Habeas corpus ( /ˌheɪbiːəs ˈkɔrpəs/; Latin: "may you have the body") is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to their aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system to assist wealthy landowners, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom of certain individuals against arbitrary state action. It is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge.

A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then they must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called "habeas corpus".^[1] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom').

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. Furthermore, in many countries, the process may be suspended due to a national emergency.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".^[2]

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Derivation and form[link]

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase, which can be literally translated as “(We command) that you have the body”.^[3] or "you should arrest" the conventional incipit of medieval arrest warrants in England. The writ is referred to in full in legal texts as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum or more rarely ad subjiciendum et recipiendum. It is sometimes described as the “great writ”. Its name derives from the operative words of the writ in Medieval Latin:

Praecipimus tibi quod corpus A.B. in prisona nostra sub custodia tua detentum, ut dicitur, una cum die et causa captionis et detentionis suae, quocumque nomine praedictus A.B. censeatur in eadem, habeas coram nobis ... ad subjiciendum et recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo adtunc et ibidem ordinare contigerit in hac parte. Et hoc nullatenus omittatis periculo incumbente. Et habeas ibi hoc breve.

We command you, that the body of A.B. in Our prison under your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his taking and detention, by whatever name the said A.B. may be known therein, you have at our Court ... to undergo and to receive that which our Court shall then and there consider and order in that behalf. Hereof in no way fail, at your peril. And have you then there this writ.

The word habeas in the writ is in the subjunctive (specifically the volitive subjunctive): "We command that you have ...". That the basic form of the writs of habeas corpus, now written in English, has changed little over the centuries can be seen from the following examples.

Examples[link]

VICTORIA by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, to J.K., Keeper of our Gaol of Jersey, in the Island of Jersey, and to J.C. Viscount of said Island, Greeting. We command you that you have the body of C.C.W. detained in our prison under your custody, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained, by whatsoever name he may be called or known, in our Court before us, at Westminster, on the 18th day of January next, to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things which our said Court shall then and there consider of him in this behalf; and have there then this Writ.

United States of America, Second Judicial Circuit, Southern District of New York, ss.: We command you that the body of Charles L. Craig, in your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention, you safely have before Honorable Martin T. Manton, United States Circuit Judge for the Second Judicial Circuit, within the circuit and district aforesaid, to do and receive all and singular those things which the said judge shall then and there consider of him in this behalf; and have you then and there this writ.

Similarly named writs[link]

The full name of the writ is often used to distinguish it from similar ancient writs, also named habeas corpus. These include

• Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum: a writ for bringing an accused from a different county into a court in the place where a crime had been committed for purposes of trial, or more literally to return holding the body for purposes of “deliberation and receipt” of a decision.("extradition")
• Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum (also called habeas corpus cum causa): a writ of a superior court to a custodian to return with the body being held by the order of a lower court "with reasons", for the purpose of “receiving” the decision of the superior court and of “doing” what it ordered.
• Habeas corpus ad prosequendum: a writ ordering return with a prisoner for the purpose of “prosecuting” him before the court.
• Habeas corpus ad respondendum: a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to “answer” to new proceedings before the court.
• Habeas corpus ad testificandum: a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for the purposes of “testifying".

Origins in England[link]

In the 17th century the foundations for habeas corpus were "wrongly thought" to have originated in Magna Carta.^[4] This charter declared that

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted." The procedure for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous law (the Habeas Corpus Act 1640) had been passed forty years earlier to overturn a ruling that the command of the King was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the royal courts of law. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge. Since the eighteenth century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1771), where the black slave Somersett was ordered to be freed. In that case these famous words are said to have been uttered "The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it".^[5]

The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although internment without trial has been authorised by statute since that time, for example during the two World Wars and the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the habeas corpus procedure has in modern times always technically remained available to such internees. However, as habeas corpus is only a procedural device to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention, so long as the detention is in accordance with an Act of Parliament, the petition for habeas corpus is unsuccessful. Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts have been able to declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but such a declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect unless and until it is acted upon by the government.

The wording of the writ of habeas corpus implies that the prisoner is brought to the court for the legality of the imprisonment to be examined. However, rather than issuing the writ immediately and waiting for the return of the writ by the custodian, modern practice in England is for the original application to be followed by a hearing with both parties present to decide the legality of the detention, without any writ being issued. If the detention is held to be unlawful, the prisoner can usually then be released or bailed by order of the court without having to be produced before it. It is also possible for individuals held by the state to petition for judicial review, and individuals held by non-state entities to apply for an injunction.

