Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 3 >>

Contents

"Accusation of bias" section - MRC report piece very messy.

I've tried to clean up the paragraph in "Accusations of Bias" where Olbermann uses a MRC report to show that only 174 out of 600 of his worst persons were conservative, removing the POV/original research statements concerning what the editor opines to be "curious choices" etc. In the end, the paragraph itself is a problem because highlighting Olbermann's failure to disclose the 174-27 conservative/liberal ratio in the MRC report is itself a POV statement on the part of the editor. On the other hand, simply leaving Olbermann's claim concerning the report without any criticism at all (which, correctly me if I'm wrong is itself unsourced) is wrong since the report that Olbermann cites is in itself an attack on the alleged bias of his worst-person-in-the world segment. Since the report itself came first, in my opinon this paragraph should begin by listing the MRC report as an accusation of bias against Olbermann (including the 174-27 ratio), and only then giving Olbermann's arguement that the report somehow exonerates him (so long as you source it). In the end, using this format does weigh heavily against Olbermann since it seems to represent him as a liar without any counter-criticism, yet I don't see any fairer or more professional way to do it. Thoughts? Edders 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi salute feud - wording POV

This part is clearly POV:

"Olbermann joked that he had been waving to a friend, and added that "Bill O‘Reilly has defended the Nazis from World War II on three separate occasions," a reference in part to O'Reilly's repeated, incorrect assertion that Allied forces had massacred German troops at Malmedy for the purpose of justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in Iraq."

Where is it said that O'Reilley's incorrect assertions concerning Malmedy are meant to justify the abuse and (alleged) torture in Abu Ghraib? If Oblermann himself is saying that this is O'Reilley's aim that should be made clear. As it is the line appears POV and I'm removing everything from "for the purpose" onwards. Edders 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a link at the moment, but it is Olbermann saying O'Reilley was using Malmedy to 'excuse/explain' the recently reported violations by US troops. Might be awhile before I find a link though.;) Have to dig through the transcripts of his show. --Bobblehead 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Not nearly as long as I thought. Here's the link from [Media Matters]. It has the direct quote from Olbermann's June 1 show regarding O'Reilly referencing a US atrocity at Malmedy in response to a ruling in October that allowed more Abu Ghraib pictures, then another O'Reilly reference to the atrocity in response to news of the Haditha massacre. -Bobblehead 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. So long as it's clear who's saying what, I don't see any problem with putting it back in. Edders 12:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he was just waving his hand he was doing a salute, he was planely doing it, so i have included a picture to prove my point.--Crt101 05:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[User:rcox1963] (Robert Cox, editor of Olbermann Watch). This entire section is wrong and misleading and written, generally, from Keith Olbermann's POV (and that of his fans). If you want to know the truth about this matter you can read my detailed exposition on the Nazi salute including that the stunt was pre-planned and that the allegations made by Olbermann with regard to O'Reilly's referencing Malmedy are false:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/olbermann_defen.html

As you will see, O'Reilly was WRONG in what he said but that in the context of the two segments on The O'Reilly Factor (months apart but both with Wes Clark) it is clear that he MISSPOKE. There was no malicious intent by O'Reilly. The same cannot be said for Olbermann who not only took O'Reilly words out of context but then used his inaccurate claims to mock O'Reilly in a manner which trivialized the holocaust (at least as far as the ADL was concerned) not once but repeatedly including on national television with Jay Leno.

Not that I expect the truth to matter much at Wikipedia when it comes to Keith Olbermann but there you have it.

Find a reliable source that counters the tone and wording of that section and the opposing view can be included. Unfortunately OlbermannWatch is not a reliable source. --Bobblehead 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what confusing Malmedy for Chegnogne for another does to change what O'Reilly was saying, anyway. He was using past atrocities to excuse or, at best, explain present or future ones. Whether or not one finds that line of reasoning biased, or even logically wrong, Olbermann made an issue of it and Bill O'Reilly giving one city name in place of the other doesn't modify the structure of his arugment. --Falsified

Comments about Donald Rumsfeld and Fascism

This section simply notes Olbermann's comments. Where is the controversy? If notable conservatives were really outraged by his reaction to Rumsfeld, there needs to be a link to one or two reliable sources indicating the controversy that allegedly ensued.Hal Raglan 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) conservatives

