Talk:Countdown with Keith Olbermann/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Podcast

Should mention of the podcast that just changed today from being the #5 segment to being the full audio or video of the show be mentioned? --72.74.23.30 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should Allison Stewart be mentioned?

She subs for Keith Olbermann so often, I think it is noteworthy.--Jnelson09 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Although it might be good to mention the other regular subs as well. --D-Day 15:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

She not only subs but occasionally appears as a correspondent. There are other multiple-time subs, but Stewart is used the most often (and IMO shares Olbermann's demeanor and sense of humor more than the other subs).

Brian Unger I think should be mentioned. Recently he appears to be the regular guest host when Keith is off. From my count he has done two full seperate weeks as guest host for the show when Keith was out (and maybe more). Limitedexpresstrain 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. My guess is that Stewart will only guest host rarely now that she has her own show. Шизомби 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann Vs Robert Cox and Olbermann Watch section

I have no problem with material critical of the show or Olbermann himself, but it needs to be better than this: "http://www.olbermannwatch.com Olbermannwatch.com #1 Ranked Keith Olbermann blog in the world" citation?

"combining astute media analysis with biting, satirical commentary" Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms or find a citation. Ironically, it's similar to stuff praising Olbermann that was removed by the same user who added this praise.

"Olbermann has complained repeatedly in interviews about Olbermann Watch which he has decried as a "site created to mock me". Olbermann has made personal attacks against Cox and Olbermann Watch contributors who he has variously labeled "flying monkeys" (a moniker later adopted by Olbermann Watch contributors who call themselves the "Flying Monkey Brigade") and "belligerantly uninformed". Olbermann complained to the Hartford Courant TV critic that Olbermann Watch was "persecuting" him." Citations again, please.

"Olbermann Watch has become a lightening rod for liberal supports of Olbermann who routinely plague the site with rambling Marxist diatribes and foul-mouthed invective." Again: citation, and also the nature of a forum makes it difficult to know who is being genuine with criticism and who is a troll.

"Olbermann Watch has identified numerous false or misleading statements by Olbermann on Countdown including Olbermann's habit of manipulating quotations to suit the premise of his stories, false or misleading assertions and reporting as true a bogus report in the fictional Hoosier Gazette that parents lose 12 to 20 IQ points after having children," That was sloppy on his part, although Countdown wasn't the only one repeating the story. I'll try and look for other mentions, or maybe there's a WP mentioning it already. Шизомби 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- Schizombie

I'd point out that Wikipedia entries are not supposed to be "fan sites" which is what this entry was when I came across it. I made numerous edits to this site to REMOVE the many fawning comments about the show as well as over-inflated sections like "Keith Olbermann v. Bill O'Reilly". What you seem to have ignored that is I also ADDED a great deal to the entry to make it not only more substantive but objective. This includes articles about Countdown and links to relevant blogs, forums and fan web sites almost all of which are positive towards Keith Olbermann and Countdown.

As far as addressing the specific comments above, I have made additional edits to the entry to address these concerns.

1) I'm "sure" you have no problem with "material critical of the show or Olbermann himself". I'd like to know how you square that with attemting to EXCLUDE the #1 ranked non-affiliated Keith Olbermann/Countdown web site on the internet (and #2 overall blog behind Keith's own blog; and #3 overall behind the MSNBC Countdown page and the Bloggerman home page). [SOURCES: Google, Technorati, Feedster]? A site that just happens to contain loads of material critical of Countdown and Keith Olbermann AND is the most comprehensive source of information about Keith Olbermann and Countdown (both "pro" and "con) in the blogosphere.

2) The OlbermannWatch site IS the citation for the phrase "astute media analysis" and "biting, satirical commentary". The site moves back and forth between substantive media criticism and mocking the show with pointed commentary and criticism. You may not like the site but those terms are accurate and supported by the posts (not necessarily the comments) on the site.

3) Keith Olbermann HAS complained many times, privately and publicly, about OlbermannWatch. Keith's comments about Robert Cox and/or OlbermannWatch have appeared on radio and print including The Hartford Courant (and other Tribune Media newspapers), The New York Observer and WTWP radio (Washington, DC).

4) The site IS a lightening rod for liberal supports of Keith Olbermann. Contributors to web sites and internet forums such as Democratic Underground, Air America Radio, Media Matters for America and many others routinely direct their readers to visit OlbermannWatch and "attack" the site through the comment section. I have provided a link the most recent example when one of the top liberal blogs (CrooksandLiars.com) linked to OlbermannWatch after Robert Cox and OlbermannWatch was mentioned in Howard Kurtz media column in the Washington Post.

5) I have provided links to examples that support the statement about pointing our various types of errors which occur with regularity on the show. It does not seem like a good idea to provide EVERY example noted on OlbermannWatch because there are so many but if you INSIST on backing up those statements in detail I will be happy to oblige. As for the Hoosier Gazette fiasco, Keith did not "repeat" the story but rather did a segment on the story which included an interview with Carl Reiner. Keith failed to credit his source (Fark.com) and conveyed, IMHO, that he had READ the report and SPOKEN to the Indiana professor who conducted the supposed study. It goes without saying that no one on Keith's staff took even 2 minutes time to do a cursory review of the University of Indiana web site which would have shown that there was no "Dr. Hosung Lee" and no such report from the Kinsey Institute. Since you are taking ME to task for not providing citations (which I have now done) perhaps you can provide one of your own: what other comparable news outlets reported the Hoosier Gazette "Parental IQ" story besides MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Let me save you the trouble - NONE!

