Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Keith Olbermann (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 3 >>

Contents

Issues with the Trivia Section

Do we really need this trivia? I'd accept the shoe sizes, the damaged depth perception (however, I'd remove the "Ouch.") and the Celiac Disease. But if no one objects I think the vertebrae and the pajama-part should be deleted.

"Big Guy" Trivia

Shoe size is 13 1/2 or 14.

Possesses six lumbar vertebrae instead of the usual five.

Damaged depth perception in 1980 by rushing to catch a subway car at New York's Shea Stadium and slamming his head into the top of the door frame. Ouch. [edit]

Non "Big Guy" Trivia

Has Celiac Disease (gluten intolerance).

Claims not to blog in his pajamas, because he doesn't own pajamas.

__________________________________

---Wintermute- 21:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anybody object to my deleting this little section? The page is getting long, and the controversy over POV is embedded in the following section, not this one. CuteGargoyle 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is supposed to be trivial

I think getting rid of the pajamas part is fine (although there are quite a few female fans who DO think this a fun fact to know). I'm also glad that you left the vertebrae part, though. Combining the sections is more efficient, but less interesting to read.

-S*Bufe


Of course you're right... trivia is supposed to be trivial. However, I also feel that it belongs on a fanpage rather than in a Wiki-article. A Wiki-article should offer a quick overview, some facts and further links with additional information, so how about this: find a good fan-site that offers this trivia and add the link to the article (right after the trivia part). I think that would be a solution we could both live with, wouldn't it? ---Wintermute- 09:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of such a fan site. I own Olbermann.org, and might start one someday. I'm content with the article as it stands. -S*bufe

I think the trivia gives you a picture of who he is. For instance, Olbermann has done several segments on Celiac Disease. The pajama thing is a bit too cheeky for me, but the vertibrae part is not. Boisemedia

Great! So we're agreed. Now we just have to wait for a vandal to come by and put in a big paragraph about liberal paranoia and tinfoil hats. -S*Bufe

I see, so in the mind of S*Bufe anything less than a founding father of the ACLU is a 'vandal'? Gotcha!
Truth be told, Olbermann has made some vicious hateful comments about James Dobson, especially when he got caught flat out LYING. And, like they say, if the paranoid tin foil hat fits...wear it!
Lots of changes coming to this article. It's a blatant suck up piece and doesn't even deal with Keith's HORRIBLE reputation (amongst both liberals AND conservatives) for his antics behind the camera.

Big Daddy 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't see any of your changes. I wonder why? Whoops! I see now. You've been banned for life. Ouch. That's gotta hurt. LOL! Eleemosynary 06:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I added to the trivia section his beef with O'Reilly.

To 209.86.17.244: Why did you take off the Recountdown article?

i put it back

There should be some mention in the article about his unwillingness to back down from James Dobson's response to the Countdown's report about Dobson's charges against the We Are Family Foundation. You know, that thing about Sponge Bob. Olbermann and Dobson are now fierce rivals because of this. I don't blame Olbermann for taking on Dobson. Somebody's got too. :-) -Amit

"Somebody's got too. :-)" -Amit
Why?Big Daddy 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From The "Pretty Much Says It All' Department

"I don't know of such a fan site. I... might start one someday. I'm content with the article as it stands." -S*Bufe

LOL! Articles about WAY-out-there liberals like Keith Olbermann get the stamp of approval from potential 'fan site' operators, while Bill O'Reilly's article is edited by people that make Michael Moore seem like Phyllis Schaffly.

I think I'm starting to understand Wikipedia circa late 3rd Qtr 2005. And it's breathtaking! Big Daddy 14:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Olbermann a "WAY-out-there" liberal? Only somebody who has never actually met anyone to the left of Paul Gigot could say that.

Check out that guy's talk page. He was clearly a neo-con and all-around trouble maker posing as an independent mediator. And he refused to be crticized.

Hmmm, are we sure Bill O'Reilly didn't have an account on here? :) --D-Day 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding changes by 12.167.224.228

  • What's the purpose of deleting this?
"In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Hall of Fame, and is considered the definitive compendium of first and third base coaches in baseball history." 128.138.211.139 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Aside from the obvious typos and misspellings (not a great way to honor the deceased), being "taken to task" by OlbermannWatch hardly qualifies as an event worthy of record in the Wikipedia.
"He was taken to task inthe blogosphere for trying to make the story about himself the day after news veteran Peter Jennigs passed away from lung cancer." 128.138.211.139 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Proof?

"Owing to its more jaundiced view of the White House than other cable news programs, it has developed a loyal viewership among critics of the George W. Bush administration."

This seems like such an unable to be proven and potentially fallacious statement. Is it encyclopedic? -- iKato 01:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently, i added a perfectly legitmate commentary on Olbermann's feud with O'Reilly, two minutes later it was deleted...Real objectivity here huh??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.155.98 (talk • contribs) .

Look at the reasons for the revert. I'm sure you think your original theory holds all the water in the world, but unless you can site a reputable source Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --sigmafactor 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Accusations of Bias

Since the section is a mess, I propose a change. Because bias can only be thrown around and is strictly opinion, I think the section should be changed to just cover his feud with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike the bias, his problems with O'Reilly can be well documented in fact and should be covered anyway, as they are an important part of his career. The section, after you remove the opinion statements and the bits without cited sources, are all about O'Reilly anyway.

Are there any objections?