Other jurisdictions[link]

Australia[link]

The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of Australia's English law inheritance.^[6] In 2005, the Australian parliament passed the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on habeas corpus.^{[7][unreliable source?]}

Canada[link]

Habeas corpus rights are part of the British legal tradition inherited by Canada. The rights exist in the common law but have been enshrined in the Constitution Act 1982, under Section Ten of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[8] This states that "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention... (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful."

Suspension of the writ in Canadian history occurred famously during the October Crisis, during which the War Measures Act was invoked by the Governor General of Canada on the constitutional advice of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who had received a request from the Quebec Cabinet. The Act was also used to justify German, Slavic, and Ukrainian Canadian internment during the First World War, and the internment of German-Canadians, Italian Canadians and of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.

The writ is available where there is no other adequate remedy. However, a superior court always has the discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy (see May v. Ferndale Institution). Under the Criminal Code of Canada the writ is largely unavailable if a statutory right of appeal exists, whether or not this right has been exercised.

Germany[link]

Germany has constitutional guarantees against improper detention and have been implemented in statutory law in a manner that can be considered as equivalent to writs of habeas corpus.

Article 104, paragraph 1 of the German Constitution provides that deprivations of liberty may be imposed only on the basis of a specific enabling statute that also must include procedural rules. Article 104, paragraph 2 requires that any arrested individual be brought before a judge by the end of the day following the day of the arrest. For those detained as criminal suspects, article 104, paragraph 3 specifically requires that the judge must grant a hearing to the suspect in order to rule on the detention.

Restrictions on the power of the authorities to arrest and detain individuals also emanate from article 2 paragraph 2 of the Constitution which guarantees liberty and requires a statutory authorization for any deprivation of liberty. In addition, several other articles of the Constitution have a bearing on the issue. The most important of these are article 19, which generally requires a statutory basis for any infringements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution while also guaranteeing judicial review; article 20, paragraph 3, which guarantees the rule of law; and article 3 which guarantees equality.

In particular, a constitutional obligation to grant remedies for improper detention is required by article 19, paragraph 4 of the Constitution which provides as follows: "Should any person’s right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts."^[9]

India[link]

The Indian judiciary, in a catena of cases has effectively resorted to the writ of habeas corpus to secure release of a person from illegal detention. The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of locus standi, so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The scope of habeas relief has expanded in recent times by actions of the Indian judiciary.^[10] The habeas writ was used in the Rajan case. It was also filed by Panthers Party to protest the imprisonment of Anna Hazare, a social activist.

Ireland[link]

In the Republic of Ireland access to the remedy of habeas corpus is guaranteed by Article 40.4 of the 1937 constitution. This guarantees "personal liberty" to each individual and outlines a detailed habeas corpus procedure. It does not mention the Latin term but includes the English phrase "produce the body". The constitution provides that the habeas procedure is not binding on the Defence Forces during a state of war or armed rebellion.

Article 40.4.2° states that a prisoner, or anyone acting on his behalf, may make a complaint to the High Court (or to any High Court judge) of unlawful detention. The court must then investigate the matter "forthwith" and may order that the defendant bring the prisoner before the court and give reasons for his detention. The court must immediately release the detainee unless it is satisfied that he is being held lawfully. The full text of the provision is as follows:

Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law. [Italics added]

The state inherited habeas corpus as part of the common law when it seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922, but the remedy was also guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State in force from 1922 to 1937. A similar provision was included when the current constitution was adopted in 1937. Since that date habeas corpus has been restricted by two constitutional amendments, the Second Amendment in 1941 and the Sixteenth Amendment in 1996.

Before the Second Amendment, an individual detained had the constitutional right to apply to any High Court judge for a writ of habeas corpus and to as many High Court judges as he wished. Since the Second Amendment, a prisoner has had only the right to apply to one judge, and, once a writ has been issued, the President of the High Court has authority to choose the judge or panel of three judges who will decide the case. The amendment also added a requirement that if the High Court believes someone's detention to be invalid due to the unconstitutionality of a law, it must refer the matter to the Irish Supreme Court and may only release the individual on bail in the interim.

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in the O'Callaghan case that the provisions of the constitution meant that an individual charged with a crime could be refused bail only if she was likely to flee or to interfere with witnesses or evidence. Since the Sixteenth Amendment, it has been possible for a court to take into account whether a person has committed serious crimes while on bail in the past.

Malaysia[link]

In Malaysia, the remedy of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the federal constitution, although not by name. Article 5(2) of the Constitution of Malaysia provides that "Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him."

As there are several statutes, for example, the Internal Security Act 1960, that still permit detention without trial, the procedure is usually effective in such cases only if it can be shown that there was a procedural error in the way that the detention was ordered.