"The story of Lee's startling finding also was circulated in the media in England, Russia and the Netherlands." http://www.hoosiergazette.com/Inthenews/indystar10-30-04.htm I'm quite sure I saw it in the Albany Times-Union too, but can't find it in their archives. Шизомби 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In closing, let me say that I think your points about providing citations is valid and I have complied with that request. I would note that there does not appear to be any similar example of your concern regarding the numerous unsupported assertions made about Countdown or Keith Olbermann. Perhaps you will now devote some time to a similar critique of those asserations which appeared in the entry prior to my edit most of which I have left in the entry.

--> I will say you have big brass ones, Robert Cox, to carve a whole section out in this article about a television show on MSNBC to advertise for yourself and your blog. While I think a link to your blog is appropriate, an entire stub devoted to Robert Cox and his blog clearly is not. Why not start your own article on Olbermannwatch instead? The Olbermannwatch article should be deleted from the countdown article. --68.96.0.124 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

Just going through the sections of the Countdown article and the Keith Olbermann article and the accusation of bias and MRC sections are virtually identical. If the accusation of bias section is interlaced with the existing and expanded to cover all the accusations of bias instead of just MRC it'd remove some redundancy between the two articles. The proposal could be expanded as there are other sections in Keith's article that are more applicable to Countdown than to his personal article. --Bobblehead 19:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting

• Support obviosly. --Bobblehead 19:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

bias section

There needs to be more mention of his increasingly hostile commentaries directed at those he disagrees with. I would go as far as to call him a "liberal commentator" no shame in that, but the reader needs to understand he's no non-partisan.--Bairdso66 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are links to politically motivated think-tanks as references, makes this violate the POV agreement. Wiki is neutral! Bias of reporting is irrelevant. BT14 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that the bias was irrelevent information in the one section of the article which is tagged POV. Bias talk should only be relevent in the section labeled bias, not as info in the worst person article, sorry for the misunderstanding. BT14 03:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If bias in reporting is irrevalant, why is there sections on Mr. O'Reilly's page about alleged bias and other pundits of a conservative persuasion. Many Wiki contibuters who frequently edit the Olbermann page are very eager to suger coat his OVERT liberal bias. Again, there is no shame in that but the reader needs to know Countdown is a liberal talking points program, NEVER has a conservative been given a fair shake, and NEVER has a liberal or democrat been criticize by Edward R. Olbermann. If this is a neutral site, I would like an open discussion on how? Media matter not politically motivated??--Bairdso66 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

BT14, Wikipedia is neutral in that it presents all sides of an "argument" and does so with a neutral tone. It does not mean that Wikipedia does not present any POV. Linking to politically motivated think-tanks as references is acceptable as long as they are reliable sources (which is why Olbermannwatch is not acceptable, while MRC is acceptable).

Bairds066, actually, "never" is inaccurate, the MRC report that's cited in the Countdown article indicates that 10% of the 200 politically identifiable subjects of his Worst Person list are "liberal". However, he does rarely criticize liberals on Countdown. You should also try to distinguish Olbermann the man from Countdown, the show he anchors. Unlike many of the "Conservative" pundits Olbermann tends to avoid politics outside of his media presence. --Bobblehead 22:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not about to defend Countdown or Olbermann as flawless or nearly so, they're not, but I do think with regard to "bias" a distinction has to be made between reporters doing their job and those who exhibit an occasional or persistent bias. A reporter should be free to identify lies as such, regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker, and that does not automatically give the reporter a bias of the opposite persuasion. One also has to consider how if people in power are X, then X are going to naturally (IMO?) come under criticism more than Y; it doesn't mean a reporter has a bias of Y. This is not, also, to say that people here aren't necessarily making these distinctions. Шизомби 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tags

I've read the entire talk page and I see no discussion of any kind as to why this article has alleged POV problems. I will remove the NPOV tags. Before re-adding the tags, please discuss your specific problems with this article so the perceived POV issues can be addressed. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking it is related to the section directly above this one. Bairdso66 seems to feel that the wording of the Accusations of Bias and Worst Person sections is not strong enough in regards to Olbermann's bias. --Bobblehead 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're probably right, but the "Accusations of bias" section notes that there have been allegations of Olbermann having a liberal bias, with explanations as to why these allegations have been made. The "Worst Person" section quite clearly indicates that Olbermann targets conservatives in his commentary. These sections present the facts while remaining neutral in tone. The reader can make up his/her own mind based on the information provided. To rephrase either of these sections with stronger wording that takes the side of those who allege Olbermann has a liberal bias would reek of editorializing and violate wikipedia's NPOV policy.-Hal Raglan 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that because he does not identify himself as "liberal" or "conservative", there is not much on the bias. I am just dissapointed at the constant assertion that most of his "worse person" honorees are apolitical. As of late, the last couple weeks or so, all three nightly honorees are political. I don't see how the claim holds water. Forget about him constantly asserting Pres Bush and republicans are terrorists and worst than al quida(we'll leave that alone)Keep watching the meltdown!!--Bairdso66 00:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Special Comments

I added a table that lists all of Olbermann's Special Comments, as well as links to the transcripts of each comment on MSNBC's Web site. The table looks kind of unattractive, though, so if anybody wants to change it around or expand it (for instance, the "topic" descriptions suck), it'd be appreciated. :-)

The tone of the Special Comments section should be mentioned. I made the entry and someone else undid it. The fury with which he presents his special comments is probably the most distinctive element of his entire show. But I don't want to re-insert an entry that's been undone by a later edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.131.226 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to include that, not just your own personal opinion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep your knees loose

Does Keith Olbermann still say that on a regular basis? I can't remember hearing that from him in some time, if ever. Samer 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Still does regularly. Goodnightmush 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann_24_controversy 24.176.206.207

