I'm not going to mention these sites SPECIFICALLY* by name, because . . .

[WhirlyGirl]

. . . I don't want to give them free publicity --

But what do you all make of the blogs dedicated to KO-bashing? Just as a general phenomenon, I mean.

I'm surprised that, of all the cable news shows, Keith's should be singled out like this, since it's still struggling to stay in second-to-last place in ratings. They even use the ratings position to bash the show, in fact!

It can't be merely disagreement with Keith's politics which makes them go to all the trouble to build a site, pay for the server space and take the time and energy to watch the show and viciously distort it EVERY DAY in their blogging . . . so what is it that fuels their fury?

Do they fear Keith as a future political candidate with the rhetorical skills and S/A of Bill Clinton (I don't believe Keith has political aspirations)? Are they jealous over KO's female following (I doubt other anchors have experienced anything comparable)?

Or can it be nothing more than idle meanness looking for a target?

Your thoughts --?

*Let's refer to the sites only by initials -- for example, "OW.o." (If someone has a question, PM them which one you mean.)

[crispini]

1. KO has always attracted a certain amount of controversy

for being interesting and kind of "out there" and I think that's what does it. Probably it's a good thing, in a weird sort of way -- it shows that he's attracting attention and interest. You know, if you're always in the middle of the road, you don't generate controversy and change. On the other hand, if, like KO, you're on th cutting edge, you DO generate controversy and change. The sad thing is -- I've seen it happen more than once, and I'm not really speaking of TV news but as a more general observation of the phenomenon -- those who are on the cutting edge and generate the change quite often turn off some people just by being on the cutting edge, and then it sometimes happens that someone who is NOT more controversial is able to come in behind that "movement" and borrow from it and take it more mainstream. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing but it does tend to be a facet of human nature.

:shrug: Where the hell did all THAT come from? Hideho, just me talkin outta my ass again. :7

[gkhouston]

2. there's a lot of truth to that, though.

It's sort of like the first person is "too weird" but by the time the second person comes along, you've sort of been de-sensitized, so if the second person is a little "safer", you latch on to them because they're saying most of the stuff the first person did but they're not quite so scary (i.e., honest) so you're more comfortable with them.

Hmm, maybe we need a "talking out of my ass" smiley?

I think Keith hits a nerve because he's different and maybe they sense he's telling the truth -- that's gotta hurt. :o Anyway, Whirly, if you happen to visit "those sites" semi-regularly, keep your ear tuned for any shifts in tone. I consider 'em a waste of time.

Hey, did you see the newsletter? Anybody think that elephant that imitates truck noises could learn to do the "woohoohoo" for MJ Puppet Theater?

[WhirlyGirl]

5. I also think they're a waste of time CONTENT-WISE, gk . . . However --

-- the MSM has no criteria for judging quasi-journalistic "authors" any more.

As a matter of fact, you can hook into the MSM these days simply by TALKING ABOUT THE MSM! Or getting yourself admitted to WH press conferences (again, no names -- ESPECIALLY not that one!)

So websites dedicated to destroying KO's credibility bear watching (mercifully, only semi-regularly, as you suggest!) because they hope, in time, to be identified by the self-flagellating MSM as "alternative voices."

------------
<< if you happen to visit "those sites" semi-regularly, keep your ear tuned for any shifts in tone. I consider 'em a waste of time. >>

[WhirlyGirl]

3. If it's morbid FEAR OF CHANGE which motivates them to create these sites-

-- then they must believe KO wields a lot of power from behind the desk of that obscure news show on that 3rd-rate network, crisp.

That doesn't seem plausible since they keep emphasizing that "no one is watching" and that KO's a "joke," anyway. (Or should such statements be read as "whistling past the graveyard" in the sense that they play down the show's impact in direct proportion to their FEAR of it?)

I'm also thinking, lots of people with shows are a lot more "out there" than KO's -- Bill Mahr, Al Fraken and Jon Stewart, for example. Yet none of those people have websites (which I will continue NOT TO NAME) created by obsessed adversaries devoted to recording and commenting on their every word!

