A Wolffe in Sheep’s Clothing?

The Huffinton Post’s James Moore writes about MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe and his ties to a high powered consulting firm…

Think of all the large corporate brands that exist in America and chances are quite good that you have just thought of a company represented by PSI. When Bridgestone/Firestone got sued for exploding tires, they called PSI for strategic crisis communications counsel and to media train its executives. Obviously, I believe that every company, just as every person, has a right to tell its side of a story. However, I do not believe that Richard Wolffe can be considered an analyst by MSNBC when he works for a company offering counsel to corporations that can reasonably be expected to benefit from his perspective stated on network television. Is it fair, for example, for Wolffe to provide insight on the political fight over health care if PSI is representing big pharma? MSNBC can disclose the companies that Wolffe is working with for PSI at this precise moment in time but its client list changes and grows regularly. What Wolffe says during his employ at PSI cannot, under any circumstances, be expected to be unbiased. Perception is reality in politics.

And the reality is that Richard Wolffe is now being paid to present a specific point of view that serves PSI’s clients.

Tonight Keith Olbermann announced that Wolffe would be off Countdown for the forseeable future…

I am confident his commentary to this point has not been compromised – he has been an insightful analyst and a great friend to this show – but until we can clarify what else he is doing, he will not be appearing with us. I apologize for not being able to prevent this unhappy set of circumstances from developing.

Egregious Demands?

An uncredited story in World Net Daily concerns World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah and a challenge issued to Bill O’Reilly regarding the birther story and how O’Reilly’s staff invited him on only to have Farah issue a bunch of “requirements”…the TV version of a “rider” I guess…for Farah to appear. I wonder who the mystery person was who wrote this story and the pointed self-serving headline? (via J$)

In turn, Sliwa presented Mitchell with a short list of criteria for Farah’s appearance:

* Though a sober and civil discourse is always welcome, shouting is not;

* No other guests on during the segment with Mr. Farah;

* Discussion to be limited to the facts of the story;

* Accurate, approved description of Mr. Farah and news organization he represents;

* Screen ID chyron to be approved by Mr. Farah.

In turn, Mitchell replied that he would have to “discuss his requests with Bill.”

Two hours later, the reply from Mitchell came back: “I’m afraid that is not going to work for us.”

Gee, I wonder why? Would anybody accept these kinds of restrictions?

Olbermann blasts Stelter, O’Reilly, and Murdoch…ending “Truce”: Update…

One last thing regarding Olbermann’s comments tonight regarding the “deal”. Olbermann says there’s no “deal”. Ok. Fine. Setting aside all evidence suggesting otherwise, let’s take that it face value that there was no deal. Then why was TVNewser reporting that Phil Griffin addressed MSNBC staffers today to talk about the whole thing? More specifically, why did Griffin talk about the what was discussed between himself and Olbermann regarding “the agreement”. If there was no deal, then why was there any talking about an “agreement”. This just does not add up. It’s a total contradiction.

And From O’Reilly? Nada…

While Keith Olbermann was all tied up blasting The Times, O’Reilly, and Murdoch, over on FNC the Times deal story caused Bill O’Reilly to whip himself into a frothing mass of….silence. Nothing. Not one word. O’Reilly, no fan of the Times who has blasted them for far less, said nothing. Interesting.

This move could be analyzed from a dozen angles. Was O’Reilly quiet because he wanted to keep up his end of the deal? Was O’Reilly silent because he wanted to see if Olbermann would violate the truce first (in which case he could play the victim tomorrow night and then resume blasting GE)? In some ways O’Reilly’s silence could be considered a tacit admission that the Times story was true. But then that itself could be part of a strategic move on FNC’s part; by being silent it lends an air of credibility to the story.

This is getting so complex it makes the birther saga pale by comparison. It’s a conspiracy theorist’s dream come true…

Olbermann blasts Stelter, O’Reilly, and Murdoch…ending “Truce”…

Tonight Keith Olbermann addressed the Brian Stelter “deal” story by putting Stelter on the WPiTW list for quoting his denial while going ahead with the story. Olbermann went on to say that this was a misinterpretation of his “retiring” of O’Reilly on June 1st and that at the time he said he would continue to do so unless he decided to start it up again. You know where this is going, don’t you? That’s right “Bill-O the clown” came in at #2, complete with “the voice”. #1 was odd. It was Rupert Murdoch. What was odd about it was it was that Murdoch made the list for “muzzling” Bill O’Reilly over Stelter’s article, the article that said there was a deal between MSNBC and FNC.

Solidarity brother Bill. Free yourself from your corporate shackles. Solidarity!

Cue Twilight Zone theme. Olbermann blasts Stelter for a deal that he said doesn’t exist and then gives Murdoch the WPiTW award for following through on the deal…which, uh, doesn’t exist.

There are two ways to interpret this:

1) Olbermann was mocking the bogus deal with some satire by bringing up the Murdoch end of the “deal” and how it supposedly muzzled O’Reilly.
2) Olbermann got too cute with his prose and accidentally just confirmed there was a deal.

Olbermann Writes About..er…Something…

Prior to tonight’s TV addressing of the FNC/MSNBC “deal” Keith Olbermann writes on Daily Kos…

A few of the sections of tonight’s Comment, below.

But first I did wish to make brief responses to two topics that have been much discussed here and elsewhere.