Yup. Gotta agree with you here. While there might be a place for Olbermann's reaction on Rumsfeld's page, I'm not entirely sure it has a place here. I haven't heard of anyone saying Olbermann was out of bounds with his response.. --Bobblehead 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The source of the criticism used by the original editor was Newsbusters/media Research Center, which is the basically the right-wing version of media matters. Criticisms from Media Matters, FAIR etc. are regularly inserted into wikipedia articles simply based on the fact that they came from these organizations. Like Media Matters, the MRC/Newsbusters have occassionally been given air time on prime time news channels, more so than, say; little green footballs or daily kos. Furthermore, Newsbusters are part of MRC, and it was an MRC study Olbermann cited to defend himself against accusations of bias. If these two facts (Newsbusters/MRC's relative fame and previous involvement with Olbermann) don't constitute adding this criticism to his article then you'd have to apply the same standard to the God-knows-how-many articles on wikipedia quoting Media Matters criticisms. Oh, another possibility would be shortening it and merging it with the Nazi-salute controversy, due to the close proximity (within a month, I think) of the events, and changing the title of the Nazi-salute controversy to something reflecting the fact that the controversy was less who he attacked and more the fact that he was allegedly being fast-and-loose with accusations of fascism/nazism. This was why he was criticized by the ADL the first time, only to return to calling his opponents nazis and fascists and be criticized for virtually the same reason by the MRC/Newsbusters.Edders 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But what, exactly, is the CONTROVERSY? Please note the section this comes under is called "Controversies". If the only source of complaint is Newsbusters, then I don't see how it can possibly be described as a controvery. And what is Newsbuster's complaint? That anyone would dare question what a member of the Bush administration says? Rumsfeld's remarks generated a real controversy (Olbermann is far from the only person to react negatively to Rumsfeld's lunatic ramblings). The actual nature of Newsbuster's complaint should be noted in the article. Also, I'm not sure how many of Media Matters reports are designated on wikipedia as controversies, so your argument in that regard seems pretty weak to me.Hal Raglan 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit I don't spend a lot of time at Media Matters or the articles for their targets, but from what I've seen, Media Matters is generally used as a source only if there is a controversy. The link isn't to MM to create a controversy, but because they have documentation of the event. However, if you have some evidence of a non-controversy being inserted into an article with a link to MM, that'd be great.--Bobblehead 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hal Raglan: First, although this is the discussion page there's no reason to go on an unrelated tangent with ragards to what you call "Rumsfeld's lunatic ramblings" - we're all just trying to make a better article article here, not debate whether this or that commentator's opinions are valid. The only reason I mention this is because there are so many discussion pages that have been filled by meaningless flaming just because of someone inadvertantly making their opinion known on a subject that provokes strong feelings (i.e. politics). Let's keep everything civil and to the point, okay? :)

