Keith Olbermann shuts down Countdown

[chidrummer]

Minutes ago, Keith Olbermann announced that tonight's addition of Countdown was his last. He thanked his staff and his audience for eight years of loyalty to the show. No word on what he will do next.

[marxthespot_]

He said that MSNBC told him it was his last day. I, for one, am a bit shocked. I will say his last ritual toss of papers at the camera at the end was a dead-on bullseye. Keith was sometimes a bit over the top, but coming from an infinitely more factual place than the Fox News "three-ring-circus" of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity & Sarah Palin... Keith didn't seem upset, he seemed more relieved.

[midnight johnny]

Associated Press

NEW YORK — Keith Olbermann is leaving MSNBC and has announced that Friday's "Countdown" show will be his last.
MSNBC issued a statement Friday that it had ended its contract with the controversial host, with no further explanation. Olbermann hosted the network's top-rated show, but his combative liberal opinions often made him a target of critics.
Olbermann did not explain why he was leaving.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press

[Doug-Morgan]

I have some difficulty with Keith and Rachel in the same way I have problems with Bill O' and the rest of the Fox crew in that they don't seem to realise that there are two sides to any story. I'm sorry to see him go, it was great entertainment but as news commentary I found it way to biased to take seriously.

[marxthespot_]

Some speculation is out there that the pending takeover of NBC by Comcast may have had an influence on this decision. I believe that Rachel Maddow is on with Bill Maher tonight. That should be interesting.

[olamaebarto]

some speculation is out there that the pending takeover of nbc by comcast may have had an influence on this decision. I believe that rachel maddow is on with bill maher tonight. That should be interesting.

bingo!!!!!!!!!!

[soulster]

He said that MSNBC told him it was his last day. I, for one, am a bit shocked. I will say his last ritual toss of papers at the camera at the end was a dead-on bullseye. Keith was sometimes a bit over the top, but coming from an infinitely more factual place than the Fox News "three-ring-circus" of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity & Sarah Palin... Keith didn't seem upset, he seemed more relieved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/jan/22/keith-olbermann-msnbc-nbc-terminated

Anderson Cooper on CNN is reporting that Comcrap is directly responsible for his termination.

Idiots. He had the highest rated show on that channel. But, then, CNN also terminated Lou Dobbs contract too, and he also had the highest show on that channel. One thing to note is that Faux didn't fire anyone who gave them trouble, and, they are, unfortunately on top.

Maybe Olbermann made Roger Alies at Faux cry too many times and threatened some kind of legal action.

Oh well, the news of why this happened will come out sooner or later, and i'm sure the other MSNBC pundits will have plenty to say about it.

[soulster]

I have some difficulty with Keith and Rachel in the same way I have problems with Bill O' and the rest of the Fox crew in that they don't seem to realise that there are two sides to any story. I'm sorry to see him go, it was great entertainment but as news commentary I found it way to biased to take seriously.

There is one major difference, Doug. Faux has no regard for the truth. Olbermann and Maddow research and get their facts straight. MSNBC people may be biased, but they get their facts correct. Besides, i'm a liberal, so I approve of their leanings.

[MotownSteve]

If Comcast is truly behind this, then I am very glad for all the grief I gave them over the years because they could not comply with a simple request: don't send me offers.

[marv2]

I just heard that and I can't believe it! Keith was what MSNBC was all about!

[tom_moulton]

Cominacast is making a big Mistake. Keith tells it like it is

[soulster]

I'm glad we don't have Comcrap in this area.

[Doug-Morgan]

Steve....
....i doubt if Comcast had anything to do with it. All the deal did was get regulatory approval the other day, GE still has operational control of NBC Universal until the deal closes. My guess, given all the conditions that Comcast has to meet, would be 6 months.

[ms_m]

Going through various forums and blogs I ran across this interesting piece by an attorney [[and Progressive) that I thought summed up the probable reason for Olbermann’s departure.

This IS NOT the official word on the subject. It is the opinion of an attorney who has had experience with these types of situations.


One of my jobs in real life is as a plaintiff's-side employment attorney in California. [[Taking such cases is speculative work; I also do other things for a more stable income, but I did this work exclusively for a year.)

As I've dealt with various such cases [[though none so large), I just want to explain a bit of what's going on.
Keith Olbermann was not "axed." [[You can say that of Countdown, though.) His departure from MSNBC was apparently negotiated this week. His attorneys and NBC's attorneys negotiated a settlement agreement, probably a buyout of his contract. That doesn't mean that Keith wanted it; it does mean that he reconciled himself to it. If NBC wanted to breach his contract and fire him without cause, they would owe him a bundle. Instead, they negotiated an end to it -- and probably they paid dearly for aspects of it. We should respect that. I strongly suspect that, unless they have pictures of him committing horrifying acts with a goat, Keith considers the deal to have been worth it.

Note: This is not intended and should not be taken as legal advice -- nor is it a solicitation of an attorney-client relationship. It addresses solely general issues in the field. If you have an employment law situation, do not rely on a single word here. Rely on your own legal counsel, whether paid or volunteer.

Here's what happens: a company has a contract with someone and they no longer want that person. They can't fire him for cause. So, instead, they negotiate a payoff -- one for which his attorneys will presumably get a cut, so it may be that much higher. They also make it dependent on certain agreements. Those agreements may make it hard for us to get the truth -- and may make it impossible for Keith to tell us the truth, so there's no point in pressuring him to do so.

