Unless you’re just waking up after a sixteen-hour nap, you’ve probably heard about Keith Olbermann’s very abrupt departure from popular MSNBC property Countdown at the end of last night’s show.

Olbermann was halfway into a four-year contract, and at an unusual time to break ties with the network- save for the Comcast takeover set to go down in about a week. Both Olbermann and MSNBC have been quiet as to whether the left-leaning anchor was asked to leave or initiated the breakup, but one party has spoken out as to what didn’t cause the split. Late on Friday night, Comcast released a statement regarding Olbermann’s announcement surprise Countdown exit just before the last commercial break:

“Comcast has not closed the transaction for NBC Universal and has no operational control at any of its properties including MSNBC. We pledged from the day the deal was announced that we would not interfere with NBC Universal’s news operations. We have not and we will not.”

Olbermann hasn’t breathed a tweet on Twitter regarding the break, and speculation as to whether he was fired or wanted to leave ahead of Comcast’s takeover is pretty rife right now. Olbermann’s own words on the show last night seem to indicate the former, however:

“I think the same fantasy popped into the head of everybody in my business who has ever been told what I have been told: this will be the last edition of your show. You go to the scene from the movie ‘Network,’ complete with the pajamas and the raincoat, and go off on a verbal journey of unutterable vision and you insist upon Peter Finch’s gutteral resonance and you will the viewer to go to the window, open it, stick out his head and yell. You know the rest. In the mundane world of television goodbyes, reality is laughably uncooperative.”

It has also been floated that Olbermann will be barred from appearing on TV for a certain period, a la Conan after his flaming departure from The Tonight Show, but that we should expect to see Olbermann active on the internet.

Comcast denies having a hand in Keith Olbermann’s sudden MSNBC departure is a post from: The Inquisitr

As Julian Assange remained jailed without charges in Britain awaiting a bail hearing this, the popular narrative regarding Wikileaks shifted massively.

While the previous week centered more on censorship and (in case you forgot) the content of the leaking diplomatic cables, the nature of the charges of which Assange has yet to be accused took center stage this week. Confusion about what the charges could entail reigned, and despite the absence of formal charges against Assange, lefty bloggers dissolved into two distinct camps.

1.) This is an OUTRAGE, Assange was accused of RAPE, and anyone who breathes a word in the opposite direction is a RAPE APOLOGIST;

and 2.) This is an OUTRAGE, Assange hasn’t been charged with anything and this whole brouhaha is a clear attempt to smear him/honeytrap/CIA/FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

…which, as you can imagine, hasn’t been all that productive. The latest casualty in the Julian Assange Rape Allegations Flamewar of 2010 is Keith Olbermann, who drew the ire of one of the most rabid subsets of bloggers- feminists- after allowing Michael Moore to speak on his show regarding his partial bailing out of Assange. I’m sure there’s a “bingo card” somewhere that will insult me for this, but engaging with this area of the blogosphere is particularly headache inducing. It’s a bit shoutier than most, and the rhetoric is peppered with an off-putting condescension that even for the internet is stunning and unique in its audacity. It also insists upon itself loudly, rapidly dismissing counterpoints with all caps usage of the words “DOUCHE” and “RAPE APOLOGIST.” (When noted feminist Naomi Wolf broke ranks in defense of Assange, she was lazily lambasted by Bitch Magazine as a “douche,” despite her reasoned critique of the use of women’s issues to pursue larger, unrelated political goals. Kind of proving that that strategy, as a whole, works.)

So it really comes as no surprise that when confronted with the accusation of being an all-caps RAPE APOLOGIST, Olbermann fled Twitter in heartbreak, shame and frustration. Part of the frustration surrounding the Julian Assange brouhaha is that it is impossible to defend Assange without being accused of defending rape, rapists or being a DUDEBRO. While it is possible, as many feminist bloggers point out, to defend Wikileaks and want to see Assange prosecuted, the opinion that the timing and motivation behind the charges is suspect is PATRIARCHAL RAPE APOLOGY and will not be tolerated.

