Keith Olbermann—A Memorial Tribute

| presents a tribute to Keith Olbermann, who was suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for violating company ethics policies by making unauthorized donations to three Democrats seeking federal office earlier this year.

He will be missed.

NEXT: Don't Fear the Briar Patch, Matt Taibbi

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, just how long do you think his vacation will be?

    1. I think he’s burnt his last bridge at MSNBC. He’s never going to find another major news network that will put up with his blatant partisan diatribes disguised as Murrow-esque truthiness.

      It was bad enough that msnbc -MSNBC!!- couldn’t defend his hypocrisy, but even comedy central wouldn’t pretend that he’s imparti-……….oh wait.

      Yeah, that’s totally where he’s going.

      Next on Comedy Central:


      1. Fox News needs to hire him.

        Make it happen, Fox!

      2. Neither Lewis Black nor Olberman are capable of anything like “argument”. At least Black admits he’s a comedian. But he’s equally execrable.

      3. uh, Tman … you’re not seriously one of these people who’s OUTRAGED ! that a cable news host has political opinions right? I mean, it’s 2010 and we’re still playing this game where we all pretend the guy with the multi-million dollar contract never even thought about politics before he landed the job, and certainly has no opinions or perspectives of his own.

        OMG OLBERMAN’S A DEMOCRAT ! Who knew? Who fucking cares? Next you’ll tell me Hannity kinda likes Republicans some times.

  2. What a big “meh.” He gave some of his personal money to three Democrats (hardly three of the most liberal ones you can imagine at that). I have to be honest, I could care less if Hannity or O’Reilly gave money to GOPers. To be further honest I wouldn’t care if any journalist gave money to any candidate, as long as they tried to play it fair in their job as a journalist.

    1. MNG|11.5.10 @ 10:10PM|#
      “What a big “meh.”

      “Olbermann acknowledged to NBC that he donated $2,400 apiece to the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona Reps. Raul Grivalva and Gabrielle Giffords.
      NBC News prohibits its employees from working on, or donating to, political campaigns unless a special exception is granted by the news division president ?”

      Yep, violating your contract is worth a ‘meh’ from those who, what, find contracts bong-lighters?

      1. OMG! OMG! His CONTRACT!

        Still “meh” Contractarian. Besides, the point of my post is that such a contract provision for such an employee is silly.

        1. It may be silly, but it is the contract he signed. I don’t have a problem with TV personalities donating money to candidates either, but they need to consider that such donations might tarnish their journalistic creds. That said, Olbermann is not a journalist so much as a bloviating buffoon, and I celebrate his violation of contract with glee.

          MNG, I don’t think that even you could justify government not enforcing that contract simply because it has a silly clause. Then again, my prejudice makes me think that you probably supported GM’s secured creditors getting the shaft when poor, oppressed union workers could have suffered. Maybe I’m wrong about that one though.

          1. I think people can and should be held to contracts for the most part, I just think it is a goofy contract provision.

            1. So if one party decides, in their stupidity, that a portion of the contract is “silly”, it’s perfect;y OK to ignore it?
              I’d comment on your integrity if I thought you had any.

              1. That isn’t what MNG is saying. I agree with him that it is a stupid provision. True, it is in his contract, so he gets what he gets, but that doesn’t mean that I’m happy. I don’t like to see my enemies punished on a technicality.

                1. I think he’s saying that it’s silly of MSNBC to fire him over such a minor contract quibble.

                  Personally, I think it’s fairly obvious that they are firing him because he’s ratings poison, and this breach of contract just has very convenient timing.

                  1. His show is/was the highest rated on MSNBC, so that’s not a valid reason.

                    He probably pissed off his bosses and he’ll be back in a week or so.

                    1. But not highest rated when compared to all the other media outlets,

                    2. His show is/was the highest rated on MSNBC.

                      Tallest midget.

            2. Then you should negotiate Keith’s next one.

              At Costco.

      2. But MSNBC promised him a job! A promise is more important than a contract!

        [impersonation of MNG from the GM secured creditors vs. UAW debate way back when]

        1. My position is that a third party should not have their promises disregarded or demoted to a promise made by two other parties that the two parties designate as “special” (secured). If I have a contract with you, and you have a contract with a third party that designates that contract as “special” and superior to mine why should that affect our promise?

          1. Except that designation of parties as secured or unsecured is ALSO a contractual obligation, and it requires no consent from the unsecured party. Secured creditors are given forfeiture rights to assets (usually) in the order of contract establishment, whereas unsecured ones are not, and are left with what remains.

            If I have a mortgage and $25,000 in credit card debt, my mortgage company is entitled to sell my assets to satisfy my obligation to them before the credit card company can. Aside from number of parties and complexity of finance, there is little difference in the basic legality.

            If the roles were reversed and somehow the UAW was secured, would you be advocating for the rights of investors? I think not.

            1. > Secured creditors are given forfeiture rights to assets (usually)
              > in the order of contract establishment, whereas
              > unsecured ones are not, and are left with what remains.

              Unless the law gives preferential treatment to unsecured creditors.

