News Cycle

A look at the news, politics and journalism in today’s 24-hour media.

Archive for the ‘Keith Olbermann’ Category

Olbermann Returns to ‘Countdown’ Tonight

leave a comment »


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

Advertisements

Written by newscycle

March 22, 2010 at 6:39 pm

Posted in Keith Olbermann

Blog or No Blog, Olbermann’s Taking a Beating

leave a comment »


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

Here’s Keith Olbermann defending his ratings last week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by newscycle

February 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm

Commentators React to Dobbs’ Departure From CNN

leave a comment »


http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/19407224001?isVid=1&publisherID=1155968404

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by newscycle

November 13, 2009 at 9:15 am

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

leave a comment »


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

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

Here is Olbermann’s post on the Daily Kos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by newscycle

September 7, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Olbermann Mistaken in Calling Hoekstra Iraqi Trip ‘Top Secret’

leave a comment »


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

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

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

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

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

Here is PolitiFact’s assessment:

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

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

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

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

Written by newscycle

June 26, 2009 at 3:14 pm

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

leave a comment »


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The center also reports other recipients:

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

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

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

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

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

Written by newscycle

February 20, 2009 at 12:43 am

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

with one comment


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

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

The center also reports other recipients:

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

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

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

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

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

Written by newscycle

February 19, 2009 at 11:30 pm

%d bloggers like this: