Oh wait, they did it because their corporate overlords told them to.
Yes it looks like that friend you have who smokes too much pot and complains that politics is just professional wrestling finally has a newspaper he can wave in your face in between bong hits.
So basically what we have here is that Keith Olbermann found an easy target in Bill O'Reilly, because everyone does. Except Olbermann had a directly competiting show and took some funny shots and made up a stupid voice to talk as "Bill-o" and generally revealed O'Reilly for the clown he is. Until that is, Olbermann himself became a self-important blowhard, but that was much later.
Anyway, Bill O'Reilly either didn't want to name Olbermann and give him more recognition, couldn't find tape of him being a monster or knew Keith was right. So he launched the news entertainment equivalent of a "Yo Momma" joke and made it his divine mission to expose corporate malfeasance...so long as it was G.E. doing it and not, you know, NewsCorp. This meant saying absolutely insane things about G.E. doing business with Iran like, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt." Yes, totally classy stuff Bill. O'Reilly's mouthbreather viewers of course took this as gospel and sent
So Immelt got his panties in a bunch and then this happened:
At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.
Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.
Ooooooh, tre collusion! Look, it's not as if I'm some naive waif who thinks that a battle for ratings didn't drive part of the O'Reilly/Olbermann feud, but it's just gross to think that the rich guys who control the stations finally got tired of it and told their dogs to go after someone else. How much of Olbermann's vitriol and how much of O'Reilly's blowhard victim card was genuine in that case? They both always seemed pretty damned agreived, and not for nothing, but they also brought up important issues about the opposite party, at least in the minds of their insane viewers.
So how much of this is true? Let's just ask Olbermann and O'Reilly, shall we?
Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal[.]”
OK, so Keith responds in his usual "Edward R. Murrow important guy voice", totally in character.
Fox News said it would not comment.
And Fox News won't talk to the Times because the reporter was probably some Obama voting America hater. Well, at least we know this deal hasn't changed the fundamental character or either party.