Kurtz: The War Between Olbermann and MSNBC Brass Opened Vicious Infighting

Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast has the inside details of the battle between Keith Olbermann and his superiors at MSNBC over his recent suspension for making unapproved political campaign contributions. Those contributions, sources tell Kurtz, are upsetting other NBC top journalists who are worried that they damage the reputation of the network, and thus their credibility.

Keith Olbermann was having dinner with his manager at an Upper East Side restaurant, chewing over their battle to lift his suspension at MSNBC, when Phil Griffin called.

Michael Price stepped out of the Atlantic Grill to talk to MSNBC’s president, leaving his client with a platter of 18 oysters. It was Sunday, Nov. 7, and Price informed Griffin that if they couldn’t resolve their differences quickly, Olbermann would take his complaints public by accepting invitations from Good Morning America, David Letterman, and Larry King.

Keith Olbermann (Jamie McCarthy / Getty Images) “Why are you putting us in the position where you’re daring us to do this?” Price demanded, his voice rising.

“If you go on GMA, I will fire Keith,” Griffin shot back. Such a move was clearly grounds for dismissal.

The manager returned to the restaurant. He and Olbermann, who had been pushing hard to end the suspension the next day, discussed whether they would be burning bridges by carrying out the threat. Minutes later, their phones buzzed with emails from reporters, asking about a statement that NBC had just released. Olbermann, it said, would be allowed to return to his prime-time show on Tuesday—a day later than he had wanted.

Price called Griffin again. “What compelled you to do that in that way?” he asked.

“We are at war,” Griffin responded.

If so, it was a war that had spread beyond the principal combatants to many of the journalists who work at NBC and MSNBC. From the moment Olbermann was found to have donated money to three Democratic candidates, there has been a deepening sense of anger and frustration among his colleagues, according to interviews with eight knowledgeable sources. These sources, who declined to be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the situation, say that several of NBC’s front-line stars, including Tom Brokaw, have expressed concern to management that Olbermann has badly damaged MSNBC’s reputation for independence. (NBC and MSNBC executives declined to comment, and Olbermann declined to be interviewed.)

Mike Allen: Olbermann Refused On-Camera Mea Culpa

Mike Allen of POLITICO reports today that MSNBC sources said that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.”

Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.

MSNBC Suspends Keith Olbermann Without Pay Over Political Contributions

UPDATE, Nov. 5 at 4:49 p.m. Eastern: Brian Stelter of The New York Times just tweeted "MSNBC now says Chris Hayes will *not* be the sub tonight. No word yet on who will be."

------

Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay from MSNBC because of his contributions to three political candidates.

The unusual move happened this afternoon after POLITICO reported that he had contributed to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin released the following statement: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Usually journalists are bound by ethical standards not to contribute to political campaigns or to be aligned with any political party or movement. Ethic rules concerning partisan commentators on cable TV networks  and political advocacy have been debated for some time now. Many believe they are held to the same standards of new reporters. Others have felt that they are advocates, and do not fall under the same guidelines.

Indeed, journalists have contributed thousands to political campaigns and efforts and not faced suspension. MSNBC published a list of 143 journalists who gave to political campaigns. On that list, published on July 15, 2007, was Joe Scarborough, NBC's "Dateline" correspondent Victoria Corderi, MSNBC.com's Rachel Schwanewede, senior editor of TodayShow.com, and MSNBC.com's Joel Widzer, travel columnist. I cannot find any report that they suffered the same penalty that Olbermann did today.

One other distinction could be that NBC News policy does not prohibit making political contributions, just that you need prior approval from NBC executives to do so. It is possible that Scarborough and the others did receive such prior approvals and Olbermann did not.

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress, Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway. Conway lost his bid to Republican and Tea Party candidate Rand Paul. Olbermann made the legal maximum donation of $2,400 to each.

What might be the troubling point to MSNBC brass is the fact the Olbermann made the donation to the Arizona candidates pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

POLITICO is also reporting that Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation and a previous fill-in for Rachel Maddow, who will fill in for Olbermann tonight has also made contributions to political candidates. POLITICO reports that he gave $250 to the congressional campaign of a good friend, Alabama Democrat Josh Segall.

Olbermann Returns to 'Countdown' Tonight

Keith Olbermann will be back on MSNBC tonight after a three months' absence while tending to family needs after the death of his father. I wish him well in his time of grief.