New Zealand[link]

In New Zealand habeas corpus may be invoked against the government or private individuals. In 2006, a child was allegedly kidnapped by his maternal grandfather after a custody dispute. The father began habeas corpus proceedings against the mother, the grandfather, the grandmother, the great grandmother, and another person alleged to have assisted in the kidnap of the child. The mother did not present the child to the court and so was imprisoned for contempt of court.^[11] She was released when the grandfather came forward with the child in late January 2007.

The Philippines[link]

In the Bill of Rights of the Philippine constitution, habeas corpus is guaranteed in terms almost identically to those used in the U.S. Constitution. in Article 3, Section 15 of the Constitution of the Philippines states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it."

In 1971, after the Plaza Miranda bombing, the Marcos administration, under Ferdinand Marcos, suspended habeas corpus in an effort to stifle the oncoming insurgency, having blamed the Filipino Communist Party for the events of August 21. Many considered this to be a prelude to Martial Law. After widespread protests, however, the Marcos administration decided to reintroduce the writ. In December 2009, habeas corpus was suspended in Maguindanao as the province was placed under martial law. This occurred in response to the Maguindanao massacre.^[12]

Scotland[link]

The Parliament of Scotland passed a law to have the same effect as habeas corpus in the eighteenth century. This now known as the Criminal Procedure Act 1701 c.6.^[13] It was originally called "the Act for preventing wrongful imprisonment and against undue delays in trials". It is still in force although certain parts have been repealed.

Spain[link]

In 1526 the Fuero Nuevo established a form of habeas corpus in the territory of the Señorío de Vizcaya. The present Constitution of Spain states that "A habeas corpus procedure shall be provided for by law to ensure the immediate handing over to the judicial authorities of any person illegally arrested". The statute which regulates the procedure is the Law of Habeas Corpus of 24 May 1984 which provides that a person imprisoned may, on his own or through a third person, allege he is imprisoned unlawfully and request to appear before a judge. The request must specify the grounds on which the detention is considered to be unlawful which can be, for example, that the custodian holding the prisoner does not have the legal authority, that the prisoner's constitutional rights have been violated, or that he has been subjected to mistreatment. The judge may then request additional information if needed and may issue a habeas corpus order at which point the custodian has 24 hours to bring the prisoner before the judge.

United States[link]

The United States inherited habeas corpus from the English common law. In England the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil, not criminal, ex parte proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings are to determine whether the court which imposed sentence on the defendant had jurisdiction and authority to do so, or whether the defendant's sentence has expired. Habeas corpus is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to a deportation proceeding.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus has occurred in United States history; Former Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, and George W. Bush have all signed the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Equivalent remedies[link]

Poland[link]

In 1433 King Jagiełło granted the Privilege of Jedlna, which proclaimed, Neminem captivabimus nisi iure victum (“We will not imprison anyone except if convicted by law”). This revolutionary innovation in civil libertarianism gave Polish citizens due process-style rights that did not exist in any other European country for another 250 years. Originally, the Privilege of Jedlna was restricted to the nobility (the szlachta), but it was extended to cover townsmen in the 1791 Constitution. Importantly, social classifications in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were not as rigid as in other European countries; townspeople and Jews were sometimes ennobled. The Privilege of Jedlna provided broader coverage than many subsequently enacted habeas corpus laws because Poland’s nobility constituted an unusually large percentage of the country's total population, which was Europe’s largest. As a result, by the 16th century, it was protecting the liberty of between 500 thousand and a million Poles.^[14]

[edit] World habeas corpus

In the 1950s, American lawyer Luis Kutner began advocating an international writ of habeas corpus to protect individual human rights. In 1952 he filed a petition for a "United Nations Writ of Habeas Corpus" on behalf of William N. Oatis, an American journalist jailed the previous year by the Communist government of Czechoslovakia.^[15] Alleging that Czechoslovakia had violated Oatis's rights under the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that the United Nations General Assembly had "inherent power" to fashion remedies for human rights violations, the petition was filed with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.^[16] The Commission forwarded the petition to Czechoslovakia, but no other United Nations action was taken.^[16] Oatis was released in 1953. Kutner went on to publish numerous articles and books advocating the creation of an "International Court of Habeas Corpus." ^[17]

See also[link]

• Arbitrary arrest and detention
• corpus delicti – other Latin legal term using corpus, here meaning the fact of a crime having been committed, not the body of the person being detained nor (as sometimes inaccurately used) to the body of the victim
• Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon
• Habeas Corpus (play), by the English writer and playwright Alan Bennett.
• Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
• Habeas Data
• List of legal Latin terms
• Military Commissions Act of 2006
• Murder conviction without a body
• Philippine Habeas Corpus Cases
• Recurso de amparo (Writ of amparo)
• Subpoena ad testificandum
• Subpoena duces tecum

Notes and references[link]

Further reading[link]

