Inside the Olbermann Suspension…

In your must read of the week, The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz sheds some light on what happened behind the scenes during Keith Olbermann’s suspension and the turmoil Olbermann has generated inside the network and NBC News. I had to flip a coin as to which section to highlight. I picked this one, but you should read the whole damn thing. Obvious question: Was this leak, or series of leaks, part of an attempt by NBC News to knock down some of the spin going on out there that this was all just about a campaign donation/freedom of speech? Bonus question: Was this also partly a response to Olbermann’s personal statement which leveled shots at the network?

The fault lines became clear the day after Labor Day, when Olbermann’s new management team—Ted Chervin and Nick Kahn of the Hollywood super-agency ICM, and Price—met in Jeff Zucker’s spacious, 52nd-floor office at 30 Rock.

Zucker, the network’s chief executive, delivered a simple message: Olbermann had to play by the rules. There had been a number of incidents over the years that had created problems for MSNBC.

Steve Capus, the NBC News president, strongly echoed this theme. Some of Olbermann’s behavior was bad for the company.

Griffin, who had been friends with Olbermann since they first worked together at CNN three decades ago, pleaded for understanding. Olbermann had had a difficult year, a difficult few years, in fact. He was critical to the network’s success, Griffin said, but his personal problems were affecting his work and he looked angrier on the air. They wanted the Good Keith back, the clever, smart, ironic anchor. Their new client had to stop fighting management on every little thing.

Even those who admired Olbermann’s broadcasting skills felt that his behavior, such as making his staff leave notes outside his door rather than speaking to him, had gone too far. He was a royal pain, they said, and management had become exhausted trying to rein him in.

79 Responses to “Inside the Olbermann Suspension…”

  1. I think the source of this story is undeniably the top brass at NBC news, and their full cooperation with Kurtz can mean only one thing: The next time Keith steps out of line will be the last time.

    They are clearly fed up, and his flagging numbers mean he is no longer bulletproof.

    Good for you, NBC

  2. This doesn’t sound like somebody in the offices leaking information they heard. Seems more of a neatly set-up, for a purpose thing. Would help tremendously to know who the sources are.

  3. This is a pretty stunning story. Olbermann actually threatened to go on other shows if the suspension wasn’t lifted? Ouch.

    One of the questions that was raised here was whether the big footers at NBC would continue to be silent while Olbermann pushed the journalistic envelope. This is evidence – if the story is accurate – that they just won’t allow Olbermann to continue, in their view, tarnish the network.

    Once you have open warfare between NBC and MSNBC breaking out – including a Brokaw – then something has to give. Given Olbermann’s 30+ year history of not backing down, it’s safe to conclude this is end of his latest run because I don’t see the top and new team at NBC stepping back either.

  4. Someone inside is talking – maybe someone who wants KO’s spot when the management (so to speak) finally cans him? There is always an ulterior motive when this kind of info comes out. KO may get good ratings for MSNBC, but, when the behavior of 1 starts to affect the sensibilities of those who matter more and the morale of many others within the organization you get this kind of leaking. Is Air America still around? Maybe KO can boost their ratings when he gets canned by MSNBC because I don’t know who would take a chance on him on the TV airwaves.

  5. Really interesting article. Who Kurtz spoke to seems pretty obvious; Price, Griffin, Brokaw, some Olbermann staffers and one or more at NBC head office.

    There are a couple of nuggets that are buried in the piece that bare mention; Scarborough gave $5,000.00 (I thought the limit was $2400.00?) last spring to a candidate through his wife and the news that Maddow is his only on air friend (I thought Schultz & LOD would also be in that group).

    Why NBC would want this story to continue also puzzles me? It was dead until this article appeared and now it will all be rehashed again. Are there forces in head office that want to dump KO before the Comcast deal takes effect?

    The one person who must be really pleased to see this all come back is Cenk Uygur who stands to benefit most from a possible Olbermann departure.

    Will cooler heads prevail? I doubt it.

  6. Griffin and MSNBC are learning the hard way that dealing with KO is like snake handling no matter how many times you safely do it you will get bit and it will be a bad one that you may not recover from.