Restructure needed

I've added a restructure tag to the O'Reilly section. While admirably adherent to NPOV for such a controversial section, it has glaring omissions, focuses on minor incidents instead, and is poorly structured. I'll do some restructuring when I can but I'm tagging it now so others are aware. Goodnightmush 05:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Number Five Story

For quite a few weeks now (maybe even months), the #5 story of the day (Countdown's lead) has consistently been something that reflects the Bush administration in a negative light, even when that story is far from the consensus top story of the day. Only when a truly major all-encompassing story tops the news (such as the Virginia Tech shooting) is #5 likely to be apolitical. That's fine, but it makes the description of #5 in the Format section of this article a bit out of date and misleading. Is there an NPOV way to reword this?--68.155.175.245 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Countdown is a news show broadcast from a country in controversial war, and most frequently the most important stories of the day will be political. Why would Olbermann exclude political stories from his newscast?

To more finely respond: the intended irony of Countdown is generally considered to be that while the #5 story is the "most important" of the night, Americans will primarily focus not on the complex and political, but the light and easy (ie the #1 story). Ademska 08:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous cheapskates"

In the list of "Worst Person In The World" Honorees section, someone put in "Numerous cheapskates." While I suppose this might be true, it's far too vauge for the standards of the Wikipedia (not to mention that it doesn't cite any source or give any references). Could whoever wrote this please expand on what they meant by "Numerous cheapskates"? If someone doesn't do something about this, I will simply delete it.--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratings section

I haven't been paying that close of attention to this article for the last few months, but didn't there used to be a ratings section that documented the rise of Countdown? I haven't hunted through the history yet to find it, but it really should be put back in and Countdown's recent passing of Factor in the money demo should probably be included in that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the intro stated Obermann is highest rated show on MSNBC should it also be mentioned that is constistantly loses to O'roelly Factor in ratings?Kirin4 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had said that, it would've been fine. But, it's not by a wide margin anymore. And it's obvious why you're wanting to add it. FamicomJL 00:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

3+-1 is a wide margin.Kirin4 15:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings/

That's fine. Do you have a source for "wide margin?"Turtlescrubber 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be viewed as a trustworthy reference, due to comments such as, "Considering the Demo numbers his program turned in yesterday while he was at the party for its 10th Anniversary, maybe Chris Matthews ought to pay more attention to how his show is doing rather than wasting energy making headlines for foot in mouth commentary." Ademska 08:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Countdown's ratings pass The O'Reilly Factor's

I removed this section not because the information doesn't fit but because it didn't fit in its current placement. A single fact without context or analysis does not deserve its own section. Basically it existed to brag that Countdown beat O'Rielly Factor in one demo on one night. What makes that demo particularly important other than its success for Countdown? Has Countdown maintained its momentum? Has O'Rielly Factor lost viewers to account for the trend? The fact should probably be repurposed in a larger ratings section that does more than gloat over the O'Reilly Factor. Cg-realms 02:37, 21 October 2007 (EST)

Agreed. Goodnightmush^Talk 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. the 18-55 demo is what advertisers are seeking to sell their products, the big overall ratings numbers O'reilly gets seems to be widely tilted towards an older audience, O'reilly cannot connect too well with the younger crowd and his show has basically peaked anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.155.6 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Newscast or Commentary

