Sounds Like Oklahoma All Right

OK, listen up, Oklahoma. I'm sorry about your earthquake. I'm sure it was very surprising for all of you...Sooners? ( Yeah, OK. I still don't know what those are.) And look, the truth is that the rest of the country doesn't think about Oklahoma very often. So, really, if you're going to be in the news across the nation because of the 5.2 earthquake that you just had, you're going to want to at least try to make yourselves sound not like the stereotypes that most of the country envisions (on those rare occasions when they pause to consider Oklahoma as a whole). Therefore, take the statement below as an example of what not to do and carry on.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Hot. So what?

Look, I know it's been hot outside. But here's a news flash: It gets hot EVERY year. Not every other year. Not once every ten years. EVERY year there is heat in the summer. And I'm pretty sure that it has been that way since the beginning of time! And do you know what people do when it's hot outside? Of COURSE you do! You do whatever you have to do to cool down. And it really doesn't take a lot of effort. Find some shade. Turn on a fan. Have some water. It's fairly simply. Those are all of the things TO DO. There are two things that you don't do. Know what they are? The first one is to stay out of the heat/try to keep cool. The second one is to not lead every damn newscast with a story about how freaking hot it is. We know! The sun is hot! Water is wet! Back to you!

Sphere: Related Content

The Five Morons

I'm still trying to figure out how and/or why people who are stone cold morons either get or get to be on talk shows that are supposed to be dealing with a serious subject. You know, like those cable news talk shows about politics and world events and, and, and...the like. How, how, how do they find these people? Or maybe the better question is how do these people manage to pass themselves off as capable right up until the time that they go on the air? And once they're on the air and spewing their nonsense, why are they allowed to continue?

Case in point (because you know I have a motive when I ramble) would be a one Eric Bolling and the cast of something called The Five. According to the Huffington Post, The Five is Fox's replacement show for Glenn Beck. I've never watched The Five. I don't know if they have a chalkboard or if they dress up in funny costumes or even if they occasionally smoke a pipe. (That was my favorite Glenn Beck bit. The pipe. You couldn't help but laugh.) I guess that the premise of the show is that there are always five people there at some sort of roundtable to discuss issues. some of the "personalities" that are to be "showcased" include barely recognizable names such as Greg Gutfeld, Juan Williams, Dana Perino, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, Bob Beckel and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Other than Geraldo (who I know you won't admit to knowing who he is, but you do know), do you know who any of them are? I know Dana Perino, but that's just because I'm a news geek. And even being said news geek, I couldn't tell you who any of the others are. Not a good start if you're trying to replace Glenn Beck.

The point here is that the other day, the morons of the round table were discussing whether or not George W Bush engaged in "fear mongering". I think. And this Eric Bolling guy cuts off this Bob Beckel guy (because all they ever do on these shows is cut each other off) and says "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any attacks on American soil during that period of time." Uh, wait. What?You don't remember ANY attacks on American soil between 2000 and 2008? None? Not even a teensy-weensy attack? ON American soil? Doesn't the year 2001 fall in between 2000 and 2008? Yes. Yes, it does. And he doesn't think that there were any attacks on American soil? Huh. So those planes? You know, the ones that flew into those buildings? I think the date was September 11? 2001? That's not an attack? What the what was it then?

Look, there haven't been a whole lot of major attacks on American soil to begin with. It's not like you have a whole bunch of them to get yourself all confused. You have the whole Pearl Harbor thing that led to that World War II thing. That was an attack on American soil. And then there was 09/11. That was an attack on American soil. Yes, there were things in between that killed people. But I'm not going to consider something like the Oklahoma City bombing an "attack" as much as I'm going to consider it an "act". But that's not the point. How in the world do you forget that 09/11 was during the Bush administration!?

