He didn’t slip up. It’s a well-known fact that when working for Inside Edition he was a registered Republican.

Ha! That’s interesting, Steve. Could be.

Well… he’s more “Republican” than “Democrat,” that’s well known. So what’s the big deal?

Out of curiosity, I know Keith is hesitant to call himself anything other than “right,” so has the same “will he say it,” been focused on him? Equal treatment, and all…

Why isn’t the big story that George didn’t deny he’s a Democrat? That’s for more important than O’Reilly misspeaking. O’ Reilly has an opinion show. George hosts a political show where he should be neutral.

This is a big nothing burger. Of course O’Reilly is a Republican.

I hope Stephanopoulos is a democrat. He was press secretary for Bill Clinton. I don’t really know what Olbermann is but I bet he would never claim to be neutral in dems vs repugs, whereas Oreilly has the nerve to claim he is independent, unbiased, fair, and balanced. Really?

Olbermann doesn’t claim anything. He doesn’t claim that he’s independent, like O’Reilly falsely claims to be. Same thing with how MSNBC doesn’t claim it’s fair and balanced, but Fox News falsely does.

genmanager says:
September 12, 2009 at 8:01 am

I’ll run it down for you:
1- Stephanoloulos hosts a straight-news program, where the host is supposed to facilitate the guests, not work as an activist for one side or another. Admitting his biases, admits that he might have trouble being fair when the guest agrees with his POV. O’Reilly, on the other hand, hosts an opinion program… and acknowledges as such.

2- Olbermann has claimed not to be a “Democrat” or “Republican,” but to be “right.” However, his program is an advocacy program, as he does not seek to debate ideas, only present them and then find people to support them.

3- O’Reilly has most often defined himself as a “traditionalist.” He stands to the right on some social issues (gay marriage, etc.), but to the left on others (death penalty, etc.). To call him a “Republican” would denote that he supports the party over the ideas. O’Reilly often agrees/disagrees with ideas, no matter which party… and does not support ideas simply because of with whom they originate (for an example of that, see Olbermann’s response to the FISA laws, which he denounced under President Bush, but supports under President Obama).

m says:
September 12, 2009 at 8:52 am

MSNBC claims it’s the “Place for Politics,” not the “Place for Liberal Politics.” Please show me where they refer to themselves as “left,” Democrats,” “biased,” “Liberal,” or anything so definitive.

The Place for Politics is an incredibly much more honest slogan. MSNBC is politics all day. Do their prime time shows have a tilted point of view? Of course. Nobody contends that. But MSNBC is not lying like Fox News by claiming to be fair and balanced.

Please find me where Fox News refers themselves as right-wing, Republican, biased and conservative. You won’t. Isn’t that dishonesty by the highest degree? How can you trust a news organization like that when they’re not even upfront about the basic tenants of their existence?

m says:
September 13, 2009 at 7:19 pm

MSNBC is politics all day

Except for at night and the weekend when they’re running “Lockup” specials. Hey, look at that! I disproved the “Place for Politics” slogan… I assume you’re attack them now, right?

But MSNBC is not lying like Fox News by claiming to be fair and balanced.

They’re not “lying” because they’re not telling the truth, huh? They never said they were “unbiased,” or that they weren’t presenting a “Liberal opinion,” so it’s okay? Wow, what a low standard you have.

Please find me where Fox News refers themselves as right-wing, Republican, biased and conservative. You won’t. Isn’t that dishonesty by the highest degree? How can you trust a news organization like that when they’re not even upfront about the basic tenants of their existence?

Before I explain to you why this is wrong, tell me how you can support MSNBC if they’re not “even upfront about the basic tenants of their existence” (show me where they say they’re left-wing or Liberal), but claim to want that from FOX.

Now, the main difference between FOX and MSNBC is that on FOX, both sides of an argument are allowed to be presented. O’Reilly may stand to the right, but he has left-wing guests on all the time. Same with Hannity, Cavuto, Beck, and the rest. That’s how they can claim they’re “fair and balanced,” they give time to both sides. MSNBC, however, has programs with exclusively present ONE side of the argument… which is neither fair not balanced. It is advocacy… which is different than just “politics at large.”

The Lockdown shows proves that MSNBC lies with its slogan? Wow. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Let’s have some intellectual honesty here, please.

MSNBC never says that its programming is fair and balanced. It clearly has a point of view. It is something that has been confirmed by their head honcho, Phil Griffin. Olbermann mentioned it on the air too. MSNBC, as a whole, is incredibly honest about the fact that it leans liberal right now. Has Fox News ever done that? No. It keeps repeating “Fair and Balanced” despite the fact that the network clearly leans conservative.

My bet is that you’ve never seen any MSNBC show at all. Every single show except Countdown has conservatives on all the time. O’Reilly has liberals on? Fine, it’s a pat on the back for him. But his show clearly leans towards conservatism since a heavy majority of the guests he has on are conservatives, his guests hosts are conservative and he generally agrees with the conservative person when he has a liberal on. And Hannity? He has to sandwich a liberal between 3 conservatives, if it even is a liberal (Pat Cadell doesn’t exactly count).

Olbermann is not a debater, which is why he doesn’t have it. It’s fine in my opinion since it differentiates the show and turns it more into of a nightly liberal newscast. Pretty much during the Bush Administration years that’s what it was.