Olbermann on Peyser…
Following up on this, Keith Olbermann tagged Andrea Peyser as Worst Person In The World for misquoting him in The Post this morning. I’m trying to hunt for a transcript but MSNBC hasn’t posted tonight’s yet…
UPDATE: Here it is transcribed by moi…
You know it’s bad enough lady to be a snivelling little eavesdropper, but you could at least be an accurate snivelling little eavesdropper - I didn’t say that about Connie Chung - that was said to me by a friend of mine from USA Today who was next to me in the line. And incidentally, he meant it as a compliment - as in Connie will outlast all of us - which to this point she clearly has. So my apologies to my once again colleague Connie Chung for having had anything to do with that getting in to the paper. And my Jounalism 101 note to Ms. Peyser; If you wanted a comment about Connie or anything else from either one of us in that line you could have asked for it…you know like a Reporter does.
Andrea Payser…Peyser…Today’s Worst Person In The World!
I don’t have the transcript, but he did call her a “sniveling eavesdropper”, and claimed that it was the guy standing next to him who actually said the stuff about Connie Chung. He only quoted the first part of Peyser’s sentence, and left out the part about his grousing about O’Reilly’s ratings. He also made fun of her name; that part I don’t get at all.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 11, 2006 @ 1:05 am
Johnny, first, if Keith mentioned O’Reilly’s ratings at all, it was probably because he was getting ready to have a laugh on the very idea that they matter. Ratings right don’t make right, and he knows it. That very night, he went on his show and smiled as he delivered a long list of names of low-rated/canceled Fox shows, just as a joke on the fact that Fox had attacked him (in their usual way) by calling him a “ratings killer.”
Second, he was not “making fun of her name.” Mispronouncing it at first, maybe; making fun of it, no.
In the meantime, Keith hardly has a reputation of knocking his colleagues. Unlike Don Imus, who will be featured in Vanity Fair claiming he’s the only decent person working at MSNBC and rip holes in everyone else, Keith Olbermann doesn’t say a bad thing about anyone else at the network–even when, to my mind, he would be justified. I think Connie Chung and some of the other tabloid hounds they have over there ARE cockroaches, but he would never say so.
Instead, what does he do–apologize to her because what SOMEONE ELSE *said* he was saying got into the paper. Now THAT’s class. Especially when you contrast it with certain people at Fox News who have been caught ON TAPE saying what they said, and STILL won’t even admit they said it, much less apologize!
Note to Keith, though: Did you REALLY expect someone from the NY Post to ASK you for a quote INSTEAD of eavesdropping? Be real! She WANTED to catch you saying something you “shouldn’t have said,” so she HAD to eavesdrop. She couldn’t have gotten that kind of dirt by ASKING you for a quote outright.
Umm…wait…that was exactly the point…and he knows that just as well as I do…uh, never mind!
Comment by tanne — January 11, 2006 @ 7:38 am
Tanne,
As with most things, on the subject of Olbermann’s job history, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Olbermann only patched things up with ESPN this past year. A spokesperson at ESPN had described Olbermann as not merely burning bridges there, but “napalming” them. Olbermann had done an mea culpa on Salon in 02 about his behavior at ESPN. Olbermann admits to being inflexible, critical of and abrasive with colleagues, and of making a female cohost so miserable she spent time crying in bathroom. As one colleague was quoted to have said after Olbermann’s mother was accidently hit with a ball at a baseball game, “I think I speak for the entire ESPN family when is say– Wrong Olbermann.”
But again, Olbermann admitted to being a rat at ESPN on the webpages of Salon and blames it on his vast insecurity.
Well, duh…
Now you’re perfectly welcome to believe Olbermann when he says that Peyser mistook his distinctive voice, and that the conversation was one of complimenting Connie Chung (who you argue that Olbermann SHOULD criticize…) by likening her to a hard to exterminate cockroach.
And you can make yet another illogical and nonsensical argument that Olbermann couldn’t have been “loudly and jealously” complaining about O’Reilly’s ratings” because although Olbermann incessantly and obsessively goes after O’Reilly and FOX News, he is merely having “fun” at their expense… he isn’t insecure and he isn’t jealous…. And you can then turn around and argue that Olbermann criics HOWEVER, are jealous and threatened by Olbermann….
And you can falsely characterize Peyser’s statement and my argument by your making an inaccurate comparision between Olbermann and Imus. Olbermann was NEVER accused by Peyser of making a PUBLIC statement against Chung, the way Imus made hits toward colleagues in an INTERVIEW with Vanity Fair. Talk about your red herrings…
No wonder you can’t understand the irony of Mia2 ragging on the tabloid New York Post (because it’s Murdoch owned), when the venerable New York Times has had so many black eyes this year…. Or can’t seem to grasp the fact that John Gibson words need not have been interpreted as Olbermann interpreted and that if Olbermann had been the friend of Gibon that he described himself as being, he would have NEVER done it on such filmsy evidence.
But whatever floats the boat of anyone with your reasoning and critical skills, Tanne.
Now go back to imagining the noble and good-natured Keith serving you a refreshing cup of lavender tea… or grape koolaide… while fending off the Faux Newsophiles under your bed.
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Imagine that. A Murdoch minion playing hard and loose with the facts. You can twist and distort and call yourself “fair and balanced” and it’s all okay. I don’t think KO would have actually mentioned the publication the other writer who actually said what he was have reported to have said unless it was true so that tells me that another Murdoch minion has played fast and loose with the truth. Again. Not that it’s anything new for them–I believe it’s a requirement to work for the man actually.
Now on to KO’s work history. The napalm quote came in reaction to Olbermann’s cooperation with a book by Michael Freeman called ESPN: The Uncensored History. He told the truth about the depth of the sexual harassment problem towards female employees at the network and the network honchos ignoring the problem. Olbermann also testified on behalf of several of the women who had filed suit against the network and that did not sit well with the network, understandably. In fact, in the initial period between his leaving the network and this book being published, the network was still quite friendly towards him. He told the truth about what happened and was willing to go on record about it and that pissed off ESPN. Again, truth telling apparently can be a dangerous thing in certain quarters.
The Gibson thing was hardly on flimsy evidence and suggestions otherwise are laughable but given that some of you have quite the difficult time discerning fact from fiction. . .well it’s hardly surprising to me.
I believe that Tanne was referring to the fact that Olbermann has not said anything on air or off it in interviews about his current empoloyers during this current stint at MSNBC, unlike Imus who pretty much beats up on MSNBC on a daily basis and in print interviews, a la the Vanity Fair piece out now (which by the way is pretty much a hack job if you ask me. I’m no Imus fan but that article is hardly fair or balanced–hmmm–there’s that phrase again).
But you know what? I’ll take the New York Times reporting over the NY Post anyday. Because the Times can admit it when they screw up and get the facts wrong. That’s not something you’ll ever see a Murdoch-owned company doing. Why they are perfect, at least, according to them.
Again, the Fox/Murdoch fan club arrives to try and reason away any wrongdoing on the part of Fox. Yawn. You people really are too far predictable. LOL. But hey, at least you are good for a morning laugh.
Comment by Mia2 — January 11, 2006 @ 11:02 am
“That very night, he went on his show and smiled as he delivered a long list of names of low-rated/canceled Fox shows, just as a joke on the fact that Fox had attacked him (in their usual way) by calling him a “ratings killer.”
Yeah, he read off a long list of shows, every one of which has vastly more viewers than Countdown. He even included Fox & Friends First on that list, which is the #1 cable news program in its timeslot. By the way, at 6:00 am, Fox & Friends First gets almost twice as many viewers as Olby does at 8:00 pm primetime.
Second, he was not “making fun of her name.” Mispronouncing it at first, maybe; making fun of it, no.
So now you can read his mind? I’m going to have to start checking to see if you ever post between 8 and 9 pm Eastern. He “maybe mispronounced it at first” at the beginning of his little shtick, then did it again, exactly the same way, at the end. Once can be just an error. Twice, he did it on purpose.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 11, 2006 @ 11:26 am
Mia2,
We’ll add ESPN to Fox on the list of networks who have done ole Keith wrong…
Too bad Keith himself disputes you. If you’ll read the Salon piece, Keith describes his own behavior as coming out of his insecurity at the possibility of being blamed for failure…. You’re defending Olbermann where HE didn’t even defend himself.
I’m sure that won’t surprise anyone…
And of course you’re missing the point about the Imus and Olbermann comparision. NO ONE has accused Olbermann of making PUBLIC snarks about colleagues as Imus has on-air and in interviews… Peyser didn’t.. Olbermann critics didn’t…. that’s why it’s a red herring… Let me spell it out and hopefull you’ll then “get” it— NO sense in going off about how Olbermann isn’t like Imus when no one but you two have made the comparision in the first place.
As to Peyser’s report, Olbermann doesn’t deny he was in the vicinity of Peyser at the Stern show. He doesn’t deny that he was in a conversation about Chung. He doesn’t deny that Chung was being likened to a cockroach…. all assertions that Peyser made…she’s right so far…. No, Olbermann says the cockroach analogy was a …gulp… “compliment” toward Chung’s longevity…and then strains credulity even more by saying a “friend” made it…not him… No… not YOUR credulity….
I’m sure that won’t surprise anyone…
As for Peyser’s report that Olbermann was loudly and jealously carping about O’Reilly’s ratings… Keith chooses not to address that at all… He even excludes it from the on-screen print-up of Peyser’s words that were put up on Countdown last night.
Tanne says she can’t wait till her hero discovers that this lack of denial and lack of even reporting the comment has caused some derisive laughter from Keith’s Fox-News-lovin’ critics…since once he does, he’ll be sure to answer their FoxNewsO’Phile Mudoch/O’Reilly/John Gibson/Faux News-lovin’ selves…
I can’t wait either…
As for the New York Times, yes, they most certainly did apologize. It only took Raines two years of complaints against Jason Blair to respond, a year for the NSA thing to be publish, and Paul Krugman issued an apology of sorts, after two weeks of PUBLIC (it had been goingn on privately for longer) battles with the NYT omnsbudman.
So yeah, the NYT admits their mistakes soons or later… The NYP is a tabloid… what’s the NYT’s excuse?….
As for the John Gibson thing, back at ya, girlfriend. I don’t expect you to see it in any way but the worst for Gibson. But you should at least admit that if Olbermann can give speeches on how much a friend Gibson was, and what a good guy Gibson is and how much he enjoyed working with Gibson who was… nice to everyone… he SHOULD have held fire and given Gibson the benefit of the doubt and not have made him his Worst Person In the World. Especially since Gibson’s remarks can be logically interpreted as a response to Janet Parshall’s comments. But then ole Keith impartially doesn’t like Gibson’s employers. And impartially doesn’t like the premise of Gibson’s book.. So he impartially had to stick it to his “friend” Gibson…. (”No, not YOUR credulity”…)
And surpise surpise…now he’s made Andrea Peyser his WPITW…
In the recent piece by David Bauder, Olbermann’s WPITW is descibed as being a vehicle for Olbermann “to wag his finger at bad behavior”.
Oh really. And here we thought it was just a vehicle for Olbermann to publicly air snarks and cheapshots at people he …impartially….doesn’t like.
