So, during the kerfuffle this last weekend about Keith Olbermann making political contributions without permission from MSNBC management (and KO's resulting two-night suspension), the blog Phawker.com is reporting that Stu Bykofsky, conservative writer for the Philadelphia Daily News, emailed some questions to Keith (so he thought) to get his feedback on the situation. The problem is, he sent those questions to keith@keitholbermann.com which is not Keith's email address. Not only is it not his email, but the domain "keitholbermann.com" is not even owned by him at present. In fact, it was purchased this past July by The Daily Caller, which is run by one of Keith's former MSNBC colleagues, conservative and sometime arch-nemesis, Tucker Carlson.
But, this is where it starts to get vedddy inteddesting.
So, Stu shot off his original email to "Keith":
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
From: "Bykofsky, Stu"
Date: Fri, November 05, 2010 1:44 pm
To:
Mr. Olbermann:
I’d like an opportunity to speak to you about your current situation.
I am doing a column for publication Monday. I will be here until 6 p.m., but won’t finish until 1 p.m. tomorrow.
If you would rather respond via email, what I want to know, essentially, is the following:
Do you think you were treated fairly by MSNBC?
Do you consider yourself a journalist or a commentator?
If a journalist, is it proper for you to give your opinions?
If a commentator, should you be anchoring a newscast, such as Tuesday night’s election program?
Do you regret chastising others (Rupert Murdoch) for making political donations?
Is there a difference between what he did and what you did?
Thank you.
Stu Bykofsky
Columnist
Philadelphia Daily News
215-854-5977
Okay, pretty legitimate questions overall. Nothing really inflammatory in my own opinion anyhow.
Then Stu receives a rather unfriendly reply from Not-Keith Olbermann:
From: keith@keitholbermann.com [mailto:keith@keitholbermann.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:46 PM
To: Bykofsky, Stu
Subject: RE: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
Mr. Bykofsky:
Unfortunately your column (which I just saw) had already run before I read this email. What a shame. I assume you saw the irony in attacking someone for betraying journalism, while you, a self-described journalist, failed to get a single quote from the person you were attacking. Pathetic. Indeed, beneath contempt. How dare you pose as the heir to Murrow.
You didn’t wait for the facts before writing your screed, but for what it’s worth I, unlike you, am a journalist, not a hack. Was I treated fairly by MSNBC? It’s hard to imagine a dumber question, as I don’t work for MSNBC, but for NBC News. As I’ve said publicly before, Phil Griffin is not my boss (thank god), nor is he intellectually qualified to be. Phil pretends otherwise in public. I’m not his shrink, but I assume it makes him feel better. The remarkable thing is that fools like you believe his fantasies. That pleases Phil, but only exposes your ignorance. The proof? I’ll be anchoring on election night 2012, long after Phil Griffin has moved on to a job for which he’s actually qualified, perhaps on QVC.
I hope that clears up your misconceptions.
KO
I don't know about you, but I honestly would have started questioning the legitimacy of this exchange at this point. While some have this notion of KO as some barely contained crock pot of simmering spicy rage, I can honestly say I've never seen him get really upset except when it mattered....such as in special comment sections about things like war, or Americans who need healthcare insurance, or oil companies that cut corners rather than save lives. Stuff that makes me ticked off, to be honest.
But Stu was invested now, and got a little.....annoyed by Not-Keith's response. It it just kind of degenerated into a fish-slapping contest from there:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
From: "Bykofsky, Stu"
Date: Mon, November 08, 2010 2:38 pm
To:
Failed to get a quote, Mr. O?
I emailed you at two locations on Friday and checked as late as Sunday night for a response. Other news outlets reported you had not returned their calls.
I should "Wait for the facts"? For how long? 48 hours seems like more than enough.
The facts are not contested – you made contributions to Democratic candidates, you didn’t disclose that fact and then you interviewed once of them – without disclosing it to your viewers. I was interested in your motives, and how you imagine the role that you fill at MSNBC/NBC/GE.
(You don’t work for MSNBC, Phil Griffin is not your boss, but he gets to suspend you. Very interesting.)
If you want to be a journalist, act like one. Start by reviewing the SPJ Code of Ethics.
Tell me, Mr. O, how many people have you attacked without even trying to get a quote?
If you do anchor election night 2012, and I hope you do for the hyperbolic entertainment value, please be honest with your audience. Announce which Dems you have contributed to. Or maybe honesty doesn’t come into play with a self-righteous wretch such as you.
You are a hypocrite for attacking others for what you do yourself.
