Who's defending Olberman?

Yes, she said that, but on the same token she wouldn't have been Miss California if she hadn't lied about those photos - that's a clear violation of pageant rules. Regardless of who or why she took them - nudes and semi nudes are not permissible under pageant rules - so learned Vanessa Williams over 20 yrs ago.

Guess you're right about them liberals, mate - congrats you win an e-cookie (sorry, misplaced the pic, maybe next time )

 

You're defending Olberman. Atleast you are minimizing what he said. You are comparing him to OReilly, questioning the offensive nature of what he said, talking about pageant rules. Not once did you say that he was clearly wrong and the segment was despicable. And that is fine. I just dont understand it.

I sense some sarcasm in the e-cookie comment. But I expect that from you. Lets make a quick comparison to Don Imus. Do you think what was said by him was worse than what was said on Olberman' show?

I think it was far worse. Olberman's intentions are much more sinister and insulting. But oddly I dont hear a peep of sympathy for the girl from the left. I dont hear anyone even questioning the job security of Olberman. The left would never go after one of their most visible advocates.

 

This was my direct response to his rant. It's nonsense. Can't get much plainer than that. Even added more to it...

Just because I'm not as easily offended as you get over this - I guess we're just cut from different cloth.

 

lol...you have a whole theory about how Beck is a dangerous person and call Olberman's insults "getting on his high horse." Obviously, no one with common sense would condone what was said. So I can atleast say you have some common sense. But to say that I am more easily offended than you is a total misrepresentation. And to dismiss it as nonsense is also a misrepresentation. jdfshjasfh -> that is nonsense.

The Olberman segment was mean spirited and despicable. -> This seems like a statement that everyone can agree on. No?

How would you compare it to Don Imus?

 

Yes, Beck is dangerous and I still stand by that. Stoking the fears of the radical far right with his "the governement's out to get you" agenda and using choice words like "fascist" and "tyranny" is down right dangerous.

Olberman can launch all the person attacks that he likes - as well as O'Reilly can too - and all they are doing is hurting themselves and the person they attack.

What Don Imus said about "nappy headed hoes" was just plain stupid and the the far left rallied against him for it. And if Olberman's not careful the same may happen to him.

Why are you so desperate for people to agree with your opinion on Olberman? Do you need justification of your views? For if you find them "mean spirited and despicable" - so be it. That's your gentle feelings on the subject.

Personally, I hink it was stupid for him to go down that path - it leads to nothing but getting people like yourself in a tizzy - but maybe that's what he wanted?

Back to Beck...

The guy is a showman. He pushes the right buttons to gain a response that may seem favorable - turns out to be dangerous.

Though I have a great deal of respect for Sen. McCain - even he had to reign in the anti-Obama rhetoric when he started correcting people at his rallies that Obama was indeed an American and not a muslim.

Beck is reaching a far greater audience than McCain could have dreamed, spewing the same type of inflamatory rhetoric with flimsy, at best speculative, evidence to back it.

That's all I'm saying and I don't need you to agree as long as you're aware of it, mate

 

I dont need anyone to confirm my views. I am not insecure about my own opinion because it is based on morality and reason and not on the perception of Audi Forum members.

The only reason I pressed you on it was to determine your views. Don Imus was crucified for saying three small words in a moment of carelessness. Olberman has received almost no criticism for entire segments dedicated to defamation. Since you share many liberal views, I thought you could shed some light on the issue. What I have learned is that you are pretty much willing to look the other way. You say that OReilly attacks people and Olberman is just doing the same thing. That is a very broad and inaccurate comparison, especially when I am talking about something specific and your argument is very general. You provide little context and no examples to support any comparison between Olberman and OReilly. Besides, this has nothing to do with OReilly. You turned it into that. A convienent distraction.

So I dont ask that anyone agrees with me. But if they dont, I am interested to know why, and am willing to challenge them on it.

 

Bringing up O'Reilly is only to show that either is no different. Maybe Olberman is more eloquent, perhaps, but each acts like a guided missile at their targets. They each get on their "high horse" on issues and people.

Funny, to this day O'Reilly doesn't mention Olberman on his show - just attacks his bosses (GE, NBC and MSNBC execs) - when Olberman can't finish one without blasting O'Reilly.

