The AP issues clarification on TCA article…
I noted yesterday in an Update that AP reporter Beth Harris’ account of Keith Olbermann’s comments at the TCA on Saturday seemed to imply something that a straight examination of his quote didn’t imply at all. Well, the AP issued a clarification on the matter…
In a July 22 story, The Associated Press reported that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann said his phone number has been distributed at Fox and his e-mail hacked into because of his critical comments about Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and other conservatives.
The story should have been clearer about the e-mail reference, which was not intended to suggest Fox hacked into Olbermann’s e-mail. Olbermann’s fuller quote at the Television Critics Association’s summer meeting: “My e-mails have been hacked into. My phone number has been distributed at Fox. I mean, there have been some really kind of invasive things, but if you sit down and you talk about it, well, they’re annoying things and that’s about it.”
UPDATE: Olbermann Watch is taking a victory lap at having gotten the clarification…
TVNewser and ICN both linked to the clarification and - surprise - both failed to credit Olbermann Watch for our role in lobbying Harris for the correction.
Well I can’t speak for TVNewser but I don’t read OW every single day of the week so, no, I wasn’t aware of what OW was doing though I did know that Cox was pursuing something about this based on a comment he left on ICN.
tv newser got knocked around yesterday for “plagarising” from romenesko even though the site didnt, so its only fair to ask: what’s the source for this? tv newser posted this first, and both sites link to the mercury news
Comment by Anonymous — July 26, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
My source for the Mercury News article is classified but is not affiliated with any news network and, for that matter, isn’t human. I didn’t even read TVNewser until after I posted this.
Comment by Spud — July 26, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Thanks for reporting this, Spud. With the quote given entirely in context, it seems abundantly clear that a) Olbermann was not accusing Fox of hacking his e-mail; b) Olbermann was not attempting to use the hacking of his e-mail to create “plausible doubt” about whether he sent the e-mails he sent that he apologized for in Lloyd Grove’s column; c) Olbermann was actually attempting to make the problem sound like a minor annoyance, rather than trying to wring it for maximum dramatic effect, as I’m sure many of his enemies assumed.
Comment by tanne — July 26, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
If KO was not trying to imply that Fox was hacking into his emails just what the heck was he trying to say. As a reporter should one not ask more questions when someone makes a statement implying wrong doing? I did not go to reporter school and i would have asked that….
And by the way Tanne my old pal, i dont recall many folks using the words like hate and enemies on this site other than you…
Comment by JR — July 26, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
I don’t think Olbermann made a statement implying wrong doing by FNC. The reporter summarized Olbermann’s comments haphazardly.
Comment by Spud — July 26, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
Since I created a furor by jumping to conclusions last time let me gently phrase this question:
Are you folks NOT aware of Olbermann Watch’s role in AP issusing this clarification or just PRETENDING that you are not aware?
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/ap_corrects_olb.html
BTW - TVNewser got knocked around for not sourcing his post on Olbermann’s “reply” to Ailes. As he has a past history of “borrowing” material from others without attribution it did not seem such a big leap that he would do it again and float the question. That he later revealed on OlbyWatch that Olbermann was feeding him an advance copy of the letter to Romenesko - and that he served up “as ordered” and without attribution is just another way to skin the same cat - that he is a hack.
Comment by Robert Cox — July 26, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
JR, let me play Tony Snow and ask you: What do YOU think he was trying to say? Without making any direct accusations as yet (perhaps because he did not have any idea yet who might be responsible), I think he was saying this: Some people can’t handle the truth.
As for me? I think he’s maybe being a bit naive. I think he IS hated and DOES have enemies…who are determined not to stop until they bring him down.
And Bob Cox, nobody really gives a flying fig about your alleged “role” in all this. It’s like getting all excited because you had a bowel movement or something. It’s just another chapter in your childish blog-war with Brian Stelter. Nobody but you cares. Grow up!
Comment by tanne — July 27, 2006 @ 6:58 am
Tanne,
I choose not to try and figure out what he was saying because i cant read minds. I doubt that his enemies will bring him down as you assume will happen. Based on his past history the biggest enemy he has is himself.
Comment by JR — July 27, 2006 @ 9:38 am
Writers don’t handle corrections, editors do. Especially at AP. Looks like Olbermannwatch has a lot to learn about this business. But if he’s going to try take credit for something, he should have at least been “lobbying” the correct person.
Comment by Chris — July 27, 2006 @ 10:07 am
JR, I think YOUR biggest enemy is yourself…
Chris…what Bob Cox needs to know he ain’t got time to learn! He’s too busy taking a victory lap today for having made poo-poo in the potty.
Comment by tanne — July 27, 2006 @ 9:49 pm