Time for Wikileaks

    By Flavius on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:07pm |

    In artappraiser's comment to Wolfrum's Keith Olbermann post, she links to the Times' contribution to the cover story.

    Not to repeat my post on Comcast's necessary involvement, but had it actually been true that it had just stood on the sideline every Comcast shareholder would right now be on his way to his lawyer to sue them.  For negotiating an acquisition without the usual prohibition against cardinal changes prior to closing. 

    GE - acting independently would not - repeat not - have been allowed by Comcast to fire MSNBC's most watched anchor a week before the sale.  Perhaps more to the point, why would it have wanted to? What possible reason for it to do that unless it were doing it at Comcast's direction.

    I can understand why Comcast would float this story.  Its investors will know better and its Congressional support team will welcome it.  It'll play in Peoria.

    So, what really interests me is why the Times is cooperating.  Granted any time reading on the Times business section is better spent on the FT (I haven't read the Journal since it disgraced itself after Vince Foster's suicide by an editorial defending its coverage rather than an appropriate expresssion of condolences to this family).  But simply non-technical reporting should automatically have involved checking with some M&A professionals who would have made short shrift of the fable that Comcast was an innocent bystander.

    Do we have to wait for Wikileaks?  Again?

    Comments

    How about if Olbermann wanted out because he couldn't get assurances that Comcast would treat him any better than the old management? I have read that he has a titanic ego to match his bombastic delivery, and being chided last month probably didn't sit well with him. As others have noted, he has new representation, who may have urged him to make a deal with someone new.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:42pm

    It could really have been anything you want to make up at this point. But that doesn't change the underlying fact that ComCast would have had to be involved and approve the decision.

    Flav is right. They are putting out statements saying the fact they haven't closed yet means this was a unilateral GE decision. That simply isn't how it works. So while we don't know the details of what really happened, it is clear that corporate statements on the topic are disingenuous at best and flat-out dishonest at worst. He is also correct that any business writer worth their salt should be able to pick up on that - it's pretty superficial.

    I think he makes an excellent observation that I have not seen made elsewhere. Why do you imagine Comcast/GE would want to be disingenuous? And why do you suppose the NYT would not accurately represent realities of corporate mergers when reporting the story?


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:12pm

    I think Flavius makes a good point, too, which is why I asked the question of whether Olbermann wanting to leave would have made a difference in GE's responsibility to its investors. Your response doesn't answer that.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:50pm

    So, the argument would be that if talent wanted to get out of a contract with 2 years remaining, it would obviate GE from disclosing the situation to ComCast? Logically speaking, I don't see how the specific employee who initiates a material change to the lineup would impact the requirements of disclosure and approval that are usually in place between companies at the closing stages of a merger.

    I think the only situation that would obviate their responsibility to get ComCast's approval on material changes would be if, as Destor implies, the highest rated show on their flagship cable outlet could be construed as "immaterial" to the deal. I am very skeptical of his opinion on that; regardless if they view NBC proper as the plum. Without it explicitly written into their agreement, how would GE know if ComCast viewed that as a material change without discussing it with them? And if it was written into the deal, doesn't that kind of make the Comcast assertion they were uninvolved/unaware of the action inaccurate?


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:16pm

    Forget it, it's been covered below.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:32pm

    Forgotten, bushman. Although, I don't really see it covered downthread.

    Thanks for wasting my time.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:46pm

    Likewise I'm sure.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:03pm

    Are you saying I can pull that comment about the collapse of free speech on the tee vee back out again?

    If not, is it possible that both parties knew that Olbermann was on his way out the door (more or less voluntarily) and his exit was negotiated into the deal? Which would make it not exactly at Comcast's direction, but more of an understanding by both parties that Keith Olbermann would not be part of the network on Comcast's takeover?


    by erica20 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:09pm

    Do we have to wait for Wikileaks ? Again?

    If it is something you want the honest facts about ... yes. On any topic that the powerful would prefer to have suppressed.

