Meet the new employee/boss relationship involving Keith Olbermann, same as the old employee/boss relationship involving Keith Olbermann.
Keith Olbermann, who came to Current TV this year to remake the channel and compete against his old home,
MSNBC, is sitting out the biggest political nights of the season.
Despite being the biggest star on the fledging channel, Mr. Olbermann is not scheduled to anchor Current’s coverage of the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary in January. Instead, Current’s other prime time anchors, Cenk Uygur and Jennifer Granholm, will be joined by the channel’s chairman, the former vice president Al Gore, according to the channel’s TV schedule.
Mr. Olbermann also was noticeably absent from two special reports that Current produced after Republican debates in mid-December. Those, too, were anchored by Mr. Uygur.
These absences suggest that there may be new tension between Mr. Olbermann and the managers at Current, who are trying to create a progressive-oriented cable news channel.
I don’t get Current TV on my cable provider…and I’m not too particularly broken up over it either. But if Cenk is Al Gore’s new golden boy, I can’t wait for the fireworks to begin…especially when Cenk’s extracurricular activities at HuffPo involves telling people not to vote for President Obama on Tuesday in Iowa in order to “teach him a lesson”.
I follow politics for a living; I’m not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn’t mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we’re scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest.
And to be honest, I’m really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side — Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment.
Hey Current? Your new host is openly advocating weakening the President, ostensibly because walking out on “establishment” Dems and handing the House to the Tea Party in 2010 worked out so very well for progressive legislation in 2011. It’ll be good for Cenk’s ratings so he can continue to rail at the horrible Dems while the GOP wrecks the country, or so he thinks.
Then again, HuffPo has no problem espousing the greatness of Ron Paul and saying Dems need to insist on dumping Biden for Hillary as soon as possible, so nobody should be surprised at Cenk’s antics. Works for HuffPo, doesn’t it?
Perhaps Olbermann has noticed the ratings swirling down the drain. Things are certainly…interesting over there. On the other hand, maybe there’s a reason why people are dumping Current with analysis like this:
The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican.
Boy, that sure makes me want to switch over from “fake progressive” MSNBC and watch “true progressive” Current, huh.
[UPDATE] Over at Matt Osborne’s place, Emilia 1956 unlimbers a devastating takedown of Cenk.
Yes, Cenk — because nothing says “revolutionary” and “anti-establishment” like being a guy who voted GOP for years (thanks for Reagan, asshole) and now takes the big bucks to bloviate about what HE would do if only he could be Pretend Tough-Talking President With the Bully Pulpit! But no, poor lil Bad Scrabble Hand (apologies to whomever first coined that) is doomed to whine and cavil while the grown-ups try to get shit done.
DIAF, EmoProg ratfuckers.
Oh Right, because Obama is getting shit done alright.
He just signed a bill that would let a president detain your ass indefinitely. No trial or anything. You know for damn sure that if Bush signed it you’d be furious. But since Obama signed it, You people deal with it just fine. You’re all hypocrites praying at the Obama altars in your shrines.
But since Obama signed it, You people deal with it just fine. You’re all hypocrites praying at the Obama altars in your shrines.
Seeing as you’re repeating the same tired lines from FDL and other emo-prog bitchfest blogs. Go back to your pity party over at Common Dreams about how Big Bad Obama didn’t throw a temper tantrum and throw out an entire funding bill to win the praises of thumb suckers like GiGi and Walsh. The NDAA stipulations that could lock your ass up for time and memorial were either stripped or altered. On top of that Obama put out a signing statement saying basically “look this ain’t my idea and I don’t plan to use this authority.”
So Obama had a choice, try water down the poison pill the GOP stuck into a military spending bill (and the Senate was too weak-kneed to push back) or pick a fight over something that he can’t, by law, really stop (i.e., the GOP could have just pushed for a veto proof bill and really tie the POTUS).
Learn the rules of the game first before you start whining about how one guy plays his position.
Or if Cenk thinks Obama should be primaried, why not stand up and DO IT himself?
That would require him to actually do something other then bloviate
And they dont want the blame for weakening PBO like that, tney just want to talk and talk about it
Oh, because “the big, bad Democratic establishment won’t let him!!!” Poor Cenk. He has to blame phantom “establishments” for not getting his own damned ponies for himself. ;-)
I’d kind of love to see him do so, if only to LOL at newscritters and pundit types desperately trying to figure out how to say his name.
For fuck sakes…..
If they’re gonna ratfuck, please use protection
So whats the gain?
You weaken President Obama, and a Republican gets into office, then what?