              Which is why Heritage Lakes was able to seize Michael Clauer’s $300,000 house which the Clauers owned free-and-clear.

              But to libertarians, any fine print in a document called a contract, even if it is was never signed and is unilaterally amendable by one party, will lead to situations where favored corporations

              have enormous power. In 33 states, they can foreclose without a court order over a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues.The process in Texas is especially quick?just 27 days. Texas HOAs have been bedeviled by allegations that they are taking advantage of the law. Some have even been accused of specifically targeting people who own their homes free and clear?like the Clauers did?so that they can flip the house and make a profit. Until the laws are reformed so that it’s harder to take people’s homes over a few hundred bucks, you’re going to keep seeing these sorts of stories.

              To libertarians ignorant of Rational Choice Theory, the idea of “unconscionability” should not apply. In their Ayn Randian utopia, we’d all be subject to

              “repressive libertarianism,” where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people’s liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty.

              1. > unilaterally amendable by one party

                I have altered the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.

    2. Did Hannity or O’Reilly anchor election coverage? I don’t really care either, but I suspect this has more to do with another identity change for MSNBC.

      1. No Sid, they did not anchor Fox’s election coverage. They did appear as pundits to express their opinions, but the anchors were the hard news guys which is the way it’s supposed to be. Which is the way it was on EVERY SINGLE network…except MSNBC.

        1. Their coverage had a MST feel.
          With the open mocking of their guests and what not.

          1. A couple glasses of whiskey, a big stinky Honduran cigar, and hour after hour of the MSNBC crew shitting their pantsuits, while trying to keep their brave face on. I dreamed about it all day, and if anything, it was even more awesome than I had dared to hope. That was the most fun I’ve had watching TV in five years. I’m already looking forward to the next one.

    3. I agree about the ‘meh’. It’s a pissing match here between management and the worker about whether to enforce a stupid contractual term. Dunno if it will be all that easy to replace Olbermann with someone who can get comparable viewership, or whether one or both will make nice and get him back to work.

      * insert standard libertarian boilerplate here about how it’s the employer’s right to have and enforce random and idiotic contractual terms mutually agreed upon. *

      1. “* insert standard libertarian boilerplate here about how it’s the employer’s right to have and enforce random and idiotic contractual terms mutually agreed upon. *”

        Which pretty much means the rest of your comment is worthless.

        1. Which pretty much means the rest of your comment is worthless.

          Not in the least.

          If a man cheats on his wife everyone can agree it is legal to do so…we do not all have to agree it was the right thing to do.

        2. Wrong Sevo! Olb signed the contract. Whether it is stupid or not is not relevant.

          I for one, will NOT miss him.

          1. John,
            I’m arguing *your* side.

      2. Thirteen days ago in the New York Times:

        Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, and others strenuously object to the idea that Fox and MSNBC are opposite sides of the same coin. “Show me an example of us fund-raising,” he said in a recent interview.

        Violating company policy is one thing. Violating it in a way that will embarrass your boss is another.

        And Griffin’s boss up at NBC News had just “recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity[.]” There was an exception carved out for commentators, but Olbermann has a journalist contract.

        1. This could be because Olby is supposedly a journalist and it embarasses the hell out of NBC News. Or it could be because everyone at MSNBC and NBC hates him. Either way, the donation excuse is just that.

          1. I assume that the real reason for the firing is because someone higher up doesn’t like Olbermann and was looking for an excuse to ditch him. In terms of their lineup, his likability seems far less than Laurence O’Donnell or Maddow.

            1. This whole thing has “Jack Donaghy” written all over it.

          2. If they were capable of being embarrassed, they wouldn’t have hired him in the first place.

        2. Good point about embarrassing the boss. Also, as someone elsewhere pointed out, suspending a $4(?) million/year guy without pay saves the company a chunk of change (about $11,000 a day).

          1. He makes 4 million a year for that? Hell, I could fake it twice as well for half as much.

            1. No you could not. The man is highly intelligent and I doubt you match it, nor would you have his chops. Sorry

              1. “highly intelligent”

                I was gonna challenge this, but usually this phrase is reserved for advanced alien species, so I’ll allow it.

          2. Good point about embarrassing the boss. Also, as someone elsewhere pointed out, suspending a $4(?) million/year guy without pay saves the company a chunk of change (about $11,000 a day).

            I’ll do it for half that, starting out.

            To bloviate or not to bloviate, that is the question.

        3. Yeah, because if it hadn’t been for this revelation, I would have assumed Keith Olbermann had no political agenda and was just playing it all straight down the middle. Good thing he’s gone. Can’t have anything like political bias interfering with the honest and objective analysis we get from Maddow, Chris Matthews, Schultz or O’Donnell.

        4. “Violating it in a way that will embarrass your boss is another.”

          OMG, you embarrassed your beloved boss!

          Sometimes you guys can be regular toadies I tells ya.

          1. MNG, if you had ever had a real job, you would understand it’s not wise to embaress the boss. Right or wrong, it’s the sign of a stupid, arrogant person to do so.

            1. I have a real job, and I don’t have to be a syncophant for my boss. I offer him my skills and time and he pays me, we both are winners. Boss worship is for toadies.

