Commentary
Olbermann Lowers Himself With Anti-Murdoch Column
- by David Goetzl @dgoetzl, August 2, 2011
The paper's readers - even the ones who also despise Murdoch - deserve better than for the Guardian editors to green light Olbermann's gleeful pettiness.
Olbermann offering some worthwhile criticism or insight on the News Corp. CEO as the phone hacking scandal at one of Murdoch's papers in the U.K. percolates would be more than welcome. Even those who disagree with the fiercely liberal Olbermann would concede his smarts and trenchant arguments advancing debate from him should be in demand.
But, the Current TV host simply lowers himself by airing personal grievances and that's all the nearly 1,000-word column does.
Before Olbermann became a fiercely liberal opinion-caster he was a prominent and highly successful sports anchor at ESPN, albeit an apparent pain to management. When that tenure ended - the famous quote is he didn't burn bridges at the network, he "napalmed" them - he eventually made it over to News Corp., where he was charged with hosting a national sportscast for Fox regional sports channels. He also hosted some baseball broadcasts on Fox.
advertisement
advertisement
In the Guardian column, Olbermann's pompous tone starts with his explanation of how he got in business with Murdoch as he writes the CEO wanted to lure "the largest rock he could find" - which was of course him - "to try to unseat the show I had helped make famous, ESPN's 'SportsCenter.'"
He then rattles through why the Fox venture failed, mentioning a fouled-up ad campaign and issues about when the show was scheduled. Then, he suggests Murdoch insisted his executives improve the ratings, so they cried surrender versus "SportsCenter" and no longer went head-to-head with it.
"For once, Murdoch's mafia failed him," he writes.
Then, he goes into detail about how heartless Murdoch minions tried to muscle him into taking a 60% pay cut, threatening to increase his work even though he asked for a cutback due to a health matter and would have taken some salary reduction.
Those are Olbermann's opening shots. He then moves to a detailed account of why he believes Murdoch fired him. The short version is Olbermann broke a story that News Corp. was looking to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, and he took great pains to ensure his sources were right and even carefully ran it by a Murdoch PR official.
After some time lapsed, Murdoch apparently was upset and ousted Olbermann in retaliation.
Olbermann then conveys anger that this silliness was never reported or mentioned or no Fox or News Corp. official told the truth about it -- until 2008.
"Nobody ever offered any explanation ... that is, until seven years later, when Rupert Murdoch claimed personal responsibility for firing me," Olbermann wrote. "From my vantage point, the most important fact remains that, after my exit, Rupert had to keep paying me not to have to work for him: $800,000 over the next eight months. It was the best job I ever had."
In 2008, Murdoch reportedly was asked if he would hire Olbermann again. He said no, while calling him "crazy." Earlier this year, Murdoch was asked again about re-hiring Olbermann and said, "No. We fired him once, we don't believe in firing people twice." He called him a "nut."
Besides ESPN, MSNBC officials apparently didn't find Olbermann easy to work with before he left and landed at Current.
So, the column looks to be a victory lap for Olbermann, but it is needless, self-serving and accomplishes little. In fact, Guardian editors may have missed Olbermann's explanation about why he was canned in a 2008 report that ran on TVNewser.
The reader is left to interpret that Murdoch is a ruthless executive, who does not tolerate dissension among his employees. Further, one who looks to manipulate how his journalistic enterprises cover things.
That all may be true, but the charges hold more weight when no personal animosity is involved while leveling them.
If the facts in Olbermann's piece are true -- and I have no reason to doubt them -- he certainly does have good reason to have animus towards Murdoch. But, of course, the real reason Olbermann finds Murdoch offensive is the monster that the Murdoch has created with Fox News.
You didn't link to the column in question -- http://bit.ly/o4EKA4 -- but it's based on one of Olbermann's special comments a few weeks back. But the Guardian left out the context of Keith's story: that you don't mess with Murdoch if you want to keep your job, which is why so many NOTW reporters had kept, and were keeping silent about the phone hacking scandal.
I have no problem with Keith admitting his personal animus towards Murdoch. He's a commentator, not a news reader. And I'd rather have his attitude up front and in the open rather than many others who pretend to keep their personal feelings on hold.
