So who cares? That's always been my take. Disgusting and destructive to feeling? Yes, definitely. But in any monogamous situation lasting longer than a few months, it's a moot point. No? (granted, some women just don't tolerate the pill well. Bring on the male version!)

I realize you need to protect the confidentiality of your sources, so it may take some creativity. But can you post a redacted version of the

not-for-attribution emails from a person who has first-hand knowledge of GE's newsroom edict

If not.. there must be some other way to clear this up without arguing terminology. I'm perfectly willing to believe Olbermann would flat out lie to keep his job/credibility. He's a human being.

..but I'm not going to make up my mind one way or the other without better data than some unknown third party's word. Pretty much just as I scorn the piteous creatures in the Repugosphere when they talk about what Americans believe.

I can't figure out if you're serious or tongue-in-cheek. You're clearly aware that sometimes people use 'tell' and 'ask' interchangeably. Are you trying to goad a further clarification from KO, or do you read his response as a true confirmation of your earlier reporting?

(I'm calling it reporting because if you've got people on the inside, you're giving blogs a bad name by not playing echo chamber! For shame.)

I'm so used to people contradicting themselves when backpedaling that KO's statement didn't make much of an impact. As far as I could tell, he wanted to simultaneously deny there was any 'order' (I read it as imprecise language) and appear to support GG.

I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and have found nothing materially factually inaccurate about it. Fox and NewsCorp have continued a strategy of threat and blackmail by Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Bill O'Reilly since at least 2004. But no matter what might have been reported by others besides Mr. Greenwald, and no matter what might have been thought around this industry, there's no "deal." I would never consent, and, fortunately, MSNBC and NBC News would never ask me to.

I am able to read the above as: "Sure, GE and Newscorp execs had those discussions (among themselves), but nobody ever told me to shut up." Granted, if KO is intent on splitting hairs here, he could be alluding to an order (as opposed to a request), but I don't see that explicitly stated, and as such it isn't a convincing admission that GE ordered (or asked, or whatever) KO to shut up about Fox.

I don't watch TV, and that includes whatever KO does on it. I get him confused with Jon Stewart. I just didn't find the argument persuasive. He made a statement whilst doing the gobbling backpedaling people do when they (or their bosses) have made a serious public error.

But as you say a literal reading of his statement there contains a direct, unambiguous confirmation of your reporting. He then contradicts the spirit, if not the literal meaning of his confirmation, and I interpret his statement through the lens of someone caught in a scandal (however minor) and feeling the (emotional) need to fix things that tends to lead to inaccurate language. Gobble gobble gobble. Reminds me of Nancy Pelosi confronted with her enabling role in the FISA stuff.

Exactly! I do believe he was probably ordered, asked, whatever, to lay off Fox. I don't believe he implicated himself or his bosses with his gobbling.

In particular, the fact that his statements (especially including the statement about the Tiller business) so thoroughly contradict one another as to be meaningless.

So, I concluded you can't use anything the man says about this to prove anything, since his words are garbage. Is that not logical?

Like the contents of your mind, your genetic code (to the extent you can keep it concealed) is your business. What matters is what you show the world. Anyone combining their code with yours to produce children has to take their lumps as far as surprises go.

This is akin to the abortion debate in my mind: woman's body, woman's choice. Doesn't matter that a man was involved in putting the fetus there.

Agreed. When I went back and reviewed some of KO's work (with which I wasn't terribly familiar) I was struck by how different his handling of this situation was. The only factor that could explain it (IMO) is his personal stake.

Therefore nothing he says in regard to this issue can be taken seriously. I don't care about court evidenciary rules. Courts do things the way they do out of a desire to create consent, not find truth-- as long as people can agree on some standard, a court will be happy. Since I'm concerned with what is really true, I can't realistically trust anything the man says regarding this issue, and ultimately that's why I took issue with Glenn's claim that his statement "proved" Glenn's source's claim.

I'd still like some more insight into how this went down inside MSNBC, from somebody. It'd be useful to know exactly what type and depth of falsehood KO's willing to tell in support of his job.

If you seek out a mate who, by virtue of luck or industry has ended up with attractive attributes.. you'll at least reap the benefits of luck or industry. That's not bad!

People who believe they can pay someone to help them make more money have cognitive issues though. This applies to "education", "investing", or the various self-help seminars appearing at a Holiday Inn near you.