Thursday oddems: medved cleans up, hannity's penis is still safe, styble digests himself, christine kicks carlson ass, ron reagan eats provolone for lunch

~~It was as good as talk radio gets- Howard Stern Tuesday on the Sean Hannity Show (KVI m-f, 12-3p). Here's the audio. Of course, what we liked and we only heard snatches (you know Howard and snatches) was his trying to get Hannity to talk about sex.(It's well-known that former altar boy Hannity's penis is in a safe deposit box in a New Jersey bank, taken out only in the presence of his wife or a priest and used for procreational purposes only). Stern got Sean to admit he'd had sex before marriage, but Hannity, the smug little prig, said he'd never, ever thought of another woman biblically after his marriage; and what's more, he said it's disloyal- if not cheating your spouse to even think of another woman that way. Stern couldn't get him to admit he'd ever "pleasured himself" nor would he cop to whether his wife was a virgin when they were married. (rumors flew around the blogosphere that Hannity was shopping for a hymenoplasty in 2002, but it's unclear if it was for his wife or an Irish setter he was trying to sell). Stern was funny as hell when he told Hannity: "God forbid you should acknowledge the lower half of your body." Stern continued the conversation later on Fox News' Hannity & Why Bother?"

~~Speaking of good radio, Governor Christine Gregoire was terrific on The Commentators (KOMO m-f, 10a-12p). the vacationing Shram was out, replaced by KOMOTV anchor Dan Lewis, who was at least twice as exciting as TV weather man Steve Poole the day before. Christine (we always call her Christine) is great on her feet and sparred easily with Carlson, who is something of a debater. We got a glimpse of the negotiator who brokered the deal with the tobacco demons and got us all that smoking money. We'd love to see her hit the talk shows more often and take calls from listener/constituents- it'd be a great way to improve those sluggish approval ratings. She's not only as capable as your first wife, but she's a certified human. She needs to get out more.

~~Ron Reagan is such a classy guy; bright; articulate and polished. In case you've missed him, he's been trying out on the 9-ta noon, the front door anchor spot KIRO tries out all the new talent. Talk radio is really different than the scripted TV that Reagan's experienced with, so we're still not sure how he'd do alone with 100,000 listeners and a live microphone- wish they'd let him try it. He makes poor Provolone sound like the rank amateur he is. Wish he'd let Reagan talk a little more...

~~We keep talking to a source who's convinced that syndicated local talker Michael Medved has an obsessive compulsive disorder. He's fanatical, they say, about litter; picks it up where ever he goes and gets his office to send nastygrams to people whose names he finds on the paper he picks up around town. His OCD may be why he calls homeless people garbage and wants to lock them up. Michael, we hear, won't be voted Mr. Congeniality any time soon by his neighbors in his lush south Mercer Island environs. And he's as pathological about graffiti as he is about litter- he gets his help to call the city to report it wherever he sees it. Wellbutrin could help, Michael.

~~Medved isn't so compulsive about the information on his website. This is in his massive and impressive bio: "His radio show is now heard in the Seattle area on Talk 770 KTTH (“The Truth”) - a new 50,000 watt blowtorch built around the Medved show, that became the dominant talk station in the Pacific Northwest within a year of its January, 2003 launch." The "Truth" (not "The Truthiness") is the KTTH "blowtorch" (which blows 50k only in the daytime) was never the dominant talk station in the Pacific Northwest, even in its brief heyday after Rush finally arrived after his drug rehab in November, 2003. The station built around Medved? Mike Siegel told us it was built around him...

~~We weren't going to talk about KIRO that much this time but Styan Bryble, the KIRO one-late-late-night-a-week guy is always fun. As Ron (or was it Don?) (KIRO temp, m-f, 9p-1a) said on the air last week, "He creeps me out." We were afflicted with insomnia recently and heard Stible say several times that he wouldn't take a day shift even for twice the money- Dave Ross can breath easy, now. He also said he's never been married and wouldn't want to (again, not sure that option will be coming up for Bryan) because, he said, he'd have to be more devoted to his 18,000 (sic) listeners on Sunday morning from 1-5a than to any woman. Sorry ladies.

