Keith Olbermann is not a Narcissitic Outrage Junkie

Pay no mind to Gawker. They have a well-documented history of hating the greatness that is Keith Olbermann's Ego. Obviously, they are all Republican right-wingnuts over there at Gawker.

And Keith Olbermann's Ego hasn't lost a damn thing thank you very much Dan Abrams. No wonder MSNBC fired you. You're dumb and so is your toupee and your website which exists purely to mock the greatness that is Keith Olbermann's much more superior career. But don't worry Danny Boy, I don't think anyone will notice your hairplugs/hairpiece/whatever the hell it is you call perched on top of your skull (dead rat maybe)?

Keith Olbermann's Ego is a Saint

Yeah, that's right haters out there. Keith Olbermann's Ego is not just one hell of a guy, he's also a saint. Don't believe The Ego? Then just look at this. See how eager The Ego was to let everyone know he's personally raised (in the sense that he got other people to dole out their $$$) towards helping people without health-care.

The Real Winner? Keith Olbermann's Ego!

Oh this is too funny. The publicity for Keith Olbermann's Ego keeps rolling along. Today it's from Huffington Post and this little item which proclaims that Keith Olbermann is playing his viewers for fools. Hey little writer man that no one has ever (or will ever) hear anything from: who are they going to believe? Me or you? Look at all those comments. And the winner is? ME! Listen to this overwrought prose:

Much of the blogospheric discussion has centered around Olbermann's response to the furor, post-NYT article, which has been ridiculous and implausible. But it's also worth spending a little time thinking about Olbermann's initial response -- to the order from on high. As I see it, at that moment in time, Olbermann had four clear choices:

1. Resign his position in protest.
2. Refuse to go along with the edict, and risk his firing.
3. Publicly disclose what he had been told to do.
4. Lie to his viewers.

What he clearly decided to do was #4.

Yep. #4 It was. Because I mean, come on, let's look at the options here. #1: Resign. They pay The Ego $7.5 Mil a year. That was a non-starter from Day 1. The Ego has two (count 'em: two) Park Avenue Apartments. Then there's Katy. Hell, The Ego needs the $7.5 mil a year just to support her and her little hobbies--you know, getting jobs at The Weather Channel, WNBC, etc. Then of course there is The Ego's baseball collection. Do you have any idea how expensive it can be to buy a 1932 baseball card from some player no one has ever heard of? Okay so #2: Risk firing? Yeah, see The Ego's reasons for #1. #3? Publicly disclose that the Ego loves money more than integrity and journalistic ethics and blah blah blah blah? It doesn't look good for the Ego. So naturally that left once choice and one choice only: lie! And as the Ego has explained: lying is easy once you learn how to fake sincerity.

Take a look at the comments on HuffPost. Those people love the Ego's ass. As they should. If The Ego told them to go jump off the Golden Gate Bridge they'd do it because The Ego told them to. The Ego figured out a long time ago that the best way to develop a rabid (and oh boy do some of them need their shots--I mean a few of them scare me) audience was to wrap myself up in the liberal cause. Thus, anyone criticizing me would be branded a GOP operative. Anyone who dares point out anything bad The Ego says or does would also be branded a GOP operative. In short, it is every Liberal's duty to protect and defend their country Keith Olbermann. And that's the way it should be!

Olbermann's perplexing reaction to the controversy, which has been to blow hot snot all over New York Times reporter Brian Stelter's reporting, while simultaneously "honoring" and praising the accuracy of Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald's response, which was based entirely on Stelter's reporting. One cannot decry one report, one minute, and then "honor" the same conclusions the next. On Monday's broadcast he called Brian Stelter one of history's greatest monsters for a day. But then he declared in a statement that Glenn Greenwald's account, which deviated not one iota from the facts Stelter presented, contained "nothing materially factually inaccurate." This is what is known as "total B.S."

