Keith Olbermann Out At MSNBC
Hi everyone. Wow. Another one bites the dust. After spending the day working and running errands in this brutal weather, I decided to take a nice evening nap. I got up just in time to watch George Clooney on Piers Morgan, logged onto the Twitter, and discovered that the media world had turned upside down. Not quite what I was expecting.
The details of Olbermann's firing (escape?) are still murky, but it's no secret to anyone who pays attention to this sort of thing that he has quite the reputation in the industry. Even among certain liberals, the sometimes joke has been, "sure he's an asshole, but he's our asshole." Right now the conventional wisdom seems to be that the Comcast merger and loss of Jeff Zucker finally forced the pink slip, though NBC denies. The Wrap has a completely different take, reporting that Olbermann left on his own with dreams of creating a media empire.
Though I stopped watching Countdown in recent years, I'm still a little sad to see Olbermann go, especially if it wasn't on his terms. He was an anchor monster, yes, but his heart seemed to be in the right place. Before Anderson Cooper was really even on my radar, Countdown was the cable news show I watched every night. Following the election of 2004, because Kerry had conceded, no television anchor would significantly touch the story of election irregularities in Ohio. No television anchor except Keith.
I know some of you are now picturing him bombastically ranting about stolen votes, but it wasn't like that--he mostly just reported the facts. Olbermann was different in those days. Though it wasn't hard to peg him as a liberal, he did a lot more reporting than he did commentating. What attracted me to the show was that he gave light to stories that others didn't seem to have the courage to report.
It was a different time then. There was still significant support for Bush, there was still significant support for the war. It was a very, very hard time to be a liberal. This was compounded by the fact that while conservatives had a strong voice on the airwaves, liberals had none. Then there was Keith. He took a chance and spoke out against what was happening in the country, and it laid the foundation for what MSNBC primetime is today.
I'll always be grateful to him for having the courage to say something when others didn't. He made me feel a little less alone. I just wish he didn't let it overtake him. Eventually Keith became a little too similar to that which he mocked. My readers know I hate false equivalency. I am not saying he became the exact opposite of those who inhabit primetime at Fox News, but the constant childish voices and harping on the Right was something I couldn't handle anymore. I wanted a news anchor, not a performer.
Worse still, at some point I felt like I could no longer trust him. Segments from the show, coupled with comments he made online, left me feeling uneasy. I wasn't sure that he wouldn't stretch accuracy to make a political point. Sure, he's never simply made things up like the other side does, but I have higher standards than that. As a result, and with sadness, I slowly began to stop watching. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw an entire Countdown broadcast.
That's the short story of Keith Olbermann's tenure at MSNBC--through my eyes anyway. I wish him well, and hope he lands somewhere else soon. I also hope the network does their best to place all of his staff. TV news is one crazy industry, huh?
As for the 360 kids, they were all over this story. It was manna for a news junkie, but sometimes I wonder exactly what viewers they're targeting. Because the majority of the country? They don't care about this story--in fact, many have probably never heard of Olbermann. This sort of gets at the heart of CNN's problem: they have no identity, and their audience is subsequently all over the place. I won't be surprised if they pull a really good demo tonight, but nor will I be surprised if they get completely demolished. It's because I don't know who's watching, and many times I get the impression they don't either.
To end these musings with some fun, below are the two RidicuLists from this week concerning Fountain Lady. Hilarious stuff. They appear to be taking a lot greater care to write the segments in Anderson's voice, which is really helping his now almost pitch perfect delivery. I'd previously noted that sometimes the segment seemed to be nothing more than a hot mess of random references, clearly not written by Anderson, as evidenced by his awkward delivery. But this week has been really good. Enjoy:
The details of Olbermann's firing (escape?) are still murky, but it's no secret to anyone who pays attention to this sort of thing that he has quite the reputation in the industry. Even among certain liberals, the sometimes joke has been, "sure he's an asshole, but he's our asshole." Right now the conventional wisdom seems to be that the Comcast merger and loss of Jeff Zucker finally forced the pink slip, though NBC denies. The Wrap has a completely different take, reporting that Olbermann left on his own with dreams of creating a media empire.
