MSNBC Terminates Keith Olbermann Effective Immediately

NBC announced today Keith Olbermann is leaving the network and tonight would be his last show.

Lawrence O'Donnell will move into his time slot.

Good move or disaster for MSNBC? Where do you think Olbermann will wind up? My suggestion: CNN should dump Spitzer/Parker and sign Olbermann.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Is Keith Olbermann Going to NBC's Versus? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    CNN will never hire Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by hilts on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:53:02 AM EST

    CNN is far too gutless to stick its neck out and hire Olbermann.

    CNN hired that piece of &%#$ Spitzer. If (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 02:00:42 AM EST
    they thought they could make money off it, they'd hire the Westboro Baptist church guy.

    The American Cable News networks are all terrible. Nobody should be watching them. PBS, BBC or Euro News are superior by a magnitude of 10.


    I'm liking Parker/Spitzer (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    Well sort of, Elliot Spitzer did comment on a list of items that were part of the federal deficit and he did have Social Security and Medicare on there....getting really sick of the bull$hit about those items and the people who keep spewing it.  Social Security has already been paid for completely at this date.....it drains nothing.

    I didn't always enjoy Keith Olbermann's commentary on everything, but I think he has done wonderful things.  And he has branded himself and presents himself in punditry in such a way that has long been needed on the left.  I think there will always be jobs and a demand for him because the debate isn't becoming kinder or gentler or full of fewer lies and deceptions.

    I sort of like the idea that instead of having to come up with a nightly show, he may be able to give more time and deeper study to specific issues, because when he is on point and on his game nobody topples bull$hit quite like him.  I want him to speak slower and more succinctly though while he is working the barbeque.

    I'm with you on Spitzer (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    At least the first half of his show is awfully good-- lengthy, intelligent discussions of a whole range of stuff, from Giffords's brain injury and brain injuries in general to a fascinating discussion the other night with a one-time Mob attorney and a former federal prosecutor who'd handled such cases about the way the Mafia has changed over the years.

    Then it seems to go into a sort of "Crossfire" type high-pitched one on one argument between Spitzer and some guest and I lose interest.


    Parker/Spitzer would (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    benefit greatly by

    1.  Firing Parker and putting someone in there of moderate-conservative stripe who's at least a near-match for the brilliant Spitzer either in policy knowledge or debating skills.

    2.  Getting rid of the current non-live, slick, heavily edited interview format, and going fully live, warts and all

    3.  Reduce the number of topics per show and go for in-depth substance on one or two, for a third or half the show.

    4. Eliminate the previous hour -- John King USA -- and let Elliot plus new sidekick go for two hours, a sort of Evening Elliot show.  Slow down the pace, make segments longer, bring out the small suspended cameras that can pan 360º.

    MSNBC Will Change Format! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    This is just a guess.  I have no inside info.  But when you fire your highest paid anchor, and give no explanation, that's often what it means.

    There have also been a lot of shake-ups in their parent company in the last few months.  Another indication that greater changes might be in store for MSNBC.

    Well, don't let anyone say I can't (4.80 / 10) (#1)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:01:25 PM EST
    hold a grudge. My TV hasn't been tuned to MSNBC since his Special Comment about Hillary. I don't care where he ends up - I won't be watching.

    (Hi guys!)

    Hey, Teresa, how are you? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:12:41 AM EST
    It's been a long time, girl.

    Oh, and I'm with you on this.  If I never see or hear Olberman again it will be too soon. He is among the worst that cable has to offer. I can't even stand to hear him opine on sports.


    Hey Casey & andgarden! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    I've really broken my cable addiction, too. I could maybe handle him on Vs but I can't get how he acted in 07-08 out of my head.

    I like Rachel so maybe now that he's gone, I can go back to watching her show. I'm really really not into politics for over a year now. I guess it's not too long before I'll have to take the plunge again. I have to catch up so I can argue intelligently with my conservative neighbors & my one Fox watching niece.


    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 06:37:24 AM EST
    I haven't watched cable news in two years or so and haven't missed it one bit.