What a stand-up guy…
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Cecilla–he said he didn’t say what he was quoted by Peyser as saying. Now you need to explain to me how you think that he said it when he named the person who did–the reporter from USA Today. Now please tell me how in God’s name that Peyser was reporting accurately if she couldn’t even get the name of the person she was attributing remarks to right. But you see, no one gives a rat’s butt who the USA Today reporter was because they’re not on a cable news network and aren’t a “name”. Olbermann is. And that still makes Peyser WRONG. And Inaccurate. And incompetent and about a million other words I can think of. Nice try at distracting from the argument there but you’re still wrong about the facts, just as Peyser was. No wonder you flock to Murdoch’s offerings. You really enjoy fiction don’t you?
Comment by Mia2 — January 11, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
I know…know…your brand of “logic”… since Olbermann criics are invariably biased Fox News junkies…whereas anti-fox news folks have no axes to grind…. we must accept what Olbermann says as coming down from Mt Sinai…
For the sake of argument, I’ll accept it. And I’ll still prove you to be wrong in your knee-jerk leap that Peyser is “wrong” and still show you to be utterly biased and blinkered more than all the people you incessantly accuse of being that…. and what’s more… as thick as a shoe.
Peyser reported:
“Before things got rolling, he [Olbermann] could be heard loudly ridiculing his new MSNBC colleague Connie Chung for re-emerging, cockroach-like, in his airspace - and groused jealously about Bill O’Reilly’s superior ratings.”
If we take Olbermann’s word as being “truth from on high”, Peyser’s report in no way disputes Olbermann’s story that he was not the one who originated the cockroach analogy that he avers was so complimentary of Chung… Olbermann could have just continue in the vein his ….eh…friend…had started…. Peyser would still be accurate in her story.
Now move on to your next knee-jerk, oh unbiased clear-headed cable tv lover….
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
I know…know…your brand of “logic”… since Olbermann criics are invariably biased Fox News junkies…whereas anti-fox news folks have no axes to grind…. we must accept what Olbermann says as coming down from Mt Sinai…
For the sake of argument, I’ll accept it. And I’ll still prove you to be wrong in your knee-jerk leap that Peyser is “wrong” and still show you to be utterly biased and blinkered more than all the people you incessantly accuse of being that…. and what’s more… as thick as a shoe.
Peyser reported:
“Before things got rolling, he [Olbermann] could be heard loudly ridiculing his new MSNBC colleague Connie Chung for re-emerging, cockroach-like, in his airspace - and groused jealously about Bill O’Reilly’s superior ratings.”
If we take Olbermann’s word as being “truth from on high”, Peyser’s report in no way disputes Olbermann’s story that he was not the one who originated the cockroach analogy that he avers was so complimentary of Chung… Olbermann could have just continue in the vein his ….eh…friend…had started…. Peyser would still be accurate in her story.
Now move on to your next knee-jerk, oh unbiased clear-headed cable tv lover….
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Cecelia,
I think Keith Olbermann is a total idiot and I only watch CNN and never, ever watch Fox. Your blanket statements are absurd.
How much longer will NBC allow Olbermann to embarrass them?
Comment by Larry — January 11, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
Cecilia, your incredible bias is showing. surely you’re a shill for Fox..Were you fired from MSNBC?
Comment by Rojak — January 11, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
Rojak,
Indeed I was fired from MSNBC.
A few colleagues and I were members of an underground organization financed by Rupert Murdoch from funds skimmed from the GEICO account. Called the Geopolitical Organization for North American Domination….GONAD for short.
We plotted together secretly in MSNBC bathrooms, the make-up room, generally places with mirrors, so we were bound to encounter Keith Olbermann sooner or later. Needless to say, it happened and he turned us in.
We were all dismissed by Rick Kaplan who forced us to line up so he could summarily pull the buttons off our blue oxford cloth shirts and tear our cafeteria IDs in half.
The worst part about the ordeal was having to report back to Mr. Murdoch. He’s not happy with failure, you know.
Thank goodness our leader Lachlan was able to persuade him to spare our lives…
Later we discovered that Olbermann had been a member of the organization when he had first worked for MSNBC, but then left MSNBC, worked for FOX, then quit and became a turncoat for MSNBC.
It’s still whispered in the corridors of FOX and MSNBC that Olbermann was, in fact, the biggest GONAD of all.
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
Has anyone else worked at more places than Olbermann during one career? If NBC News ever wants to be taken seriously on cable, they need to lose this guy.
Comment by Andi — January 11, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
Again, Cecilla, your utter lack of logic amazes me. But hey, you’re role model is Fox. You don’t really have to back up an argument with facts do you? You just yell it loud enough and often enough and hope you drown out everyone else in the process. Let’s say I don’t see the USA Today reporter coming forward to dispute Keith’s account. And of course we can count on the NY Post ignoring any error they might have made. I seem to remember a front page cover that was printed at Murdoch’s insistence when he thought someone other than John Edwards was going to be John Kerry’s running mate too. . . . Fox is NOT the end all and be all of TV journalism just as the NY Post is nothing more than an overglorified gossip rag which passes off opinions as Facts, as all Murdoch products do.
It’s quite interesting to watch all of you attack Keith and to attack me for defending him. The truth is that while i like him, he’s not my favorite news anchor nor is MSNBC my favorite news network. But I’d stack his journalistic credentials against anyone at Fox’s any day of the week. And you know, you keep reciting his work history as if it’s something to be used against him. If he’s so awful, then why did CNN, ESPN, and MSNBC all rehire him a second time? Again, you really shouldn’t use certain publications and/or networks to form your opinion when you don’t know the facts about something.