Primarily, there is no “deal” between MSNBC and Fox over what we can and cannot cover. This is part of a continuing strategy of blackmail by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, that reaches back to 2004, and has as its goal the cancellation of “Countdown.” This stuff has ebbed and flowed for five years, it’s part of my daily job to push it back with whichever strategy I think will best work at a given moment. For the last two months I’ve been employing “News Jujitsu.” If you watch tonight and catch the references to Fox and its rogues gallery you will know that the most recent tack has worked, but the fight is endless and there will be reversals in the future, I’m sure.

Ailes himself is tonight quoted as saying he tried to ‘broker peace’ by restraining his hosts. This is the same Ailes who insisted he would never interfere with what Bill O’Reilly said on the air. Even naked hypocrisy is not too much if Fox can make itself seem victimized, or can muzzle dissent.

But there is no “deal.” I would never consent, and, fortunately, MSNBC and NBC News would never ask me to.

I’ve read this over several times and I can’t make heads or tails of it. “Primarily” there’s no deal? What’s “Primarily” mean? This was all some sort of fake out maneuver? Anybody really believe that?

What’s in a word?

For TVNewser and whoever leaked those new details from inside FNC…

An agreement was made to end all personal attacks.

(….)

So, the bottom line: There is no “truce.” There is an agreement to end the personal attacks.

Definition of “Truce”:

1 : a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces : armistice, cease-fire

2 : a respite especially from a disagreeable or painful state or action

Please kindly explain to me why the FNC/MSNBC deal, especially where Countdown and The Factor are concerned, isn’t a truce? It has, by definition, all the characteristics of one. Someone at FNC apparently doesn’t like that term being used but from where I sit if it walks like a duck…

MSNBC/FNC “Truce”: More details…

TVNewser peels another layer of the onion thanks to some help from what has to be inside FNC…

TVNewser has also learned there is a fluid agreement between the two companies which was in place prior to the Murdoch-Immelt meeting at Microsoft. It is considered to be a cease fire on all personal attacks. But when a host on Fox News calls the president a “racist,” MSNBC might cover it, just as Fox News might cover Immelt’s position on Pres. Obama’s economic advisory board.

So, the bottom line: There is no “truce.” There is an agreement to end the personal attacks. The premise of there being a complete draw-down between the two networks that was, as Brian Stelter writes in his story, “orchestrated in part by Jeff Zucker, and Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president who oversees corporate affairs at the News Corporation,” is false, says our source.

“Zucker prolonged the assault on Immelt for another year and Ginsberg has absolutely nothing to do with inner workings of Fox News. Roger Ailes simply doesn’t take orders from Gary Ginsberg,” says our source.

TVNewser also has some news from inside MSNBC this morning…

During the meeting, Griffin told the staff that Olbermann was never told what he can or can’t say and that MSNBC would never muzzle any of their talent. The conversations that occurred between Griffin and Olbermann about the agreement were entirely about tone and not substance.

This is six of one, half a dozen of the other. You can’t separate tone from substance in regards to what Olbermann does on Countdown. For Olbermann, tone is almost as key as substance. Sometimes it’s even more important. You modify Olbermann’s tone, you’ve modified how Olbermann does what he does, which is no trivial thing for a talking head show. Imagine Glenn Beck being told by FNC to cool down his theatrics. That’s all tone. It’s not substance. The show would be fundamentally different. Same thing applies to Countdown. And if they’re discussing tone and Olbermann alters his tone, he is in effect being muzzled since he’s no longer doing what he used to be able to do. You can spin that any way you want but the result is the same.

Corporate Meddling?

The news of a GE/News Corp. deal may not have been the first time GE felt pressure and intervened against Keith Olbermann. If you believe Page Six, and yes that is a tough pill to swallow, GE and Immelt played a role in getting Olbermann taken off political anchoring on MSNBC. This is from last year…September 9th to be exact.

“So he threw Matthews under the bus,” said one insider, who added, “This has [GE chairman] Jeff Immelt’s fingerprints all over it – if not his fists.” GE is the parent company of NBC. “Unequivocally untrue,” an NBC spokeswoman told Page Six. “Jeff Immelt does not get involved in these decisions.” However, Immelt did get involved in the decision to fire radio legend Don Imus last year. One knowledgeable source told us: “Shareholders were calling up NBC and GE – a lot, maybe thousands. They were saying, ‘What the [bleep] is wrong with these guys?’ . . . Chris Matthews just got stuck in the middle of it all.”

Is a pattern emerging here? Or not? And if this is a pattern, how much longer before Olbermann gets fed up with being interfered with by GE?

Free for All: 08/03/09

What’s on your mind?

Examining the Dobbs Situation…

The AP’s David Bauder gives a summary of the whole CNN Birther story…

Fear could be another factor keeping Dobbs and CNN together.

Dobbs has never been shy about fighting for his point of view. His feud with former CNN chief Rick Kaplan spilled out on the air in 1999 when he objected to having his “Moneyline” show pre-empted for a speech by President Clinton about the Columbine school shootings. “CNN President Rick Kaplan wants us to return to Littleton,” he said. Dobbs soon left CNN and returned after Kaplan left.

With Dobbs hosting his own weekday radio show, the thought of him launching anti-CNN missiles every day has to be disconcerting.

It’s also not hard to imagine Fox News chief Roger Ailes coveting Dobbs as a prize for his struggling business news network, offering reports to the main news channel as well.

Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters for America have called for CNN to take Dobbs off the air; he’s proven a galvanizing and attention-getting force for his critics. At CNN, they’re hoping the controversy dies down with the heat of August.