As I struggled to understand why the far right became fixated specifically on Bill Clinton to the point that they could think of nothing else (some STILL can't!), I'm trying to get a handle on what Keith has to thank for this similar honor.

[gkhouston]

4. oh, I'm sure that "no one is watching" is merely them

wishing out loud. As for why KO should be singled out for this "honor", maybe there's something about him that makes him feel like a more serious threat. I tend to think "comedian" before I think "commentator" when I hear Maher, Franken, or Stewart. Despite his start as a sportscaster and the way he likes to cut up on his show, I primarily think of Keith as a journalist. He can be dead serious when the story calls for it, and he's sensitive enough to what's going on around him to know when to be serious and when it's okay to act goofy. He actually cares about the stories he's reporting, or does a damned good job of faking it, and that quality is likely to retain the viewers he attracts. Yeah, he's a big threat if you're afraid of people who don't worship sacred cows.

[WhirlyGirl]

6. I really like what you've said here, gk . . .

. . . so much so, that I can't think of a single thing to add. Except --

-- I wish I could make those sites disappear. I don't like that kind of energy being directed at KO, even though I know he's strong enough to take it and smart enough to understand what's behind it.

RW hate-neutralizing floaties: :loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

[gkhouston]

7. LOL, that's a lot of floaties, Whirly

my daughter is a slow-poke in the morning so we usually have a "dressing race": we lay her clothes out on the big bed in mommy and daddy's room and then she races Mommy to see who can get dressed
first. This morning, she put on her Valentine's Day shirt, which is just covered with tiny hearts, a veritable sea of floaties. She told me it was her "pleasure shirt". I had to turn away so she wouldn't see me laughing at her. :-)

(Which isn't nearly as bad as yesterday's race. Hubby put out her clothes and she asked me if it was Thursday. When I told her it was Tuesday and started to list the things we do on Tuesdays, she told me no, she was putting on Thursday panties, wasn't she? And sure enough, that's what Dad had gotten for her. Didn't know she could recognize those words yet, eek! She was very forgiving, though, and told me that Daddy probably got it wrong because he didn't know that girls wear panties. mmhmm, just like Sparky doesn't know the KOEBers wear bodices.)

[WhirlyGirl]

11. LOL -- her "pleasure shirt"!

:loveya: Out of the mouths of babes! :loveya:

As to that panty thing... I fear hilarious repercussions down the line from the Gull Bay crowd. :evilgrin:

[crispini]

12. Oh, man, day of the week undies!

Those were SO COOL. I should SO get some of those. I wonder if they make them for big girls? :evilgrin:

[WhirlyGirl]

20. They used to sell the grownup version at Woolworth's & Kresge's . . .

. . . which were replaced by stores like K-Mart and Walmart. Maybe you can get them there --?

[crispini]

8. Nah, I don't think it's fear of change at all.

And I don't think I said that, either, or at least that's not what I meant. :) I think that *because* he's trying do to something different, kind of cutting edge, that naturally he attracts critics. That's just sort of true

Bill Mahr, Al Franken and Jon Stewart area all comedians. KO's a newscaster, and that's the difference there. Go back and watch your local news for a week, and/or watch the standard network nightly news, and then watch KO's show, and you will be FLOORED by how different it is. We forget, because we watch it every day, but as far as both content and presentation, for a news show, it's pretty far out there.

[WhirlyGirl]

9. Okay, so we've established Countdown's different. (Dif. on purpose, btw.)

So how does the show's being different convert into the level of antipathy that moves folks to take the extraordinary step of creating websites dedicated solely to KO ad hominem?

What is it specifically about the show's different-ness that gets under their skin, crisp?
Explicate that for me.

I mean, there are dozens of message boards already in existence on which to write that he's not funny, that he's not a newsman, that he's "a legend in his own mind," etc., over and over, if one wishes. At someone else's expense... :shrug:

[gkhouston]

10. he's "not of the hive" therefore he's an enemy

some folks just never got out of junior high school, Whirly.