You can have the good old days and complain and whine about the big mean conservatives destroying America?
Some “liberals” are more dangerous to the stability of this country as crazy religious right wingers
Is there good reason for me to take Uygur seriously?
Has he ever run for office? Has he ever been elected to anything? Has he ever run, supervised or managed anything? Does he make sense? Has he ever presented a reasonable argument based upon fact and logic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur
As for deciding upon on whom to vote for; or, any other political judgment: I will not rely upon any TV personality for political wisdom. They are in the entertainment business.
Hated affirmative action and a pro-lifer……
The things you find out, its very amusing
Hmm… those positions sound an awful lot like someone else’s I’ve been hearing about lately…
Cenk is a Lying Piece of Shite. That’s basically DISHONEST.
Thanks Al Gore for giving that Insult to the Intelligence of The American People A Fucking Platform.
An INconvenient Truth? Yeah.
I’m still trying to figure out why Al Gore wants to ruin his reputation. Why on earth would a Nobel Laureate AND Oscar winner stoop to the level of hiring looney tunes who qualify as The Left’s answers to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to anchor his premium cable “news” network?
Well, we officially know why KO lost his job at MSNBC and ESPN, he’s a Prima Donna Prick.
As for Cenk Uygur, well he went from a boring blog, to being one of the most boring people on MSNBC and now running to a dying boring network.
The Young Turks as a whole speaks to the level of deception that goes on in all levels of media.Unfortunately there are alot of liberals that watch Cenk and his ilk that buy into his hot garbage thinking that they speak for progrssive causes because they are “underground” and “anti-establishment”. They are mislead into being disappointed in the president instead looking at things in a much larger picture, I sometimes fell into this trap too but I had the suspicion something was afoul when they took a couple of the presidents statements wayyyy out of context
Cenk called for the people of Iowa to send a message to the President. He did not call for “weakening” the President, and to suggest that he was is a lie. What he suggested doesn’t hurt the chances of Obama getting re-elected and doesn’t help Republicans one bit. People need to unbunch their undies and relax a bit.
Yeah, except for wanting someone to come and take down the titular head of “The Establishment”
Other then that, he’s peachy keen with President Obama
Like Ed Schultz telling people not to vote in the midterms to “send a message?” That worked out SO well, didn’t it?
The message one sends through such pointless actions is “I’m a political moron in love with empty masturbatory self-serving gestures who has no clue how elections are won and how legislation gets passed. But I like attention! So give it to MEEEEEE!”
Well, at least Ed seems to be realizing the error of his (former?) ways… Or at least Ed realizes that going too emo-prog will land him in the same pickle that KO and Cenk are now in (that is, ruining Al Gore’s reputation by turning Current into Cable News’ running practical joke!).
“What he suggested doesn’t hurt the chances of Obama getting re-elected and doesn’t help Republicans one bit.”
But thank you for acknowledging that Cenk is all in for an idea that accomplishes nothing. Like most EmoProgs. He might as well suggest that people show up to the caucuses wearing teabags on their hat to show how upset they are.
Because what America needs right now is more stupid symbolic gestures. Please go away and let the adults select the next President.
What message is that exactly? And how did that message work out in 2010? Get a clue honey.
Which message would that be? “Don’t Vote!” Which is the same “message” sent in 2010. That clusterfuk resulted in a tea party takeover of the House and of state legislatures and governorships across the country… states that are now revisiting the Dark Ages with a hefty dose of the Inquisition thrown in for flavor. I’m sure those people are grateful.
So now that NOTHING will get accomplished thanks to the tea party Christo-fascists these “progressives” helped elect, they now want to hand over the White House, too.
Who are they sending a message to? The poor, the sick, the unemployed, the workers, the elderly, teachers, students, immigrants, minorities, women? – the very people they’ve collectively torched?
Now that Congress has ground to a halt, they (you) can’t wait to sell us to Mitt Romney to finish us off for good.
That doesn’t sound “progressive” to me… sounds rather tea baggerish, to be honest.
Aside from Keith having problems with the management of everyone he’s worked for – heck, he set speed records getting fired from Fox – this sounds to me like he thought Current was going in one direction, and it turned out to that the management had something else in mind. What’s interesting to me is that the channel has been in existence for 7 years now, and I can’t think of too many people who get it on their cable or satellite systems.
Still, hiring Cenk was a dumb move. I have a feeling Keith was behind that one, possibly as a way to “get back” at MSNBC, but the reasons Cenk bombed there really haven’t changed. He can’t really carry an audience.
