I was just watching and am absolutely horrified and shocked!

Keith gave no indication whatsoever about why the show is over.  Unless someone provides a very compelling reason why it is otherwise the timing of this sudden end and the fact that Comcast just tookover is more than mere coincidence.  I thought when they suspended him over the contributions that it was just a matter of time before he got axed.  This is just horrible!  When nobody else in the country with any sort of real media platform had any balls at all Keith Olbermann stood up and objected to the insane and illegal wars, the usurpation of powers by the executive branch, the repressive domestic spying regime, torture and all the other rotten developments of the past 8 or so years.  Obviously, Maddow will be next to go but this sort of ham handed smack down of the leading progressive voice in the media needs to be met with serious public anger.  This is a simply shocking development though we sholdn't be surprised by anything in this era of tyranny from our ruling elite.

Here's the video.  http://bit.ly/dHgDT5

Olbermann has never shown that he plays well with others, especially those in authority.

Did the thought ever occur to anyone that was the message all along?

We give into authority too much. We don't ask. We just accept what we're told. We never question. We never demand a straight answer. In short, we never task those in the media to deliver information in an intellectual format that isn't ripe with spin and innuendo flavored by the political entities intent on manipulating public opinion in favor of a specific political outcome.

Not "taped" his last program.  It was quite live.  Read both Josh's post and  somewhere Jonathan Alter's shocked report that he saw no sign of any of this, except Keith's oblique "thanks for everything" as he walked off set as the last guest. 

I wonder whether Keith started the broadcast not knowing it would be hs last, but suspecting it could be based on whatever settlement had been reached.  Broadcasters, as he suggested, like to hold off telling "talent" that this is their last prgram, lest it turn into the "Network" moment to which Keith adverted.  (I particularly recall WQEW's end as  standards radio station in New York City, managing to go under without giving Jonathan Schwartz a chance to go ballistic on the air, as he likely would have done.)  Josh makes note of a few extra people on set, though he is not sure that that was unusual.  If it was, it was to make sure Keith did not Boyle the moment.

But we do not know the details and I suspect Keith got paid a lot of money not to tell us the details.

Some day, because he is who he is, he will tell us the story, probably more than once, but it may be a few years until he does.

If you're Comcast, having people on your shows who complain about your business model, as well as talk about other annoyingly liberal issues, is unnecessary and destructive. Especially if those people do it well enough to get large numbers of other people on their corporation-critiquing, liberal-issues bandwagon. It's just a pain, you know?

In the big picture, the profit generated by the relatively measly number of liberal viewers is not worth what it costs you and your other corporate "competitors" to lobby against them on issue after issue, especially if you count the cost of opposing Liberals on issues important to viewers/voters who are generally supportive of your agenda.

Bottom line: putting Liberals on your shows just gets them all worked up about opposing the corporate agenda, and that, my friends, is bad for profit. Given that it's proven that people will watch pretty much any old crap that you and your corporate "competitors" put up, why broadcast any free speech other than the kind that supports corporate goals? Especially if the FCC isn't going to stand their ground on that whole "public interest" thing, at least not in any way that matters? I mean really, why would you? So the thing to do is to get rid of the Liberals.

Here's how this came down in my opinion: Olbermann knew that once Comcast took over MSNBC, Liberalism's days were numbered on the network, and that even if he tried to continue, he'd be unbearably squeezed. So he started looking for the best deal by which to end his contract. Knowing that Comcast would probably rather give away money than concessions, he asked for a huge amount of cash and reasonable rights to pursue his career after the severance, knowing that he might not get them. Comcast said they'd think about it.

Comcast didn't let Olbermann know that they'd do the deal until the day of the show. Then they called Olbermann, told him that they'd give him all the money and none of the concession, and made it clear that he had exactly x number of minutes/hours to put together his sign-off. They also made it clear that if they didn't like what he said, he could consider himself fired, people were ready to escort him off the set at the end of the show and they'd spend almost any amount to make sure that he walked away with as little as possible. Olbermann took the deal.

So what does this "don't let the screen door hit you in the pooper on the way out" approach tell us, literally and in "underspeak?"

1. Liberalism is out at MSNBC.
The message to pro-corporate elements is that they're bringing things into line.
The message to viewers/pundits is that MSNBC is being purged of pinko-commies and will soon be safe for reg'ler Americans again, especially if reg'ler Americans step up the pressure to get Maddow and Schultz out of there.

2. Maddow, Schultz and other Liberal voices will be tolerated only as long as their success is limited enough to not trouble the folks at corporate.
The moment they succeed in raising enough opposition to business goals to make things uncomfortable for the corporation (s?), they'll be taken out by any means necessary, including but not limited to, the approach taken with Olbermann.
This is brilliant positioning by Comcast because it can now be implied that anything Maddow/Schultz et al. say or do is motivated either by petulance at Comcast over Olbermann's firing, or by a desire to keep their jobs: their credibility can and will be questioned by everyone who can be paid/bamboozled into questioning it.

Really, what can Maddow/Schultz do except look elsewhere for employment?

I hope I'm wrong about the larger forces at work here, but I'm afraid I may not be.

I thought this was funny coming from Fox Braodcasting's scheduler of prime time entertainment programming who may or may not be destor.

http://twitter.com/#!/maskedscheduler/status/28688500341608448

YMMV.

Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension
By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER
New York Times,  January 23, 2011

[.....]

....underlying the decision, which one executive involved said was not a termination but a “negotiated separation,” were years of behind-the-scenes tension, conflicts and near terminations....

Inside the offices of MSNBC, staff members grew more restive about Mr. Olbermann’s temperament. Some days Mr. Olbermann threatened not to come to work at all and a substitute anchor had to be notified to be on standby...

....stories about Mr. Olbermann’s thin skin circulated widely in the newsroom. One such story, which was recalled independently by two hosts, dates to early December, when Mr. O’Donnell, then carving out some success as the 10 p.m. host on MSNBC, collegially proposed via e-mail that Mr. Olbermann come on his show to talk about President Obama’s tax-cut compromise.

Mr. O’Donnell had written this post on Twitter: “Liberal critics of the Obama deal say exactly what Pat Buchanan said of George H. W. Bush: he’s weak.” The message speculated that Mr. Obama’s critics would do to him what Mr. Buchanan “did to H.W. Bush: destroy him and help elect a president from the other party.”

Mr. Olbermann apparently interpreted the message as a personal attack; he declined to appear on Mr. O’Donnell’s show. “I saw what you wrote on Twitter,” he snapped at Mr. O’Donnell.

[....]

In the last several months, the relationship began moving toward its denouement: Mr. Olbermann hired new agents from the big firm ICM in September, parting from Jean Sage, the agent who had steered his career through all its previous rocky shoals. Several NBC executives said the move was made to facilitate an eventual settlement of the two years left on Mr. Olbermann’s contract.

Mr. Olbermann’s future is up in the air, mainly because he agreed to a deal that would keep him off television for six to nine months, according to several executives involved in his exit. He is also apparently forbidden to discuss his departure.

One NBC executive involved in the decision to settle Mr. Olbermann’s contract said that he was allowed to work in radio or on the Internet and would presumably be free to return to television in time for the 2012 election cycle.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24olbermann.html