It's not a distraction - just a comparison. And if you don't think O'Reilly doesn't attack people - think again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI8Aohw4oE0 O'Rielly's take
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbaNX...eature=related Olberman's take

 

First, there was no "high horse" involved in the jokes about Miss America. You more or less refuse to characterize that clip as anything more than silly nonsense. I can only assume that you condone the insults. Your fingers cannot type any real degree of negative response to what was said by Olberman and his guest.

Unless we can agree on a proper characterization of the Olberman clip, we will be unable to properly compare the last two utube vids.

In any case, I will say a few things about the rape comments.

The blogger is not a victim. People are confronted by reporters at their homes and on vacation all of the time. What upset OReilly is that he has a history of helping victims. He was helping a charity to raise money for rape victims which is by itself and good cause and good gesture. At the same time, the blogger is attempting to stain his reputation and undermine his position as an advocate and effective fundraiser. So by attacking Bill, she was indirectly hurting the charity.

We must also consider the nature of the attack and the comments made by OReilly. Basically he said that it is stupid to wander the streets of New York if you are a young woman who is hammered drunk and wearing revealing clothing. He said that she was making herself a target and putting herself in danger. Insensitive - yes a little. But I have to agree with the concept.

On a side note, I like it how Olberman ends the segment by apologizing to the blogger "on behalf of television." Keith now represents all of television. Bravo.

 

Olberman talks about a woman's fake **** and this is the outrage you have your panties in a twist about?

Again, so what. As for what O'Reilly said about the girl putting herself out as a target - same thing. Did she deserve it? No. Should he have said it. Again, no.

Personally, I felt uncomfortable with that staked out interveiw and to be completely honest if that punk had started hitting me with questions like that I'd have clocked him. By the way, that's not an interview they were clipped questions demanding they be answered when you can tell she's unprepared. That was more an interogation.

If I were on vacation, I'd be unprepared as well, so I could relate. I would have just walked away or punched him in the throat

 

Olberman can talk about breast implants all he wants but that is not what upsets me. Here's what did it ... Olberman targeted Miss California based on her opposition to gay marriage. His only intention was to defame her character and therefore marginalize her position (ad hominem). The comments that I find despicable come in two flavors.

#1. Olberman said that Miss California supports marriage between a man and a woman who is partially made of plastic but not between two non-plastic men. Somehow implying that breast implants make you less human or they entitle you to less rights etc.

#2. Olberman/s guest said that what was not reported is that Miss California used to be a man. She had her adams apple shaved off and her ***** removed.

Comment #1 is insulting to all women with breast implants, breast cancer victims included. Comment #2 is an immature insult directed squarely at the young woman. I would be outraged if someone said those things about my mother or sister. And I am outraged that it was said on Olberman's show without any sense of regret or decency. Comment #2 clearly crosses the line and I would hope never to see that type of cruel langauge ever spoken on cable news again.

Sorry if you think my displeasure is due to twisted panties and not a sense of morality.


OReilly's quote about the rape victim is accurate, I think we can agree on that. Woman who wander city streets in a drunken stuper with revealing clubbing clothes are putting themselves in a dangerous position. Perhpas the remarks came off as insensitive but the statement was reasonable and sincere.

We should also consider OReilly's record in helping victims and his commitment to fundraising on their behalf. If we consider the full context, then it would be absurd to attempt to characterize OReilly as insensitive to rape victims. But this is exactly how the blogger attempted to portray him. And by doing so, she undermined his ability to raise money and be a respected voice for the cause.

Considering all of this, I can understand why OReilly would send reporters to confront the blogger and attempt to redeem himself as the advocate that he has been. I certaintly dont promote thiw type of reporting. I think it is in bad taste, but clearly not as bad as the Olberman clip. So I would say that the blogger could have been challenged in a more neutral and acceptable fashion. However, OReilly is not crossing any line here that is not crossed everyday. Every public figure (politicians, celebrities etc.) must deal with reporters on a daily basis. Look at the circus that surrounded Gov. Blago. When the blogger directs her attack at OReilly, she forfeits her anomitity and draws the attention of reporters who are sympathetic to OReilly's position. Going on vacation does not give her immunity. Inviting her onto the show would have been a better idea, but we should not pretend that confrontational interviews are an unusual technique. It is very common. OReilly used the same tactic to confront a judge who released a serial child molestor who molested a child days after seeing the judge. I have no problem with confronting the judge in that case.