It's funny that the Olbermann haters call the people who support him here "Olbyloons," yet they're the ones who steal the names of "known" Olbermann fans/webmasters with which to post hateful comments about him both from a journalistic and a personal standpoint, and twist his commentaries in the above article to mean something they don't. (For example, they claim he is saying that what has been said about him is "legally true" when he says no such thing; in fact, he says first, and explicitly, that he hasn't addressed it before because he deals in TRUTH. He says only theoretically that legal truth, aside from that issue, is not nearly enough to hang a news story on--but that's merely in theory, it's not in reference at all to what he's being asked about. But the Olbermann haters will twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean.)

Really, it's amazing how much the Olbermann haters hate Olbermann and his supporters, and the extent they will go to in order to smear, slam and lie about us. I really wish they would quit lying and find better things to do with their time.

To "Mandy" and "Alison," who are probably both the same person: Olbermann takes NO shots here at all, at anyone. Olbermann is not "dismissing" him, he is simply stating a fact, which you are twisting and distorting into a "dis." He doesn't have to lie about the structure of MSNBC in order to "win friends in the workplace"--I'm sure he does that just fine without any help from you. And I did read the comments about his brush with the tabloids "very carefully"--and he DOES deny the truth of what was said. He said "First off, I deal with truth." What more do you need? THEN he questions the news value of anything coming anonymously from a blog, because he is pointing out how poorly sourced it was for the New York Post to publish it at all. And he is right! Yes, he wants to give interviews to blogs like this one--because the authors are not anonymous and don't hide behind a cloak of secrecy. In other words, they act like journalists, not gossipmongers who won't stand behind what they say about someone. Nowhere here does he ask a question "to get away from answering the question posed," but rather to shed a light on the situation. And he didn't "pitch a fit" when Fox News left off an "n" on his name, he LAUGHED--although it sure wasn't professional journalism from Fox to misspell his name! The reason Olbermann didn't "go on TV from Day 1 and deny this" is because there was no reason to until someone asked him about it; it was all stuff and nonsense from an anonymous source, and if you address that kind of garbage when you don't absolutely have to, all it does is lend it the credibility it does not deserve. Olbermann is not "tarring" himself at all. He's suffered not one whit for what he's said about Rita Cosby (probably because she IS stupid, and MSNBC agrees with him on that point!), and he's said nothing unflattering about Tucker Carlson or Dan Abrams at all (in fact, he's stuck up for Tucker sometimes!) And Karma's blog is the very definition of "doing anonymous stories about myself" (because that is what THAT loser is doing), so it deserves no credence whatsoever. Olbermann did NOT "essentially say that what was said on Karma's blog is true"--he said right off: "I deal in truth." In other words, he hasn't addressed it before because HE DEALS IN TRUTH! "Alison" and "Mandy" are the "Sideshow Bobs" of commenters: their goal is obviously to post as many reinforcements of lies about Keith Olbermann as possible in order to do whatever they can to drip poison into the atmosphere at the time of his contract renegotiations. No doubt they are either Karma's "friends" (such as she has), Olbermann Watch acolytes, or both. They might as well forget it; Olbermann's show is a hit and he's not going anywhere. I hope he re-signs with MSNBC for a figure that gives them heart attacks.

Alison, you say Olbermann "confirms the KarmaBites blog business in this interview." No, he does not. He confirms that he knows it exists, but he also states flatly that there's no truth to it. You'll note that he says he hasn't addressed it previously because "first off, I stick to truth."

You also say "this has got to be one of the most ungracious, self-serving interviews I've ever seen out of him and that's really saying something since he has a long history of slamming fellow employees and management types." What did he say exactly that was so "ungracious and self-serving" and consisted of "slamming fellow employees and management types"? He said, when asked why Dan Abrams had said his show "could become a model for the newscast of the future," "I don't know what Dan has to do with it frankly. We've never had a conversation about the direction of the show." He also said "we rarely interact." How does that constitute "slamming" Abrams? Sounds to me like he was just making a factual statement. It was the reporter who then said "What the hell is Abrams doing giving quotes about you to everyone from the Washington Post to the LA Times, then?" to which he said "You got me. No, really..." Sounds like he said that more in humor than in hostility (and you'll note HE isn't the one who used the phrase "What the hell is he doing..."?).

Then again, those who are looking for any possible excuse to smear Keith Olbermann (because they don't like his work) typically engage in the kind of distortion of his words in which you just engaged. Sorry. Trying to tar him with the old and very outdated brush of "He can't get along with his employers" won't work. Right now Keith's employers appear very happy with him--just as happy as his viewers are. And for good reason.