Keith Olbermann shuts down Countdown

[timmyfunk]

He doesn't need his own show to spew his filth, The simple act of legitimizing him gives him creditability and even more influence with his supporters.

Prior to joining Fox Palin was doing wonders making friends and influencing people on the far right. She didn't need Fox, they only grabbed her for ratings. Same thing with Erickson.

In today's culture politics is more about marketing and PR than governing and any news outlet that will give Erickson a platform doesn't give a dayum about the center or the left. Extremist views get ratings, plain and simple and Erickson is so far to the right he's falling over the cliff and dancing in sh%t. CNN throws in a few lefty's to make themselves look slightly better than Fox and viewers fall for it ...but, whatever.

Unless this guy gets his own regular feature on the network, his influence is greatly diminished.

[soulster]

There are far more center-left personalities on CNN than right. They ain't no middle of the road on that network and there hasn't been since they got rid of Dobbs.

Think of it this way: the majority of pundits on CNN are in the center, which means the people on Faux are even more radical than you thought.

[midnight johnny]

I think it's hard to call CNN or it's pundits "center" when they and CNN are supporting the Tea Party and ODDLY Michelle Bachman financially AND with air time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_814691.html

[soulster]

I think it's hard to call CNN or it's pundits "center" when they and CNN are supporting the Tea Party and ODDLY Michelle Bachman financially AND with air time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_814691.html

No, they do not support these people or organizations, they are simply giving them air-time to express their opinions. Then, you have the other side doing the same. It's what is called balanced journalism. You present the various sides of issues instead of just one side.

Promoting them would mean they have no viable opposing opinion...like on Fox.

[ms_m]

Unless this guy gets his own regular feature on the network, his influence is greatly diminished.

Timmyfunk, my point isn't about the amount of exposure. Obviously someone who is on the air 5 days a week will have a larger viewing audience but their influence is not necessarily and solely dependent on being seen 5 days a week.

An example, years ago when Jesse Helms was still alive, before he became a senator and before he was nationally known, he would do editorials on our local tv station. Sometimes he would do these editorials once a week, sometimes, twice a week and then there were weeks he wouldn't do any at all yet, Jesse Helms was able to exert influence over the minds of a lot of people. Why, because he had a platform that went directly into living rooms. That meant whether you agreed with him, didn't agree with him, or sat on the fence, he was all in your face. You didn't have to seek him out, he was right there.

Prior to CNN giving Erickson that type of platform, people would have actually had to seek him out via his blog....as a rule, only like minded people will do that [[again as a rule and there are exceptions) With a platform like CNN he can now reach people that sit on the fence, people that would never bother to seek him out but are suddenly exposed to his way of thinking when they would not have been exposed before.

Even if he's on CNN one day a week, and only changes the minds of 50 people, that's 50 more he would have had if he were not on CNN. That's also 50 more people that he has influenced to go to his blog to find out more about him and his views. If those fifty tell 50 more, the cycle continues on and on and on....and all of these are people who would never have known who Erickson was, if he had not been on CNN.

As long as Erickson was underground so to speak, his influence was minimal and he was only exposed to like minds who had to actually seek him out via his blog. By having a platform on a nationally recognized cable news network he's in everyone's face who watch him and or CNN.

Erickson is not simply a conservative, he is an extreme right winger whose views have often gone way beyond those who see themselves as Tea Party members. Via his blog, he can make Glenn Beck come off like Tiny Tim.

Why would a news network that supposedly leans center left expose him to their audience? What's the point? His facts are so screwed, a center left audience is going to think he has lost his mind so again, why give him a platform? Who is CNN trying to reach with someone that extreme? You can't say it's in the realm of fair and balance because when you're as extreme as Erickson, you are neither fair or balanced so again I ask, why give him a platform if you're center left?

[ms_m]

Another thing TimmyFunk, now that Erickson has a national platform, I'm seeing his point of view quoted throughout mainstream media. His views are in no way, shape or form mainstream but CNN has elevated him to a position where he is often quoted in mainstream publications. CNN has legitimized this fool and by doing so, legitimized his whacked out way of thinking.

The man has a documented history of inflammatory rhetoric and only tones it down a tad on CNN but visit his blog and that rhetoric is ratcheted up to def con level. Yet the organization you call center left, turns a blind eye to all of this and continues to frame him in the public eye as nothing more than a "normal" conservative with the counter opinion to liberals.

News organizations are supposed to be non partisan, Countdown, Maddow, O'donnell etc, are not news organizations, they are considered op ed -tv. Their programs are/were not under the control or management of MSNBC news. CNN is a news organization. They should not be leaning left, right, up or down but to say they are center left while promoting someone like Erickson who is not simply conservative [[as MSM often states) but bat shit crazy, is a contradiction in terms.