These agreements will often have clauses involving "trade secrets," "non-disparagement," "waivers," and "confidentiality," among many others. [[In California, a non-compete agreement would be unenforceable as against public policy, although I'm not an entertainment industry lawyer and I don't doubt that they might have figured out some workaround. I am a member of the New York bar, but didn't practice employment law there, so I don't know what the relevant law would be.) [Update: but fladem apparently does know.]

"Trade secrets" means that if Keith knows things that are confidential to NBC employees, he can't tell people [[except his counsel and to some degree maybe his spouse, who would be similarly bound.) Keith is probably getting a lot of money from this and he's not going to jeopardize it by giving away NBC's secrets, some of which may involve Comcast. If he wants to keep these secrets, that should be respected. After all, he did promise.

"Non-disparagement" will usually, in a case this lawyered up, be mutual. That means that both sides agree not to say nasty things about the other or to cause or recklessly allow such things to be said by their associates base on their insider knowledge. So, Keith's brother [[if he has one) can say that NBC and Comcast are rotten thugs; that's his opinion. He can't use what Keith knows to bolster this opinion. Now, things will often leak, but they're deniable and both sides will put up with a certain amount of gossip rather than spike the deal.

"Waivers" apply to future claims. Keith will probably have to agree that he is abandoning all other claims against NBC [[and hordes of other people who will be included in this), which does not cover, for example, a claim for libel based on a post-agreement event. Keith will not want to do this voluntarily. NBC will have had to up the ante for it.

Now, "confidentiality" is the most interesting one here. It's the one that will disappoint us most, and the one that -- due to that temptation -- we should strive hardest to respect. [[There are circumstances where I hate confidentiality provisions because they may allow wrongdoers to keep on doing wrong without adverse publicity. This doesn't seem like one of those cases. The reasons to dislike what NBC -- with or without Comcast -- did here are pretty plainly perceivable.) What this means is that Keith probably cannot discuss either the terms of his separation agreement [[beyond a limited amount of information that both sides agree will be made public) or the circumstances leading up to his termination. Yes, the bad part is that NBC is buying his silence. The good part is that NBC is buying his silence -- this is usually the only way a deal like this gets done -- and that all it will keep from us is his confirmation of what we already know or suspect.

Case in point: remember Bill O'Reilly's settlement of his case with the woman who he supposedly called while in a sexual frenzy, spilling out his scenario to her about what he wanted to do with her in a shower with a falafel -- he meant "loofah," presumably, assuming that this did happen -- until it was time to, um, throw in the towel [[or the Kleenex or the sock, whatever)? She has never spoken about what happened publicly. Her allegations made it into the press because she brought forth a complaint -- dumb of O'Reilly's people not to head it off before then, but whatever -- but their truth has never been tested and she has never confirmed them. That's the deal. If it wasn't worth it to NBC, they wouldn't have paid for Keith's silence. Again, and I'm not being coy here, it's fine for Keith to do this. It's how he got his buyout. He'll do something nice with his money that will probably aid progressive causes. Rejoice with him!


Doug, when Olbermann was suspended a few months ago, something was established that a lot of people overlooked. Countdown, Rachel, Fox News, Morning Joe and a few others, are not news programs. They are TV/cable versions of the Op Ed sections in most major newspapers with a twist, in addition to giving their opinions, they also report the news.

As a matter of fact, I remember one MSNBC exec stating categorically that Countdown was not under their news division and they paid very little attention to it.:eek:


The new rumor is Keith is going back to sports news casting. [[his first love)

I like Olbermann although I prefer Rachel Maddow's overall style, intelligence and persona. She has guests who have the opposite view point and would have more if these folks would accept her invitations [[which she extends often) to come on the show. [[most refuse or ignore the invitation)

[stephanie]

Keith Olbermann will be missed I thought he was edgy and very talented. I hope they dont shut Rachel Maddow up she is the best thing to happen to that channel. Olbermann should be happy in sports but I will miss his opinions on politics.

[soulster]

You know, it may very well be that Keith isn't too upset over this. And, we haven't seen or heard the last of him. He has a LOT to say, and he is going to say it! I hope CNN, when they can, snaps him up. Oh, wait, they don't want to say anything bad about Faux either.

Right now, I think the best people MSNBC have left are Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz. Let's see how long they are allowed to be the opposition to Faux.

[smark21]

Hopefully other pundits, whether they work for Fox, MSNBC, or CNN, will follow Olbermann's lead and quit. Cable "News" is awful. Just windbag pundits pontificating for an audience that gets off on conflict but imagine themselves too educated and high brow for Professional Wrestling, which is much more honest in what it serves up than Cable News.

[marxthespot_]

I am sure than MSNBC & Keith Olbermann wanted this to go as amicably as possible, but it still amounts to that "somebody" no longer wanted him there. My question is....Who is "somebody?"...NBC or Comcast?

If the entire NBC is about to be taken over by Comcast, why wouldn't NBC just wait for Comcast to get rid of Keith? Why would NBC go to the trouble, mess and discomfort to let him go? Why not let Comcast do the dirty work since they will soon be running the whole show anyway? Whether Olbermann was fired or stayed has no bearing on the takeover of NBC by Comcast. It doesn't make sense.....