Comments

[Tommy008]

Calling homeless people garbage , who should be "dealt with",is part of the "Lapinist" philosophy ot which Medved is a devotee. It's a kind of semi-fascist Jewish "Superiorist" movement. Once I heard Medeved say on air, more or less, that Jews are superior, and that being special people, they have a special duty and responsibility to God to help the other unblessed and unenlightened peeps of the world with their wisdom.

[Seabeck]

My daily routine:

6 - 9am: Prepare tax returns. Channel surf between 570am and 770am. (I turn off KTTH when they talk about "24") 9-10am: Scheduled client appointments. 10am - 12pm: Listen to 'the tators.' 12pm - 3pm: Schedule client appointments. Ping-pong between Medved and Dori (I have never warmed up to Hannity, and his friend "Marty" drives me nuts). 3pm. Mainly John Carlson. Like many, I enjoy Dave Ross, but find the commercials and T&W on the 3's unbearable. 5pm drive home. Most likely, Bryan Suits. (see comment about Ross above). I voted for Rossi, and still believe that he's our truly elected Governor, but I admit, Christine is good on her feet. The fact that she spars with anti-gas-tax-activist John Carlson proves she apparently holds no grudges. Sometimes I wish 'the tators' would give some topics a bit more time.

[ian]

For whatever it is worth, Medved has often talked about his efforts to pick up litter. He's even mentioned that it embarrasses his family when they are out for a walk or such and he stops to clean up the place. I think he describes it as a personal 'leave the world better than I found it' project. Likewise he is very anti-graffiti on his show. I would suggest that he just attempts to practice what he preaches and considers these two things something that anyone can do without an endorsement deal, an elected/un-elected office, or a police escort.

[sparky]

Bryan Styble....on behalf of all single women everywhere...we thank you.

[joanie]

I don't pick up garbage necessarily - ick! But, I always pick up those awful should-be-outlawed six-pack rings because they may become fatal to animals, especially water animals.

So, please pick those up and cut every little collar so there's no strangling holes!
Thanks. :)

[Poor]

Howard is the King. THE KING

[sparky]

Poor! Long time no hear from.....now that the chat is gone....

[Tommy008]

Medved's practice of picking up litter and having underlings post letters to offenders' addresses with the trash inside plus a parental, scolding note of censure from Medved himself, simply fits perfectly with his insulting, condescending, "Superiorist" attitude, which 99% of his callers and I'm sure the general public are treated to every day.

[sparky]

Hannity's penis.... I envision a small box lined with dark purple velvet, and his little white wiener is lovingly wrapped in acid-free tissue paper. The safe deposit box is in a humidity controlled chamber and a choir of angels sing whever the chamber is opened.

[JDB]

Hannity's penis may be in a box, but as Stephan Colbert would point out, it is clear that he has no balls. Otherwise he wouldn't have to 1) shout down, 2) talk over or 3) dump anyone that is making a point he doesn't like.

Plus why else his facination for fabled shemale Anne Coulter.

[Fremont]

That's hilarious about Hannity's penis....like it's encased in a precious to-die-for box a la Da Vinci Code....

[sara]

Love Ron R!

[Dana]

Does anyone else think he sounds like Dick Cavett?

[Ted Smith]

I envision a small box . . .

I imagine something requiring a microscope and tweezers.

[KS]

For all of you Olberman backers over here, check this out about your man;

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/15/210113.shtml?s=lh

I am sure I'll hear that it will be branded as rightwing site and discredit it - however, this appears to be a reliable story. Sorry Keith, your'e bloviating too much and alot of us are laughing at you.

[Scrilla]

Ron is a bit nasal, but every voice needs some getting used to.
However, I have a friend who shares RR's agent and apparently Entercom's ballpark is too tiny and Ron wants a syndicated show anyway. He'd do well, but it doesn't seem in the cards.

[Andrew]

Ya I feel like Ron is using us to go big time. He never gave a rats ass about local politics before and I doubt he does now. If things work out he'll still be on the dial but he'll be doing what he realy wants to do which is opine about national issues for a national audience.