• Asha Bandele "Habeas Corpus is a legal Entitlement", a poem in Absence in the Palms of My Hands & Other Poems. New York: Harlem River Press. 1996.
• A.H. Carpenter. "Habeas Corpus in the Colonies." The American Historical Review. Vol. 8., No. 1 (October 1902), pages 18–27.
• Louis Fisher. 2003. Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1238-6.
• Michael Dobbs. 2004. Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America. Vintage. ISBN 1-4000-3042-0.
• Charles Doyle. 2006. Federal Habeas Copus: A Brief Legal Overview. Congressional Research Service.
• Peter Irons. 1999. A People's History of the Supreme Court. Viking. ISBN 0-670-87006-4. Political context for Ex Parte Milligan explained on Pp. 186–189.
• Helen A. Nutting. "The Most Wholesome Law—The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679." The American Historical Review. Vol. 65., No. 3 (April 1960), pages 527–543.
• Geoffrey R. Stone. 2004. Perilous Times, Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act to the War on Terrorism. Norton. ISBN 0-393-05880-8.
• Cary Federman. 2006. The Body and the State: Habeas Corpus and American Jurisprudence. SUNY. ISBN 0-7914-6703-1.
• Eric M. Freedman. 2001. Habeas Corpus: Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty (NYU Press) ISBN 0-8147-2717-4
• Lisa M. Seghetti and Nathan James. 2006. Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: Background, Legislation, and Issues. Congressional Research Service.
• Donald E. Wilkes Jr, The Georgia Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995 (1995) & Habeas Corpus: The Great Writ Hit (2006) & Habeas Corpus Uncorpsed (2008) & Habeas Corpus and Baseball (2006) & The Writ of Habeas Corpus in Georgia (2007) & Writ of Habeas Corpus, from The New Georgia Encyclopedia (2009).

External links[link]

• Amnesty International page on Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
• Barristermagazine.com
• Inmatelaw.org
• LectLaw.com
• Petition for Habeas Corpus April 16, 1843 From Texas Tides
• This American Life: 331: Habeas Schmabeas 2007
• Find Habeas

Keith Olbermann
Olbermann in 2008
Born	Keith Theodore Olbermann[1] (1959-01-27) January 27, 1959 (age 53) New York City, United States
Education	B.S. Communications Arts
Alma mater	Cornell University
Occupation	sports announcer, broadcast journalist, political commentator
Years active	1980s–present
Height	1.92 m (6 ft 3 1⁄2 in)[2]
Television	Countdown with Keith Olbermann (2003–2012) SportsCenter (1992–1997) Football Night in America (2007–2010)
Awards	three Edward R. Murrow Awards[3]

Keith Theodore Olbermann ( /ˈoʊlbərmən/; born January 27, 1959) is an American political commentator and writer. Most recently, he was the chief news officer of the Current TV network and the host of the Current TV weeknight political commentary program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, until March 30, 2012, a program he hosted with the same title and a similar format on MSNBC from March 2003 to January 2011.^[4][5]

During his time at MSNBC, Olbermann established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining note for his pointed criticism of mainly right-leaning politicians and public figures^{[6][7][8][9][10]} such as Fox News Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly,^[11][12] President George W. Bush and 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.^[13] Though he has been described as a "liberal", he has resisted being labelled politically, stating "I'm not a liberal. I'm an American".^[14]

Olbermann spent the first twenty years of his career in sports journalism. He was a sports correspondent for CNN and for local TV and radio stations in the 1980s, winning the Best Sportscaster award from the California Associated Press three times. He co-hosted ESPN's SportsCenter from 1992 to 1997. From 1998 to 2001, he was a producer and anchor for Fox Sports Net and a host of Major League Baseball on Fox.

Early life[link]

Olbermann was born January 27, 1959, in New York City to Marie Katherine (née Charbonier),^[15] a preschool teacher, and Theodore Olbermann, a commercial architect,^[9] and is of German descent.^[16] He has one younger sister, Jenna, who was born in 1968.^[17] Olbermann grew up in a Unitarian household^[18] in the town of Hastings-on-Hudson^[19] in Westchester County, and attended Hackley School^[9][10] in nearby Tarrytown.