Hal Raglan and Bobblehead: You're right, actually; with regards the issue of whether it's a controversy or not. The salute thing is definately a controversy, whilst criticism of Olbermann over what some commentators/groups believe to be a rather liberal use of the term "fascist" comes under criticisms. This is where Media Matters is used in the manner I indicated. Ironically, for an example of this you need only go to the Media Research Center wiki article, where Media Matters is listed as a critic of the MRC even though there is no widespread controversy. The problem we have here is that there is no Keith Olbermann "criticisms" section in the article. Normally this would be simple matter of creating a seperate one and putting my (and whoever originally inserted the "Comments about Donald...") contribution in there. Yet the two issues - the ADL criticism/controversy and the "comments about" criticism - essentially revolve around a similar issue: Keith Olbermann's use or alleged overuse/insinuation of "fascist" or "nazi" when criticizing others. Therefore I think the "Comments about" bit should come directly after the Nazi Salute controversy since the two are closely linked. How about Changing "controversies" to "Criticisms and Controversies"? It may as well be done now rather than later, since at some point in the future other contributors are going to wonder where to put sourced criticisms. Edders 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections are inherently POV and by and large violate Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. It's unfortunate that many Wikipedia articles resort to these sections as they always degrade into a bitch session about the article's topic. If the criticism can not be mixed into the rest of the article, then it shouldn't be included. Basically, Cricism sections are the POV equivalent of a Trivia section (which is far too large in this article, BTW). --Bobblehead 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You've made a good point. One only has to glance at the Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly articles to see how criticism sections can go out of control, with endless lists of complaints mostly lacking notability of any kind. Edit wars naturally ensue, to the detriment of the articles. But in this case I think the suggestion made by Edders is the only way to incorporate certain material into the article. I think we should have a "Controversies" section, which would include the Nazi Salute and probably the email insult thing, and a "Criticisms" section, which is where everything else so far would fit. It will be up to us to monitor these sections and make sure they don't become filled with nonsense. Do others agree?Hal Raglan 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how a criticism section would not violate WP:NPOV. By its very definition the section would concentrate all of the negative POV about the subject in a single part of the article and exclude the positive POV. --Bobblehead 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confused. I admit I only started got back into wikipedia recently so I'm no expert even after trailing through the tutorials and guidelines. It was always my impression that there was some sort of unofficial agreement that any criticisms of organizations or people were given their very own section, since they can often grow pretty fast and are usually the most disputed. This seems to be the case for a variety of wiki articles, from the Media Research Center article, to some featured articles such as Galileo (listed as "Modern claims of scientific errors and misconduct", but identical in all other respects to a criticism section). Still, as you both note; criticism sections can get completely out of hand on the most controversial figures e.g. Bill O'Reilly. That said, I think we can agree that there should be a criticism section for notable criticisms that did not materialize into public controversies - a scientist criticizing another scientist's methods would undoubtedly be a worthy addition to an article. Still, who then would make a useful source of criticism for a public figure or a politician? Since such people are themselves public personalitities it stands to reason that they are making themselves open to criticism from less 'distinguished' sources. Edders 08:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, we can't agree that a criticism section is necessary for issues that do not rise to a 'controversy'. We can agree that criticisms have a place in the article, but they should be worked into the prose of the article as necessary, not in their own section. Criticisms of a scientists methods by another scientist is notable and warrants inclusion because the other scientists criticisms have probably been included in a reliable source and should be worked into the portion of the article where their methods are described. Please review WP:BLP. Criticism sections appear to violate the Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors as it gives disproportinate amount of space to critics. There's also a higher threshhold for inclusion of criticisms in articles for living persons and just because someone posts on a blog that Olbermann has a liberal bias or throws out the facist card too often and then criticizes others for doing it, doesn't mean it can be included. Unfortunately Olbermann Watch is not a Reliable source. There isn't anyone standing between the authors and what they put up on the blog and none of the authors are "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist". If the criticism is notable enough to make it on a reliable source, then it is of a level to make it into the controversy section. All in all, like trivia sections, criticism sections are signs of a poorly written article. --Bobblehead 10:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that the Olbermann Watch nonsense should be removed. Its simply a blog run by one individual with an obvious and disturbing hatred of Keith Olbermann. And I also see what you mean when you say that these sections, in and of themselves, can be considered to be in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, since all they tend to be is bulleted lists of negative details (often poorly sourced). A "Controversies" section, on the other hand, would be okay because it would contain important, fully cited, details regarding actual and undeniable controversies involving the subject. If thats your general view, Bobblehead, there are alot of articles on wikipedia that required extensive editing, not just this one.Hal Raglan 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay you make very good points, so let's break this down:

1: What does Olbermann Watch have to do with anything? I never mentioned them/it/whatever, nor did I cite them as a source in either the page itself or this discussion. Anyway, I agree Olbermann Watch is not a reliable source in case it comes up in the future. I assume you mixed up Olbermann Watch with Newsbusters.

2: So, the source we're referring to is the Newsbusters blog. The newsbusters blog is distinct from, say; Little Green Footballs, Daily Kos and other blogs written by private individuals or small groups because it operates under the auspices of a much larger organization: Media Research Center. For all intents and purposes I'm treating the Newsbusters blog as if it were the MRC itself that was the source. As to whether the MRC is a reliable source: It is a relatively small and not especially well known organization, however its' press releases and criticisms have occassionally been featured on mainstream media news. I would say it is not a reliable source on its own. However, (and this is the important part) Olbermann himself cited an MRC study on bias in the media as evidence of his neutrality. In other words, Olbermann has inadvertantly made MRC relevant to this article.