By the way. .. since all of you claim that ratings are so important–can you tell me where Fox News ranked at in year-end revenue when compared to CNN? Knowing that some of you have pathetic research skills and tend to think that websites run by rightwing shills are actually fact-filled, here, let me supply a link for you all to a real publication with solid reporting: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6297847.html?display=Feature&referral=SUPP&referral=SUPP
So since CNN makes more money than Fox News. . . doesn’t that mean they win? Isn’t it all about the money? See, you can blather on all you like about the ratings but in the end, it’s the money that matters. And the truth is that Fox’s demos suck. And the types of people who watch Fox? not a demo that advertisers are looking for. I’m sure CNN is laughing all the way to the bank.
Comment by Mia2 — January 11, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
“If we take Olbermann’s word as being “truth from on high”, Peyser’s report in no way disputes Olbermann’s story that he was not the one who originated the cockroach analogy that he avers was so complimentary of Chung…”
I don’t have a stake in the who is right and who is wrong debate but the above is patently impossible. Peyser clearly makes Olbermann out to be the one ridiculing Chung. Olbermann in his rebuttal clearly states that the comments were coming from the USA Today guy. So it’s pretty obvious to me that it is not possible that “Peyser’s report in no way disputes Olbermann’s story that he was not the one who originated the cockroach analogy” because it’s pretty obvious the two stories conflict with one another…
Comment by Spud — January 11, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Spud,
Olbermann only denies that he came up the cockroach analogy. He states it was said to him by a friend. But Peyser never claimed otherwise. She never put the remark in quotes. She wrote:
“Before things got rolling, he [Olbermann] could be heard loudly ridiculing his new MSNBC colleague Connie Chung for re-emerging, cockroach-like, in his airspace - and groused jealously about Bill O’Reilly’s superior ratings”
Olbermann might not have been the first to make the analogy, but he could have easily continued the discussion in the same vein. In fact Olbermann argues that his friend was originally COMPLIMENTING Peyser. It would have been very easy for Olbermann to have taken the remark and run with it and he NEVER denies doing that. In fact Olbermann never denies that he ridiculed Chung during that time.
From the transcript:
“I didn‘t say that about Connie Chung, that was said to me by a friend of mine from “USA Today,” who was next to me in the line. And incidentally, he meant it as a compliment, as in Connie will outlast all of us. Which to this point, she clearly has. So my apologies to my once-again colleague Connie Chung for having had anything to do with that, even getting into the paper.”
What you have is Olbermann denying being the first to liken Chung to a cockroach. Something he termed a “compliment”. Again Peyser never put quotes around the remark and never said he was the first to say it. Again, Olbermann NEVER denied ridiculing Chung during the discussion.
Technically Peyser is not “wrong” and Olbermann made a non-denial denial. And of course Olbermann never addressed the O’Reilly ratings thing at all. :D
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
Mia2,
Speaking of logic… I have some questions for you…
1.Can you tell me why you assume that I’m a Fox News fan even though I have said repeatedly that I am not? I can count on one hand the times I watched Fox. I watch Hardball and Countdown and that’s it for cable news.
2. Can you tell me the logic behind some sort of law of inverse proportions that you seem to have postulated:
Dislike for Olbermann is inversely proportional to viewership and adoration of Fox News.
3. I’m new to this board and I’m unfamiliar with the Jets (MSNBC and CNN) vs the Sharks (FOX) mentality and I’d like to know why you invariably argue that FOX fans are inveterately biased but that Fox haters are clear-headed impartial thinkers?
If you feel that such partiality automatically clouds the thinking if would seem that it would do so on either pole whether admiration or intense distain.
Now, as to how you’ve connected me with ratings arguments (other than my making fun about Olbermann’s 8 billion flies comment and his failure to quote all of what Peyser said) or have connected me to cable channel revenue arguments I have no idea…but it’s illustrative of just the point I’m trying to make…. when one argues with you there is always the overwhelming blast of smoke from another fire… as though you aren’t bothering to read the words in front of you but are raging away all ablaze at the faux news fan in front of you …. and goodness knows they must be a Fox fan…otherwise they wouldn’t be disagreeing with you.
So much for logic.
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
First, let me say…Cecelia, your assumptions about me are downright amazing. I know fully well that Olbermann only patched things up with ESPN this past year, and that he had been accused of “napalming bridges” while there. I also know about the “Mea Culpa” article he wrote in Salon in 2002 and what it said. Frankly, I found it to be a beautiful and telling description of a man coming to terms with and confessing problems he had had in the workplace in the past. Note those three words, Cecelia…IN THE PAST. I came to an incredible admiration of Olbermann precisely BECAUSE he had come to realize the gravity of the mistakes he had made on the job and done the necessary psychological work to change himself…which is more than some people can even ever begin to do. It takes a big, big man to admit when he has made a mistake, rather that lying and covering it up as O’Reilly and Gibson and their ilk routinely do. And, yes…everything Mia2 said about Olbermann going to bat against sexual harassment at ESPN is true, and that escalates my admiration for the man even higher.
Yes, Cecelia…insecurity does BAAD things to people. But better to be insecure, realize it and do something about changing your life for the better than to spend the rest of it being a blowhard bully like some TV personalities.
I find it quite sad and pathetic that Olbermann’s enemies, when feeling threatened by him, have to use such sorry weapons against him as the old canard “he can’t work with anyone, he is impossible to get along with” (disproved by his ability to repair those bridges at ESPN and by his current work at MSNBC) and “he’s worked at so many different places” (Andi), and “he gets low ratings.” If that’s the best you can come up with, it’s just not going to hunt. He’s changed so much over the past 10 years that he’s practically a different man…yet you still want to hold his past against him. Possibly because you can’t hold a whole lot else against him.