I actually think that MSNBC may have done Keith a BIG favor...Most likely, he would have been let go by Comcast. Maybe MSNBC decided "why don't we spare Keith the hassle of being fired by Comcast." Maybe MSNBC thought highly enough of Keith to get him out under the much more favorable circumstances of buying out his contract and giving Olbermann some more paid time off than would have been the case if he had been let go 6-12 months from now. Now that makes sense!


[[ Hey Ms. M!!! It's been a long time...!]]

[MotownSteve]

Doug-Morgan

Steve....
....i doubt if Comcast had anything to do with it. All the deal did was get regulatory approval the other day, GE still has operational control of NBC Universal until the deal closes. My guess, given all the conditions that Comcast has to meet, would be 6 months.


If I had to guess I say Comcast did not have anything to do with Keith being let go. But, if they did, then I'm glad I did what I did.

[ms_m]

[[ Hey Ms. M!!! It's been a long time...!]]

[[waving back:cool:).....OMG, I was just thinking about you the other day. How are you?
You've been missed.

[tom_moulton]

One of The reasons I enjoy watching Keith is he put such a wide gap between Fact & Fiction. If he didn't have the fictional audio portion of it he would say [[in so many words) Let's Go To The Video Tape [[ sorry Warner)

[ladyvanaye]

Wonder where he will go next....

[soulster]

Tom, it's a sad day indeed for the First Amendment. Corporate America asserts it's will once again.

[theboyfromxtown]

As a Brit, can I ask. Why has Comcast got a bad repuation with you folks?

[ms_m]

Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension

By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER
Published: January 23, 2011


MSNBC never had any doubt about what it was getting when it made Keith Olbermann the face of the network in 2003: a highly talented broadcaster, a distinctive and outspoken voice and a mercurial personality with a track record of attacking his superiors and making early exits.

Even his own boss, Phil Griffin, offered this assessment in 2008, when Mr. Olbermann was being heavily criticized by supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton because he was urging her to drop out of the race to become the Democratic presidential candidate.

For Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, Mr. Griffin said in an interview with The New Yorker magazine, “It was, like, you meet a guy and fall in love with him.” But, he said, “then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal.”


Full Article [[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24olbermann.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp)

[soulster]

As a Brit, can I ask. Why has Comcast got a bad repuation with you folks?

From all I have read and heard, it's their lousy customer service and arguably illegal, if not unethical service policies, particularly with internet service. They seem to care more about profit than customers.

[soulster]

Hey! I gotta great way for Roger Alies at Fox to put his money where his mouth is. If they are really "fair and balanced" and believe in free speech, he should hire Olbermann to revive his Countdown show in a prime-time slot, and let him do what he does best in Glenn Beck's slot. It'll never happen, of course, but the thought of it boggles the mind!

The conservatives would shit a brick!

[marxthespot_]

Hey! I gotta great way for Roger Alies at Fox to put his money where his mouth is. If they are really "fair and balanced" and believe in free speech, he should hire Olbermann to revive his Countdown show in a prime-time slot, and let him do what he does best in Glenn Beck's slot. It'll never happen, of course, but the thought of it boggles the mind!

The conservatives would shit a brick!


Don't be surprised if we hear that Ales makes Olbermann an offer.....I don't think Keith would take an offer from Ales....However, money does make for strange bedfellows.....Besides Olbermann probably has non-compete clause that may keep him off the air for quite a a while...

[marxthespot_]

[[waving back:cool:).....OMG, I was just thinking about you the other day. How are you?
You've been missed.

Ms. M, thank you for the warm greeting!...I have been fine. I hope all is well with you and those you care about the most.

You might say I've decided to pick and choose more selectively on SDF participation. However, it is nice to know that a true lady such as yourself still graces the Forum....:)

[ms_m]

Oh dear, you have me blushing, thanks for the kind words Marx.


My peeps and I are hanging, good days, bad days...such is life.;)


You might say I've decided to pick and choose more selectively on SDF participation.

I can understand that, it's a great way to protect ones sanity, but it's good to see ya.:cool:

[midnight johnny]

Lawrence O'Donnell has just taken over Keith's time slot. Tonight, Lawrence gave an amazing tribute to Keith, how he helped prepare Lawrence for his show on MSNBC, and how innovative and important Keith has been to the success of MSNBC. If you liked and miss Keith, try to find the clip of Lawrence's tribute. Rachel Maddow will be speaking about Keith later on this 9PM hour.

[soulster]

Don't be surprised if we hear that Ales makes Olbermann an offer.....I don't think Keith would take an offer from Ales....However, money does make for strange bedfellows.....Besides Olbermann probably has non-compete clause that may keep him off the air for quite a a while...

Be for real. Alies will never offer Olbermann a spot. Keith's an aggressive, unapologetic [[well, mostly) liberal with a capital "L"! He has bashed Fox and it's talking heads time and time again. Conservatives/republicans do not want their flock to hear the liberal/progressive view unless it's weak enough for them to attack and ridicule it.

But, it would be kind of interesting! Would Fox gain a new audience, or would they just lose their base? What would the conservatives do with Olbermann on their network? Would Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity go to war with him? Would there be fights on the offices? Would they try to undermine Olbermann? You know Keith would demand his own production staff and absolute creative control. No, it will NEVER happen!

