Keith Olbermann Demanded MSNBC Apology (and got it)

It might have been Keith Olbermann who got suspended from MSNBC after breaking company rules regarding making contributions to political candidates, but now sources tell me it's Keith himself whose demands have been met, allowing him to return to his perch atop the cable network.

"Keith is furious about the way this has all been handled and insisted that MSNBC bosses apologize to him before he would agree to return," a network insider tells me. "Keith sees himself as the star of MSNBC, the person who put them on the map and discovered fellow network anchors Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. To be treated like this by the network he helped shape, he considers disgusting."

more at http://www.popeater.com/2010/11/08/keith-olbermann-return-MSNBC/
---

the rest is history

as I wasn't so obsessed with the day-to-day goings on in the media. Was there a hue and cry, as there was with KO? Were there organized protests and petitions? I don't remember that, but the KO suspension got immediate and overwhelming condemnation. In addition, Keith's ratings were growing, not sinking, as Donahue's were. This illustrates the power of a unified force, and of course, the power of the buck (ours.) Even though the media has always been heavily weighted to the right, it's gotten much worse in seven years. We lefties are starved for a rational voice like Keith's and demand for it to be heard.

During W's buildup to illegal invasion, Donahue had the audacity to have reality based anti war guests on his show. Poof. Gone.

---

ABC dumped Bill Maher's show even though it was doing well in the ratings.

his edge even if he's angrier. I do thank him for the gentle shoves that sent O'Donnell skidding, but head-butting Christians or believers in any "religion" takes him away from more pressing dangers to the Republic. Like the Jingoism that spawned itself into the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the not even plausibly deniable profiling going on from race to religion to politics he's allowed reasonable doubt regarding the Creator turn into loud screed. The unfortunate fact about the argument about whether there is a G*d or not is that both sides are faced with conflicting evidence of contradictory fact. The more I know about Astra-physics, relativity, string-theory,11 dimensions, the more I see G*d and that let-there-be moment. Some like Maher see a less and less chance of Him ever having had a chance of even having had an existence in the same stuff. And however he meant it, Einstein had it right when he said that G*d is in the details.

The connection you are making between relativity, etc. and god is a specious one because there is no connection between the science and god, other than one you try to make. And Einstein was an atheist, he did mention "god" sometimes but the god he believed in was one of the beauty of nature, not one that answers prayers and creates miracles. Just had to say that.

And while I find it very interesting and thought provoking, string theory is not close to being proven yet.

y else.

and that is fine with me but do NOT criticize others for believing in science. I find it quite offensive. You and everyone else may ahve whatever faith you want to ahve, as long as we may have our beliefs as well.

To the person with the "personal relationship with reality".

...The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another..."

"Einstein: Cosmic Religion"
http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/science_cosmicreligion.htm

Of course only about one percent of the population at any given time understand what he is referring to. ("Satori", "Cosmic Consciousness")

I don't believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive, though I can see why they nearly have to be these days.

The unfortunate fact about the argument about whether there is a G*d or not is that both sides are faced with conflicting evidence of contradictory fact.


:eyes:


Only if you believe in god so much you can't even spell out his name. G*d??? :eyes: what, if you type the "o", you're gonna turn gay or something? How is anyone to take you seriously? Cheesus!

There are no "facts" to prove anything supernatural exists.

In Judaisim, (I do not know the poster's religious affiliation", it is improper to spell out the word "God", hence "G*d" is used. I had many neighbors who adhered tot hsi while I was growing up, and some of them were pretty religiously inclined.

Just one of those things, and this is not strictly limited to Judaism, other religions will not speak or write the name of their deity.

Would you deny any and all traditions?

