X-Post from GD -- NYT: Truce Reached in Cable News Feud (KO and Bill-O)

[Patsy Stone]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6195943

[SharonRB]

1. Interesting

My guess is KO won't mention it at all.

[SeattleGirl]

2. I just finished reading this article about the KO/O'Reilly thing.

Sounds like Keith was essentially told to shut up about O'Lielly and Faux. (Longish article, but worth the read, I think.)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/01/ge/index.html

[Berry Cool]

3. Every time I see someone on DU post this, I post that I think it's crap.

GD posters always use it to reinforce their belief that Keith's a corporate whore, a mere slave to GE who cannot be trusted any more than any other media source.

I ask you: Does Keith have a reputation for just doing what he is told?

There may be times when he has, but only when I think it coincidentally better served his ego to do so. Example: I do think he deliberately said nothing about Jon Stewart's excellent takedown of Jim Cramer, but not just because his bosses ordered him to lest he exhibit disloyalty to NBC. I think his ego also wouldn't allow him to admit that Stewart did such a good job of caling Cramer on the carpet that he made Keith look a bit cowardly for not doing the same. (It's Keith's misfortune that Jon Stewart is now serving as America's court jester: he's saying what a real newsman, even a funny newsman, might have a hard time getting away with saying.)

And no, I don't care what Keith said about it himself on Kos, because I'm not sure he's being quite truthful to himself about his reasons, much less the Kossacks. He gave some rather lame excuses there, such as something to the effect of "Since when do I report every night on what Jon Stewart says?" Um, Keith, little disingenuous there. You know damn well nobody expects you to report on what Jon Stewart says every night--but when he does something newsworthy that everyone else is talking about, it does look sorta peculiar when you choose to say nothing on the subject, especially when it concerns someone else in the NBC family.

Of course, I can't prove any of that. It's just what I believe. Your mileage may vary.

As for this, I think it is bull, and he called the Billo feud off all by his own self. This is just the execs' way to save face and take the credit by making it look as if it was all their doing and regardless of how things look on the air, they are still minding the store.

I also suspect Keith is not happy about it...but that if he says no more publicly about it than that he didn't do any sort of deal, it will only be because he sees wisdom in not belaboring the point to the embarrassment of his employers. I.e., he's learned better than to completely cut off his nose to spite his face, and if they want to make it look as if they slapped him into line, maybe he has to swallow his pride and say no more to deny it than he already has, because by doing so he gets to go on doing his show, as opposed to being a principled man with no job. He has learned to pick his battles better.

If he chooses not to fight this one, that's fine with me--but it doesn't mean I'll take this story at face value.