Blog or No Blog, Olbermann's Taking a Beating

I've been struggling with my health lately, so I'm behind the times on this note (and the whole blog actually). But I thought I'd share this.

Here's Keith Olbermann defending his ratings last week:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Olbermann doesn't have nice things to say about blogs, and the people who use them to gather information for their own publications. I must say I'm guilty of that, as I have a regular job, a family and not much time to make independent phone calls to sources. I just don't get paid for this.

But Olbermann does. The funny thing about his show is that it's usually just a rehash of the Daily Kos. Basically, I've stopped watching Olbermann because I have usually read most of the materials hours ago ... on a blog.

Be that as it may, here's the latest cable news ratings, from (I'm sorry ... the blog TV Newser).

If you look at them, Olbermann is having his lunch served to him in both the 25-54 demographic and the total viewer demographic. Now, I know it's a blog, but the source cited is Nielsen.

In January, Olbermann fell behind Nancy Grace! The numbers were as follows: The O’Reilly Factor Fox News 983,000; Nancy Grace Headline News 282,000; Countdown With Keith Olbermann MSNBC 263,000; Campbell Brown CNN 233,000.

Commentators React to Dobbs' Departure From CNN

Here's a short one-minute snippet of reactions to Lou Dobbs sudden departure from CNN. It was compiled by POLITICO. Most everyone was gracious to Dobbs with the exception of Keith Olbermann and The New York Times, who both showed their class once again.

In addition to his on-air comments, Olbermann had this advice for Dobbs' soul on POLITICO's Arena:

I can only say that I always wondered if his stance on immigrants, legal or otherwise, took a bigger toll on him than on the immigrants. This is, whether he or others will admit it, a Hispanic issue, and not only are Lou's wife and kids Hispanic but the daughters are in the Horse Show game, which, after the restaurant industry, is the top employer of undocumented immigrants in this country - and Lou helps pay them. If that isn't the ultimate hypocrisy, it must be the ultimate self-contradiction and very painful psychologically.

I worked with Lou as long ago as 1981 and I never heard any of this back then. He's always been a bully and one of those put-up-your-dukes clowns, but I think the immigration stance was mostly opportunistic. The insincerity of the xenophobia would explain how he went from 2nd place to 4th.

As to what he should do next, his soul would benefit from a few years at Telemundo.

The New York Times used up valuable Editorial Page space to make this comment:

Lou Dobbs has left CNN, or maybe the other way around. Whichever it is, an old, odd, infuriating-to-many mismatch of sober network and strident host is over. CNN, for now anyway, changes back to something closer to the nonpartisan, straight-up news network it wants you to think of it as, different from its ideologically branded rivals Fox News and MSNBC. The real question is the effect the change will have on Mr. Dobbs.

Mr. Dobbs, once a pinstriped purveyor of financial news, has burrowed deep into the popular culture as a self-styled populist enraged by illegal immigration. When he resigned on the air Wednesday night, he made it clear that that aspect of his public persona is not going away. He listed immigration along with jobs, the middle class and war as among the issues urgently needing his kind of honest, straightforward examination.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.”

Mr. Dobbs couldn’t have phrased a more apt criticism of himself. He calls himself Mr. Independent, but he is far closer in style and method to the right-wing ranters who mold the facts to shape the argument on television and on AM radio, where Mr. Dobbs still has a show. Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program has long been a nesting ground for untruths and conspiracy theories: fretting over a nonexistent, immigrant-borne leprosy epidemic; questioning President Obama’s citizenship; issuing dark warnings about the “North American Union,” a supposed plot to strangle United States sovereignty.

It’s hard to pinpoint how much damage these kinds of ideas have done to the national discussion of illegal immigration, but they have been corrosive. Solutions have withered as many politicians parrot the central myth that people desperate to seek new lives in the United States are an affliction to be feared, not an opportunity to be engaged, future Americans who could enrich the country as immigrants always have and will.

Now Mr. Dobbs has pledged to “engage in constructive problem solving.” Here is a problem to solve constructively: Illegal immigrants are, as Mr. Dobbs likes to say, decent, honest, hard-working people. They are exploited by greedy corporate interests. They are not about to deport themselves, and we aren’t about to deport them all.

It’s a problem to which Mr. Dobbs has never really offered an answer. Perhaps someday he will.

