read and think? On my own? That’s too hard.

  20. Witness Too

    The way I see it, people have to have someone they can trust for unbiased information. I think you can tell from reading someone’s comments if they are restricting themselves to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. They have a warped world view.

    I don’t look at Fox News as “fair and balanced” at all. All the independent media studies show two very striking and telling results. Fox News is the least factually accurate news network, and its viewers are the least informed and most likely to be misinformed.

    For instance, Fox News viewers were more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11, or that there were WMD’s in Iraq. The idea that anyone still believes those lies is beyond comprehension for those of us who are exposed to unbiased media.

    But, yeah, if I want opinion, I can look at Fox News on the right, and MSNBC on the left. Fox News is usually quite predictable. It was “be angry and/or hateful at Clinton” for 8 years. Then it was “love George W. Bush and believe any lie Cheney tells you” for 7 years. Then it was “vote for McCain/Palin” for a year. And now it’s back to where they started except their viewers are supposed to be angry at and/or hate Obama.”

    Fox “News” seems to report things wrong on purpose. I draw this conclusion because they never apologize or make corrections. They just keep misinforming their viewers. I don’t mind when their hosts inject their opinion, but the problem is they manipulate the facts and don’t give their viewers a chance to make up their own mind.

    I feel as though I can trust the facts presented on MSNBC. Their reports check out with other mainstream media sources according to all the studies by independent media watch dogs. But if I watch MSNBC too long, I have to go and see what CNN is saying, because all of their night-time hosts inject their opinions.

    I feel safest when I am listening to NPR or waching PBS.

  21. Witness Too

    M-H, Slowpoke is probably just making a joke. I don’t think anyone who knows how to string a sentence things Rush Limbaugh is “always” or even “usually” right. Those who do are in the bottom 10 percent in intelligence and/or the farthest to the right ring extremist side of the political spectrum.

    But your response to Slowpoke’s humorous comment did remind me of something. When all the right wing propagandists were wailing about Clinton (whether it was the fact he cheated on his wife, or the Whitewater fiction, or he had Vince Foster killed, or something about travel files) the general public said, “Wow, people are going bananas over this, there must be something to it.”

    Well, despite Rush Limbaugh’s best efforts, the country did not fail under Clinton, it succeeded and prospered greatly. Too bad for Rush. Good for America. But my point is that now that they are behaving the same way toward Obama, those of us who were shocked by their treatment of Clinton are no longer shocked. This feigned outrage and incredible hypocrisy has less impact because we’ve seen it all before.

  22. Witness, you are on a roll for sure. I agree with you about Fox News. Dead on. I have gotten so I have to turn the morning crew off they are so unprofessional and off-base.

    I do watch CNN and occassionally watch MSNBC. I don’t watch it enough to say if it if biased or not as far as straight news.

    I would think that Fox News was funny if it didn’t influence the thinking of so many people. Sometimes watching the morning crew ‘comment’ I can see them trying not to laugh over some of the bs they spout, or so it seems.

  23. Witness Too

    You know, with CNN getting rid of Lou Dobbs in an effort, as Dobbs put it, to do straight journalism only, that through the three news networks into a different balance. Now CNN can be seen as the middle, straight journalism source and we have Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left. It seems that Fox News is going further off the deep end as a result. I hope that MSNBC does not get pushed further to the left. They don’t need to as CNN’s canning Dobbs means that they have less right wing extremist propaganda to refute.

  24. I always thought CNN was centrist. Silly me.

Comments are closed.