And what do you mean, “be creative”? You were being literal when you implied Barnhart should have been honest and admitted that “NBC PAID BIG MONEY” for McClellan’s exclusive.
What do you mean, “Perhaps I was too literal for you”? Either NBC paid McClellan in return for his exclusive, or they didn’t. You implied he was. I said he wasn’t.

You say “lets be clear, Scott will be making lots of $$$ with the help of his ‘exclusives’ with the likes of NBC, etc.” I agreed with that. In fact, I spelled out that his reward for offering an exclusive first to NBC would be that he’d get lots of free publicity for his book, and thus he’d probably sell more copies. I made that distinction. But that was not what I was talking about, because it was not what you implied. You implied that he sold himself to the highest bidder (as in, he got monetary offers from networks), and NBC was the highest bidder.

Do you have proof? I found the below linked article in Variety, but as you will note, while it does mention that no reason was given for the choice of NBC, it doesn’t say anything at all about money changing hands–not even “an undisclosed sum.” There is a reason for that. (And not even the Olbermann Watch idiots who added comments implied they did. You’d think they’d be more than happy to believe “NBC paid McClellan to tell those lies.”)

http://www.variety.com/VR1117986550.html

You say “Like I said in my above comment, I would think he would agree to go on Olbermann first on the cable prime, because he would go on the #1 Today Show AND the #1 Meet the Press, with combined viewing of around 10 million viewers.” No argument there. I’m sure every network wanted him to go exclusively with them, and he chose the one he thought he could get maximum viewership from. That’s still not the same as NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox all waving checks at him, and him picking the one with the biggest dollar amount written on it.

You say “Your outrage would be better directed at NBC & many others in the field of ‘journalism’ who were afraid of losing ‘access’ which allowed this administration to ram a war through.” Oh, believe me, I have plenty of outrage for that situation. Outrage doesn’t have to be spent on only one thing at a time.

I think when it comes to saying NBC paid McClellan big money to be their exclusive “get,” you are wrong, but you don’t know how to admit it now and save face, so you’re attempting to dance around the issue, when a simple “I was wrong” will do.

You also seem to have forgotten that Keith was actually among those “sounding the alarm” against the current administration. He was already showing courage of his own by being unafraid to criticize the 2004 election, and it was pretty obvious, months before Katrina, whose side he was on in many of the Bush and Republican-controlled Congress battles, such as the Terri Schiavo controversy. You imply that he was rather cowardly about showing his true colors until after Katrina, but that’s not what I saw. We’ll never know whether he would have had the stomach in 2002 to question the buildup to the war or have survived being canceled by a panicky jingoistic network, but let’s give credit where credit is due.

And please, don’t even bring up the red herring of whether Keith fans can offer constructive criticism and still admire him and the work he has done with Countdown. I know I do. I don’t see why anyone else should be any different.

my, my, Orin, a little over the top, don’t ya think…I think it’s pretty common knowledge that “big gets” sign “contracts” and are “paid”, (however you want to define the word “paid”—be creative). Perhaps I was too literal for you, but lets be clear, Scott will be making lots of $$$ with the help of his “exclusives” with the likes of NBC, etc. Like I said in my above comment, I would think he would agree to go on Olbermann first on the cable prime, because he would go on the #1 Today Show AND the #1 Meet the Press, with combined viewing of around 10 million viewers.

Your outrage would be better directed at NBC & many others in the field of “journalism” who were afraid of losing “access” which allowed this administration to ram a war through.

And after a second viewing, Keith’s interview was better than I originally thought. I wanted him to press Scott on the “regret” question, but in hindsight, that was a pretty tough question to ask, and do we really want to hear that answered? Like, I said on the other thread, I think it would be a great format that he should continue periodically.

(BTW: I think if Becky only wanted glowing, adoring praise of Keith 24/7, she wouldn’t post my (and a few other’s) comments at all. I think Keith fans can offer constructive criticism and still admire him and the work he has done with Countdown. Thankfully she runs this blog).

While “checkbook journalism” appears to have become commonplace in countries like the UK and Australia (thank you Rupe), even with some reputable news outlets, ethical American news outlets do not engage in it. They do not pay for “exclusives.” Only the tabloid outlets, waving money at paparazzi for pictures of semiclothed actresses, superstar weddings and celebrity babies, engage in that kind of nonsense. To do otherwise is to compromise reputations and integrity, and they know it.

True, McClellan signed an exclusive contract with NBC News. But that does not mean money changed hands. It merely means that NBC approached him saying “We would like to have exclusive access to you in discussing your book. In return, your interviews on our networks and Web sites will get maximum promotion and exposure. Will you sign a contract with us agreeing not to speak to anyone else, or at least not first?”

There’s no real reason for him not to say yes. It’s loads of free advertising for his book from a highly rated, highly reputable news outlet. THAT is where the profit comes in for him. Not from anyone forking over big bucks just to talk to him–in which case he could really and truly say anything, true or not, and might be highly motivated to do so in order to “earn his pay.”

That’s just not how good journalism works. And yes, I know there’s a lot of compromising going on out there, but paying sources, even for an exclusive, is one of those journalistic taboos that reporters learn about in the cradle.

What about the rise of Keith Olbermann?

“We should support him and encourage his long-term survival,” Donahue said. “Keith Olbermann would not have lasted six minutes … in October 2002,” when his anti-Bush, anti-war point of view wasn’t as acceptable on cable news.”

On a lighter note, HOW ‘BOUT THEM CUBBIES!!! WOW!! …reminds me of the ‘05 Sox! ;)

For one, when he says: “Apparently, so does McClellan. This very evening he is giving his exclusive first interview to … MSNBC and Keith Olbermann.” Lets be clear, NBC PAID BIG MONEY for McClellan’s “exclusive first” because of the Today Show, Meet the Press and their #1 ratings. And because of Keith’s own big ratings he was given the “exclusive” on MSNBC. (I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the Gregory or Matthews’ household, ouch!)

Second, Aaron also writes: “Looking back at those months preceding shock and awe, it does make you wonder how things might have been different if, say, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” had signed on in 2002 instead of 2003.” Considering Keith did not have the stomach for the “Bill’s bimbo eruption coverage,” I don’t know if it is fair to say he would have been an early critic of the war (or run up to the war). By 2006 there was a chorus of criticism, esp. after Katrina. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad for Keith’s voice now (better late than never), but let’s not put him on some journalistic pedestal, when there WERE real journalists trying to sound the alarm (Bill Moyers, Landay and Strobel from McClatchy News, Scott Pelley, CBS, just to name a few). BTW, you could include Phil Donahue, but look what happened to him. Considering Katie Couric (still at NBC & Today) told a story about how the WH would restrict access of the Administration after what they felt she was overly aggressive in an interview, one can see why TV execs. got cowardly. If Keith was on at the run up to war, I sincerely doubt he would have been allowed to speak up. GE is the big cheese after all. And quite frankly, I think it’s taken him a few years to figure out this “opinion fused with news” thing he does so very well now.

Sorry for the tangent. But I don’t think this slew of “concerned” critics is anything but good for Keith. He hasn’t had some press lately, and I think this is good. He’s driving the righties nuts. Thanks Houstonian for pointing out the Time Warner connection. With the forever shrinking media ownership, I lose track sometime.

On lighter note, how ‘bout them Cubbies! ;)

What I took away from Dr. Taylor’s book above all, and why I recommend it so highly, is that you don’t have to have a stroke or take drugs to find the deep inner peace that she talks about. Her book explains how. “”I want what she’s having”", and thanks to this wonderful book, I can!