Olbermann Asks Daily Kos Readers For Dirt to Use Against Beck, His Producer and Ailes

Keith Olbermann is using the power of one of the largest websites on the planet to feed him any information he can use against FOX News commentator Glenn Beck, who led the charge against Van Jones, the environmental adviser who resigned over comments he made supporting the idea that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

As of 4:45 p.m. Eastern on Labor Day, 1,531 people had commented on his post.

Here is Olbermann's post on the Daily Kos:

Updated: this posting has been visited lately by visitors who have kind of rushed through this and concluded I have decided, out of the blue, to collect "dirt" on Glenn Beck. I forgot I'd need to explain things slowly for them:

From the Washington Independent, linked below, after the jump:

Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.”

I don't know why I've got this phrasing in my head, but: Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes.

No, even now, I refuse to go all caps.

Keith Olbermann's diary :: ::
No, sending me links to the last two Countdowns with my own de-constructions of his biblical vision quality Communist/Fascist/Socialist/Zimbalist art at Rockefeller Center (where, curiously, he works, Comrade) doesn't count. Nor does sending me links to specious inappropriate point-underscoring prove-you're-innocent made-up rumors.

Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes (even though Ailes' power was desperately undercut when he failed to pull off his phony "truce" push).

This becomes necessary after this in order to prove various cliches about goose and gander, and to remind everybody to walk softly and carry a big popsicle, and most particularly to save this nation from the Oligarhy of The Stupid.

I keep wondering if somewhere somebody named Ollie Garhey thinks he's in charge now. Or, even more entertainingly and societally satisfying, if somebody named Ali Garhi does.

Despite the worn-out snark above, I am in earnest here.

Olbermann Mistaken in Calling Hoekstra Iraqi Trip 'Top Secret'

Keith Olbermann will stretch the facts every now and then to make a point. But last week his misuse of military terms was sloppy and incorrect; and ultimately damaging to any commentator's reputation.

Olbermann noted on June 18 that a Tweet by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., compared messages of disgruntled Republicans during a congressional squabble with the messages from bloodied Iranian protesters who say they were disenfranchised.

"This would be the same congressman who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top secret mission to Iraq," Olbermann said.

The problem is Hoekstra was not on a top secret mission, rather a congressional fact-finding tour. And while the military had asked that the media embargo news of the tour until it was over for security reasons, there were no restrictions on the congressional delegations to tell people about the trip. Their staff and families all knew beforehand where they were going and the reason for the trip.

During the trip, the congressman did post a number of Tweets about the trip, but none gave specific news of the delegation's whereabouts or business.

Here is PolitiFact's assessment:

Olbermann is wrong to characterize the delegation's trip as a "top secret mission to Iraq." The term "top secret" means something in military and government circles. There is a hierarchy of classified information, beginning with "confidential," graduating to "secret," "top secret" and "special classified information." You need varying levels of security clearance in order to be privy to classified information.

This trip was none of those. But more to the point, "top secret mission to Iraq" conjures images of rifle-toting troops on a highly sensitive military operation. This wasn't a military mission, it was a congressional visit. In fact, many in the news media knew about the trip, but just agreed to keep it embargoed. Hoekstra's staff knew about it. His wife knew about it.

"We're not talking about something that was classified," said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk. "Not at all. Top secret? No. We see these reported all the time in the press."

So Olbermann hasn't just exaggerated, he's incorrectly described the visit as a "top secret mission." Without knowing the background, you might think Hoekstra spilled the beans on some covert military operation. We rule Olbermann's statement False.

If Hannity Is Olbermann's Worst Person for His Stanford Ads, What About Obama for Receiving Stanford's Funds?

Keith Olbermann took Sean Hannity to task as his worst person in the world tonight on "Countdown with Keitgh Olbermann" for running ads on his radio show for Stanford Financial Group, Allen Stanford's firm. He's the Texas billionaire who is charged in connection with an estimated $8 billion fraud.



Now, taking a partisan shot at a conservative by implying some kind of link between the two is not a surprise; and Olbermann, who is a paid commentator, not a journalist, can voice his opinions to his heart's content. I just wonder if he would have lodged the same smear toward anyone else who has done business with the accused scammer.

Would Olbermann be just as condescending to other victims of a scam? Hannity certainly wasn't the only person who had business with Stanford. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Bill Clinton embraced the billionaire, as ABC's Brian Ross reports:

A video posted on the firm's web-site shows Stanford, now sought by U.S. Marshals, being hugged by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and praised by former President Bill Clinton for helping to finance a convention-related forum and party put on by the National Democratic Institute.