Countdown was briefly list as “hour-long nightly newscast and opinion segment” but it was reversed because “no other similar newscast is described in wikipedia in such a manner” citing POV issues. I think POV is the issue though. The Factor is not described as a “newscast” or “news and opinion segment” but as a “talk show” in the opening sentence and “commentary” in the summary box. POV suggests similar descriptions should be used. I don’t like Countdown at all and I don’t care for The Factor particularly either but POV demands similar treatment. Both men’s egos are insufferable to me. --CSvBibra 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Statsone 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Countdown article opening paragraph notes that the "show...counts down the top news stories of the day with news reports and interviews with guests, along with commentary by Olbermann." Sounds like a news program to me. If O'Reilly's show utilizes the same format as Countdown, it should also be described as a news program, not a talk show. "Talk show" seems to me like it might be an incorrect description for either program. Maybe "news commentary program" might be more accurate for both? Or perhaps a generic, completely NPOV "American television program"?-Hal Raglan 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it is a newscast (i.e. when he is counting down the news) but has an opinion segment (i.e. when he does his comment and worst person segment). I haven't really watched much of either O'Reilly or Olbermann but it seems that O'Reilly is more of a standard talk show (news, opinion, interview) whereas Olbermann has a newscast and opinion show... he reports the news and then comments on it. --Rtrev 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the descriptions of the shows should remain as they are. If the descriptions are correct, I don't see how there can possibly be any potential POV issues here if one show is noted as being a "newscast" and the other a "talk show". The Countdown article states the program is a newscast, then later in the exact same paragraph notes that the show includes commentary by Olbermann. For what its worth, I've never seen Olbermann's program (MSNBC is not available in my area), and I've only watched a few minutes of O'Reilly's show. What I saw indeed consisted of O'Reilly interviewing guests in typical talk show format.-Hal Raglan 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't call this is a newscast can you imagine ABC News, Fox News or any reputable news program ending with naming 3 people as worst person in the world to horror music? Obermann is a smear merchant not a newscaster.65.96.135.42 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm...yeah. Whatever. FamicomJL 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable point to consider.--CSvBibra 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with the show being labeled as a "newscast and commentary program" or "news and opinion show" or some permutation. But I must object to "talk show," which is what the anonymous user above changed it to. Countdown is NOT a talk show. It does follow a newscast format. Henrymrx 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Henry put it better than me. The person I replied was a sockpuppet vandal who added non NPOV edits in many articles. FamicomJL 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually none of my edits are non NPOV it is the admins who have agendas who are doing those edits. Mine are backed up.Winterflyer 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then please back up your edits. Why do you think Countdown is a "talk show"? Henrymrx 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Because a newscast reports the news not spend the program attacking people. Nuff said. It is the people calling anewscast who have to prove that it meets the criteria. MSNBC does not even call it one.Winterflyer 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am returning newscast per its definition, "a broadcast of news or commentary on the news" which seems to be exactly what people are trying to add anyways and newscast is more concise than "a broadcast of news or commentary on the news". Also, Winterflyer and FamiconJL you both appear to be in danger of violating the three revert rule and I strongly caution you to tread lightly with your reverts. Goodnightmush^Talk 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would never consider Countdown or its host anything remotely resembling NEWS. It and the other MSNBC and FOX night time shows are more commentary-driven with news and interviews interlaced. Can't we just call it "a news and commentary program..>" That's not too long of a description and it describes it aptly. And I work in the news business, thank you. Don1962 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is from Wiki MSNBC page:Countdown, a sometimes irreverent look at the day's top news, at 8 p.m. Hosted by Keith Olbermann, Countdown is styled like a radio music countdown, starting with the day's number five story (usually the top story of the day) progressing to number one (which is usually superficial). According to the Hollywood Reporter, it is by far MSNBC's most watched program. Does this sound like a newcast?Winterflyer 09:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like "a broadcast of news or commentary on the news" to me. Goodnightmush^Talk 10:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, definitely sounds like a newscast.-Hal Raglan 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A newscast is a show that reports the news without commentary or bias. Olbermann interlaces opinon and commentary while reporting the news, not only after the five stories are delivered. So, by journalism definition he has a comentary on the news show.J. D. Hunt (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See the wikipedia article on newscast, which indicates that commentary can indeed be considered one of the elements of a newscast. However, this no longer seems relevant as another editor quite some time ago changed the description of the show to "news program", with a citation to Olbermann himself. As that change met with no argument, I've reverted your edit.-Hal Raglan (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article is wrong; it disagrees with the journalism definition of news and a news program (news is reporting the facts, not the reporters opinions on the news, that is commentary.) You can't use a wikipedia article as a source on a wikipedia article, especially when it contradicts the industry and scholarly definition. Call your journalim teacher, if you ever had one. J. D. Hunt (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You can report the news and then comment on it afterwards, and it still be considered a news program with commentary. Olbermann does that, but he also interlaces his opinion while reporting the story, and that is news commentary not news reporting. So, the program by definition is a news commentary program or a commentary of the news program.J. D. Hunt (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "commentary of the news program". Can you point me in the direction of any show that has ever been described in such a manner? Countdown appears to fit the description of a news program, and since that particular descriptor has stood here for some time, lets keep it that way unless further discussion reveals a consensus to change it.-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jdhunt. Countdown is not a "straight" newscast like ABC's World News. It's news and commentary--although I happen to agree with most of Mr. Olbermann's remarks.THD3 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but we're no longer discussing the use of "newscast" as a descriptor for the show. That was changed quite some time ago to "news program". Even Olbermann agrees that the show is not a straight newscast (his comment is cited in the opening sentence of the article). Where is the definition that definitively states a "news program" (not "newscast") consists of nothing more than a monotone citation of bland facts and figures? Is there really such an animal?-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any journalism scholar will tell you that a straight newscast or news program is just the facts during the reporting part and commentary can come at the end of the show or at the end of each story, but must be noted as commentary. Olbermann disqualifies his shoew of either title, because he intermingles his opinion, which could be misinterpreted as fact. J. D. Hunt (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Olberman intermingles his opinion means he is either a commentator, a political hack or a bad journalist. J. D. Hunt (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hal why do you so oppose the term 'News and commentary show' since that is what it is? This label would more accurately discribe his program, since he makes his opinions about the story sound like its a true part of the story, by interweaving them throughout the story. Are we gonna have to start braking out the shows transcripts.J. D. Hunt (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really oppose "news and commentary program". I would like some convincing that your argument against news program is a reasonable one. Olbermann reports the news, and offers his commentary on the news. Sounds like a "news program" to me. Again, I can understand why people don't believe Countdown is a newscast, but "news program" seems fitting to me. You seem to believe that there is an actual, definitive, set-in-stone rule regarding the term "news program" enforced by "journalism scholars" that Countdown flagrantly violates. Instead of telling me to talk to a teacher or "scholar", provide a link to a reliable source that explicitly states that a news program cannot include commmentary and/or editorial content.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that, in the very next sentence after the show is described as a "news program" the following appears: "The show... counts down five selected news stories of the day with news reports and interviews with guests, along with commentary by Olbermann." The format of the program is explicitly detailed in the article, and I don't feel that its necessary to provide some weird "commentary of the news program" label, as you originally suggested. "News program" seems sufficient.-Hal Raglan (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't really oppose "news and commentary program", the lets re-label it and that would satisfactory to all. I never said that a news program cannot include commmentary and/or editorial content. I said it can't be 'interspersed' in the actual body of the story, as if it were part of the story, as Olbermann does. I'm not sure where to find a link to show that opinion shouldn't be 'interspersed' within the body of a news story. If I come accross one, then I will gladly give it to you. J. D. Hunt (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Question