Yes but it's Keith Olbermann's bullshit and let me tell you, if it's one thing that The Ego has learned this week is that people also love Keith Olbermann's bullshit. And nothing anyone ever says or does will matter because Keith Olbermann's Ego is well, Keith Olbermann's Ego. As it should be.

Uh oh. Someone doesn't get it.

Namely this guy.

On his show last night, Keith Olbermann essentially issued a non-denial denial about the GE-MSNBC-Fox story, saying that he himself was "party to no deal" -- exactly what he said in the original New York Times article......in Olbermann's non-denial denial last night, he didn't refute the quotes from General Electric management, he didn't refute that MSNBC execs told its producers that they "wanted the channel's other programs [to] restrain from criticizing Fox directly," and he didn't refute this report from TV Newser saying that the parent companies for Fox and MSNBC have been in negotiations for months.

Okay Ego fans, you know what to do: that's right, get busy in the comments section and rip this guy a new one.

And there's obviously something in the water over there at Huffington Post (that's right, they too are no longer a reliable judge of Keith Olbermann's work).

KO and BO are two similar cats in many respects. These monumentally insecure men detest each other to the extent that they care not that it affects the quality of their shows or contributes to the uneasiness of their audience. These are two guys from not-so-serious pasts who now want very much to be respected and considered as media vanguards, two societal forces that can control destiny and history with their words alone.....Olbermann, the snarky Eddie Haskell who thinks he's smarter and pithier than everybody and anybody in the room, especially his Fox counterpart, the oafish Ted Baxter. Both of these guys have Goliath complexes: large men who are braggadocius and to be respected. KO trying to rid himself of the image of an erstwhile sports guy and BO, the journalist manqué, trying to rid himself of KO. .....BO versus KO will forever be remembered as one of televisions greatest hate affairs.

Again, all lies. Except the part where this guy slams Bill O'Reilly. That part is all true.

And please ignore New York magazine as well.

(Olbermann's comments are)...based on the presumption that even though the half of Brian Stelter's story about him was false, the half about Fox News was true, which is awfully convenient for Olbermann.

See? They don't get the greatness that is Keith Olbermann's Ego. If I say what they say about The Ego is a lie, it's a lie. And if The Ego says it's all true about O'Reilly it's all true about O'Reilly, and no questions or snarking allowed otherwise. (What? So they wrote a semi-decent article kinda praising The Ego once. They've turned on The Ego now. They must be immediately blacklisted).

And media critics and journalism professors? What do they know?

(Olbermann's commentary).... is intellectually dishonest, as it implies that Stelter deliberately did not use Olbermann's quote because it didn't fit with what he wanted to write. In fact, Stelter did use it, and he placed it in context. It's very clear from Stelter's story that the deal had been cut by higher-ups, and that Olbermann might or might not go along. Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch came in at number one for trying to muzzle O'Reilly. Hmmm ... doesn't that confirm that Stelter got it right? Glenn Greenwald, who's been blogging away at Salon ever since the Stelter story came out, criticized his ideological soulmate Olbermann last night, writing on Twitter, "Really surprised by the Olbermann denial - there's lots and lots of evidence that the NYT's description about what GE did is 100% accurate." All in all, not a good moment for Olbermann. He may have reclaimed his independence. But he did so at the expense of sliming a journalist who'd broken an important, unflattering story about collusion by media moguls. At the very least, Olbermann ought to award himself the bronze.

The Ego is the best person in the world. How dare this man suggest otherwise?

And speaking of Glenn Greenwald and Salon? Again, ignore them too. He appears to be writing some hard-to-follow gibberish here about how GE is the root of all evil or something.

And finally, add The Nation into the list of people who cannot be trusted when it comes to reporting or commenting on anything Keith Olbermann related. (Yeah, The Ego knows he's been a cover boy for them but now they have betrayed The Ego.)