It is a show respect for someone, anyone, who happens to believe something. By your statement, all traditions should abolished because some don't agree w/it? No one is harmed, just as no one is harmed when a Buddhist spins a prayer wheel, or when people shake hands, it's merely something that is done out of respect.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but it sounds very hocus pokus to me for a 'god' to care one way or the other how his name is written. If god focused on that level of detail, perhaps he should think of all the carnage in history where people have killed in his name. What kind of god could be void of compassion, love and tolerance? I have seen more hate than love born from a belief in god. Hell, even in the Christain faith no two Christians can agree on everything in their bibles. There are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations (brands) because not even Christians can get along. A lot of Christian religions believe anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do will certainly go to hell. Sorry, but I don't share their 'lovely' message of intolerance and division.

People should be able to believe anything they want, but I have a problem when they believe they should convert others. People like christians obviously don't even read or understand their own bibles, because it states "take the plank out of your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from another's". But too many religions are obsessed with meddling in other people's lives. Entire cultures were destroyed by people acting in the name of god. They labeled the American Indian as savages and then Christians practiced the worst form of savagery imaginable against them by using genocide to wipe them out just to steal their land. They slaughtered men, women, children and babies, because after all, they were just savages and less than human. In colonial days, Christians also first demonized people by calling them witches so they could burn them alive. And most of the time they murdered someone it was to steal their possessions. Btw, does anyone think the Iraq War would have been possible if Iraq was a 'Christian' nation? But since the people there were 'lowly' Muslims it was easy for Bush to order the attack, as millions of his Christian supporters cheered on every bomb dropped and every human being killed. Right wing 'christians' from coast to coast even supported using nuclear weapons against the Iraq people. But this is a pattern throughout the existence of Christianity. I have known very few Christians who strictly adhere to Jesus' teachings. Right wing Christians who advocated the use of nuclear weapons that would have killed millions just to eliminate a handful of terrorists were motivated by much more evil than those they sought to destroy.

In my opinion, if religion hadn't been created by man our world would be a lot better off. And there would be one less reason for man to hate and kill each other. While most religious people live good lives, religion overall has had a negative impact on our species. No one needs religion to be a good person and in tens of thousands of now-extinct cultures that never heard of religion lived in peace and harmony. But through time, missionaries were sent around the world and infected the minds of innocent people destroying entire cultures. Frankly, I don't see the hands of any god guiding them.

I agree with you: what part of 'thou shalt not kill' is ambiguous. But being a christian as opposed to being "Christian" requires an admission that we goof up. Sin has a part in it, if there were no sin no redemption would be needed or possible. By doing my best towards you I do the best by me. I expect other to goof up and I hope they understand I will goof up, too. I am to do my best and allow others the right to make choices, too. It isn't about doing the right thing automatically, its about a conscious life with moral decisions made rationally and by the spirit. I get the feeling that you try to live in the spirit yourself. There's not much better I could say about anyone christian, atheist, agnostic, muslim, or any other road taken. If we aligned ourselves purely on the actions of others we wouldn't want to be human, American, Christian, Democrat (or teabagger, Gop, Independent etc) - each systems has major disappointments laid out by other humans, Americans, Christian, etc.

All we need to do is retain an open heart and mind and be open to the possibilities.

There is no point to discussing a certain topic with angry atheists who vent only and at a drop of a hat.

A person can be very spiritual, but not religious. And a person can be very religious and not have a clue what spirituality is. Those who are obsessed with religious rituals that are all created by man can easily be consumed by such meaningless religious trappings. No one needs a million dollar church, gold fixtures everywhere and silly ceremonies to be spiritual. Where I live I'm surrounded by gaudy, very expensive churches designed to attract people who have their values apparently mired in the physical world. Whatever happened to the belief about "wherever two or more of us are gathered is a church"? Why are so many obsessed with man made physical trappings? Just curious...

Btw, all of the churches around me have almost empty parking lots on Sundays, but new churches keep being built. You would think with all of the churches being of the same Christian faith they would economize and share the same buildings since, after all, they are ALL Christians. Then they could use the money they get from their flocks to spend on more worthy causes that are more in line with Jesus' teachings. But obviously a lot of people feel it's more important to worship in an expensive church than to use their limited resources to help others, like the sick, the needy and the poor. Humm, what would Jesus do?