              1. Minge, you are being especially obtuse today.

                So, if I say: “If you publicly embarrass your boss, then you will most likely be fired.”, then I am a boss worshipping toadie. Nope, you are wrong minge.

                This is just a known fact, and stating it does not implicitly, or explicitly, endorse it.

                Besides, you are Mr. Sanctity of Contract when it comes to six-figure city stiffs.

                1. It’s one thing to say it is not wise, it is another thing to say it is some horrible wrong.

                  1. The only place that those things were said is in your own mind.

              2. Being an ass on H&R does not constute a real job no matter what Welch is paying you.

              3. MNG, you’re fired!

                1. I imagined this in Mr. Spacely’s voice from the Jestons.

                2. I imagined this in Mr. Spacely’s voice from the Jetsons.

              4. Don’t forget to wipe down the fry machine.

          2. qui facit per alium, facit per se.

      3. Dunno if it will be all that easy to replace Olbermann with someone who can get comparable viewership

        You mean MSNBC may not be able to find someone who will draw 3 viewers a night?

        Man, they suck more than I thought.

        Besides, MSNBC, like FOX, is nothing more than a circle jerk anyways. The people who watch MSNBC will watch whothefuckever they put in KO’s place.

        1. Before he got there they only had one viewer.

    4. MNSNBC can fire and hire who they want for what ever reason they want. But yeah it is very lame policy.

      1. So you won’t be working for MSNBC as a “journalist” then?

        1. So you won’t be working for MSNBC as a “journalist” then?

          As i have no experience talent or training as a journalist plus the fact that i have a job in completely different profession…

          …my guess is probably not.

    5. He gave some of his personal money to three Democrats

      More to the point, he failed to perform according to the terms of his contract, so they canned his ass.


    6. I agree with you, MNG. I just don’t give a crap how some commentator on the idiot box spends his or her disposable income.

      Olbermann is an insufferable ass but that’s beside the point. MSNBC has a serious case of rectal cranial inversion if they think this asinine policy is somehow going to convince the viewers (and we’re talking literally dozens of people) that they are fair and impartial disseminators of news and commentary.

  3. Does anyone else find his latter day Edward R Murrow shtick to be the worst thing about him?

    1. Same here, but I’ll have less of a problem with it if he starts chain smoking through his entire broadcast when he comes back from vacation.

      Earn it Keith.

    2. No. The worst think about Keith is how he using a sarcastic tone of voice when relaying the latest, convoluted, Democratic conspiracy theory about the right…BUT HE’S ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS!

      Uh, Keith, you’re doing it wrong.

    3. Edward R. Murrow be rollin’ in his muthafuckin’ grave, by being compared to That Fuckstain Olbermann.

      Oh, and Matt Drudge: No one’s buying your version, either. No one sane, anyway.

      1. Goddamnded Drudge!

        Providing links and such. Blocking the actual truthiness of the rest of the inernet for the rest of us with his gawdy page of simple links to other websites.

        1. truthiness

          Someone used the word “newsy” in another thread.

          If everyone continues this trend of sounding like Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters i swear to fucking god i will freak the fuck out!!

        2. LOL! How dare Drudge link to other sites with various viewpoints!
          I never understood the anger the libs express against Drudge. Still don’t.

          1. I meant his old-timey press guy schtick.

      2. “Oh, and Matt Drudge: No one’s buying your version, either. No one sane, anyway.”

        Yeah, but the hat is a nice touch though.

        I actually do like how Drudge inspires pompous reflections by the professional journalists on the sancitity of their profession.

        1. That’s what I meant earlier… the hat, the whole 1940s-style reporter schtick.

          Still, I’ll take him over MediaMyrmidons any day of the week.

    4. He’s more of a Bill McNeal ripoff in the first place.

  4. Actually, anyone from MSNBC who participated in their Election Night Coverage should be suspended without pay. That was the saddest thing I have ever seen on television.

    1. But Democrat tears are so yummy.

      1. Welch, are you picking on the children again?

    2. I approve fully of their hilarious election night coverage. When the poo hits the fan, those liberals can really put on a wild show.

  5. Am I the only person here who finds it ironic that the network that hired The Weigel–despite it all–is the same network that’s firing Olbermann for…

    Wasn’t The Weigel on Olbermann’s show once? Over this very issue? That’s gotta be stickin’ in at least one of Olbermann’s dozens of craws.

    1. It was Weigel’s feature about Lobster Girl from another thread.

  6. Ahhhm, scoop…:

    sevo|11.5.10 @ 4:23PM|#
    And since this thread is on its way to oblivion:
    “NBC suspends Olbermann for donations”
    ” “Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”…..245D05.DTL
    Or your fave AP reseller.
    (see…..o#comments )

    1. Uh, what?

      In Defense of Keith Olbermann

      Posted on November 5, 2010, 2:08PM | Michael C. Moynihan…..-olbermann

      1. Nuts, missed it….

  7. It is too bad that he has been suspended. Voices of reason are becoming increasingly rare, and the ones left are being drowned out by the shrill, irrational cries of the “tea party” libertards.