And you are a gutless hypocrite for hiding from reporters with valid questions. Being called a "hack" by a shameless faux journalist like you is a compliment.
I hope that clears up your misconceptions, which are myriad.
Stu Bykofsky
Columnist
Philadelphia Daily News
215-854-5977
I report, you deride
*
From: keith@keitholbermann.com [mailto:keith@keitholbermann.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:58 PM
To: Bykofsky, Stu
Subject: RE: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
Dear Stu,
Since you’re obviously a moron, I won’t waste your time or mine writing more emails you clearly can’t understand. But I do want to correct one of the numerous errors of fact in your email: Phil Griffin did not suspend me. He doesn’t have the power or frankly the courage to do so. Once I had been (very) temporarily relieved of my duties by NBC management, Phil got on the phone to some of your fellow idiot TV columnists and tried to claim credit.
As if.
I could have Phil Griffin fired tomorrow if I felt like it, trust me. And if he keeps yapping about me in public, I may. For the moment, however, keeping Phil around is like having a drunk chimp in the office — more amusing than threatening.
Feel free to correct the record in your "column."
KO
*
From: keith@keitholbermann.com [mailto:keith@keitholbermann.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:46 PM
To: Bykofsky, Stu
Subject: RE: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
"May be" a moron? No, you’re definitely a moron.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
From: "Bykofsky, Stu"
Date: Mon, November 08, 2010 3:10 pm
To:
To you, I may be a moron, but I’m not the one with a credibility problem.
Flame away, Mr. O. Didn’t your mama ever tell you about sticks and stones?
I realize your attention span is that of an ant, but you were invited to submit your "letter" for "publication."
You did not "respond" nor did you respond to the previous questions put to you. Were they too hard?
I’ll help you. Here they are again
Do you regret chastising others (Rupert Murdoch) for making political donations?
Is there a difference between what he did and what you did?
Hey! Tomorrow night, what will be your act – contrite or defiant? Or just scowling and loud?
I can’t wait to see.
Stu
P.S.: I couldn’t possibly correct the record to reflect what you tell me without calls to NBC management for verification. Tell you what – get The New York Times to correct the record, because it reported what I did, then my liberal tabloid will pick it up from there.
*
From: Bykofsky, Stu
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 6:11 PM
To: ‘keith@keitholbermann.com’
Subject: RE: [SPAM] From the Philadelphia Daily News
Can [I] be a "worst person," too? Please!
Name-calling from a self-energized, smug elitist who doesn’t realize his waste stinks doesn’t answer any of my questions, Keith.
You seem to have an anger-management problem in addition to your inability to focus on anything you don’t want to hear.
But I proved that last Thursday, didn’t I?
Go back into your silo surrounded by your sycophants, big boy.
Buh-bye.
Best wishes for excellence and honesty in journalism,
Stu
P.S.; You really do have an amazing ability to ignore every serious point raised about your conduct. Supernatural, almost.
A charming exchange, which basically brought out the worst in both Not-Keith (aka Tucker Carlson), as well as Stu Bykofsky. This is probably one of the most juvenile dialogues I've seen, even in comparison to those frequently on the intarwebs. Indeed, it rises to the level of full-on wankery. Stay classy, boys!
For certain, Tucker Carlson was acting like a complete assclown when he authored these emails as Not-Keith, and the fact that he couldn't have just responded politely that he wasn't Keith Olbermann says a lot about his lack of ethics and the level of unprofessional behavior that he seems to find acceptable for himself. For certain, Keith is a far better writer than these forged emails try to represent, and that was a big giveaway to me as well.
But, Tucker's behavior isn't all that surprising, since he's basically being a juvenile assclown who just couldn't resist manufacturing this kerfuffle. And then conflated it like a frat boy who sets off stinkbombs in the dorm bathrooms as a pledge prank. It's in his nature really. I guess poor Tucker's just feeling a bit lonely lately, and we all know that some kids just need to demand any kind of attention they can get, even if it's the wrong kind. At the end of it, he owned up to his tomfoolery, and then congratulated himself on how funny it was. And then heard the sound of collective crickets as no one else seemed to think it was all that funny at all.
Then a follow up was posted, to reveal that Stu had been "had":
UPDATE: We’ve been punked, it would seem. Turns out right wing web site The Daily Caller purchased the domain name KeithOlbermann.com over the summer. Long time Olbermann nemesis Tucker Carlson crowed to Michael Calderone at Yahoo News that he planned to use the email address Keith@KeithOlbermann.com. We had it on good authority that this was all legit, but it would appear that is not the case. Our apologies. We will leave this up as penance.
