The competition between Bill & Keith is non-existent. If this was a boxing match the referee would stop the fight. The winner is...Bill O'Reilly by TKO. Olbermann is stealing money from MSNBC. He is dead last in the TV ratings. He has been an abysmal failure.

Oh dear, not this again. You are comparing apples and oranges. Fox has been doing what it does since 1996 and is 100% conservative (except for Alan Colmes), it's promoted widely and on just about every cable system in the top tier, thanks to Murdoch's power. MSNBC, not so powerful-- only two lefties on the station and all the rest righties, plus they've only been doing the left-wing/progressive thing off and on for the past several years, and only at night. Despite that, MSNBC has some pretty good numbers in their target demos and the proof is, advertisers like what they are doing-- they deliver a loyal audience. That's why they are sold out during Keith's and now Rachel's show.

Yes on most nights, Bill O the Clown does in fact beat Keith in the 12+ demographics. BUT, Keith's numbers have been consistently up-- 65% over the past year, according to Editor and Publisher, and TV Newser says in the 25-54 numbers, on many nights, Keith either is tied with or very very close to Bill O; on a couple of occasions, Keith has even been #1 in that demo.

But what's your point in saying Keith is a failure? He has huge ratings and huger visibility, millions of fans, and he has brought MSNBC from nowhere to a close second. You are a right-wing shill, my friend.

What she said!!!!!!!

Then why are they so scared?... If Olberman is so ineffectual, why do they fear him, and scream so much that their numbers are better?

Hmmmm!!!!!!! Just so you know. It is really hard to type while you are running away from Devorah. I have never seen her put up a nasty or vitriolic post. She is a very fair and thoughtful debater. If you can't stand and defend your post, I will consider your thoughts to be nothing but crap.

This aint about opinion. I took the time and effort to find & post the most recent detailed demographic breakdown of cable TV ratings. The numbers don't lie. Olbermann is getting his ass kicked by everybody; especially his supposed rival Billo.

Are there any words in the phrase "boosted MSNBC's ratings by 65%" and "achieved the highest ratings in MSNBC's history" that you don't understand? So since Keith beats CNN every single night (check TV Newser or Editor and Publisher) in his daypart, and ties Bill O a few times a month or even beats him now and then, your assertion is false. Q.E.D.

Count me as one of them. While Bill-O-The-Clown rants and screams and yells at his guests Olbermann is generally respectful towards his guest.

I do think it's relevant to point out that FOX is available on basic satellite
packages while it costs extra for MSNBC.

Fox is flooded in every market, not because they are reliable but they have money and power to control things.......
If you repeat the lies too often people tend to believe them as facts.....
Their propaganda is slowly moving to CNN, with Glen Beck having his own show and now Bill Bennett who considers Rush Limbaugh as a very respectable and reliable source doing his own show on weekends....

How many public places have you been where the TV is tuned to Fux Noise?
Even though there may be ZERO people watching.

If Olbermann is SO ineffective, why does BillO rant and rave about him?
I've looked into BillO's eyes,
..................and I saw fear.
(I couldn't see his soul, he has no soul.)


Mac

When ever I've been sent on union business the past six years, every hotel bar with two tv's has one on sports and one on FOX, if there is one and it's not game time it's FOX.. This was true In SanJose, San Francisco, Chicago, Phillidelphia, Sea Tac, Yakima, Spokane and Seattle. We've already noted on aonther thread the McDonalds tends to have Fox on too. Kinda skews things wouldn't you say?

It's almost impossible to escape Fox in airports and restaurants and bars. But, I do notice that most of the patrons are not sitting there mindlessly watching what's on TV. Let's hope that my observations are not that different from others'.
Sallie

It definitely is important to mention this. I have had to go up to a package containing even more unwanted, unneeded and absolutely stupid channels in order to get MSNBC. Now, I get even more holy-rollers, Spanish-speaking (no assistance in the way of sub-titles), and even more people selling jewelry and clothes designed to appeal to people of whalish proportions.
In order to get MSNBC, my cable bill is increased by $12 a month. My original package included FOX, which was right up there with the holy-roller channels and the foreign language channels and the jewelry and clothing and mindless beauty products (on my dime!)
Does anybody else wonder why we're paying for COMMERCIALS?
Am I the only one who's bitching about the crap we pay for? We have to subscribe to SOMETHING, you know, because non-subscribers are not bringing anything with their rabbit-ears and roof antennae. You are screwed, folks. The sattelites are beaming their programs into some pay-to-view operation. And now, we're all going to switch to a frequency that you can't get with your antennae, making information even less available to those who can't afford to subscribe to Time-Warner, ATT, Comcast, DirectTV, DishTV and other such manifestations.
If you can't afford to watch television, something that used to be free, you're going to be left out of the loop.
This is the most worisome thing I have on my plate....
Sallie

Agree with you 100%, Sal. How is it, that the so called brightest minds in the room, can't put the three cable news networks and C-Span in the same package. I am getting real tired of the overpaid educated idiots that are running the corps and ruining our country. I can't get C-Span or MSNBC on Sirius and I don't think it is available on XM. I am seriously thinking of investing in a top end AM antenna, was shopping for one tonight, and possibly upgrading my internet package so I can stream as much as I want.