    At some point, doesn't this cease to be surprising? Our entire system is corrupt. If the NYT will publish unvarnished and un-vetted whoppers specefically geared to create public support for a false war ... you really think they're going to buck a conglomerate that can abitrarily throttle NYT content back to 56K across the entire internet?


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:03pm

    OK, that's it. I can't stand looking illiterate any longer. I'm logging in so I can edit by horrible spelling. Dammit!


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:05pm

    We cannot trust Wikileaks for "the honest facts", nor would they claim otherwise, I imagine. Rather, Wikileaks gives us purportedly original sources. Determining the honesty of those original sources will necessarily be an exercise for the reader. This is not a criticism of Wikileaks, merely a clarification. For example, in this case it wouldn't be surprising to find "original sources" backing up the claim that Comcast was involved, nor "original sources" backing up the claim that Olbermann wanted to leave MSNBC prior to any Comcast involvement. Whether one, the other, or both were true would still not be definitive, although seeing the documents might allow us to arrive at better informed opinions.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:10pm

    Well, I think you've parsed the semantics to death. My original point still stands.

    As far as any facts exist, they are based on documentation. And that's what Wikileaks releases. Verified official primary documentation of information. They are not known for releasing he-said she-said speculations between people without decision making authority culled at random every time an event is deemed "newsworthy". That's what cable is for.

    Ultimately, this isn't a matter of opinion. Something specific happened. There are specific decision makers and their communication is unequivocal. If a decision maker at ComCast and a decision maker at NBC come to a decision and that process is documented, it is no longer a matter of opinion. It would be a documented fact.

    The republican "facts can be opinions" formula is warping our brains.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:24pm

    You're right that, assuming their verification is solid - which for now I'm willing to assume, that primary sources (if they exist in a written format) can shed much light on a topic. And, if and when such primary documentation is revealed with regards to Comcast-Olbermann-gate (if you'll excuse the snark), we can assess the importance and validity of that documentation.

    Note: I'm not asserting the nihilist position that we shouldn't bother with primary sources just because primary sources are not trustworthy. Neither am I trying to assert that you believe that we should take all primary documentation at face value. Nor am I claiming that facts can be opinions, in case you were misreading me on that.

    What I am saying is that primary documentation often contains lies, either because party A is trying to deceive party B, or because party A and party B are trying to deceive party/parties C who they expect will get access to the primary documentation at a later date. It's only a matter of time before someone starts using Wikileaks to this purpose. And, because I feel this will be taken the wrong way by someone, let me be perfectly clear: I'm not saying this invalidates Wikileaks. Let me say that again: I'm not saying this invalidates Wikileaks. (This repetitiveness is not targeted at you kgb999, but at those who seem (IMO) to take any analysis of the shortcomings/pitfalls of Wikileaks as a condemnation of them.)


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:41pm

    From my own perspective, I share the same underlying philosophy regarding information freedom as Wikileaks. But probably fall more into the Cryptome ideological camp than Assange's. Wikileaks is a member of the open-information ecosystem; not definitive of it. My philosophy on this was formed long before Assange achieved notoriety

    Pretending shortcomings don't exist just ensures they are sustained instead of being resolved in later iterations of organized action. While I don't think it applies here, most Wikileaks critics are not addressing genuine shortcomings so much as bitching about how Wikileaks doesn't have "the right" to release stuff which the powerful (and those who patronize them) have declared off limits.

    While I don't disagree that your hypothetical is within the realm of possible, *thus far* nothing released by Wikileaks appears to fall under this formula. I think our confusion is in my basing my response on historical behavior while the thoughts I'm responding to are based on possibilities that have not necessarily manifested ... but that could in the future.

    Double-secret-false-flag creation of primary source documents for the purpose of being found later seeded in information pools utilized for systemically important purposes within an organization would seem to ultimately damage the organization's ability to function. At least it would require every individual encountering the false information to be clued in to the deception or the organization itself risks falling prey to it's own misdirection. In that regard, I think Wikileaks would see it as a positive manifestation of Assange's belief totalitarian entities will respond to disclosures by attacking and crippling their own information systems.