  7. ^ Gee mlong thanks for that useful comment; it adds a lot to the discussion. 😉

  8. I wonder if people are allowed to make eye-contact with him.
    Wouldn’t it be great if they had Scarborough fill-in after they can him? I believe I might check that out.

  9. Oh, come on Z. Don’t make us have to ‘add something to the discussion’. Where’s the fun in that? ❓

  10. bushleaguer Says:

    Olbermann developed a strong show for the network (ratings wise, as far as MSNBC goes, that is) and I’m sure the brass recognizes that. It sounds like he needs to keep his ego in check, however, and pick his fights wisely. He isn’t the lone voice in the wilderness on the network anymore….Maddow could easily move to 8pm without missing a beat and they could develop a 9pm show around that guy Cenk.

    And I trust that this was all legit – Howard Kurtz doesn’t strike me as a guy who would put something out based on rumor and innuendo.

    In short, Olbermann should be happy with the job he has, the latitude the brass gives him and grow up a little.

  11. He’s accustomed to being cock of the walk, and his wiring won’t allow him to think or act otherwise. They have a bullpen. His days are numbered.

  12. That was a fascinating portrayal of a very Aspergers-like personality. As an Aspie I tend to be on the lookout for this, but I’d never thought about it with KO until I saw the “notes outside the door” quote, and Laura’s joke about eye contact. I’ll betcha he actually does have trouble with it.

    The obsession with whatever he’s focused on at the time, in a very “can’t see the forest for the trees” way; the inability to grasp how others are perceiving him, or understand the implications if he does; and the numerous relationship destructions and emotional meltdowns all point to it.

    Of course my perception might be wrong, but everybody says there’s “something wrong” with him, and I think I’ve figured it out. He’s effing autistic!

  13. Olbermann had had a difficult year, a difficult few years, in fact. … but his personal problems were affecting his work

    Awww, poor Olbie. Of course, just last week he spent 72 straight hours calling John Boehner a crybaby.

    No Mercy!

  14. “He’s effing autistic!”

    My clinical opinion is that he’s a narcissistic a-hole. But, I’m not a doctor. Who knows, maybe he has a disorder whereby he reached his maximum maturity level at the age of 12.

  15. When your agent starts talking about “your difficult year”, that’s the last gasp in television.

    “Sure he’s an over-the-top SOB who believes he’s accountable to no one, and sure his ratings continue to decline while others on the network are challenging his longtime supremacy, but, well, he’s had a difficult year.”

  16. My clinical opinion is that he’s a narcissistic a-hole.

    Your diagnosis and mine are not mutually exclusive. I’m an Aspie and my day isn’t even finished until someone calls me an a-hole. I’m almost not kidding..

  17. “Olbermann had had a difficult year, a difficult few years, in fact. … but his personal problems were affecting his work”

    “Awww, poor Olbie. Of course, just last week he spent 72 straight hours calling John Boehner a crybaby.”

    “When your agent starts talking about “your difficult year”, that’s the last gasp in television.”

    I believe “the difficult year/few years’ might be a reference to the recent death of his parents who I understand he was very close to. But hell don’t let that stop you from sh***** all over him.

  18. ^ What he said.

  19. His parents’ deaths have been focal points of his TV show. He won an emmy for his special comment about his mother, and used Fridays to read stultifyingly boring passages of Thurber as an homage to his father. As he chooses to grieve before his audience, his inability to get past that grief is fair game.

    I was referring to his difficult years in the ratings. The man has been on a steady decline since Obama’s election, and the majority of his notable moments since have been to his detriment.

  20. lonestar77 Says:

    Olby isn’t the first person in the world to experience the death of a family member. That’s not an excuse for his actions. Besides, he’s been a first class d-bag his whole career (if you believe what’s been written & alleged by every previous employer). Tough year or not, it’s a convienent excuse, not a plausible one.

  21. Tough year or not, it’s a convienent excuse, not a plausible one.

    First of all, Griffin said it. KO didn’t use the example himself to explain away his actions. Second, significant personal losses most certainly area plausible reason for erratic behavior. You don’t have to like the guy (I don’t), but to dismiss the deaths of his parents in such a cavalier way is out of line.