3: We are not just randomly inserting every criticism a right-wing blogger tosses at Olbermann. We are adding this particular information concerning use of the term fascist because A: The Criticism is from MRC, who thanks to Olbermann's own words are somewhat relevant to this article, and B: The criticism is particularly relevent to the existing Nazi Salute controversy, and took place within a month of the controversy. If Olbermann had said this several months later (even if he did it twenty times a night) and MRC criticized every one, I would not have argued to retain the criticism. However, with A + B combined, I still think the MRC/Newsbusters criticism is a worthwhile addition to the article.

4: In case we're agreed up to this point, now comes the issue of whether inserting/retaining the criticisms section unbalances the article. I do not believe that it does. The guidelines you cite advice that: we should "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Whilst there is a lot of stuff in this article concerning controversy, a significant amount of it is either benign or focusing on Olbermann's own criticims of others. For example; the feud with Bill O'Reilly section includes nearly as much criticism of O'Reilly as it does Olbermann, even though it is an Olbermann article (NB: I have no problem with this section, I'm just using it as an example). Thus I think the "Fascism..." section should be shrunk, but still retained. Edders 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I took so long replying that the page was edited again! Let me read Hal's remarks now...and I'm not even going to TRY and edit the spelling mistakes I made Edders 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I should better phrase what I'm saying. I'm not disagreeing that properly sourced criticism of Keith Olbermann should not be included in this article, but I was misunderstanding the source.;) If you have a reliable source go crazy and mix it into the article. --Bobblehead 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll take that as agreement for retaining the "comments about Donald..." section. I'm still going to try and shrink it a bit though. Thanks for a civil and reasoned debate where nobody got called a Nazi :). Edders 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've shortened it a bit and cleaned up the mischaracterization of Rumsfeld's comments. Should all adhere to NPOV now. Edders 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I updated this section a bit in an attempt to describe what Olbermann's comment was about. Previously, it listed a few of the more incendiary quotes with little to link them together or provide context. I think it's less important to try to find the most shocking quotes from the comment, and more important to find the quotes that are most representative of what he said (unless, of course, one of the quotes caused notable controversy, but I'm not aware that any did). But with that said, I agree with others that I have no clue why this is in the "controversies" section. I think that overall he was praised for his comment, although obviously many folks on the other side of the debate probably disagreed with it. But does that constitute controvery? I think it may be notable because the comment has recieved a lot of attention, there are countless copies on youtube, it's big in the blogosphere, I read somewhere that he got a lot of email about it (if I had sources for those I'd put them in), and in the following days there were a number of guests on his show that were also making waves by condemning Rumsfeld for the speech. Then again, it might be something that falls off the notability radar in a month or two, time shall tell. But I think it should be moved out of "controversies". As for the very existence of a controversies section, I support it, but it should contain notable controversies (with sources), it's not a message board for opponents of Olbermann to come write what they don't like about him. -Eisnel 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked hiim on ESPN/Fox/Lewinsky but is he trying to get fired? If he is fired we lose his homour too! :(   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 September, 2006 (UTC).
Don't think his comments about Rumsfeld and Bush are exactly Olbermann controversies, so just moved them to their own section. Which brings me to wonder why these are in this article and not in the Countdown article. The other issues have spilled outside Countdown, but I haven't heard/seen anything of this latest round of criticism of the Bush Administration spilling outside of the show (except maybe MRC and OW). --Bobblehead 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I would support moving it to the Countdown article, since it's more relevant to that than his bio. Of course, I'm sure the line between the Countdown and Olbermann articles are blurred in many places. And this might fizzle in terms of notability in the future, but for the moment it seems to be creating just enough buzz to get above the radar, even if temporarily. -Eisnel 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"One night stand"?

From "Comments about Rita Cosby": "Olbermann wrote to a former fan, turned one-night stand [1]"

Is this true? Jossip.com is a gossip site.

Jossip doesn't seem to meet WP:RS requirements and is thus deletable from the article. At least, in my opinion. --Bobblehead 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...this is an odd one. Most of the sources for this claim are unreliable (various blogs, gossip sites et al) although there a few exceptions - apparantly it appeared in the New York Daily News, a New York Times article features an official Fox News spokesman making the same claim. Unfortunately I have to register to get in so this'll take a bit. If I havn't found anything by the end of the day just delete it, as it is a pretty serious (well, amusing but very damaging) allegation. Edders 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found the NYTimes article [2] and it seems to back up everything here (although it doesn't mention anything about how the emails were published in the first place - for whatever reason, there's no mention of the 'one night stand' fan). Edders 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and rewrote the sentence without mentioning the one night stand. If you're able to find a reliable source, feel free to add it. --Bobblehead 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Edders 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann Watch