    1. Up thy ass with Mobil gas – happy motoring!

      1. Yeah? Well, up your gizzard with a thunder lizard!

    2. For a “voice of Reason” he sure posted on this site infrequently. Did he not know he was a “voice of Reason”?

      1. He comments here as MNG, Tony and Chad. Expect more during the vacation.

    3. libertards?

      Really – that’s the best you got?

    4. Hey Chony, is that scarcasm or are you serious? You may very well be the first person I’ve ever heard say the the Olb is a “Voice of Reason”. Who’s your other hero? Franken? Biden?


      1. Chony never refers to himself as Chony.

    5. Yes guys, Chony to the max, is a real troll, but he is no regular troll. He is the mecha troll that is assembled from the various other trolls. A super-troll as it were.

    6. I thought the comment was over the top, but apparently this was a good spoof troll; you got a lot of bites.

  8. Does MSNBC seriously believe that we didn’t already know Olbermann was biased, liberal schmuck?

    1. Exactly. Just like we know for certain that you’re a sniveling right-wing asshole.

      1. Fart.

        And that can’t be stressed enough here.

      2. But it’s okay to be a sniveling LEFT-wing asshole. I should know.

        1. At least you’re honest about it.


    2. You can’t be biased if you only speak the truth. Oh, right, the libertards can’t handle the truth, so they think anyone who speaks it is biased.

      1. Biased^^^

        1. Fart

          1. Da da ding ding ding ding ding ding…

            1. ding.

              Sorry, short a ding.

      2. libertard?

        You need some new writers you statist hack.

  9. I hadn’t noticed that one of the people he donated to was Rand Paul’s opponent. That makes it all even better.

    It’s also funny how Keith must have known something that even many conservatives don’t: Paul was one of the few from the GOP who was actually likely to cut any spending in any way significant.

    1. Coincidentally, he’s also the least likely to be a saber-rattler once he’s in.

    2. Olbermann has learned the hard way, don’t fuck with Aqua Buddha.

  10. This is one of the dumber things GE has done.

    But if GE is going to do stupid shit and fuck someone, there’s no better person to fuck than Olberdoodle. Unless we can get Immelt “suspended indefinitely.”

    1. Isn’t Immelt on his way to India for teh festival of lights and some curry-steeped bidness? Who could his travel-mates be?

      Again, fart…

    2. there’s no better person to fuck than Olberdoodle

      That is something that has never, ever been said or written before, even out of pity.

    3. Was it GE, or was it Comcast? When are they scheduled to take over? Think they have some say already on operations?

      1. WTF. Spelld my naame wron, againn.

    4. GE? What you mean to say is Comcast. Immelt never had any operational control anyway, that’s now how GE CEO’s operate.…../index.htm

  11. How long do we have to wait until Keith comes out? Is this why he is taking some time off?

    1. Olbermann used to fuck Laura Ingraham. If he has turned gay its her fault.

      1. Try following the link next time. It rounds out the joke.

      2. HA! He isn’t man enough for Laura. She could emascalate him with a look.

  12. This is all so ridiculous. Giving money to a political campaign doesn’t in any way make you less objective. It is merely an indicator of what your political views are. If you are barred from giving money, that won’t somehow magically make you a perfect (and mythical) objective journalist.
    Receiving money from a politician, or politcal group, on the other hand, should be barred (or clearly disclosed), as that certainly could shift a newsperson’s bias.
    Of course, any private news organization has the right to make any stupid rules that it wants to, so I’m not too upset about Olbermann being suspended.


      but I’m not too upset..

    2. The objective is not to be objective. The objective is to appear to be objective.

  13. The dumbass shoulda stuck with sportscasting. He was actually sorta good at that. Maybe while he was doing that he wished he could run out onto the field and actually play. He got his dream fulfilled by jumping into political coverage/commentary, even if it did come off like a three year old wandering out onto the interstate.

    1. He was actually sorta good at that.


  14. Olber Man!

  15. Okay, Moynihan defends Olberman, and this tribute seems to be sarcastic. I’m confused – am I supposed to be relieved or outraged by his suspension?

    1. That question totally hinges on where you come down on the whole SF Happy Meal issue.

      Robble robble…

    2. Think for yourself!

  16. (sniff) Perhaps he can get a job on Fox. (sniff)

    1. They contract out for janitorial services, probably.

    2. Fox should offer him Colmes old position opposite Hannity. He’d never take it, but the insult and humiliation of such an offer would be priceless.

      1. I hated Frogface.

      2. He can always grow back his John C. Holmes mustache and do goat porn.

      3. McDonald’s should offer him a McRib.

      4. I wouldn’t mind seeing Hannity and Olbermann beat each other to a bloody pulp.

      5. I actually really like the idea of Hannity and Olbermann. They’re both loathesome, and even when I agree with something they say I hate how they argue it.

        Plus, it would be really strange seeing Olbermann in a situation opposite someone who disagrees with him. Hannity used to have Colmes, but Olbermann has only had brief co-appearances with Scarborough. The two echo chambers should be merged.