[JDB]

KS:

Yep, Newsmax is a rightwing site. No need to discredit them though, they have done that enough on their own. However, the story is not reliable.

Why do you think O'Reilly has banned even the mention of Olbermann from the air? Why do you think he is sending Fox Security out to harass any who dare mention his name?

O’Reilly does have an audience. The problem is that they are mostly over 65 and dying fast. O’Reilly and Fox’s ratings are spiraling down:

Now Bill has to swallow the difficult truth that Keith's viewership is growing while his own is shrinking. In the key demographic group of viewers aged 25-54, the Total Day ratings for MSNBC rose 47% while Fox declined -13%.

Fox's Prime Time erosion was even greater at -21%. In fact, in every hour in the daypart, from 3:00pm till midnight, Fox numbers were lower. This is a distinction that only Fox, of the five nets surveyed, was able to achieve.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/media/fox_news_ratings_free_fall.htm

Unlike your source, Olbermann likes to report the truth:

OK. And just so we get this ratings things cleared up, if you want to know what this is really all about, on the air Billy called this the key demo, and FOX owners call it the money demo. Here are the official ratings, adults 25 to 54 for Wednesday night of this week at 8 p.m. Eastern.

O'Reilly, 309,000; this program, 231,000; “Nancy Grace Knows What You Did Last Summer,” 131,000; “Paula Zahn Now,” 81,000.

Our audience was 75 percent of Ted Baxter's. It ain't perfect. Then again, he's been on for nearly 10 years, and we're still a month away from our third anniversary.

So now I'm expecting that soon I'll be getting a visit from the Bill O'Reilly police, armed with loofahs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11698322/

In the demo that matters, O’Reilly and Olbermann are nearly equal, with Olbermann going up and O’Reilly falling quick. It puts O'Reilly in a grave situation (Oops, shouldn't say that since his audience is dying off).

Now do you understand why O’Reilly is constantly responding, and why Newsmax is lying to you. That can’t even bring themselves to admit that George Bush has run their movement into the ground, they can hardly admit that one of their biggest cheerleaders has never recovered after it became clear that he was a giant pervert.

But, tell you what KS, Watch Countdown for a week, and tell me if you prefer O’Reilly’s hypocrisy to Olbermann’s Snarkiness. I have a feeling that you will be won over if you give the truth a chance.

[JDB]

KS:

By the by, a few more troubling facts for you (I know, the fun of watching O'Reilly is that you don't have to worry about such things):

Some Ratings Facts O'Reilly Will Never Talk About

3-4-06 -- Billy sure loves to talk about ratings, but here is something he never talks about, how his ratings have dropped 5 months in a row. And all he talks about are total viewers, yet the advertisers only care about the 25 to 54 demo, they call it the money demo, in that demo O'Reilly has roughly 400,000 viewers, which is only about 40% more than Keith Olbermann has. Thats because most of his viewers are over 54 years old, and the average factor viewer is 68 years old.

3rd quarter 2005 Factor rating: 2.5 -- Total Viewers - 2,820,000

October 2005: 2.3 -- Total Viewers - 2,600,000

November 2005: 2.2 -- Total Viewers - 2,500,000

January 2006: 2.0 -- Total Viewers - 2,325,000

February 2006: 1.9 -- Total Viewers - 2,228,000

www.oreilly-sucks.com/cablenewsratings.htm

And, by the way, you should know that:

1) O'Reilly is a sexual pervert

2) O'Reilly Spins

3) O'Reilly engages in personal attacks and slander

4) O'Reilly's idea of fair and ballance is having Michele Malkin or Brian Maloney on to agree with him on how much Al Franken sucks.

Think about it, won't you?

[sclub]

Can anyone find me one show that worked out for Ron Reagan? Not one success yet.

[SpamButcher]

I hope ron reagan ends up on Kiro - he seems about 5x more engaging than John Proccaccino is.

After a while Proccaccino starts to fall back to that "just gotta keep talking for another 3 hours - then they give me my pay check" routine ala Tony Ventrella or New York Vinnie.