[marxthespot_]

Be for real. Alies will never offer Olbermann a spot. Keith's an aggressive, unapologetic [[well, mostly) liberal with a capital "L"! He has bashed Fox and it's talking heads time and time again. Conservatives/republicans do not want their flock to hear the liberal/progressive view unless it's weak enough for them to attack and ridicule it.

But, it would be kind of interesting! Would Fox gain a new audience, or would they just lose their base? What would the conservatives do with Olbermann on their network? Would Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity go to war with him? Would there be fights on the offices? Would they try to undermine Olbermann? You know Keith would demand his own production staff and absolute creative control. No, it will NEVER happen!

It would never happen because of Keith. However, Ales would not be beyond trying something like this to see if Keith Olbermann could be bought...

[ms_m]

Keith Olbermann is not a team player and I'm not saying that as snark but fact. Some people simply are not meant to work for others. He needs to find a fit where he can call his own shots and with the money he made from this deal on top of what he was making, I'm sure he'll figure it all out.

[soulster]

Ales would not be beyond trying something like this to see if Keith Olbermann could be bought...

Alies [[with an "i", BTW) The people at Fox are so hardcore right-wing they will never attempt to woo someone like Olbermann. They're too chicken.

[MissLish]

There is one major difference, Doug. Faux has no regard for the truth. Olbermann and Maddow research and get their facts straight. MSNBC people may be biased, but they get their facts correct. Besides, i'm a liberal, so I approve of their leanings.




Ding! Ding! Ding!!

[MissLish]

Keith Olbermann is not a team player and I'm not saying that as snark but fact. Some people simply are not meant to work for others. He needs to find a fit where he can call his own shots and with the money he made from this deal on top of what he was making, I'm sure he'll figure it all out.


I heard that a contentious relationship existed between Oberman and the powers that be at MSNBC; I don't doubt that. Oberman was passionate and overly biased, but his heart is in the right place.

[ms_m]

I'm not doubting his commitment to what he believes in but he's had problems with management wherever he went and that's a documented fact. All I'm saying is, he needs to do his own thing, call his own shots and not have someone over him telling him what he can and cannot do.

[stephanie]

If it were not for Colbert and Jon Stewart there would be room for Keith on Comedy Central. Personally I think he should go back to sports OR someone at CNN with some balls could hire him. Lord PLEASE keep Rachel Maddow!

[timmyfunk]

Something tells me that Keith will end up on CNN in about a year. The ratings boost he generated for MSNBC cannot be ignored. Either way, his absence from television isn't a good thing.

[stephanie]

Timmy my only concern is would CNN give him what he got over at MSNBC? Keith was a powerhouse over there and supposedly CNN is tanking in the ratings. Keith could give them a huge boost. Personally I see nothing wrong with CNN they are doing what they have always done its just that people gravitate towards drama and pundits hence FOX and MSNBC. When I like to wind down HLN is a good network as well.

[soulster]

If it were not for Colbert and Jon Stewart there would be room for Keith on Comedy Central. Personally I think he should go back to sports OR someone at CNN with some balls could hire him. Lord PLEASE keep Rachel Maddow!

According to Maddow, nothing will change on MSNBC, and they will not lose their ability to talk liberal. From that, I can take it that Keith's departure was about his soured relationship with management. There may have been more that happened behind the scenes that we don't know about that prompted such a sudden end to Countdown.

Keith is not a comedian, so he wouldn't fit at Comedy Central. I think he's gone too far as a journalist and news commentator to go back to sports, and somehow, though it would be a wise move for CNN to pick him up when they get the chance, I don't think they will because they are trying hard to stay in the middle between MSNBC and FAUX. Who knows, perhaps he'll wind up back on MSNBC again.

[soulster]

Timmy my only concern is would CNN give him what he got over at MSNBC? Keith was a powerhouse over there and supposedly CNN is tanking in the ratings. Keith could give them a huge boost. Personally I see nothing wrong with CNN they are doing what they have always done its just that people gravitate towards drama and pundits hence FOX and MSNBC. When I like to wind down HLN is a good network as well.

Stephanie, if you recall, CNN got rid of Lou Dobbs because he was too polarizing. He attracted the conservative wing-nuts, and had a hard-on for illegals. He also had a contentious relationship with management.

[timmyfunk]

Timmy my only concern is would CNN give him what he got over at MSNBC? Keith was a powerhouse over there and supposedly CNN is tanking in the ratings. Keith could give them a huge boost. Personally I see nothing wrong with CNN they are doing what they have always done its just that people gravitate towards drama and pundits hence FOX and MSNBC. When I like to wind down HLN is a good network as well.

CNN ain't as middle of the road as one would think. Kathleen Parker [[somewhat yummy) is as far right as they're going to get. It's a center-left network at the moment. Or for the moment.

[ms_m]

It's a center-left network at the moment. Or for the moment.

That moment has passed. Any network that legitimizes Erick Erickson as a respected pundit has jumped the shark.