All the best...

spirituality that comes our way accourding to our conscience. I wish you blessings in your journey however it leads you.

I think it has something to do with the fact that Hebrew doesn't have vowels.

But look who they kept.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3854829&mesg_id=3855601

How Tweety "Executed" DONAHUE on MSNBC. Tweety was on his book tour for another one of his "books" (large type, wide spaces between lines, blank half-pages). It was in the jingoistic hysteria in the run-up to the illegal Iraq attack. The book was about supposed "Americanism" --an American Civ 101 ripoff about books and movies and cultural stuff that are essentially American (think, "The Great Gatsby"). So Phil welcomed him as a colleague and peer on Phil's show for the full hour to plug the book. From the moment he appeared, there was a strange, deadly snake look in Tweety's snake eyes. Phil was walking around, apparently not sensing anything, while Tweety was motionless, following him only with his eyes. Phil brought up something or other questioning blind jingoism, and Tweety STRUCK! He started out with venom dripping, "You see THIS is EXACTLY what's wrong with you Liberals: You are NEGATIVE about this country, you find NOTHING good about it," and on and on. It took awhile before Phil figured out what was happening. Later, Phil was sitting at the table with Tweety and, weaker and weaker, did some of his trademark shoulder shrugging and arm waving. Tweety delivered the coup de grace, "What's THIS (mimicking the movements)??!! What's with the --APE-- movements???" Days or a week or two later, Phil's cancellation was announced and took effect.

I couldn't keep him on for more than a few minutes. I think that's why he got canned. IIRC he had considerably less than 1 million viewers. And I was getting much more from Air America at the time than from his show.

Tweety had nothing to do with it. Donahue was boring.

Quite the contrary. He is gone for one reason and one reason only-he refused to tow the official line.

The network - was it CNN?- claimed "low ratings" which was total bullshit.

I guess he was boring, but he had a smart, honest program that spoke truth to power and they could not allow him to continue.

If you think he was boring, you are in the minority.

from the air. That was one hell of a show for anyone who KNEW they lied about WMDS, or had doubts and the audience were on their feet after his guest presented documented proof of the lies. People were cheering, for getting verification of what they had suspected.

He was gone, airc, the following night. It was great tv, someone actually questioning the lies. And his show was their top-rated show at the time, mainly because it was anything but boring at that critical time.

Tweety was also a right wing cheerleader during the Clinton witch hunts. He loves Pat Buchanan because of his similar Catholic upbringing. And he felt all "towel snappy" when Dubya Bush landed on the aircraft carrier.

about a lot of stuff. I hope Steward/Colbert was an example of mobilization not the whole wad. Sometime the trip is not worth more than the destination. We need more than a national Halloween Party, I saw a lot of signs that give me hope, but I hope we did more than poke Glenn Beck in the ribs. When the time comes I hope Ken and Rachel can (if needed) call a rally that not only is a hoot but actually gets something across if not fixed.

They dumped him to facilitate a 'me too' move to the right which is, likely, what they were trying to pull with the KO suspension.

I watched the Donahue on occasion but never except by accident but was aware of the personality and knew Donahue was anti-war and violence prior to 2002. Donahue was anti-war and anti-(state)violence).

Tweety needs to give up his 4 PM show. I'd guarantee the ratings would improve with PD

He has over 300,000 of us behind him.

and less effective than ever.

Fox can brag that it is number one for the moment because of the election results, but when things don't get considerably better (and they will not for quite some time), Fox will take the blame.

98% watch something else. Pox has a niche audience that is functionally illiterate and lacks critical thinking skills. Unfortunately they can vote. Nietzsche was right.

SIXTY-FIVE.

I'd love to know the age of the average MSNBC viewer.