Though I stopped watching Countdown in recent years, I'm still a little sad to see Olbermann go, especially if it wasn't on his terms. He was an anchor monster, yes, but his heart seemed to be in the right place. Before Anderson Cooper was really even on my radar, Countdown was the cable news show I watched every night. Following the election of 2004, because Kerry had conceded, no television anchor would significantly touch the story of election irregularities in Ohio. No television anchor except Keith.
I know some of you are now picturing him bombastically ranting about stolen votes, but it wasn't like that--he mostly just reported the facts. Olbermann was different in those days. Though it wasn't hard to peg him as a liberal, he did a lot more reporting than he did commentating. What attracted me to the show was that he gave light to stories that others didn't seem to have the courage to report.
It was a different time then. There was still significant support for Bush, there was still significant support for the war. It was a very, very hard time to be a liberal. This was compounded by the fact that while conservatives had a strong voice on the airwaves, liberals had none. Then there was Keith. He took a chance and spoke out against what was happening in the country, and it laid the foundation for what MSNBC primetime is today.
I'll always be grateful to him for having the courage to say something when others didn't. He made me feel a little less alone. I just wish he didn't let it overtake him. Eventually Keith became a little too similar to that which he mocked. My readers know I hate false equivalency. I am not saying he became the exact opposite of those who inhabit primetime at Fox News, but the constant childish voices and harping on the Right was something I couldn't handle anymore. I wanted a news anchor, not a performer.
Worse still, at some point I felt like I could no longer trust him. Segments from the show, coupled with comments he made online, left me feeling uneasy. I wasn't sure that he wouldn't stretch accuracy to make a political point. Sure, he's never simply made things up like the other side does, but I have higher standards than that. As a result, and with sadness, I slowly began to stop watching. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw an entire Countdown broadcast.
That's the short story of Keith Olbermann's tenure at MSNBC--through my eyes anyway. I wish him well, and hope he lands somewhere else soon. I also hope the network does their best to place all of his staff. TV news is one crazy industry, huh?
As for the 360 kids, they were all over this story. It was manna for a news junkie, but sometimes I wonder exactly what viewers they're targeting. Because the majority of the country? They don't care about this story--in fact, many have probably never heard of Olbermann. This sort of gets at the heart of CNN's problem: they have no identity, and their audience is subsequently all over the place. I won't be surprised if they pull a really good demo tonight, but nor will I be surprised if they get completely demolished. It's because I don't know who's watching, and many times I get the impression they don't either.
To end these musings with some fun, below are the two RidicuLists from this week concerning Fountain Lady. Hilarious stuff. They appear to be taking a lot greater care to write the segments in Anderson's voice, which is really helping his now almost pitch perfect delivery. I'd previously noted that sometimes the segment seemed to be nothing more than a hot mess of random references, clearly not written by Anderson, as evidenced by his awkward delivery. But this week has been really good. Enjoy:
Labels: fountain lady, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, RidicuList, the revolving door
posted by eliza at 11:59 PM
6 Comments:
Liberal voices on tv will probably be picked off one by one. Not happy about Olbermann's departure and it doesn't bode well for the future of cable news. The Comcast takeover is scary.
Is there a possibility that Anderson has a hand in how the RidicuList is written, or perhaps he might be writing some of them himself? He used to write the Nth Degree, IIRC.
@Anonymous: Well, I'm not sure this was some sort of liberal witch-hunt--the man was reportedly butting heads with his bosses all the time. From a business perspective, it would be a stupid move for MSNBC to change the direction of their primetime. They tried Fox-lite once before and failed miserably. I agree the Comcast takeover is a little scary.
I think Anderson always tries to go over the writing and tinker it into his own voice. But he delivered some of the prior RidicuLists as if he was just reading them for the first time. Not only was the delivery awkward, he was saying things (like he's a fan of football) that even a semi-regular viewer knows isn't true. If he said it ironically, that would have been different, but he didn't. Anyhoo, this is just a silly segment, so no biggie, but I did find them much more enjoyable this week.