    Forgave Keith a long time (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    ago -- he was still one of the very few on teevee willing to dish out the truth to TPTB (98% of the time).

    Keith, Rachel, Ed, occasionally O'Donnell.  Nearly all the others are just variations on the same network frontmen/women, they with the eye-pleasing blow-dried and fluffed hair and nicely botoxed features to go with the corporate-pleasing, don't-rock-the-boat attitude.

    Keith screwed up a time or two in the primaries, okay.  He gets emotional over some things, check.

    Yep, the guy's human after all.


    I haven't tuned into him specifically (3.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    either since then.  I do watch his clips though when others point them out to me for specific reasons.  He lost me as a viewer he could depend on though then.  And time has proven that he was just as wrong as wrong can be when he did that.  The Obama White House is not significantly better in any way than a past Clinton's friends one was.  They are for the most part the same thing.

    Hi! (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    And yeah, cable news is a wasteland anyway. I got a day of it for the AZ shooting, and that ought to hold me over for the next year.

    Hi, Teresa. Hope you (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:35:27 AM EST
    are feeling better.

    Hey! Me neither. (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 06:36:32 AM EST
    Don't even know its channel number in the lineup anymore. I do miss Rachel on the radio though.

    /waves at T (none / 0) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:16:24 PM EST
    How's the back?  Better I sure hope!

    Pearl comes back for a day today, huh?  Will he be wearing the orange jacket?


    You rang? (4.57 / 7) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:52:42 AM EST
    No idea what your comment was supposed to mean.

    I'd be pleased if Maddow found something else to do, but the whole channel is pretty much of a loss as far as I'm concerned.

    Hard as it may be for you to wrap your head around, but some of us actually don't like more or less lefty agitprop any more than we like it from the right.

    I vehemently dislike being lied to by either side.  And honestly, the left or liberal side doesn't even need to lie, unlike the right, to justify itself, so I find people like Maddow and Olbermann even more infuriating.

    When you can find a specific (none / 0) (#14)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:10:21 AM EST
    piece of Rachel's "agitprop" to cite for analysis, I'll be interested, but vague criticisms such as yours do little to demonstrate anything but the same kind of hate you deplore when it's deployed against Palin.

    Rachel Maddow just flat out killed (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    (no crosshairs needed when we speak of factual debates involving intellect instead of bullets) two Republicans on Bill Maher last night.  I just can't love her enough.  One was David Stockman....who is what a Republican used to be before the party became the New(ty) Republicans and lost its damned mind.  I like David Stockman in the same way that I like Paul Volcker...Republicans who remember what a real one was and are out there fighting for the life of our country too that is in a zombie coma now.  David wanted to fib just a little bit though about something in the past and she would have none of it.  The other one though was Steve Moore of the WSJ and that guy is soooo crazy, and he has that knee jerk cackling giggle that makes the hair on the back of neck stand up, some sort of mixture of John Wayne Gacy and Beavis and Butthead.

    That's the maddening thing (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    about Maddow.  I didn't see the show you're citing, but she's capable of honest takedowns that are just devastating, but she chooses to go the super-cheap route on her show most of the time instead.  Feh. One could argue that Olbermann isn't bright enough to know better, but Rachel does.

    Isn't that Steve Moore a disgusting piece of work?  Ugh,ugh,ugh!


    You could bring yourself (none / 0) (#64)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:13:34 AM EST
    to watch the segment in question and then give us feedback on what she does in it that you do like, and what you don't.

    That's an idiotic (4.25 / 4) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    comparison, I must say.

    Go over to Somerby and put "maddow" in the search box and you'll turn up vast numbers of the kind of thing I so dislike about Maddow.


    I'll take the fact that his college roommate (none / 0) (#34)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    agreed to appear on her show over the endless billingsgate that Sommersby has written about her.

    Setting that aside, there is one more thing:

    What you couldn't know about and factor into your response was my own history with him:

    His own lack of a response to my e-mail pointing out that a transcript of her show he said was missing from the MSNBC website in one of his screeds, was, in fact, avaliable at that point in time when I sent the e-mail.