Ltspoonstick 01:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that several users have reverted the changes you have repeatedly made, possibly suggesting you are alone in your opinion.


I modified these sections to address all issues.

That's the thing, I haven't made any changes. I've reverted the article each time the Accusations of Bias section has been put up, and it keeps getting reverted right back.

I appreciate the changes, but the opinion section is still there, wrongly so. It's almost ridiculous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be something about whether he's biased, I just think that "it has developed a loyal viewership among critics of the George W. Bush administration" (if a Democrat was in office, do you think he wouldn't criticize them?) and "..Some conservatives.." don't belong. It needs editing.

Ltspoonstick 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

the fact of his bias may not be verifiable but we know know he has covered critically both Bill Clinton and Bush the Younger; remember his nightly Monica show during the Clinton years? However, we can verify that named people who call themselves conservatives and some of Bush's allies have accused Keith of bias; so it is logically possible to be both factually not biased (or not materially biased) while simultaneously accused of being biased. John wesley 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully someone has added a commentary on the outright bias "reporting" of Keith Olbermann. I find it amusing that fox news always gets accused of partisianship, watch olbermann for a few minutes...it's not even subtle the intense disdain Olbermann shows for the adminstration. Democrats are not subject to critiscism from Keith...

This article slams Olbermann for not "covering contested states like Pennsylvania that went for Kerry" in the 2004 election. Hmmm, perhaps the reason for this is that Pennsylvania was never contested in the first place. If it was contested, then one might think that the right-wing media in this country, from Limbaugh to Fox News, would have mentioned it. To my knowledge, no one has ever even suggested that the Pennsylvania election was invalid in any way. If it was contested, I'd certainly like to see a link or other documentation. But until that documentation surfaces, I don't think this article should be referring to a completely non-existent issue like claiming that Pennsylvania was somehow "contested" in 2004.

Almost fired?

I'm confused - how did Olbermann almost get fired from MSNBC for saying "Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking — now. While it's easier"? Clearly something's missing from this story. Nobody gets fired for telling people that they should stop smoking. Rhobite 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence.. feel free to replace it if you can shed some light on why MSNBC would fire a commentator for promoting healthy behavior. It doesn't pass the common sense test. Rhobite 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Feud with O'Reilly

user 81.135.245.231 keeps removing the incident that Olbermann played on his show... that of threatening callers on a call-in show for calling him and saying Keith's name. John wesley 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:81.135.245.231 It had to be removed in previous forms as it has no context. The majority report is not credible. Now that there is evidence that Olbermann played it, it should stay.

I did not know the M.Rpt played parodies, I need to double check their stuff now. John wesley 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Majority Report, but this was covered on Media Matters, which is very accurate (although obviously they focus on discrediting O'Reilly). Rhobite 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how seriously to take any of this stuff but for the heavy irony. We should be able to rewrite this part of the article to explain the canonical definition of irony so as to undo the harm done by the darn song. Ironic (song) John wesley 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem that there is with the incident on O'Reilly's radio show, is that there is a 7 second delay that no one except fox radio people knows what was said. It cuts off after "Olbermann." Nobody knows what he said, he could have said "Olbermann is my hero," or "Olbermann wants me to kill your mother." Nobody knows what happened, and trying to paint it as a fact is pushing a point of view.

I guess when Olbermann played the piece he prefaced it with saying that the clip came off the O'Reilly website itself and that there is a 7 second delay. But the incident is funny, due to the irony of it being a call in show. John wesley 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the bias section and feud section need to be monitored to make sure they maintain a balanced point of view. There sure seem to be some strong feelings on this guy.

I removed the "coincidence" sentence with the link to Inside Cable News because it didn't seem like an accurate summary of what the blog was saying. As has been mentioned above, there is no concrete proof of what the caller said. As long as the Wikipedia paragraph makes that clear, I think we're fine. 67.174.180.72 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Fox News Nazi comment

I edited that last sentence of the "Feud With Bill O'Reilly" section, which originally said,"Later, as a guest on The Colbert Report he called O'Reilly an 'idiot,' and compared Fox News to Nazi Germany." If you watch that episode (3/14) of the Colbert Report, you'll clearly see that Olbermann's comment is taken out of context. He jokingly ripped on O'Reilly when questioned by Colbert, however he did not directly compare the Fox News Network to Nazi Germany. After Colbert, in his own satirically sarcastic way, claimed that the O'Reilly caller harassment incident and the use of Fox security was okay, Olbermann replied somewhere along the lines of "Yea, if you live in Nazi Germany."

I concur. Not a "comparison" to the Nazis. That's really pushing it. 67.174.180.72 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody object to removing this section? It doesn't appear to be an ongoing controversy. CuteGargoyle 09:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Left wing bias graf

I NPOV'ed the "Left Wing Bias" section -- though it's still not exactly great.

O'Reilly edit war

My take:

  • Calling the feud "mostly one-sided": POV and untrue. Both commentators have taken shots at each other.
  • callingallwingnuts.com should definitely be mentioned, it appears that the person who called was part of that site. That doesn't excuse O'Reilly's behavior, of course.
  • "Olbermann starts off every edition of his program with highly critical news concerning the Administration or some other conservative leader." This is a very bold thing to claim - every single show starts off with an anti-Bush story? This kind of statement cannot be in the article without a citation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rhobite 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The edit war: Both participants have violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Please stop reverting and discuss your edits. Rhobite 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)