Greenwald, Sirota and Hamsher Follow-Up On Olbermann's New Statement

[masuki bance]

Greenwald

... Today, after I told Olbermann that his on-air denial last night had made it appear that what I wrote was untrue, when we both knew it was entirely accurate, Olbermann issued the following on-the-record statement to me about this matter (emphasis added):

I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and have found nothing materially factually inaccurate about it. Fox and NewsCorp have continued a strategy of threat and blackmail by Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Bill O'Reilly since at least 2004. But no matter what might have been reported by others besides Mr. Greenwald, and no matter what might have been thought around this industry, there's no "deal." I would never consent, and, fortunately, MSNBC and NBC News would never ask me to.

I certainly believe that Olbermann is telling the truth when he says he was never a party to any deal and that nobody at GE or MSNBC asked him to consent. That's because GE executives didn't care in the least if Olbermann consented and didn't need his consent. They weren't requesting that Olbermann agree to anything, and nobody -- including the NYT's Stelter -- ever claimed that Olbermann had agreed to any deal. What actually happened is exactly what I wrote: GE executives issued an order that Olbermann must refrain from criticizing O'Reilly, and Olbermann complied with that edict. That is why he stopped mentioning O'Reilly as of June 1.

Once the NYT exposed this deal between GE and News Corp., MSNBC executives allowed Olbermann to attack O'Reilly last night because neither Olbermann nor MSNBC could afford to have it appear that their top journalist was being muzzled by GE. For obvious reasons, such an impression would be humiliating and would harm MSNBC's "journalism" brand. But over the last two months, muzzled by GE is exactly what Olbermann was -- precisely as I (and Brian Stelter) wrote.

I appreciate that Olbermann is now confirming that nothing I wrote about this matter was inaccurate. This GE/News Corp. quid pro quo is an extremely significant incident, entailing one of the most transparent acts of extreme corporate censorship and suppression of journalistic freedom in one of our country's major news organizations (as well as at Fox News). Making it far worse is that GE was motivated by nothing more than a desire to suppress all reporting (whether by Fox News, The Wall St. Journal or other Murdoch-owned outlets) that reflects poorly on them and their corporate activities. That dangerous conduct by GE -- along with Fox's typically thuggish behavior -- is what the real story here is.

...

(3) Nothing is more irrelevant to the discussion than whether one "likes" Keith Olbermann or enjoys watching him on the TV. That would be relevant if the topic were: "Who are your favorite TV stars?" But that's not the topic being discussed here. I suppose one could say (as some are arguing in Comments) that one should refrain from ever covering a story that might reflect poorly on anyone who has the same political views as you do; that's the view that led most Republicans to justify everything George Bush did (he's on our side; why criticize him?). But I hope nobody reading this blog expects that sentiment to prevail here (truth-telling and ethical obligations are only for Fox News and Republicans).

(4) One praiseworthy act that Olbermann undertook was announcing that Richard Wolffe would no longer be on Countdown in response to the ethical issues I raised here on Saturday. On a related note, The New Republic's Gabriel Sherman examines how Wolffe is now attempting to leverage his close relationship with Obama officials to write yet another fawning, sycophantic book about Obama -- this one on his first 30 days in office. To publishers, Wolffe even touts his "personal relationships with Obama officials at 'the highest level' who have already 'expressed support informally' for the project." Wolffe has become a perfect embodiment of the total merger of political power, corporate interests and "journalism."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/04/olbermann/

Sirota

...Some readers may believe this story is not important - they may believe that we should just forget about this whole sordid affair simply because Olbermann does great work on behalf of progressive causes like ending the war in Iraq and enacting a universal health care system. My response is simple: We can all agree on the quality of Olbermann's work, while disagreeing on the significance of this particular story - and additionally, there's no contradiction in simultaneously believing that Olbermann does great work and that this is an important story. Many of us - and especially many of us working in independent media - believe that corporate control of the media is a crucial issue that tends to distort and impact all other issues (and especially when it involves as huge and as economically significant company as General Electric).

As an MSNBC and Olbermann fan, I'm bummed to see Olbermann caught up in this situation - but I'm not surprised. The problem of corporate control of the media is so big and powerful, there's no way Olbermann could avoid it, despite his vehement protests to the contrary last night. Indeed, his new statement today seem to confirm that very reality.