[timmyfunk]

Timmyfunk, my point isn't about the amount of exposure. Obviously someone who is on the air 5 days a week will have a larger viewing audience but their influence is not necessarily and solely dependent on being seen 5 days a week.

An example, years ago when Jesse Helms was still alive, before he became a senator and before he was nationally known, he would do editorials on our local tv station. Sometimes he would do these editorials once a week, sometimes, twice a week and then there were weeks he wouldn't do any at all yet, Jesse Helms was able to exert influence over the minds of a lot of people. Why, because he had a platform that went directly into living rooms. That meant whether you agreed with him, didn't agree with him, or sat on the fence, he was all in your face. You didn't have to seek him out, he was right there.

Prior to CNN giving Erickson that type of platform, people would have actually had to seek him out via his blog....as a rule, only like minded people will do that [[again as a rule and there are exceptions) With a platform like CNN he can now reach people that sit on the fence, people that would never bother to seek him out but are suddenly exposed to his way of thinking when they would not have been exposed before.

Even if he's on CNN one day a week, and only changes the minds of 50 people, that's 50 more he would have had if he were not on CNN. That's also 50 more people that he has influenced to go to his blog to find out more about him and his views. If those fifty tell 50 more, the cycle continues on and on and on....and all of these are people who would never have known who Erickson was, if he had not been on CNN.

As long as Erickson was underground so to speak, his influence was minimal and he was only exposed to like minds who had to actually seek him out via his blog. By having a platform on a nationally recognized cable news network he's in everyone's face who watch him and or CNN.

Erickson is not simply a conservative, he is an extreme right winger whose views have often gone way beyond those who see themselves as Tea Party members. Via his blog, he can make Glenn Beck come off like Tiny Tim.

Why would a news network that supposedly leans center left expose him to their audience? What's the point? His facts are so screwed, a center left audience is going to think he has lost his mind so again, why give him a platform? Who is CNN trying to reach with someone that extreme? You can't say it's in the realm of fair and balance because when you're as extreme as Erickson, you are neither fair or balanced so again I ask, why give him a platform if you're center left?

I personally have never heard of Erickson before he was brought up here. And I don't if anyone who doesn't watch CNN on a regular basis has heard of him. They would, however, be more familiar with him if he had his own nightly gig. Those are the people with the influence. When people talk about the most prominent personalities of the right wing, outside of politicians, they are going to run off the names of everyone who makes up the FNC's nightly line up, not Erickson.

MSNBC not only has Scarborough, but they Patrick Buchanan on a regular basis. Yet neither of these yield any kind of notoriety in the political public discourse, and Scarborough has a regular morning gig. CNN's regular line up is made of center left personalities. People will tune in to those people night after night, but their influence is still questionable. That's all I'm saying.

Time to push the agree to disagree button and move on.

[timmyfunk]

I think it's hard to call CNN or it's pundits "center" when they and CNN are supporting the Tea Party and ODDLY Michelle Bachman financially AND with air time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_814691.html

The only channel that supports the Tea Party movement is Faux. CNN will probably change it's course due to all of the criticism they received when they broadcast Michelle Bachmann's SOTU response. CNN definitely ain't in bed with the Tea Party movement.

[ms_m]

CNN like most news organizations are in bed with corporatist but my view isn't about who they are in bed with, but who they are catering to, to get the most bang for their buck. That is not a center left audience. Center left equates to moderate views and Erickson views are not moderate.

[timmyfunk]

CNN like most news organizations are in bed with corporatist but my view isn't about who they are in bed with, but who they are catering to, to get the most bang for their buck. That is not a center left audience. Center left equates to moderate views and Erickson views are not moderate.

That line up ain't catering to no right wing. The FNC has that audience damn near on lock down. CNN ain't making no serious in-roads into Faux's audience.

[soulster]

The only channel that supports the Tea Party movement is Faux. CNN will probably change it's course due to all of the criticism they received when they broadcast Michelle Bachmann's SOTU response. CNN definitely ain't in bed with the Tea Party movement.

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

[timmyfunk]

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

I'm pretty sure that MSNBC didn't broadcast the entire speech. Though I may need to check again.

[olamaebarto]

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

Only CNN showed Bat Shit Bachmann's rambling.

[olamaebarto]

Something tells me that Keith will end up on CNN in about a year. The ratings boost he generated for MSNBC cannot be ignored. Either way, his absence from television isn't a good thing.

Maybe sooner.