  17. I take issue with the fact that Olbermann’s face didn’t pop up at the very end to scream “NOT!”. Hire some new video editors,

  18. “Tell me Mr. Roark, what do you think of me? I’m dying to know,” prattled Olbermann.

    “But Mr. Olbermann, I don’t think of you” said Roark.

    1. Bzzt. Someone in favor of government-controlled currency and TARP does not get to quote Objectivism.

      1. I’ve never understood why people accuse objectivists of being rigid…

        1. I have never understood why being intellectually and philosophically “rigid” is viewed as a bad thing.

      2. Bzzt. Objectivism doesn’t cancel out freedom of speech.

        1. So..wait…are you trying to stifle my “freedom of speech”?

          How ridiculous. We could do this all day.

      3. Someone whose philosophy is spread by a publicly available book does not get to control who quotes from that book.

        Maybe you guys need to get together with the Scientologists to make sure your sacred writings are not publicized by the unworthy.

        1. Tulpa, Tulpa, Tulpa,

          You’re glib.

  19. He should not have been fired. MSNBC can fire who it wants still it is a really fucking lame policy.

    1. They didn’t fire him because “suspended indefinitely” is essentially meaningless, since they can bring him back anytime. They’re just waiting for this to blow over so they can bring him back.

      They were most likely using him as a pawn, to show they are less “biased” then Fox.

    2. Remember, this is the same network that fired Don Imus over his “nappy headed ho’s” comment, allegedly to “show its employees” its “commitment” to a harassment-free workplace.

      Having said this, I still suspect it was an excuse to dump overpaid talent who’s ratings did not justify his pay.

      1. dump overpaid talent who’s ratings did not justify his pay.

        If they do not have a clause in everyone’s contract saying they can fire them for not getting ratings then it is no wonder MSNBC consistently gets its ass handed to it by Fox news.

        I suspect his contributions are the reason….choosing a positions that has more fallout then firing because his ratings suck seems kind of odd.

  20. Why does a train wreck like Olbermann’s show get such bad ratings? Usually the more ridiculous your crap is, the better the ratings. He should be killing them.

    1. He was MSNBC’s ratings leader. That’s why he had such a long leash.

      1. Being MSNBC’s ratings leader is about like being the star quarterback at Notre Dame. An increasingly irrelevant distinction.

        Oh, sorry NBC, for bringing up the Notre Dame reference.

  21. How is it “lame policy” to ask for permission to give money to your interviewees?

    1. Cuz 2600$ is chicken feed.

      It is not as if you cannot deduce who Olberman supports from watching his show for 10 min. Contribution or no contribution.

      If MSNBC thinks that its viewers (and everyone else on the planet who know who he is) do not know Olbermann is biased then they need to give what they are smoking to Nick.

  22. Rachel Maddow Censorship


    1. Ugh, it’s sad to see so many people swallow the 9/11 conspiracy b.s. They are so easily countered with basic logic and basic physics.

      1. Metal plasticity is a couple millennia removed from basic physics. Sad doesn’t begin to describe these people.

        1. PapayaSF & Sidd Finch
          Protecting the Mass Murder criminals?
          Pretending to believe the official government 9/11 story?

          1. Ron Paul never endorsed 9/11 Truth or even gave it any public consideration/question-asking etc. He just attracted a lot of supporters who believed it.

          2. Tin foil manufacturers should advertise on the Alex Jones show, they would make a fortune.

          3. The main problem with the theories is that they make no logical sense. If “insiders” wanted to blow up the towers and blame terrorists, why not just do that? Why bother trying to recruit suicidal hijackers and hope they succeed in hijacking the planes and in hitting their targets (without severing the wires needed for the explosives)? Just rig the buildings, blow them up with everybody still in them, and blame terrorists. It’s much simpler, much less to go wrong, and would produce a higher body count. (Of course, it’s hard to rig a building for demolition without the people in it noticing, but that’s another issue.)

            Sorry, the unarguable events of the day indicate it was not an “inside job.”

            1. Your comment makes too much sense. You must be part of THE CONSPIRACY.

              1. Mwa-ha-ha!

                Seriously, though, I have the same problem with JFK conspiracies: if that was an inside job, why not just drop something into his coffee one morning or switch his meds? “A tragic heart attack, nothing suspicious.” You’re going to cover up the autopsy anyway, right? So what’s the point of hiring an oddball loner and the guys on the Grassy Knoll, hoping they’re all good shots and won’t talk and won’t be seen, and doing it in front of hundreds of witnesses?

                (I argued this on a BBS years ago, and the response was “they wanted to send a message.” Er, what? A secret conspiracy wants to send a message by committing an assassination in public when they could have done it, you know, secretly?)

                1. I still think South Park had the right take on the whole thing.

  23. Michael Monyihan? Is that you? You suck, you conservative schill.

    1. Now, now Groper, what have I told you about sticks and stones.

    2. Now, now Groper, what have I told you about sticks and stones.

  24. He’d be a great addition to Fox News, actually. They at least seem to feature dissenting voices from time to time, he’d make for interesting TV debating with some of those other asshats.

    1. Actually Mike, they offer desenting voices more often than any other cable or network show. Not just “from time to time”.