    But to me, at some point, the complexity and need to know in advance how collected data should look to achieve future goals starts to rival the questionable aspects of the birther's hypothesis. So I think the conditions that would allow someone to do what you speculate will be reasonably rare. I suspect a more likely "failure" scenario would be for the CIA (as arch-type) to prepare a batch of completely fabricated documents and entice Wikileaks to certify them as verified.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:50pm

    Forgive me, but I'm not entirely sure that the number one rated anchor on MSNBC is really material to the Comcast deal.  First and foremost, Comcast wants NBC.  It wants a network with real network numbers that are about 15-20 times higher than the best performing basic cable shows.  For them, Olbermann is replaceable.  The same would be true, by the way, of most Fox News hosts if you were to say purchase the Fox broadcast properties.  You'd really care about the Fox Network.  You'd be very angry if, say, Rupert cancelled Family Guy and The Simpsons a week before the sale.  But if he fired Bill O'Reilly?  You really wouldn't care.  That's not what you're really buying.  If NBC were in the process of cancelling "Dancing With The Stars" or whatever, you bet Comcast would want a say.  Olbermann?  They might notice, but it's not material to the deal.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:51pm

    I think you have a sensible perspective, destor. Many of us news and politics junkies forget how small the cable news audiences are. Primetime Fox like 2 million, MSNBC like 1 million? THEN take that and realize that it's not like you are going to loose all 1 million if you lose one primetime host, you have a replacement and your other draws are still there, so you are only going to lose a very small portion of total audience, perhaps only temporarily. Looking up all the other stories I did, I ran across this intriguing one which suggests despite his popularity in the blogosphere, losing Olbermann is no huge risk:

    MSNBC
    Despite Olbermann Being Out, March is Best Month for ‘Countdown’ This Quarter
    By Chris Ariens on March 30, 2010 12:14 PM

    As we reported, yesterday was Keith Olbermann‘s official return to MSNBC after being away for more than a month. And with the March ratings period now complete (it ended Sunday), Olbermann’s substitute host, Lawrence O’Donnell, helped give “Countdown” its best month of the quarter, but still down — 21% — compared to March ’09. March was also the best month of Q1 2010 for The Ed Show (6p), Hardball (7p) and Rachel Maddow (9p).

    We’ll have the quarterly ratings for each of the cable news networks this afternoon…

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/despite-olbermann-being-out-march-is...?


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:43pm

    An instruction can be given by raising an eye brow.

    If Comcast said " We had the right to affect the decision but chose not to, I'd still have disbelieved them .But saying they weren't able to affect it (because the transaction hadn't closed) was counter productive. The first statement was probably a lie. The second was so clearly one as to ensure interest. 


    by Flavius on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:07pm

    I agree with that.  Of course, once they take over, if they want Olbermann, they can offer him terms that he will accept and that will be that.  Olbermann's non-compete wouldn't preclude him from rejoining his former employer, after all.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:16pm

    Clearly GE didn't care.They were outta there.Any highly paid executive time  spent on Olberman last week  should have been diverted to making  money for the shareholders. .

    As of last Friday the only party that  cared where Olberman would show up for work today was .....Comcast.

    Q.E.D.Comcast was responsible,doesn't want to accept that responsibility, and is lying, ,And the NYT has decided that news doesn't fit the print.or is hopelessly credulous. .


    by Flavius on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:40pm

    Actually there were other parties that cared: Olbermann and ICM. So based on what you've written, either Comcast wanted him out, he and ICM wanted out, or both. I'm guessing both.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:55pm

    I don't disagree at all. But I don't see anything you are saying here that changes Flavius' underlying point.