"I would like to thank the Stanford Financial Group for helping to underwrite this," Clinton said to the crowd at the event.

Stanford Financial was listed as the "lead benefactor" for the gathering, and Stanford was permitted to address the audience of several hundred.

Stanford contributed $150,000 to underwrite the event, said NDI president Kenneth Wollack. More recently, Stanford gave $5,000 to help pay for a luncheon hosted by the group. At the time NDI had no idea of Stanford's trouble, and it is has not had any contact with him since the December event, said Wollack.

"We had no reason to believe that a very public company that was also engaged in philanthropic work might be suspect," said a spokesperson for the National Democratic Institute, Amy Dudley

A video report from ABC shows Stanford greeting the House speaker with a hug at the Democratic Convention in Denver (The hug is at -1:43 of the video at the ABC site, and at 2:08 in the video below.)



Stanford certainly was bipartisan. He gave $28,000 to the McCain campaign. The McCain office has said it will give the money to charity. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) was the single biggest recipient of Stanford contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He received $47,000 from Stanford.

The center also reports other recipients:

Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who served prison time for his role in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, received $28,200 (this includes contributions to Ney's candidate committee and leadership PAC). Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who reportedly flew on Stanford's jet, collected $20,100 from the company between the 2000 and 2006 election cycles.

In addition, since 2000, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received $965,500; Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee received $202,000; the National Republican Congressional Committee received $250,125; and the National Republican Senatorial Committee received $133,345.

But the biggest name on the list is President Barack Obama, who received $31,750. Obama, too, has said the money will go to charity. The center says that Obama ranks third among individual lawmakers, having collected the money from the company's employees during his 2008 presidential bid, including $4,600 from Allen Stanford, the firm's leader.

So, if Hannity is the worst person in the world for being a pitchman, where does that put the president? Didn't he campaign on a platform of changing the way lobbyists and politicians work? Is this the change so many people voted for?

Well, how about change in the way we make social commentary? This is a scandal that will cross party lines. Any commentator who uses it as a springboard to attack his political opponents is taking a cheap shot, and that's exactly what this country does not need right now.

Olbermann Apologizes for Mistake on Murdoch Quote

Keith Olbermann issued an apology yesterday for using a transcript that incorrectly quoted Rupert Murdoch as saying, "Even on [finance] terms, we have never been a company that tolerates facts" on a conference call to investors of News Corp., owners of FOX News. Murdoch had actually said, "Even in plush times, we have never been a company that tolerates fat."

Here was Olbermann's on-air statement:

Incidentally, a correction on Murdoch. We have quoted several times the transcript of a News Corp conference call provided by the usually reliable financial website called SeakingAlpha.com, in which the News Corp boss was quoted as saying, “we have never been a company that tolerates facts.” It turns out SeekingAlpha.com got it wrong. Murdoch, in fact, said “we have never been a company that tolerates fat.” SeekingAlpha.com has yet to correct or apologize for its mistake, so we will. Henceforth, we will stick exclusively to the transcripts from ShiverMeTimbers.com.

Well, a bit snarky, but a correction no less.

Seekingalpha.com has corrected the transcript, currently quoting Murdoch as saying:

While it's impossible to be completely prepared for a downturn of this magnitude, we began priming ourselves for a weakening economy earlier last year. We have implemented strict cost cutting measures across all our operations.

We have reduced headcount in individual businesses where appropriate and we've scaled back on capital expenditures. Even in plush times, we have never been a company that tolerates fat. So in times like these, we are better positioned to weather this cycle than our competitors.

We've also consistently maintained a strong balance sheet, which today following our completion of the partial sale of NDS posts approximately $4.5 billion in cash. Given our strong financial position, we have the reserves on hand to cover over seven years of upcoming debt repayments. And we intend to operate our businesses and balance sheet as conservative as usual.

I made the same mistake that Olbermann did when I wrote my first post on the matter, and I corrected it on the second post.

Audio Shows Murdoch Said Fat, Not Facts, as Alleged by Olbermann

UPDATE, Feb. 12 (10:10 p.m. Eastern:) Keith Olbermann issued an on-air apology for mistakenly using the bad quote from the botched transcript.

As it turns out, Rupert Murdoch did indeed say "fat" not "facts" as alleged by Keith Olbermann and the Daily Kos.