But all of that aside. Let's say that you do forget. These things happen. Apparently. But you know what made me more insane than someone making such a ridiculous statement? NO ONE on the freaking panel corrected him! That's right! FIVE people. All sitting right there. All heard what he said. Not ONE person said, "Dude! September 11?" Not ONE. And yet there they sit. On TV. Offering up completely asinine statements about...something. Something false, of course. And I'm sure that they'll all be back tomorrow doing their job that they so clearly suck at. Grand.

I hate them. I hate them all. Why are people like this allowed to make a living? They need to be destitute and on the streets (not streets anywhere near me, of course) as punishment for their dimwittedness. Please, join me in my agony by watching the clip below where this abomination occurs. If it doesn't load, click here. Or if you'd like to save yourself the pain, just don't watch it. It's cringe worthy.

Sphere: Related Content

Fictional Newsweek

What is wrong with people? I know that's a question that this blog asks more than it answers, but I still want to know. This time, the questionable action in question involves the surprisingly still published Newsweek. And the cover story that they went with in this week of news? Are you ready? If Princess Diana were still alive, she would be turning fifty on Friday. What would she be like? Behold!

Are you freaking kidding me?! First of all, they have her strolling along on the cover next to her daughter-in-law who she never met (and who was something like 11 when Diana smashed into that wall). I don't know why that's a little weird to me, but it is. Fortunately, her headwear apparently withstands the test of time. Silly things on top of your head continue being silly.


But the article (or fable, whatever) goes on to imagine how Princess Diana would be today. The story is written by a one Tina Brown and she apparently envisions a Princess Diana who tweets the Dalai Lama and who has "...a deliriously designed Facebook page" complete with "...another age projection of Diana clutching an iPhone." Of course. An iPhone. God Forbid if the not-dead Princess Diana were to have learned the wonders of the Android operating system or the smartphone awesomeness that is the HTC EVO 4G. (Um, yeah, I might have one. Why?) It continues to speculate without any basis (or point) that "Imaginary Diana has a lofty apartment in New York, a strange but comforting friendship with ex-husband Charles, Prince of Wales, and naturally a front-row next to Victoria Beckham at Fashion Week." Of course. Or not. (Really? She didn't think that she'd still be hanging out with some rich Egyptian dude in Paris? She's just going to plop her down in New York for some reason? Oh, that's right. This is pure fiction with no basis in fact at all, so I guess that the author could have had Diana as some sort of circus performer or Wall Street banker because it doesn't matter!)

How does something like this fit into a magazine called "Newsweek"? It's not news. It is rather, however. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of week that we're talking about here. I didn't know that it was OK for a major publication to run a cover story that is completely made-up and has absolutely no purpose what so ever. Does anyone really care all that much anymore? Yes, yes, it's sad that she met an early, untimely and likely horrific death. But what purpose does imagining what her life would have been like for a news magazine? None. No purpose! However, if they had shown her without that ridiculous hat, perhaps I might have been more on board.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not A Threat, Nancy!

You might want to have an ice pick handy with which to use to stab out your ears when you listen to the clip below. What we have is the insufferable Nancy Grace, who still has a cable TV show for some reason. If you're unfamiliar with this woman, her show goes something like this: She doesn't listen to anything that anyone has to say. She will argue with her 'experts'. She has no intention of presenting both sides of any story. And she also seems very pleased with her own act. She seems to be a horrible woman, which is why I don't watch her show.

But I did run across the clip below where she is arguing with a one Bernie Rayno who is the senior meteorologist (take that for what it's worth) at something called Accuweather.com. (As I perused their FAQs, I learned that they have ads on their website to keep their content free. That's normal. I also learned that they feel that there is nothing wrong with 2 pop-up ads every five minutes. That's not so normal.) He is trying to assure Nancy Grace that there is no reason for people on the California coast to be panicking about any radiation from the damaged nuclear reactors in Japan making its way over here in harmful amounts. She does not want to be reassured. She wants to instill fear into the hearts and souls of those softheaded individuals who are actually watching her show and listening to what she says. The interaction between the two is below.