    I'm not an Olbermann fan by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't about Olbermann's hurt feelings or whatever. It's not even about if the move was ultimately voluntary. To me, it's about if two companies currently facilitating one of the most dangerous mergers to be approved in the last two decades (from a competition/consumer protection standpoint) are being honest in the press about their own actions.

    You appear to be asserting that while Comcast must have known and approved the whole thing, Olbermann being OK with the sitch would mean it's OK for Comcast to pretend GE's technical ownership means they don't have any involvement or oversight of the decision. I'm not sure how to make that jump.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:39pm

    You appear to be bending over backwards to put words in my mouth. That's why I quit the last thread, and this one, too.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:20pm

    I might agree with much of this except for the fact that he wasn't given even half a day to prepare for his leaving. No retrospectives, no peer tributes, no nothing except a few minutes at the end of his Friday program, the time slot usually devoted to his Thurber reading. 

    That suggests to me that, while he and his new agent may have been negotiating for an end to his contract, it's more likely there was a colossal blow-up that morning and they called his bluff and told him his show that night would be his last.  Since he wanted to leave anyway, he did his show as if nothing was going on and then ended it with a bang.

    There are rumors that the contract negotiations came to an agreement just minutes before he went on the air, but that doesn't make sense.  Why wouldn't both sides have wanted, say, a week or so to have the send-off the public would expect for an MSNBC star?  Instead, it was like firing an employee and then having the police escort him out of the building before he can do any damage.

    The fact that there were no leaks says volumes.  It must have happened suddenly or at least very, very privately.  Otherwise everybody in that building would have been sending messages about what was going on.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:51pm

    Perhaps he and ICM were using the change in regime as a chance to ask for additional concessions - which were not forthcoming.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:57pm

    Donal, that might be so, but again, why the sudden rush?  Why not a departure date that would give everyone a chance to get used to the idea and say their goodbyes?  Keith is a hothead, and it could be he called their bluff, and said all right, you won't bend to my terms--tonight's my last.  I don't really know. 

    But I'm still amazed that it happened without the slightest hint of a leak from anyone.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:12pm

    With a new regime, and a terrible employment market, perhaps everyone is afraid for their jobs.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:25pm

    Well, that's just sad.  Or it could be that Keith is such a shit, nobody cared.  Pure speculation, of course--and that's all we really can do.  Speculate.

    But did you know Oprah is announcing a Huge Family Secret today?  It's about a half-sister she didn't know she had.  (See?  That got leaked. . .)


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:39pm

    Dave Chappelle did a great skit once: Oprah's Havin' My Baby. Neither he nor Oprah mentioned it when he was on her show, but I always think of it when I see her picture.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:55pm

    Dave Chappelle did a great skit once: Oprah's Havin' My Baby.

    That's the "Huge Family Secret"!


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:08pm

    I stopped watching Oprah when she did a luxury home furnishings show several years ago.  She told her audience she just couldn't sleep under sheets anymore that didn't have a high thread count, and were preferably Egyptian cotton.  I knew then that we had nothing in common and we were both wasting my time.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:19pm

    Hah. Oprah. Not as unrelated as one might think. Beyond the amazing p.r. ops that protect her empire. I suspect a lot of the cable news laborers envy her. She owns herself, there is contract except mebbe with Oprah the corporation for tax purposes.. She's tired of the negativity on teevee, she just starts her own network.  On the other hand, she can't say "take this job and shove it," nobody to blame there.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:13pm

    Oprah ought to put her money where her mouth is and use her new network as a haven for liberal/progressive voices.  Hers is undoubtedly one of the most powerful voices on television and she has more than enough money and clout to create a network to be reckoned with.  But I won't hold my breath. 

    Every time she comes out in favor of Obama or of liberal/progressive causes she sees it as an act of incredible bravery and she retreats almost as quickly as she appears.  The political and social fabric of her audience dictates where her shows will lead, and she wants to keep them happy more than she wants to do anything that might help the country. 