I will not post any of their vile commentary but you might want to check out Erickson's http://www.redstate.com

and to be fair and balanced....Cenk Uygur getting a shot on MSNBC will not do the Democratic Party any favors either. Although I'll give him credit for manipulating the heck out of the far left of the blog world to get the position...:rolleyes:

[timmyfunk]

That moment has passed. Any network that legitimizes Erick Erickson as a respected pundit has jumped the shark.

I will not post any of their vile commentary but you might want to check out Erickson's http://www.redstate.com

and to be fair and balanced....Cenk Uygur getting a shot on MSNBC will not do the Democratic Party any favors either. Although I'll give him credit for manipulating the heck out of the far left of the blog world to get the position...:rolleyes:

Yeah, but it's not like he has his own show on the network. The day to day personalities on CNN are definitely center left.

[marxthespot_]

According to Maddow, nothing will change on MSNBC, and they will not lose their ability to talk liberal. From that, I can take it that Keith's departure was about his soured relationship with management. There may have been more that happened behind the scenes that we don't know about that prompted such a sudden end to Countdown.

Keith is not a comedian, so he wouldn't fit at Comedy Central. I think he's gone too far as a journalist and news commentator to go back to sports, and somehow, though it would be a wise move for CNN to pick him up when they get the chance, I don't think they will because they are trying hard to stay in the middle between MSNBC and FAUX. Who knows, perhaps he'll wind up back on MSNBC again.

Kieth will end up with a show somewhere down the line. I don't think he will go back to sportscasting either. He will have to sit out his non-compete period first.

Olbermann tends to wear his heart and emotions on his sleeve perhaps to his detriment. However, on the integrity scale, he beats the combined integrity of the entire Fox News channel...

[ms_m]

He doesn't need his own show to spew his filth, The simple act of legitimizing him gives him creditability and even more influence with his supporters.

Prior to joining Fox Palin was doing wonders making friends and influencing people on the far right. She didn't need Fox, they only grabbed her for ratings. Same thing with Erickson.

In today's culture politics is more about marketing and PR than governing and any news outlet that will give Erickson a platform doesn't give a dayum about the center or the left. Extremist views get ratings, plain and simple and Erickson is so far to the right he's falling over the cliff and dancing in sh%t. CNN throws in a few lefty's to make themselves look slightly better than Fox and viewers fall for it ...but, whatever.

[soulster]

CNN ain't as middle of the road as one would think. Kathleen Parker [[somewhat yummy) is as far right as they're going to get. It's a center-left network at the moment. Or for the moment.

I disagree.

[timmyfunk]

I disagree.

There are far more center-left personalities on CNN than right. They ain't no middle of the road on that network and there hasn't been since they got rid of Dobbs.

[timmyfunk]

He doesn't need his own show to spew his filth, The simple act of legitimizing him gives him creditability and even more influence with his supporters.

Prior to joining Fox Palin was doing wonders making friends and influencing people on the far right. She didn't need Fox, they only grabbed her for ratings. Same thing with Erickson.

In today's culture politics is more about marketing and PR than governing and any news outlet that will give Erickson a platform doesn't give a dayum about the center or the left. Extremist views get ratings, plain and simple and Erickson is so far to the right he's falling over the cliff and dancing in sh%t. CNN throws in a few lefty's to make themselves look slightly better than Fox and viewers fall for it ...but, whatever.

Unless this guy gets his own regular feature on the network, his influence is greatly diminished.

[soulster]

There are far more center-left personalities on CNN than right. They ain't no middle of the road on that network and there hasn't been since they got rid of Dobbs.

Think of it this way: the majority of pundits on CNN are in the center, which means the people on Faux are even more radical than you thought.

[midnight johnny]

I think it's hard to call CNN or it's pundits "center" when they and CNN are supporting the Tea Party and ODDLY Michelle Bachman financially AND with air time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/maddow-denounces-cnn-again_n_814691.html

[soulster]

I think it's hard to call CNN or it's pundits "center" when they and CNN are supporting the Tea Party and ODDLY Michelle Bachman financially AND with air time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/maddow-denounces-cnn-again_n_814691.html

No, they do not support these people or organizations, they are simply giving them air-time to express their opinions. Then, you have the other side doing the same. It's what is called balanced journalism. You present the various sides of issues instead of just one side.

Promoting them would mean they have no viable opposing opinion...like on Fox.

[ms_m]

Unless this guy gets his own regular feature on the network, his influence is greatly diminished.

Timmyfunk, my point isn't about the amount of exposure. Obviously someone who is on the air 5 days a week will have a larger viewing audience but their influence is not necessarily and solely dependent on being seen 5 days a week.

An example, years ago when Jesse Helms was still alive, before he became a senator and before he was nationally known, he would do editorials on our local tv station. Sometimes he would do these editorials once a week, sometimes, twice a week and then there were weeks he wouldn't do any at all yet, Jesse Helms was able to exert influence over the minds of a lot of people. Why, because he had a platform that went directly into living rooms. That meant whether you agreed with him, didn't agree with him, or sat on the fence, he was all in your face. You didn't have to seek him out, he was right there.

Prior to CNN giving Erickson that type of platform, people would have actually had to seek him out via his blog....as a rule, only like minded people will do that [[again as a rule and there are exceptions) With a platform like CNN he can now reach people that sit on the fence, people that would never bother to seek him out but are suddenly exposed to his way of thinking when they would not have been exposed before.

