Hypocrite: In 2004, Keith Olbermann said MSNBC’s Election Office Pool was ‘Conflict of Interest’

Washington Examiner ^ | November 6, 2010 | Mark Hemingway

[lbryce]

While even Keith Olbermann’s critics seem to think that the possibility of MSNBC firing him for giving money to political candidates is a bridge to far, the whole episode has been a big reminder that the cable news host self-righteous hypocrite when it comes to journalistic ethics.

Case in point, see the following email exchange supplied to me by a former MSNBC employee. It’s between Olbermann and MSNBC producers who are trying to organize a friendly interoffice pool at the network to guess the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Olbermann will have none of it:

—–Original Message—– From: XXXX (NBC Universal, MSNBC) Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 10:53 AM To: @MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann; @MSNBC Scarborough Subject: Pool on how wins the elections…

Hi all -

XXXX and I were talking and came up with the idea of having a Countdown/Scarborough Country pool between our two staffs… You can chip in $5 and cast your bet on who would win the presidential race. Here’s how it will work, you need to give your best guess on the electoral college breakdown…

Here’s how it will work:

XXXX has offered to record your bet and take the $5 fee. The deadline is 3pm Monday November 1st.

You have to cast your bet on who will win, and the breakdown of the electoral votes… a tie will not be an acceptable answer. XXXX will keep a full record of everyone’s best and will announce the winner (let’s hope we have a winner on November 3rd, or 4th or sometime soon)…

[lbryce]

This article was written while Olbermann was still suspended. But now in the face of Olbermann's bald-faced lie someone ought to confront Olbermann about this apparent contradiction which should have far reaching consequences but won't.

[Red Badger]

Are we surprised?
No.
Do we care?
No.........

[lbryce]

This article was written while Olbermann was still suspended but with last night's statement that he didn't know about the rule, he should be branded more than just merely a hypocrite. I don't know what the legal ramifications of this apparent contradiction might be, but I am absolutely positive it will not at all affect his credibility.

That's because he never had any to begin with.

[Michael.SF.]

Note the subject: Scarborough Subject: Pool on how wins the elections…

Guesss these professional journalists do not proof read their e-mails.

[NautiNurse]

a bridge to far

A bridge two far

A bridge too far

[lbryce]

I had assumed your cryptic message was directed at me for having misspelled the homonyms, to, too, two but I've checked and re-checked both of my comments but have not found anything I might be responsible for as implied by you.

Please kindly raise the veneer of intrigue, mystery you've created as a result of your message. :-)

[Flightdeck]

whoever wrote the article should have used too. It is a glaring mistake for someone who has received high school english.

[Rennes Templar]

Looks lke the FR pedantics crew is out in full force tday.

[Michael.SF.]

the FR pedantics crew is out in full force tday

We all make mistakes, and rarely do I comment on them, as it is often both trivial and distracting. However in this case a professional journalist makes a glaring error in the subject heading.

They accuse us (conservative/Republicans) for being stupid all the time so turn about is fair play.