Not a lot of analysis or genuine passion. Both of which Reagan at least seems to have.

[KS]

"http://www.infowars.com/articles/media/fox_news_ratings_free_fall.htm

Unlike your source, Olbermann likes to report the truth:"

JDB - you subscribe to left wingnut sources that have little credibility. You subscribe to moral relativism and basically believe that anything goes if you believe what are parading. How can anyone with half a brain take the the Daily Kaos seriously ?
Olberman tells the truth - that's hilarious. Gee, do you think that www.oreilly-sucks.com/cablenewsratings.htm
with a name like that is an unbiased source ? Get real..

[Andrew]

Ron Reagan doesn't seem to be too emotionaly provoked by the observations he's making.

It comes down to, "If you are outraged then I should be outraged" and that's why Hannity is on top, because he loads his observations with emotional overtones like agressiveness, disgust and self assuredness. You can feel what he's saying even if you have no idea what he's talking about.

People probably listen to talk radio as much to figure out how they should feel in addition to figuring out what they should know and Ron Reagan only satisfies one of those needs.

[JDB]

KS:

You cited to Newsmax. Pot meet Kettle.

And please tell me how anything I posted here has anything to do with moral relativism. Or did you just resort to a wingnut criticism generator?

I made no claims as to the bias of the sources I gave you. The difference is that the numbers I gave you are verifiable facts. Can you contradict a single one? Do you have any information that indicates that a) O'Reilly's viewership is not going down, 2) that O'Reilly's viewers are mostly in the late 60s or above, or that 3) Olbermann has not been steadily eating into O'Reilly's numbers when it comes to the "money" demographic?

Those are the facts that I gave you. You responded by poorly attacking me. Normal wingnut reaction when confronted by facts, I know, but I expected more from you. Have you grown soft over at the minnows site since he bans anyone who disagrees with you?

As to Olbermann reporting the truth as opposed ot O'Reilly's spin, note what Olbermann said:

Our audience was 75 percent of Ted Baxter's. It ain't perfect.

While O'Reilly prefers truthiness, Olbermann prefers truth.

But, like I said, I dare you to watch Olbermann for a week. Or are you that afraid of reality?

[KS]

JDB: I can't take you seriously and you take yourself too seriously. I don't make the claims about O'Reilly's viewership going down - you did, so show me the verifiable facts.

BFD! Who in the hell cares about the age of the viewers ? Olberman chooses to be an attention whore and is delusional and I can't take him seriously either.

"Normal wingnut reaction when confronted by facts, I know, but I expected more from you. Have you grown soft over at the minnows site since he bans anyone who disagrees with you?"

Nice try - Pot calling kettle black. What facts ? I haven't seen any that I consider to be facts yet. Left-leaning partisans typically don't agree with him, even if he is shown to be correct. "If a lie is repeated enough times, people will believe it" - that quote inspired Nazi propaganda prior to World War II.

"And please tell me how anything I posted here has anything to do with moral relativism. Or did you just resort to a wingnut criticism generator? "

You let Olberman's facts or anyone else who slams O'Reilly go without evaluation to see if their facts are straight, which they typically aren't. That's what I mean by moral relativism - the truth doesn't matter - if it feels right, it must be true. Try http://www.snopes.com and cross checking numbers before putting out your threads that show half-truths. Goodbye.

[joanie]

Give up, JDB. According to KS and other conservatives on this blog, everything that disputes their"truth" is a left-wing conspiracy. They wouldn't recognize veracity if it were handed to them by Jesus Christ himself.

It is a sad state of affairs.

KS, I looked up that stupid site you gave and it is all about popular culture. What are we supposed to do with that?

[chris]

Yes, the part about repeating a lie enough times... I look to the State of Disunion speech 2002 for those gems and how slant head Hannity and others parroted Bushler and Co. in the run up to the disaster that is IraqiNam.

[Helmut Gutter]

""O’Reilly does have an audience. The problem is that they are mostly over 65 and dying fast.""