    She talks a good game, but I don't see how she can be passionate about the underclass, or the jobless, or the sick and dying and not try to use her power to do something meaningful.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:32pm

    You're surely correct that the lack of leaks means the decision was made that day. But as to whodunit I stick with my logic that GE had neither the incentive to do it not  the right except with Comcast's approval-  .


    by Flavius on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:07pm

    I think it was Col. Maddow, in the Kitchen, with the Candlestick.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:09pm

    The abrupt departure thing is not unknown among testy cable TV "news" show hosts when management has the habit of pestering them about stuff rather than treating them in a manner which they feel they deserve:

    For a time, Mr. Dobbs did tone down his TV rhetoric, but on Wednesday he made a more drastic decision:....The abrupt announcement caught even some of his closest staff members by surprise. They were told about the decision only hours before Mr. Dobbs’s 7 p.m. program. CNN, a unit of Time Warner, said it would name a replacement for Mr. Dobbs on Thursday morning.

    Also, the day before Olbemann's departure:

    On Thursday, NBC’s news division staged an elaborate presentation for advertisers, seeking to sell commercial time in NBC’s news programs over the next year. All the members of MSNBC’s prime-time lineup spoke at the lunch with one exception: Keith Olbermann, the network’s biggest star.

    I see some similarity between Olbermann and Dobbs if not in political views in personality and career actions. Dobbs bounced from the trusted business news anchorman to "I'm sick of all this news stuff, I wanna go watch NASA" to only come back to news but this time only if he could push his own politics his own way (the spouse and I would call his last CNN show came on "the daily bash immigration and all politicians program.")

    And in the end, why fight to stay where you're unhappy if you've got enough money? Actually,,come to think of it, Olbermann rarely struck me as enjoying his own show. I don't know his sportscasting work apart from what I've read, whether that came across the same or not. But I tend to believe the long reported rumors of complaints of co-workers only because of the way he came across to me.

    Oh, and a reminder that the self-importance thing did not go unnoticed by Ben Afflleck and Saturday Night Live writers.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:15pm

    I completely forgot about Lou Dobbs!  (And why wouldn't I?)  But you're right--that's exactly how it happened.  And where is Lou Dobbs now?  Nobody knows, nobody cares. 

    I don't think that'll happen to Keith.  Irritating as he was--and I confess I couldn't always watch him.  His "Worst Persons in the World" were too often petty, bordering on loony--his Special Comments often made up for the nonsense.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:53pm

    I watched him maybe five times. Consider the source, but Inside Edition just claimed his exit was in negotiation for quite some time.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:12pm

    Inside Edition - aren't they the ones who employed Bill O'Reilly? Laughing


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:26pm

    I believe they probably were negotiating, but what happened to cause him to leave so suddenly?  He had been there for 7-8 years.  Shouldn't there have been a send-off of some kind?  We heard about Larry King leaving for months.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:21pm

    They are in the business of dealing with celebrity p.r. people every day and judging whether what they say is spin or not. In the case of something like this, they may be a better source than more serious news organizations, or at the very least, more capable of interpreting the spin even if they transmit it.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:26pm

    GE - acting independently would not - repeat not - have been allowed by Comcast to fire MSNBC's most watched anchor a week before the sale.  Perhaps more to the point, why would it have wanted to? What possible reason for it to do that unless it were doing it at Comcast's direction.

    And where do you see proof he was "fired"?  Rather than finally deciding to leave, after showing unhappiness for quite some time, and not liking the answers he was getting from ongoing negotiations of several months with a newly hired agent with a tough reputation? And seeing that any possible results might not get better under Comcast, but worse? I see an "ok, we'll agree to that, but only if you leave right now" type scenario.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:56pm

    I agree there's no proof he was "fired." But that doesn't invalidate my basic contention   it was Comcast rather than GE which took the management decision which resulted in his departure.

    And Comcast is lying about  that.