Even if he's on CNN one day a week, and only changes the minds of 50 people, that's 50 more he would have had if he were not on CNN. That's also 50 more people that he has influenced to go to his blog to find out more about him and his views. If those fifty tell 50 more, the cycle continues on and on and on....and all of these are people who would never have known who Erickson was, if he had not been on CNN.

As long as Erickson was underground so to speak, his influence was minimal and he was only exposed to like minds who had to actually seek him out via his blog. By having a platform on a nationally recognized cable news network he's in everyone's face who watch him and or CNN.

Erickson is not simply a conservative, he is an extreme right winger whose views have often gone way beyond those who see themselves as Tea Party members. Via his blog, he can make Glenn Beck come off like Tiny Tim.

Why would a news network that supposedly leans center left expose him to their audience? What's the point? His facts are so screwed, a center left audience is going to think he has lost his mind so again, why give him a platform? Who is CNN trying to reach with someone that extreme? You can't say it's in the realm of fair and balance because when you're as extreme as Erickson, you are neither fair or balanced so again I ask, why give him a platform if you're center left?

[ms_m]

Another thing TimmyFunk, now that Erickson has a national platform, I'm seeing his point of view quoted throughout mainstream media. His views are in no way, shape or form mainstream but CNN has elevated him to a position where he is often quoted in mainstream publications. CNN has legitimized this fool and by doing so, legitimized his whacked out way of thinking.

The man has a documented history of inflammatory rhetoric and only tones it down a tad on CNN but visit his blog and that rhetoric is ratcheted up to def con level. Yet the organization you call center left, turns a blind eye to all of this and continues to frame him in the public eye as nothing more than a "normal" conservative with the counter opinion to liberals.

News organizations are supposed to be non partisan, Countdown, Maddow, O'donnell etc, are not news organizations, they are considered op ed -tv. Their programs are/were not under the control or management of MSNBC news. CNN is a news organization. They should not be leaning left, right, up or down but to say they are center left while promoting someone like Erickson who is not simply conservative [[as MSM often states) but bat shit crazy, is a contradiction in terms.

[timmyfunk]

Timmyfunk, my point isn't about the amount of exposure. Obviously someone who is on the air 5 days a week will have a larger viewing audience but their influence is not necessarily and solely dependent on being seen 5 days a week.

An example, years ago when Jesse Helms was still alive, before he became a senator and before he was nationally known, he would do editorials on our local tv station. Sometimes he would do these editorials once a week, sometimes, twice a week and then there were weeks he wouldn't do any at all yet, Jesse Helms was able to exert influence over the minds of a lot of people. Why, because he had a platform that went directly into living rooms. That meant whether you agreed with him, didn't agree with him, or sat on the fence, he was all in your face. You didn't have to seek him out, he was right there.

Prior to CNN giving Erickson that type of platform, people would have actually had to seek him out via his blog....as a rule, only like minded people will do that [[again as a rule and there are exceptions) With a platform like CNN he can now reach people that sit on the fence, people that would never bother to seek him out but are suddenly exposed to his way of thinking when they would not have been exposed before.

Even if he's on CNN one day a week, and only changes the minds of 50 people, that's 50 more he would have had if he were not on CNN. That's also 50 more people that he has influenced to go to his blog to find out more about him and his views. If those fifty tell 50 more, the cycle continues on and on and on....and all of these are people who would never have known who Erickson was, if he had not been on CNN.

As long as Erickson was underground so to speak, his influence was minimal and he was only exposed to like minds who had to actually seek him out via his blog. By having a platform on a nationally recognized cable news network he's in everyone's face who watch him and or CNN.

Erickson is not simply a conservative, he is an extreme right winger whose views have often gone way beyond those who see themselves as Tea Party members. Via his blog, he can make Glenn Beck come off like Tiny Tim.

Why would a news network that supposedly leans center left expose him to their audience? What's the point? His facts are so screwed, a center left audience is going to think he has lost his mind so again, why give him a platform? Who is CNN trying to reach with someone that extreme? You can't say it's in the realm of fair and balance because when you're as extreme as Erickson, you are neither fair or balanced so again I ask, why give him a platform if you're center left?

I personally have never heard of Erickson before he was brought up here. And I don't if anyone who doesn't watch CNN on a regular basis has heard of him. They would, however, be more familiar with him if he had his own nightly gig. Those are the people with the influence. When people talk about the most prominent personalities of the right wing, outside of politicians, they are going to run off the names of everyone who makes up the FNC's nightly line up, not Erickson.

MSNBC not only has Scarborough, but they Patrick Buchanan on a regular basis. Yet neither of these yield any kind of notoriety in the political public discourse, and Scarborough has a regular morning gig. CNN's regular line up is made of center left personalities. People will tune in to those people night after night, but their influence is still questionable. That's all I'm saying.

Time to push the agree to disagree button and move on.

[timmyfunk]

I think it's hard to call CNN or it's pundits "center" when they and CNN are supporting the Tea Party and ODDLY Michelle Bachman financially AND with air time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/maddow-denounces-cnn-again_n_814691.html

The only channel that supports the Tea Party movement is Faux. CNN will probably change it's course due to all of the criticism they received when they broadcast Michelle Bachmann's SOTU response. CNN definitely ain't in bed with the Tea Party movement.