Olbermann became a devoted fan of baseball at a young age, a love he inherited from his mother who was a lifelong New York Yankees fan.^[15] As a teenager, he often wrote about baseball card-collecting and appeared in many sports card-collecting periodicals of the mid-1970s. He is also referenced in Sports Collectors Bible, a 1979 book by Bert Sugar, which is considered one of the important early books for trading card collectors.^[20]

While at Hackley, Olbermann began his broadcasting career as a play-by-play announcer for WHTR. After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann enrolled at Cornell University at the age of 16.^[21] At college, Olbermann served as sports director for WVBR, a student-run commercial radio station in Ithaca.^[21] Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts.^[22]

Sports broadcasting[link]

Olbermann began his professional career at UPI and the RKO Radio Network before joining then nascent CNN in 1981. Among the early stories he covered was the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid including the "Miracle on Ice."^[21] In the early-to-mid '80s he was a sportscaster on the old WNEW 1130-AM radio station in New York City. Also in the mid-1980s, he did the voice-over on the USA Cable Network's "Cartoon Express", with cheering kids heard in the background. In 1984, he briefly worked as a sports anchor at WCVB-TV in Boston, before heading to Los Angeles to work at KTLA and KCBS. His work there earned him 11 Golden Mike Awards, and he was named best sportscaster by the California Associated Press three times.^[23]

ESPN[link]

In 1992, Olbermann joined ESPN's SportsCenter, a position he held until 1997 with the exception of a period from 1993–1994 when he was at ESPN2 on SportsNight. He joined ESPN2 as their "marquee" personality to help launch the network.^[24][25] He often co-hosted SportsCenter 11 PM show with Dan Patrick, the two becoming a popular anchor team. In 1995, Olbermann won a Cable ACE award for Best Sportscaster.^[22] Olbermann later co-authored a book with Patrick called The Big Show about their experiences working at SportsCenter; he also said that the short-lived ABC dramedy Sports Night was based on his time on SportsCenter with Patrick.^[26] In his last year with KCBS before moving east to work for ESPN, Olbermann's salary was $475,000 but started "just over $150,000" with ESPN.^[27] He made $350,000 at the end of his tenure at ESPN.^[28]

Early in 1997, Olbermann was suspended for two weeks after he made an unauthorized appearance on The Daily Show on Comedy Central with then-host and former ESPN colleague Craig Kilborn. At one point in the show, he referred to Bristol, Connecticut (ESPN's headquarters), as a "'Godforsaken place."^[28] Later that year, Olbermann abruptly left ESPN under a cloud of controversy, apparently burning his bridges with the network's management;^[29] this began a long and drawn-out feud between Olbermann and ESPN. Between 1997 and 2007, incidents between the two sides included Olbermann's publishing an essay on Salon.com in November 2002, titled "Mea Culpa", in which he stated: "I couldn't handle the pressure of working in daily long-form television, and what was worse, I didn't know I couldn't handle it."^[30] The essay told of an instance when his former bosses remarked he had "too much backbone," a claim that is literally true, as Olbermann has six lumbar vertebrae instead of the normal five.^[30]

In 2004, Olbermann was not included in ESPN's guest lineup for its 25th anniversary SportsCenter "Reunion Week," which saw Craig Kilborn and Charley Steiner return to the SportsCenter set. In 2007, ten years after Olbermann's departure, in an appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, he said: "If you burn a bridge, you can possibly build a new bridge, but if there's no river any more, that's a lot of trouble." During the same interview, Olbermann stated that he had recently learned that as a result of ESPN's agreeing to let him return to the airwaves, he was banned from ESPN's main (Bristol, Connecticut) campus.^[31]

[edit] Post-SportsCenter

In 1998, Olbermann joined Fox Sports Net as anchor and executive producer for The Keith Olbermann Evening News, a sportscast similar to SportsCenter, airing weekly on Sunday evenings. While at Fox, he again hosted the 2000 World Series as well as Fox Broadcasting's baseball Game of the Week. In May and July 1999, Olbermann also guest starred ten times on the Hollywood Squares.^[32]

According to Olbermann, he was demoted by Fox when he asked for a slight reduction in duties for health reasons, and then was fired from Fox in 2001 after reporting on rumors that Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corporation owns Fox, was planning on selling the Los Angeles Dodgers.^[33] Olbermann characterized the demotion as "blackmail".^[34] When asked about Olbermann, Murdoch said: "I fired him...He's crazy."^[35][36] News Corp. went on to sell the Dodgers to Frank McCourt in 2004. That year, Olbermann remarked, "Fox Sports was an infant trying to stand [in comparison to ESPN], but on the broadcast side there was no comparison—ESPN was the bush leagues."^[21]

After Olbermann left Fox Sports in 2001, he provided twice-daily sports commentary on the ABC Radio Network, reviving the "Speaking of Sports" and "Speaking of Everything" segments begun by Howard Cosell.^[37]

In 2005, Olbermann made a return to ESPN on the radio when he began co-hosting an hour of the syndicated Dan Patrick Show on ESPN radio, a tenure that lasted until Patrick left ESPN on August 17, 2007.^[38] Olbermann and Patrick referred to this segment as "The Big Show," just as their book was known. Patrick often introduced Olbermann with the tagline "saving the democracy," a nod to his work on Countdown.