Here is what he said, according to the audio. The disputed quote starts at the 17:57 mark:

While it's impossible to be completely prepared for a downturn of this magnitude, we began priming ourselves for a weakening economy earlier last year. We implemented strict cost cutting measures across all our operations. We reduced head count in individual businesses where appropriate and we scaled back on capital expenditures.

Even in plush times, we have never been a company that tolerates fat. So in times like these, we are better positioned to weather this cycle than our competitors. We also have consistently maintained a strong balance sheet, which today following our completion of the partial sale of NDS for approximately $4.5 billion in cash. Given our strong financial position, we have the reserves on hand to cover over seven years of upcoming debt repayments. And we intend to operate our businesses and balance sheet as conservative as usual.

As I noted in my earlier post, it was either a slip of the tongue or a poor job of transcription. It appears to be the latter because the first part of the sentence was completely botched as well.

So, Olbermann Watch did indeed get it right, and Keith Olbermann and the Daily Kos, both who have advanced this story, got it wrong. By the way, here's Olbermann's rant on Murdoch, which he comments on his version of the quote around the 3:00 mark.



So, my apologies to the Olbermann Watch and its readers, and my thanks to them for unearthing the audio.

Olbermann Watch: Challenge to Keith: Man Up!

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton, Pa., told Andrew M. Seder of the Times Leader in Wilkes Barre, Pa., that allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Gov. Sarah Palin rally on Tuesday are unfounded.

The reported incident was widely used in the national media after it appeared in the Scranton Times-Tribune in a story written by David Singleton. Most notably, by Keith Olbermann in a special comment criticizing Palin for not rebuking the comment even though she was not at the rally at the time. Other media that picked it up were
ABC News, The Associated Press, and The Washington Monthly.

The media question now is: will Olbermann admit his mistake somehow tonight and issue some kind of correction? It's standard operating procedure for a journalist or commentator to tell their readers or viewers when he or she has made a mistake.

Agent Bill Slavoski told the Times Leader that he was in the audience, along with other Secret Service agents and other law-enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled” after reading the article, he told the Times Leader. He said an investigation into the report by the Secret Service found no one who heard the allegation. “We have yet to find someone to back up the story. We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it,” he told the Times Leader.

Slavoski told the Times Leader that the reporter Singleton stood by his story but was unable to describe the man, saying he did not see him, only heard him.

The Times Leader reported that Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence “as far as we’re concerned it’s closed unless someone comes forward.”

The same standard applies for the Scranton newspaper. Will it follow up on its reporting? It too should do more research into the matter and tell its readers if it has made a mistake, or if it has found some evidence that its original story is indeed true.

Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Challenge to Keith: Man Up! (Thursday Recappers Thread)

Posted using ShareThis

Secret Service: Media Report of Man Yelling 'Kill Him' at Palin Rally Unfounded

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton, Pa., told Andrew M. Seder of the Times Leader in Wilkes Barre, Pa., that allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Gov. Sarah Palin rally on Tuesday are unfounded.

The reported incident was widely used in the national media after it appeared in the Scranton Times-Tribune in a story written by David Singleton. Most notably, by Keith Olbermann in a special comment criticizing Palin for not rebuking the comment even though she was not at the rally at the time. Other media that picked it up were
ABC News, The Associated Press, and The Washington Monthly.

Agent Bill Slavoski told the Times Leader that he was in the audience, along with other Secret Service agents and other law-enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled” after reading the article, he told the Times Leader. He said an investigation into the report by the Secret Service found no one who heard the allegation. “We have yet to find someone to back up the story. We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it,” he told the Times Leader.

Slavoski told the Times Leader that the reporter Singleton stood by his story but was unable to describe the man, saying he did not see him, only heard him.

The Times Leader reported that Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence “as far as we’re concerned it’s closed unless someone comes forward.”

Olbermann Watch: Keith Kicks Off Special Comment With a Lie

Keith Olbermann played a little game with the truth last night during his special comment in which he noted that at 1:25 p.m., "during the warm-up act [in Scranton, Pa.] by a red meat Congressional candidate aptly named Chris Hackett, Hackett mentions Obama and a Palin audience member shouts, "Kill Him." And Gov. Palin, as usual, does nothing about it; says nothing to these thugs and psychos. She may not have heard this one. It is impossible to believe that by now she has not heard about the other ones. Her silence is deafening."