  22. I’m not being dismissive. I personally can’t understand why someone would choose to share such a painful experience with an audience, but I can only assume he did what was best for him personally.

    Now, if his parents’ deaths are affecting him to the point where they lead to erratic behavior, then he needs to behave like an adult and ask for some extended personal time, or he can just take comfort in his millions and walk away.

    My unscientific diagnosis: Olbermann’s family losses have nothing to do with this. He’s an ass. He’s always been an ass. People used to think it was entertaining, and now it’s just irritating and more than a little pathetic.

  23. lonestar77 Says:

    My point, Joe, is that from most accounts he’s been a pain in the arse to a lot of people at every place he’s worked. To find an excuse for it now, doesn’t explain his history. That’s why I said it’s a convenient excuse, not a plausible one. He’s just a jackhole. Always has been, prolly always will be.

  24. Olbermann’s first tweet on Kurtz article:

    “Won’t waste everybody’s time responding to Kurtz’s hysteric source. But doesn’t all this anonymous bashing sound oddly familiar?”

    My first impression: He does not attempt to deny anything in the article. We can assume Kurtz got everything exactly right.

    My second impression: Olbermann is right, this anonymous bashing sounds very familiar to a recent Politico article in which nameless members of the GOP Washington establishment were given license to rip Sarah Palin to shreds.

    Palin and Olbermann have something in common. They are hated by a good chunk of their own respective parties, and they are cartoonishly stupid if someone takes their script away.

  25. I think it’s safe to say, based on Kurtz’s great reporting, that Olbermann’s time at MSNBC is limited, and NBC’s tolerance will be short. Ratings aside, he’s just not getting along with anybody and he’s making everybody else there look bad.

    I hate to admit it, but maybe Tucker Carlson was right: nobody likes him at MSNBC. Like fritz, though, I would think he’s really close with most of the prime time lineup… I’m surprised Kurtz didn’t mention that.

    All in all, it will be very interesting to see how Comcast deals with this. They will either eat up his contract at some point, or let it end and not re-sign him. Comcast knows if they just outright let him go that MSNBC’s liberal base will practically go on strike, and there it goes. They all went apesh*t for the suspension, so why wouldn’t they do the same next time?

    Personally, at this point, or whenever in the future, if he is canned, I’m not going to be too upset about it. MSNBC has solidified its liberal lineup and it’s gaining momentum, but the network has to worry about the backlash of the base if they get rid of him.

  26. “with most of the prime time lineup”

    Correction: I meant the “evening lineup”.

  27. lonestar77 Says:

    “Comcast knows if they just outright let him go that MSNBC’s liberal base will practically go on strike, and there it goes.”

    There isn’t a day that ends in “y” that the liberal base isn’t boycotting something. It’s what they do. Do you really expect them to just stop watching MSNBC because Olbermann is gone? No chance. They’ll make a big show of it on the blogs, get their 15 minutes of “hey, look how important we are”, then some City Hall in the middle of nowhere will put up a Nativity scene and they’ll descend upon the intersection in the one-light town & moveon.org to the next thing that riles them up.

  28. Unless KO does something really stupid; i.e. go after Capus or Brokaw on air; he’s not going anywhere. Comcast isn’t going to eat $15 million just to please the Fox crowd and PO the viewers, so he stays and probably signs a new contract in two years.

    I expect Beck is more likely to go before KO because he plays on the cliff edge every day.

  29. I disagree that KO’s days are numbered at MSNBC. The suits at Comcast are businesspeople, and MSNBC without Olbermann is doomed. Rachel may be popular as the junior senator from Lib World after Countdown, but her show can’t anchor the night the way his does. Countdown’s strength has always been it’s pace, and the sense that all the Big Stories Of The Day will be covered. In that way, the show resembles a straight news broadcast.

    Rachel and LOD are more clearly focused on their pet “progressive” topics…in Rachel’s case, to a naeuseating degree at times. I don’t think her style can be morphed into a Countdown replacement, and she will not be able to hold KO’s viewers.

  30. I expect Beck is more likely to go before KO because he plays on the cliff edge every day.

    Can’t disagree with you on that one, fritz. I think it’s clear Beck is causing more problems at his network than Olbermann is at his.

