Talk:Countdown with Keith Olbermann/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thurber Fridays

Possibly also too recent a change since he's only started them as an intended-regular section as of April 2 2010, but a brief section soon on his Thurber Short Story Fridays if he continues them might be appropriate (e.g. After a trial run suggested by his father, and after discussions with Thurber's daughter, granddaughter, and agent, Olbermann has begun reading short stories by James Thurber at the end of his program on Friday evenings.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thurber

Could you add this as a feature? I look forward to Keith's readings and can't wait until Friday. It is such a wonderful addition to the show. Dorothy Fischer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.154.136 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Street View of the Studio

On May 15th at 11:19 I added a Google Streetview link that shows where Countdown's Studios are located. The page can be seen here [1].

Then, on June 3rd at 04:18 user 71.7.228.245 removed it with the comment (Removing the Google Street View link; seems very unnecessary, and kind of worryingly stalkerish)

The assertion that using Street View to see what the studio looks like is "stalkerish" is a personal opinion of the removing user. As viewers of the show know Countdown broadcasts from a studio with windows in the background that overlook Rockefeller center. My intention was merely to show what the studio looks like from the streets we see out the studio windows and also see what the surrounding neighborhood is like. Rockefeller center is as much a part of the show as anything.

I believe this is a valuable addition for fans of the show and I'd like to have it re-added. I'd do it myself but I'd like to have the verdict of my fellow Wikipedia users first to avoid an unnecessary flurry of adding and removing. Thanks for your time. Hishighness420 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what this adds. Countdown isn't like a morning show where people regularly gather outside the window. I also don't see how "Rockefeller center is as much a part of the show as anything." It's just a backdrop, as far as I can see. The street view would probably be a more appropriate addition over at the Rockefeller Center article. Henrymrx (t·c) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine, especially since the street view is an integral part of the show's set. The only concern I have is that the picture/street view is licensed in such a way that we can legitimately include it. Assuming there are no copyright concerns, it's fine. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - I thought we were referring to the actual StreetView picture. The link is fine in any case, though it probably belongs in the external links section instead of buried in the text. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Is the Keith Number ZERO? This is so silly as to not even warrant mention. It certainly is not notable.

Has the so-called controversy over Olbermann's reporting of facts about O'Reilly spread any further than the O'Reilly Factor? Does it really need to be mentioned in the introduction to the article? Schizombie 11:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been reported in major newspapers, so yes it needs to be included. Calwatch 08:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's point one, but does it belong in the introduction? Schizombie 08:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, all the "conservative" (far right) "criticism" (fear?), and Olbermann/O'Reilly rivalry is starting to dwarf this article. More work needs to be done on describing the show and the people on it, and the stories it covers, or something along those lines. Esquizombi 14:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More work needs to be done to qualify what's since happened - how NBC management have censored him and effectively muzzled him. This contributes to the overall picture.

If this article is going to make O'Reilly and Olbermann's so-called feud such a big deal, perhaps it should be mentioned that Olbermann's ratings are absolutely pathetic in comparison to O'Reilly's. Olbermann barely manages to draw an audience a third the size of O'Reilly's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As always, if you have an independent reliable source making this comparison re this issue, feel free to add it. If not, please limit your discussion on the talk page to improving the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tried putting that in the article...using reliable sources...and it was taken out as irrelevant. So to 72.141... I've barked up that tree to no avail. You just have to accept that some articles are going to remain bias, pick your battles JahnTeller07 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, JahnTeller07. Are you, perhaps, editing with more than one account? In the NINE days you've had this account, you have not edited this article. Several of your first few edits were clearly partisan in a way that has become "familiar" in several of the articles... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How are they partisan? I've tried putting a controversy about Michael Steele on the article...and put a controversy with Rush Limbaugh! Last I checked they were both republicans. JahnTeller07 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation is incomplete and inaccurate. I'm moving this discussion to your talk page.[2] - SummerPhD (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm answering on my talk page, not your's (just clarifying, I know some people like to go back and forth on each other's talk pages but I find that confusing) JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To the people looking for cable news rating sources to show O'reilly vs. Olbermann ratings: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-dominated-cable-news-ratings-as-market-crashed/ http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/447520-Cable_News_Ratings_CNN_Takes_Back_Second_Place_In_January.php http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/27/cable-news-ratings-for-saturday-sunday-july-24-25-2010/58253 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_630984.html http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2010/03/04/cable-news-ratings-foxnews-with-10x-the-audience-of-cnn-at-800pm-charts/ http://www.multichannel.com/article/366600-Fox_News_Remains_Dominant_In_October.php http://www.aolnews.com/tag/cable-news-ratings http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/fox-news-tops-cable-ratings/ http://scaredmonkeys.com/2005/03/31/cable-news-ratings-is-msnbc-still-on/ and dozens more, my fingers just got tired. Cheers, JahnTeller07 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As with your previous attempts to add this, you do not have an independent reliable source discussing the ratings of one vs. the other. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said that I wanted this included...I'm just here supporting the person that wrote that it should be included. And how many sources do you want exactly? I mean even the huffington post had them, and they're about as far left as one could get. JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As previously, you need independent reliable sources discussing the ratings of one as compared to the other. Otherwise, we might just as well include a discussion of this show's ratings compared to an airing of "The Wizard of Oz" in 1984. If you aren't here to say something should or should not be included, you have nothing to say on the subject. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha look man I'm just putting this stuff up so people can read it and get the information. I'm just here to inform. Relax. Happy editing JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On this page, you are here to discuss improvments to the article. On the article, you are presenting an acurrate summary of material from independent reliable sources. If you would like to discuss your own analysis of data, start a blog. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha Okay man...you win, I won't post anymore information on the ratings. Congratulations!! Feel good about yourself, happy editing JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

