It is currently 04/11/25 6:33 pm

Board index » January - December, 2011

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ]
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
alglenne
PostPosted: 01/25/11 1:30 am • # 1 

[u]http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/01/whats-next-for-keith-olbermann.html?cid=ESPNheadline[/u]

What's Next for Keith Olbermann?

Is an attempt being made to take the 'liberal' out of MSNBC?  If so, what does that say for 'free speech America'?  Can Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews and some of the others be muzzled?
Top
  
Quote  
gopqed
PostPosted: 01/25/11 3:02 am • # 2 
Dumping Keith Olbermann was just management's way of taking the ass out of MasSNBC.

Olbermann will be fine, and so will the rest of the MNBC stable, who won't be fired unless their ratings are deemed to be too low.
Top
  
Quote  
bunkerhill14
PostPosted: 01/25/11 3:20 am • # 3 
gopqed
Olbermann will be fine, and so will the rest of the MNBC stable, who won't be fired unless their ratings are deemed to be too low.


do the name pollyanna ring a bell? I know the grammar is bad. It's a takeoff on an old Sammy Davis line "Do the name Ruby Begonia ring a bell"?
Top
  
Quote  
susanneinohio
PostPosted: 01/25/11 4:05 am • # 4 
he will be ok and as far as i know it is speculation r/t specifics of his show ending etc.

as an aside i did read that the ratings for keith olberman as well as glen beck had peaked some time last year and the trend line for both of their shows was down , beck even more so than olberman actually. but of course that is fox with roger and rupert and so far they have not down the integried thing and given him the boot and regardless of ratings.
Top
  
Quote  
alglenne
PostPosted: 01/25/11 6:55 am • # 5 
gopqed:  "Dumping Keith Olbermann was just management's way of taking the ass out of MasSNBC."

What does that mean gop?  Please explain!???
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline John59
PostPosted: 01/25/11 7:04 am • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
Is an attempt being made to take the 'liberal' out of MSNBC?
Only time will tell.

If so, what does that say for 'free speech America'?
This isn't about free speech.

Can Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews and some of the others be muzzled?
Depends on what you mean by "muzzled".
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline sooz06
PostPosted: 01/25/11 7:04 am • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Olbermann will be back, in one form or another ~ I'm sure he's receiving a healthy lump sum payout on the remaining 2 years of his contract ~ I read speculation that his 'off air' time agreement is for 6-9 months, but that he is not limited in online, writing, etc ~ I'm sure there is a very strict 'no tell all' clause, so we likely will not know what truly happened ~ and, frankly, I'm not sure that info makes much of a difference ~ I also read a group of progressives have started a campaign and a Facebook group to 'draft' Olbermann to run for Lieberman's senate seat ~

alglenne, gop's comment was his 'clever' way of calling Olbermann an ass ~

Sooz
Top
  
Quote  
alglenne
PostPosted: 01/25/11 7:50 am • # 8 
John 59

"Is an attempt being made to take the 'liberal' out of MSNBC?
Only time will tell."
It is reported that KO introduced and cultivated the liberal tone and culture at MSNBC.  Some even claim that he took his liberal prosiliting too far and that might very well have been his undoing.   Therefore, sacking KO may have an intimidatory effect.

"If so, what does that say for 'free speech America'?
This isn't about free speech."
That's a bit bold John;  KO's 'worst person in the world' was being scrapped and had acquired a reputation for being very contentious.  KO had also angered many right wing politicians and journalists because of his cutting and biting vernacula.  Attempting to shut him up has everything to do with free speech.

"Can Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews and some of the others be muzzled?
Depends on what you mean by "muzzled". "
Simple; refining the code of journalistic conduct within MSNBC so that the commentators mentioned will need to think twice about what they present to their audiences.
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline macroscopic
PostPosted: 01/25/11 7:56 am • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
i am betting they were trying to hem him in even further. i am betting that did not sit well with him, much like the stupid campaign thing. i am betting that he quit.
Top
  
Quote  
alglenne
PostPosted: 01/25/11 7:56 am • # 10 
Post #6

Sooz,  I'm not quite as generous as you are.  I think gop's remark was laboured, but if he thinks KO is an 'ass', maybe he should explain why he holds that opinion.
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline queenoftheuniverse
PostPosted: 01/25/11 8:36 am • # 11 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
Has no one seen the op-eds prognosticating that he will run for the Senate?
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline John59
PostPosted: 01/25/11 8:52 am • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
alglenne wrote:
John 59

"Is an attempt being made to take the 'liberal' out of MSNBC?
Only time will tell."
It is reported that KO introduced and cultivated the liberal tone and culture at MSNBC.  Some even claim that he took his liberal prosiliting too far and that might very well have been his undoing.   Therefore, sacking KO may have an intimidatory effect.