    By the way (for anybody who cares), check out a tweet by Keith regarding the Kurtz article:

    Won’t waste everybody’s time responding to Kurtz’s hysteric source. But doesn’t all this anonymous bashing sound oddly familiar?

    So, is he denying any of this being true? Obviously, he wouldn’t admit it… but still.

  31. I disagree that KO’s days are numbered at MSNBC.

    Joe, I do not expect his days to be numbered. However, I reserve the right to change my opinion on the following scenario(s):

    1) He continues to pi$$ off the suits @ MSNBC/NBC and they fire him.
    2) Comcast decides to can his A$$ if this behavior continues. You cannot have talent dictating to managment.

    This isn’t just a suit issue @ MSNBC/NBC. They have to demonstrate their “in control” with their new owner.

    IMO, the more likely scenario is that KO’s contract will not be renewed when it expires in two years.. Comcast/NBC will state that they attempted to negotiate a new contract but were unable to reach a “satisfactory” agreement for all parties. Comcast/NBC will “thank” KO for his years of outstanding service to the company & wish KO “good luck in his futre endeavours”.

    Management is able to look responsible to its stockholders and can also pacify the left on their attempt to resign KO.

    Comcast management will not tolerate the antics/rants of KO. They’ll tell him to go take a “flying leap” before they kiss his a$$.

    Again…jmho.

  32. Joe, just want to go on the record strongly disagreeing that MSNBC is doomed without Olbermann.

    The liberals have nowhere else to go, so after some caterwauling, they’ll return to MSNBC, and Maddow will get her chance to be the big cheese while they groom Cenk.

  33. lonestar77 Says:

    “Can’t disagree with you on that one, fritz. I think it’s clear Beck is causing more problems at his network than Olbermann is at his.”

    Huh? Where’d you come up with that?

  34. JWE, “the liberals” are already revealing a willingness to drop cable news, period. MSNBC doesn’t seem to be able to maintain the loyalty that FNC gets from it’s conservative audience. Righties consider Fox “one of ours”, and protect it. Libs are just as likely to get all their news/politics from The Daily Show or the internet as watch any news network. KO is interesting as a TV host, and with him there, they’ll stick around for the rest of the lineup. I don’t think the other hosts have that pull with libs.

  35. Huh? Where’d you come up with that?

    An article I read from the NYT where inside sources from FNC said that Beck’s show is being seen as “empty calories” for lacking in sufficient advertisers, which is losing the network money. Additionally, Roger Ailes complaining about Beck’s “non-Fox ventures”.

    Honestly, if you want to take Howard Kurtz’s reporting at face value regarding Olbermann, you would have to do the same the New York Times and Beck.

  36. I’m not sure where the article claims Beck is losing money for FNC. It may be in there somewhere, but I didn’t see it.

    As for reading Olby’s tweet and asking ‘is he denying’ the story…I don’t know how anyone could read that tweet and see it as anything other than what it is: an artful evasion and diversion. In other words, the classic non-denial denial. And if he isn’t denying it there’s a good reason he isn’t. Kurtz got cooperation for that story from both sides: Olbermann’s and management’s.

    As for Keith getting dumped…I don’t see that as likely either. If MSNBC shows a little spine (which they certainly haven’t here…their actually paying him for the two days he was suspended without pay!) it might irritate Olby enough to walk. They may not want to renew his contract, or find negotiations difficult to resolve. But I see Edward R Olbermann continuing at MS, doing humble journalism things like lecturing Ted Koppel on news.

  37. MSNBC doesn’t seem to be able to maintain the loyalty that FNC gets from it’s conservative audience

    Of course it does. It just has a much smaller market base to draw from. I.e., more than 40% of Americans call themselves conservative, about 20% liberal and the rest centrists or moderates. And reportedly a lot of self-described moderates and independents watch FNC.

    MSNBC is swimming against that 80% and, right now, growing, tide.

  38. ^ YES ❗

  39. I’m not sure where the article claims Beck is losing money for FNC. It may be in there somewhere, but I didn’t see it.

    The article might not say that. I just stated it based on the fact that he has lost advertisers, hence, it’s probably losing the network money.