From http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/
25-54 demographic:
Wednesday, March 13
8pm: O'Reilly: 413,000
Countdown: 209,000
11pm: O'Reilly repeat: 377,000
Tuesday, March 14
8pm: O'Reilly: 395,000
Countdown: 192,000
11pm: O'Reilly repeat: 306,000
Monday, March 13
8pm: O'Reilly: 511,000
Countdown: 233,000
11pm: O'Reilly repeat: 429,000

[KS]

Try this one, Joanie;
http://urbanlegends.about.com/

"According to KS and other conservatives on this blog, everything that disputes their"truth" is a left-wing conspiracy. They wouldn't recognize veracity if it were handed to them by Jesus Christ himself."

Substitute the word truth for veracity in the last sentence and you've described many of the leftwing kool aid drinkers out there (a few on this site and a larger number on horsesass.org). As an independent leaning conservative, my belief system differs from yours and views can change with time, as mine have. I am big enough to say I stand corrected, when justified. Enuf said.

[Fremont]

Actually, Bla'M, himself, excavated the Urban Legends site several years ago...it's an amazing polygraph for determining which of those "This is a true story..." e-mails that assault your in-box is true, and which piece of perverse gossip swarming the net is a hoax! It's a fascinating site....

[Lee]

Ok I just have one thing too Say !! What are you thing putting Styble on the Am radio ! please put on the test tone from 1:00 too 5:00am when he is on

[joanie]

Another accusation about left-wing liberals/progressives and not one example or specific to back it up. That's my problem with you guys.

[JDB]

KS:

You still haven't challanged a single number I gave you. Those numbers did not come out of nowhere.

Now, either show that I was wrong, or admit that you have no facts.

I have given you facts with links. You might not like the links, but then again, you were happy to link to Newsmax, so, let's be truthful, bias doesn't matter to you.

So, do you have a single fact?

I thought not.

[KS]

An appropriate comment found on another site, that pretty much sums it up about Olberman;
(the website is newsbusters.com)

"When is MSNBC going to realize that not many people want to watch a smart-ass, condescending, smirking jerk like Olbermann? Aside from the fact he cheapens politial debate by mis-characterizing everything in which he disagrees, he is just unbearable to have on in the room. If he has always been this way, he must have got a lot of melvins in school."

Seldom do liberals/progressives t admit to standing corrected, even if they are clearly shown wrong.
Its their attitude that influences their reputation;my problem w/you all on the left. Specific examples you want ? Go to the various leftwing websites; Democratic underground, the Daily Kaos or SweetJesusIhate BillO'Reilly.com and see how often they retract any of their opinions - no matter how ridiculous, based on fact to contradict their assertions - Find one time... At least many of the right-leaning websites are a somewhat better in retraction statements that were disproven by fact and I'll cite a few examples if you wish.

[KS]

JDB- Helmut gutter already challenged your bogus numbers, with the facts that seem reasonable - did you get that ?

Consequently, you haven't proven anything worthwhile, so I'd call this discussion history.

[sparky]

yes, FreeRepublic.com is well known for its evenhandedness....

And let's see...the last time Dickless Cheney admitted he was wrong was....uh....and Bush---wasn't that back when...uh..no.. guess not...but I'm sure Rumsfield admitted that he was wrong when...umm....errrr,,,,no he didn't. Oh well.

[chris]

Why should anyone on the left apologize, It's Bush and crew fuckin things up

[JDB]

Joanie:

I know KS well, and he has long ago decided to drink deep the wingnut Kool-Aid. Note, he won't even take me up on my challenge to watch Olbermann for a week. He can't bring himself to even admit that there is another point of view.

Which is the fun of this thread. KS has resorted to the basic wingnut play book:

1) If you have no facts, just post an opinion and pretend it is a fact.

2) If you are called out for your lack of facts, attack the person who posted the facts showing you were wrong. Call them a partisan, even though that is exactly what you are. (fun phrased to throw out, moral relativism, moonbat, socialist, pinhead, anti-American, Bush-hater).