  25. What on earth was the context of Olbermann blurting out “fart” on his show?

    1. Christine O’Donnel’s concession speech.

      Makes sense, right?

  26. So, they say they miss him?

    Next time close one eye.

  27. Oh, the humanity! The mighty Olbertard has struck out!

    1. I sent that. Fart!

  28. Olbermann is a bitter partisan masquerading as a journalist. His ratings say it all.

    1. Isn’t “bitter partisan” in his opening graphic sequence somewhere? I think he’s loathsome, and the ethical stakes on this a nearly to wispy too measure. But when analysis IS made, this firing was a mistake… Like a busboy falsely accused to of stealing beer when the steakhouse is closed for the night and the cook has gone home.

      1. Except for the fact that he actually did what he’s accused of, which is kind of an important point.

      2. I worked at a hotel once where the bar manager caught a busboy stealing the O’douls!
        He was two kinds of stupid..

        1. Which, if you think about it, is exactly the same as Olberman’s transgression.

    2. I always find it interesting when people think that a news organization or show’s ratings verify the accuracy and/or excellence of said organization or show.

      If that’s the case then eat this conservative:…

      1. *cries*

  29. MSNBC can hire and fire whoever they want for whatever made-up reason they want, but we can still use this occasion as another reason to not respect them, because they’re simply lying.

    People have complained in the past about Scarborough and Buchanan donating money and time to GOP candidates, and MSNBC issued official statements saying that their policy against doing so doesn’t apply to opinion journalists.

    There’s no way – absolutely no way – that Olbermann wasn’t an opinion journalist. Claiming he’s not is like claiming Maddow isn’t a lesbian.

    I would respect MSNBC if they just came out and SAID, “He pissed off someone at corporate so they demanded we suspend him, when they would never have made the same demand about Scarborough”. Tell the truth, and I’ll insert the libertarian disclaimer. Be a little bitch about it and I won’t.

    1. Fluffy, he signed a journalist contract. These thing actually matter. If you weren’t such a dewb you would realize that.

      1. But, but….
        MNG says that part of the contract is “silly”!
        Doesn’t that mean he can ignore it?
        Or does it mean MNG is a brain-dead ignoramus? You decide?

    2. From what I understand, Scarborough and Buchanan got permission up front. Olberman, being the weasel he is, went behind their backs.

  30. Anyone notice this? =

    About 100,000 people signed a petition circulated by a progressive group. “Free Keith Olbermann!” wrote David Weigel, a Slate columnist and a contributor to MSNBC, who called cable news an “ever-evolving petri dish of political/journalistic ethics.”

    It should be no surprise to people here Weegs sides with the “progressives”… but I’m still always a little amazed that his time @ Reason seemed to not rub off on him at all.

    Also, I think it’s honest of him to admit that cable news is just so much bacteria and fungus.

    1. The “petri dish” line is a pretty good one. “Journalistic integrity” is still an inside joke at the few remaining “respectable” news organizations (and they, being a priesthood, take their oaths very seriously, wink wink) but their biases are well known to anyone who cares to listen, or cares at all. We peasants know when we are being lied to. We’re just a little more forgiving over those lies we agree with. Few are innocent.

  31. Olbermann will soon have a job as the cable network interview show czar.

  32. What? Why isn’t Sarah Palin beating her First Amendment war drums over the hideous injustice being done by the firing of Keith Olbermann?

    1. Thank you for advertising on H&R. Is your check in the mail?

    2. When you learn the difference between government curtailing speech, and curtailing speech agreed upon via contractual obligations, let me know.

      Run along now.

      1. Maybe he was making a reference to this incident.

    3. This isn’t a 1st amendment issue, fool. It’s a contract issue.

  33. Will I be missed, too?

  34. News organizations prohibiting political donations is pure bullshit. It doesn’t make you less partisan, it just makes you more dishonest.

    1. Actually, Warren is right. But when you sign a contract you dasmn well better honor it. Not to say that some contracts have not been ruled invalid.

    2. Doubly dishonest when you ignore the contract.

  35. Hey, saw this on the same site that had the Daily Show #1 among adult viewers post:

    Eva Mendes Drops Ayn Rand’s Name…..f=obinsite

    Mendes btw is super-hot.

    1. *Chris Tucker-esque* DAAAAAAAMN

    2. Unlike most super-hotties in film, she’s actually been a series of good movies too: Training Day, Once upon a time in Mexico, and Bad Lieutenant 2 among others.

  36. TJ from the Indo-Asian News Service.

    Indian politicians are known for making impromptu long speeches and perhaps that is why some parliament officials, who did not wish to be named, sounded rather surprised with the idea of a teleprompter for Obama. “We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,” an official, who did not wish to be identified because of security restrictions, said.

    (Emphasis added.)

    1. “We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,”

      Haw! Haw!

    2. They wouldn’t let me use one in the House of Commons, and my speeches suffered. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.

    3. Are there any trained orators in American politics anymore?

      1. We have as many trained orators as we have statesmen.

    4. Foreigners are so damned gullible, aren’t they? Being taken in by an obvious huckster like Obama. We Americans would never… oh, wait.