The point here is, my opinions of Connie Chung don’t matter…what matters is whether someone is lying or not about who said what about her. To my knowledge, this reporter cannot produce a tape recording of Olbermann’s voice calling her a cockroach, so she doesn’t have a leg to stand on to prove that either a) it was him and not his friend or b) that it was said in a disparaging way.
Cecelia, also, please try not editorializing when trying to prove a point. Your claim that Olbermann is “incessantly and obsessively” doing anything is just as opinion-driven as mine is that he’s having fun. I also have the opinion that those he criticizes are feeling threatened, and that’s why they interpret what he does the way they do.
I don’t think my statement about Don Imus is a red herring at all. Then again, at least when a journalist accuses him of badmouthing his colleagues, said journalist was actually doing an interview with him at the time, rather than eavesdropping on his conversations, which is a lot more fair. Imus at least knew he was being interviewed when he chose to spew his venom and knew it would see print. And if one publishes that someone was supposedly saying something at an event that you overheard, you are indeed accusing him of making a “public snark.” And from the kind of humor Olbermann has (and no doubt admires in his friends), I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if “cockroach” meant just what they said it did…”survivor.” The rest of the interpretation is left to you.
As for the “evidence” against John Gibson, it’s not flimsy…people’s arguments against it, however, are. They’re not built on the tape recording…they’re all built on the idea that Olbermann somehow chose, despite a past friendship with Gibson, to misinterpret what he meant when he said “wrong religion.” Frankly, I think that’s an extreme reach and it just doesn’t wash. He seems like the first who would be willing to believe otherwise…if he could. But that won’t stop him calling out someone he thinks is behaving in a wrong and hurtful way.
Criticize my reasoning and critical skills all you want, Cecelia. I’m perfectly secure in them.
Johnny Dollar, are you honestly meaning to say that you think EVERY SINGLE ONE of those shows had higher ratings than Olbermann’s? And even if they did, what would it prove, exactly? That Olbermann himself is a “ratings killer”? No, logic would not dictate that; there are a million reasons a show could have low ratings other than its host. But even if we assumed Olbermann had the lowest rated TV show in the whole UNIVERSE…just what would this prove? That his opinions were wrong? I don’t get why the Fox Fanclub has to constantly harp on his low ratings…Really people, is that all ya got?
I can’t read Olbermann’s mind, but I’d like to think I know the difference between mispronouncing someone’s name and making fun of it. How is pronouncing it two different ways “making fun of it”? Unless one of them creates an embarrassing-sounding name, that is? It’s not like he said “Loser, I mean Peyser…” The evil of this “double mispronunciation” is all in Johnny’s mind. Whereas when certain people call him “Dopeyman,” “Olberwoman,” etc., I think the meaning is clear.
Cecelia, I don’t think what Olbermann says “comes down from Mt. Sinai.” But I will believe him over the Fox gang because they have lied and said such nasty things about so many people over the years that they don’t deserve my respect or my benefit of the doubt. Olbermann does. He can admit when he’s wrong and he can apologize in public…something they will never, never do. They think they’re perfect…he knows he’s not. THAT is the difference.
And I guess Larry just shows that Olbermann isn’t for every taste, which is true. But then again, that’s true of everyone. But jeez, Larry, can’t you dislike Olbermann without calling him a “total idiot”? You may not like him, you may disagree with his opinions, but an idiot he’s not.
Comment by tanne — January 11, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
Tanne,
For your benefit I’ll phrase things in simple sentence.
You cannot both argue that Keith has been a pill on the job and argue that Keith has never ripped anyone privately.
You cannot logically argue that Keith is a great man for admitting his faults and then claim that he never had the sort of faults that make him perfectly capable of doing what Peyser said he did.
You can’t argue that you know that Keith admitted he alienated his own co-workers and the say the only people who have made such charges against him are Fox News fans.
Tanne, I’ve already made the case that Peyser never quoted Keith as calling Chung a cockroach. If tapes matter, then the written word does too. Peyser only said that he ridiculed Connie for emerging cockroach-like… Keith never denied ridiculing Connie.
Tanne, your comparision of Imus with Olbermann is a red herring and it’s because you don’t seem to understand the terms public and private. You equate being overheard in a private conversation, with making a statement that you know is being broadcasted on television or will be published in a periodical. Get a clue.
Tanne, it’s all well and good for you to say that your opinions of Chung are not important ….NOW… but you’ve already made a point of voicing them and of arguing that Chung is an embarrassment and that criticism from Olberman would be justified…. As I implied earlier…thanks for acknowledging a motivation for the “ridicule” that Olbermann did not deny…
Tanne, my point about Olbermann incessantly and obsessively going after Bill O’Reilly is obvious to anyone with half a brain. So far O’Reilly holds the record for WPITW titles and countless snarks. Olbermann himself said he needs to lay off lest people think him obsessed….If I’m editorializing for saying that… then what are you doing when you talk about about how wonderful Olbermann is in patching things up… with the biggest employer of sportscasters…. on cable television (Olbermann is one, you know) and your editorializing about Olbermann critics. Editorializing, indeed…
And Tanne, no one is asking you to believe Olbermann over a Rupert Murdoch employee. You’re being asked to evaluate the fact that Keith did not deny ridiculing Chung and that he did not deny or even acknowledge the second half of Peyser’s report.
By the way, Tanne, even stopped clocks are right twice a day. If you were TRULY that concerned about being fair and not editorializing you’d be careful not to discount what anyone said (including a FOX employee) simply over who they work for or because of past incidents… especially those incidents involving other people!