Heh. I recently heard that Comcast and Time Warner may be considering adding Al Jazeera English to their premium digital channel lineups (which I’m all for!). It’ll be hilarious if/when al-Jazeera (which contrary to teabagger rumors, does real, serious news) reaches more households and gets better ratings than Current.
Is this all stemmed from being told by MSNBC to tone it down a bit, he wouldnt and he got the axe
He also seems to resent Rev Al calling him an Obama cheerleader, but hey, he’s more entertaining to watch, even with his missteps in speaking
And what is Granholm’s role in Current, how is she and why is she there?
Nah, its even worse, Cenk Uygur is ticked that he lost a job to an old Negro, on top of the fact that MSNBC didn’t want to lose the significant moderate-Left audience because Cenk Uygur is faux far lefty Obama-basher who’s less interesting than watching paint dry.
Uygur has to realize that if you’re not intriguing, then no one is going to watch. Now, go onto Current TV, where is somewhere on the cable dial between TV, the Food Network in HD and public access.
Also, Olbermann’s is pissed that he screwed himself and let his ego forget who signs his checks. He’s now in the cable news backwaters while MSNBC is doing just fine without him. Ed has taken his place as the Loud Angry Lefty, Rachel is the big kahuna in the line up now, Chris Matthews will be around until God calls him home, Sharpton is coming into his own & Lawrence O’Donnell might just be the smartest guy in cable news (he’s certainly one of the most knowledgeable).
So KO, you pissed away your opportunity and got booted off the liberal cable news network and now have to subsist on its ugly step sister.
While we may not know the entire story, I think it’s a measure of how difficult Keith is/was can be seen by MSNBC’s willingness to can him. Let’s face it, he had the best ratings on the network. I hang out on occasion in television ratings discussions (long story) and really, Keith’s demographics and audience numbers made him a profit center for MSNBC. That they were willing to cut him loose, and as quickly as they did, says that he was causing so many problems the network decided that it was well worth the ratings hit to get rid of him. That similar rumbles are now coming out of Current, and his appearances are being cut back, says that despite the “spin” from the frustrati, it’s Keith that’s the issue, no one else.
Cenk is someone else who doesn’t get the idea. The reason he was canned from MSNBC is not because of his political stands, it’s because he didn’t produce. His ratings sucked, they got worse the longer he was on, and whenever a guest host was on (Rev. Al) the ratings went up. That made it an easy decision for any network executive.
It’s maybe the one area where television is like real life. Even if you out-produce those around you, be enough of a PITA and you’re gone. They’ll find a reason.
I was actually involved in the MSNBC 2008 RNC team. There were occasional comments of relief from those more connected to network operations that KO was back in New York anchoring from the studio.
Exactly. Several years back, I had a subordinate who was, unfortunately, performing a necessary function. The problem was he was only minimally competent at it, and the real problem was that he managed to piss off everyone else he worked with or came in contact with. After two months of trying to get him to mend his ways, along with being a “buffer” between him and the numerous people wanting his hide, I’d had enough. My supervisor (who had to sign off on it) said when I told him we had to get rid of this subordinate, “You’re asking for a lot more work for yourself, and I can’t hire anyone to replace him.” My response was “You know what? I’ll live with it.” It’s the only time I’ve been happy to fire someone.
I sent Cenk an email stating that he was wrong on the NDAA. That it doesn’t detain US citizens at all, and I showed him the actual document of the bill, and then he linked me to an article by Glenn Greenwald. People are going to get hurt. Elections matter way too much, and this is the most important election ever.
Misty, thank you for doing that. It’s depressing to realize that “journalists” aren’t relying on primary and original sources and are instead caught in the self-referential circle-jerk of punditry. Cenk is a moron — but he’s a moron with a platform, so he needs to be called on his bullshit. Especially since his actual progressive street cred is incredibly thin by my standards. But then, I was never a pro-lifer, ant-affirmative-action, Bush-and-Dole voter, so what do I know, right?
I figured that was the case that a lot of the liberals in the blogisphere and on TV were lost in the conflict part of government and democracy right after he wrote an Op-Ed in Salon called “THe Audacity of Weakness” complaining about the fact that Obama agreed to move his speech to a different date. Considering the Republican debate that was going on at that same time, it was probably smart of him to do that rather than get into a fight. Besides, he in the end gave a great speech that energized the public. So there was more to gain than there was to lose, especially considering the weak field in the GOP and the fact that it was before Foot Ball.
I think it really ticks off the white punditry that Obama doesn’t follow their script — but considering that most of these people would fuck up a one-car parade, I take it as a mark of leadership that he ignores them. I mean, the GOP listens slavishly to their pundits (Limbaugh, anyone?) and how well does that prepare them for the difficult task of actually governing?
