Question for regular Keith Olbermann viewers

I admit I'm not a regular viewer of Olbermann so I really wouldn't know this answer, but it's something I'm curious about.

Does Olbermann ever interview people with opposite viewpoints from him? For instance Michelle Malkin? Or any of the Republican presidential field?

For the life of me I cannot remember Olbermann having an "confrontational" interview. Does he ever do them? If so, who has appeared on his program? This really isn't important beyond my own personal curiosity.

And since I don't watch him to see Michelle Malkin, I am glad he doesn't do this.

as Coulter's looks start to go. She's completely inappropriate to that show.

I can see more honorable righties being on it, though, like William F. Buckley or George Will.

I can't see him bringing a shrieking shrew onto his show just for the entertainment value.

There is no need to have shrieking right-wing wackos on his program to provide some phony "balance". But you're right, he does seem to always talk to people who can authoritatively back up his point of view.

Another thing I've noticed about KO is that he never has a "roundtable" discussion, or even more than one guest on at a time, the way other shows (even Tucker) do every day.

There are plenty of other shows who do. His just takes the opposite and Right point of view.

show.

never seen one...

or non-stop shout over your opponent talk. Guess he got a bellyful during the Clinton/Monica crap. Too bad cause he would devastate a Malkin, Coulter, etc.

will tell you facts without the spin. If you want smack downs, Countdown is not for you.

There are just not 2 sane sides to every topic.

This seems to lost on most tv show hosts but KO, who understands that.

Can you imagine if the OP asked, why didn't Dan Rather have on Michelle Malkin. Your words, yes, it is silly.

:thumbsup:!

on Fox Noise, CNN, and other MSNBC shows--and I watch KO because he doesn't fall into that crap.

Don't take that away from me. Thom Hartmann has right wingers on all the time, and I sometimes turn it down. Too much of the right (wrong)

..it would be impossible to find anyone with an 'opposite view' that might be his intellectual peer and that he couldn't demolish. Why bother beating up on a steady stream of logical-challenged fundies and addled right wing pundits? Really, Malkin would come off looking like a South Carolina Teen beauty queen contestant.

But instead of falling into the Britany Spears or Aruba Holloway nonsense, I'd rather see him debate a right wing pundit. De-construct the day's talking points at the source. It wouldn't be a challenge for him, and I doubt it would change the show too much for the worse. I'd like to see him in debate mode from time to time.

I just threw Malkin's name out there as a generic right wing pundit type that could come on the show and spout the talking points of the day for Keith to knock down.

If you saw tonight's show, you noticed that Rush refused to even mention Keith by name, when he was raking MSNBC over the coals. They've figured out that a public fight with Keith only serves to increase his visibility as well as his ratings.

They would scream over him and rant and rave and it would be like all the worst moments of "Crossfire". That idea would work if the "Malkin-Coulter-add the name of a male rightwing waco of your choice" would actually debate or act in any way sane. They don't.

Is that what our news is now? I don't watch Olbermann because he gives us his "viewpoint." (although I do take tremendous pleasure in seeing his occasional commentary.)

"I don't watch Olbermann because he gives us his "viewpoint." (although I do take tremendous pleasure in seeing his occasional commentary."
Leaves my head hurting

Yeah, I think there are people who have no idea what O'Reilly does -- I'm one of them --
I didn't have to see Buchanan more than once to know that I don't want to see him again --
I tune into Olbermann now -- and watch the Daily Show in the evenings now -- to see him address the day's events. And, hoping that he is a signal that the media is cracking on trying to keep control while such overwhelming numbers of Americans are tuning out and going elsewhere for their info.

I don't watch all of Olbermann...he falls into nonsense in second half --

the first half hour is so gripping & hard hitting, but the formula seems to be working well for Keith. I mean his viewership is up something like 80% from the same period a year ago. I think people initially began tuning in for the Special Comments, and decided to stay.

And to the OP, the quickest way for Keith to lose my household would be to invite a bunch of screaming rightwing idiots on to spout their nonsense all over the only decent hour of television on cable news. I think I have a solution though, give Keith two hours, and move Dan Abrams to mornings.

puts out the news and gets to the truth without the liars like o" leily, rush malkin etc. Why give them a platform they already have to spread even more disinformation, repug spin and WH talking points delivered by Rove, PNAC etc.