I do enjoy how the weather guy seems to know that she isn't going to want to hear anything that he has to say if it would involve calming the fears of people who are so out of touch with reality that they are actually afraid of something like this. And as for her declaring that the governor of California has declared a state of emergency, Mr. Meteorologist hit the nail on the head (though I wish he could have hit her on the head) when he exclaimed, "For radiation?!" And alas, his disbelief is warranted, as the state of emergency was issued because of excessive rainfall in some areas. I'm not quite sure what she gains from setting off a minor panic amongst the dullards of this world, but she seems to really enjoy herself.

Sphere: Related Content

Men Love Their Penis

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Men are awfully fond of their penises. I mean that collectively, not like any one guy has plural penises (penii?). I hope.

The clip below is from a newscast out of New Orleans. It's hard to tell exactly what the topic was, but I'm guessing it had something to do with with women receiving some form of enjoyable sexual fulfillment. Regardless, the male newscaster couldn't help but take this opportunity to be extremely proud that some woman out there received some pleasure in some form from some other man's penis. Penis.

Penis.

P.S. Yeah, it was a really slow news day. But you can always find a story about a penis! At least it's good for something!

Sphere: Related Content

Rhymes With Boy Schism

Some things are just better left unsaid. Forever. Just don't ever say them. Case in point would be the suggestion that one one Rosanna Scotto came up with during an on-air debate. Better left unsaid, I'm telling you.

Here's the situation: The issue at hand was phrased by the aforementioned Rosanna Scotto as "Should milk that's not from a cow be called milk?" Apparently, the milk industry is having issues with other things being called milk. Whatever. Have they just become aware of this? Apparently. Anyway, that was the question posed.

One of the ingenius newspeople there responded with "Sure. We call mother's milk 'milk' and it's not from a cow." Wait. What now? Yeah, it's not from a cow, but it's still MILK, you moron. What a weak argument. That's the best you could come up with? So far...yes.

The person who phrased the question responded with "They're talking about things like soy milk. You know, rice milk." OK, I think we're clear here. While those two things, the soy and the rice, don't necessarily excrete milk as defined, they do excrete a milky substance which I would think would qualify as milk. I mean, come on. If something is labeled "soy milk" am I really expecting that the soy in that instance came from a cow? Am I going to be surprised to learn that soy milk did not come from a cow? I don't think that I am.

Anyway, the genius who made the mother's milk analogy piped in with "Yeah, what else are we going to call it? Soy juice?" And here is where the problem began.

Apparently, Rosanna was on some sort of a roll with what else to call the juice that is not from a cow, but that is still milk-like in substance. And she blurted out the uncouth answer of....well....the video is below.

Wow. Did she really say that? I think she did. I don't know if I can actually type those words out. I know I don't want to. How about if I just say that the name that she suggested for the soy milk was "Soy something". Let's just say that it rhymes with "boy schism", OK? How's that? Yes, I know. It's terrible? Really, ma'am? You felt it was OK to just blurt that out, did you? Is this really what we've come to? (No pun intended.)

Sphere: Related Content

The State Of The Media

It's hard to explain the state of media reporting these days. It's just so...so...bad. I mean it's just bad. You know what I mean. You've seen it. You've heard it. It's bad. And the folks over at The Onion have summarized the state of the media quite well with the video below.

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not Curling

When the Winter Olympics roll around, I'm always fascinated by the whole sport of curling. It's like someone heaves a cement Roomba down the ice and then two other guys go after it with Swiffers. I think of it as the tidiest of all Olympic events. It's quite odd. And I guess that over there in Australia, two of the news anchors on Channel 9 were explaining and/or demonstrating the finer nuances of curling via the Wii console. Yeah, see, the thing is that if you're watching them while they're playing the game, it doesn't look so much like they're involved in curling. No, it looks a little bit more like they're doing something else. And I found it to be highly amusing.

Sphere: Related Content

News Navigation Narration

It's been an extremely long day over here. Long, long, long. Anyway, enough about me. Let's get on with the news.