For the sake of argument on our lighter subject, I read somewhere that there's some reality show about the Jets and he may have been talking about that when he said "I've been watching the Jets a lot." *shrug* I don't actually know of course, but there you have it!
Keith Olbermann has clashed with more than one incarnation of bosses. I'm no fan of the Comcast deal, either, but the fact that they're elevating Lawrence O'Donnell in favor of Keith makes me think it has more to do with tone than politics. From what I understand about him, he's just as liberal as Rachel Maddow, and also just as measured. I'll be happy to start watching his show now that he's not opposite 360 anymore. Sorry, Spitz. Although I might still flip to CNN if they grab me with a guest. But your happiest take-away from this should be that I won't be watching Parker/Spitzer anymore. ;-)
As for CNN's decision to cover...true that 99% of America didn't care, but I bet 99% of the cable news audience did. The fact that MSNBC was running Lock-Up instead of a live show with Lawrence probably sent a solid portion of Keith's fans over to CNN to see what the hell was going on. I think it was a good move, but I'm no professional. We'll see.
Part of the reason I think that 99% of the cable news audience cared about this story is because that percentage either loves him or hates him. The fact that you and I fall in the middle makes us pretty rare. Frankly, I echo all of your complaints about his becoming a mean-spirited performer, and I just cannot deal with the fact that I knew he was rude and unprofessional with co-workers, especially underlings. That's a personal hang-up and I'm aware of that, but I can usually put these things aside and it wouldn't stop me from watching a show (*cough*Spitzer*cough*), so the fact that his demeanor reinforced everything I knew about him probably had a lot to do with why I stopped watching. I just don't want to be hit with negativity for an hour.
I generally have a "no believing the tabloids" rule, but I know they do tend to have insider information when it comes to stories about the media, so the fact that TMZ and The Wrap have "sources" that are feeding them two completely different stories that are diametrically opposed is throwing me for a loop. It makes me think TMZ has it right and KO is feeding the Wrap story. ("Make sure you say 'a la HuffPo' and not 'a la Mediaite.'")
We'll see what he does. He has more money than God, so he certainly has the rest of his life to figure out what he wants to do next. If that's just blogging about baseball, that's fine. He gives lots of people enjoyment and I'm sure has lots of fun doing that. While I'm no real fan of his, I was touched by his parents' health struggles and I hope I'm never in a place in my life where I can't get behind people who are gutsy enough to report stories that others won't touch--particularly LGBT-related ones. He's an eloquent writer and speaker, and it means a lot to me that when somebody leaves broadcasting, Anderson Cooper responds with "Talent finds a way." His voice will be missed and he has my very best wishes.
@Lauren: I think he was talking about the reality show, but I still don't buy it. ;) In any regards, I share your *shrugs*
I'm not sure if I agree w/ your tone vs. politics argument. If Olbermann was a team player, I really doubt they'd push him out. He was still bringing in ratings and that's the bottom line. I think they finally got to a point where they felt like the lineup could survive without him. Some of the suits have probably wanted to do this for years, but he was their bread and butter.
But yay to no longer watching Parker/Spitzer! ;)
My point about CNN's coverage is they keep trying to juggle two different audiences (wider public, news junkies) and in turn alienate viewers. For example, after their horrendous Michael Jackson coverage, except for 360, I don't regularly watch any other programming on CNN. I used to watch it A LOT.
Anyway, it's just an observation on my part. It's no secret their base audience is much lower than the other two networks. I'm not exactly criticizing last night's decision because--as speaks to my point--I don't really know the parameters in which they assume to operate.
Did 360 cover Rick Sanchez's firing? I'm blanking.
I have your same personal hang-up, but I usually can't put it aside, and nor do I want to. My view has always been that being a public figure and having the opportunity to contribute to public discourse is a privilege, not a right. Is Spitzer a very smart man who shares my politics? Yes. But there are a lot of people out there like that who don't also carry the hypocrisy and ethical challenges.
This is a big reason I'm having trouble accepting Piers Morgan. He appears to have engaged in behavior that is diametrically opposed to what I believe in. I don't know. I'll leave him on probation for now.