I have a sincere question that I don’t know the answer. It appears part of the disputed issues revolves around the issue of mutual hated between O’Reilly, KO and their respective supporters. Some of the people weighing in on this and related topics have this info box on their on page. {{User:UBX/KO v. O'Reilly}} If someone states for the record they are not neutral on the topic, how should we weigh their impartiality? --CSvBibra 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We should not. The editor should almost never be weighed in a consideration, merely the edit. No one is impartial, unless they are incapable of critical thinking or forming an opinion, and thus we judge changes and suggestions for their merits, not according to who is making them. Goodnightmush^Talk 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, Goodnightmush. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, Goodnightmush and RepublicanJacobite have the user box {{User:UBX/KO v. O'Reilly}} stating that "This user thinks Keith Olbermann is superior to Bill O'Reilly in every way possible." It is not surprising you feel your edits are neutral even if you by you own admission are not. I would interested in how those other than those who thinks Keith Olbermann is superior to Bill O'Reilly in every way possible think about the neutrality of the edits.--CSvBibra 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone obviously forgot a major tenet of this encyclopedia. DodgerOfZion

The length of this article is too long

IMO, anyway.

It seems like there are parts that could be trimmed (the "Format" section doesn't really need to be a list), the "What Have We Learned?" section seems unnecessary since it isn't even on the show anymore, the "Worst Person in the World" section doesn't need that many examples nor the deviations section (or if all that information is necessary, it can be made into its own article).

But mostly what I'm thinking about doing is making the "Special Comments" section its own article, something like List of Keith Olbermann's special comments, done sort of like some of the List of X episodes articles. The special comments:

• are generally credited with the show's uptick in ratings
• brought new media attention to Olbermann's show
• are probably the most controversial things done on the show right now
• have been viewed millions of times on the Internet and some of them have spread incredibly virally
• and I know at excerpts from least two of them have been read on the House and Senate floor [1]

Thus, the special comments are notable, and since the "Special Comments" section is getting cumbersome, it's worthy of its own article. Thoughts? Objections? Purifiedwater 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A new article for the Special Comments is, I think, appropriate. As is the removal of the "What have we learned?" section. Henrymrx 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, I made the page at List of Keith Olbermann's special comments and redid the table. I also tried to re-write the descriptions of the first three special comments to something more detailed; I think that should be done for the other descriptions as well. If someone can figure out a better way to make the table, please do change it around (it's the best I could think of, modeled after The Colbert Report episode guide). Also, the "other information" section on that page needs to be incorporated into the article better and the footnotes should actually be real footnotes (I, admittedly, don't have the patience to make "proper" footnotes work correctly). Purifiedwater 23:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FoxNoise.PNG

Image:FoxNoise.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The rational for this is simple: Parody. The logo is a parody, and parody, if I recall correctly, is a protected form of speech internationally, certainly in the U.S. DodgerOfZion

Parody or not, in order to meet Wikipedia's fair use requirements, it has to serve a purpose other than decorative and the use of the Fox Noise Channel image in this article is clearly more decorative than intended to improve the reader's understanding of the topic. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New Segment

Countdown has recently replaced his sound bites bit with a segment called "Bushed", which rehashes and updates old scandals, and the article has been edited to reflect such. I made the edit, and stupidly forgot to sign in beforehand. --Ademska (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cancer Suffering Tony Snow

As indicated in the article, Tony Snow has been an honoree of Olbermann's 'Worst Person in the World' award. Unless Olbermann has made fun of Snow's suffering, it is absolutely irrelevant to note that Snow has cancer. One editor has variously described Snow as "The Cancer Suffering Tony Snow" or "Former press secretary (and cancer sufferer) Tony Snow", claiming that it is imperative to do so to show "the mentality of Olbermann". Clearly, this editor is attempting to add a strong anti-Olbermann bias here. Both Goodnightmush and I have deleted the reference, but the editor has feverishly re-added it repeatedly. To avoid an edit war, I am bringing this to the attention of others for further discussion if necessary.-Hal Raglan (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

About the Show section too long

Should be more of a summary of each part of the show. "Worst Person in the World" shows up both as part of the #3 story and its own heading. This article definately needs some major cleaning up in order to be more readable. Biccat (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deviations

A whole section (perhaps any mention) of deviations within the WPitW segment is terribly trivial information. Perhaps even the degree of coverage to that segment as a whole is too much trivia, not enough substance. If others disagree, then at least consider he might be saying "Bill ORLY" and not "Bill Orally." Шизомби (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly feud section needs to be updated

I saw an incident where the most recent crowning of Bill O'Reilly as Worst Person in the World took place the day after O'Reilly criticized some Internet pictures of Miley Cyrus (this was before the big Vanity Fair blow-up). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include every instance where Olbermann called O'Reilly the Worst Person in the World you should start a new page. This article is already too long. Has there been any return fire from O'Reilly? Or has this "feud" become somewhat one-sided? Biccat (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Warren

Did you even look at the talk page before undoing my edit? For instance, two items above this one. There is way too much trivia in this article. --KarlFrei (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Though I didn't make the edit, I think I'd support the shortening. As notable as the segment is, the list seems a little out of control. Goodnightmush^Talk 11:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Worst person

Some of the people mentioned after the phrase "Non-political honorees include:" don't look right to me. For instance "Numerous cheapskates" and "Numerous dumb criminals" sound more like Best Persons in the World, or what used to be called "Top 3 Newsmakers". A lot of the folks mentioned under this heading look more like the kind of humorous goof-ups that Keith might give a best persons award to. Does anyone have any references for these? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and response versus Perceived ideology