I don't have much to say and the video below pretty much says it all, really. A one Charlie Brooker is apparently a columnist for guardian.co.uk. While I don't typically think of The Guardian as any sort of humorous publication, this Brooker fellow is one funny guy.

The quality which our reporting media continues to strive for is at depths that are lower than most of us could have ever imagined. That is to say, it sucks. It sucks so bad that we're not sure if it can suck any more. But then we realize that it can. But fortunately, there's the wonderful Charlie Brooker to help us navigate through some of those potentially confusing newscasts and understand exactly why it is that we're seeing what it is that's being reported to us. Nice job, Charlie! There might be a glimmer of hope out there yet. Maybe.

Sphere: Related Content

Tweet, Tweet! Whoops.

It doesn't surprise me that according to a LinkedIn Research Network/Harris Poll 69% of folks surveyed "said they didn't know enough about Twitter to comment on the service". That's because Twitter is ridiculous. And even when Twitter is explained to you, it's really hard to grasp the concept at first because, well, because it's so narcissistic, usually. But considering it is a tool for mass marketing, it did surprise me a little bit that there were "17% of advertisers who admitted to not knowing much about the website." That seems kind of high for the group of people who are responsible for shoving advertising down our throats every waking second that we are on The Internets.

Regardless, do you really want to trust that your ad guy is not one of the 17% OR that he's not one of the 69% who is lying about not being one of the 17%? I don't know that you do. I'm fairly certain that you DON'T if you're WPMI-TV in Alabama. See, they might have thought that they had a firm grasp on what Twitter does and what Twitter is, but as you might have guessed from the tone of this post, they did not.

Someone over there had the brilliant idea to have a WPMI-TV billboard with a live streaming Twitter feed of the daily news stories. That in and of itself doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea. The problem was that it wasn't just in and of itself. No, they decided that they would position the live Twitter feed (of which they would have little to no control over) next to a photo of their smiley and perky anchors. Hmmm. I wonder if that might pose a problem which could be misleading in anyway to anyone who viewed it? After all, we're talking about Alabama here. I also wonder if there would be any way that an idea like this could be potentially embarrassing for the smiley, perky anchors? The answers to those questions are "Yes" and "Oh, God, yes".

The anchors over there at WPMI are a one Greg Peterson and a one Kym Thurman. Their weather sidekick is a one Derek Beasley. Behold!

A fine looking group of folks. It's very likely that they're all extremely upstanding citizens. But you wouldn't necessarily know that if you saw their pictures on one half of the billboard like this:

And the live Twitter feed with this story on the other half. Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud. Did no one stop to think that something like this could happen? Well, clearly not, but you know what I mean! Don't get me wrong, it's funny as hell! But come on! I'm not so sure that the anchors or Derek found it funny. And I know that whoever is in charge of things over there didn't find it funny since over there across the pond at The Telegraph, they are reporting that "two of the station's senior staff have been suspended" but that "...the station has yet to confirm this." And that means it's true.

Technology. It's a real kick in the pants if you don't know what you're doing. I'm wondering if the "senior staff" that were suspended had once worked at the TV station which aired the unfortunate pairing of a certain anchor alongside a certain police sketch of a rape suspect. Again, awkward? Yes. Friggin hilarious? Oh, absolutely.

Sphere: Related Content

A Hot Dog Isn't News

I know I'm missing something here with this one. If anyone can help me figure it out, I'd be extremely grateful. The only thing is however, if the explanation for this which has me perplexed is simply that people are morons and will make a big deal over nothing just because they a) can, or b) want to, then I don't want to know that. I already fear that, I don't need to have it reaffirmed.

The Oakland Raiders of the NFL is a pathetic football organization. They are absolutely horrible. It is a team that is lacking in hap. That's right. They are hapless, if you will. And in Sunday's game against the New York Jets, the demonstrated once again just how lacking in hap they are. With their quarterback Jam-Orca Russell at the helm, they managed to finish the game with zero points. The Jets on the other hand, managed to finish the game with 38 points. Thus, the Jets won.