  40. MSNBC is swimming against that 80% and, right now, growing, tide.

    Against the whole 80%, steve? With all due respect, that’s a total misrepresentation, and you know it. Just because 40% of people in this country are moderates and independents, and Fox News supposedly gets those people to watch them, doesn’t mean the whole 40% isn’t going to watch MSNBC. That means that 100% of that entire crowd watches Fox, which is impossible. Maybe they watch CNN, as well. Who knows?

  41. -And reportedly a lot of self-described moderates and independents watch FNC. –

    Reportedly, more liberals watch FNC than watch MSNBC.

    -The article might not say that. I just stated it based on the fact that he has lost advertisers, hence-

    There was such an article (or commentary by somebody) about the advertiser “boycott”. As I recall, FNC responded that, overall, they hadn’t lost any advertisers or any advertising revenue.

    J$ should remember this.

  42. Nice work missing the point, people. I believe there’s a loyalty gap between FNC’s audience and MSNBC’s, and losing KO would increase it. Why y’all decided to go on a tangent about the liberal-to-conservative ratio in this country is a mystery to me.

  43. ^ and my day isn’t even finished until someone calls me an…

    Idiot!

  44. Fart!

  45. Reportedly, more liberals watch FNC than watch MSNBC.

    I doubt it’s liberals, Al. Democrats, probably… which is a big difference. And, they could be majority conservative Democrats, for all we know.

    As I recall, FNC responded that, overall, they hadn’t lost any advertisers or any advertising revenue.

    Do you think Fox News would actually have the guts to admit that the boycott by Color of Change actually had an effect on his loss of advertisers? Obviously, they would try and rationalize it and just claim that the advertisers were moved to other programs. To my knowledge, that’s been their only real response since the boycott started. So, they can pretty much say all they want, and it doesn’t mean much.

  46. starbroker Says:

    Prog Lib claimed:
    An article I read from the NYT where inside sources from FNC said that Beck’s show is being seen as “empty calories” for lacking in sufficient advertisers, which is losing the network money. Additionally, Roger Ailes complaining about Beck’s “non-Fox ventures”.>

    Of course you made up about the network losing money. And studies have shown that Beck hasn’t lost any advertisers from the Boycott. Even the month before the boycott started, almost all his top advertisers were direct buy sponsors. Nothings changed. Is his show getting a lower CPM than some of the other shows on the network. Of course, but he was doing that before the boycott as well.

    But it really doesn’t matter if Beck is getting a 20% less rate than The Factor or other shows. He’s bringing in alot of ad revenue.

    BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, he has really made the network far more valuable.

    Thats why one of the firms talked about how FNC could go from getting .75 per month to $1.25 or so.

    Beck is going to be responsible for helping to bring in an additional HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS a year when their affiliate fee is renegotiated.

    Keith hasn’t not helped MSNBC at all get a rise in their affiliate fee. When NBC last got a penny increase (thats it! LOL) it was due to the Olympics! But because of Krazy Keith, MSNBC has lost around 4 million homes. And he’s cost them .16 a month in those 4 million homes. Keith helps MSNBC LOSE $$$$$$.

  47. starbroker Says:

    KEITH HAS HAD A HARD YEAR

    I mean, you get your girlfriend a job at the WEATHER CHANNEL and soon after she gets the job she dumped the guy. OUCH!!!

    Talk about a bad year!

    Of course, you’ve got to feel bad for Katy as well. Cute girl but who would date her? It would be like in OFFICE SPACE. You did Lumburgh?! Lumburgh?! How could anyone dating her get that imagine of Keith out of their head?! Only consolation, ,I guess, is the guy would only have to last 10 seconds to beat Keith =) ha ha

  48. the news that Maddow is his only on air friend

    I think that’s more inference on your part than actual fact. I think Kurtz was referring to Maddow’s commentary on Olbermann’s suspension, not whether Maddow was literally his only friend inside MSNBC.

  49. Starbroker, I may be an a-hole at least once a day, but you are an IDIOT full time.

  50. Prog/Lib:
    No, obviously not all of those 40% of self-described moderates watch Fox. Or even all of that 40% of conservatives.

    But what on MSNBC (prime time) might be attractive to a moderate or even conservative? Maddow? Maybe. Who else? A moderate might watch a Greta or Geraldo or probably an O’Reilly. Maybe even a few liberals. Fox is way ahead here.