Given the content of this section, I think "Criticism and response" is a better title than "Perceived ideology." Much of the criticism in this section has less to do with Olbermann's political ideology per se (which is pretty easy to perceive) than it does with the "closed shop" way that he runs his program. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The section also give information about Olbermann's responses to critics such as Bozell, Thomas, and Medved, to wit, naming them "worst persons in the world." Badmintonhist (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd say it should revert back to "Perceived Ideology", or better yet, "Ideology as Commonly Perceived in the US", because only by conservatives in the United States is Olbermann considered "far left". In all the rest of the world, even the UK, he would be perceived as Center-Right, and indeed, he shares many of the stances of The Economist, which in the UK is clearly viewed as being on the Right. He is only "left" when contrasted to the kind of extreme conservatism which dominates Fox News and talk radio in the US. Shanoman (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying about Olbermann's political ideology may or may not be true, Shanoman, but it really isn't relevant to this particular section of the article. This section deals with criticisms leveled against Olbermann and the way he has responded to them. As I noted (about 16 months ago) some of those criticisms have less to do with Olbermann's political ideology per se than they do with the way he conducts his program. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put in sources that criticize how he conducts his program, I think that would be really useful, since he is biased in many ways. However, please refrain from edit warning and continually reverting when what was deleted did not present any information as to how Olbermann is biased. A person randomly bashing Olbermann like he does on his own program is not encyclopedic. (I mean unless you think that Olbermann and things like his special comments are reliable news sources, but to me, whether or not you like the rants, they are not encyclopedic information). Also, please try to avoid passive voice and have more encyclopedic writing 129.133.206.180 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bushed

I just wanted to clarify. When the Bushed segment began, Olbermann did use the term "50 other scandals" to introduce the segment. He has changed that line, however, to "50 running scandals". If you look at the reference, under the category "Bushed", you can clearly hear the word "running" in the videos that have the entire introduction (some of the clips come in with Olbermann saying "Buuusssshed" and omitting the rest of the introduction). I have reinserted the word running but have left the reference as it is current. Dblevins2 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Worst person" book

I recommend eliminating the "Worst person" book subsection; perhaps relocating a few of the facts found in it (such as the fact that it exists and maybe one or two other facts about it) under the general Worst person heading. Reviewing Olbermann's book is off topic which is supposed to be the show. This subtopic adds to the "fan club" aura of the article which is, though less worshipful than a year ago, still too pronounced. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We could spin off the section into an article on the book and then simply link to it in the "WP" subsection. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you want to hear this, Gamaliel. I agree. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoy hearing about it when people are wise enough to agree with me. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with the removal of this section. To me, it looks like a simple, straightforward attempt to remove useful information from the encyclopedia for no particularily good reason. The book is not ever likely to be significant enough to merit an article of its own, but it does exist, and it did sell some copies, and it is a print-media representation of the television show -- nothing more, nothing less. The section also provided an explanation, with a source, of the motivation and history of this segment. Why would we want to remove this? It's useful information in the context of the article. This has nothing to do with "fan club aura"; the book exists, the book explains a part of the show; it needs to stay. Warren -talk- 20:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some equally insignificant books do have their own Wikipedia articles and I'm sure there are plenty of Olbermann fans in the Wikipedia community who would be happy to supply it. The first paragraph under the Worst person book subheading clearly demonstrates that the book is not merely a print-medium representation of the show segment. Some of the background information about the show segment found in the book, such as the Bob and Ray inspired character, could be included in the article without having a separate subsection for the book. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine, but the article doesn't exist yet. Until it does, I think the information ought to remain here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of NPOV modifiers for organizations directing criticism

I've removed the "conservative" modifier in fron of MRC once again. This issue has been discussed at length on the Fox News page, MSNBC page, New York Times page, Barack Obama page, John McCain page, etc, etc, etc. I have argued for inclusion previously but accepted that such modifiers do not add anything to an article. I will not, however, accept the "selective" application of such consensus. If the issue of consensus needs to be reopened, then let it be reopened here. I will continue to remove such modifiers, per my understanding of consensus, until a significantly different view is fully developed. I am also asking for the support of fellow editors (who should know who they are, but I will remind them if necessary) to buttress the consensus on this matter.--Textmatters (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox News and Paula Zahn

It was not Roger Ailes but another Fox News executive, Robert Zimmerman, who made the "outhouse" analogy concerning Paula Zahn. Also, saying that Ailes compared Zahn to a dead animal ("I could have put a dead raccoon on the air this year and got better ratings than last year." - disputing the contention that Zahn had been responsible for Fox News's rise in ratings) is a bit of a stretch. I have little doubt that Olbermann made that stretch and probably also morphed Zimmerman into Ailes. However to revert to the previous wording in the O'Reilly versus Olbermann section would also require setting the record straight, all of which gets us pretty far o' field of the basic section topic, O'Reilly versus Olbermann. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain in the membrane

Though the wording of this section is now passable, and the information in it is basically factual it is still WP:OR because no source is cited. Also, the section will likely become obsolete in about twenty-three days from today, so it also falls into the category of WP:Recentism. I suggest waiting a couple of days and then deleting the section if nobody makes it notable by providing a source. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Format and signature style sections

The Format and Signature style sections are largely repetitive. I recommend consolidating them into one section, preferably the Format section although it presently has no listed sources. "Signature" is a peacock term as it is used in this article. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Shuster and Todd

Don't they still appear on the show, they are part of the NBC fam--Levineps (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, Again

Added NPOV because of the opinionated quote by Howard Rosenberg saying "ends-justifies-means credo [is not] good for the news biz" in the introduction of the article. Something like this belongs in a section that discusses criticism of Countdown, not in the article's beginning. It sets the tone of the article as one of negativity to the program. BT14 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong in the intro, but not necessarily because it's not NPOV or anything. Whether or not it's NPOV is another question, it didn't belong in the intro, so I removed it. And it just so happens that also puts this dispute to an end for now. PyroGamer (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann versus O'Reilly