The bulk of TDS' viewers are 18-29, supposedly a prime advertiser demographic.

In other words, if MSNBC is looking to keep a younger demographic, they need Olbermann.

ANd all my friends! My 53 year old son in law watches Pox ( I like that, & calls me a conspiracy theorist!)
He DOES vote Democrat......but is pretty unaware of what is going on.

*hippie boomer's ;) and boomers who think for themselves and remember not to trust the government.


* This is not a scientific poll :evilgrin:

We all know that the Repug's aren't gonna make anything better. They have no ideas that work for average people. They just spent 8 years not governing.


But they will still blame everything that is going wrong on Obama.... and plan to.

also Keith has a good heart when he asked his viewers to contribute to Free Clinics.com we helped him and he was very grateful. We have a deep appreciation of him and he of us.

He took up the liberal cause and, for me, was the only bright spot on cable. He IS the star of the network. He IS responsible for Rachel and Lawrence being there, even if you like one or both of them better than Keith. They would not be there had he not built the network to what it is. If it wasn't for Keith, the entire lineup would be Tweety, who is politically schizophrenic, and a few more ambiguously democratic commentators. ugh!

Keith gave me hope before it became a marketing slogan.

Quote: Tweety, who is politically schizophrenic.

Oh so true.

LOL! I can't stand Tweety but that description is spot on!

for Ed Schultz being there.

It was a voice in the wilderness when every other talking head was either "with the program" or terrified of speaking a single doubting word. I cried real tears when he gave his first commentary about that blood-soaked criminal Rumsfeld. It was such a relief to hear something real.

I wonder if he's regretting that decision now.

If Keith got "Shirley Sherroded"--that is, if the suspension went down without being given an opportunity to defend himself, then an apology was necessary.

:headbang:
rocktivity

Way to fight back!

:yourock:

--and it should be a public apology.

And frankly, what does he do? Does anyone think MSNBC & picture Griffin? Nope, they think MSNBC and picture KO.

MSNBC would be a wasteland w/out KO, his ego is just right sized for his contributions.

established reputations before MSNBC hired them. And both are better journalists than Keith.Keith is just a talking head. We need liberal voices but we also need more "journalists".

Yes, they are well qualified on their own merits, I like them both very much.

However, they never would have had the outlet or opportunity to showcase their talent unless someone had cracked a door or blazed a trail.

It's no secret why their shows come on directly after KO. Also, neither had their own dedicated shows until KO had a full hour on that particular network.

The three have a great rapport - I loved election night coverage - they are a great team. But that would never have happened if KO hadn't made the way 7 yrs ago.

Yes, I am a neanderthal in that respect, but as I watched them on KO, I started hoping they'd get their own gigs.

So while they certainly are well qualified, that doesn't necessarily translate into new viewers until they get a bigger spotlight, as they did on KO's show.

on Air America Radio.

I don't listen to radio much and even am slow on the internet due to having dialup in this rural area.

But when I first saw her on satellite tv on KO, I was pretty darned impressed and wanted to know who she was right away.

I remember when she first was a guest, then started hosting Countdown. She was a bit green as a host and unpolished. If it wasn't for KO pushing to allow Rachel to host Countdown when he was off I doubt she would've gotten her own hour.

And even then I think there were suits at MSNBC that were skeptical. She wasn't the "anchorwoman" model. Look how she dresses off air (and I'm not criticizing it but it doesn't fit the groomed image suits are used to).

Lawrence to a lesser extent but it didn't hurt the ratings stayed good when he did extended anchoring of Countdown while KO was off with his dad's terminal illness.

had, and they're very fortunate KO brought them on. Rachel, hopefully, will be on a very very long time. I'm talking 25+ years.

He deserves an apology.

before his show even aired. He had, however, signed a contract which the network had to buy out. Jesse talks freely about how the network brass came to him and demanded he toe the company pro-war line. When he refused, he was gone. Took a few million with him.