[ms_m]

CNN like most news organizations are in bed with corporatist but my view isn't about who they are in bed with, but who they are catering to, to get the most bang for their buck. That is not a center left audience. Center left equates to moderate views and Erickson views are not moderate.

[timmyfunk]

CNN like most news organizations are in bed with corporatist but my view isn't about who they are in bed with, but who they are catering to, to get the most bang for their buck. That is not a center left audience. Center left equates to moderate views and Erickson views are not moderate.

That line up ain't catering to no right wing. The FNC has that audience damn near on lock down. CNN ain't making no serious in-roads into Faux's audience.

[soulster]

The only channel that supports the Tea Party movement is Faux. CNN will probably change it's course due to all of the criticism they received when they broadcast Michelle Bachmann's SOTU response. CNN definitely ain't in bed with the Tea Party movement.

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

[timmyfunk]

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

I'm pretty sure that MSNBC didn't broadcast the entire speech. Though I may need to check again.

[olamaebarto]

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.


Only CNN showed Bat Shit Bachmann's rambling.

[olamaebarto]

Something tells me that Keith will end up on CNN in about a year. The ratings boost he generated for MSNBC cannot be ignored. Either way, his absence from television isn't a good thing.

Maybe sooner.

His agreement w/ MSNBC stated that he can't work on TV for only 4 1/2 month following his departure from the network.

I think it's a good bet he'll show up at CNN.

[timmyfunk]

Maybe sooner.

His agreement w/ MSNBC stated that he can't work on TV for only 4 1/2 month following his departure from the network.

I think it's a good bet he'll show up at CNN.

Which will be a beautiful thang! I personally wish him the best.

[ms_m]

Who's talking about making inroads with anyone? I'm talking about legitimizing a crazy person to the elevation of mainstream normal when he is not. I'm talking about the organization that is responsible for making it happen...CNN....the organization you call center [[moderate) left. ....and you never did answer my question but let me rephrase, why would a so call moderate left organization, legitimatize a nut?

As quiet as it's kept in mainstream USA, none of these outlets give a crap about politics. Politics is a means to an end....profits for their corporate overloads. They all put on this big show promoting one ideological idea or the other, they rope viewers in and boom, they make money. Some make more than others but it doesn't change the fact, they are in it for the money.

Olbermann would sometime talk about what a great guy Hannity was off camera, yet on camera they dogged each other out. Rachel Maddow was once [[and may still be) good friends with Pat Buchanan but will disagree passionately while expressing view points that reach people in their living rooms.

That's not to say that individually any of these people are not sincere in their view points but don't loose sight of the fact that the powers that be [[the corporations that own these networks) are using those views to manipulate the masses for their own bottom line. Divisiveness and sensationalism sales, it can keep people off balance, unhinged and un focused. If you divert the focus you maintain control.

Simple mathematics tells us that 99% of the population is larger than 1% yet 1% of the population has the most wealth and power. If the 99ers ever wake up and start focusing, guess who is screwed?

As far as the FCC goes, the FCC is an independent organization operating under the auspices of the Federal Government. Until we realize total public financed elections [[elections financed only by the people and for the people) are the only way to keep corporations from having a seat at the table of governing....corporations will have more influence over the FCC and our government than the American people....but I doubt if corporations are too worried about it at this point because they have news organizations, mindless TV and other sources to keep us from focusing on how to truly change things and make a difference in this country.

No one needs to stop watching news, or reality shows or any other form of entertainment or news but we do need to understand the psychology and mechanics of it all and how it's used to influence the minds of the public.

[timmyfunk]

Who's talking about making inroads with anyone? I'm talking about legitimizing a crazy person to the elevation of mainstream normal when he is not. I'm talking about the organization that is responsible for making it happen...CNN....the organization you call center [[moderate) left. ....and you never did answer my question but let me rephrase, why would a so call moderate left organization, legitimatize a nut?

As quiet as it's kept in mainstream USA, none of these outlets give a crap about politics. Politics is a means to an end....profits for their corporate overloads. They all put on this big show promoting one ideological idea or the other, they rope viewers in and boom, they make money. Some make more than others but it doesn't change the fact, they are in it for the money.

Olbermann would sometime talk about what a great guy Hannity was off camera, yet on camera they dogged each other out. Rachel Maddow was once [[and may still be) good friends with Pat Buchanan but will disagree passionately while expressing view points that reach people in their living rooms.

That's not to say that individually any of these people are not sincere in their view points but don't loose sight of the fact that the powers that be [[the corporations that own these networks) are using those views to manipulate the masses for their own bottom line. Divisiveness and sensationalism sales, it can keep people off balance, unhinged and un focused. If you divert the focus you maintain control.

Simple mathematics tells us that 99% of the population is larger than 1% yet 1% of the population has the most wealth and power. If the 99ers ever wake up and start focusing, guess who is screwed?

As far as the FCC goes, the FCC is an independent organization operating under the auspices of the Federal Government. Until we realize total public financed elections [[elections financed only by the people and for the people) are the only way to keep corporations from having a seat at the table of governing....corporations will have more influence over the FCC and our government than the American people....but I doubt if corporations are too worried about it at this point because they have news organizations, mindless TV and other sources to keep us from focusing on how to truly change things and make a difference in this country.