I just deleted a paragraph on seven month old Nielsen ratings. I would advise against trying to keep a running account of this in the article. Perhaps just an overall "historical" summation. Actually. the entire section needs a rewrite. Much of it is now quite dated. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Worst Person in the World Honorees" subsection

This subsection is problematic. Except for the factoid that O'Reilly swept the "Worsts" on November 30,2005, everything in it is unreferenced. It's all "original research". A newly added fact, Olbermann's "promise" not use a cartoon image of O'Reilly or the Ted Baxter voice as a protest against O'Reilly's supposed culpability in the killing of George Tiller, also falls into the category of WP:Recentism. Someone has also restored the listing of derogatory O'Reilly nicknames which is something of a WP:Coatrack device. Editors can get the idea across without a comprehensive listing of every nickname that Olbermann has used for O'Reilly, however much fun it may be to do so. Finally, as a lone subsection under the broader "Worst Person" heading the material in it really should simply go under the section heading. I intend to streamline the material here shortly. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, though I certainly think it's too early to make any judgment about the Tiller thing -- it certainly appears to be significant at first glance; only time will tell if it becomes fodder for reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

every little darn thing on the show doesn't need to be added...

e.g. the "puppet theater" regarding "the affair of U.S. Senator John Ensign." Has any other source reported on Countdown having a Ensign puppet theater? No? Maybe it's not worth mentioning. Шизомби (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, granular content additions are not appropriate unless their mention has some sort of encyclopedic value (demonstrable from multiple independent reliable sources). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we seriously edit down all the Fox News- Bill O'Reilly mentions? This is not an article on the Olbermann-O'Reilly feud and gives undue publicity to the fight between the two. Thanks. --Don1962 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, a good percentage of Olbermann's show focuses on O'Reilly. While not quantifiable, I'd say that the article is fairly much in line with the weight Olbermann gives it on his show (or was pre-Tiller incident). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say Keith's current whipping boy is actually Glenn Beck, who I'm surprised isn't mentioned in the article. It's been weeks if not months since O'Reilly has gotten more than a passing mention, and Beck has been "Worst Person in the World" many times in that span. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The article could use a major overhaul

I am just now fully appreciating the massive amount of original research and primary sourcing that is contained in this article. I believe there were earlier templates on it to that effect but they were removed. I plan to start paring the article down in a day or two, so if editors want a lot of the copy to remain in its present form they should start providing reliable sources where they are missing. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of Lawrence O'Donnell's guest hosting

In the past month or two it seems as if half the time I take a look at the program, Lawrence O'Donnell is hosting it. Has anyone kept count? More significantly have there been any news reports about this and about what it may signify? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've streamlined the subsection on guest hosts. I see that the cause of O'Donnell's frequent guest hosting is now explained as Olbermann spending more time with his ailing father. However if this fact is "easily verifiable" then why isn't it verified? Indeed, except for some info about Rachel Maddow, none of the information has been sourced. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Special Comment to Badman: Yes it is easily verifiable. Next time don't simply delete something you don't like, but actually look yourself to see if it is easily verifiable. Contrary to what you believe, not every single detail on Wiki is referenced, if the detail is a given. Your continued obsession with removing this detail shows bad faith. Please show better judgment in the future. --69.209.114.49 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, anonymous editor, the person who enters the information in the first place is the one who bears the primary responsibility for verifying it. In the case of Olbermann's recent frequent absences what we know is that Olbermann has cited more time being spent with his ailing father as the reason for those absences. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And your attempts to squash the truth show bad decision-making. This has nothing yo do with verifiability, it has to do with by not giving a reason; it makes it appear that he has been taking off for no reason. And given the nature of the political scene, that he doesn't care about what is going on.--69.209.114.49 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are a veteran editor who is posing as an anonymous editor with no substantive edits to your name, then I suggest that you probably don't know what you're talking about. What we know from reliable sources is that Olbermann has claimed that his recent absences have been due to his father's illness. That's as far as we are supposed to go in the article, and, unless it has been changed as I type this, that is basically what the article now says. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I know what I am talking about, but thanks for the speculative logic fallacy. Instead of adding a speculative verb/adverb you chose to simply delete the detail. Thereby, giving the article a false impression. --69.209.114.49 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was that Masked Man?? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No longer Worsts

It appears Olbermann has renamed #2 from "Worst Persons in the World" to "Countdown's Hall of Shame" as of tonight. Leaving it on talk to see whether it sticks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes this hard is that O'Donnell, who doesn't do Worsts/Hall of Shame on #2, has filled in for Olbermann so often over the past three weeks that nobody can know. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Recentism at its finest -- there is no need to get bogged down with transitive minutiae. I doubt there are any reliable sources that deal with the weekly (or daily) change in the title of the #2 spot; if it settles out in 6 months we can revisit if needed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When Olbermann comes back, if the segment is still named "Hall of Shame", then I think that it is fair to assume the he's sticking with the new title. –BLM Platinum (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that we need to wait until he comes back for a final decision the MSNBC website for his show [2] has changed the name from "World's Worst" to "Hall of Shame". Since his father passed away yesterday it will probably be a couple more weeks until we know for sure. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The segment is now called "Worst Persons" again. I changed the article to reflect this. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism and response" section