He gets genuinely angry at what's going on (just watch any special commentary of his), I can imagine that he'd really light into someone if they appeared on his show and started spouting ridiculous non-sensical talking points. He'd become even more of a target by the right wing than he is already.

KO does not allow people on his show that he does not respect.

:rofl:

KO's rhetoric or intellect. I can't imagine that even the most egregious of the bunch would relish going head-to-head with KO and get politely and patiently handed his ass.

is that you?

These morons are never going to change their warped view of the world so why bother with them?

Just for my personal curiosity?

Anyway, it is not part of the show format to include confrontational interviews with opinionated chickenhawk asswipes.

:rofl:

sometimes they de-emphasize a point he feels is more prominent, or some such thing. But not a knock down drag out shoutfest him against the guest. As people have said, the format is not a debate format. Look at the show following his for that, the Dan Abrams show. I feel stupider just listening to some of the opposing guests. He had some guy named Lars on the other night saying Rush shouldn't back down because he's absolutely right. Where do you go from there?

going to say. :hi:

The day it turns into a shoutfest is the day I start watching the Turner Classic Movies 8pm film every night.

The question itself has implications. Also interesting is that you have a low post count and have not contributed $ to DU. It's all interesting because everyone here knows the answer already except you.

...when Rush limpballs have an interview with an anyone opposing his point of view, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I TELL YOU ABOUT KIETH.

Although in fairness, Malkin and those types of people do not deserve to be on TV. There are responsible, reasonable GOPers that Keith could invite on. But no, I don't recall them being on his show.

I'd say that's "interviewing the other side," wouldn't you?

There have been other Republicans on, as well.

the show that is as well as the fact he doesn't take up time talking to someone who I really don't want to hear what they have to say anyway. so there ;-)

KO is dedicated to bringing us the news that is relevant to our well being with a little fluff thrown in for good measure

alternate realities. Blatant shills trying to put lipstick on a pig have no news value. He does however have plenty of conservatives on. They are real conservatives and not just loyal Bushies.

repubs on which is even more effective at showing the criminal nature of this administration when THEY say it and prove it (e.g., John Dean).

I never thought about the format of the show being such that he wouldn't have people (cough, cough) such as Malkin or the like on there. The way it's described in this thread, however, makes sense.

I'm going to say something about KO that will probably get me flamed. This has nagged at me for a long time so, what the heck, I might as well share it.

I respect him tremendously. I enjoy his show thoroughly. Sure, I could do without the silly pop culture stuff and the "odd" segments - though I understand he wants to mix it up, or perhaps he's FORCED to mix it up (but I hope his ratings will enable him to have more and more control over that).

That said, I do wish he would use more common wording, especially when he's going off on a beautiful rant about the various crimes of this administration, our complicit corporate media, etc., etc.

He exposes things to such a degree not seen elsewhere, that I wish he would use more conversational language - or maybe shorter sentences - to get his point across to even more people.

Honestly, I consider myself fairly bright, well-educated, and can handle discourse at considerably higher level than Chimpy (though that's not saying much, I realize). But, honestly, sometimes when Keith gets going, his sentences are so long and almost Shakespearean that I know he's losing people that really, really WANT to follow him. Reading the transcript is fine; but in speaking the delivery can be a little high-brow for the average person, and I truly believe he WANTS to reach the average person. Perhaps he also wants to keep it wayyyyyy above Chimpy & Company's comprehension so as to avoid Gitmo. Maybe that's his strategy. B-)

If he can engage more and more average people who have been dumbed down by everything else the media has been shoving down our collective throats, THEN he can elevate the use of language as he educates them on many levels. But he needs to get them on board first.

How's that for an answer. He has had Pat Buchanan on a couple of times, though.

dg

allow the yelling over each other type of garbage that goes nowhere. He has had people on as guests who have differing viewpoints and they discuss those points, I'm thinking of ex-military types who honestly believe the talking points they're saying and Keith will take those points and produce info to show how wrong they are. He does this without confrontation.