Since Keith himself brings up "the hemorrhaging of ratings" for Glenn Beck on his show, why is it not relevant to discuss his ratings here? I'm no fan, but the guy is number two for news shows in that hour and typically number one on MSNBC. I believe Rachel has topped him on occasion. Even if you are really biased, how can you be embarrassed by that success? wwjbd456 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have independent reliable sources discussing the ratings, give us a link. Otherwise, you're pointing to a source with ratings and adding your own analysis. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A section about the shows overall ratings over the entirety of its history may have some merit but any item about the ratings at this day, week, month has little informational value or notability. It gives no context. As is often noted in some quarters overall rating are not as important as demographic ratings. Also, it will soon become dated. Three months from now the current ratings will be almost meaningless and the editor who entered it is unlikely to return and update the info. MarnetteD | Talk 02:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why my comment was removed WrightisRight05 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the edit summary or the items above. One months worth of ratings are meaningless without context. Wikipedia is not a news source and the ratings of two months ago or two months from now are just not that notable. Also per WP:BRD you should not put your edit back in until consensus has been reached on this page about it. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/keith-olbermann-msnbc-glenn-beck-bill-oreilly-fox-news.html http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0210/Olbermann_defends_Countdown_ratings.html http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/is-america-getting-over-keith-olbermann/19337944/ http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_10_ratings_msnbcs_countdown_down_double_digits_but_cracks_top_10_159747.asp

The mediabistro has year to year analysis that I think should be included WrightisRight05 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding back your original edit per WP:BRD is not a good idea. Also based on previous WP:SSP situations you may wish to look at the edit history for this thread to realize that there have been more responses than currently show up at this moment. MarnetteD | Talk 07:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the MRC conservative?

(rhetorical question, really) Rather than just reverting each other, perhaps an RS could be found stating that's it's a conservative organization. Given that it was founded by conservative activists, and has the motto "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias" (they're clearly not a liberal organization, what's left?), that might not be too hard. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This really is more of a discussion for the MRC talkpage because if you go to their Wiki page it doesn't refer to them as conservative and that is what I was basing my revert off of. If you want to add that they're conservative on this article I think you should change MRC's article first to denote that they're conservative.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not supposed to use other Wikipedia pages as sources for information or the basis for decisions, I'm pretty sure. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just assumed that this was already probably discussed already in the MRC article, but now I see that it hasn't been. Anyway, if you want to refer to it as a conservative organization you have them declare it themselves or at least find someone else that says that it is(although I think we should go by what they describe themselves as).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the Pope Catholic? The MRC article identifies them as conservative, sourced to an RS. Their own About page on their website identifies them as conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

MRC is unquestionably and proudly conservative. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: their about does not identify them as conservative and we go for their self description when describing them. If you can find at least 3 others describing them as conservative then you can state that they are widely seen as conservative, but until then you have no argument for labeling conservative other then your personal opinion.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: at this moment they are no longer referred to as conservative in their article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A search of the Proquest newspaper archive for MRC and "conservative" within 3 words gets 928 hits. I've added nine of them to that article, but hundreds more could be added as well. "Widely" is an understatement.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Until two days ago, the MRC website "About" contained the following language:

Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media.