      1. Gimme an H!
        Gimme an O!
        Gimme a P!
        Gimme an E!
        What’s it spell?
        We don’t know! We don’t have a teleprompter!

    5. We thought Obama is a trained orator

      He is trained to orate. He is a pet Negro of the lefty hoity-toity trained to hoot out their accumulated wisdom.

      skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact

      A highly trained orator.

      1. Stupid and racist. GWB used teleprompter too. So what?

        1. If you don’t realize that Obama has been coddled his whole life because he is a Negro whom trust baby whites can keep around so that they can claim to have a black friend, then you haven’t spent enough time on the campuses of the finer universities.

          1. Uh, Obama was smacked around pretty good by the Chicago machine when he first broke into politics. There’s plenty to loathe about the man, but this silliness about how he’s been coddled all his life by people who thought he was the black Messiah is way off base.

        2. I am a tool.

  37. I think Olberman is just a petty little creep but who cares if he made donations to liberal democrats? I would have assumed he was doing so. Who cares?

    1. Who cares?

      His boss, obviously.

  38. Now Olbermann can spend his time looking for some younger men.

    1. [raises hand]

  39. Yeah, we WILL miss Keith— in the same way a 20 year cancer survivor misses cancer. (And I do apologize to cancer survivors the world over)

    1. I didn’t say he was a cancer patient, I said he was a cancer to his network and journalism in general.

  40. Will his replacement be the guy from The Nation or the guy from Mother Jones?

    1. They should get someone more toned down and serious, I was thinking that Max would do.

      1. Alan Grayson may have some free time soon.

        1. My choice would be Alvin Greene.

          1. Greene would be running around, snacking on the food from the dressing room all the time and avoiding the camera. OTOH, Grayson and Olbermann would be constantly fighting it out, seeing which one could out-hyperbole the other on the impending disaster the Republicans were about to commit. A story about the Republicans fighting a bill to add $500 million in weatherizing credits to the budgets would become “Geezers in Freezers!” with hundreds of thousands of elderly dying in a holocaust winter caused by global climate change because the Evul Republicans also voted against cap’n trade!

            I mean seriously, which would be more entertaining?

            1. Greene, definitely. He wouldn’t have to say a word.

              1. New show: Going Green(e)

                i.e. Alvin Greene and Dennis Green co-host. Best show ever, guaranteed.

                1. Crossfire with Alvin Greene and Christine O’Donnell.

                2. Keith Olbermann is who we thought he was!

    2. I’m thinking Christine O’Donnell. Teaming O’Donnell with Maddow would create that male/female pairing that advertisers so crave.

      1. Wait, wait… what about the Rent Is Too Damn High Party guy?

        OTOH, after an hour of “the rent is too damn high”, someone on the set might just grab something and beat him to death…

      2. Teaming O’Donnell with Maddow…

        …would be like combining matter with antimatter. What could happen?

  41. I didn’t realize he was that damn funny, every time I passed the channel he was doing is worst/worster/worsterest segment and/or a recap of FoxNews. Keith, if I wanted to know what was going on with FoxNews, I would just watch it.
    (Some other show besides RedEye when “the Jacket” is on.)

    1. Not even remotely possible. No way he was always doing worst segment, nor were they devoted to Fox even a plurality of the time. Reason==Hyperbole?

    2. MSNBC is obsessed with FOX News. And FOX mostly ignores them, which must make them even more insane. The best Rachel Maddow could do last night in defending her friend and fellow Democrat fluffer was to point out that some of FOX’s employees do it too. But they don’t have the same rules as NBC! It isn’t fair!

  42. Could this be a great publicity stunt by MSNBC brass and Keith? Make frowny faces at each other and cue up the Fox “hypocrisy” melody and the media sings along in a resounding chorus. Thus they give a show that’s plateaued a ton of fresh market awareness. It would be brilliant… a thousand times better than the terrible ad campaign.

  43. Let’s see. You couldn’t find a guy that represented state media better than the Olbermann. So he gets suspended for supporting their political campaigns.

    But that is what he gets paid for.

    The whole world is jumping the shark. Is it 1984 yet?

  44. Let’s see. You couldn’t find a guy that represented state media better than the Olbermann. So he gets suspended for supporting their political campaigns.

    But that is what he gets paid for.

    The whole world is jumping the shark. Is it 1984 yet?

  45. Mr Olberman is a disgrace to journalism. That’s why he is on MSNBC in the first place. MSNBC certainly doesn’t care about ethics, so maybe they just want to see if they can find somebody that will get better ratings. We’ll see!

    1. There will be quite a few new ex-Senators, ex-Governors and ex-Congressmen for MSNBC to choose from after last Tuesday.

  46. Thank god he’s gone. He was a pompous prick. I thought it was my fault after watching his election night coverage I wrote msnbs and said they should fire him.

  47. Sort of silly. I mean it is pretty obvious that Olberman is a Democrat shill. Is anyone really surprised that he donated to Democrats? It would be a surprise if he didn’t. He basically campaigns for them on his show. So isn’t it a little hypocritical of MSNBC to fire him for doing what everyone expects him to be doing? It’s not like MSNBC even tries to be bipartisan anyway. He was more entertaining anyway when he had Bush to pick on. Maybe what really happened is that he has been losing his audience.