Problem was, according to Scanton Times-Tribune report, the press pool did not arrive until 15 minutes later, and that Palin didn't walk on stage until almost 2 p.m. Matter of fact, it's quite possible that Palin was busy at 1:15 p.m. talking on the cell phone with Rush Limbaugh as part of her live interview on his program.

GOVERNOR PALIN: Hey. Thank you so much and dittos from Scranton.

RUSH: Scranton, Pennsylvania, on the bus?

GOVERNOR PALIN: We just got off the bus. We're heading into a rally here, but wanted to take a couple of minutes to get to say hi and let you know what we're doin', Rush.

It was probably difficult for Palin to hear the audience member when A.) She was not there and B.) She was talking on the cell phone. But that didn't stop Olbermann ranting last night. Does that make him the Worst Person in the World?

Here is Olbermann Watch, which dissects the special comment:

Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Olbermann Kicks Off Special Komment with a Lie

Posted using ShareThis

Olbermann Pinch Hits for McCain on Letterman

Talk about a twist of fate!

Sen. John McCain was scheduled to appear on "Late Night With David Letterman" but cancelled late Wednesday afternoon, telling Letterman he had to hustle down to Washington to work on the financial crisis bailout compromise.

So who did Letterman get to sub in for him? None other than Keith Olbermann, who reportedly is a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama.

"I'm more than a little disappointed by this behavior," Letterman told his audience. "We're suspending the campaign. Suspending it because there's an economic crisis, or because the poll numbers are sliding?

"You don't suspend your campaign," he added. "Do you suspend your campaign? No, because that makes me think, well, you know, maybe there will be other things down the road -- if he's in the White House, he might just suspend being president. I mean, we've got a guy like that now!"

Letterman, while interviewing Olbermann, found out that at the same time McCain was getting ready for an interview with Katie Couric of CBS just three blocks away. Letterman then arranged for a live feed from that location, which showed McCain getting made up to go on with Couric. “He doesn’t seem to be racing to the airport,” Letterman said. After listening to Couric ask the presidential candidate a few questions, Letterman quipped, “Hey, John, I’ve got a question: You need a lift to the airport?”

He asked Olbermann if he thought this was all McCain’s fault, or whether other factors had come into play. Olbermann gleefully replied: "He ditched you.”

Lawyer Says McCain Critics Wrong About President's Power to Fire SEC Chair

Sen. John McCain has been taking some heat for his statement that if he were in the Oval Office right now, he would fire the SEC chairman Christopher Cox. His statement is here:

Keith Olbermann led the charge on his show tonight for the left:

But Daily Standard contributor Adam White, an attorney, writes that McCain's critics are completely wrong:

It's true that the SEC is an "independent agency," and that the statute creating the SEC (specifically, Section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) doesn't expressly state that the president can fire SEC commissioners. But the law on this point is well settled: As the D.C. Circuit reiterated as recently as last month, in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 537 F.3d 667, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2008), "[m]embers of the Commission, in turn, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause; its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President."

The courts have never said that Congress can completely prevent a president from firing officials of an independent agency. At best, Congress can limit the president to firing such officials only "for cause," and the term "for cause" is generally interpreted pretty broadly.

Hey Olbermann, When Can I Be a Worst Person?

Keith Olbermann spent a full minute last night attacking Kevin D. Williamson of National Review Online for actually posting a comment from a reader who defended Sarah Palin's tanning bed. Most likely, the reader's major crime was using Olbermann's name. But Olbermann was stunned at the audacity of Williamson for using a reader's comment in a blog that questioned his political beliefs; surely Williamson must be the worst person in the world.

He failed to mention to his viewers (who by the way number about a half of Bill O'Reilly's) that Palin actually paid for the tanning bed herself. "She did. She paid for it with her own money," Roger Wetherell, chief communications officer of Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities told Us.

What does it matter to Olbermann if Palin bought a tanning bed? Would it also be a problem if she had a big-screen plasma TV? Why is this an issue coming from the side that keeps complaining that McCain doesn't stick to issues that matter?

But more importantly, Olbermann usually leaves his condescending remarks to his political opponents, which as a commentator is perfectly fine. He is paid to advance his political viewpoint. But usually the targets of his comments are big boys (and gals) who have the ways and means to refute his opinions if they feel it's necessary. The usual winner of his "Worst Person in the World" segment is O'Reilly, who has plenty of opportunity to defend himself on radio and TV.