The Jets were up 24 to nothing at the half. Halfway through the fourth quarter is when the Jets scored their 38th point. All the way through the fourth quarter is when the Raiders scored none of their points. The Jets quarterback is an adorable lad by the name of Mark Sanchez. He's a rookie. But rookie or not, I don't know that anyone should have given a fat rat's ass about what he did on the sidelines of the game during the fourth quarter. But you'd think that he'd put on his helmet and forgot his pants with the amount of coverage that what he did was receiving on all of the sports shows. He did something that not only was noticed, was filmed and was shown over and over and over with the commentators who were calling the game mentioning it, but it was something that I guess because of the coverage, he felt he needed to say that he was sorry for and that he shouldn't have done. Intrigued yet? Just a wee bit curious as to what the naive little rookie QB did? I hope you're sitting down for this one. He ate a hot dog.

Wait. Is that it? A...a hot dog?

Correct. A hot dog. It seems as though the guy hadn't been feeling well for a few days and didn't eat before the game. Now, I cannot imagine playing a game in the NFL on an empty stomach. I mean, you've gotta run! If you can't run, you're gonna get tackled. It has to be hell to be tackled in the NFL as it is, but on an empty stomach? I think I'd be puking up my actual stomach. (They'd need a time out to take care of that!) You've gotta eat!

So he hadn't eaten before the game and, according to Hot Dog Sanchez (the ol' HDS) as quoted over there at the Huffington Post (who, by the way, went with the headline "Mark Sanchez Hot Dog Video: Jets QB Eats Hot Dog During Game" Good Lord, HuffPo....), he "wasn't feeling very good" and "a little queasy." And for some reason he thought that a stadium hot dog would make him feel less queasy. I don't know how that factors into the equation, but at least he didn't ask for nachos or something like that. (Hey! He wasn't Nate Newton playing for the Cowboys when he tackled someone and a Snickers bar popped out of his uniform! Give the guy a break!)

But taking the questionable medicinal purposes of a stadium wiener out of the equation, they're leading 38 to zero. I wouldn't care if the guy had a hot dog on the sidelines or a slab of prime rib with a side of horseradish! They're going to win! For all intents and purposes, they'd already won! The only reason they were still playing the game is because league rules state that you have to! But given the headline over at HuffPo and the coverage of the event (as the noshing of said dog was seen repeatedly on various evening sportscasts) you'd have thought this guy was eating explosives and planning to blow himself up when the final whistle blew. What the hell is wrong with people?

Clearly that question cannot be answered here or anywhere else for that matter, so we'll just do what we always do and chalk it up to folks being morons and in need of anything posing as either entertainment or controversial. (And really, this is kind of neither, so we're back to just folks being morons. It's not really OK with me, but it's expected.) Let's see how the scenario unfolded, shall we? The text of the flabbergasted commentators is below and the video is below that.

You know that life is good when you're the quarterback of the New York Jets and you can eat a hot dog on the sidelines. During the last TV time out, Mark Sanchez is trying his best to hide a hot dog...and eat it. Oh, wow!

Did that one guy really say "Oh, wow!" Good Lord, he did. ::: sigh ::: And apparently, life isn't good enough to whichever of those dough heads said that for one to just be the quarterback for the New York Jets. No, you have to be the quarterback AND eat a hot dog on the sideline. Only then will life be "good". ANNNNNyway....do you want to bet whether or not they could even control themselves so that they wouldn't ask him about it after the game? Please bet. Please bet and say that they could control themselves. Oh! Or better yet, please bet and say that they realized that a guy whose team is ahead 38 to nothing in the fourth quarter eating a hot dog during a TV time-out is not important. Please bet me that! The dialogue that wins me that bet is as follows:

Dumbass Commentator: "During TV time outs, we leave our cameras on..."

Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Yeah, I heard."

Dumbass Commentator: "Have you always been a mustard guy on your hot dog?"