Olbermann posted a brief Twitter explanation behind his flight, which only served to heighten the furor and prompt a mostly-inactive Salon writer to pen a piece titled- I kid you not- “Keith Olbermann quit Twitter because of me.” Which seems a bit high-handed and self-absorbed considering the amount of outrage spewing forth from both sides of the Assange supporter and detractor saga, not even considering the disgusting level of self-promotion into which the post happily, shamelessly descends. It seems pretty likely Olbermann left Twitter because of the sheer cacaphony and ugly accusations behind the campaign, not one user who managed to invent a hashtag that caught on. (I hate to break it to you, Sady Doyle, but 11-year-olds with Bieber fever do that every single day.)

In Olbermann’s measured and thoughtful five-tweet long response, he addressed himself but not Michael Moore (the original outrage target)- serving only to increase the clusterfracas:

Rape has touched my family, directly and savagely, and if anybody thinks I have addressed it without full sensitivity, then that assessment is the one that counts, and I apologize. But these accusations that I “revealed” an accuser’s identity by retweeting Bianca Jagger’s link, or that I ‘shamed’ an accuser by asking a question about the prosecution of a man governments are trying to bury, or that I do not ‘understand’ charges that have yet to be presented in their final form, reflect exactly the the kind of rushing to judgment of which I’m accused, and merit the same kind of apology I have just given.

If you’re interested in following the Moore/Olbermann Twitter saga, the anti-Olbermann and Moore tweeters have firmly latched onto the hashtag #mooreandme, and it continues. As for Olbermann, responding to the level of invective with which he is being pummeled is a herculean task, and I can’t blame him for taking a break from Twitter.

Have you been following the controversy on Twitter or any particular blogs? Do you fall into either outrage camp, or are you on Team Don’t Give a Fuck?

Keith Olbermann driven off Twitter by feminist outrage is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you got freaked out and joined a Facebook group to get Keith Olbermann his job back, you can chill out now- he’s back tomorrow after a four day, two show suspension.

Olbermann got publicly wrist slapped last week for unapproved donations he made to three Democratic party candidates in two states. MSNBC president Phil Griffin released a clipped statement at the time saying Olbermann had been suspended ‘indefinitely,’ which a new statement seems to indicate works out to be a very brief time. Says Griffin:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Mediaite is quick to point out that the statement specifically indicates Olbermann is allowed to return to air Tuesday, not that he will definitely be hosting tomorrow’s Countdown. It is fairly likely, though, that MSNBC won’t be Olbermann-less for very long.

‘Indefinite’ Olbermann suspension turns out to be two shows is a post from: The Inquisitr

Keith Olbermann, you are having the worst week ever.

Olbermann, who has been described as a “top anchor” on MSNBC, was unfavorably cited by Jon Stewart at the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” leading to his decision to remove the “Worst Person in the World” segment on his show. However, politics blog Politico then fingered Olbermann as a donor to the election campaigns of three Democrats in two states, leading to his ‘indefinite’ removal as a host for MSNBC. In a statement, president Phil Griffin chided:

“I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

The New York Times said folks at MSNBC’s parent company NBC were tight-lipped about the popular, openly liberal host’s future at the network, but say the move is not one on the path to axing Olbermann. Some see the very public wrist slap as an indirect critique of Fox News’s bald-faced bias, and as an attempt to differentiate itself from the highly criticized, mostly conservative network’s variant journalistic standards.

The Times quotes Michael Moynihan of Reason magazine, who wonders why Olbermann can’t make official what he says nightly on television:

Mr. Moynihan asked, “Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?”

In a statement made after the existence of the donations was made public, Olbermann admitted to donating the money, but indicated that he did not use his influence inappropriately to sway voters:

Bitchslap: Olbermann suspended ‘indefinitely’ for donating to Dems is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last night’s The Daily Show did a great bit explaining Chatroulette in a segment featuring a Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Keith Olbermann, TDS staffers Wyatt Cynac and Jason Jones, and most hilariously, a sheepish Brian Williams.