Going after the real media players or big-time politicans is one thing, but to lash out at a comment posted on a blog? Gee, I allow comments on my blog, and some of them disagree with Olbermann. I better watch out, I guess I'm could be the next "Worst Person in the World."

Olbermann, Maddow Paint Palin's Faith as Extreme

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow took swings at Sarah Palin's faith Monday night as the No. 1 story of Olbermann's countdown, implying that her faith is a form of extremism.

Olbermann started off by showing clips of Palin appearing at her former church, the Wasilla Church of God. He criticized the church's programs to pray for homosexuals. "You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," an insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church once said. He also attacked the subject of Palin's prayers, including for the success of a pipeline.

Olbermann then commented on a report that a former pastor at her previous church and a fellow parishioner have said that "worshippers not only they believe in the rapture, and that the Governor Palin has spoken of Alaska of being a refuge for that supposed lifting up of those true-believers, but also they speak in tongues, in other words in words or sounds neither they nor anybody else understands, kind of like FOX News." Olbermann, while stumbling on his words, asked guest Rachel Maddow "should we be terrified?"

Maddow says that while a lot of people's religious beliefs from the outside seem "alarming," Palin needs to be asked if she thinks God is directing her public policy, and does Palin believe in the separation of church and state. Maddow says we (as a nation) are not excited about "extremism."

Criticizing prayer, Olbermann ask "Some of these things addressed to her deity ---Doesn't he/she [referring to God] have better things to do?" Maddow retorts, "Wouldn't God be better at it?" (that is, wouldn't crews be furiously working if Palin prayed for the success of a pipeline).

This is tough for people with Olbermann and Maddow's mindset to understand. But here it goes.

1. Prayer is intensely personal, and the Bible encourages people to be specific in prayer. People pray for healing, they pray for wisdom, they pray for success in activities, in travel and in other matters. It's not a matter for us to decide if Palin's (or any one else for that matter) prayer is appropriate. She was following a sound biblical practice of being specific in her prayer.

2. Presidents have long believed God is directing their public policy in the past. In this area, Maddow should read more of the writings of Lincoln.

3. The question of whether God has better things to do just demonstrates a basic lack of understating of the faith of billions of Christians, who believe that God desires a personal relationship with everyone. When asked how to pray, Jesus responded with what we call The Lord's Prayer, part of which we ask God for "our daily bread" -- a fundamental desire for our personal salvation: the need of bread to survive. God has no better thing to do than to provide us with what we need to survive.

4. Many Protestant Christians believe in the rapture. While there is a debate as to when the rapture might happen, and even if it might happen, the vast majority of Protestants do hold the belief that this will happen near the end times. It certainly is part of Protestant mainstream belief, something most would expect Palin to believe in.

5. Speaking in tongues means speaking in a way or in a language that is not normally understood by the speaker or the listeners. There are 30 million Pentecostals in the United States, and about 130 million in the world. (Ironically, more than the numbers of viewers at MSNBC, which total about 500,000 or so). Pentecostals and charismatic churches are the denominations most associated with the gift of speaking in tongues, as described in 1 Corinthians 14:2 (New Revised Standard Version):

For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit.

Beyond Pentecostal and charismatic churches, there are many Christians in other Protestant and Catholic denominations who believe the practice is a valid form of prayer. Some Pentecostal churches, including Assemblies of God, teach that speaking in tongues is evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it is not essential for salvation and eternal life. Some other Pentecostal denominations teach that speaking in tongues is experienced by everyone who has truly been saved. Other denominations do not put emphasis on the practice.

So, where is the extremism here? At least 10 percent of the American population believe in the gift of speaking in tongues. Many more believe that there will be a rapture. A vast majority of Americans (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) believe in the power of prayer. But few, less than a million, bother to watch Olbermann's show. So, Keith and Rachel, who represents the mainstream? The hundreds of millions of people of faith or the hundreds of thousands of MSNBC viewers?

Reaction to Olbermann's Demotion at MSNBC

It seems that your opinion of Keith Olbermann and his demotion at MSNBC over the weekend is guided by what side of the aisle you stand on.

Michelle Malkin comments:

MSNBC, the left-wing basket case cable network, is in full meltdown mode. After several weeks of on-air sniping and tantrums from the Spittle Twins, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, executives at NBC apparently staged an intervention.

