Salon: "He didn't burn bridges here. He napalmed them."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Friday, Jan 21, 2011 23:22 ET
War Room
Is Olbermann the victim of his own success?
By Steve Kornacki



Sometimes it seemed like the only programming MSNBC actually believed in was Don Imus’ tired minstrel show in the mornings and weird prison documentaries on the weekends.

Meanwhile, the other cable news channel launched in 1996 was tearing it up in the ratings. From the very beginning, the Fox News Channel knew what it wanted to be. Rush Limbaugh had shown that there were millions of conservative Americans who were addicted to political news and commentary -- and who despised the traditional broadcast outlets (and also CNN). They weren’t looking for thoroughly reported investigative pieces or in-depth coverage of foreign affairs; they just wanted to hear about the latest Clinton scandal or the latest outrageous statement from some Democratic congressman. The programming they wanted was cheap to produce, and if you gave it to them, they’d be fanatically loyal. "Fair and balanced" was thusly born, and by the turn of the century, Fox was overtaking CNN – and leaving MSNBC in the dust.

That’s where Olbermann came in. He had actually been part of MSNBC’s revolving door cast before, in 1997 and 1998. Back then, though, his prime-time broadcast, “The Big Show” (a nod to "SportsCenter," which he’d spent the previous five years co-anchoring with Dan Patrick), was as directionless as the network itself. Politics wasn’t always the focus and news was covered more from a general interest perspective. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in early ’98, executives demanded that Olbermann build his show around it; they hoped it might legitimize MSNBC the way the Iran hostage crisis legitimized “Nightline” in 1979 and 1980. But Olbermann resisted and walked away, making his disgust well known. (This kind of exit is his trademark. After he left ESPN, an executive commented that, “He didn't burn bridges here. He napalmed them.")

***

At the end of his Aug. 30, 2006 show, Olbermann looked directly into the camera and spoke: "The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet." His blistering takedown of the defense secretary was a viral sensation. Millions of liberals were equally exasperated with the Bush administration; but few could express themselves as exquisitely and powerfully as Olbermann. They asked for more, and Olbermann gladly gave it to them; over the next few years, there would be dozens of “special comments,” each delivered in the same dramatic style.

http://www.salon.com/news/keith_olbermann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/21/countdown_rip

[classof56]

1. I for one am keeping my fingers crossed Keith will find another venue

from which to speak truth to power. Heaven knows we need him! Can't articulate what a difference he has made in my life the last few years!

Peace and blessings.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

4. I'm guessing that his "in box" is already overflowing with offers...

...plus, look at that whole Conan O'Brien "Tonight Show" thing. He kept a high profile...without a TV show...stayed plugged in to the fans via the Web and live appearances, created excitement over his return, and to my knowledge, is currently holding his own.

We like Keith on DU, and while some may not care to admit it, he doesn't seem to suffer from any self-esteem issues. I don't think he has the ability to stay out of the spotlight for an extended period of time. He will find a new venue, and I believe that will happen sooner rather than later.

[emulatorloo]

9. Somebody will snap him up.

Sounds like there is a non-compete period as part of the settlement he got. (To me it sounds like Keith wanted OUT and was sick of dealing with MSNBC)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

3. Your subject line was said re: KO's exit from ESPN NOT MSNBC

The title of the piece is actually "Is Olbermann the victim of his own success?" To imply the "burning bridges" comment was said by those at MSNBC is false and suggests a very one-sided angry departure, rather than an amicable agreement may have been reached. It also implies he is "unhireable" because of "napalming bridges."

Sorry, Amerigo, I normally applaud your posts, but this is very deceptive and I would ask that you reconsider editing the subject line.

The article is a good one, however.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

6. It would have been deceptive for me if I put:

MSNBC: "He didn't burn bridges here. He napalmed them."

Then it would have been deceptive AND inaccurate.

I put that in the subject line because I thought it was the single most provocative line of the entire piece. Also, I assumed 99.9% of DU would know it was an Olbermann piece even though neither MSNBC nor Olbermann were mentioned in the subject line. And my feeling is that the author put that in there to speculate what happened upon his exit at MSNBC. It's not explicitly spelled out, but that's why I believe it was brought up at all.

So I appreciate your feedback and the best I can do is say "it wasn't my intention to be deceptive," and to give you the reasons above, which I admit may make sense to me and no one else.

:patriot:

[hlthe2b]

7. I guess given that explanation...

I can only assume you really do not like KO at all, because it presents him in the worst possible light in suggesting this reflects the current situation. I appreciate your explanation, but it just seems so biased to present a comment that was made years ago, as the opening subject line without making its history clear. We wouldn't accept the press doing so and I would think we'd hold each other to the same standard. I can't help but be disappointed with you for that.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

8. I don't "dislike" KO, but I don't "like" him as much as some on DU.

I thought the "Special Comment" thing got out of hand, for one. The first time he did one it was "WOW," then it became so regular that it was less of a "Special Comment" and more of the way he ended his show.