Stewart basically informed the six people who might not know that Chatroulette is roughly 98% penis and 2% hilarity. Clip below:

VIDEO: Jon Stewart explains Chatroulette is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chris Matthews reminded everyone last night how much it must suck to have to react to things like the State of the Union address on live TV.

In what appears to be the clumsiest compliment ever recorded on live television, Chris Matthews, chatting with Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, begins to wax lyrical about how “post racial” the president appears to him. There are several clips floating around, but the clip below, a slightly longer version, seems to provide more context for the remarks. (Of course, some might say he was trying to dig himself out from his ill-thought out turn of phrase, but I think Matthews was genuine in what he thought was praise.)

Matthews will undoubtedly not hear the end of this for a while, but do you think it was a bit of clumsy, old fashioned attitude showing through (remember, VP Joe Biden and Harry Reid have made similar poorly received comments) or something more inexcusable?

Chris Matthews comments on SOTU: “I forgot he was black…” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Jon Stewart, whose popular Daily Show usually skewers right-wing talking heads, politicians and pundits, did a pretty searing point by point critique of some comments of Keith Olbermann’s this week.

Stewart called Olbermann out for his invective about the Republican who beat out Dem Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. And it was hilarious.

Jon Stewart dresses Keith Olbermann down for partisan comments is a post from: The Inquisitr

Katy Tur at the Weather Channel

Katy Tur’s new gig, TVNewser reports, will be “chasing tornadoes” as part of The Weather Channel’s Vortex2 program.

Tur has apparently talked tornadoes on The Weather Channel before: A short video is available here showing her discussing tornado-chasing gadgets.

NBC Universal owns both MSNBC and The Weather Channel. Olbermann tells TVNewser, however, he had nothing to do with Katy Tur getting the job.

“Anybody who suggests so is misinformed, and/or sadly unaware that in this time when the industry is collapsing around us, nobody gets a job based on ‘influence,’ only talent,” he said.

Katy Tur, Keith Olbermann’s Girlfriend, Joins The Weather Channel is a post from: The Inquisitr

It wouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever watched his show that Keith Olbermann took great delight this week at the Bush Iraq Shoe incident, but thankfully for us, he served another purpose as well: a great wrap of all the Bush Shoe animations, gifs and games that have sprung up online since the incident took place.

Here’s Keith Olbermann talking Bush shoes, including footage of the best online piss-takes.

Best Bush Shoe Animations and Gifs care of Keith Olbermann is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Huffington Post JV 23/6 has been a bit hit and miss with its content, but lately it starting to get better. Their latest: Keith Olbermann in a Minute captures the spirit of MSNBC’s nightly show host.

One both those on the right and left will probably enjoy.

Keith Olbermann in a Minute is a post from: The Inquisitr

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann used his show this evening to speak out against Proposition 8.

I’ll leave the description to AfterElton.com

It’s easily the most passionate, articulate, and moving comment I’ve seen in this whole Prop 8 mess, and it comes from a man who has zero personal investment in any kind of gay rights movement, which he makes clear early on. He’s just a man who believes in decency and in giving love a chance in a world where the odds against its survival are already great enough.

Here’s the full Keith Olbermann Prop 8 video:

Update: full transcript

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics.

This is about the… human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not… understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them — no. You can’t have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don’t cause too much trouble. You’ll even give them all the same legal rights — even as you’re taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can’t marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage.

If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal… in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry…black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are… gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing — centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children… All because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

—

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of…love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know…It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person…

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

“I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam,” he told the judge.

“It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

“So I be written in the Book of Love;

“I do not care about that Book above.

“Erase my name, or write it as you will,

“So I be written in the Book of Love.”

—

Good night, and good luck.

Keith Olbermann speaks out against Proposition 8 is a post from: The Inquisitr