[crispini]

13. Give that girl a gold star.

That's a lot of it I bet!

[WhirlyGirl]

15. They act like Countdown *GIVES THEM HIVES*, gk!

It's as though they perceived KO as a goading irritant. Like the Gingrichites perceived Clinton.

Like the white whale was to Ahab --

"The EASTERN LIBERAL MERITOCRAT NEWSANCHOR tasks me; he heaps me. Yet he is but a mask. 'Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung!" :banghead:

[gkhouston]

17. I hope he does give 'em hives

in their boxer briefs. :evilgrin:

How horrible to be a meritocrat. So much better to worship money than merit, don't you think? ;-)

[crispini]

14. Oh, everybody picks on everybody else out here on the internets.

On a more general philosophical basis, there are always people who don't like change, don't like new and different things.

And, on a very specific basis, I think that OW dates from around the time of the election fraud story, n'cest pas? This story, in KO's/Countdown's opinion, was probably just, "Hey, here's a potentially interesting story which people out there in internet-land are writing me about, let's cover it." And because of its very political nature it got attention and got him labeled as -- let's face it -- left-wing.

It's a really common thing for political commentators to have a "watch" site and some people are -- incorrectly in my opinion -- viewing KO as more of a commentator than a journo.

For example:
Ann Coulter watch: http://www.coulterwatch.com/index.html
Hannity watch: http://www.hannityisamoron.com/
Newshounds (Fox watch) http://www.newshounds.us/

Ya know, there's just a lot of hateful stuff (in general) floating around out here and IMO it's usually just best to ignore it.

[gkhouston]

16. did you see the Ann Coulter thread in LBN?

more specifically, did you see the pointer to the discussion in GD which gave the remark that set her off on her little rant in the first place? :rofl:

And yes, I do think some folks now have Keith incorrectly labeled as a "left-wing" journalist because of his election fraud coverage. It might be more accurate to call him a :wtf: journalist, since he's into investigating anomalous and egregious behavior of all political (and apolitical) persuasions. It's what people used to call good reporting.

[crispini]

18. Bwahahahahahaha!

That's priceless. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Woohoo, what a GREAT remark! :P :rofl:

[WhirlyGirl]

19. Well, this helps a bit . . .

. . . to know there are others similarly "honored."

So if the MSM allows one in they have to allow THEM ALL in, so they should all cancel each other out!

(Just the same, I'm keeping my wolfbane, my crucifux, my Neosporin and my hate-resistant floaty hearts handy! :scared:)

-----------
<< It's a really common thing for political commentators to have a "watch" site and some people are -- incorrectly in my opinion -- viewing KO as more of a commentator than a journo.

For example:
Ann Coulter watch: http://www.coulterwatch.com/index.html
Hannity watch: http://www.hannityisamoron.com /
Newshounds (Fox watch) http://www.newshounds.us /
>> crispini

[gkhouston]

21. so take your mind off that and start thinking about Quiz questions!

Unless he ducks out on Friday, we're gonna need questions. You blog with a pad and pencil, don't you? Use 'em!

[WhirlyGirl]

26. Hey, they even asked for them in the newsletter today . . .

. . . From the newsletter:

"NEWSQUIZ FRIDAY -- send suggested questions today and tomorrow to
[e-mail] THANKS!!!"
:think:

[Shopaholic]

22. There's one of these sites that is quite frankly scary

where the guy who runs the site decided he would attack someone by digging up personal info about them and posting it to the site all because they dared disagree with him (and defended KO).

[WhirlyGirl]

27. I find all those sites, and the whole concept of "watching," revolting.

What is it but an attempt to silence people through intimidation?

Retaliatory posting of personal data is just a further development of the above (once again, I refrain from identifying any specific RW blogger).
A particulary CRAVEN development, IMO.
:nuke:
.:grr:

[RevCheesehead]

23. It's really simple: the Truth hurts.

Keith :loveya:

[CC]

24. Short answer

They are just jealous (if they have a brain at all) or too stupid to recognize or understand his wit.






