Haven't had a chance to watch the clip yet, but I just had to add my 2¢ on this. I wouldn't describe Moyers as liberal or fair. He's progressive and his shows are definitely agenda-driven. And that's a good thing, because he's really good at what he does. The difference between Moyers and someone like Limbaugh or Olbermann is this: Moyers has thoughtful discussions on important political and cultural topics with scholars and experts on the topic at hand, with rational, fact-based arguments (which are neither infallible nor unassailable) presented with great articulation; Limbaugh and his ilk instead offer screeching opinions based largely on emotion (usually fear and/or anger) with just enough facts laced in to make any outright lies or other deceptions believable. They're all just as motivated by an agenda as any other broadcaster. The difference is the usefulness of the content and the style with which it's presented.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Bill Moyers is about as fair as you get when it comes to media. He definitely sees the world through a prism of liberal empathy, so I can see where you might find him unbalanced. Every newsperson and newswriter is biased towards what they believe to be true, and it's not really a problem so long as you are fair about it. The problem with FOX is not that it presents a far right perspective on the news, it's that they do it in such a dishonest way, and then call it 'fair and balanced.' Do you ever think how ridiculous it is that the phrase you choose to use so often 'fair and balanced' comes from the largest and sleaziest propoganda outfit in the history of the planet? >> ^quantumushroom:
For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?

Keith Olbermann's tribute to Michele O'Callaghan:

Yeah, but you're talking about the second video having a lack of presentation. If that counts then any video here that is preceded and/or followed by commentary/setup/introduction can be resubmitted with those few seconds chopped off the beginning and or end. I might agree if the original video had commentary during the video or something else that changed the context of the video. But I don't see that in this case. In fact in this case the "presentation" as you call it puts the event into context and also offers Romney's rebuttal to the incident. You're Glenn Beck analogy implies that Olbermann in this video goes on a biased rant about Romney. While Olbermann can go on a rant I don't see that here. >> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Grimm:
Explain. The dupe only has 30 seconds of content that is not in the original. Those 30 seconds are of another reporter asking an unrelated question....the reason it was most likely cut from the original.
"Minor changes in content...will still be considered dupes".
What am I missing here?>> ^marinara:
to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe


Say there is a video in which the exact same parts of the clip were used with the exact same length of commentary--but from Glenn Beck's show.
Do you see that this would make a significant difference?
Presentation matters.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by dystopianfuturetoday.

out of 4:25 minutes, there's 3 minutes in common, which is shown in little chunks on the Olbermann video.

apparently since Olbermann shows most of the new video, you think it should be deleted.
Personally I don't care about dupes.
Dupes only exist so that original submitters get the votes they deserve.

If I have an CD of Metallica, and they include a live version of the same song recorded earlier on the CD, do I have to scratch that track off the cd?

I'm don't appreciate people making choices for me, just because they think one sift is 99% as good as another sift.

quoting boise

Out of 4:25 in your video a total of two clips are directly out of this video--one of 1:46 duration and the second is 1:07.
KO's story is about 2008. Now--in 2012--this is again a story of interest. The commentary completely changes the video. Without any commentary the raw video is again relevant.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Skeeve. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

I agree, this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

This entire video, minus a single, unrelated comment, is contained in the older video.

>> ^Grimm:

Sorry...but it contains no significant additional content...that equals a dupe.>> ^carneval:
>> ^Grimm:
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

I think that the lack of commentary makes this not a dupe, but thats just IMHO. Didn't see your post though, gave it an upvote



In no way, shape, or form is this a dupe.

Out of 4:25 in your video a total of two clips are directly out of this video--one of 1:46 duration and the second is 1:07.
KO's story is about 2008. Now--in 2012--this is again a story of interest. The commentary completely changes the video. Without any commentary the raw video is again relevant.

Think of it this way: tomorrow someone asks about Romney and this event--would you first direct them to the 4 year old Countdown video--or to this complete raw video?
(I'd show them both)

Sorry...but it contains no significant additional content...that equals a dupe.>> ^carneval:

>> ^Grimm:
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

I think that the lack of commentary makes this not a dupe, but thats just IMHO. Didn't see your post though, gave it an upvote

>> ^Grimm:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter


I think that the lack of commentary makes this not a dupe, but thats just IMHO. Didn't see your post though, gave it an upvote

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

I just realized that olbermann looks a lot like Romney.

>> ^marinara:

really like thom hartmann on the russia tv channel.
can't credit it to just one thing, but it's better.
IMHO it replaces Olbermann and Cenk


I really liked Thom Hartman when he was on the radio here (before all progressive radio was bought out & replaced by Catholic radio). I should probably try and watch his show on RT.

really like thom hartmann on the russia tv channel.
can't credit it to just one thing, but it's better.
IMHO it replaces Olbermann and Cenk

LOL SO STUPID Keith Olbermann is so shit at "news" or "reporting"

Just wish people reported things properly or did Unbiased interviews on both sides.

The whole manning thing is mental and its amusing how USA ultimately acts in many ways similar to Russia , Its hard to have respect for the american legal system when its so obvouse that the ritchest and most powerful people are exempt from it.

Its baffaling how many people on the ground have this illusion of "democracy" and accountably for all people under the american flag , its all bullshit.

cnt believe people join the army to fight for america , although I guess they join more to make money to pay for food and basic life style.