Wow, is Olbermann still alive? I am even surprised Tommy is alive.

I think it’s safe to say that Ted is directly under the bus and Olbermann is getting ready to throw it in reverse…Funny part is, Keith wouldn’t qualify to polish Teds shoes. ;)

“Olbermann launched his missive, presumably, off-the-cuff, and probably shortly after he read the taunt.”

Wow, he’s a genius. I’ve never heard that response before. Well, at least not in the last 15 minutes or so. And really, Olbermann attacking someone for being irrelevant? Olbermann? He of twitter “fame”? Uh, ok.

It is funny that Olbermann would say that while at the same time think that people are aware/care of his existence.

The funny part is that most do not even know who he is and the 99% who do know of him couldn’t care less if he lived or died.

I find that quite amusing and ironic.

Should Tommy now be called Tommy “I have a thrill up my leg” Christopher?

“As long as news organizations are primarily driven by profits, that corrupting influence will continue.”

Tommy, do you recall a time in history when news organizations (or anything for that matter) weren’t driven primarily by profits??

It’s bad when even Keith Olbermann refers to Tommy as a ” hatchetman “. Via twitter

timzank said:
“As long as news organizations are primarily driven by profits, that corrupting influence will continue.”

Tommy, do you recall a time in history when news organizations (or anything for that matter) weren’t driven primarily by profits??

Yes. There was a time when television news was driven by the “public service” aspect of their free licenses to use the public airwaves, and news divisions were not expected to turn a profit. Print journalists, long a bulwark against the decline of journalism, have been greatly marginalized by competition with cheap (or free) online journalists. It’s now a race to the bottom.

There are positive effects of the “democratization” of media, but they are more than counteracted by the insidious effect of profit-driven journalism, which is really cost-cut-driven journalism.

Tommy Christopher said:
Yes. There was a time when television news was driven by the “public service” aspect of their free licenses to use the public airwaves, and news divisions were not expected to turn a profit. Print journalists, long a bulwark against the decline of journalism, have been greatly marginalized by competition with cheap (or free) online journalists. It’s now a race to the bottom.

There are positive effects of the “democratization” of media, but they are more than counteracted by the insidious effect of profit-driven journalism, which is really cost-cut-driven journalism.

Seems to me we have many more outlets, more information and from different perspectives. Doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. I understand what you’re worried about but Reagan was elected before we had Fox News.

Tommy Christopher said:
Yes. There was a time when television news was driven by the “public service” aspect of their free licenses to use the public airwaves, and news divisions were not expected to turn a profit. Print journalists, long a bulwark against the decline of journalism, have been greatly marginalized by competition with cheap (or free) online journalists. It’s now a race to the bottom. There are positive effects of the “democratization” of media, but they are more than counteracted by the insidious effect of profit-driven journalism, which is really cost-cut-driven journalism.

Suppose the same argument was made when journalists moved from papyrus & quill to printing presses? According to your theory, the demise of “journalism” began with printing presses, TV & radio?

Wow… a lot of praise there by Tommy for Olbermann’s intellect and whit… “Olbermann launched his missive, presumably, off-the-cuff, and probably shortly after he read the taunt.” I wonder what knowledge he (Tommy) has to know Olbermann recycled this joke “off the cuff”. BTW… Tommy THIS is why people like myself assume you’ve lost no love for Olbermann since he called Dan’s dad a Nazi… and you a “hatchetman”. You assume Olbermann recycled this oldie but goodie “off the cuff”… why??? You assume the Fox News rep struggled all day to come up with this re-tread… why??? BTW… you also referd to Olbermann as “far from the bottom of the barrel” in your piece about Dan’s dad being called a Nazi and Olbermann “loosing it”. If Keith in your opinion is “far from the bottom of the barrel”… I don’t want to know what kind of scum lurks below this POS. Or do I need to list Keith’s “Greatest Hits” for you ?

Awe how sweet – Tommy keeping Olbermann up front and center here on mediaite. Oh the thrill for Tommy must be just go overwhelming!

Are we going to get another story from FOK and have it presented here as newsworthy?

Bwahahahaha

TfT said:
Awe how sweet – Tommy keeping Olbermann up front and center here on mediaite. Oh the thrill for Tommy must be just go overwhelming!

Are we going to get another story from FOK and have it presented here as newsworthy?

Bwahahahaha

Right ? Why Tommy continues to try to keep Olbermann ( who has “tweeted” his dislike for Tommy and even blocked him at one time ) relevant is beyond me .

Poor KO- he can’t just silently fade into oblivion which is where he is destined to be.

murf said:
It’s bad when even Keith Olbermann refers to Tommy as a ” hatchetman “. Via twitter

I’m guessing Tommy dared to disagree or criticize Keith? Keith doesn’t do criticism or dissent. No way, huh-huh.

FOK is news, GE paying ZERO taxes is not news on mediaite.

Go figure.

Fox News spokesman Rich White (that’s his name, not his demographic)

…..lol I found it funny >.<

What a totally classless scumbag, typical of leftist heroes.

bundesheer said:
Fox News spokesman Rich White (that’s his name, not his demographic) …..lol I found it funny >.<

And racist :)….