Should we keep the Olbermann Watch paragraph? It doesn't appear to meet the WP:RS guideline and is more an advertisement for the website. A rewrite of the MRC paragraph should cover the same area covered by the Olbermann Watch paragraph (namely that the report was conducted, what it found, and an anecdote about Olbermann using it to show he isn't biased).--Bobblehead 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go wild. The allegations about Olbermann's percieved bias are just repeated in later sections anyway, so we're not losing anything. Edders 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. Olbermann Watch is simply an obscure blog and doesn't come close to meeting the noted guidelines.Hal Raglan 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, the dreaded 'Comments about Donald Rumsfeld and Fascism' section has been rewritten and extended again...Edders 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, sorry... I posted my reasoning for that rewrite above. I chose to be bold, but if the community of editors disagrees with what I changed, I expect them to revise it. -Eisnel 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, don't worry about it. It was just funny because we'd just reached a consensus on it. I don't have a particular problem with the wording of it, it's just the length. if you could find a way to shorten it a bit that would be great. Edders 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!! too wiiiiddde

The appearance of this TALKPAGE is tooooo wiiideee on my browers. Can someone fix it? 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs) .

Archived the old stuff. There was a rather lengthy block quote that was messing up the formatting. --Bobblehead 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it fits now :)


Harry Reid quotes Olbermann

I noticed it a but late, but does anyone else think Reid repeating Olbermann's opnion is worthy of adding to the Comments on Donald Rumsfeld/fascism section? It's a pretty big deal that a Senator would go so far as to quote a mere comedian (or satirist/whatever).

As a side note, I've removed the extra criticism section. The reason we kept the Rumsfeld/facism bit was because it was related to the genuine Nazi salute controversy. If we list EVERY single time Olbermann attacks someone as some unsavoury figure from history; this article would simply explode. Plus it's written in a slightly POV manner; be careful when stating your own interpretation of quotations. Edders 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A sentence, with cite, referring to the Reid quote wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't go overboard though. It's notable, but not that notable.--Bobblehead 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable for Olbermann, anyway :). Edders 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Reid quoted it on the Senate floor. Even if it's a minor thing, it helps us establish whether this comment has any sort of lasting notability or not (blast my inability to see the future!). -Eisnel 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"We have not forgotten, Mr. President."

Where is Olbermann's impactful commentary on the Bush administration given on September 11th, 2006? The Nation said he "without a doubt the best news anchor on television today" after that, comparing him to Edward R. Murrow. It has been making its way around the Internet over the past few days and it certainly belongs on here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.96.31 (talk • contribs) .

Just added a sentence, don't think it needs much more. Does that fit your needs? Also, don't forget to sign your additions to the talk page by putting ~~~~ at the end. --Bobblehead 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is disturbing that one would support his filth-ridden commentary politicizing the deaths of 3,000 people. Someone must remind Keith two things, one he is not Edward R. Murrow, no matter how much he tries to be. Secondly, believe it or not, President Bush is not to blame for EVERYTHING under the sun. Olbermann went as far as to suggest that republicans and presumably the President had something to do w/the 9/11 miniseries because it apparently suggested Clinton didn't do enough. Nobody did enough...face it Keith. Among other things, this fraud suggested "the terrorists are still winning" and the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of "irrevelent wars" He gets more sickining by the day--Bairdso66 22:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's amusing to think that it's only "politicizing" and "sickening" when a liberal makes reference to 9/11 (as the Bush administration has done ever since.) Also, please try to keep conversation on the discussion board relevent to the editing of the article, anything more is nonconducive to Wikipedia's mission. Find a conservative discussion board, perhaps. 130.49.17.71 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen this comment on the internat and I am rather confused right now. It would be nice if there was some information on the article page about what he said, contradictions to other statements (for example I have seen in another 9/11 documentary an assistant of Clinton saying Clinton did not react to the warnings he gave him about Bin Laden etc.) and factual correctness on the whole. I am German which is why my language may not be proper. Greetings 85.212.22.34 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

It sounds like you guys know what you are doing, but I can't help but notice that there isn't a specific "criticism" heading. I have seen this heading in articles about much less controversial individuals than Mr. Olbermann. Just an outsider thought.