They’ve never forgiven him for beating John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the primaries. What he did was to make their “endorsement” and “opinions” irrelevant, because he won without them.
I don’t know if it’s a race thing as much (b/c Cenk is Turkish/Middle Eastern), but I do think is a maturity thing and a media culture problem. Clinton got beat up pretty badly after Welfare reform and other things, and some of that was deserved, but others were harsh too, and some of it comes with the 1990′s being different form the late 2000′s-early 2010′s
Cenk being “Turkish” (as far as I know that is not Middle Eastern) does not absolve him from buying into anti-black sentiment.
True. Racism is not exclusively white and it is possible to be prejudice against white people as well, but maybe it’s really about immaturity and low information.
I think it’s a too many Republicans maquerading as born again liberals problem. Posers.
It was brilliant to let Rick Perry freaking implode on himself and come out much bigger and stronger in the end…..
I guess these people must not know The Laws Of Power, because it seems Barack Obama employs elements of it here and there.
Why expend your energy when the opponent is doing fine destroying himself and making himself irrelevant?
ANd when it all does work out for him, its not because he thinks ahead, he’s either extremely luck, or his opponent are incompetent, its never really him, and its their duty to “point” that out
Current TV is not reeling from the critiques of the whopping 10 followers on this blog.
Gads -you people must be National Enquirer fans? All this wild speculation because a newsman skips a political event?
Has anybody considered that Keith might just be taking some time off or, more likely, he might not want to be involved in the Iowa nonsense? All the talking heads will be rattling and I stop watching any news shows when the “anchors” start interviewing each other anyway. I won’t be watching because if I want to watch a bunch of ignorant apes throwing splat at each other, I’ll go the zoo.
For all the complaints of him being difficult, he’s still one of the more honest journalists on TV – certainly more intelligent than any of the people on FAUX and don’t get me started on Limbaugh.
How about we wait and see how things work out?
quote:
“Rusty says:
Gads -you people must be National Enquirer fans? All this wild speculation because a newsman skips a political event? ”
A cable pundit with the ego and former clout of a Keith Olbermann being disinterested and sitting out on the Iowa Caucus is like Kobe Bryant sitting out game 1 of the playoff because he’s just bored this year. It s so unlikely its laughable.
Olbermann got benched for being a general prick and pissing off the Current TV management, more than likely. And Current TV will probably have the must mouth foaming, hum drum Emo-Prog coverage that will somehow blame Obama for the fact the Iowa Republicans will elect (pick your right wing loon).
Iowa will be an SSDD event – not worth all the hype and scrambling. it’s time we got rid of these primitive out-dated functions, get rid of the ‘electoral college” and have a straight one vote / one person process that takes ONE day instead of spreading all this nonsense for a whole year.
Captain, My Captain, you’re more than likely right – but for two things:
1. Going back to my sports analogy, the playoffs happen every year. And big prize fighters are pretty much spaced in 6-9 month intervals in boxing. As Olbermann is at his heart a sportscaster, he would want to be at Game 1 of the playoffs, even if we all know the 96 Bulls (Romney) vs. the 1980′s Clippers (everyone else). He might have personal reasons for not being on the grown, possibly. But, more than likely, he’s a dick and the network sat him on the bench.
2. Yes, we know the electoral college is an arcane means to ensure that we have equalize representation. Otherwise, elections would be determined by New York, California, Florida and Texas (even more so than they are now). It was the founding father’s rather crude compromise to make sure tiny states like Rhode Island and backwater states like South Carolina had a say.
And yes, its antiquated and often works against so called ‘true democracy’. That said, I often find the people who complain about ‘the system’ aren’t true reformers, but people who just like complain about everything. Change isn’t the goal, complain is. Also, they tend to get frustrated by the rules because they’re just bad at the game.
So, Captain “We Should Destroy the Electoral College Because its true Democracy” Jack, which are you? A reformer or a whiner? The Left needs more of the former and have far too many of the latter.
A few years ago, some mathematicians looked at the question of “how do you make a national candidate campaign nationally?” The answer, which surprised them, was actually already in place – the Electoral College. In a straight-up “majority vote” system, candidates can ignore the “great middle” of the country, and focus on the coasts – East, West, and Gulf. Even there, most of the focus would be on the urban areas. Which means that for the most part, politicians running for President would ignore the majority of states as “irrelevant” to their campaign. The electoral college system forces them to campaign across the country, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
capp, isn’t that what YOU’RE doing? Whining on and on about what Olbermann’s status is when it’s none of OUR business? We don’t pay his salary, he’s not a public official (though he’s much better than the current clown collage) So, his attitude and his bank account don’t matter and never will – it’s between Olbermann and Gore. All this speculation is pure nonsense.