Since most of these people have "comments" on their page I expect every good Keith Olbermann fan to immediately run to these pages and post diatribes denouncing them as liars immediately. I don't care if you have jobs. What's more important? Your measly, unimportant little job or Keith Olbermann's Ego? That's right people: it's all about me.

**On Edit****
When The Ego said "finally" he meant "Finally" dammit. Sigh. Okay, add Cityfile to the Enemies List (see sidebar for the complete list--for now). Okay so Cityfile has a history of not liking The Ego so naturally you should also disredit everything they ever snark about The Ego okay? Cityfile.

Keith Olbermann took Times reporter Brian Stelter to task last night for reporting that News Corp. and GE had worked out a deal to tone down the rhetoric between MSNBC and Fox News. But he didn't disagree with everything Stelter reported. Conveniently, only the bad stuff about him was wrong.

But of course. See, Cityfile is just stupid.

More bad news for Olbermann: MSNBC now admits it made a mistake by not disclosing that Countdown fixture Richard Wolffe is a paid lobbyist. Naturally, Olbermann had absolutely no idea about any of this.

Look don't they realize that The Ego is a very busy man? Who has time for stupid things like vetting hosts?

This Woman Thinks She's a Big Fan of Keith Olbermann's?

So this chick Cynthia Boaz, thinks she's a big fan of Keith Olbermann? Keith Olbermann's Ego begs to differ.

Although it has been several weeks since Keith Olbermann has used his MSNBC show as a platform to call for the public water boarding of fellow commentator Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, my concerns about Olbermann's former campaign have not diminished, and this pains me because I'm a big fan of his. But in the interest of media accountability, someone needs to point out to Olbermann that on this issue, he has been nearly as exploitative and irresponsible as his colleague on the right.

It pains her? Not nearly so much as it pains The Ego as having to read her drivel which actually dares to question the wisdom and genius that is Keith Olbermann's Ego. If this chick was as "big of a fan" as she claims to be she would know that Rule #1 of being a fan of Keith Olbermann's Ego is that a true Keith Olbermann fan never, ever, ever dares question his judgement or actions, no matter what.

Olbermann's hypocrisy on the issue of torture confounds me. By calling-pushing, even-for the water boarding of his rival talk-show host Sean Hannity (who, in a moment of exceptional foolishness volunteered to be water boarded in order to demonstrate that it's "not that bad"), Olbermann gave away the moral high ground on this issue, undermined his otherwise unassailable argument against torture, and trivialized the very thing he wants us all to take so seriously. I would go so far as to say he's "normalized" it, if the ability of Olbermann supporters to twist themselves into logical and moral knots in defense of his campaign is any indication.

Of course I want them to twist themselves into logical and moral knots in defending The Ego. That's what my fans are there for: to date defend The Ego. That's Rule #2 for all fans of Keith Olbermann's Ego: defend the Ego no matter what.

While the outward message on Olbermann's part is "torture is never acceptable", the meta-message is "torture is never acceptable, except when I say so (or when I say it's not really torture)." It's a slippery slope.

Psst: Cynthia: Check out Rule #1 for being a Keith Olbermann fan. Anyway, she blathers on and on and on about Martin Luther King and Hannity (whoever thought The Ego would use those two names in the same sentence?) and ratings and who knows what else. Quite frankly The Ego grew very bored with Ms. Boaz's boring diatribe. Something about her expecting more from The Ego etc. etc. etc. Quite frankly Ms. Boaz Keith Olbermann's Ego expects much much more from his fans and would appreciate it if Ms. Boaz would do a careful review of the Rules for Keith Olberamnn fans and adhere to them from this point in time on. Now fans what is rule #3? That's right. Rule #3 is make your support for The Ego evident by posting diatribes against Ms. Boaz at Huffington Post and then proceed to either Daily Kos or your nearest blog or website to express your undying devotion and support of the Ego no matter what. As it should be.