I very much enjoy hearing him speak, and have heard that story.

Jesse is doing well with his show on TruTV.

Those who don't care for his work don't have to watch it (or listen to it or read it).

If MSNBC had just announced a 5 day suspension at the beginning, this whole thing would have blown over quickly. What set people off was the use of the words "indefinite suspension".

:popcorn:

and when the story from behind the scenes is revealed, that fear will be revealed.

$$ off his program because HE is on the air.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


I love Bernie.

Your ass kissing boss should be fired and then you should sue the scumbag.

Even repubs would dial up MSNBC to see Keith get spanked. He got more free advertising than the Macintosh 128....

:rofl:

Interesting way to date yourself!

At least we're not chatting about the number of Lisa's buried.

I agree with KO!

about donahue, I think it is that he was just one show, Keith has seeded MSNBc with several shows that bring ratings. I think even chris matthews has gone more left since Keith has been doing so well. and rachael and now laurence o'donnell.

apologized to who. As long as Keith is coming BACK!!!!!To be subjected with the thought of one more truthful voice out there extinguished was, scary like tea bagger scary!!!!I see a couple of posters to this op talking about Phil Donahue. If they had been watching Phil back in the day,they would know quite a bit about other true aspects of life. He was a great media teacher and informer. He exposed his audience to views and would always side with science and research. Watched him for years and learned quite a bit from him. I would check behind him when i was younger and I don't remember him not being well informed on his guest.That man had every kind of person from all walks of life than I have ever seen right on the Phil Donahue show.

He was the first talk show host who had regular people on talking about what was never previously talked about: Domestic abuse, sexual abuse, drug abuse, molestation, incest, anorexia, divorce, family upheavals, etc.

All the subjects that Oprah took and ran with. Stuff that those of us over forty or fifty never heard talked about at home or on TV.

I heard interesting talk shows in the 60s & 70s, like Jack Paar, Dick Cavett, Merv Griffin, where celebrities talked about interesting things, but not about drug addiction or mental illness (with the exception of Oscar Levant, who talked about mental institutions and depressions casually).

Phil talked about all of the things that were unpopular to talk about. Yes he talked about social issues that so many people don't know about today.He would break it done to the science. I remember seeing Masters and Johnson,Dr. Ruth,The KKK,and countless other guest that informed us of the world we live in. I remember watching Dick Gregory,and thinking back then he was old. I know he is prehistoric now!!!!:P :P :P

I was so afraid he was gone forever, then they'd go after Rachel, Ed, & Larry next, then Comcast would turn MSNBC into a shoddy nest of amoral vipers.

Es la verdad!

Thank you, Keith!!

They all rock.

Chris Matthews is pretty good, too, when I agree with him of course. :)

because his show was very expensive to produce. Shows with live audiences are way more expensive than those without. You'll notice none of the regular shows on MSNBC have live audiences anymore, unless they're on location somewhere.

Both Bill Wolff and Rachel commented when they were here how much they enjoyed the interaction with real people while they were doing the show. They said they have fun doing their studio shows, but they love getting out among the people.

He was the lone voice of reason during the bush era and MMSNBC owes every success they have directly to him.

Olbermann has never been one to tolerate fools gladly and this is no different. He has a fairly good sized ego and luckily the talent and skill to hold it up. In other words, he's always been a pain in the ass, he's just our pain in the ass. I appreciate him and the voice he's given to liberals but I see no need to deify him. And this weekend, he and his boss got confirmation that we won't allow him to be benched and that he can pretty much be as much of a pain in the ass as he feels like.

If you keep dogging and dogging your management in media, no matter how big a start you are, they WILL fire you. Then he has no more show, no more voice.

how this was handled was disgusting.. and whoever bright idea it was to suspend him and make an example out of him needs to be fired today, if they haven't been already. That person really needs to be over at fux noose.

and apologize.