“… and journalism would still suck, because good journalism is expensive, and doesn’t sell nearly as well as crap. As long as news organizations are primarily driven by profits, that corrupting influence will continue.”

Says the blatantly partisan hack who works for Mediaite, a website that throws up large pop-up ads and engages in personality reportage. This website is a prime example of frivolous coverage. You’re a hoot, Tommy.

tatboy said:
Wow… a lot of praise there by Tommy for Olbermann’s intellect and whit

Really? You categorize that as praise? See, this is your assumptions interfering with your comprehension. Saying that Olbermann didn’t have to convene several staff meetings to compose his remark is not praise of Olbermann, or his remark.

And I don’t “assume” anything. Fox News did struggle for the better part of an afternoon to arrive at their response, and talked it over at at least two meetings. About halfway through, I told the guy to let it go, and I’d just go with “no comment,” but he insisted on continuing.

Finally, you really ought to re-read the column you keep quoting. Again, your assumptions interfere with your comprehension. And whether I’ve “lost love” for Olbermann is irrelevant. It’s my job to provide information and commentary about a media landscape that includes him, and unless they’re applicable to a particular subject, my personal feelings play no part in that.

However, if you wanted to know my personal feelings, you could just, y’know, ask, instead of making unfounded, character-assassinating assumptions.

illusive man said:
It is funny that Olbermann would say that while at the same time think that people are aware/care of his existence.

Mention Olbermann’s name and most people say “Isn’t that the dorky looking guy who used to look out of place as a sportscaster back in the 1980s?”

Tommy Christopher said:
However, if you wanted to know my personal feelings, you could just, y’know, ask, instead of making unfounded, character-assassinating assumptions.

Ok. What do you think of Olbermann ?

lonestar77 said:
Seems to me we have many more outlets, more information and from different perspectives. Doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. I understand what you’re worried about but Reagan was elected before we had Fox News.

Well, those are some of the benefits I described. But my problem with journalism isn’t about politics, e.g. Reagan getting elected. My problem is with the amount and allocation of resources.

Tommy Christopher said:
Really? You categorize that as praise? See, this is your assumptions interfering with your comprehension. Saying that Olbermann didn’t have to convene several staff meetings to compose his remark is not praise of Olbermann, or his remark. And I don’t “assume” anything. Fox News did struggle for the better part of an afternoon to arrive at their response, and talked it over at at least two meetings. About halfway through, I told the guy to let it go, and I’d just go with “no comment,” but he insisted on continuing. Finally, you really ought to re-read the column you keep quoting. Again, your assumptions interfere with your comprehension. And whether I’ve “lost love” for Olbermann is irrelevant. It’s my job to provide information and commentary about a media landscape that includes him, and unless they’re applicable to a particular subject, my personal feelings play no part in that. However, if you wanted to know my personal feelings, you could just, y’know, ask, instead of making unfounded, character-assassinating assumptions.

OK… I’m asking. What is your personal take/feelings on Olbermann? Since I’m so far off.

Ted Koppel practices the kind of journalism that people like O’Reilly and Olbermann just don’t have the capacity to handl.

timzank said:
Suppose the same argument was made when journalists moved from papyrus & quill to printing presses? According to your theory, the demise of “journalism” began with printing presses, TV & radio?

No, because I don’t blame the technology. If today’s media had placed a priority on serving the public, the technology would only be a benefit. Unfortunately, that’s not really the driver for anyone.

Tommy Christopher said:
No, because I don’t blame the technology. If today’s media had placed a priority on serving the public, the technology would only be a benefit. Unfortunately, that’s not really the driver for anyone.

and it hasn’t been for a very long time

Until the advent of television, bringing people the news was largely a blue-collar job, newspapering being just another trade. Then the ’50s happened, and the American people were besieged by pleasant-looking men with good voices (i.e. Murrow, Cronkite) who were able to deftly use television in building a sort of cinema-lite gravitas for themselves, all in the name of “journalism.” The television personalities of the ’50s and their modern day successors (Koppel, Brokaw, Williams, even Olbermann) have used the intimate aspects of the visual medium in order to affect a worldy statesmen persona that is thoroughly undeserved given the objective reality of their status as corporate newsreaders. Television news continues to grow even more pretentious, in direct inverse to the amount of interesting, relevant stories they cover.

tatboy said:
OK… I’m asking. What is your personal take/feelings on Olbermann? Since I’m so far off.

The short answer is, I don’t really have any. Before I went into journalism, I was a big fan of Countdown, and of Olbermann, for many reasons. I suppose, then, that I felt a modicum of personal admiration for him, but I’ve never been the kind of person to idealize, or to hero-worship.

To the extent that I did have any personal admiration for Olbermann, it wore away long before I ever worked for Mediaite. Since being in this business, I’ve found that whatever personal assumptions I made about people almost always turn out to be wrong. I try not to do it anymore.