His agreement w/ MSNBC stated that he can't work on TV for only 4 1/2 month following his departure from the network.

I think it's a good bet he'll show up at CNN.

[timmyfunk]

Maybe sooner.

His agreement w/ MSNBC stated that he can't work on TV for only 4 1/2 month following his departure from the network.

I think it's a good bet he'll show up at CNN.

Which will be a beautiful thang! I personally wish him the best.

[ms_m]

Who's talking about making inroads with anyone? I'm talking about legitimizing a crazy person to the elevation of mainstream normal when he is not. I'm talking about the organization that is responsible for making it happen...CNN....the organization you call center [[moderate) left. ....and you never did answer my question but let me rephrase, why would a so call moderate left organization, legitimatize a nut?

As quiet as it's kept in mainstream USA, none of these outlets give a crap about politics. Politics is a means to an end....profits for their corporate overloads. They all put on this big show promoting one ideological idea or the other, they rope viewers in and boom, they make money. Some make more than others but it doesn't change the fact, they are in it for the money.

Olbermann would sometime talk about what a great guy Hannity was off camera, yet on camera they dogged each other out. Rachel Maddow was once [[and may still be) good friends with Pat Buchanan but will disagree passionately while expressing view points that reach people in their living rooms.

That's not to say that individually any of these people are not sincere in their view points but don't loose sight of the fact that the powers that be [[the corporations that own these networks) are using those views to manipulate the masses for their own bottom line. Divisiveness and sensationalism sales, it can keep people off balance, unhinged and un focused. If you divert the focus you maintain control.

Simple mathematics tells us that 99% of the population is larger than 1% yet 1% of the population has the most wealth and power. If the 99ers ever wake up and start focusing, guess who is screwed?

As far as the FCC goes, the FCC is an independent organization operating under the auspices of the Federal Government. Until we realize total public financed elections [[elections financed only by the people and for the people) are the only way to keep corporations from having a seat at the table of governing....corporations will have more influence over the FCC and our government than the American people....but I doubt if corporations are too worried about it at this point because they have news organizations, mindless TV and other sources to keep us from focusing on how to truly change things and make a difference in this country.

No one needs to stop watching news, or reality shows or any other form of entertainment or news but we do need to understand the psychology and mechanics of it all and how it's used to influence the minds of the public.

[timmyfunk]

Who's talking about making inroads with anyone? I'm talking about legitimizing a crazy person to the elevation of mainstream normal when he is not. I'm talking about the organization that is responsible for making it happen...CNN....the organization you call center [[moderate) left. ....and you never did answer my question but let me rephrase, why would a so call moderate left organization, legitimatize a nut?

As quiet as it's kept in mainstream USA, none of these outlets give a crap about politics. Politics is a means to an end....profits for their corporate overloads. They all put on this big show promoting one ideological idea or the other, they rope viewers in and boom, they make money. Some make more than others but it doesn't change the fact, they are in it for the money.

Olbermann would sometime talk about what a great guy Hannity was off camera, yet on camera they dogged each other out. Rachel Maddow was once [[and may still be) good friends with Pat Buchanan but will disagree passionately while expressing view points that reach people in their living rooms.

That's not to say that individually any of these people are not sincere in their view points but don't loose sight of the fact that the powers that be [[the corporations that own these networks) are using those views to manipulate the masses for their own bottom line. Divisiveness and sensationalism sales, it can keep people off balance, unhinged and un focused. If you divert the focus you maintain control.

Simple mathematics tells us that 99% of the population is larger than 1% yet 1% of the population has the most wealth and power. If the 99ers ever wake up and start focusing, guess who is screwed?

As far as the FCC goes, the FCC is an independent organization operating under the auspices of the Federal Government. Until we realize total public financed elections [[elections financed only by the people and for the people) are the only way to keep corporations from having a seat at the table of governing....corporations will have more influence over the FCC and our government than the American people....but I doubt if corporations are too worried about it at this point because they have news organizations, mindless TV and other sources to keep us from focusing on how to truly change things and make a difference in this country.

No one needs to stop watching news, or reality shows or any other form of entertainment or news but we do need to understand the psychology and mechanics of it all and how it's used to influence the minds of the public.

And I'm saying that this dude apparently ain't on CNN enough to be effectively legitimized. You probably couldn't find five people on the street that's ever heard of this dude. They're too many channels on the dial for any one guest speaker to have any real influence. I really think that there's some overreaching here.

[ms_m]

You probably couldn't find five people on the street that's ever heard of this dude.

yeah, if only five people watch CNN .....

Great talking to ya Timmy Funk

[timmyfunk]

yeah, if only five people watch CNN .....

