March 30, 2012

Please pass the popcorn … [Darleen Click]

Heh.

Current TV said Friday afternoon that it had terminated the contract of its lead anchor, Keith Olbermann, scarcely a year after he was hired to reboot the fledgling channel in his progressive political image.The cable channel indicated that he had failed to honor the terms of his five-year, $50 million contract, giving the channel the right to terminate it. Starting Friday night, the former New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer will take over Mr. Olbermann’s 8 p.m. time slot.

In a stream of Twitter messages, Mr. Olbermann responded to Current’s announcement by stating that “the claims against me in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently.”

Jonah Goldberg on Twitter

When they write the history of Gore v. Olbermann, will they call it “An Inconvenient Douche”?

Posted by Darleen @ 6:15pm
30 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , ,

Comments (30)

  1. That current is a strong pull toward the drain.

  2. Seems like Current is a kind of junkyard where ol’ worn-out wrecks of media are towed off to rust into oblivion. Crush-ups and meltdowns too?

  3. First MSNBC, now Current.

    Keith is unemployable unless he starts his own cable show in NYC, preferably one where he keeps his pants on. He can film it with a camera on a tripod in his living room. His mom will still watch it, so he’ll have the same viewing audience.

  4. It has to be some ginormous performance art.

  5. Kind of like his whole career, JD?

  6. Current TV just learned the value of checking someone’s work history. The place is obviously run like a well-oiled machine.

  7. “We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before. Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.”

    I so want to live in a world run by these people.

  8. First MSNBC, now Current.

    Next local Public Access or his own Youtube Channel, choices, choices, so many choices.

  9. The morons never learn:

    [Bob Ley:] I still remember the lunch when [executive vice presidents] John Walsh and Steve Anderson were deciding whether they were going to hire Keith. I said, “You’re aware of his reputation, aren’t you?” They said, “Oh, it’s not going to be like that. He’s not making all that much money.” I said, “It’s not a function of money. Know what you’re buying.” When he arrived, Keith had one thing in mind: It was Keith. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with that.

    That was… twenty years ago.

  10. fresh available talent: dennis kucinich

  11. That took longer than I expected. Replacing him with Eliot Spitzer is hilarious. Spitzer is actually better at this sort of thing than Olby, but if he couldn’t get an audience at CNN, can he even hold on to Olby’s moonbat audience?

  12. Pingback: Keith Olbermann and Current TV part ways | Thoughts and Rantings

  13. Pingback: Keith Olbermann Fired From Al Gore’s Current TV, Replaced by Eliot Spitzer | Scared Monkeys

  14. Rush has a job and Olby doesn’t HA HA HA.

    At least when Spitzer calls somebody a sl*t, he’ll know from experience.

  15. Maybe CurrentTV’s viewer(s) can boycott and get him back. hahahahahahaha

  16. I’m not as excited as you guys are. How the heck am I going to find out who the worst person in the world is now?

  17. Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.

    I wonder if Current could demonstrate when those values ever applied to Olbermann?

  18. Not, unfortunately, OT…

    “We find a profound misfit between dire scientific predictions of ongoing and future climate changes and scientific assessments of needed emissions reductions on the one hand, and weak political, social or policy response on the other,” Norgaard said. Serious discussions about solutions, she added, are mired in cultural inertia “that exists across spheres of the individual, social interaction, culture and institutions.”

    “Climate change poses a massive threat to our present social, economic and political order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected,” she said. “People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level — how we think the world works and how we think it should work.”

    You SHALL agree with us, or else.

    MISFITS~!

  19. I am not just a misfit, I am not just a nit-wit,
    just because my nose glows, why don’t I fit in?

  20. Is that another call for the New-Soviet -Ecological Man?

  21. That Norgaard would be right at home telling us all that we need to support Romney and LIKE IT!!!!1!!!

  22. OT: Here’s a sentence you don’t read every day:

    We got to thinking about the Brezhnev Doctrine in connection with our two favorite subjects: sex and constitutional law.

    Now that’s a hook.

  23. Over at Insty just now I see an Obama campaign ad in the sidebar that strikes as odd.

    It features a picture of Michelle and the language “Join Michelle and Tell Barack you’re in.” along with a selection button labeled in the manner of movie criminals floating a bank heist scheme to a new recruit:

    “Are You In?”

    WTF? Do they mean to communicate they’re forming a criminal enterprise up front, so no one can say later “Hey, you didn’t indicate you intended to rob the country blind!” and be absolved of responsibility thereafter?

  24. No, you don’t understand…

    Human engineering, as they call it, poses less danger than altering our planet through geoengineering, and it could augment changes to personal behavior or policies to mitigate climate change, they write in an article to be published in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment. …

    -Induce intolerance to red meat (think lactose intolerance), since livestock farming accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions.

    -Make humans smaller to reduce the amount of energy we each need to consume. This could be done by selecting smaller embryos through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, a technique already in use to screen for genetic diseases. “Human engineering could therefore give people the choice between having a greater number of smaller children or a smaller number of larger children,” they write.

    -Reduce birthrates by making people smarter, since higher cognitive ability appears linked to lower birthrates. This could be achieved through a variety of means, including better schooling, electrical stimulation of the brain and drugs designed to improve cognitive ability, they propose.

    -Treat people with hormones, such as oxytocin, to make us more altruistic and empathetic. As a result, people would be more willing to act as a group and more sensitive to the suffering of animals and other people caused by climate change.

    There will be no ‘try’. Only ‘you WILL’.

  25. “His mom will still watch it, so he’ll have the same viewing audience.”

    Um, his mom is dead. So, is his Father.

    Just an FYI.

  26. Well, he can tape it and watch it with his cat, then.

  27. So, no one will watch it then.

  28. Pretty much.

  29. “Are you in?”

    Ocean’s 99%?

  30. More like Bathtub’s 99%.

Leave a Reply