    And the media is letting it get away with that.


    by Flavius on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:09pm

    I don't think anyone challenges your contention that Comcast was involved, at least I don't. I just think it was more complicated than Comcast getting rid of Olbermann. I think Olbermann wanted more editorial freedom than Comcast would allow.


    by Donal on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:18pm

    I can imagine that Friday's discussions between MSNBC and team Olberman had been precisely anticipated previously by GE and Comcast. And at that time Comcast made its wishes clear, including a wish not to be consulted when MSNBC had the opportunity to rid them of this meddlesome priest.

    That would have provided it with a , skimpy, rationale for its claim that it was not involved.

    That could be done wordlessly.

    GE says: " Olberman may resign unless we give him XYZ"

    Comcast just smiles.


    by Flavius on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 3:05am

    Seems to me that the meddlesome priest analogy is pretty much right. Comcast wanted a station, with as little trouble as possible.

     

    I think you're right--Comcast's silence may have provided GE with the hint that they could do pretty much anything with Olbermann that Olbermann's agent would allow, and if GE could find a way to get it done before the takeover, great. Also, if GE could find a way to stick Olbermann a little on the way out the door, that would be even better.

    But do we even know that there were negotiations on that last day? I suspect that GE did find a way to stick it to Olbermann a bit on his way out the door, not with a blowup, but with a wrinkle in otherwise fine acceptance terms that would shock Olbermann and mess up his final broadcast. (Artappraiser had some fascinating insights into the power dynamics at play.)

    But Flavius, here's the thing--I don't know how you'd ever find that in the contract language when the players are as skilled as these guys are--there's not much for the media to report on.

    As you said, this stuff can be done with the flicker of an eyebrow. To expand on your "Comcast just smiles" scenarios, I imagine some people in the room and a GE guy going "Um, Olberman's been talking about leaving, and we've found him difficult to work with. Dunno what you guys think about that, but we've done some preliminary work on an exit package. His show is popular, but even if he leaves it will only affect revenues by xyz." Most important Comcast guy looks out the window, says nothing, they don't even know if he's listening. Three minutes later, important Comcast guy says "One thing that's important to us is to be able to have smooth interactions with personnel for the first six months, we'd really like no trouble at the outset." He happens to be looking straight at the guy who mentioned Olbermann. And in that moment, GE knows it's their job to lose Olbermann on their watch, that Comcast approves, wants to not be the bad guys because that would be bad for business, and definitely wants deniability.

    It just seems like it wouldn't show up in the contract. So I don't know how we could expect our incredibly literal media to draw the logical conclusions in their reporting....

     


    by erica20 on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:59pm

    Thanks for taking it the way I meant it. I always appreciate getting your insights and really did want to know if something you saw translated as "fired "

    I'm not sure if I agree with you about where the leaking sources are coming from and what agenda(s) they have and whether the Times reporting did its job as to confirming or is just mouthing p.r. from one side.I'm sure we'll eventually find out, though. One thing I am pretty sure of,  I can see evidence of ICM doing its work for him in the trade media already, so it's not like he's really defenseless in countering spin from the other side. There are lots of subtle ways to get around a silence agreement

    Interesingly, just now I saw Lawrence O'Donnell opened Keith's old time slot with a paean to Keith Olbermann and how Olbermann is responsible for him being there--no evidence of censorship of the Keith praise at MSNBC.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:20pm

    Except that Chris Matthews never mentioned Keith tonight.  Neither did Cenk.  Ed said, "Keith will be missed, but. . ." and then talked about "the company" and the "product".   Somehow I knew Lawrence wouldn't let it go, and I'm hoping Rachel will talk about it, too.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:24pm

    I recall reading more than one piece on Olbermann and Matthews really disliking one another with serious clashes more than once. And that Tom Brokaw wasn't fond of Olbermann either.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:33pm

    Zucker sez:

    Jeff Zucker Praises Keith Olbermann; Reveals His Own Plans

    1/24/2011 by Alex Ben Block

    The outgoing NBC Universal CEO tells NAPTE audience he’s considering a return to news, sports producing.