On April 16, 2007, Olbermann was named co-host of Football Night in America, NBC's NFL pre-game show that precedes their Sunday Night NFL game, a position which reunited him in 2008 with his former SportsCenter co-anchor Dan Patrick. Olbermann left the show prior to the start of the 2010 season.^[39]

News journalism[link]

In 1997, Olbermann left ESPN to host a primetime show on MSNBC, The Big Show with Keith Olbermann (ESPN objected to the use of the title).^[28] The news-driven program, with substantial discussion, relied on Olbermann to carry the 8 to 9 PM hour.^[28] The show typically covered three or four topics in a one-hour broadcast. Olbermann also hosted two Sunday editions of NBC Nightly News and once co-anchored a Saturday edition of the Today show.^[40][41] During that period, Olbermann along with Hannah Storm, also co-hosted NBC Sports' pre-game coverage of the MLB 1997 World Series.

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, The Big Show with Keith Olbermann morphed into White House in Crisis. Olbermann became frustrated as his show was consumed by the Lewinsky story. In 1998, he stated that his work at MSNBC would "make me ashamed, make me depressed, make me cry."^[29] Olbermann left MSNBC for Fox Sports Net shortly thereafter.

After leaving Fox Sports in 2001, Olbermann returned once more to news journalism. In 2003, his network won an Edward R. Murrow Award for writing on the "Keith Olbermann Speaking of Everything" show.^[42] In addition, Olbermann wrote a weekly column for Salon.com from July 2002 until early 2003,^[43] worked for CNN as a freelance reporter,^[21] and was a fill-in for newscaster Paul Harvey.^[44][45]

Olbermann revived his association with MSNBC in 2003 briefly as a substitute host on Nachman and as an anchor for the network's coverage of the war in Iraq.

[edit] Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Olbermann's own show, Countdown, debuted on March 31, 2003, in the 8 p.m. ET time slot previously held by programs hosted by Phil Donahue and, briefly, Lester Holt. On October 13, 2004, Olbermann launched Bloggermann, his Countdown blog, hosted on MSNBC.com.^[46] Olbermann used the open format of the blog to expand on facts or ideas alluded to in the broadcast, to offer personal musings and reactions. However, in February 2007, Olbermann launched a new blog, The News Hole.

Countdown's format, per its name, involves Olbermann ranking the five biggest news stories of the day or sometimes "stories my producers force me to cover," as Olbermann puts it. This is done in numerically reverse order, counting down with the first story shown being ranked fifth but apparently the most important. The segments ranked numbers two and one typically are of a lighter fare than segments ranked five through three. The first few stories shown are typically oriented toward government, politics, and world events. His stories usually involve celebrities, sports, and, regularly and somewhere in the middle, the bizarre, in a segment he calls "Oddball." Opinions on each are offered by Olbermann and interviewed guests. Olbermann has been criticized for only having guests that agree with his perspective. Former Los Angeles Times television critic Howard Rosenberg stated that "Countdown is more or less an echo chamber in which Olbermann and like-minded bobbleheads nod at each other."^[47]

In a technique similar to that of former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite in connection to the Iran Hostage Crisis,^[48] Olbermann for many years closed^[49] the program by counting the days since May 1, 2003, the day that President George W. Bush declared the end of "major combat operations" in Iraq under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished", and then crumpling up his notes, throwing them at the camera and saying "Good night and good luck" in the mode of another former CBS newsman, Edward Murrow. Olbermann discounts this gesture to his hero as "presumptuous" and a "feeble tribute." ^[50]

On February 16, 2007, MSNBC reported that Olbermann had signed a four-year extension on his contract with MSNBC for Countdown which also provided for his hosting of two Countdown specials a year to be aired on NBC as well as for his occasional contribution of essays on NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams.^[51]

Olbermann co-anchored, with Chris Matthews, MSNBC's coverage of the death of fellow NBC News employee Tim Russert on June 13, 2008.^[52] He presented a tribute, along with several fellow journalists, in honor of Russert.^[53]

During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Olbermann co-anchored MSNBC's coverage with Chris Matthews until September 7, 2008, when they were replaced by David Gregory after complaints from both outside and inside of NBC that they were making partisan statements.^[13] This apparent conflict of interest had been an issue as early as May 2007, when Giuliani campaign officials complained about his serving in dual roles, as both a host and a commentator.^[54] Despite this, Countdown was broadcast both before and after each of the presidential and vice-presidential debates, and Olbermann and Matthews joined Gregory on MSNBC's Election Day coverage.^[55] Olbermann and Matthews also led MSNBC's coverage of the inauguration of President Barack Obama.^[56][57]

In November 2008, it was announced that Olbermann had signed a four-year contract extension worth an estimated $30 million.^[58]

Feud with Bill O'Reilly[link]

