What Truce???

Okay, it was widely known that Keith Olbermann, on his return from vacation was going to have to address the New York Times story that said, basically that the CEOs of NBC-Universal and NewsCorp had cut a secret deal to dictate to Olbermann and Billo the terms of a truce, a media cease fire as it were.

I thought Keith was going address the subject head on, but instead he does what he usually does...and attacked this sucker sideways.

How?

By naming Billo and Rupert (arrrgh!) Murdoch as his worst persons in the world:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So, in short. Let's go over what Keith said, shall we?

The bronze to Brian Stelter of the "New York Times." Front page story Saturday about a, quote, deal in which, as the headline read, voices from above silence a cable TV feud. Problem, Mr. Stelter asks me at least twice last week if there was such a deal, and I told him, on and off the record, there was not. And told I rather obviously would have to be a party to such a deal. And I told him that not only wasn't I, but I had not even been asked to be by my bosses.

And he printed it anyway. And I had even written to him that this was merely a misinterpretation of an announcement I made here on June One, that because Bill Reilly at Fox News had abetted the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, he had become too serious to joke about, and I would thus stop doing so, an announcement that would obtain unless and until, of course, I felt like changing the rule again later since this is not the US Constitution here. It's a half baked television news cast and I make all the rules.

Keith went further in his DailyKos Dairy:

Primarily, there is no "deal" between MSNBC and Fox over what we can and cannot cover. This is part of a continuing strategy of blackmail by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, that reaches back to 2004, and has as its goal the cancellation of "Countdown." This stuff has ebbed and flowed for five years, it's part of my daily job to push it back with whichever strategy I think will best work at a given moment. For the last two months I've been employing "News Jujitsu." If you watch tonight and catch the references to Fox and its rogues gallery you will know that the most recent tack has worked, but the fight is endless and there will be reversals in the future, I'm sure.

Ailes himself is tonight quoted as saying he tried to 'broker peace' by restraining his hosts. This is the same Ailes who insisted he would never interfere with what Bill O'Reilly said on the air. Even naked hypocrisy is not too much if Fox can make itself seem victimized, or can muzzle dissent.

But there is no "deal." I would never consent, and, fortunately, MSNBC and NBC News would never ask me to.

Okay, so let's be clear. Keith is on the record here...there is no truce. If he's lying, he's going to destroy his reputation and take his show down with it at this point.

Is that good enough for some? Of course not.

From David Sirota (whom as you know, even though he's a Liberal...is someone I can't stand):

Olbermann's Non-Denial and His Good Move.

On his show last night, Keith Olbermann essentially issued a non-denial denial about the GE-MSNBC-Fox story, saying that he himself was "party to no deal" - exactly what he said in the original New York Times article. There's no reason to doubt Olbermann - however, as journalism prof Dan Kennedy suggests (h/t Glenn Greenwald & Jay Rosen), Olbermann's own personal lack of involvement in a "deal" is far less important than the simple fact that GE started trying to give blatant news-content orders to MSNBC's newsroom - orders that may have been followed in places well beyond Olbermann's control.

Non-Denial?

What part of "there is no "deal" between MSNBC and Fox over what we can and cannot cover" doesn't Mr. Sirota understand?

Didn't Mr. Sirota read how "This is part of a continuing strategy of blackmail by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, that reaches back to 2004, and has as its goal the cancellation of "Countdown." This stuff has ebbed and flowed for five years, it's part of my daily job to push it back with whichever strategy I think will best work at a given moment."

Translation: the story is a Murdoch plant to undermine Countdown's credibility, and s**t like this happens every once in a while, forcing Keith to respond in kind.

Still, Glenn Greenwald was successful in one part of his attack on Countdown, the question about Richard Wolffe's new job outside of Newsweek (a story that was released back in June, but Greenwald is just getting to now). Not that Glenn "Holier Than Everyone" Greenwald is the only one complaining about this.

As to Richard Wolffe I can offer far less insight. I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and his reporting on Richard's other jobs. I must confess I was caught flat-footed. I do not know what the truth is; my executive producer and I have spent the last two months dealing with other things (see above) but what appears to be the truth here is certainly not what Richard told us about his non-news job.

I am confident his commentary to this point has not been compromised - he has been an insightful analyst and a great friend to this show - but until we can clarify what else he is doing, he will not be appearing with us. I apologize for not being able to prevent this unhappy set of circumstances from developing.

I'm less comfortable with this part. Anyone who read the story in June, knew that Wolffe had left Newsweek under particularly unfriendly terms. He took a job with Dan Bartlett's PR firm. While this probably should have been disclosed, anyone watching him with Keith knows he hasn't pulled any punches. He has said elsewhere he will not discuss clients while on the air, so it's easy to keep him off the air, but I'm not sure what the big deal is.