LOL at Craig's definition of a political hack like Olbermann somehow being honest! Olbermann is an out and out partisan that inevitably spins a destructive narrative without any attempt at balance. That you agree with his spin does not make him honest or trustworthy or balanced.
You have no clue about the difference between 'honest partisan' and 'dishonest partisan'.
I'm trying to come up with a way to give you some clue about it without hundreds of lines explaining a lot of details about it to you, and one simple way:
There is a difference between:
Olbermann: "Dear liberal audience, today, Republicans voted unanimously to filibuster an extension to unemployment benefits", and:
Olbermann: "Dear liberal audience, today, Republicans voted to make unemployment a federal crime with a jail sentence."
In the first, he's highlighting an accurate story that makes Republicans look bad, likely with some tone of derision about their position.
In the second, he's lying to attack Republicans.
Contrary to your apparently opinion, they're not the same thing.
For you, simply pointing out the truth and preferring one side to another makes him a 'hack'.
Now, in contrast, I can show you several clips of Fox people saying as a fact that Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million per day.
That's lying. There's a difference between Olbermann's pro-liberal telling the truth, and others' lying for their 'side'.
Not that their motives appear the same, either, with Fox being an explicit ideological organization with its views mandated from the top for the owner's benefit, while the advocates on MSNBC arrive at their views a lot more independently and honestly, in my opinion - not that it's completely black and white on either 'side'.
I invite you to post the examples of the 'lies', the more serious things you bundle in with Olbermann merely having a preference of which people and positions he agrees with, which are lacking from your attack posts, that are similar to the $200 million a day example by Fox - pick today's episode that hasn't aired yet as a test, pick this week, pick the last month.
Now, merely showing him saying something that's an opinion you disagree with isn't enough to make the points you claimed. If Fox had said, 'we think the expense of the President's trip to India is not worth the trip', they wouldn't have the same attacks. They might have others - that they're idiots for not understanding the President's job, that they're only making the attack for the sake of attacking Obama rather than having a reasonable point - but it wouldn't be the same as saying they're lying.
Let's face it - you won't be able to come up with the facts for your attacks. You can find the rare error or excess - Olbermann has apologized a few times - but not that many.
The question is whether you can get how wrong your attacks are, bundling his simply agreeing with one side over another, with his having a show that's targeted to people who are liberals in what it covers, not to the point of some dishonest excess, like covering Boehner killing one while not covering Pelosi killing a hundred, without the facts to back it up - or any indication you have any reasonable basis for the attacks.
That you are doing anything more than throwing mud name-calling without, and you are the one who better fits your own attacks.
Facebook
Twitter