Since beginning Countdown's "Worst Person in the World" segment in July 2005, Olbermann has repeatedly awarded Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel, the dubious honor.^[6] The feud between the anchors originated with Olbermann's extensive coverage of a 2004 sexual harassment suit brought against O'Reilly by former Fox News Channel producer Andrea Mackris during which Olbermann asked Countdown viewers to fund the purchase of lurid audio tapes allegedly held by Mackris.^[59][60] In 2008 O'Reilly decided to avoid mentioning Olbermann's name on the air, and once cut off a caller who mentioned Olbermann.^[61] O'Reilly has also led campaigns against MSNBC's political coverage without ever specifically mentioning Olbermann.^[6][62][63] The rivalry continued when in 2006 at Television Critics' Association in California, Olbermann donned a mask of O'Reilly and made a Nazi salute, leading to a letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League.^[64][65][66]

In an article on "perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade", the New York Times's Brian Stelter noted that as of early June 2009 the "combat" between the two hosts seems to have abruptly ended due to instructions filtered down to Olbermann and O'Reilly from the chief executives of their respective networks.^[67] On the August 3, 2009 edition of Countdown, Olbermann asserted that he had made statements to Stelter before the article was published denying that he was a party to such a deal, or that there was such a deal between NBC and Fox News, or that any NBC executive had asked him to change Countdown's content. Olbermann maintained that he had stopped joking about O'Reilly because of O'Reilly's attacks of George Tiller, and soon resumed his criticism of O'Reilly.^[68]

Suspension[link]

On October 28, 2010, days before the 2010 U.S. elections, Olbermann donated $2,400 each to three Democratic candidates for Congress: Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and Arizona Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords.^[69] Grijalva had appeared on Olbermann's show immediately before Olbermann mailed the donations. In response, on November 5, MSNBC President Phil Griffin suspended him indefinitely without pay for violating a network policy which required employees to obtain approval from management before making political contributions.^[70][71] An online petition calling for his reinstatement received over 250,000 signatures;^[72] two days after the suspension began, Griffin announced that Olbermann would return to the air on November 9.^[72]

Departure[link]

On January 21, 2011, Olbermann announced his departure from MSNBC and the episode would be the final episode of Countdown.^[73][74] MSNBC issued a statement that it had ended its contract with Olbermann, with no further explanation. Additional reporting in the days immediately following suggested that the negotiations for the end of Olbermann's tenure at MSNBC had begun soon after the end of his suspension.^[75]

Current TV and FOKNewsChannel.com[link]

On February 8, 2011, it was announced that Olbermann had taken the position of chief news officer for the Al Gore/Joel Hyatt–owned public affairs channel Current TV and would begin hosting a one-hour prime time program on the network.^[76] The new show was scheduled to air at 8 PM Eastern — the same time slot that Countdown was in.^[77] On April 26, 2011 it was announced that Olbermann's new show would debut on June 20 and would be named Countdown with Keith Olbermann.^[78] Olbermann was also heavily involved in the development of the rest of the network's news programming.^[79] The deal also included an equity stake in Current TV.^[80]

During the interim between shows, Olbermann launched an "official not-for-profit" blog called FOKNewsChannel.com, "FOK" being an abbreviation for "Friends Of Keith". The blog featured political commentaries by Olbermann—including viral video versions of Countdown's "Special Comment" and "Worst Person" segments, as well as photographs of his outings at professional baseball games.^[81] On May 29, 2011, the FOKNewsChannel.com domain redirected to the Current website promoting the June 20 launch.^[82]

Olbermann was fired on March 30, 2012. In a statement from Current TV, they stated that "Current was [...] founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it." Olbermann released his own statement, apologizing for "the failure of Current TV" and "that the claims against me implied in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently." His show was replaced by a show hosted by Eliot Spitzer.^[83][84]

Olberman was on This Week as a roundtable participant on Sunday April 22, 2012.

Political positions[link]

Viewpoints[link]

Although it began as a traditional newscast, Countdown with Keith Olbermann eventually adopted an opinion-oriented format. In a Countdown interview with Al Franken on October 25, 2005, Olbermann noted that in 2003, after having Janeane Garofalo and Franken on his show, a vice president of MSNBC had questioned him on inviting "liberals" on consecutive nights, contrasting that occurrence to the apparent ideological latitude he enjoyed at the time of the second Franken interview.^[85] In January 2007 The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz wrote that Olbermann was "position[ing] his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to The O'Reilly Factor."^[86] Much of the program has featured harsh criticism of prominent Republicans and right-leaning figures, including those who worked for or supported the George W. Bush Administration, 2008 Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain and running mate Governor Sarah Palin,^[13][87] and rival news commentator Bill O'Reilly, whom Olbermann has routinely dubbed the "Worst Person In The World".^[7]