    This was a while back, but I know what I read, how I responded, and how he responds to feedback.



    OTHO (none / 0) (#36)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    I'll just let this comment from Sommersby, along with annotations by the inestimable Kevin K. at Rumproast speak for itself:

    Ladies and gentleman, courtesy of caveman media critic Bob Somerby, I present what may be the most ridiculous sentence to ever conclude a blog post:

    Sadly, [Rachel Maddow]'s making the liberal world dumber--as she stuffs those millions of dollars down her self-confident pants.

    Incomparable! Our Own Monotonous Crank hates Our Own Rhodes Scholar so very much (surprise!) that he's mad at her pants. Or should we call them hubristic knickers?

    Click or Disgorge Me


    It's telling that Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by victrix on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    of the uber earnest sputter has settled on "health reform" as her disingenuous descriptor for the very bad bill. We need more voices like Somersby calling out the pseudo progressives for their omissions and distortions.

    As for Rumproast...does anyone take it seriously except the six people who post there? Their focus seems to be on hating the wimenz and manufacturing racism. I've also heard that they block any and all dissident voices. How very progressive.


    You heard wrong. They will pile on (none / 0) (#56)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    dissenters but they don't delete them

    Also,  Rumproast didn't make up Sommersby's unfortunate "self-confident pants" quote about Maddow, which nobody has had the courage to defend or even acknowledge he made in the first place on this thread yet.

    Their focus seems to be on hating the wimenz

    Yes, that's Betty Crackers' specialty.

    Why is telling the truth about batsh*t crazies like Palin and Bachmann 'hatin' the wimenz'?



    That's not what I was talking about (none / 0) (#57)
    by victrix on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 12:42:08 PM EST
    Here's a blurb from Friday
    ALERT: Rough language, sub-culture stereotypes and casual sexism played for gratuitous shock value. But it's clowns, so it's OK. And it's Friday.

    Is casual sexism the same as casual racism? Like I said, no one takes it seriously.


    You know, if dumb were dirt (none / 0) (#58)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    you'd just about cover seven acres

    TRIGGER ALERT: Rough language, sub-culture stereotypes and casual sexism played for gratuitous shock value. But it's clowns, so it's OK. And it's Friday.

    A trigger alert is used by some blogs to warn of material that some people because of their past experiences may find 'triggers' an unwanted recall of such experiences.

    If irony isn't dead,  that's in spite of your best efforts:

    From comments over at the Prod's digs:

    Anyone know where there are thoughtful bloggers with a tolerant sense of humor instead of all that d*mn self-righteousness?

    Actually...  Nah, you can't handle the Roast.

    PS--Guest appearance by you-know-who there as well.  Yikes!

    That's the question, isn't it?


    When they start taking


    More wah-wah-wah-wah (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 09:25:03 PM EST
    Try actually engaging with the substantive criticism that preceded that, I agree, pretty nasty characterization.

    Somerby is not a nice person.  That has nothing to do with the substance of his criticism.  Can't even call it "analysis" because it takes no analysis to take Maddow's crap apart.


    Such mature, measured, and (none / 0) (#62)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:13:00 AM EST

    researched criticism is just something my poor Maddowbot brain can't understand, and you've been most gracious, analytical, and specific in your feedback


    TTFN, and remember, when you point the finger at someone, there are three of them pointing back at you.


    Oh (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    So you're bitter, is that the problem?

    Here's an example of why Maddow is so bad - from yesterday.

    Another one from December.

    And another one.

    We'll also set aside the fact that someone who is a Rhodes Scholar feels she has to use 7th grade scatalogical humor in her "journalism".  No wonder both she and Olbermann are ranked something like 11th and 13th in cable news audiences - and way behind even Stewart and Colbert.

    Glad Keith is going where he actually knows what he's talking about.  Hopefully Rachel follows suit.


    If her critic could sound (none / 0) (#38)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    more like a literate serious person instead of talking about "self-confident pants", you might have a point.


