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
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
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.
8 comments:
I'm so glad that this article got an airing somewhere on the internets. But why is Huffington Post covering for him? These questions are all legit yet HP seems to want to silence them.
Yeah, it is kind of strange that Arianna would want to protect Keith after he has gone along with Russert banning of her from NBC properties for dissing Russert in her book. She’s just hedging her bets for possible future appearances on MSNBC if she plays nice with Keith.
Ms. Sklar could have been a lot harder on Keith than she was. At least she hinted at the real reason why Abrams is out and Maddow is in. To sum up why this programming change doesn’t make sense:
1) Abrams’ ratings are good. Better, in fact, than the evening’s second showing of Countdown. Why mess with that, the all-important ratings?
2) There are a number of other slots Maddow could have taken without displacing or removing Abrams entirely. Being that Maddow is a newcomer to television, doesn’t it make more sense to start her off at a different time, such as before Matthews, or after Abrams?
3) If the true purpose of putting Maddow in Abrams’ slot was to further lefty-ize MSNBC’s newsblock, then it would make more sense to replace the conservative David Gregory’s show, “Race To The White House”, not Abrams’ “Verdict”.
That makes it obvious, then. This sudden change doesn’t make sense, unless Abrams is being replaced because Keith doesn’t like him. It isn’t only that he likes Maddow better.
This is why so many people say that Keith is not a team player, and this situation is a perfect example. He’s not doing what is best for his network. He’s doing what’s best for him.
It's all about me. Is there even any doubt?
Keith ISN'T a team player. And you're right Marinara, he's doing what's best for him.
But if he's not careful he's going to wind up getting the big wigs pissed. If they're not already.
I am smarter than anyone else and I know what's best for me. It is in their best interest to keep me happy. Tucker and Dan did not understand that. Now they're gone. You do the math.
I think he uses Phil Griffin like a floormat. But what happens when his ratings begin to slide as they no doubt will one day. Will he be tossed aside the way others are being tossed aside now? That's something he should keep in mind.
When Huffington Post has posted things there about him before that were even slightly negative there were hundreds of posts by pised off fans attacking Huffington Post and defending him. She probably just doesn't want the posters there again.
Phil's my bitch and he knows it. So is Arianna and all of Huffington Post. And that's just the way I like it.
Post a Comment