3) If your attack against the person posting the facts doesn’t work, attack the source of the facts. (Attack as being from Moveon or Daily Kos, even though no such link was provided. If you really have no shame, link to an opinion piece at Newsmax or Free Republic or an offshoot of those.)

4) If the attack on the source of the facts doesn't work, ignore the facts and repost what you first said without any supporting facts on your side. (If you post it twice, it makes it more true.

5) If reposting doesn’t work, claim the facts are not really facts. Since you have no proof, and the facts are true, hope no one calls you on this. (Give KS credit, nice diversion to Snopes, a great site. However, note that he doesn’t post a link showing that Snopes has anything to say on the subject. This is similar to saying “We all know KS is a total loon, check out www.nyt.com.” Somehow, it must be authoritative because I gave a link, even though the link has nothing to do with the topic).

6) If people point out that the facts are actual facts, and ask if you have any support to your numbers, go to a friendly site (or, if a radio host, wait for the next hour or day once the person that is making you look like a fool leaves), and rehash the argument by misstating your opponents position, making up new arguments, or just making stuff up.

7) If none of this works, go back to 1 and repeat.

Note: this is what you see from most wingnuts whether they post on the internet, or host radio shows. The only major difference being that a radio host will usually dump out as soon as he is called on his facts, or talk over the person so that no one can hear the truth (in the industry it is called “Hannitizing a person.” ) On the internet, the person will usually run to the webmaster, if friendly, and try to get the truth teller banned.

What is fun is on a web site like this, where there are sensible people on both sides, that vile loon like KS sticks out so badly. No attempt at discussion, it is all attack with out a single fact to support his position. For similar reasons, you will never see Sean Hannity at a neutral show where he doesn’t control the microphone. That is why O’Reilly had to storm off Fresh Air when faced with a real “No Spin Zone.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1459090

A great example of how this works was when O’Reilly had to face Franken face to face. He completely fell apart, resorted to yelling “Shut Up,” and couldn’t refute a single fact that Franken had laid out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88364,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/print/main556715.shtml

http://www.slate.com/id/2087706

When surrounded by real facts, people like Hannity, O’Reilly or KS just fall apart.

[KS]

JDB; your'e delusional - what are you smokin' dude ? With all due respect, your message is much blather and you keep changing the topic - typical leftist wacko tactic. What about Helmut Gutters numbers ? you conveniently avoided that topic. Why don't you send O'Reilly a scathing email or call up smirking, smart-ass Olberman ?

FYI - I've watched Olberman for a week recently and it just reinforced my opinion about him.

[jdb]

KS:

Actually, KS, Helmut backed my numbers. He shot down yours.

“Who in the hell cares about the age of the viewers ?”

You obviously have never worked in the media. The Advertisers do. Why do you think it is called the money demographic?

And thank you for proving my theory of wingnut attacks on real facts. Wow, a newsbusters link. Couldn’t find anything on Free Republic?

I do note three important substantive things in your replies:

1) You have yet to refute a single thing I posted. O’Reilly’s falling numbers, that his audience is dying off, that Olbermann’s audience is steadily gaining in the money demo. None of this has been touched by you.

2) You don’t like me or Olbermann. Big Whoop! Your personal animosity and bias are not the basis of an argument. Hatred is not the basis of an argument.

3) You have yet to take me up on my offer. Watch Olbermann for a week and then, once you have some knowledge, post. What are you so afraid of?

[chris]

Yes, O Reilly and his Peabody or was it a Polk Award, or was it a falafel?

[joanie]

Absolutely agree with your post, JDB, and I know what you say is totally accurate!

Still, we keep trying to reason with these unreasonable souls even though it is like chasing your tail. A total waste of time.

KS:
However, one more try: Gutter posted actual numbers. I have no reason to dispute them or suspect them.

But, the point was that O'Reilley's numbers are going down - he is losing market share. Olberman's numbers are going up - he is gaining market share.

How do you explain that?

[KS]

I don't have a problem with Gutter's numbers. Keep repeating that mantra; "O'Reilley's numbers are going down - he is losing market share. Olberman's numbers are going up - he is gaining market share."

