Keith on The Soup!

Keith answers his detractors on the FISA reversal, specifically Glenn Greenwald;

I don’t know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn’t read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he’s taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing. Same point, in essence, tonight with John Harwood. It certainly does underscore the degree to which the presumptive nominee trusts his own mind. Did Mr. Greenwald note that I asked if we shouldn’t worry that this Obamaian certainty could turn into something like President “My Way Or The Highway” Bush, or did he leave that out?

Mr. Greenwald follows up:

Despite his having packed his response with substance-free invective, I’m going to keep the reply as dispassionate as possible because I’m not interested in engaging in some personality-driven spat of the type that he seems to enjoy. What’s more, in the scheme of things, I don’t consider Keith Olbermann to be The Enemy or, comparatively speaking, even a particularly bad influence to be targeted. I wrote about his comments yesterday because they reflect a broader trend that I do think matters.

Since I strive to keep this blog free from contentious political discussions, I won’t editorialize here and ask you all to remain your usual, civil selves in comments.

The July issue of GQ has a feature comparing and contrasting Our Mr. Olbermann with his election night tag team partner, Chris Matthews:

Righteous wrath and smugness are not an ideal combo, and Olbermann’s delight in being Keith Olbermann has long since transformed anything genuine in his indignation into performance art. I prefer his politics to O’Reilly’s, and unlike Bill he’s genuinely droll. But when it comes to vanity getting its rocks off by posturing as moral outrage, I don’t see much daylight between them. That one is a bully and the other a scold is just a stylistic distinction that suits their constituencies.

Another wag for which the once shiny novelty of Keith dissenting voice has worn thin. He goes on to crown Tweety as some sort of Adderall deprived clown prince of politics, which is much more interesting than the same old saws about KO being KO.

[via TVN]

The gossip that earned last night’s “Worst” from KO:

Meanwhile, Matthews’ MSNBC cable cohort Olbermann, who was also at the memorial, is “threatening to quit if he isn’t installed as Russert’s replacement,” another insider said. “I know, it sounds ludicrous, but, then, Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.”

What’s actually ludicrous is the idea of Keith taking over MTP. The man is good at what he does, but the things that make him stand out - most notably his humor and heart-on-the-sleeve passion - would be a bad fit.

The New Yorker has a new profile of Our Mr. Olbermann, “One Angry Man” by Peter J. Boyer:

But, just as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. “It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he’s funny and he’s clever and he’s witty, and he’s all these great things,” Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true.”

It is not a particularly flattering profile, but it doesn’t come off as so much trash talk. Anyone who has followed KO’s career like many of us here have will not find anything that’s surprising or revelatory. Keith Olbermann is a man with more issues than your average news stand, and Mr. Boyer lists them all here, one by one.

I left off on posting about the most recent media type to join the “Pile On Olbermann” movement for no other reason than it was a beautiful sunny weekend and dammit, my feathers didn’t need ruffling. Not like there was anything new or interesting there.

Fortunately (?) for us, Danny Shea at HuffPo has gathered up all of the recent backlash in a single column! One stop shopping for all your indignant needs! This roundup was apparently spurred by last night’s choice of Katic Couric as Worst Person. Let’s look at some of what he’s rounded up, shall we?

From Rachel Sklar:

I find it a bit rich that Keith Olbermann would chastise anyone on the subject of “separating the hype from the news” or “the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism.” And yet he did just that last night in naming Katie Couric his “Worst Person in the World” for speaking out about the sexism evidenced in some of the media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Ms. Sklar, no KO fan she, cherry picks the one line about sexism missing the actual point Keith was making: Ms. Couric’s lack of fact checking regarding her words about Lee Cowan.

I actually flinched last night when I heard Keith denigrate the idea of rampant sexism against Hillary. While I did not see it lurking in every negative phrase uttered against her as some did, it was there and it was obvious. Keith apparently needs to get a 16 ton clue dropped on him on that count. But that was a footnote to the larger issue.