Personally, I’d far rather see an honest man behaving like a dick to get people to pay attention than a liar and pedophile “entertainer” being consulted by the speaker of the house on matters of state.
Cenk, Glennwald and Ratigan are all Libertarians. This is why they all support Ron Paul and despise Obama. Obama is a very moderate, left-of-center politician which means that he believes in protecting Americans at all costs, expanded Federal authority and progressive tax rates.
All of this infuriates Libertarians like Paul, Ratigan, Cenk and Glennwald. The MSNBC personalities are probably more in favor of publicly-funded safety nets than the Paul family is. But other than that, they are fully aligned with Paul’s anti-interventionalist, powerless Federal government stances.
The common thread, BTW, between Paul and those so-called “Liberal” commentators is that they all believe in crazy conspiracy theories about the Federal Gov’t, which is why they don’t trust centralized power.
Cenk is mad because he got dumped for Rev. Al.
With Olbermann you just never know why he suddenly has absences on screen. It could be something personal, but given his ego and the chance to establish his new home as a leader in progressive analysis, you’d think he would want to be out there if he could. True, it’s speculation, but probably not far off the mark. As for Cenk, MSNBC really did themselves a favor by booting him. I started watching Rev. Al during his fill-ins for Cenk and he is getting his groove. I can’t stand Ed, so I switch the station (hated it when they moved Lawrence) and find something else until I can watch Rachel and Lawrence. I still can’t imagine what Al Gore was thinking.
I have a strange idea, and I don’t know if you’ll agree with me, but maybe you guys should actually consider how stupid you sound because you sound a bit like a cult. Obama isn’t the Messiah. If he were from Canada or the UK, he would be considered a hawkish Conservative candidate. Because that’s what he is.
You have to start looking beyond his skin colour, silly speeches and the fact that there’s a D beside his name and make honest assessments. Get out of your comfort zone and start exploring other ideas. You might be surprised how little you actually know.
“If he were from Canada or the UK, he would be considered a hawkish Conservative candidate. Because that’s what he is.”
Obama is Canadian?
Comparing an ideological label to someone in the U.S. based on another country’s politics and ideologies are we? Me wonders what your particular comfort zone is and if it entails copious quantitied of grain alcohol …
Wow, that was an embarrassing response.
So who do you consider a great model of a liberal progressive U.S. president? (Hint: If your answer includes LBJ, FDR, or Abraham Lincoln, you flunked history — or should have.)
Counterpoint:
Your comments are an embarrassment to your mother.
Sure, but in Germany it rocks!
Obama would probably be a conservative in those countries. Considering that his European approval on foreign-policy issues is 75%, he’d be an amazingly popular conservative.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63468.html
I find it interesting that all the same tripe is coming from the same libertarian think tanks which brought us record deficits and near total economic collapse.
That “Starve the Beast” strategy is finally coming to a head, now all we need is a libertarian to dismantle government and all our problems will vanish, right?
Not a chance in hell.
When people need to reflexively throw in an insult (a bad one at that) with their “question”, it reflects their own insecurities.
You guys have to drop the maternalistic side and realize the President is not a particularly good one.
If you want President Obama to win, and I’m guessing that’s the case, then he needs to deal with criticism and make changes. If he can’t do it, then he really shouldn’t be the leader. Simple as that.
Uh, you do realize there’s a thing called “Congress,” right? And you didn’t answer my question. Since Obama is SO disappointing to you, just who among the pantheon of past presidents would you consider to be acceptable as a role model?
“Maternalistic side” somehow doesn’t qualify as the sort of insult you claim to decry?
OK, Sparky, maybe you’d like to fill us all in on who your ideal “good President” is?
And then, tell us who you think could be, with the proviso being it has to be someone who can get elected in the United States as presently existing. So that leaves out both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
And if you don’t like name-calling, you might want to reconsider making your first entrance with grand pronouncements of cults and only liking people because of their skin color and other totally unsupportable tired-ass bullshit from Emo-Proggery for Dummies.
Unless you just like outing yourself as a twatwaffle.
Has it dawned on you that Congress has a part to play in this fiasco, seeing that Obama’s not dictator (unlike Bush 2000- 2007)?
But I guess it’s best to ignore record Republican obstruction, isn’t it?
Considering the crap this President has been forced to endure, I figure the man is practically a saint.
Another born again liberal. Sheesh.
Always consider the source. By their rhetoric we will know them.