They will no longer anchor political coverage or the debates. The fair and balanced savior?

Jeff Bercovici in Mixed Media says:

MSNBC has finally come to its senses and taken Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews off anchor duty -- and Olbermann's reaction perfectly illustrates why it was necessary to do so.

Throughout the election season, Olbermann and Matthews have co-anchored event coverage even though both function as opinion journalists in their primary roles at the network -- Olbermann as host of Countdown and Matthews as host of Hardball. MSNBC president Phil Griffin has said this arrangement worked because the two men "put on different hats" to anchor straight news coverage.

But no one seems to have briefed Olbermann on the whole hat-switching thing. He capped off two weeks of embarrassing convention hijinx by launching into a lecture on Thursday night after the Republican National Convention featured a tribute to the victims of 9/11. Olbermann decreed the video "inappropriate" and exploitative.

According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, that character break led directly to this weekend's decision to have David Gregory anchor all upcoming election coverage.

Olbermann claims he initiated the conversation about taking himself out of the anchor chair -- but he also tells the Times, "I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue."

Media Channel has this to offer:

MSNBC’s announcement that it is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews with David Gregory as anchors for its main political events (the upcoming presidential debates and election) vividly illustrates several long-obvious facts. First, nothing changes the behavior of our media corporations more easily than vocal demands and complaints from the Right, which petrify media executives and cause them to snap into line. ...

Second, in response to media criticism that the press is insufficiently substantive and adversarial to political power, the claim is frequently made that media outlets are simply driven by the profit motive, and that their programming choices are nothing more than a by-product of ratings. But in MSNBC’s case, that is plainly untrue. Back in 2003, they actually canceled their highest-rated program, Phil Donahue’s show, for purely ideological reasons — because, at a time when the establishment “liberal media” were systematically amplifying the Government’s pro-war views and excluding anti-war views, that short-lived MSNBC show was one of the only venues in America where one could hear anti-war viewpoints, and NBC’s fear of angering the Government and the Right clearly caused them, first, to impose extreme and unusual restrictions on the show’s content, and then to cancel it altogether.

Third, this episode demonstrates what Eric Alterman documented several years ago: that the greatest and most transparent myth in American politics is that the U.S. has a “liberal media.” That is a myth that is maintained, first and foremost, by defining anyone who isn’t Rush Limbaugh as a “liberal.” Hence, people such as the wife of Bush official Dan Senor (Campbell Brown) is a “liberal,” as is Alan Greenspan’s wife (Andrea Mitchell), along with establishment-worshipers such as Rush-Limbaugh-admirer Brian Williams, right-wing-talking-points-spouting Charlie Gibson, and anyone who writes for the war-enabling New York Times and Washington Post.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this absurd dynamic more than the painfully inane perception that Chris Matthews — for years a prime target of liberal media critics — is some sort of “liberal.”

Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann’s role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor — someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he’s not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.

And finally, a blogger at Daily Kos has this to say, which is backed up by hundreds of comments on the blog:

NBC bent over and took one for the GE team because of complaints from Republicans. So kudos to NBC...America can't have too much fair and balanced news coverage.

MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews From Anchor Chairs

MSNBC's grand experiment of using liberal commentators Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as news anchors during the network's election coverage appears to be over, reports Brian Stelter of The New York Times tonight on its web site.

After accusations of on-camera bias, and some animosity between the cable network and NBC, network executives decided over the weekend to replace the pair with David Gregory as the news anchor on election night and during the debates, Stelter writes. Olbermann and Matthews will appear as commentators.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin, as quoted in the report.

A portion of Stelter's report is as follows:

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”

But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.”

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. “MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict,” one senior staff member observed. “They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week.”

The issue may have come to a head when Olbermann, acting as the Republican convention anchor, apologized for the network for broadcasting a video tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Here is a tape of that comment, along with the tribute that was aired:



"I'm sorry, it's necessary to say this and I wanted to separate myself from the others on the air about this," he said on air, looking shaken. "If at this late date, any television network had of its own accord showed that much videotape, and that much graphic videotape of 9/11, and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and was probably not appropriate to be shown. We'll continue in a moment."

The statement was widely praised by liberal bloggers and commentators, and widely criticized by conservatives.

Olbermann told The New York Times today that that moment — and the perception that he is “not utterly neutral” — reignited the debate about his role on political nights.

“I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue,” he told the Times.