Saturday, April 14, 2012
Gee, Keithy, That's a Dirty Rotten Friend You Got There in GE (With a Nod, Quite Obviously, to the Beave)
You'd think, wouldn't you, that a company like GE, which sends thousands of its jobs overseas, which paid literally not one penny in taxes last year, and which continued to do business with a country like Iran, even when they were supplying weaponry to our enemies in Iraq, would be the EXACT type of company that a principled individual like Keith Olbermann (sarcasm exceedingly dripping here) would want to avoid like the plague? Hm, could it possibly simply be nothing more than yet another individual pursuing his own rational self-interest? A possibility?.........................................................................................P.S. And as far as Mr. Olbermann "earning" this money, even that, folks, is a frigging stretch. I mean, the guy got beaten like a a cheap set of bongos nightly by O'Reilly, for Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Keith Olbermann and GE aren't "friends". GE purchased NBC which owns MSNBC. Keith Olbermann did not work directly for GE. I wouldn't even say he worked indirectly for GE. This is a stretch I'd expect from a hater such as yourself.
As for his salary, he negotiated it with MSNBC executives. Obviously they could have said no regarding the figure. Clearly they thought he was worth it (at least when the contract was signed). This is all "free market" and "right to contract" stuff I thought you conservatives treated like religious dogma. But, when we're talking about someone you don't like, you question it?
Keith Olbermann is single handedly responsible for the success MSNBC is today. That they treated him with such disrespect later on is unconscionable. Those who wronged Keith should be ashamed.
The convalescent home that work at is owned by a mother company. If it came to my attention that this company was doing things that were antithetical to my belief system, I would try very hard to seek some employment elsewhere.......Again, I could give a rat's ass what Keith Olbermann makes in terms of money (though I still can't quite figure out how a guy makes a 150% raise while getting thoroughly annihilated in the ratings). This is all about Mr. Olbermann's hypocrisy and selective indignation.
Olbermann is a left Limbaugh. Albeit with a signific.antly smaller audience.
I applaud the free market and certainly have no problem with whatever his negotiated salary was. Nor do I have problem with him getting the axe.
After all business is business. That which sells gets the greatest rewards. Olbermann got that which he earned.
Olbermann was fired for ideological reasons (his boss being a corporate Democrat). I suspect Current's numbers have fallen quite a bit. I seriously doubt people who followed Keith from MSNBC to Current shrugged their shoulders and are now watching Eliot Spitzer. I know I'm not. The free market said don't fire Keith. He sold, but he was punished for it. And Olbermann is not a "Left Limbaugh". That's a laughable statement.
Olbermann is a very successful corporate Democrat. But career wise, he is a failed journalist, as he keeps getting kicked downstairs.
"Olbermann was fired for ideological reasons (his boss being a corporate Democrat"
WD is making stuff up again. There is no evidence that his boss is more of a corporate Democrat than Olbermann is.
"And Olbermann is not a "Left Limbaugh"."
Yeah. There is one big difference. and only one: Limbaugh is actually a career success at doing this.
dmarks lied: Olbermann is a very successful corporate Democrat.
He's a progressive. Anyone who has seen his program knows this.
dmarks lied: WD is making stuff up again. There is no evidence that his boss is more of a corporate Democrat than Olbermann is.
I'm making nothing up. I base this on the FACT (and it is a fact) that Joel Hyatt (Keith's boss) "was a founding member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Circle and was a member of that group from 1981 to 1986" (source: wikipedia).
Keith Olbermann is a progressive. My proof of that is every episode of his program.
dmarks: Yeah. There is one big difference. and only one: Limbaugh is actually a career success at doing this.
Because he represents the wealthy elites. Keith Olbermann was a voice for the people.
The question, wd, isn't whether or not Olbermann spouts progressive talking-points. The question is whether or not he's full of shit.
I still can't figure out how a guy who's getting absolutely eviscerated on a nightly basis in the ratings can still get a 150% pay-raise. And the fact that the cash came from a pot with government money in it is equally troublesome.
"He's a progressive. Anyone who has seen his program knows this."
There's no contradiction. And yes, I have seen his program. His idea of "journalism" is so much like 2nd grade playground "Neener neener neener!" when he labelled people as being the worst person in the world for daring to be better at what he was attempting to do and trounce him in the ratings. This is exactly in character, and fits in with the later prima-donna antics that go him fired, and is transforming Olbermann from someone who was known as a news personality to someone who is known for ludicrous off-screen buffoonery.