Nice try, but I don't see that and furthermore Helmut's numbers were showing the 25-54 age group and he was pointing out that your assertions about a majority of viewers over 65 were not accurate. Will you stand corrected on that or are you too proud to admit the flaw in your analysis ?

"Still, we keep trying to reason with these unreasonable souls even though it is like chasing your tail. A total waste of time."

Unreasonable because some out here don't agree with the world according to Joanie ? I think that you & JDB actually like to chase your tails.

[KS]

(JDB wrote)
"You have yet to take me up on my offer. Watch Olbermann for a week and then, once you have some knowledge, post. What are you so afraid of?"

(I wrote earlier)
FYI - I've watched Olberman for a week recently and it just reinforced my opinion about him.

JDB - You selectively forgot what I had written - no small wonder. Another circular argument. YAWN!

[jdb]

KS:

You have problems with math, don’t you. Let me explain.

According to the article at Newsmax that you linked to, O’Reilly gets 2 million viewers a night at 8pm EST. (Down about half in two years, but be that as it may, those numbers are currently accurate). According to the numbers posted by Helmut, in the 25-54, he is getting only around 400,000 a night in that demo. Do you see the problem? Do you see why you are, (not a surprise here), wrong? Will you stand corrected on that or are you too proud to admit the flaw in your analysis ?

As to your other point, as you can see from the time stamps, our posts were less than two minutes apart. I was typing at the time, and had not read your post.

Still, I find it hard to believe you watch Olbermann. So here is my assignment to you. Next week, watch all week, and give us a report in this thread every day. Explain where Olbermann is wrong, and what you don’t like. If you like, I will do the same for O’Reilly.

[KS]

Maybe a plurality of O'Reilly's viewers are older - OK, but viewers are viewers, regardless of age - come back in 2 or 20 years and compare, then you may have some numbers that mean something. BTW- O'Reilly has over twice as many viewers in the 25-54 age group as Keithy does - as shown by Helmut Gutter, which is different than 40% more as you stated in one of your posts - Go back and check it if you don't believe me, jdb. In fairness that was posted after you had posted the 40%, which points up something else. You have more of a problem of who you choose to believe as you buy into the leftwing ideologues who are skilled at distorting numbers and surveys, rather than non-partisan analyses that I prefer to consider (like Arbitron and CNN-Gallup polls, etc.).

"Next week, watch all week, and give us a report in this thread every day. Explain where Olbermann is wrong, and what you don’t like. If you like, I will do the same for O’Reilly."

What is your point of this ? All that it will prove is that we disagree. This blog will attract fewer readers. Very unstimulating - boring, boring...
Moving on...Bryan Styble is probably has the worst case ADD of anyone I have heard on the radio. Even if I happen to agree with him sometimes - he is annoying to listen to.

[JDB]

Non-partisan like Newsmax?

The point is that every number posted has made clear that the information I posted was trueful, and that you were wrong.

And Helmuts numbers, for what they are worth, are for a few days. As anyone will tell you, the importance is the trend line. O'Reilly is going down, way down, and Olbermann is going up. Pick any one point, and you might find something different, but the trends are very solid on this one. See the O'Reilly Sucks link (by the by, now that you have accepted mediabistro as unbiased, I should point out that the O'Reilly Sucks numbers come from..., mediabistro.)

[Helmut Gutter]

""O'Reilly is going down, way down, and Olbermann is going up.""

From http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/politics/cablenewsratings.htm

CABLE NEWS RACE - MARCH 3, 2004

MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.2
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2.1

MONDAY NIGHT, MARCH 29

MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.5
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2.3

Ratings - 4-27-04

COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN 0.3
THE OREILLY FACTOR 2.2

July 9, 2004

MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.3
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1.9

WED, JAN 05, 2005

MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.3
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2.3

the PDF's show Olberman around .4 and O'Reilly around 2.0

1/30 - 2/24/06 PDF

O'Reilly 1.9
Olberman .4

[sparky]

**** the sound of crickets chirping*******

[oreilly fan]

Facts getting in the way of your line of thinking Sparky? How convenient.