And so I'll just conclude by saying this: You may like Keith Olbermann (as I do), but if your love of Keith Olbermann makes you refuse to defend/demand respect for independent journalism, then you ought to consider how fucked up your value system really is. Loyalty to an individual over loyalty to principles is the definition of cultism. MSNBC partisans insisting that we should ignore General Electric's manipulation of the news out of deference to Keith Olbermann's supposedly infallible awesomeness are at best being intellectually dishonest, and at worst endorsing in precisely the kind of propagandistic pro-censorship sycophancy that is at the heart of this scandal.

http://openleft.com/diary/14489/olbermanns-conflicting-statements

Hamsher

...Olbermann has now made two contradictory statements about his role in the affair:

1. He confirms what Glenn Greenwald wrote, which is that he stopped covering O'Reilly because he was told to by his bosses at GEO
2. He says that his decision to stop covering O'Reilly was purely a response to O'Reilly's role in the Tiller incident, and that any assertion to the contrary is a blackmail attempt by Roger Ailes

It is clear that there was a deal between GE and News Corp, because both are confirming it. So Olbermann is, at best, guilty of obfuscation by claiming that he was not "party" to any deal. As Glenn said:

That's because GE executives didn't care in the least if he consented and didn't need his consent. They weren't requesting that Olbermann agree to anything, and nobody -- including the NYT's Stelter -- ever claimed that Olbermann had agreed to any deal. What actually happened is exactly what I wrote: GE executives issued an order that Olbermann must refrain from criticizing O'Reilly, and Olbermann complied with that edict. That is why he stopped mentioning O'Reilly as of June 1.

Either Glenn's reporting is right, as Olbermann confirms, and he was silenced by GE. Or Glenn's reporting is wrong, as Olbermann said last night, and the GE-News Corp deal had nothing to do with his actions.

There will be a cloud over Olbermann's credibility until he clarifies what really happened.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/04/keith-olbermann-gives-contradictory-statement-to-glenn-greenwald/

[masuki bance]

1. k

[mmonk]

2. Let's don't eat Keith alive over this.

In one breath, they say he does good work and another breath, they say don't trust him until he comes clean. They may, in the end, end up doing Murdoch's work for him.

[Berry Cool]

4. That's what I fear. The independent progressive media voices will help Murdoch remove Olbermann

and as they do, they will say "But we had to. He was ideologically impure because, unlike us, he worked for the MSM. Therefore, he could not be trusted to act as anything other than a puppet to his corporate overlords."

And in the meantime, they will accuse all of us who don't believe they are telling the full story of being mindless Olbermann fanboys/fangirls who care nothing about journalistic integrity. Bullshit. What bothers me is that it seems that the independent journalistic left is obsessed with demonizing corporate media employees and painting them with the guilt of everything their employers have ever done to damage mankind.

If I am to throw Olbermann on the scrap heap because he works for MSNBC/GE, I have to do the same to Senator Sherrod Brown's wife, Connie Schultz, who writes a column for the Plain Dealer. I have to assume that despite the positions she advocates there--which, as you might expect, reinforce her husband's point of view, because I assume she wouldn't have married him if they didn't share certain values and feel the same way about certain things--she cannot be trusted because she is a mere media puppet of her publishing corporation. If she really wants integrity, she should be writing for one of the indie newspapers...for FREE!

That's the mentality some people have. I think it's crap.

I'm not saying there's no potential for conflict between corporate employees and their employers. There certainly is. I'm just saying that to automatically ASSUME compromised integrity on the part of journalists or media personalities employed and paid by corporations is wrong and unfair.

[mmonk]

5. If they got rid of Keith, there would be outrage.

Especially over an issue that is less important than what he does. I mean putting O'Reilly on the worst Persons list is that important? I would like to ask Greenwald some questions over the AIPAC spy scandal since I have issues over that.

[masuki bance]

6. No one is advocating getting rid of Keith because he works for a corporation. nt

[mmonk]

7. I worry more about their attacking his credibility and the fallout.

[masuki bance]

8. Isn't his credibility important? This is a serious issue, like others have

said, whether or not you like Keith should not make any difference when looking at the facts.

[Bandit]

3. I expect this will be worked out right away.

I have followed Olberman for some time now and have yet to catch him in a falsehood. He is blatantly opinionated and biased but he tells the truth as far as I have been able to determine..I will give him the benefit of the doubt until proved otherwise.