    On Sunday, a Kentuckian named Tim Profitt did a dumb, unfortunate thing, stepping or stomping on Lauren Valle's shoulder or head, thus interrupting her satire

    Why don't cable's pseudo-liberals spend time on low-income schools, or on tax or income equity, or on the complex problems of health care? Just a guess: When you look down on the unwashed so thoroughly, you aren't likely to spend your time worrying about their problems. Given their obvious limbic brain issues, can this group really be helped?

    In his own words, Google them if you don't believe me.

    from The Blue Voice: Two weeks of the Howler and Arizona's SB1070

    Click or Restore Me


    I'll take him (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    over Maddow's "Teabagging" jokes that went on way too long and prompted an uncomfortable conversation with my mother who did not know what the term meant.

    The fact that Maddow herself, while interviewing Jon Stewart, could not grasp the fact that he is a comedian - all the while she was telling him, "You and I are exactly alike.  We have the same kind of shows."  Stewart kept telling her that he does satire and she is supposed to be doing news - but she was too thick to understand her role.

    Scary that there's almost a million people that watch her each night.


    I'm sorry you had to treat your (none / 0) (#42)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    mother like a curious child, but it's a matter of record that the Teabaggers only stopped calling themselves that because of Rachel and the like.

    How do you and your mother feel about Rachel being accuse of posessing 'self-confidant pants'?

    Scary that there's almost a million people that watch her each night.

    It's scary that you take someone like Bob Sommersby seriously.


    I'm also comforted (2.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    That Rachel's audience dropped 6% last year as well.

    People are getting bored with her schtick.


    You seem to delight (none / 0) (#52)
    by Raskolnikov on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    in the negative in all things.  Depressing, and regular.  

    That said, I'm not a huge fan of Rachel, I think she does the same things that annoy me about conservative talking heads, pulling up obscure relationships from twenty years ago to prove a point about a persons current political thinking.  People do change, her "research" sometimes feels like somebody searching google and doing a hit piece when the people she's excoriating can be taken down without obscure past associations.  


    Funny (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    Rachel acts like a 7th grade boy, so I guess your statement is in the realm of fair.

    How do you and your mother feel about Rachel being accuse of posessing 'self-confidant pants'?

    I have no idea what that means as I prefer to watch something that improves my mind as opposed to watching drivel.


    Comment #36 on this thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 06:19:50 PM EST
    has the context of my quote.

    You could look it up.


    Oh, wah-wah-wah! (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    A blogger didn't reply to my email!!! Wah-wah-wah!

    Honestly, how profoundly silly.

    Somerby rarely responds to emails.  He's not interested in dialogue.  Doesn't have jack to do with the accuracy of what he says. He whines about transcripts regularly.  Big deal.


    You sound more like a mother (none / 0) (#63)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:45:06 AM EST
    explaining why your genius child shouldn't be expected to do their homework and play well with others because of who they are.

    For the record, my ego wasn't bruised by the lack of a reply, I merely concluded that he uses the lack of a transcript as a tool to employ against Ms. Maddow, and thus to begin to realize that he's more of a  Bozo than the Internet version of  Lionel Trilling, more Shakes the Clown than a liberal version of H. L. Mencken.


    comment you are responding to (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 02:38:16 AM EST
    was deleted for publishing someone's phone number.

    That was the # for MSNBC (none / 0) (#22)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 08:03:59 AM EST
    but I'll tell people to merely look it up as the switchboard # for MSNBC so they can find it for themselves.

    Wish I could work up some sympathy (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    But Olbermann has always rubbed me the wrong way. That silly "good night and good luck" sign-off just highlighted how dissimilar he is from the real Murrow. More than anything, it's Olbermann's self-absorption and self-importance that oozes from the screen.

    For my money, the day MSNBC fired Phil Donahue was the day they failed the intelligent viewership -- and never recovered from that failure.

    Despite her sharp mind, I got tired of Rachel's schtick ages ago.

    So now the audience will be treated to prime time with the DLC insider, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the obnoxious blowhard, Ed Schultz (the left's Rush Limbaugh).