Hungry Mark Sanchez: "Oh. Yeah, that was stupid. I didn't eat much before the game this morning. I couldn't eat. I had a terrible stomachache. And on the sideline I asked somebody for a hot dog and they got one. And I tried to eat it...and..."

Dumbass Commentator: So it was medicinal?"

Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Yeah, I wasn't feeling very good, but, uh, I'm going to get in trouble for that one, I bet. So, I'm sorry."

Dumbass Commentator: "Hey, Mark, have a good one!"

Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Thanks guys. You too!"

Did you read that? Did you get how they made him feel like he had to apologize for eating a hot dog on the sidelines? And he tells them that he's probably going to get in trouble for it and what do they say? "Have a good one!" They seem to gloss over the part about him getting in trouble. I can only imagine what he was thinking if, in fact, he really will "get in trouble" I'm guessing it would be something like: Thanks, asses! Thanks for pointing that out to the world. Appreciate it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat whatever I want without a camera on me and see if I have to keep talking about this.

Sphere: Related Content

Vodka With A Twist

While I'm far from an advocate of morons and the subsequent moronism that they propagate and bring forth with, I'll say this much: They sure are good for a laugh or two when they get themselves an inadvisable tattoo whence in the middle of a good drunken stupor, that's for sure.

Today's tale of people who shouldn't be allowed to go out into public without a chaperone, we go to Sweden and learn of such follies via our favorite Swedish newspaper in English, The Local. It is The Local which informs us of the adventures of a one 27-year-old man from northern Sweden who is being identified simply as "Joel". "Joel" did that which is really difficult for many to recommend either once they've done it or before one does it. "Joel" (and I'm going to stop putting the quotes around Joel right here. We're all clear that it isn't the bloke's real name, correct? Good.) drank a full bottle of vodka while out for a night on the town with his friends. (I'm glad he wasn't drinking alone. People need companionship!) According to The Local, while the crew was on their way to grab a burger, "Joel waxed lyrical about a tattoo of a mustache on a companion's finger." Wait. A what now?

That's what I said! This particular tattoo, the mustachioed finger, is known as the "fingerstache". It is exactly what it sounds like it is. Behold!

Oh, good Lord. That's actually kind of funny. Hola, Senor Stache! Now, while I find the concept highly amusing, I don't know that an actual tattoo is necessary. Some folks feel that it is, however. Joel was one of them.

Now, while Joel was doing all of his poetic waxing about his yen for a mustachioed finger, he was sitting in a booth a burger joint. Little did he know that in the booth next to him was quite possibly the most dastardly of all individuals; the tattoo artist who preys on the drunken sot out on the town, yearning for some sort of permanent brand upon his skin. The guy immediately told drunken Joel that he'd be interested in doing the 'stache for him, under the condition that "he was given free rein to express himself fully on the drunk man's limbs."

OK, now to you and me, that sounds like a horrible idea (I'm assuming you're not drunk right now as you're reading this). But when you're drunk, all that sounds like is, "Yay! Free tattoo! C'mon, gang!" And away Joel and one of his friends (probably just as hammered) went in a taxi with the sinister tattoo artist who was no doubt plotting his next fiendish move.

I guess if you're going to look at this on the positive side, you're going to have to say that at least the guy only did his permanent doodling on only one drunken Joel's legs. If you'll recall, the verbal agreement seemed to specifically imply "limbs", as in more than one. But that's the only amount of positive spin that I am capable of, well, spinning because what good can possibly come from being 27 and waking up the next morning after your drunken stupor and finding yourself with a six inch penis tattooed on your leg. Wait. A what now?

You heard me. Behold!

Um, wow. That's...um, something! Listen, I don't claim to be a penile expert. I, myself, don't actually own a penis. I'm not even renting! And I'm also not an expert on Sweden either. Far from, as a matter of fact. But all of that being said, since when did penises (penii?) have four balls and look like a toppled potted cactus? I'm just curious is all!