Google search still shows that language. Whether the page still contains that language or not, I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that they are a conservative organization -- are you? I think you're just asking for oversourcing of uncontested facts to prove a point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting in here that others consider them conservative such as:
The Media Research Center (MRC), a media content analysis organization widely viewed as conservative, has been very critical of Keith Olbermann since he became the Countdown host.
like in the MRC's wikipedia page, but we still go by what the group describes them self as. If we start calling a group whatever we can find sources that are against them call them then pretty soon there will be no non-partisan groups, everything will be labeled partisan in some way. It is simply dishonest to report them as conservative when that will lead others to believe that they consider themselves to be conservative which it does not appear they currently do.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked and found that the word "conservative" appears nine times on their "about us" page.[3]   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What kind of logic is that? Use the word conservative enough and that makes you one? I do not doubt they are conservative but I think its irresponsible to refer to people by something they do not refer to themselves as. I doubt anyone here cares for this the way I do so I'll just withdraw however my offer still stands to change the text to this: The Media Research Center (MRC), a media content analysis organization widely viewed as conservative, has been very critical of Keith Olbermann since he became the Countdown host.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Question to Wikiposter0123: do you have some doubt that MRC is conservative? If so, based upon what? If not, why are you insisting we oversource something that is, by all accounts, uncontested? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement to Blaxthos: I'm not asking for more sources, so I don't understand your question.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to keep track of all your rationalizations?  ;-) Allow me to refresh your memory: "if you want to refer to it as a conservative organization you have them declare it themselves or at least find someone else that says that it is" and "If you can find at least 3 others describing them as conservative". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you really just arguing for the sake of arguing? I already left and you continued this debate taking a critical tone against me. What I meant to say was that you can place that they are seen as "widely conservative" if you find at least three sources. I have made my position very clear that I don't think we should label a group with an ideology if they do not outright state that they have it. Feel free to disagree(as I'm sure you will) but I have better ways to spend my time then trying to get the last word in even at the expense of goodwill and common courtesy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So then I'm confused -- you are asking us to source something that is uncontested? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourced. Happy? Move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It should not say "conservative group" because I've read their about us section and they do not specifically state that they are conservative. I have also seen on KO's biography that if someone edits it to say that he is a "liberal" commentator, it's deleted quickly because he has not specifically stated that he is liberal. WrightisRight05 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it, but labeling Keith Olbermann "liberal" gets removed because he has specifically stated that he is not a liberal.

I haven't read this discussion, and it appears to have been resolved; however, if you can cite the MRC saying they are not "conservative", they shouldn't be labeled as such here. I assume they have not said any such thing.  Chickenmonkey  01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Antiquated Criticism Section

Actually, most of this entire section of the article is rather antiquated. Nobody, now, to the right of Hugo Chavez thinks that Olbermann's commentary is ideologically centrist. I would leave in some criticism about his "style" and drop the whole notion of any debate about his ideological balance. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you would. Is this to be based upon your own personal thoughts on the matter, or is there some basis in sourcing that has fundamentally changed the subject at hand? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a combination of a number of things including WP:Recentism (which has become "obsolecsence", as recentism tends to do), WP:UNDUE (of course conservative outlets criticize Olbermann!) as well as editorial discretion. It seems rather silly, this late in the game, to be including a five year-old debate between the MRC and Olbermann over whether or not he leans to the left. Is there anyone who thinks he doesn't? Wasted space. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't what editors think, it's what reliable sources publish. So far, this looks based entirely upon your interpretation of the landscape; I'm not taking issue with your opinion, I'm simply pointing out that we don't write articles based upon an editor's conclusion/opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think our task should be to look for reliably sourced "criticism and response" which takes a longer view of the now almost seven and a half year run of the show, rather than retain outdated stuff from the period when the show first became a liberal or progressive vehicle. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is that we neutrally present balanced viewpoints as evidenced in reliable sources (devoid of original research). While I don't agree with your premises listed above (namely, the supposition that the partisan viewpoint is generally accepted), I have no objection to updating stale information in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's so good to see you two getting along. *sniff* There will be peace in our time! =) Henrymrx (t·c) 20:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

its quite obvious that my kind isnt welcome here

and dats just fine. please dont insult my intelligence by claiming usa today and pew polls aint reliable. its better just to admit your bigotry. you cant handle my genius anyhow. prickly pete. (-_-)

It's not that those sources aren't reliable, but they did not label the audience in congruence with Howard Rosenberg's preceding quote, which is what was being asserted with "the same could also be used to describe his audience". We cannot interpret information; we must allow reliable sources to do that.  Chickenmonkey  00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe you have a point. that was just where i wanted to put it. it can go somewhere else and should. 84% is a hoot. prickly pete. (-_-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.71.211 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Olbermann has been indef suspended

Source here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0529059320101105

All references to Olbermann should be changed to past tense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk)

