I have been watching Keith Olberman for the past couple of years and he is my favourite TV News commentator. I wish a few more news guys had his wit, clarity of diction, strong presentation and plain goddamn balls. He is the only person I have seen go head to head with Stephen Colbert and turn the tables on Colbert.

I haven't been a follower of Keith Olbermann because I have largely given up watching or listening to broadcast news out of frustration...frustration at the protection of Bush and his policies I have witnessed coming from the mainstream news. The press helped Bush push us into the Iraq debacle; it helped get him get reelected with its intense coverage of the Swift Boaters, etc.,etc. The internet serves as my news source---I can control the noise a little better there.

It is reassuring to know that the media is becoming interested in the other half of America which clearly voted against Bush.

Bush and Cheney are scary...they blithely step all over the constitution to achieve their ends and they are wrong in their approach to terrorism---completely wrong. Their macho ways are disgusting, juvenile, and, yes, unAmerican. They have made more enemies for America rather than protect us. How the public can give Bush high marks for fighting terrorism is mind boggling!

Good for Olbermann...I'll tune into his commentary.

He hit the nail on the head. We are not in an era of conservative versus liberal. It is American versus un-American. Buch, Bin Ladin, Saddam. All the same scumbag who hates freedom and Aemrica. Lets keep banging that drum.

I very much appreciate Keith's point of view and his courage in today's media circus to speak his truth and challenge the Main Stream Media, of which he is a part, to finally come clean with their coverage of the Bush Hypocrisy. I find it very interesting and ironic that he works for the same network that fired Phil Donahue, whose ratings were the highest on MSNBC, for his providing a voice for the Peace Movement and Anit-War Movement, which are not the same, by the way. He was so restricted in whom he could interview, and how many voices it took to "balance" the guests he hosted, that it became a joke of monumental proportions. It takes 3 "conservatives" to balance Michael Moore? Well, it probably would take more than that, and they'd be screaming over him the whole time. That is news coverage and commentary? I listened to CBS radio news for a while today, and was dismayed that they are still not giving the horror of the health issues suffered by the first responders and clean-up personnel of the WTC site the amount of time and commentary is deserves. The same is true of the returning Iraq veterans. There is a mental and physical health crisis brewing, and it will overwhelm us because no one in positions of authority is giving it its due. Bless you, Keith. I think you can amp it up, now, because the American people are starting to wake up, and are willing to listen to what is really going on here and abroad.

St.John

He's a liberal, but he's no less a blowhard than those on the other side. Lots of cheap, easy jokes; overly precious irony; the warmed-over SportsCenter attitude and the righteous indignation of someone lecturing to an empty room. Let him face off against some of these people in person and we'll give him some points.

Two things, Keith:

"Worse, worser and worst" is the worst.

And please, please stop this "I don't want to talk about celebrities but my producers are making me" nonsense. For a guy who claims to hate covering Hollywood you sure do spend a lot of time doing it.

I've not been a big fan of Countdown, or Olbermann's flair for trashing Bill O'Reilly simply to win the pissing match that cable news ratings have become. But I deeply respect the man's ability, as Olbermann's "City of Louisiana" editorial is among the best I have ever read. I doubt even he appreciates his own raw talent in writing that which much of the media simply doesn't have the guts to publish.

Please do yourself a favor, and read (or re-read) it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514671/#050905a

I tuned in because I heard he had made a really interesting rant. I started watching the show because he has an interesting way of showing the news. I spend some time on the net, and I assure you he isn't reporting "liberal" news. If you question that, check out any liberal site and you'll see that there is little overlap between their version of events and Olbermann's. Every time he touches on a "liberal" story, the denizens of the left web flip out... but he doesn't do it often. He mostly reports on the news of the day, but without a conservative slant. He interviews interesting people who don't seem to be spouting talking points or pushing an agenda. What's so "liberal" about this? The only reason Olbermann looks liberal is that cable news has moved so far to the right that anybody who actually doesn't cater to republicans appears to be on the left. If democrats somehow take power, I suspect he will be just as hard on them as he is on this administration. Newsmen *should* be more than stenographers. They *should* try to help people sort out the truth from the lies. And they should tell us when we are being lied to. Truth is not a "liberal" concept, although you'll have a hard time believing that if you spend too much time watching Fox.

I am going to be Ms. Picky word maven. I don't think you really meant that Olbermann's editorial is a "screed".

A screed is a term of criticism, meaning a "long monotonous harangue", according to my dictionary.

Perhaps you meant "peroration". That means (1) a flowery and highly rhetorical oration, and (2) the concluding section of an oration; "he summarized his main points in his peroration".

I'm just doing my bit to turn back the erosion of our language.

Humourlessly yours,

Katherine Collins