    Have not watched Olbermann in a long time (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    He particularly "got on my nerves" during the 2008 primary with his misplaced, unfair comments. Nevertheless, my grudge-holding ability doesn't long endure (tho, let me say to Teresa, I certainly understand your feelings in this particular regard.) Still, I remember the first time and 2nd and 3rd times, etc., listening to his commentary during the Bush II years. At that time, he gave all manner of Democrats a voice that was heard. Clearly, he may sound pompous and he can make the wrong kind of waves with associates...but, in those days when all the others with the microphone were so quiet, he astutely confronted what needed to be challenged. He did that part very well; and, I thank him for that. (Whether he overstayed his welcome or what happened in the years that followed...another matter.)

    It was all well and good when Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    and Maddow and others were - rightly - coming down with both feet on the Bush administration, but I felt like, during the 2008 campaign and primary season, they abandoned all attempts to objectively examine the Democratic field, which did not serve their viewers well, in my opinion.

    And the blatant sexism and misogyny that fairly oozed from the pores of so many of the MSNBC gang was not just utterly revolting, in and of itself, but what made it so much worse was that it was done in obvious service to Mr. Sweetie, himself, Obama.

    I guess my standards at that point were reduced to something very simple: if watching a particular pundit/analyst/talking head wasn't going to make me smarter, teach me something I didn't know, I wasn't going to waste what little free time I had watching. As far as I'm concerned, most of the MSNBC lineup isn'r designed to educate and inform, but to manipulate and misdirect and legitimize things that, were they being done by Republicans, would have them apoplectic.

    No great loss, as far as I'm concerned; his appearances on Football Night in America used to make my teeth hurt, so Keith, don't let the door hit ya on your way out.


    His contract was not up (none / 0) (#2)
    by standingup on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:05:10 PM EST
    from the Reuters article you linked to:
    Olbermann, who had two years left on his contract, signed off for the last time on his "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" political affairs program on Friday night.

    you are correct (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:35:51 AM EST
    I put that in my updated post and forgot to update it here. So I just removed that sentence.

    CNN probably can't afford him (none / 0) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:13:27 PM EST
    Keith has to keep his mouth shut for another two years or he doesn't collect.  His contract was for 30 mill.

    Get rid of John King (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by brodie on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    Wolf, and a dozen or so of CNN's overloaded and overfed political pundit stable, and you've easily got enough to pay Keith what he's worth.  

    And in the pink slipping you'd be getting rid of a lot of blowhard dead wood.  Donna Brazile, Erick Erickson, Alex Castellanos, Wm Bennett, Ed Rollins, the wildly overexposed and past his prime David Gergen, the whole lot of 'em (save Carville, Begala and 2 token Goopers of CNN's choice).  Heck even Donna Brazile says most political pundits should just go away and leave people alone.


    Ispos at Kos says he's going to.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:22:14 PM EST

    [So take what you're about to read with at least a grain of salt, since I can't tell you how I know what I know.

    It will happen (so I'm told) on the channel now known as Versus. It's a sports channel owned by Comcast, and the story I'm hearing is that it will be rebranded as NBC Sportschannel once the takeover is complete, with Keith as its star personality.

    If you were watching David Shuster's guest appearance on CNN tonight, you heard him make a key observation: for Keith, it's not about money right now. He has as much money as he'll ever need, so he can do what he wants. And apparently what he really wants is to exact some long-delayed revenge on his bosses at ESPN. (Did you notice the shiv he stuck in their backs yet again in his farewell tonight? Note it carefully. I don't think it was there by accident.)]

    shhhhh.... he can't tell how he knows.  What a tease.

    thanks for sharing this (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    I can see it happening this way.

    How many viewers (none / 0) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:46:57 AM EST
    does this Versus thing have?  I've never even heard of it, but I'm not much of a sports fan.

    Olbermann clearly doesn't care much about money, as Shuster says, but I find it hard to believe he no longer cares about the big, adoring audience he's gotten used to and his ability to rant about political issues, which he clearly does care about.