:loveya::loveya:KO :loveya::loveya:


KEEF

[WhirlyGirl]

25. Ferretessa, I was thinking the same thing last night when I ended up on...

... one of those sites where the guy was say, "Someone should tell him he's not funny," and I was thinking, "Someone should tell you he's too deep for you!" (But I'd never post on those sites because it's useless. At least Wizbang doesn't delete the posts they don't like, as far as I know -- 'course, I've only been to Wizbang twice.)

And yes, CC, I believe they're all jealous of Keith's abilities, and not just a little bit about his S/A, too! :loveya:

-------------
<< They are just jealous (if they have a brain at all) or too stupid to recognize or understand his wit. >> CC

[CC]

28. And of course all the

ladies trip over their tongues over him. Or drool. Like twisting a knife in their little minds. (They have no hearts)



:loveya::loveya:KO :loveya::loveya:


KEEF

[_q_]

29. There aren't really that many.

If you look into the history of these sites, it turns out to be one guy, for the most part.
A couple of former contributors for his sites start their own flunky blogs, and he references them like, "Look! Here's a complete stranger who shares my opinion!"
It's a very small-time operation.
-q

[WhirlyGirl]

31. -q- and Amy, I'm sure you're right about their NUMBER being small . . .

. . . but their FUNDING is impressive, coming as it does from that Texas millionaire, Bob Perry, who underwrote the Swifties, and Richard Scaife, who bankrolls the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. :puke:
And on and on.

Talk about "artificial life-support"!

[AmyJCNJ]

33. look at talon "news" for example

All the funding comes from Texas Republican lobbyists.

Matt Drudge comes out of Florida I wouldn't be surprised if he's funded by Floridian Republican lobbyists.

What do these two "news" sources have in common? Ok I know it's a stretch but I'm convinced that the money comes out of the Washington Republican party somehow.

Here's another example non-political sort of:

The tobacco companies (in their minds) got screwed over royally with all the negative publicity about the health effects of smoking. On top of that they began to loose business because of the definitive scientific studies showing the link between cancer and smoking. And now cities across the country are banning smoking in bars and restaurants of all places. The last bastion of smoking is being encroached upon because waitresses have a right to breathe fresh air at work. So what do they do? What can they do?

They get a lobbyist to fund a bunch of "scientific studies" to cook the information and create a lot of misinformation that "proves" the health effect of second hand smoke are minimal of not nothing.

See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html

[AmyJCNJ]

30. right wing propaganda

but that's just my opinion.

I've noticed there are a lot of "media watchers" on the right who try to de-legitimize any dissenting opinions in the media. I think the right is really coordinated in this area. I think it might come out of k street. As soon as they see someone who might potentially be a threat to the "agenda" they set up a website and get a person to document perceived bias and errors. I think they use their minions from FR to coordinate attacks on "liberals". They attack Randi Rhodes message board regularly and have taken down her website several times. They have sent viruses to people. These people are all over the net and they seem to come out of nowhere and have too much time on their hands to be doing this recreationally.

I think of it this way: I'm a news junkie but there is no way that I have time or resources to set up a website dedicated to right wing bias in the media. I spend a lot of my own time sending articles to various groups to disseminate information; but to set up a website is a full time job.

Also if you're constantly "attacking" your "liberal enemy" then they are constantly wasting time fixing the server or updating virus protection software so they have to spend twice as much energy catching up.

[gkhouston]

32. big gold star for Amy

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some real money behind a couple of these wannabe whiner boys.

[Clark2008]

34. This has to be it.

The most known anti-Keith site never has any comments (or few comments) to the rantings of the author, yet it remains up week after week.
How is it supporting itself?
I know I wouldn't put up a site that got virtually no hits.

[_q_]

35. Ranting to yourself

and your three best friends is generally free.
-q