An interest statistic, compiled by University of Illinois Professor Robert McCheseny, via Greenwald a few hours ago(update 3):
Conversely, O'Reilly went from making 27 negative mentions of General Electric in February-May 2009, to just two in June and none in July.
I strongly suggest that defenders of the theory that no deal was made
1-) Attack me
2-) Change the subject, or
3-) Hide
Because there is absolutely nothing that can be argued against a position supported by overwhelming evidence. These skeptics would have to explain how O'reilly ceased to attack his favorite punching bag without a favor being returned by the other side (which is evident by the fact that Olbermann completely stopped his attacks on O'reilly/Fox right after the deal was reportedly reached, under the pretext that O'reilly was getting too mean).
Recommended reading: Huffington Post's media critic, Jason Linkins, opines that Keith Olbermann is lying about the whole thing:
Olbermann had four clear choices:
- Resign his position in protest.
- Refuse to go along with the edict, and risk his firing.
- Publicly disclose what he had been told to do.
- Lie to his viewers.
What he clearly decided to do was #4.
...
Let me translate, with the benefit of hindsight: "No, MSNBC did not muzzle me. I muzzled myself, because a topic I had previously deemed newsworthy suddenly got serious." As a consumer of journalism, I tend to think that as unfolding matters increase in significance, there should be more journalism, not less. So, this explanation strikes me as deeply, deeply asinine -- and utterly incredible.
The last time a media critic viwed KO's excuse as a lie, he was attacked as nothing more than Al Gore's roomate, and a nobody.
But what can be expected of a site where a diary pushing the theory that Sarah Palin's son wasn't here made it to the top of the recommended pieces?