Did this tattoo artist live a bit too close to a leaking nuclear reactor? What's with the four testicles? You know, that could easily be a UFO blasting off. You never know, really. I'm guessing that the guy is going to have to CLAIM it's a UFO blasting off. It's a hell of a lot better than claiming it's a drunken, four-balled wiener, that's for sure.

But as much as I question drunk Joel's judgment, I like the guy. I like him because of how he handled the situation. Here's a man who wakes up with a penis on his leg and his attitude toward the whole thing isn't that he's going to sue the life out of whoever took advantage of him. No, his attitude is "I found out afterwards who it was. He works at a studio here. But I went along with it, he didn't exactly force me." That's what I like. That's what I respect. Taking full responsibility for allowing someone to tattoo a malformed, over-balled, grundle on your leg.

We can all learn a lot from Swedish news in English, no matter how drunk or be-tatted it may be, we can all learn a lot.

Sphere: Related Content

More Truth Stretching at MSNBC

How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job? OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. (It's not, but I can try to pretend that he has employable qualities that I don't find loathesome.) How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job at MSNBC doing anything that involves anything more than pushing a mop? I'm not totally sure of the circumstances which enabled him to have his current job as a newshole for MSNBC and I really don't care. All I care about at this point is what circumstances it will take to have him removed from any sort of a position which involves his conveying information to the public under the guise of it being 'news'.

I'm not a big fan of cable news, mainly because the newsholes that run these shows are abhorrent human beings. They clearly have an agenda, but they act as if they don't. I don't know what purpose that serves, other than it technically allows them to have a job title with the word 'news' in it.They are far more commentary disguised as news than they are actual news. Regardless, I am aware of some sort of childish feud which seems to be going on between Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and a one Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

I use the term 'feud' to be polite. The more correct but also more crude term for what their deal is would be a pissing match. And it's been going on since 2003! It seems to include little more than each one of them belittling the other one on their show. I don't know if they're holding their urination contest nightly these days, but if it isn't nightly, it's damn close.

And just to clarify, these are two grown men who each have their own cable "news" show. Real mature. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George became obsessed with being able to use his snappy comeback for an insult that happened many days before. It was like he was going to literally explode if he didn't track this guy down and tell him, "Oh, yeah? Well, the jerk store called. They're runnin' out of you!" The problem with that was that the guy was quicker on his feet than George and managed to whip out a snarky comment immediately. When that happens, there's nothing else to do other than tell the guy, "I slept with your wife!" Gets 'em every time. Unless the wife is in a coma. But I digress.)

But here's where it goes from a pissing contest to irresponsible journalism, also known as flat out lying. It even goes past lying. This goes under the category of "Making The News What I Want It To Be" by Keith Olbermann.

It seems that on August 24, Bill O'Reilly made this statement on his show: "They have no audience. Nobody. What you just said is like saying 'All right, the Toledo Mud Hens are going to be mad.' OK? I'm not insulting the Toledo Mud Hens, but they're a Double-A baseball team....What they think about the New York Yankees doesn't matter." Wow. A Toledo Mud Hens reference. Didn't see that one coming. Anyway, that was supposed to be some sort of an analogy explaining why the White House should allow President Barry to appear on Fox News even though it would likely cause the folks over at MSNBC to go ape-dung. It shouldn't matter if the folks at MSNBC get miffed because no one watches them, so who cares if they get upset? Fair enough. Lousy analogy, but fair enough.

Mr. Olbermann over there at MSNBC didn't quite see it the same way that I did. Shocking, I know. He saw it from his perspective. The one he invented. Here is his response that he gave on his show that aired on August 25, the night after Bill O'Reilly made the infamous Mud Hens Comparison (the ol' MHC): "I hate to intrude with the facts but ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News. And since Fixed News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists it is not a news organization making this show the highest rated cable news program, period." Wait. What now?