No one needs to stop watching news, or reality shows or any other form of entertainment or news but we do need to understand the psychology and mechanics of it all and how it's used to influence the minds of the public.

And I'm saying that this dude apparently ain't on CNN enough to be effectively legitimized. You probably couldn't find five people on the street that's ever heard of this dude. They're too many channels on the dial for any one guest speaker to have any real influence. I really think that there's some overreaching here.

[ms_m]

You probably couldn't find five people on the street that's ever heard of this dude.

yeah, if only five people watch CNN .....

Great talking to ya Timmy Funk

[timmyfunk]

yeah, if only five people watch CNN .....

Great talking to ya Timmy Funk

Keep looking for those people. You might find them....one day.

[ms_m]

Why would I want to look for them?
...and I promise, you may have the last word in answering the question.;)

later TF

[timmyfunk]

Why would I want to look for them?
...and I promise, you may have the last word in answering the question.;)

later TF

You seem so hell bent on confirming how much influence this guy[[who again I've never heard of before this thread existed, and I tune in to CNN quite a bit) seems to have. And I'm saying that he doesn't. For those who buy into his rhetoric, more power to him.

[ms_m]

I lied about giving you the last word ...

but when people don't get their facts straight I speak up. This conversation was about whether CNN was center left. I brought up Erickson as an example of why I didn't agree with your statement. Everything else was filler so don't even play me. You should know me better than that by now.

[soulster]

You seem so hell bent on confirming how much influence this guy[[who again I've never heard of before this thread existed, and I tune in to CNN quite a bit) seems to have. And I'm saying that he doesn't. For those who buy into his rhetoric, more power to him.

He had a major influence on progressives, and he almost single-handedly shaped MSNBC's content when they were still trying to find their way.

[soulster]

Only CNN showed Bat Shit Bachmann's rambling.

Wrong. I was watching MSNBC, and they aired it. And, you know damn well Faux aired it too.

[soulster]

I'm pretty sure that MSNBC didn't broadcast the entire speech. Though I may need to check again.

Check again, because I sat there and watched it on MSNBC. Do you seriously think they would pass up an opportunity to show her up for what she is?

[smark21]

Frankly I see nothing wrong with CNN airing Bachman's speech. She came across as wild eyed and crazy. Her die hard fans in the Tea Party might have loved it, but in terms of introducing herself to a larger segment of the public [[she harbors ambitons to run for National office), she pretty much took the rope and hung herself and exposed herself as a third rate version of Sarah Palin, and that's pretty low rate.

[midnight johnny]

MSNBC, FAUX, and CNN all broadcast Michelle Bachman's SOTU.

ONLY CNN broadcast Bachman's ramblings.

[soulster]

ONLY CNN broadcast Bachman's ramblings.

And, you were watching MSNBC?

[chidrummer]

Soulster, I was watching MSNBC that night and they did NOT air Bachmann's retort. They certainly didn't do it live. They have in these last few days aired enough of it to give the impression they aired it, but they didn't. Consider this from TVReplay:

The Daily Beast columnist Meghan McCain was on 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' [[Wed., 8PM on MSNBC), where she and the host responded to GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's response to the State of the Union address. MSNBC did not air the response, but CNN did, which McCain thinks they "should be ashamed of."

[soulster]

Soulster, I was watching MSNBC that night and they did NOT air Bachmann's retort. They certainly didn't do it live. They have in these last few days aired enough of it to give the impression they aired it, but they didn't. Consider this from TVReplay:

The Daily Beast columnist Meghan McCain was on 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' [[Wed., 8PM on MSNBC), where she and the host responded to GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's response to the State of the Union address. MSNBC did not air the response, but CNN did, which McCain thinks they "should be ashamed of."


MSNBC aired it a couple of hours after the fact. But, they did air it.

[chidrummer]

Well in that case, it doesn't count if they did it after I went to bed.

Either way, Bachmann's debacle has been dissected a hundred different ways over the last few days and left for dead. Ryan's creepy official response has been met with simular disdain. Nothing substansive has changed at MSMBC except for news that Comcast is canning the Peacock. Stay tuned, keep an eye out and we'll see what happens down the road.

[midnight johnny]

MSNBC aired it a couple of hours after the fact. But, they did air it.

That is a lot different than airing it LIVE and giving Bachman an appearance of importance...which she doesn't have nor does she deserve. She is an insane FLAKE and what comes out of her mouth is complete nonsense.

[soulster]

That is a lot different than airing it LIVE and giving Bachman an appearance of importance...which she doesn't have nor does she deserve. She is an insane FLAKE and what comes out of her mouth is complete nonsense.

True. But airing the nonsense isn't the same as promoting it.

[midnight johnny]

And, you were watching MSNBC?

CNN BRAGGED about being the only cable network to air it....Wolfie said it himself. MSNBC showed him saying it...as they were questioning the involvement that CNN has with the Tea Party.

[smark21]

CNN BRAGGED about being the only cable network to air it....Wolfie said it himself. MSNBC showed him saying it...as they were questioning the involvement that CNN has with the Tea Party.

Well if it's any comfort, the 3 cable news channels in the US average a total of about 6 million viewers or so. The population of the US is now over 300 million so that means the vast majority of Americans have better things to do with their lives than waste their time watching cable news, which is some of the most toxic programming out there.