Maybe, but Olbermann himself hasn't yet spoken about what happened.


"If so, what does that say for 'free speech America'?
This isn't about free speech.
That's a bit bold John;  KO's 'worst person in the world' was being scrapped and had acquired a reputation for being very contentious.  KO had also angered many right wing politicians and journalists because of his cutting and biting vernacula.  Attempting to shut him up has everything to do with free speech.

I don't think it's bold at all. We can't claim suppression of free speech every time a commentator is fired or quits. MSNBC has the right to act as they see fit. Free speech is about government preventing individuals from expressing their views.


"Can Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews and some of the others be muzzled?
Depends on what you mean by "muzzled". "
Simple; refining the code of journalistic conduct within MSNBC so that the commentators mentioned will need to think twice about what they present to their audiences.

Well, there is always some of that going on. It all depends on to what degree and how it is done. For example, I think Fox should make Beck "think twice" about what he says, but they let him say just about anything.

I'm going to be watching to see what happens at MSNBC.
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline sooz06
PostPosted: 01/25/11 9:11 am • # 13 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I'm going to be watching, too, John ~ and I think it will be quite some time [if ever] that Keith speaks about 'what happened' ~ my guess is that well over 50% of his deal requires his silence ~ as for those named in alglenne's post [Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews], I don't know anything about Ed Schultz or Lawrence O'Donnell ~ I have never seen either ~ I see Chris Mathews as an overly-emotional/overly-excitable jerk ~ but I put Rachel and Keith in a different category ~ Keith often used his anger and passion to make his points ~ but both Rachel and Keith do their homework and work from facts, not strictly playing to manipulating emotion ~ Rachel is the smartest and 'brainiest' of them all ~ which obviously will not appeal to 'some' people ~ I think Rachel is worth her weight in gold ~

Sooz 
Top
  
Quote  
susanneinohio
PostPosted: 01/25/11 10:15 am • # 14 
an aside ... isn't rupert firming up plans as he is or nears 80 to have three of his kids do various parts of NewsCorp ? and i wonder what that means for roger. roger has been in print more lately or at least seems so ... esquire , new yorker , i think somewhere else. paranoia man.
Top
  
Quote  
alglenne
PostPosted: 01/25/11 11:16 am • # 15 
Post  #11

John59
"I don't think it's bold at all. We can't claim suppression of free speech every time a commentator is fired or quits. [u]MSNBC has the right to act as they see fit. Free speech is about government preventing individuals from expressing their views"

[/u]Nah nah nah nah nah

Surely, you know about freedom of the press, editorial freedom and all that.  So why would you present such a wet response to a serious question?
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline John59
PostPosted: 01/25/11 1:33 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
alglenne wrote:
Post  #11

John59
"I don't think it's bold at all. We can't claim suppression of free speech every time a commentator is fired or quits. [u]MSNBC has the right to act as they see fit. Free speech is about government preventing individuals from expressing their views"

[/u]Nah nah nah nah nah

Surely, you know about freedom of the press, editorial freedom and all that.  So why would you present such a wet response to a serious question?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. That Olbermann is being denied his 1st Amendment rights?
Top
  
Quote  
bunkerhill14
PostPosted: 01/26/11 3:40 am • # 17 
sooz
 I think Rachel is worth her weight in gold ~



MSNBC must agree with you. Someone posted that she recently bought a $1 million condo in NY.  I don't know what she weighs but even if gold is "only" $1200 an ounce her first
100 pounds would get her $1.9 million- if she's at least 130 that would put her in the $2 million range.
Top
  
Quote  
Sidartha
PostPosted: 01/26/11 3:44 am • # 18 
She's under-paid. ;-)
Top
  
Quote  
 Offline macroscopic
PostPosted: 01/26/11 6:24 am • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Sidartha wrote:
She's under-paid. ;-)

and gold is $1300+
Top
  
Quote  
alglenne
PostPosted: 01/26/11 8:02 am • # 20 
John59:    " Free speech is about government preventing individuals from expressing their views" "

alglenne wrote:
Post  #11

John59
"I don't think it's bold at all. We can't claim suppression of free speech every time a commentator is fired or quits. [u][u][u]MSNBC[/u][/u] has the right to act as they see fit. Free speech is about government preventing individuals from expressing their views"

[/u]Nah nah nah nah nah

Surely, you know about freedom of the press, editorial freedom and all that.  So why would you present such a wet response to a serious question?

"I don't understand what point you're trying to make. That Olbermann is being denied his 1st Amendment rights?"

I suspect you do not understand the point because you are intent in raising irrelevancies.   What's all this nonsense about his 1st Amendment rights and  
"Free speech is about government preventing individuals from expressing their views".
Top
  
Quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 20 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

Board index » January - December, 2011

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.