And here's where I am going to respectfully agree to disagree with you, because I don't feel that "it presents him in the worst possible light."

This is the part that's "just me"...I neither expect nor want "agreement" here...I admire someone who napalms his way out of a bad job, because I spent 30 motherfucking years of my life working for weasels and unskilled, incurious people of low moral fiber. Some of the positions I held came to a nice, tranquil, amicable parting of the ways. Other times there was napalm involved.

I had managers lie to me and as I went out the door I called them a liar, and whether it was right or wrong for me to do it, it felt good at the time. I had one manager, in a moment of anger, tell me to "have my ass out of there in 30 days," and then immediately run down to H.R. to attempt to write and back-date a written warning that was NEVER GIVEN TO ME. More napalm.

So you can accuse me and judge me as much as you like...I'll admit, I am a bit surprised that you've chosen to do so, but what the fuck, I really don't care.

I put that in the subject line because if he napalmed his way out of MSNBC as he reputedly did at ESPN, I admire him for it.

And I have now explained myself as much as I intend to. Keep posting on this if you'd like but I am fucking D-O-N-E.

[hlthe2b]

14. I appreciate your post and have experienced similar...

Your explanation makes more sense now in your context.

But, not sure why you felt the need to launch the final few lines of napalm towards me. :shrug:

[saras]

24. Exactly the problem

"I put that in the subject line because I thought it was the single most provocative line of the entire piece. "

This is EXACTLY what's wrong with using it. It's not representative at all, it's "the single most provocative line of the entire piece."

[Submariner]

5. I hope Rachel and Lawrence tear M$NBC/GE/COMCAST

a new one come Monday night. I want to see those two shred their employer, and employer to be (Comsux).

We shall see if the have the balls to do it, or do they bend to the corporate line? I would like to see them sacked in a way, so I can completely boycott those assholes forever. It started with Donahue, now this.

[emulatorloo]

10. Rachel has already stated Comcast had nothing to do with it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. I doubt she has any hard data about what really happened, so anthing she says is conjecture

Also her credibility is not what it used to be with some of us

[emulatorloo]

15. I did not know we had a "Maddow is a liar" faction around DU.

Thanks for the heads up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. She went off half cocked recently

Not so much a liar but ill informed. Happens to everyone in the heat of trying to be topical.

[emulatorloo]

18. Thnks

[Kolesar]

22. Pretty thin. There is nothing wrong with Rachel's programming

But you are making some half baked accusation.

[hlthe2b]

25. She has aroused the fury of the pro-gun crowd...

who disagree with some of the "facts" she has presented or her interpretation. Just sayin as i have vowed to steer clear of gungeon issues for the immediate future. I've been singed enough.

[hlthe2b]

19. where? She said that it was between KO and management

and didn't affect anyone else at MSNBC. She never even mentioned the word Comcast. I saw her on Bill Maher and to my knowledge that is the only statement she's made verbally or in writing. :shrug:

[roguevalley]

11. rachel might but don't expect lawrence to do so. he's a corporate

guy. he likes the tax cuts for zillionaires. that did it for me

[emulatorloo]

16. where do you get that? (re Lawrence O)

[roguevalley]

26. oin his show. he did some budget balance crap and kept the

tax cut for zillionaires.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Entertainment is a green eye shade business

If it makes money you do it/keep it regardless of what you personally think of the content. That KO was removed therefore makes little sense. Its a safe bet the MSNBC was making money from his show, so either it was political or there was a near term threat of losing money. We all have our opinion but it will also be interesting to see what "leaks" out over time.

Since he is a money maker, I expect KO with find another venue easily and until then stay visible not unlike Conan. He may go independent in an attempt to get the really big money.

[emulatorloo]

20. True - for TV news, Commercials are the Meat, the News is the filler

Until I know better, my feeling is Olbermann was sick of dealing with MSNBC, especially since the BS suspension. Eventually the story will come out.

Am also expecting someone else to snap him up after a little hiatus.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. He will be back soon, I have no doubt of it

[Kolesar]

23. That second paragraph nailed it...eom

[KoKo]

27. I remember the DU'ers who Pumped Keith's Show to get him on MSNBC..

Seems like so long ago..and it's not part of history for many newer DU'ers.

We worked so hard...tried so hard...but there was NO PROGRESSIVE MONEY...to BACK US UP...when the MEGA MEDIA KNOCKED AT THE DOOR!

It's sad...to see what our Democratic Organization has done to us...the "Worker Bees" who are now assaulted day after day after day with what is going on....:cry: :-(

Whatever...it will all play out in the end.

[grasswire]

29. I am one of those.

I have an email from Keith sent to me during that 49 days before MSNBC gave him the contract nearly eight years ago. He wrote to thank me for begging the network to give him anything he wanted. A fortune, a penthouse, whatever. He told me that he did not get the penthouse but he did get editorial control as long as the ratings were up.

So long ago.

[yurbud]

28. why won't CNN pick up the progressive gold mine?