Keith Olbermann is No One's Fool

I don't care what this idiot has to say. Nor is Keith Olbermann's Ego ever wrong. Never. Except when forced to issue retractions. But it wasn't my fault. It was the transcription service's fault. See, it wasn't The Ego. It's never the ego's fault--ever, got it?

It is not possible to sum up Keith Olbermann in 60 Seconds.

But somehow, Huffington Post's 23/6 has tried. Or as Jossip puts it:

It just encompasses every trope in Olbermann's playbook, which is a) Calling people fascists; b) Disdainfully calling people "sir"; c) Being super incredulous; Did I get them all? Wouldn't want to miss one of his other emotions besides ironic smugness and constipation that allowed him to get that huge re-up on MSNBC.

The Huffington Post has my back.

I like them for that. Seems that their Media editor, Rachel Sklar wanted to post this at Huffington Post. They wouldn't let her. HA! So desperate is this seriously delusional woman to mock me that she sought out an alternative marketplace for her crappy writing. Does she honestly think anyone will ever see this? HA (again).

It's Olbermann's left. That is two things: (1) The partisan coverage that has emerged as a point of controversy over this election season, and (2) Olbermann's personal influence at MSNBC.

See how clueless this woman is? She's expressing surprise at my personal influence at MSNBC. Anyone with half a brain knows that I run own MSNBC.

Emblematic of this issue were MSNBC's primary nights, when Olbermann — well known for his "Special Comments," which often railed against the Bush administration and the GOP — would anchor election-night results, ostensibly from a straight-news perspective. MSNBC president Phil Griffin said he saw "zero problem" with Olbermann's two hats,

Of course Phil sees no problem with it. And you know why? He's my bitch.

It probably has not helped that Olbermann has taken to posting on Daily Kos, a pointedly partisan blog.

Look I have to go where my audience goes. They demand that I speak to them. What better way to do that than Kos? Why can't this woman see the obvious?

Over the past few years, Olbermann's influence at MSNBC has grown as his ratings have increased, his public profile has skyrocketed and the network's third-place ratings have crept upward. Throughout this time, he has also made this influence known, publicly minimizing the role of his superiors in his success or workplace decisions.

Again, I own MSNBC. I am the Man. And it's all about me. I am directly responsible for my success and I tell bozos like Griffin where to go and how to get there. Why does this come as such a shock to Ms. Sklar?

About Griffin this past June in a New Yorker profile, Olbermann said of now-president Griffin: "Phil thinks he's my boss."

I was merely stating a fact. It's pretty obvious isn't it? Again, Ms. Sklar acts like this is somehow a badthing.

No wonder Huffington Post wouldn't allow her to post this crap. Read this outraged post as she hints darkly that my running owning MSNBC is somehow a bad thing.

This becomes all the more significant considering Olbermann's own posting of the news yesterday on Daily Kos. Olbermann made a point of taking credit for having a role in the decision ("Yes, I had something to do with it") and elicited a similar claim from Maddow last night on his show. At no time did he mention Abrams or what show currently aired at 9 p.m.; that's not surprising, because he has never mentioned "Verdict" on his show or done the traditional 'throw' from one show to another to keep viewers tuned in (I am aware of only one throw, after the final primary.) However, on Wednesday's Countdown, he suggested to Maddow that he'd happily throw to her for a few chatty minutes. That network anchors might not be best buddies isn't exactly groundbreaking, but putting all of this together suggests something lopsided at MSNBC. It's not particularly opaque, either; here's Jossip's headline, "Rachel Maddow's New Show: The Most Solid Evidence Yet That Keith Olbermann Runs MSNBC"; here is New York's Daily Intel: "With Appointment of Rachel Maddow to Prime-Time Host, Keith Olbermann Appears to Officially Run MSNBC." Maddow obviously was a rising star at MSNBC anyway, but this isn't about why she was hired, this is about who she replaced, and why -- and, behind the scenes, by whom.

I'm the ego that roared baby. Hold on, it's gonna be one hell of a ride.