The major thrust of Howard Rosenberg's criticism of Countdown has to do with Olbermann's style and manner, inherently subjective qualities. Even the statement that Olbermann's interviews amount to "like-minded bobbleheads nodding at each other", which a recent anonymous editor has allowed to remain while deleting the rest, could be categorized as just the subjective opinion of the author and thus not "encyclopedic". The same most certainly could be said for the Media Research Council's criticism of Olbermann at the beginning of the section. In fact, that the MRC's criticism is far more "suspect" as constituting WP:UNDUE than Rosenberg's since the organization is avowedly politically conservative. Rosenberg, by contrast, is a Pulitzer prize-winning television critic, who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a "professional conservative". Badmintonhist (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't see this and posted in another section, but if you put in a quote that shows him describing the subjective qualities that's fine. The problem is not with some conservative bias or subjectiveness of the quote but of its pointlessness. It tells the reader nothing because it contains no information. "the leer, the smug histrionics, the relentless needling, the shameless self-puffery, the accusatory rants" has no place in an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't say that Olbermann is highly subjective, it just a random characterization of his style. "At least O'Reilly invites dissenters to his lair (if only to disembowel them)" this is also pointless, as this article is about Olbermann. If people wish to learn more about Rosenberg's views, the article is there for them to view. Our job is to pick out the criticisms from the article that deserve to be in an encyclopedia

Also, stop assuming that other editors have some motive, such as trying to rid the page of conservative bias or to add liberal bias. You need to remember good faith 129.133.206.180 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left the beginning part of the quote, but made the paragraph sound more encyclopedic, although a discussion is still needed for I feel that the "the leer, the smug histrionics, the relentless needling, the shameless self-puffery, the accusatory rants" parts still adds nothing, and a better criticism is needed that actually says something. the only part of that quote I can imagine as useful is the "shameless self-puffery" because it expresses his arrogance. The part about O'rielly is just really pointless though, so I removed it when I shaped up the paragraph 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Also, stop assuming. . ." I assumed nothing of the kind, Anon. I merely pointed out facts. MRC is avowedly conservative. Their criticism of Countdown, as presented in this article, at least, is quite subjective. Claims of "undue weight" are often made when sources with a "built-in" bias against the subject are used in Wikipedia articles. This is the second time in recent days that I have run into a familiar sounding, pedantic anonymous editor, with only a handful of quite recent listed edits, but with an authoritative sounding grasp of Wikipedia rules and etiquette. Hmm, seems like this could be form of WP:sock puppetry to me; not that I get too upset by that sort of thing. As far as the actual editing of the article goes, however, as it now stands it is fine with me. By the way, it's GRAMMAR not GRAMMER. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I made another edit, taking out the contentious part and putting in a much more articulate criticism of Olbermann. The end of the paragraph now reads: Rosenberg takes issue with Olbermann's style and describes him as "hardly the only horse in cable's 24-hour news race who twists news to fit a personal agenda". I think this sounds much better although something like the following might be better: Rosenberg takes issue with Olbermann's style and describes him as one of those "in cable's 24-hour news race who twists news to fit a personal agenda." Thoughts? 129.133.206.180 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, are you satisfied with how it looks now though? I think the other sentences were much too expressive of a personal annoyance, and that the new quote expresses Rosenberg's point much clearer. Also, I did not mean to imply that you had bad grammar or that I had good grammar (I'm horrible at spelling as you can tell!), just that simply reverting ignores any improvement to it. Finally, my IP address does change frequently because I am on a college campus, and there is no way for me to prevent that (and I do not wish to create an account at this time because of security issues related to this). If you tell me which pages you encountered this other editor, I can let you know if it was me (or you can check to see if the beginning of the IP address is similar, although it may just be another person on my network). On a minor note, you may wish to consider how you confront issues if you get reactions like this often, I know that you merely reverting my changes without looking into things like grammar changes put me off at first, and this other anonymous user may have felt the same way. Just because we are anonymous does not mean that we are just here to mess with things, and often the best way to confront us is to offer advice (such as how our grasp of Wikipedia rules is inadequate or can be improved) instead of characterizing us with words like pedantic or seemingly talking down to us with comments like "Now play nice!" A lot of us, like myself, are willing to engage in discussion, and I hope we can work together to make this page better 129.133.206.180 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Blax, I'll keep it in mind. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I'm assuming you're making a baseless accusation against me. Though I'm flattered you now attribute anyone opposing your opinion to being an agent under my control, it's far more likely that there are just a lot of people who think you're off base. I'd appreciate you either substantiating your accusation and requesting a checkuser and SSP investigation, or striking them and apologizing. In the case of the former, I also demand that you cease making the accusation in the future once you're proven wrong; I don't think you have the integrity to do the latter. In either case, a desperate man resorts to paranoid attacks on any who oppose him -- you should reconsider your position and your actions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On the doubtful proposition that someone besides the two of us may be interested, find my response on Blaxthos's talk page; subheading "Angler". Badmintonhist (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've doubled down on the accusation, Badmintonhist, I look forward to the RFCU and SSP reports. Please let us know once you've filed the reports and where to find them -- I'll be fully supportive of your efforts (especially since they'll result the debunking of one of your favorite tactics). Don't dally! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Blax, or is it 129.133.206.180 at this moment??, but I want to maintain my unblemished record of never initiating an "official" action against anyone. I just wanted YOU to know that I know. I suggest that you put any other comments regarding this matter somewhere other than this discussion page for Countdown. By the way, playing someone else on the fly when one has a very distinctive way of addressing other people is not that easy. Regards and Hahahahaha. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you two please move your disagreement to your respective talk pages? This is no place for warning other users of their conduct. Unless this discussion is essential to the article, it does not belong here. –BLM Platinum (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)