    Miami – Jeff Zucker dropped a strong hint at the end of his one on one session at NATPE on Monday about what he wants to do when he leaves NBC this Friday.....

    Zucker was interviewed by Wall St. stock market analyst Michael Nathanson of Nomura Securities, who revealed he is also Zucker’s brother-in-law.

    Nathanson’s first question was what Zucker thought about the departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC. Zucker said he couldn’t talk about it beyond what the network had announced, but did call Olbermann “one of the great stars” at the cable network, and one of the reasons for its recent success.

    He said Olbermann may be leaving but MSNBC remains “in a strong position.”....

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jeff-zucker-praises-keith-olberman...


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:46pm

    Speaking of WikiLeaks, I figured everyone might enjoy this picture if they haven't already seen it:

    http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=6668


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 9:47am

    Flavius, Bill Carter of NYT, along with the managing editor of Mediaite.com explained last night on CNN. And it does account for the abruptness. Copy from transcript below.

    Summary: his immediate bosses, NBC News, wanted to get the already ongoing negotiations completed before the Comcast deal, and Comcast was all for that because if that didn't happen, and Olbermann's departure took place after they took over, they would be blamed for doing it for political reasons, which wasn't the case. And this was pretty much confirmed by O'Donnell and Maddow statements on MSNBC last night, where they both basically said we're not going anywhere and other things of that nature.


    From CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES Transcript, Aired January 24, 2011 - 22:00   ET

    Plus, new information tonight about where Keith Olbermann may show up next, and the real story behind his abrupt exit from MSNBC.

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    COOPER: Keith Olbermann's sudden exit from MSNBC caught a lot of people by surprise. Viewers tuned in on Friday. Most of them didn't expect to hear this. Take a look.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    KEITH OLBERMANN, FORMER MSNBC ANCHOR: When I resigned from ESPN 13.5 years ago, I was literally given 30 seconds to say good-bye at the very end of my last edition of "Sports Center." I'm grateful that I have a little more time to sign off here. Regardless, this is the last edition of "Countdown."

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    COOPER: Tonight, new information on why and how the anchor and MSNBC parted ways and where Olbermann might turn up next. Joining me now by phone, Bill Carter, television reporter for "The New York Times." And here with me in the studio, Colby Hall, managing editor for Mediaite.com.

    Appreciate both of you being with us. Bill, you've been on this from the beginning. You reported that MSNBC has been preparing for an exit by Olbermann for months. What can you tell us about it?

    BILL CARTER, TELEVISION REPORT, "NEW YORK TIMES" (via phone): The timing was a factor. They just decided he brought in new agents. I think Keith had a plan. I think it's obvious from his actions and his comments now that, you know, there's a plan in place.

    You've got, you know, going to be another outlet for him as soon as the ending of this contract is settled. He has a, you know, period of six, nine months, something like that, where he won't be able to work on TV. But I think there will be a movement to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) into that.

    COOPER: Colby, for a lot of people who don't follow this as minutely as, you know, folks in the media do, what wasn't working out? I mean, by all, you know -- to people who tune in, they had high ratings. It was the most successful show at MSNBC, really had defined that network. What wasn't working out?

    COLBY HALL, MANAGING EDITOR, MEDIAITE.COM: I think the final (ph) moment to the coup de grace was his suspension last fall. And we wrote at the time at Mediaite that was his Waterloo, and it was, but in a different sort of way. What seems to be clear is that the relationship that he had with management, and not just the management, but also with his cohorts and the people who work for him had become untenable. So it seems like, since fall when he was suspended, there was a process in motion where office politics weren't working and he fell victim. He fell on the wrong side of office politics.

    COOPER: He sent out his first real tweets today. I just want to show you some of them. One says, "Citizens of the free world, greetings. My humble thanks to all Friends of Keith for the many kind words. Reports of the death of my career are greatly exaggerated."