Lighten up. Keith has a story to tell. If you don't want to read it, there's always a button you can click to sign off.
What a silly article. Just read one of Murdoch's newspapers for viciousness and spite. Just watch Fox News for viciousness and spite. Murdoch is a bad influence on society wherever he operates. He lowers the tone of debate. He creates fear in democratically elected politicians. He undermines the democratic process.
Of course in a free society he must be allowed to operate.
But do not get all mealy-mouthed when others give him back some of his own medicine.
Remember 'a fish rots from the head down'. The evidence so far here in Britain: Under his moral leadership his journalists have illegally hacked into the phones of murder victims, of dead soldiers, have bribed police with cash and many other illegal actions. You think given this he should be treated with kid gloves? Would the world be a worse place if Murdoch and his lot
did not exist? It might, just might, arguably be a tad more decent. So go for it Olbermann. Give him what he dishes out to others who cannot defend themselves every day in his nauseous newspapers and Fox News gutter intellectually-challenged TV. As somebody said over here recently his newspapers have descended from the gutter to the sewer.
This article is a good example of just flinging pixels on a blank page and pretending it's journalism.
Mr. Goetzl; You apparently missed the obvious when you read Olbermann's piece in the Guardian. You attack him for "airing personal grievances", without considering - and understanding - that first-person reporting of such grievances is often the best way to understand one side of a dispute.
Would you rather that Olbermann had given a third-person report on someone else's problems with Murdoch, relying on interviews? I'd rather have an unfiltered version, from the closest source possible. I can then decide for myself how accurate it is, based largely on how honest I consider the source to be.
In Olbermann's case, I'll believe what he says over Murdoch any day of the week.
Having watched Mr. Olbermann on and off ever since his ESPN days, he's like this article ALL THE TIME. His style of writing, the tone of the delivery, the verbage, the emotion - are all vintage Olbermann.
The other thing here is the article is more of an editorial than straight ahead journalism - which Mr. Olbermann has NEVER done in his television journalism career.
Personally, I think it's unreasonable to expect anything different from Mr. Olbermann than what we see here. Complaining about that is like wishing zebras had spots.
I'm not convinced that Olbermann is liberal. Sure he was against the Bush administration over torture and their rush to start the Iraq war justified by misrepresentations of the intelligence. Olbermann is a vocal critic of Obama's policies on these issues as well. Conservatives and Republicans avoided taking a side against Hitler and, in fact, continued to do business with the Nazis until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Olbermann seems to consider the needs of the individual "little guy" versus the mega corporations or governments. But that historically could be considered conservative.
The typical "conservative" personified by Fox, "News" and the entire Fox empire is pro rich-person, pro multinational corporation and pro governmental wiretapping and email reading of U.S. citizens. Conservative? Hardly. Government spending? These conservatives lard up the U.S. budget with unneeded and unproven billion-dollar defense programs, oil corporation giveaways and farm subsidies yet short-change veterans’ benefits and healthcare for war-wounded vets.
Olbermann apparently wants to present Murdoch's behavior in an historical as well as current perspective. I would rather expect Mr. Goetzl to want to see criminal charges pursued against anyone who broke the laws in England, U.S. or anywhere else.
Please tell me that you are for abiding by laws and not politics-at-any-cost corporate criminal conduct which apparently has been the Murdoch technique for decades.
As for KO's style, he is certainly no more loud nor opinionated that Sean Hannity or any of the "journalists" during the day or evening on Fox "News" or the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only one major U.S. publisher/broadcaster has a mission of modifying the political process rather than covering it. For decades Murdoch has used his media empire to draw the English and American politics rightward by using lies, fraud, illegal and unethical “reporting” and spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
If Mr. Goetzl is conservative, he should support the EPA which protects the individual and the nation from slow death by pollution. Teddy Roosevelt would not be able to get 5% of this century's Republican vote. Neither would Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan or Bush I.
This appears to be simply an opportunity to throw stones at Olbermann. I read the article in the Guardian. The response here is pretty asymmetrical (lowers himself???). I believe Mr. Goetzl's politics are showing.