Great talking to ya Timmy Funk

Keep looking for those people. You might find them....one day.

[ms_m]

Why would I want to look for them?
...and I promise, you may have the last word in answering the question.

later TF

[timmyfunk]

Why would I want to look for them?
...and I promise, you may have the last word in answering the question.

later TF

You seem so hell bent on confirming how much influence this guy[[who again I've never heard of before this thread existed, and I tune in to CNN quite a bit) seems to have. And I'm saying that he doesn't. For those who buy into his rhetoric, more power to him.

[ms_m]

I lied about giving you the last word ...

but when people don't get their facts straight I speak up. This conversation was about whether CNN was center left. I brought up Erickson as an example of why I didn't agree with your statement. Everything else was filler so don't even play me. You should know me better than that by now.

[soulster]

You seem so hell bent on confirming how much influence this guy[[who again I've never heard of before this thread existed, and I tune in to CNN quite a bit) seems to have. And I'm saying that he doesn't. For those who buy into his rhetoric, more power to him.

He had a major influence on progressives, and he almost single-handedly shaped MSNBC's content when they were still trying to find their way.

[soulster]

Only CNN showed Bat Shit Bachmann's rambling.

Wrong. I was watching MSNBC, and they aired it. And, you know damn well Faux aired it too.

[soulster]

I'm pretty sure that MSNBC didn't broadcast the entire speech. Though I may need to check again.

Check again, because I sat there and watched it on MSNBC. Do you seriously think they would pass up an opportunity to show her up for what she is?

[smark21]

Frankly I see nothing wrong with CNN airing Bachman's speech. She came across as wild eyed and crazy. Her die hard fans in the Tea Party might have loved it, but in terms of introducing herself to a larger segment of the public [[she harbors ambitons to run for National office), she pretty much took the rope and hung herself and exposed herself as a third rate version of Sarah Palin, and that's pretty low rate.

[midnight johnny]

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

ONLY CNN broadcast Bachman's ramblings.

[soulster]

ONLY CNN broadcast Bachman's ramblings.

And, you were watching MSNBC?

[chidrummer]

Soulster, I was watching MSNBC that night and they did NOT air Bachmann's retort. They certainly didn't do it live. They have in these last few days aired enough of it to give the impression they aired it, but they didn't. Consider this from TVReplay:

The Daily Beast columnist Meghan McCain was on 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' [[Wed., 8PM on MSNBC), where she and the host responded to GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's response to the State of the Union address. MSNBC did not air the response, but CNN did, which McCain thinks they "should be ashamed of."

[soulster]

Soulster, I was watching MSNBC that night and they did NOT air Bachmann's retort. They certainly didn't do it live. They have in these last few days aired enough of it to give the impression they aired it, but they didn't. Consider this from TVReplay:

The Daily Beast columnist Meghan McCain was on 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' [[Wed., 8PM on MSNBC), where she and the host responded to GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's response to the State of the Union address. MSNBC did not air the response, but CNN did, which McCain thinks they "should be ashamed of."

MSNBC aired it a couple of hours after the fact. But, they did air it.

[chidrummer]

Well in that case, it doesn't count if they did it after I went to bed.

Either way, Bachmann's debacle has been dissected a hundred different ways over the last few days and left for dead. Ryan's creepy official response has been met with simular disdain. Nothing substansive has changed at MSMBC except for news that Comcast is canning the Peacock. Stay tuned, keep an eye out and we'll see what happens down the road.

[midnight johnny]

MSNBC aired it a couple of hours after the fact. But, they did air it.

That is a lot different than airing it LIVE and giving Bachman an appearance of importance...which she doesn't have nor does she deserve. She is an insane FLAKE and what comes out of her mouth is complete nonsense.

[soulster]

That is a lot different than airing it LIVE and giving Bachman an appearance of importance...which she doesn't have nor does she deserve. She is an insane FLAKE and what comes out of her mouth is complete nonsense.

True. But airing the nonsense isn't the same as promoting it.

[midnight johnny]

And, you were watching MSNBC?

CNN BRAGGED about being the only cable network to air it....Wolfie said it himself. MSNBC showed him saying it...as they were questioning the involvement that CNN has with the Tea Party.

[smark21]

CNN BRAGGED about being the only cable network to air it....Wolfie said it himself. MSNBC showed him saying it...as they were questioning the involvement that CNN has with the Tea Party.

Well if it's any comfort, the 3 cable news channels in the US average a total of about 6 million viewers or so. The population of the US is now over 300 million so that means the vast majority of Americans have better things to do with their lives than waste their time watching cable news, which is some of the most toxic programming out there.