"Suspension" and "termination" are not the same thing. The show is still entitled "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", after all. Noting the suspension is fine; assuming a conclusion certainly is not. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is noted. There is talk Chris Hayes is the substitute host, but that shouldn't be added until it's confirmed. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hayes refused the gig. Adding the substitute host for tonight would be extreme recentism anyway, and really unencyclopedic. If a permanent/extended-time substitute is named, that might be notable; the stand-in for a day or so is certainly not. Also, Blaxthos is exactly right. Tvoz/talk 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Thomas Roberts (news anchor). And even if he's hosting for only one night, I think it may be notable. I won't add him now for fear of falling victim to recentism. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that it's too soon and may not be notable at all to include the one-day replacement, any more than we announce any other stand-ins, and particularly because Roberts is just another MSNBC newscaster, not someone unusual. When Olbermann took his leave when his father was dying, Lawrence O'Donnell replaced him, and we did include it because it was for a while, and O'Donnell is a high-profile, notable guy taking on the job. I say let's see what happens - this all may go away over the weekend, or it may become a bigger deal, and we don't want to assume or speculate. There's no rush, right? Tvoz/talk 01:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand - I would support including a mention of Roberts' Countdown gig on his page, because it is notable in Roberts' career - considerably more notable to him than to Olbermann or Countdown, at this point. Tvoz/talk 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree: more notable for Roberts than the show at this point, not notable to Olbermann who replaces him on a temporary basis. No need to rush anyway, this will develop I'm sure. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"News" program

Is there a good source describing Countdown as a "news" program? Just think how long the description of Hannity as a news program would last in its article. Drrll (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with Hannity. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, as we don't make changes here because of the way some other article is written and we don't treat ideological opposites as foils. If you'd like to find the RFC's on this subject please search the archives here and at Talk:Keith Olbermann. Though I am loathe to justify your improper false equivalence/foil logic, the summary is that MSNBC repeatedly refers to Countdown as a "unique newscast", and to Olbermann as a "news anchor"; FNC makes no such claim, and in fact makes a bright distinction between news and opinion shows (of which Hannity is considered the latter). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I guess ya gotta hand it to Fox for describing its own shows more accurately than MSNBC describes its own shows. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point about how MSNBC describes Countdown vs. how Fox News describes Hannity. In looking over the Talk archives of both articles, I could only find MSNBC's self-identification of Countdown as a newscast and a column in The San Francisco Chronicle. Do you know of any hard news articles that describe the show as a news show? I located Washington Post, New York Times, and Politico articles that describe Countdown as an "opinion show" and an "opinion program." Drrll (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you Drrll? That's my boy! But lay out the specific references. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly where these conversations have taken place (could be in Talk:MSNBC, or some other place -- they all start running together after 5 years). I think the main points to consider are this:

1. MSNBC specifically refers to the show as a "newscast"
2. Countdown doesn't hide the fact that their show contains opinion -- in fact, doesn't the show's intro/monologue always contain the language "news and commentary... now, on Countdown"?
3. Countdown specifically picks five news stories each day, identifies them up front, and then reports on and discusses each of them.

I'm fine with this article describing that Countdown contains news and commentary, but to the larger point, though -- please stop acting like what is done in the Hannity article should be done here. The two shows, and the two articles, have absolutely nothing to do with one another; saying that they do, or trying to enforce parity between the two, is a violation of WP:BATTLE. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based mainly on reliable secondary sources such as WaPO and NewTi, not on primary source boilerplate. What the Post and the Times probably recognize is that Countdown is not a bona fide "news and opinion " program because the supposed "news" part of it comes massively skewed with opinion right from the get-go. It certainly isn't a program in which the news is first delivered in a somewhat restrained fashion before pundits then digest it. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Actually, from what I've seen of it lately the most opinionated part of the show is Olbermann's delivery of "the news." Olbermann actually tends to restrain himself somewhat when interviewing guests, perhaps because if he didn't those guess would find it obvious that he was simply interested in his own opinions not theirs. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think that reliable secondary sources (primarily hard news stories) should take precedence over what MSNBC says on air or on its website. Here are the sources I found. Note that Politico says that it started as a news show, but evolved into an opinion program.

• Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2008 (doesn't seem to have an online link):

On his "Countdown" program, which almost never includes conservative guests, Olbermann has told President Bush to "shut the hell up," urged McCain to "grow up," and mocked the Arizona senator with such headlines as "McSame" and "Double Talk Express." That's all fair game on an opinion show.

• New York Times, May 19, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/media/19cnn.html):

For the last two years, Ms. Brown has tried to hold down the toughest time slot in cable news, 8 p.m. Eastern, the same time that Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC go head-to-head. Compared with those bombastic opinion shows, her weeknight news program, titled “Campbell Brown,” has struggled to gain an audience.

• Politico, November 5, 2010 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734.html#ixzz1AY6Rd1PH):

A former ESPN star, Olbermann’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” started in 2003 as a traditional news show but evolved into a left-leaning opinion program – and in some ways, led the network into its new identity as the cable-news voice of the left and an attempt to be a counterweight to Fox News.

Drrll (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Worst persons silliness

Two paragraphs devoted to extremely short-lived name changes or suspensions of a segment that was widely known as the "Worst Person in the World" is silly. It borders on Olbermann arcanum. Why should half of this section of the article be devoted to the fact that there was some tinkering with the name of the segment from time to time? Lame. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)