What these bastards have succeeded in doing is driving out people who can't afford the bells and whistles. You know as well as I do that there are a lot of people out there who used to be able to watch television without subscribing to some package deal. Yes! They're running the same corporations that are ruining our economy - and our country as a side-dish.
They haven't yet succeeded in shutting down the Internet, but they're trying and it may only be a matter of time. BUT! Watching/listening via the Internet requires one to have a computer/laptop and a subscription to a source. We're still screwed.
The air-waves used to be considered open to, and available to, all people. All they needed was a receptor. A radio bought 40 years ago for $10 should work just as well as that same radio with a subscription to SIRIUS, but it doesn't, without the additional expense of the subscription.
Where do the people airing their commercials enter into the mix? Are we wrong in assuming that advertisers are paying the full cost for these radio and television shows? It seems so! The advertisers pay to air the shows and we pay to watch/listen to the shows. Double-dipping, big time.
I don't mind paying for something that is commercial-free, but try to find that on your $40, $50, $60-a-month cable/dish networks. The broadcasters are selling you what you used to get for free and you still have to put up with the damned commercials!
Sorry for the rant, but the fact that I can't watch Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann with paying for a bigger package of crap, just infuriates me.
Love you, Cowboy Democrat! You is one of me!
Sallie

Sorry for the rant? No, keep blasting away at the SOB's, Sal. Gives me solace to know that I am not the only one trying to reform these educated parasites of our communications industry. It wouldn't bother me so much but they are ruining our country while they fill their pockets.

The merger between XM and Sirius is now complete. Presently, I am now paying 13 bucks per month to hear Ed for two hours, Thom Hartmann for one hour, the NFL, and the NBA. The remaining time it is tuned to CNN and music. Why they won't put MSNBC and C-Span on is beyond me. With the merger, if you want the best of the other company, you get a bill for 18 dollars every month. Not sure any of it is worth what I am paying but I refuse to be among the uninformed and uneducated. Frustrating, but it takes money to buy whiskey. I want the airwaves back and operating in the best interest of the public!!!! What I would give to get these jokers in one room, lock the door and give them a piece of my mind.

Ratings and MSNBC are two terms that rarely go together in the same sentence. IOW, a 65% rise above nothing is what, exactly? "highest ratings in MSNBC's history?" Compared to "The Factor," his ratings are still far behind. In fact, there are probably more lefties watching O'Reilly than there are watching Olbermann. In literal terms, you could count the number of people who watch MSNBC on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to go bowling.

Practically zero ratings, and yet O'Reilly (and Maxxie) spend so much of their time and energy trying to put the (non-existant) fire out?

Where there's smoke, there's fire;
and we all know where the smoke is emanating from.



Mac

I think you should lock them in a room and force them to watch the Basic package from Time-Warner....

you gotta link to this pretty chart you made....found....posted

It is a stone cold fact that Mister O'Reilly is taller than Mister Olbermann.

In a more serious vein, Mister Olbermann's rants (oops ... special comments) have earned him some audience share and some enmity as well. But this is getting old and frankly, the rants aren't going to survive any future and possible Obama Presidency.

It is not that a future President Obama will not make mistakes, it is just that Mister Olbermann will face a test as about raging against the machine of Obama politics with the same fury that he has reserved for the sins of conservatives.

Don't know if you are right. Hannity et. al. still found ways to seeth their ooze during the 6 year Nirvana of Republican control. Time will tell.

The one you folks have to be scared of is Rachel Maddow. She's funny, smart, and totally without the rage that fuels Olbermann. She's the future, and in after the wave election, she'll be the vanguard on TV of the new liberalism, as free-market conservatism joins communism on the ash heap of history.

GoU

I LOVE Rachel Maddow!!!!

I agree with your post wholeheartedly, GoU. We'll have to see if your predicted conclusion comes to pass, however ............

The only exception is the one word that I have bold faced.

I am not scared of Ms. Maddow. She is a breath of fresh air.

Frankly I'm growing a bit bored with the Great White Angry White Man (Mister Olbermann).

I think that Ms. Maddow is the future of opinion news and Keith, BillO and Hannity is the past...

She's going to show us how it is supposed to be done.

GoU