    1. “So isn’t it a little hypocritical of MSNBC to fire him for doing what everyone expects him to be doing?”

      Regardless of MSNBC’s bias, he signed a contract stating he wasn’t to contribute without approval. He did so; MSNBC enforced the contract.
      What’s so hard to understand here?

      1. I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of him and they found a very convenient one.

        1. And why would your hypothesis be worth beans?
          Are you familiar with the concept of a “contract”?

  48. He will be missed about as much as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. No one considers him a journalist–he’s a liberal ENTERTAINER. Journalists are intended to be unbiased–he never even pretended to be anything but a far left baffoon.

  49. Does he mean “fart” as a noun or a verb? Is he telling us what to do or what he just did?

  50. “He will be missed?

    I watched him for 3 minutes two years ago,and then changed the channel. He was sickening in his lack of respect from anyone who was not a democrat, or who held liberal views.

    Impartial, this man couldn’t tell you what that means. He is like Phil Donehue: ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.

    I will pray for hime, but this is not a guy who boosts your company’s ratings. If I owned a News company, I would not hire him. He is one the main reasons I don’t watch MSNBC

  51. It is great not to hear this idiot’s rants. If MSNBC wants to hold the high ground by claiming not to be biased like the arch-enemy “Fox” then dipstick should have asked for permission to contribute to the candidates. I might start watching this network again, if they were to get rid of his puppy, Rachel Maddow as well.

    1. Dear MSNBC,

      We will watch your crappy “news” network when you eliminate Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell. Thank you for firing Keith Olbermann. It’s a start. We would be very happy if you fired Dylan Ratigan as well but it’s not a deal breaker. You can keep Tamron Hall but we would like her to start dressing like Nyota Uhura when she is working. We are waiting.

  52. Perhaps he should stay off permanently. As said previously, maybe his one viewer will miss him. Hey, Keith, join the ranks of the unemployed. Dip into your retirement. You won’t be missed.

  53. Yes, missed like a poke in the eye with a stick. I liked that comment.

  54. Maddow should be next. Viewership would increase. Leave Matthews on. He makes a fool of himself all the time. His show should be reclassified as “entertainment”.

    1. His show should be reclassified as “entertainment”.

      That’s just crazy talk.

  55. Could one – just one, ANY one – of you guys claiming you know exactly what’s in Olbermann’s contract produce the copy of the contract you’re reading from?

    Or maybe a link?


    1. Check your fave AP reseller. AP claims the contract states ‘no contributions without approval’ and our dramatic chipmunk hasn’t argued otherwise.

  56. He will be missed.

    That’s too bad, ‘cuz I was kinda hoping Olby’d go out like Howard Beale.

    1. That’s too bad, ‘cuz I was kinda hoping Olby’d go out like Howard Beale William Foster.

      1. I’d give my next two paychecks to see and hear Ed Schultz repeat his “I’m going to torch this fucking place” line. On-air. Live. With a studio full of Catholic pre-schoolers.

  57. Now that Keith is gone, what will the lunatic fringe do for a spokesman?

    1. They have a green room stuffed full of lunatics at MSNBC

  58. As with Juan Williams, there were probably other key factors in place. They had removed him from football casts because he was distracting and people complained. His numbers were dropping and there have been continual murmurings of harassment and abuse. No matter what your position, if you thumb your nose at provisions in your contract and then fail to deliver on goals, you will lose your job. That it makes me laugh is just gravy.

  59. Missed………..not likely!

  60. I apologize for comparing Olbermann to Tokyo Rose. That’s a serious insult – to Tokyo Rose.

    1. MSNBC requires discipline in the ranks. I am the man to bring it.

  61. Wait a minute! Rachel Maddow is a lesbian? No F’ing way!

  62. May he choke from his own bile!

  63. Damn, there are a lot of comments here. This is another one. Carry on.

  64. If anyone ever stuck by the idea to buy authentic gucci,come to us
    We set our Gucci store at Hong Kong, selling Authentic Gucci online now by a discounted price. As we all know,to buy fake Gucci is not only vulgar but also illegal, visit our store as we will teach you how to spot the fake Gucci,moreover, we’d like to offer chances to buy authentic gucci,gucci tote,gucci boston,gucci messenger,gucci hobo,gucci by gucci,gucci sukey in an affordable price, to extend our business to a larger scale.

  65. If anyone ever stuck by the idea to buy authentic gucci,come to us
    We set our Gucci store at Hong Kong, selling Authentic Gucci online now by a discounted price. As we all know,to buy fake Gucci is not only vulgar but also illegal, visit our store as we will teach you how to spot the fake Gucci,moreover, we’d like to offer chances to buy authentic gucci,gucci tote,gucci boston,gucci messenger,gucci hobo,gucci by gucci,gucci sukey in an affordable price, to extend our business to a larger scale.

  66. help, i want to buy authentic gucci, Thanks for sharing. i like gucci

  67. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.