    Really, what in the prime time does MSNBC have to offer centrists?

    Again simply (broad strokes) looking at the numbers: a liberal POV network in a, right now, largely center-right country is simply going to have a tougher time attracting a core audience than a conservative POV network (and how is MSNBC going to attract more moderates when they do things like the election coverage?).

    I don’t know what the breakdown of MSNBC’s audience is by ideology. Anyone?

  51. Of course you made up about the network losing money.

    Try and register this in your head, star. If one loses advertisers, they are losing money. I clarified that the article might not say outright that they are “losing money”, but it’s a cause and effect situation.

    And studies have shown that Beck hasn’t lost any advertisers from the Boycott.

    I’d love to see this “study”, star. At least I issued a source. Where is yours?

    KEITH HAS HAD A HARD YEAR

    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/images/swftur.jpg

    OlbermannWatch is not a real source, star. You might as well just rely on the tabloid trash from New York Post’s “Page Six”. They tried skewering Keith for years, and it failed badly. OW just has too much time on its hands to give up.

    P.S. What JR said.^

  52. I can’t disagree with anything you just stated, steve. You might very well be right, and maybe, with this center-right country we have, figures like Olbermann, Maddow, etc., scare away the moderates and independents. I just don’t think it’s fair to say that ALL of them are being pushed away because of their liberalism. And, you clarified that, which was my only real point. So, yeah.

  53. starbroker Says:

    You can look in Media Week, Variety and others have covered the Boycott not having any effect on FNC’s revenue. None at all.

    Also, the advertisers who were on Becks show (that are claimed to have been lost) were not Beck advertisers. They were just ads placed on his show. RUN OF SCHEDULE. You know nothing about Beck and the boycott.

    Steve: From Pew 2008 study:

    Then from a Pew Study in 2008.

    Fully 51% of CNN’s regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans. MSNBC’s audience makeup is similar – 45% of regular viewers of MSNBC are Democrats, 18% are Republicans.

    The regular audience for the Fox News Channel continues to include more Republicans than Democrats. Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are Democrats; in 2006,

    Once again, Fox News viewership is most in line with the country, while MSNBC and CNN are out of balance.

  54. “Once again, Fox News viewership is most in line with the country, while MSNBC and CNN are out of balance.”

    ^So what?

  55. “the news that Maddow is his only on air friend

    I think that’s more inference on your part than actual fact. I think Kurtz was referring to Maddow’s commentary on Olbermann’s suspension, not whether Maddow was literally his only friend inside MSNBC.”

    I’m not inferring anything Spud; It’s what the article says:

    “At one point all sides seem to agree: with the exception of Maddow … Olbermann has no major allies left at 30 Rock.”

    Seems pretty definitive to me.

  56. Fritz, I think he’s trying to impress upon us that FNC is more popular than the MSNBC and CNN, which apperently makes them “better”. In other news, a majority of the country thought According To Jim was good enough to keep on air for 8 years..

  57. lonestar77 Says:

    proglib:
    It has been reported (over & over) that any advertisers Beck lost simply moved to other FNC programs. FNC has lost zero ad revenue due to the stupid boycotts by idonthaveanythingbettertodo.org and weliketowhineaboutstuff.com

  58. OK, I listened to Keith and his little speech. I have no problem with it. I am going to rush out and buy all of the products that were advertized on Countdown.
    Do you wonderful people ever buy any product because of an ad? Call mo old fashioned, but, I go for out of style and cheep, but, looks classic.

  59. That was his best Special Comment since the first one, tackling my favorite subject: bullsh!t neutrality in place of truth. The Bush Administration fed us heaping piles of crap in the leadup to the iraq War, and nobody – including MSNBC or Ted Koppel – did any journalism on it.

  60. I think he’s trying to impress upon us that FNC is more popular than…

    Can’t speak to what he’s trying to do, but I think that most of us from both sides who whine and bitch about CNN & MSNBC are trying to impress upon those in charge at those two networks that we would appreciate and respond to quality news programming that is real competition to FNC. For the election coverage, CNN didn’t do well but they get points for trying. MSNBC didn’t even try.