    Bill, I mean, is that his way of saying he's not -- he's not going to go into that good night, even though it seems like he can't talk directly about what happened?

    CARTER: Exactly. And I think anybody who thinks Keith Olbermann is going gently anywhere is -- doesn't know Keith Olbermann. I think he's sending a signal here that he has a plan in place, and that people who are his fans should just wait, wait it out, and he's going to come back. He's going to come back in some form on the Internet, on radio. And I think he'll be on TV again. Why wouldn't he be? He was very successful.

    COOPER: I talked to one person who knows him pretty well, who said he believed that he wanted to do something like The Huffington Post, some sort of online presence. Bill, have you heard that? Do you think that's true?

    CARTER: Yes, I think that's definitely true, because he's allowed to do that right away. I'm sure he'll be doing that in the shorter term. NBC won't be able to prevent that. But in the longer term, he'll get TV offers, I guarantee.

    COOPER: Bill -- I mean, Colby, with the name recognition he has, the following he has. I mean, you could set up a liberal blog that would have a guaranteed audience base.

    HALL: here's no question, he's got a very loyal following. And as David Shuster said on this network, on Sunday, he was very touched and moved by the following -- the response he had when he was suspended. There were 250,000 people that signed a petition.

    So it would stand to reason that he would see this as an opportunity to build up his own personality and develop his own presence on line.

    COOPER: Bill, both Comcast and NBC have denied that their merger had anything to do with Olbermann's departure. Do you buy that? I heard even last summer, from folks, you know, in the industry, saying Comcast is not going to put up with this.

    CARTER: Everybody agreed that Comcast would be very unlikely to put up with Keith's behavior, let's say, and prima donna activities. I don't think it was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) motivated. But I think it was their intention or their desire that this get settled before they took over. Because they knew, if this happened, if it were six months down the road and there was a blowup with Keith, like there was over the donation. And they couldn't tolerate it and forced him out.

    It would look like a political move, and they didn't want that. They wanted it to be resolved ahead of time. NBC moved to get that done, and they got it done right before Comcast took over.

    HALL: Yes, I don't think it's fair to say exactly that Comcast was responsible for this. In fact, I think, as Bill said, there's nothing that -- that's exactly what they don't want.

    I think it's more correct to say that the executives at NBC News are getting new owners, and the rules and standards that applied under Joe Zucker and NBC Universal, under G.E. no longer apply. And they didn't want to have one more headache while they're trying to figure out what makes their new bosses tick.

    COOPER: It's fascinating stuff. Colby, appreciate it.

    We'll continue to watch, Bill. Bill Carter, appreciate your reporting. Thanks, Bill.

    All the evidence really does point to this being about Olbermann wanting to leave and not about Comcast wanting to change anything about MSNBC for the foreseeable future. To the contrary, Comcast didn't want it to look like it was their fault if Olbermann left. O'Donnell even went on quite a bit about how burnt out he must have been.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:48am

    Looks to me like there was a simmering situation and Comcast did want it resolved, and did get it resolved before the merger. That, though is different than Comcast simply disliking Olbermann's politics and forcing him out, which might have happened eventually.


    by Donal on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:58am

    Don't agree . But to be completely clear my position is that on Jan 21 NBC management did what they knew Comcast wanted to be done. Not just resolving the matter, but how .And Comcast is lying to say otherwise. And that the media is letting it get away with that lie.

    On Jan 17 the NBC/Olbermann negotiations had been underway for months. On Jan 18th the Government cleared  Comcast to acquire control. On Jan 21 NBC agreed an arrangement with Olbermann under which he ceased broadcasting. What was different between Jan 17 and Jan 21 that the  NBC execs had a new boss and-if they hadn't done so before- would have informed that new boss of the status of the Olbermann negotiations.

    At which point Comcast could have said " Oh dear , we wish we could tell you how we'd like you settle this thing, but we're not allowed". Or they could have told NBC what to do. I know what I guess.


    by Flavius on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 2:17pm

    Latest Comments