Question #1: He's an aggregator of A.C. Nielson number.
You'll note the qualifier in your reference: "This marks the first time that
MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot [for the 25-54 age
group] since June 2001.
Another interesting tabulation for June 18th:
8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
O'Reilly Factor Classic -3,246,000 viewers (762,000) (1,357,000)
CNN Money Summit-418,000 viewers (111,000) (131,000)
Countdown with K. Olbermann - 1,201,000 viewers (414,000) (619,000)
CNBC Reports- 116,000 viewers (44,000) (61,000)
Nancy Grace - 859,000viewers (288,000) (391,000)
As you can see, O'Reilly, with 3.2 million viewers, outperformed CNN, MSNBC,
CNBC, and CNN-Headline combined (2.6 million).
I suspect the Huffington Post article which you referenced was an outlier,
possibly having something to do with Olbermann doing the whole show, that
one night, in a swim suit (Thank God it wasn't a Speedo!).
[Nancy Grace is on CNN-Headline]
I take your statement to be some kind of insult. You asked a question of how
O'Reilly compared to Oberman. I provided industry-standard tabulations. And
that engenders some form of approbation? Although, to be fair, your insult,
if it was an insult, is not nearly as excited as some you've directed at
others who disagree with your position. For that, I'm sort of grateful.
(Hey, I believe in rewarding positive changes in behavior!)
It's my experience that conservatives (like me) debate with facts (i.e.,
Nielson numbers) and liberals debate with emotions ("I feel your pain,"
"Hope," "Change," etc.)...
From a Transactional Analysis point of view, we conservatives generally (try
to) communicate in an adult-to-adult vector, while the liberals are often in
either a parent-to-child (words like "must," "should," "duty") or
child-to-child mode ("Whee!," "Fuck-it!," or "asshole!").
Unfortunately, "Hope" is not a strategy; "Change" is not a tactic.
As I said, it's my experience. However a recent study (last August) of blog
comments found that "progressive" blogs showed 12 times more profanity than
Well, according to the TA mantra, profanity is evidence of a "child"
communication. In my youth I was a Teaching Fellow of the American
Transactional Analysis Association and recall that expressions of emotions
come from the "Child" ego state: Love, hate, anger, joy, are all "Child" ego
state actions. You can often tell the ego state of an individual by the
words they use. Here're some examples:
Parent: "Must," "should," "ought to," and virtually all moral judgements and
Adult: "Possibly," "seems to me," "it could be that," "maybe," any
undisputed fact ("it's ten o'clock")
Child: "Wow," "fuck off," "damn it," "oooh," "eek!," "I dare you," "I love
Nothing, however, is black-and-white. It's possible to find an excitable
conservative, such as Mark Levine, or a mellow liberal. In fact, you can
find lots of mellow liberals. I suspect that virtually ALL liberals
mellow-out from time to time - or most of the time - especially on the
week-ends while wearing fake batik-print dresses and Birkenstocks and
especially on the west coast and especially amongst unemployed history or
women's studies majors and especially within the group who are prohibited
from donating blood.
You obviously missed the full educational experience.
Profanity, as practiced by the accomplished, is an art form to be held
Until you have been dressed down by a master, you can't truly
appreciate the art form.
Art is in the eye, or this case, the ear, of the beholder.
I had a supervisor once who cussed me out of some imagined fault. He went on
and on for what seemed like forever and I don't think he repeated himself
At the time I was insufficiently schooled in this mysterious "art," and, as
he was gathering a second wind, I merely responded: "You will talk to me
like a professional or I will hit you so hard your dog will die."
He blinked once or twice, then said: "You're fired!"
So I hit him.
I did it for the children.
Did his dog die?
The guy needs to hang around with some Marines for a while. Until you've
been dressed down by a Marine general you really don't know the meaning of
the term. Speaking in conversational tones and with excruciating courtesy
he manages to make you feel like you should be looking up to pond scum.
Since I'm sure someone is going to ask--the guy was a college professor at
the time, he had retired from the Marines several years before.
Why do you find it necessary to divide people into gross categories of
conservative and liberal and, in particular, without offering any
definition of the terms?
Because by deciding whether something is a tree or a rock, based on one or
two known attributes, one can easily attach all the remaining attributes
without having to test each one.
For example, if someone says to me: "I'm a vegetarian but I eat eggs because
I support a woman's right to choose," I can immediately affix a whole host
of other characteristics to that person.
So, if Ramseh al-BoomBoom points a gun at you and screams "Die, infidel
pig!" is your response: "Before we continue this conversation, please
complete this abbreviated Minnesota Multiphasal Personality Inventory,"
humming the tune "Getting To Know You" while he labors with the stub of a #2
pencil (please fill the ovals completely).
Or do you just shoot him in the eye and go about your business?
Well, if he decides to complete the personality inventory that buys time for
the cops to arrive so _they_ get to be the ones who have to fill out all the
forms pertinent to shooting someone in the eye.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.