Next up, that paragon of truthful journalism, Jossip:

How did we go from naming Rupert Murdoch the “Worst Person in the World” to adding America’s sweetheart Katie Couric to that list? Ah, right: Because Keith Olbermann’s popular segment is as much a place to criticize world leaders guilty of human rights violations as it is for him to defend his own. And thanks to Couric aiming some “anonymous” critical comments at the NBC family, there she is, Keith’s No. 1 target.

“America’s sweetheart?” Really? Have you seen her ratings? While we’re at it, have you actually seen more than one segment of Worsts? When was the last time a “world leader” was nominated for “human rights violations?”

It’s not a secret that KO deserves some of the criticism leveled at him. We aren’t here to hold him up as a shining example of perfection. But I think it not too much to ask that his critics stay on point.

According to TVNewser, “a high level source inside MSNBC” doesn’t care much for KO:

“You think Russert is going to put up with that? Election night coverage in November with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann?”

Ratings for MSNBC’s election coverage wouldn’t be half of what they are without the two of them, particularly KO, so I think Timmeh the Beltway Hack hasn’t got a lot to say about it.

“The key is his willingness to quit,” says our source about Olbermann. “And he means it. He has convinced management of that. They are convinced that he will walk. He behaves like a man who has nothing left to lose. He is not central to MSNBC, he is the center of the MSNBC ratings strategy. We hang the entire schedule on him.”

Given Keith’s reputation, I doubt that he had to do much convincing. Some of them are probably scared shitless he’ll do just that.

What about Olbermann blogging now at The Daily Kos? “That’s insane,” says the insider. “If he was writing long pieces for The Atlantic, or The New Republic, it’s different. It’s partisan, is what it is. It’s also just low and stupid.”

I’ve always had mixed feelings about KO on Kos, because it is very partisan. But “low and stupid?” I’m sure the number of Congressfolk who also post there will enjoy that remark.

This has been buzzing around the Right Wingnut-o-sphere for the past few days. I was wondering when it would be picked up by Fixed Noise’s partner in crime:

OlbermannWatch.com reports that New York state has issued a tax warrant or judgment against the MSNBC host for $2,269.50 in back taxes owed by his personal corporation, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire Inc. … “This was a bookkeeping disagreement between Keith’s accountants and the state which was resolved months ago,” an MSNBC spokesman told Page Six.

Which begs the question: How bored do you have to be before you take up tax record snooping as a hobby?

Kansas City Star television critic Aaron Barnhart takes to his blog today to say just what he thinks of KO critics Gillespie, Kurtz, Bauder and Poniewozik:

In a couple of these Olbermann critiques we hear from unnamed “insiders” who are unhappy with the attention he’s getting. One offers that NBC stood by while Olbermann “let his freak flag fly” and may wish it hadn’t now. Media watchers will recognize a venerable archetype making an appearance here: The Interloper Who Makes Real Journalists Itch. We saw it when Katie Couric went to CBS, and Geraldo Rivera got his contract extension 10 years ago (oh dear, I was in that pile-on), and going back further there was Barbara Walters v. Harry Reasoner (as she reminds us in Audition: A Memoir, her new book, which I’m loving) … really, it’s the old, old story, and I guess I’m not surprised to see it playing out again here, even though it makes less sense today than ever. (I wonder if the “insiders” who cluck anonymously about KO actually are jealous that he gets compared to Jon Stewart and they don’t.)

Go read it. No, really. Read the whole thing. It’s a fine analysis of just what’s been going on.

Beginning with Howard Kurtz’s feud report last week and ramping up after Friday’s over the top Special Comment, there’s been a bit of media backlash against Our Mr. Olbermann. I haven’t been able to write it all up for the front page as I have in the past, but you can find links and/or excerpts in the comments here at the mothership and at our auxiliary site Tumblelogging Olbermann.

And now a word from Rupert Murdoch, as seen on Silicon Alley Insider:

And for good measure, he defended the lack of a liberal counterpart to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News: He’d hire one if he could find a good one, he argued. What about MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who’s now spending much of his time attacking O’Reilly and Fox? “No. I fired him 5 years ago,” when he was on FoxSports: “He was crazy.”

Update: Keith responds. “…he had to pay me $800,000 for the rest of 2001, and lord knows how many tens of millions I’ve helped MSNBC take out of his pocket ever since — so: who’s crazy?”