  61. Funny I thought that too joe. I usually don’t watch the SC’s but that one was right on. If I were Koppel I’d let it go.
    Note: The AC 360 reference was to a segment on KO’s suspension. Nice touch.

  62. Note: The AC 360 reference was to a segment on KO’s suspension. Nice touch.

    Good catch. I had no idea what that was about.

  63. It has been reported (over & over) that any advertisers Beck lost simply moved to other FNC programs.

    Which proves the point that advertisers left HIS show… I never said the advertisers left the network. So, where am I wrong here?

  64. You’ll drive yourself crazy, PL. There’s some lunatic on FNC seeing communists in the concrete and accusing rich liberals of abetting the Holocaust, and advertisers are terrified of him. But somehow he miraculously hasn’t suffered an advertiser problem because they’re “still on the network”. Good luck with that logic..

  65. The ‘logic’ is that these boycotts are having no effect on the network overall, which is the obvious intent. These people aren’t suddenly going to approve of Fox if Beck goes away. Fox isn’t losing revenue, and Beck ain’t leaving. They got bupkus.

  66. ^ Besides Beck needs ad time to sell those end of the world survivalist food backpacks. 😉

  67. ^ Hey, a buck’s a buck..

  68. The boycotts are laughable. Mainstream companies didn’t need help from liberal groups to discern that Glenn Beck is a bad bet. Beck is fine because FNC is fine. If they were counting on him for ad revenue..

  69. After a while though, you’d think he was co-hosting that show with G. Gordon.

  70. lonestar77 Says:

    “I never said the advertisers left the network. So, where am I wrong here?”

    Here:
    “An article I read from the NYT where inside sources from FNC said that Beck’s show is being seen as “empty calories” for lacking in sufficient advertisers, which is losing the network money. ”

    Here:
    ” If one loses advertisers, they are losing money.”

    Oh, & here:
    “I just stated it based on the fact that he has lost advertisers, hence, it’s probably losing the network money.”

    Despite efforts from people whose employment consists of professional boycotts, the network hasn’t lost any money.

  71. I assume if Beck is costing his network revenue that they’d either demand a change to how he does his show or cancel it. Few people I know watch his show, so I suspect his value to the network is in bringing viewers,who would otherwise not do so, in to sample other FNC shows.

  72. Prove how I’m wrong, LS. Just relaying my quotes back to me saying I’m wrong because you say so, especially when I’ve been consistent in my claims, isn’t enough. I stated that Beck’s advertisers left HIS show, which you basically reiterated by saying they went to another program. Okay, fine. So, where’s the disagreement? You’re not denying they left Beck’s show.

    I know JR says I should let it go, but I can’t stand what I consider to be stupidity. If lefties like us let it go, people like you would be able to make your irrational points without opposition.

  73. You kept saying that Beck was causing the network to lose money. Not correct. But, go ahead and fight the fight! Power to the people!

  74. What PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL doesn’t grasp is the FACT that the ones who “won’t advertise on his show” never bought time on his show in the first place.

    I told you about the RUN OF SCHEDULE ads. That’s what happeneed. They weren’t buying time on Beck. They just bought them on ROS. Some aired during Becks time. Some whined and those got moved to other shows in the schedule.

    He hasn’t lost any advertisers or revenue. Almost all his advertisers from before the boycott were direct buy advertisers.

    Give it a break. You don’t know what you are talking about.

  75. — power to the —

    We stand in awe of his ‘rationality’, which apparently includes retroactive editing of previous comments.

  76. Did Olby really say that he’s criticized Obama more this week than FNC criticized Bush in 8 years? Apparently, Olby & Maddow just assume that their viewers are morons? O’Reilly’s latest column titled “Fox-a-phobia” pretty much sums up the nuttiness coming from MSNBC. If there were ever a dude that took himself WAY too seriously, it would be Olbermann.

  77. “We stand in awe of his ‘rationality’, which apparently includes retroactive editing of previous comments.”

    He’s kinda like Olbermann in that regard. “I never said…”. Dude, it’s right freaking there. Or in Olbermann’s case, it’s right freaking there (on video)…thanks to J$.

  78. […] with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: