dagblog - Comments for "Time for Wikileaks"

Seems to me that the

erica20 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:59:18 +0000

In reply to I can imagine that Friday's

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....

Don't agree . But to be

Flavius — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:17:00 +0000

In reply to Time for Wikileaks

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.

Looks to me like there was a

Donal — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:58:33 +0000

In reply to Flavius, Bill Carter of NYT,

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.

Flavius, Bill Carter of NYT,

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:48:23 +0000

In reply to Time for Wikileaks

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.

Speaking of WikiLeaks, I

Atheist — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:47:36 +0000

In reply to Time for Wikileaks

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

I can imagine that Friday's

Flavius — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:05:31 +0000

In reply to I don't think anyone

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.

I recall reading more than

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:33:03 +0000

In reply to Except that Chris Matthews

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.

They are in the business of

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0000

In reply to I watched him maybe five

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.

Except that Chris Matthews

Ramona — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:24:23 +0000

In reply to Thanks for taking it the way

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.

I believe they probably were

Ramona — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:21:14 +0000

In reply to I watched him maybe five

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.