A person's private life is one thing, but if their professional history is shady--call me judgmental--it matters to me. One of the reasons I'm so drawn to Jon Stewart and Anderson Cooper is that though not perfect, they both seem to generally be good people who are trying in their own way to make the world a better place.
I wouldn't believe The Wrap story at all except they were the ones who reported that Anderson was butting heads with Doss, and well, now Doss isn't there, so...? Also, this is neither here nor there, but I absolutely loathe TMZ and everything they stand for. It's one of my 'banned' sites. ;P
Provided Keith doesn't fall into epic pity party mode (a la Sanchez), he'll land on his feet soon enough.
Well, I meant his overall tone, not necessarily just his tone on the air. I'm sure if he was indeed ousted, his inability to get along with...ANYBODY, had more to do with it than his tone on-air. I'm not convinced that wasn't a contributing factor, though, because apparently "sources" have been dropping hints that buttoned-down Comcast wasn't too thrilled with his particular level of hysteria. Who knows?
You know...daytime CNN *has* stopped reporting on Michael Jackson. Um, mostly.
" My view has always been that being a public figure and having the opportunity to contribute to public discourse is a privilege, not a right. Is Spitzer a very smart man who shares my politics? Yes. But there are a lot of people out there like that who don't also carry the hypocrisy and ethical challenges."
Yeah, but most of them don't carry his specific knowledge of Wall Street and their corrupt insanity. His voice is valuable for that reason alone. I'd love to pull his brain out of his head and see what he really knows. It *is* a privilege, but it ultimately matters how valuable the person is and what kind of contribution they can make. We should be able to separate that from whatever personal hang-ups we have with the person, although I do believe you have your eye on the professional rather than the personal. It's more important to give the American people what they need than to vengefully take something away from Eliot Spitzer because he doesn't deserve to have it. And this is from somebody who lost a competent governor and got stuck with an incompetent one because of his selfish stupidity. Not my favorite guy. I still think Eliot Spitzer is more valuable to broadcasting than Olbermann 2.0, even if it's just for A. lack of the shrieking hysteria into which KO descended, and B. the uniqueness of his knowledge base.
As for Piers Morgan--I have no idea who's telling the truth with the whole Daily Mirror scandal. I'm more irritated that he says he was a journalist for 25 years and conveniently leaves out that the summation of his experience has been with rather grody London tabloids. I'm really not interested in his show. I hope he gives AC a good lead-in and occasionally makes Hannity cry. I'll watch for specific guests like I did with Larry King...
...whose retirement was also scooped by The Wrap. And I hate TMZ too, but I know they have people on the inside. Which is why I am perplexed.
"One of the reasons I'm so drawn to Jon Stewart and Anderson Cooper is that though not perfect, they both seem to generally be good people who are trying in their own way to make the world a better place."
Ditto to this, a hundred thousand times. :-)
You know...daytime CNN *has* stopped reporting on Michael Jackson. Um, mostly.
Heh. I would hope so! But that's not my point. They alienated me; they lost my respect. Sorry, I'm not going to keep taking their punches and then return, saying, please sir, can I have some more.
Yeah, but most of them don't carry his specific knowledge of Wall Street and their corrupt insanity.
I'm not saying he should be completely silenced, but co-host of a primetime show on the supposed most trusted name in news? No. It's a bad precedent. A person shouldn't be able to disgrace a governorship and then be handed a show two years later.
Actions should have consequences. I'm so tired of there being no accountability in punditry. In the real world, a stain on your resume doesn't make you more employable. So, let him contribute his expertize through columns and guest appearances--not a cushy job. It's not like Parker/Spitzer only talks about Wall Street.
I'm more irritated that he says he was a journalist for 25 years and conveniently leaves out that the summation of his experience has been with rather grody London tabloids.
This is my main problem with him. The photograph thing is more murky, because as you point out, the truth isn't completely clear.
I understand that people who work in media are forced to do tabloid type coverage all the time, but he specifically sought it out himself to get ahead. He seemed to have no qualms with catering to the lowest common denominator. I don't respect that. I'll probably watch when he has a good guest (like Clooney), but I can't see me ever growing to like him like I like Anderson, or even Rachel.
Post a Comment
<< Home