SECOND UPDATE: Keith Olbermann confirms the fakery on Twitter. Sorry, Keith.
THIRD UPDATE: Christ, now it’s on Huffington Post. All of a sudden we feel like a teenage girl who can’t distinguish between good attention and bad attention.
LAST UPDATE: Carlson, reached by phone Tuesday night, confirmed he impersonated Olbermann in the email responses to Bykofsky. "Could you resist?" Carlson said. "It was just too funny. The flesh is weak." Carlson said he didn’t expect the email exchange to be published.
Ho, ho. Ha, ha. It is to laugh. Carlson, you slay us with your spoon-like wit.
Yep, Stu got punked all right, but I really don't feel all that sorry for him. Because all of it was completely avoidable....well, assuming that he's a legitimate journalist who, you know, checks and verifies things first. Alas, he did not.
Had Stu bothered to make sure he had the correct email address, or verify the one he either guessed at or was given, none of this would have happened. If you go to KeithOlbermann.com you are immediately directed to a page that has a masthead reading, bigger than life, THE DAILY CALLER. This website contains a log of various articles about KO, obviously not written by him, and could be pretty quickly identified as an anti-fan site about KO. Had he taken 5 minutes to check either the About Us or Contact Ussections of this website, it would also have been obvious that nowhere on these pages does the email "Keith@keitholbermann.com" appear anywhere.
Not to mention which, had Stu even done a simple google search on that email address, what comes up? Well, after the results regarding this particular news story, what does come up immediately are links to articles about Tucker's purchase of the domain, and how he invites people to use that address to contact him (Tucker).
In other words, Tucker made his intentions known that he was going to use that same email address, on the record, and even THAT didn't give Stu a clue.
Phawker also posted a followup link regarding the criminal penalties in the State of New York for impersonating someone online:
In a continuing effort to combat identity theft, New York recently enacted an amendment to the Penal Law making it a crime to impersonate another person or pretend to be a public servant by means of online communication. Specifically, New York’s Internet impersonation law amends section 190.25 of the Penal Law by adding Subdivision 4, making it a crime to impersonate another person by electronic means, including through use of a website, with the intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another person. It also prohibits using such electronic means to pretend to be a public servant in order to induce another person to submit to false authority or to act in reliance on that false pretense.
Internet impersonation is a Class A misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and a one-year term of imprisonment for each violation or act of impersonation. The new law became effective on November 1, 2008.
Admittedly, Stu isn't guilty of being anything but a bit lazy and negligent in terms of verification of his sources....but it sure looks to me (in my non-expert layperson's opinion, mind you) as though the State of NY might have a good case against Tucker Carlson for impersonating KO a total of three (3) times, one for each email he sent as Not-Keith. The $3,000 fine isn't all that much to shout about, but a total of three years in prison might just wilt Tucker's bowtie permanently.
Not to mention which, KO probably has a cause of action against Tucker from a civil standpoint, since he obviously was going out of his way to put Keith in the worst possible light as part of his e-masquarade. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if Keith did decide to take civil action against Tucker on this, though I sure wouldn't blame him if he did.
But I have to admit, I'd be gleeful as all giddyup if the New York State Attorney's Office decided to invite Tucker in for a little chat about his antics.
UPDATE:
By the way, Tucker is not only an immature hack, but apparently (and not too surprisingly) he's also a LIAR.
In the update where Tucker was contacted and confirmed he was the author of the Not Keith emails, he said:
Carlson, reached by phone Tuesday night, confirmed he impersonated Olbermann in the email responses to Bykofsky. "Could you resist?" Carlson said. "It was just too funny. The flesh is weak." Carlson said he didn’t expect the email exchange to be published.
Really, Tucker? Then why did you say this in your second Not-Keith email?
As if.
I could have Phil Griffin fired tomorrow if I felt like it, trust me. And if he keeps yapping about me in public, I may. For the moment, however, keeping Phil around is like having a drunk chimp in the office — more amusing than threatening.
Feel free to correct the record in your "column."
KO
So, you basically told him to go update his column with your false "correction" that you so generously fed to him. How, exactly, is that not expecting he would publish your fake remarks?
UPDATE 2:
I made an error in attributing my source. Stu is a conservative writer for the Philadelphia Daily News, and the story I based this diary around is actually the blog Phawker.com, for whom Stu does not work. I've updated the diary accordingly, and thanks to Adam B in the comments below for pointing this out.