Zach zachsumsion@yahoo.com

A criticism section has purposefully been left out. If you take a look at the criticism sections in other articles you'll notice that they generally turn into one big bitch section and generally violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. However, having said that, criticisms of Olbermann are perfectly acceptable as long as they are properly sourced, just include them in with the rest of the article as appropriate. --Bobblehead 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

End of 'Return to Reporting' Section

I think the whole beginning of the last paragraph makes no sense at all. It seems as if someone cut something out after the citation but didn't fix the change. I would change it myself but I don't know much about the incident to put anything there. I think someone that knows more about it than I do should go in and fix that whole last paragraph, it's ugly. SkepticMuhs 9:34 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably my horrible writing style at work.;) Rewriting is always good.--Bobblehead 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

KO Trivia -- Raised UU

Hi Bobblehead, Well, a lot of fans were very interested to learn this during PopeWatch. The fact might be good to leave in the article considering that there are anti-KO anti-Semites calling him a "dum" Jew on the Internet.[3] It doesn't take up much room. I can also dig up a transcript for a reference if you give me a little while. Would you consider putting it back in? CuteGargoyle 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it being added back in once the source is found. If you do find the source, mixing it into the Early life and career portion would be a good thing, IMHO. --Bobblehead 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris Wallace Criticism: Notable or Not?

Discuss. I'm leaning towards yes, and I suppose time will tell since we haven't yet seen the full extent of the fallout. But I think it's safe to say that referring to the guy as a "monkey" pretending to be a journalist is going to make notability. Hiddekel 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's notable in the context of his increasing Anti-Bush stridency on the air recently, via his new so-called "Special Comments" segment. That probably deserves a paragraph or two in the "Controversies" section. --Aaron 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, his nightly tirades are amusing in how false they are untill he starts in w/the personal attacks. He also stated in his clinton/wallace interview comments that the current admin's policies can do more harm than al Qaida. There seems to be a movement to stop any honest documentation on his clear anger-filled bias--Bairdso66 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the question falls under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, particularly: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I did a Google News search for olbermann wallace and got ten hits (a search including monkey only gets six hits), including commentaries from not terribly reliable sources (mostly blogs) - perhaps the most reliable of which is an MTV News article about the Wallace/Clinton interview that mentions Olbermann's rant just once. I'd say that the Wallace/monkey rant isn't (yet) very significant. Schi 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a general comment, there seems to be a lot of concern on this page (and about the actual wiki) that Olbermann's biases aren't being properly documented and pointed out. I don't see the usefulness or necessity of this - it's pretty clear that he does have a bias, he does take sides, and he is truly anti-Bush. Big whoop. Not notable. It would be notable, and the duty of media watchers and chroniclers, if he insisted that he was a middle-of-the-road, fair-and-balanced type of journalist, while mimicking partisan points of view. But that isn't the case and never has been. Falsified

Just as an update, a Google News search for "Wallace Olbermann monkey" now gives 12 hits, some of which comes from notable, if not unbiased, news sources. Given the (low) level of notability of most of the other topics in the Controversies section, I think this now rates noteworthiness without creating undue weight, but that's just IMHO. I'll leave it to others to jump the tank and include this topic if they so choose. Hiddekel 16:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) It is notable, given the fact that Chris Wallace is of Jewish ancestry and the word 'monkey' is the slur that arabs use to describe Jews and Zionists.

NY Post page six

The blog addition was pretty clear cut as not being acceptable to include, but I'm not sure on the NY Post page six link. I'm not overly familiar with page six other than that it's a gossip column and that the previous editor/reporter for it got canned for getting paid to include/not include articles about people. Does anyone have thoughts on it being reliable? --Bobblehead 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Generally speaking, gossip columns blurbs aren't reliable at all. However, in this case, it appears to only be serving as a secondary source about that other woman's blog, which quite obviously does exist, so I'd say it's all right. I think the real question is, do we want to subject the average reader to thoughts of Olbermann's sex life? Blech... ---Aaron 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of bias section

Just a note about me deleting the section on accusation of bias. Since the bias accusation is based solely on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and not necessarily about Keith Olbermann himself (except in his role as host of the show) I moved the entire section to a nearly identical section on Countdown's article quite awhile ago. The other subsections in Criticism detail actions that took place outside of the show, or have elements that are outside of the show. --Bobblehead 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)