    So I'm dubious.

    OTOH, this was a very low-key departure for The Mouth, so something about the separation agreement was reassuring to him.


    RIght now, Versus carries a couple of things (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by scribe on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 07:00:28 AM EST
    and does them pretty well.  In the summer, they carry the live coverage of the Tour de France and do a good job of that.  They also have a lot of other cycling races during the rest of the year.  In the winter, they are the main network with the NHL contract and will have hockey on a couple nights a week. (NBC runs a few games on Sunday afternoons once the football season ends.) The rest of the time, they are running outdoors programming (hunting, fishing and related sports), a lot of which is either syndicated, privately produced, or some hybrid thereof.  And infomercials.  Not much, but for those of us old enough to remember, there was a time when ESPN (there was only one channel) carried an awful lot of Australian Rules football and not much else.

    I could see Keith doing the Face of Versus gig well and liking it - his first love seems to be sports - but I am also inclined to believe that the diametric oppositeness between the politics of his show on the one hand and of the new owners at Comcast on the other had no small part in the decision to remove him from the air.  I had been wondering how long he would last after Comcast got the FCC approval for taking over NBC, and I seem to have received my answer.  

    If I were Rachel, I'd start getting my resume in order.  


    That liberal media (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdm251 on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 09:04:31 AM EST
    The liberal media strikes again!  

    It would be cool to see Kieth covering the tour de France.  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    If I were Rachel, I'd start getting my resume in order.

    Same with O'Donnell and Schultz.

    They'll easily dump those three.  IMO, they won't make it without Olbermann to lead into them at 8:00.

    So they'll have ratings as an excuse.


    Re: What Keith likes (none / 0) (#25)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    I find it hard to believe he no longer cares about the big, adoring audience he's gotten used to and his ability to rant about political issues, which he clearly does care about.

    From www.poynter(dot)org

    My gratitude to you is boundless and if you think I have done any good here, imagine how it looked from this end as you donated $2 million to the National Association of Free Clinics and my dying father watched from his hospital bed, transcendentally comforted that his struggles were inspiring such overwhelming good for people he and I and you would never meet, but would always know.

    This may be the only television program wherein the host was much more in awe of the audience than vice-versa.

    You will always be in my heart for that and for donations to the Cranick family in Tennessee and these victims of governmental heartlessness in Arizona to say nothing of every letter and e-mail and tweet and wave and hand shake and online petition.

    Click or Abjure Me


    But why (none / 0) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    the sudden departure?

    There was no advance notice.  MSNBC's announcement, as far as I know, didn't come out until it was over.


    I will miss the show (none / 0) (#8)
    by kgoudy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    I watched it religiously through the presidential elections, and had drifted away in later years, but he said things bluntly as no other newscaster did. I now have only 3 channels to watch on the cable tv offering of 356, and the food channel is offering less and less. Maybe only 2 channels for 70 a month? Thank god my apple TV is coming. And where is the rotten tomatoes channel? It disapeared at new years. I miss that and the snarky news on 358

    Whatever you think of Keith (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    This is more of the same.

    My take is no one thinks more of Keith then Keith and he never just leaves a job.  He is always shown the door no matter where he goes and this is just another chapter in that history.

    My only doubt about the sports thing is they kicked him off Sunday Night Football this year.  If he was going to be the head of a new sports network I'd have thought they left him on that show to give him credibility.

    Either way the guy seems to always make trouble for his bosses and whatever job he takes next it won't be his last because he'll overstay his welcome once again.

    He made a lot of money for his bosses (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    who seem to wallow in mediocrity, stupidity and mendacity. If he has really been shown the door, he should wear that treatment as a badge of honor.

    I've never watched Olbermann... (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    unless he's linked to from one of the few blogs I frequent. My "dish" company doesn't carry MSNBC unless you pay extra for it.

    It does carry fox, however, which I never watch on principle.

    I think it Comcast. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Madeline on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    I believe that it is Comcast. Have you ever read about the Roberts who own the company?  

    I think that Olbermann 'go' was part of the deal.