"Because he represents the wealthy elites. Keith Olbermann was a voice for the people."
According to his ratings (the most accurate indicator of who he was speaking for), the people he was a voice for were approaching 1% in number.
"Because he represents the wealthy elites"
I will only defend Limbaugh when someone tells a flat out lie about him. Because, as Will said, he is full of sh*t and not a worthwhile character over all. Still, that is no reason to make up stuff and pile it on:
Limbaugh's large audience of millions exists because he represents a lot of people.... only a tiny fraction of which are the wealthy elite.
Will: I still can't figure out how a guy who's getting absolutely eviscerated on a nightly basis in the ratings can still get a 150% pay-raise.
Really? I thought you were smarter than this Will. Apparently not. He got a raise because without Keith there would be no MSNBC.
And the two networks are not pursuing the same viewers! You think that it's Keith's fault and somehow he just wasn't good enough to get Fox viewers to watch him instead?
Also, Fox is available in the basic program package in more areas. You have to pay extra for MSNBC in many cases. This is Keith's fault how?
Honestly, I view your claim that Keith was "eviscerated" in the ratings while ignoring these mitigating factors is akin to lying.
BTW, Eliot Spitzer's show (the one that replaced Keith), debuted to a 74 percent drop in viewership (compared to Keith).
THIS is why Keith was paid more! People (like me) tuned in because they like him.
Will: And the fact that the cash came from a pot with government money in it is equally troublesome.
The "government money" went to bail out GE's BANKING operations. It's a different pot. I already asked you to prove that Keith got bailout money. You know you can't which is why you just repeat the lie and ignore my requests for proof.
dmarks: Limbaugh's large audience of millions exists because he represents a lot of people.... only a tiny fraction of which are the wealthy elite.
You're confused. People can listen to a radio personality that does not represent them. They THINK he represents them, but he does not. He represents the wealthy elites.
Conversely, someone can be a voice of the people and get fewer viewers (and for reasons he can't control... see my previous post).
You're the one making stuff up... saying that because someone listens to Rush that proves he "represents" them. I think it proves they're bigoted idiots.
I gave you the US News and World Report link. I gather that you didn't care for it.......The bailout money still went to the corporation and he got money from that corporation. Spin it any way that you want but it still wreaks of hypocrisy.
Will: I gave you the US News and World Report link. I gather that you didn't care for it...
I don't remember.
I found it. I read it. It's BS.
Yeah, U.S. News and World Report is such a crappy source, huh? G.E. exports jobs, doesn't pay any taxes, accepted bailout money, and did business with Iran when they were aiding in the killing of our soldiers. If Mr. Olbermann had any real moral turpitude, he wouldn't have been working for them PERIOD, never mind taking taxpayer dollars.
So everyone working at MSNBC should quit in protest? I'm sure that would work out well for their careers. They'd all be "losers" according to dmarks.
All corporations tend toward evilness IMO. It's the government's job to do something about it.
Should Hannity and O'Reilly quit because of News corp's phone hacking scandal? I'm sure they've done worse, and if I were to do a little searching I'd be able to find it.
The "Controversies" section on Wikipedia for Billionaire David Zell says...
In 2008, Zell announced a plan to place the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field up for sale separately in order to maximize profits. He also announced he would consider selling naming rights to Wrigley Field. These announcements were widely unpopular in Chicago and a poll taken by the Chicago Sun-Times showed that 53% of 2,000 people who voted said they would no longer attend Cubs games if the field was renamed.
Zell's company Equity LifeStyle Properties, the largest mobile-home landlord in the United States, has been criticized for working to eliminate rent-control laws in local municipalities so that they can raise rents on their tenants to market rates. The company characterizes rent controls as "private subsidies for mobile-home dwellers", saying in 2007 that its annual subsidy to California tenants was $15 million.
In April 2008, Zell made a controversial comment about the subprime mortgage crisis at a conference in Los Angeles, where he stated, "This country needs a cleansing. We need to clean out all those people who never should have bought in the first place, and not give them sympathy". [End excerpt from Wikipedia].
What a rich a-hole! FYI, the reason I up bring this individual is because The Baltimore Sun, the paper that David Zurawik writes for, is owned by the billionaire media mogul.
Granted, Zell's transgressions are lesser than GE's, but still... I think if Zurawik had any real moral turpitude he would quit in protest. What a hypocrite!
Excuse me, the man's first name is Sam, not David.
Nothing to say regarding Zurawik's lack of any real moral turpitude? No surprise Will employs a double standard when judging "journalists" he respects.
Post a Comment