The same is true of animosities that I’ve previously held. They’re unhelpful, and usually dissolve in the face of one-on-one contact. I harbor very few grudges. Really, only one, and it’s not against Olbermann.

I was deeply offended by Olbermann’s remark about Floyd Abrams, and lobbied my superiors for the privilege of composing a response, one that focused on our website’s mission, and not on the petty feud that Olbermann continually tries to drag us into.

I was also disappointed in Olbermann’s reaction to me, personally, regarding the #mooreandme flap, disappointed that he chose not to answer the question, not that he called me a “douche” (a charge I would plead “no contest” to on many occasions) or a “hatchet man” (which, despite its inaccuracy, still sounds kinda badass).

His campaign against this site, borne of a personal grudge that I recuse myself from, is also disappointing, but ultimately more damaging to him. It reinforces a reputation for a fragile ego, and a penchant for petty, personal score-settling that bespeaks deep insecurities.

None of that has anything to do with the amount or type of coverage I devote to Olbermann, or anyone else. For example, no one would ever accuse me of being a Melinda Henneberger fan, yet I was perfectly able to write an astute piece of reporting and commentary (that was, on balance, positive toward Politics Daily) which, sadly, turned out to be right on target.

Why ain’t he saving that gold for Current TV?

Tommy Christopher said:
The short answer is, I don’t really have any. Before I went into journalism, I was a big fan of Countdown, and of Olbermann, for many reasons. I suppose, then, that I felt a modicum of personal admiration for him, but I’ve never been the kind of person to idealize, or to hero-worship. To the extent that I did have any personal admiration for Olbermann, it wore away long before I ever worked for Mediaite. Since being in this business, I’ve found that whatever personal assumptions I made about people almost always turn out to be wrong. I try not to do it anymore. The same is true of animosities that I’ve previously held. They’re unhelpful, and usually dissolve in the face of one-on-one contact. I harbor very few grudges. Really, only one, and it’s not against Olbermann. I was deeply offended by Olbermann’s remark about Floyd Abrams, and lobbied my superiors for the privilege of composing a response, one that focused on our website’s mission, and not on the petty feud that Olbermann continually tries to drag us into. I was also disappointed in Olbermann’s reaction to me, personally, regarding the #mooreandme flap, disappointed that he chose not to answer the question, not that he called me a “douche” (a charge I would plead “no contest” to on many occasions) or a “hatchet man” (which, despite its inaccuracy, still sounds kinda badass). His campaign against this site, borne of a personal grudge that I recuse myself from, is also disappointing, but ultimately more damaging to him. It reinforces a reputation for a fragile ego, and a penchant for petty, personal score-settling that bespeaks deep insecurities. None of that has anything to do with the amount or type of coverage I devote to Olbermann, or anyone else. For example, no one would ever accuse me of being a Melinda Henneberger fan, yet I was perfectly able to write an astute piece of reporting and commentary (that was, on balance, positive toward Politics Daily) which, sadly, turned out to be right on target.

Well that was well written. I still feel there is an admiration that comes across in your writting (and I’m not alone) but I will take you at your word. But when someone uses terms like “far from the bottom of the barrell” for someone that is below the barrell (with Rush IMHO) I feel there is some protection being offered.

P.S. I hope you understand that I remain resentful that my responce to a commenter calling me “ba@@er” or “teaba@@er” was removed. But the original offending comment with it’s slur was left up. Why is a slur directed at a conservative left up but the responce (with insults, but not slurs) to the slur removed?

tatboy said:
P.S. I hope you understand that I remain resentful that my responce to a commenter calling me “ba@@er” or “teaba@@er” was removed. But the original offending comment with it’s slur was left up. Why is a slur directed at a conservative left up but the responce (with insults, but not slurs) to the slur removed?

I didn’t have anything to do with it, don’t know why your comment was taken down.

Since the response “Olbermann’s still alive?” is the natural one for many since his absence, it is good to see that Keith’s propensity for projection is also alive and well.

Tommy Christopher said:
I didn’t have anything to do with it, don’t know why your comment was taken down.

OK.. thanks for letting me know that. But the fact that somebody left the slur up (and that slur is always left up no matter how vulger the left gets with it here) and removed my RESPONCE to it is bull$hit to say the least.

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, those are some of the benefits I described. But my problem with journalism isn’t about politics, e.g. Reagan getting elected. My problem is with the amount and allocation of resources.

Fair enough.

Keith you pathetic bitch, we will respectfully remember Koppel for many years to come.

Tommy Christopher said:
I harbor very few grudges. Really, only one, and it’s not against Olbermann.

HEY! I haven’t called attention to your slouchiness THAT many times…..boy you sure can hold a grudge.
You still have the best theme song of any White House reporter…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U85S4cRCby0

Olbermann’s still alive?

Olbermann’s still alive? Was he ever born?

Reasonable price Cheap product Paypal Accep
welcome to our store: http://www.jordan007.com
,”’╭⌒╮⌒╮.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.
╱◥██◣”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.
｜田｜田田│ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬

2011 new style!

http://www.nike4world.com