Again… bias indeed! Editorializing indeed!
So now it’s Day 2 of Olbermann not explaining to you why he failed to mention the O’Reilly part of Peyser’s report. And you were so sure he would!
Comment by Cecelia — January 11, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
“Olbermann only denies that he came up the cockroach analogy. He states it was said to him by a friend. But Peyser never claimed otherwise.”
Oh come on that’s stretching credibility to its limits to make that case. It’s straight out of the land of Clinton and “what the meaning of is is”. To read take your point of view you have to skew Peyser’s words and contort them into the meaning you suggest. Peyser’s a reporter and knows that inference is lousy reporting.
“Olbermann might not have been the first to make the analogy, but he could have easily continued the discussion in the same vein. In fact Olbermann argues that his friend was originally COMPLIMENTING Peyser. It would have been very easy for Olbermann to have taken the remark and run with it and he NEVER denies doing that. In fact Olbermann never denies that he ridiculed Chung during that time.”
You’re trying to prove a negative. You’re whole argument is that because Peyser didn’t say who instigated what that Olbermann is still possibly guilty. That’s beyond ridiculous because it sends the debate beyond the land of FACTS and in to the realm of SPECULATION. We could speculate for hours about what COULD HAVE happened. Olbermann COULD HAVE praised Anderson Cooper. Peyser doesn’t say it and Olbermann didn’t deny it. Must be true. That is of course a straw man argument. And that’s my point about your point. It’s a straw man argument because you’re using speculation to justify your position when there is no evidence to support it and what evidence you do use entirely is based on what COULD HAVE HAPPENED and not WHAT IS ON RECORD.
I, on the other hand, prefer to restrict the discussion to what was actually said and/or written.
1) Peyser accused Olbermann of smearing Chung.
2) Olbermann denies a) that it was he and b) that it was a smear.
That’s it. Cut and dried. Anything else is speculation. Or guessing.
So regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the two stories contradict one another. Either Peyser was sloppy or deliberately deceptive in her reporting on the exact nature of the events or Olbermann is lying through his teeth. But both can’t be right.
Comment by Spud — January 12, 2006 @ 12:20 am
The Anderson Cooper analogy is patently misleading. You say:
“We could speculate for hours about what COULD HAVE happened. Olbermann COULD HAVE praised Anderson Cooper. Peyser doesn’t say it and Olbermann didn’t deny it. Must be true.”
Actually Spud, in the case of what Peysner claimed, she did indeed OVERTLY make the accusation that Olbermann ridiculed Chung. Olbermann did not answer that charge. He only stated that the cockroach remark was stated to him…not by him and that it had been a compliment… That judgement, about the comment, is also sheerly speculative. It is no more speculative on my part to guess that there was more to the conversation than Olberman’s friend solely and singularly making a one sentence remark that likened Chung to a cockroach… than it is for Olbermann to surmise the remark was a compliment… and then say…end of story…
If you want to deal in the realm of “fact” in the sense of what we know… return to the assertion that Peyser’s statement contradicts Olbermann’s …. Peyser overtly and factually did not put quotes around the “cockraoch-like” word.
The most commonsensical deduction is that more was said than just one statement, by Olbermann’s friend, about Chung….
Olbermann admitted that Peyser was around and could have overheard a conversation. Admitted that Connie was likened to a cockroach, but stated he interpreted it as a compliment…. therefore …what? What’s “factual”, Spud? Therefore he didn’t ridicule Chung? The conversation stopped there…. what? We don’t know…. We only know what specifically Peyser charged….Olbermann ridiculed Chung….
That, Olbermann has not denied….he just never used the complimentary cockroach comparision…
and we know too of the O’Reilly ratings statement charge that Olbermann hasn’t commented upon at all.
If you want to bring up what Clinton said about the meaning of “is” is , it’s a far more appropriate analogy for how Olbermann has parsed what was characterized as a “loud” conversation… Let’s hear him specifically deny a charge of ridiculing Chung.
Comment by Cecelia — January 12, 2006 @ 1:22 am
Spud is right, there is little we can go on other than the accusation and the denial, I don’t see what else there is here. Olbermann has told us what he said, so you either think he is lying or telling the truth, you either believe Olbermann or Peyser, there is nothing else to it.
And by my observations, this is just a smear attempt on Olbermann. Why would a Post reporter care what Olbermann said about Chung anyways? The purpose of this was only to bash Olbermann, it’s obvious people are just trying to attack him at this point, and it makes me kind of think that for some of the people on this board that this would be your interest in this, why else would you care? Has Connie Chung even put out anything asking for clarification? You’re just randomly speculating in an attack on Olbermann on information that is not even known and that’s not right at all.
Comment by AnonymousHere — January 12, 2006 @ 2:22 am
“Johnny Dollar, are you honestly meaning to say that you think EVERY SINGLE ONE of those shows had higher ratings than Olbermann’s?”
Uh, yes.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 12, 2006 @ 2:41 am
Anonymoushere,
I doubt you’d have difficulty seeing the column fodder here (for a columnist who writes on the doings of public figures in New York) if it had been Tom Brokaw or…better yet… Bill O’Reilly… dissing a rather prominent new coworker.
Too, Olbermann has made the Bill O’Reilly part of the report a matter of public policy…. so to speak… Their feud is well known and well discussed. There was an AP article that mentioned how often Olbermann made O’Reilly WPITW, that was linked here just recently.
And of course Peyser’s report holds interest for people who don’t like Keith Olbermann, the way people don’t like Bill O’Reilly enjoy reading Liz Smith talk about how she met him at a party and he seemed on the verge of a nervous breakdown or people who enjoy Maureen Dowd tossing out tidbits about meeting some uptight Bush official who was rude to the waiters at a party.
