as the undisputed truth and STOP WRITING
So. . . the fact that Olbermann attacked O'Reilly is proof that he complied with an order NOT to attack O'Reilly? And the proof that there was a deal comes from an anonymous source used by a lawyer-playing-journaliist who has always lambasted actual journalists for using anonymous sources. Delicious.This led a very frustrated Greenwald to snap:
Why can't people read? The proof comes from Brian Stelter's four independent sources; my independent source with first-hand knowledge of what happened; the fact that Olbermann stopped talking about O'Reilly exactly when GE executives told him to stop; and the fact that Olbermann said nothing that I wrote was inaccurate. Do you need me to repeat that?Look Glenn, I hate to break it to you, but the people get The Ego. And they get that whatever The Ego tells them is the truth IS THE TRUTH, no pesky things like facts required. Do you need me to repeat that???? I digress. The comments to what Greenwald wrote amuse the Ego and warm his heart. I'm particularly fond of someone calling themselves "Pragma" who demanded that Greenwald reveal an off-the-record source.
I'm not going to make up my mind one way or the other without better data than some unknown third party's word.Well done Pragma, well done! This so enraged Greenwald that he had to respond with this:
Given that Keith Olbermann himself just said that nothing I said was inaccurate, what difference does it make how you assess the credibility of the source I have? Olbermann himself is stating explicitly that what I wrote was accurate. What else do you need to know?All the love and affectino that you harbor for Keith Olbermann is never going to make this sentence disappear: "I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and have found nothing materially factually inaccurate about it." Try closing your eyes and clicking your ruby slippers three times -- it will still be there.I love it when the Fans needle idiots like Greenwald. Saves me the trouble from having to do it myself. Poor Greenwald. The fans were so great about needling him he finally just posted this diatribe:
Olbermann's statement is what I wanted in order to feel fine about not disclosing that evidence, because it states as clearly as can be -- from the horse's mouth -- that what I wrote was accurate. That people can't see the significance of that means they don't want to (I LOVE KEITH!!!!), and for those people, even releasing the emails would do no good.Yep, love my fans. They understand that they can't believe their own lying eyes where I'm concerned. They need to believe only that The Ego is a perfect being and that the truth is what the Ego tells them it is. I'll admit it, The Ego began to feel so sorry for poor Greenwald that he did indeed give him a statement. Here's how Greenwald described it:
As for the piece I wrote on Saturday, my basis was, quite obviously, Stelter's NYT article. But my basis for the added facts about the GE/Fox deal which I wrote in yesterday's piece were statements made in not-for-attribution emails from a person who has first-hand knowledge of GE's newsroom edict. 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):Look, The Ego had to help the guy out (and get him off my butt)so I threw him a little quote.
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.That's the Ego's story and The Ego is sticking to it (no matter what the facts say). Don't you love the quote? "Nothing materially inaccurate" about what Greenwald has reported, while still denying it? Yes my friends, it is Egospeak in action. Hee hee. But as Greenwald learned, even when the Ego admits that something was actually factually true (more Egospeak), it still doesn't mean the Fans will believe it. God the Ego loves being The Ego.
Oh and one more thing? Add the previously Keith Olbermann's Ego-friendly FireDogLake to the list of enemies.
Olbermann has now made two contradictory statements about his role in the affair: He confirms what Glenn Greenwald wrote, which is that he stopped covering O'Reilly because he was told to by his bosses at GE 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.Details, details. Once you've learned how to fake sincerity, the rest is a piece of cake.
There will be a cloud over Olbermann's credibility until he clarifies what really happened.Nope. Looking like Sunny Skies for Olbermann's Ego actually. And looking at the comments at that little blog it seems that the rain is falling on FireDogLake, not Keith Olbermann's Ego. The fans get that they only have to believe the ego, not their own lying eyes. And that's exactly how The Ego