Sooooo.....the highest rated cable news program for one age demographic? And you're also the highest rated cable news program amongst everyone who isn't watching Fox News? Well, that right there is an extremely handy exclusion to include! That's like if you're running a race and come in 6th and you say, "I was the fastest runner of all runners not crossing the finish line before I did." How convenient! Convenient perhaps, but hardly true or factual.

In fact, Keith Olbermann is not only misrepresenting the facts, it would appear from looking at the ratings over there at TV By the Numbers that he's flat out lying. According to their data,in the 25-54 age group and the 35-64 age group at 8PM The O’Reilly Factor managed to grab the attention of 3,440,000 viewers (916,000 in the 25-54 range and 1,593,000 in the 35-64 range). Meanwhile, over at MSNBC,Countdown with Keith Olbermann reeled in a comparatively paltry 1,114,000 viewers (323,000 in the 25-54 range and 521,000 in the 35-64 range).

Now, if you're looking at the networks viewership ratings overall, the numbers are a lot closer, with Fox reining in 94.82 million households and MSNBC garnering 93 million households, a difference of only 1.82 million households. I don't know if a household equals a viewer (let's see....three feet in a yard....four quarts in a gallon....takes one to know one....nope, not sure if a household equals a viewer), but if it did, that 1.82 million more that Fox has is just a little bit lower than how many more viewers Bill O'Reilly has than Keith Olbermann does. If I'm going to use Keith Olbermann logic and calculations here, I would conclude that Bill O'Reilly is the reason that Fox has higher ratings overall than MSNBC does. But I'm not Keith Olbermann, thank God, so technically, I won't say it. Then again, you can't go back and un-ring a bell either.

And just to clear things up even more, here are the cable news shows ratings for August 24:

The O'Reilly Factor - 3,440,000 viewers

Hannity - 2,937,000 viewers

Glenn Beck - 2,810,000 viewers

On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren - 2,450,000 viewers

Special Report with Bret Baier - 2,066,000 viewers

Fox Report w/Shep Smith - 1,860,000 viewers

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann - 1,114,000 viewers

Larry King Live - 1,063,000 viewers

Olbermann isn't just behind in viewers to O'Reilly; he's behind in viewers to almost everyone. Olbermann is just barely ahead of 127-year old Larry King (Barely A-)Live. And those numbers were for the 8pm time slot. If the shows had aired earlier, Larry King might well have beaten Olbermann, as by 8pm, most of the people who watch Larry King (who are at least as old as he is) have been in bed for 3 hours.

For Keith Olbermann to sit there and flat out claim that he has higher ratings than Bill O'Reilly demonstrates that Olbermann has an agenda (himself) and that he doesn't care what the truth is, he will only say what he wants to say and how he wants to say it, regardless as to whether it is true or not. And in this particular instance, his statements are false. For Keith Olbermann to claim that Fox is spouting propaganda to it's brain dead audience just gives you a little insight as to how brilliant Olbermann thinks that his audience is. If Olbermann thought that his audience had half of a functioning brain cell inside of their teeny, tiny little pin heads, he wouldn't be lying to them by providing them with false information about his own ratings.

Olbermann claims that those who watch Fox News are "tin foil hatters". Mr. Olbermann likely knows a little bit about hats as he seems to be quite the asshat himself, specializing in his own brand of asshattery, apparently.

This instance makes twice in the past ten days that a purported news program on MSNBC has deliberately misled the viewers into believing that something was a fact when, in fact (ironically enough) it was not a fact AND those doing the 'reporting' knew it was not factual information that they were providing. While both O'Reilly and Olbermann are being ridiculously childish and using their platform of cable television news programs to hurl insults at each other on a semi-nightly basis, at least O'Reilly (in this instance) didn't lie. The bottom line here is that if you want to watch a cable news show that will give you the facts without distorting them or lying about them, don't turn to MSNBC for that information. I'm not saying you should turn to Fox, I'm just saying that you'll probably want to turn to a channel that has not lied to the viewers in the past ten days. That's all.

Sphere: Related Content