Comment by Cecelia — January 12, 2006 @ 7:42 am
Cecelia, you need not phrase things simply for me. You might try turning off the Insult-O-Meter, though.
You tell me “You cannot both argue that Keith has been a pill on the job and argue that Keith has never ripped anyone privately.”
Since when did I ever argue THAT? I’m not a fly on the wall of Keith’s life. What I DID say is that if it comes down to a public debate between him and someone from the NY Post as to whether he did, I will tend to believe him over the Postie.
You then say “You cannot logically argue that Keith is a great man for admitting his faults and then claim that he never had the sort of faults that make him perfectly capable of doing what Peyser said he did.”
I did not say that either. “Never”? No. What I DID say is that I don’t believe he is doing it NOW. Whereas, you still want to hold against him things he is reported to have done no more recently than 1997.
You say “You can’t argue that you know that Keith admitted he alienated his own co-workers and the say the only people who have made such charges against him are Fox News fans.”
I did not say that, either. What I said is that Faux News fans have a convenient habit of using “ESPN: The Uncensored History” as their Holy Bible from which to derive all their arguments as to what a terrible human being Keith Olbermann was, is, and always shall be. And frankly, folks, the act is getting extremely old. I imagine that in the year 2016 you will be doing the exact same thing…”Olbermann is a terrible, terrible person…LOOK! He made this person cry in the bathroom back in 1992!”
That’s what is known, Cecelia, as being “desperate.”
You say “I’ve already made the case that Peyser never quoted Keith as calling Chung a cockroach. If tapes matter, then the written word does too. Peyser only said that he ridiculed Connie for emerging cockroach-like… Keith never denied ridiculing Connie.”
Hmm. Sure sounds to me as if he did, right on TV. He said he didn’t say anything about Connie being like a cockroach, his friend did.
You say “your comparision of Imus with Olbermann is a red herring and it’s because you don’t seem to understand the terms public and private. You equate being overheard in a private conversation, with making a statement that you know is being broadcasted on television or will be published in a periodical. Get a clue.”
No, YOU need to get a clue. If a reporter eavesdrops on what she thinks is your private conversation and then puts it in a newspaper, SHE is the one who is taking something private and making it public.
You say “it’s all well and good for you to say that your opinions of Chung are not important ….NOW… but you’ve already made a point of voicing them and of arguing that Chung is an embarrassment and that criticism from Olberman would be justified…. As I implied earlier…thanks for acknowledging a motivation for the “ridicule” that Olbermann did not deny…” Uh, no. He DID deny it. My own comments on my opinion were not to “acknowledge a motivation” on his part! How could I do that? I’m not him!
You say “my point about Olbermann incessantly and obsessively going after Bill O’Reilly is obvious to anyone with half a brain.” No, it isn’t. It’s obvious to people who hate him and want to mischaracterize him, but to others, not so much.
You say “So far O’Reilly holds the record for WPITW titles and countless snarks.” And why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because…he most frequently says the kind of things that DESERVE that kind of treatment in some people’s minds?
You say “Olbermann himself said he needs to lay off lest people think him obsessed….If I’m editorializing for saying that… then what are you doing when you talk about about how wonderful Olbermann is in patching things up… with the biggest employer of sportscasters…. on cable television (Olbermann is one, you know) and your editorializing about Olbermann critics. Editorializing, indeed…”
Hey, I’m giving an opinion about what you’re doing here. I’d like to see your opinion be grounded in facts, not the assumption that someone has an “obsession” just because he calls out the same idiot on his routine idiocies over and over again. My opinions are at least based in fact. You can’t even admit that Olbermann might want to patch it up with ESPN for some reason aside from the fact that they’re the biggest employer of sportscasters. You seem to be implying that he only patched it up because he’s afraid of losing his MSNBC job and he’s terrified he won’t be able to get another job unless he patches it up with ESPN. Which, of course, fits your world view: that he’s a terrible human being without an ounce of sincerity in his body. My world view is quite different, however. I’d be willing to bet you any amount of money that mine will be proved right in the end.
You say :no one is asking you to believe Olbermann over a Rupert Murdoch employee. You’re being asked to evaluate the fact that Keith did not deny ridiculing Chung and that he did not deny or even acknowledge the second half of Peyser’s report.” First, he DID deny ridiculing Chung; second, while it’s true he never mentioned the second half of the report, he’s gone on record time and time again saying he doesn’t care how many flies watch O’Reilly’s shit. So…it’s his word against hers. Obviously you prefer to believe her; I prefer to believe him. It could well be that he was repeating the “flies” comment and she saw that as “grousing about his ratings.” Whatever!
And what you said about a stopped clock? It’s true…about YOU. Yes, I editorialize about what Faux employees will be likely to do–namely dig dirt and lie about people they consider “enemies” whenever and wherever possible. Yes, it’s editorializing–but at least I don’t base my information on something one of them did back in 1997! It’s all current and up to date. Murdoch’s people have zero credibility in the news department as far as I’m concerned. They’re only there to plug a conservative viewpoint and to rip apart every critic they get and “wish him well” (please!).
Oh, and Cecelia…I don’t think Olbermann can win on this one with you…because if he DOES say anything more about Peyser, your kind will probably accuse him of being “obsessed”! Yeah, I’d like to see him address it but maybe reciting that list of low-rated Faux shows was his way of doing it…and maybe he’s gone on to bigger and better things. He doesn’t always do what I might like him to…but that’s all right.
