I should be so lucky.

In all seriousness though, your opinion is one thing. To flex objective as if its fact is quite another. What I'd love to know is how you think Olbermann isn't a better comparison to O'Reilly.

You claim to watch more Cable news than me, but I don't know how much of its sinking in. What cable news do you watch? Who do you watch?

Regardless of who's opinion falls where, you painted punditry, punditry you clearly don't watch, with a broad stroke. I'm asserting that theres still good jorunalism exhibited out there, and I used examples.

You're welcome to do the same. I suggest you Youtube a few shows quick so you have some reference point.

I mean, they're all pretty similar and blowhardy, but I think Olbermann is a better analogue to Hannity in that they're both these sort of calamitous doom-sayers who overstate everything and who always feel like they know more about things than you do. But, yeah, again, all these guys are essentially the same clown.

And, hey, how could you possibly rail on me for not being objective when you're a flippin Chris Matthews fan?

Hmmmm, well I check in on every cable news networks' biggest shows semi-regularly. I cringe the whole way through and I dislike I think all of the hosts on a personal level but, for whatever reason, I still watch every show. That was one of my points in my first post - how the cable news pundit is given this platform and, without fail, becomes an unlikable, self-serving, self-aggrandizing douche. I used Rachel Maddow as an example. Rachel Maddow was charming and informed when she was paired up with Pops Buchanan, but ever since she landed her own show, she's morphed into another Olbermann. Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews & Sean Hannity are the worst, I think

Well, look, I'm all about broad strokes and generalizations, but I really do think the 24 hour news cycle has many flaws

And these studio shows with the one blowhard in the middle are the absolute last place I'd look to find "good journalism"

I know its the last place you'd look, I've been telling you ya don't watch these shows for the entire conversation.

1. You call Pat Buchanan "Pops." I don't know if thats supposed to be funny or clever but it says enough to me about your positions.

2. Using Rachel Maddow as an example of bad punditry is not helping your arguement. She's easily one of the least aggressive pundits, with the least interuptive or gotcha-style interviews around.

What i'm gathering from this is that you had a bad experience, or are rallying against something that happened once, because saying Dobbs, Hannity, and Matthews are the same is lunacy.

Dobbs attempted to ressurect his career on the immigration issue just as it was ending. He's not comprable to any other pundit. Politically he's also a mismash of libretarian conservatism, and lefty populism. No other pundit is alligned with him point for point.

Hannity has at least been consistent, though he's a talking-point pop-up on the Republican's Outlook calendar. Hannity is decidedly on the right and never flaggs from it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I want you to tell me what points Matthews is with these guys on. He's more well-versed in history than they are, he's got more political experience than either of them do, and he always has high-level guests from both sides of the spectrum.

I'm a fan because he's good at what he does. He does interupt, sometimes too much, but this isn't music we're talking. Its not opinion based only. He does a job and he does it well. You don't become a fan of Matthews because you share an opinion, he'll almost always let you down in that regard. You become a fan of Hardball because its a damn good show that covers the meat of an issue. For all he interupts, he's getting guests to come to a point.

And if you watch all the shows, are you tivo'ing or are you just watching roughly 10 to 14 hours of punditry a day?

Three of them are on at the same time, all with at least an hour long show. Each station has roughly 4 people saying their peace.

We're to believe you watch "all of them" on a regular basis?

Love Noah. Check out his episode of Coffee in Cars if you're a fan.

Trevor Noah's shaping up his routine into something that's actually funny. In his first season on the show, it seemed like his punchlines were all reliant on the applause sign in the studio.

I used to love Stewart, Colbert and Bill Maher when I was in high school and I in no way shape or form gave a **** about politics back then.

This show is gonna keep declining probably. Stewart was the best. Noah was not nearly as funny and his jokes were practically indistinguishable from the rest of the late night comedy shows of the time (Kimmel, Fallon, Seth Meyers) - and now with Noah leaving, it will probably get worse. Probably my pessimism - and I can't say I'm a regular viewer any more.

I enjoy Colbert the most but I've been getting stuck in compilations of Craig Ferguson. He is very funny. His guests are always pretty great too.

Craig Ferguson has been out of the game for years at this point but he was the only late night host worth a damn since Conan went to cable.

I gotta disagree on Colbert, he's probably the most unfunny, unlikeable host on TV these days. Which is sad, because on the Colbert Report, he used to be a lot funnier. I forgot about Conan. He's funny - John Oliver is pretty great too, even if his accent can wear on me.