AnonymousHere is right on the money…it’s all just another big smear attempt by Olbermann haters who just can’t stand when he takes aim at Faux News people and hits the bull’s-eye over and over. Other people can post here saying briefly that they don’t like him and get it over with. Only the Fauxies go on and on and on for lengthy paragraphs about what a son of Satan he is with every possible lame excuse they get to pounce on. Gee, folks? Bothered much?
And Johnny, if you honestly think that every single one of those Faux shows got higher ratings than Countdown, well, saying it isn’t enough. The numbers should be there. Research it. Prove it. Until you can do that, assertion isn’t enough. This is something that can be proven or disproven (and in case you don’t realize it, the burden of proof is on YOU, because YOU made the claim). Go look it up. Prove it.
Comment by tanne — January 12, 2006 @ 8:02 am
As much as you would like it, I’m not your personal research assistant slave. It’s so obvious to anyone but the blinded that all those shows that air on Fox network got more viewers. No Fox network show (not even any WB network show that I’m aware of) gets an audience smaller than 400,000 viewers. And as for the one FNC program Olby cited, I have already documented where that 6:00 am program gets almost twice the viewers that Olby gets at 8:00 pm.
So no, I’m not going to play your distraction game and run around the internet just because you ordered me to “prove it”. It’s Olby’s list. Let him defend it.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 12, 2006 @ 9:16 am
Let me condense down to a couple of lines, Tanne’s latest installment of Olby goooooooodddd…. Murdoch employees baaaaaaadddd screed.
First you argued that Olbermann wouldn’t diss a colleague… Don Imus disses colleagues…
Then when confronted with Olbermann’s history.. you argue tht you know all about it….but now Olbermann has changed so much that he’s not the same man he was ten years ago so this report couldnt’ possibly be true….
And what’s more if couldn’t be true because it came from a Murdoch employee and they are all not to be trusted….
Period The End.
All you “Faux News” fans that Tanne worries so about…. Here’s your example of unbiased deductive reasoning. Go in peace now, Grasshoppers…
Comment by Cecelia — January 12, 2006 @ 10:21 am
The real issue about Olbermann’s remark about low-rated Fox shows made in defense of himself after being called a “ratings killer”, is that it’s essentially meaningless.
It doesn’t matter how many low-rated shows any network has had over the years, Dennis Miller has still been a ratings killer. I doubt CNBC executives or CBS execs before that, were comforted by the notion that Fox’s “Arrested Development” failed.
Comment by Cecelia — January 12, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Let’s go back to the revenue issue shall we? Since all the Fox lovers here (aka Olbermann haters) continuously point to the ratings as being the all important numbers game here. It’s not. It’s all about the money. And CNN whipped Fox News’ butt last year in ad revenue. Why? Because the average Fox viewer is about 100. No one in the advertising world cares how many people overall watch Fox. What they care about is how many people in that Fox audience in the desired demo watch, and when you compare Fox’s overall ratings to their demo ratings, they’re pathetic. Olbermann gets half of what O’Reilly does in the demo ratings, even though he’s got what? One-Seventh of O’Reilly’s overall audience? That’s pathetic–and it’s pathetic for O’Reilly. But hey, keep throwing out those ratings. And uhm Johnny dear? For years my career involved looking at those ratings and I’m here to tell you that YES, absolutely, they had shows that had lower ratings that Keith gets now.
Cecilla, you doth protest a bit too much. I’m sure I’m not alone in being quite familiar with your posts both here and elsewhere. . . say on that the Olbermann bashing board you frequent so much? Case closed dearie. If you want to claim you’re not a Fox fan–then don’t make the posts you do here and there praising them. Plain and simple.
Comment by Mia2 — January 12, 2006 @ 11:03 am
” YES, absolutely, they had shows that had lower ratings that Keith gets now.”
Such as?
“And CNN whipped Fox News’ butt last year in ad revenue. Why? ”
Because, as Spud can tell you, Fox made sweetheart deals to get coverage in cable systems that weren’t interested in another news channel. Those deals are now expiring, and the discrepancy in revenues is about to change, big time.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 12, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Mia,
It doeesn’t surprise me that to you it would be “praising” Fox when I rebut something stupid Olbermann has said about them….as I do nearly all of Olbermann’s statements on nearly every subject.
I’ll leave you to your demon of FOx and happily stay with my demon of Olbermann. Your’s make you see an agent of the devil in everyone who disagrees with you.
Mine’s only the ridiculous Olbermann.
Comment by Cecelia — January 12, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
Hey johnny dollar, the same argument was made last time these financial reports came out, that the deals were expiring and the next go-around FNC would be way ahead. And I made the same argument then that I will make once again now.
Overall viewers, first of all, is almost meaningless. Secondly, I believe the most valuable sign in cable news that advertisers look at is CUME. In regular network programming, CUME indeed means nothing, but for a cable news channel, when you’re going after a market looking for news, it does matter. FNC has the same viewers all day long, they tend to be older, and even in the last several quarters FNC’s demo has fallen significantly, while CNN’s has increased. By advertising on FNC, all that is accomplished is the same old group of viewers sees the same commercials dozens of times. On CNN, there are so many unique viewers that can be reached, many of them young, that stick around for about 15 to 30 minutes. They don’t contribute to the hourly ratings, but they are a huge market for advertisers to go after.
Comment by AnonymousHere — January 12, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
“I believe the most valuable sign in cable news that advertisers look at is CUME. ”
You believe wrongly. I believe Spud has commented on this (he’ll correct me if I’m wrong) but unique viewers who are only there until the commercial comes on are not what advertisers are looking for. They don’t look at CUME, they look at total viewers, and the key demos.
Comment by johnny dollar — January 12, 2006 @ 7:03 pm