During the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, Olbermann frequently chastised presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton for her campaign tactics against her principal opponent, Senator Barack Obama, and made her the subject of two of his "special comments".^[88][89] Olbermann has also posted on the liberal blog Daily Kos.^[90]

In November 2007, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph placed Olbermann at #67 on their Top 100 list of most influential US liberals. It said that he uses his MSNBC show to promote "an increasingly strident liberal agenda." It added that he would be "a force on the Left for some time to come."^[91] Avoiding ideological self-labeling, Olbermann described his reporting in 2006 to Salon.com, "I don’t think in these issues that I’m a liberal; I think that I’m an American. I think I’m acting almost as a historian on these particular things".^[7]

Before the 2010 Massachusetts special election, Olbermann called Republican candidate Scott Brown "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, Tea Bagging supporter of violence against women, and against politicians with whom he disagrees".^[92] This was criticized by his colleague Joe Scarborough, who called the comments "reckless" and "sad".^[93] Yael T. Abouhalkah of the Kansas City Star said that Olbermann "crossed the line in a major way with his comments".^[94] Jon Stewart criticized him about this attack in his show by noting that it was "the harshest description of anyone I've ever heard uttered on MSNBC", following which Olbermann apologized by noting, "I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry."^[95]

He has accused the Tea Party movement of being racist due to what he views as a lack of racial diversity at the events, using photos that show overwhelmingly Caucasian crowds attending the rallies. In response, the Dallas Tea Party invited Olbermann to attend one of their events and also criticized his network for a lack of racial diversity, pointing out that an online banner of MSNBC personalities that appears on the website shows only white personalities. Olbermann declined the invitation, citing his father's prolonged ill health and hospitalization and noted that the network has minority anchors, contributors and guests.^[96]

Criticism of the Bush administration[link]

In Olbermann's "Special Comment" segment on July 3, 2007, he called President George W. Bush's commutation of Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence the "last straw" and called for the resignation of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.^[97]

On his February 14, 2008 "Special Comments" segment, Olbermann castigated Bush for threatening to veto an extension of the Protect America Act unless it provided full immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies.^[98] During the same commentary, Olbermann called Bush a fascist.^[98]

In a special comment on May 14, 2008, Olbermann criticized Bush for announcing that he had stopped playing golf in honor of American soldiers who died in the Iraq war. He stated that Bush never should have started the war in the first place, and he accused Bush of dishonesty and war crimes.^[9]

Baseball fan[link]

Olbermann is a dedicated baseball fan and historian of the sport, with membership in the Society for American Baseball Research.^[99] In 1973, when he was only 14 years old, Card Memorabilia Associates published his book The Major League Coaches: 1921–1973. The September issue of Beckett Sports Collectibles Vintage included a T206 card that depicted Olbermann in a 1905-era New York Giants uniform.^[100] He argues that New York Giants baseball player Fred Merkle has been unduly criticized for his infamous baserunning mistake.^[101] He contributed the foreword to More Than Merkle (ISBN 0-8032-1056-6), a book requesting amnesty for "Merkle's Boner". Olbermann was also one of the founders of the first experts' fantasy baseball league, the USA Today Baseball Weekly League of Alternative Baseball Reality, and he gave the league its nickname "LABR".^[102] Olbermann wrote the foreword to the 2009 Baseball Prospectus Annual.^[103]

In March 2009, Olbermann began a baseball-related blog entitled Baseball Nerd. He has also written a series of articles on baseball cards for the Sports Collectors Digest.^[104]

Personal life[link]

In June 2006, Olbermann began dating Katy Tur, now a reporter with WNBC-TV.^[10][105] According to Mediaite, the couple broke up in 2009 after three years of cohabitation.^[106]

Olbermann suffers from a mild case of coeliac disease,^[107] as well as restless legs syndrome.^[9] In August 1980, he also suffered a head injury while "leaping" onto a New York City Subway train.^[108] This head injury permanently upset his equilibrium, resulting in his avoidance of driving.^[9] Along with Bob Costas, he supports the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation as an honorary board member.^[109]

During a period in the mid-1990s, Olbermann appeared in a series of Boston Market advertisements, in which he would instruct a group of underweight models to "Eat something!"^[28]

Olbermann's father, Theodore, died on March 13, 2010 of complications from colon surgery the previous September. His mother had died several months before.^[110] Olbermann had cited the need to spend time with his father for taking a leave of absence shortly before his father's death, occasionally recording segments to air at the beginning of the shows which Lawrence O'Donnell guest hosted in his absence, giving his views on the state of the American health care system and updating viewers on his father's condition.^[111]

Career timeline[link]

• SportsCenter, co-anchor (1992–1997)^[112]
• The Big Show, anchor (1997–1998)^[112]
• White House in Crisis, anchor (1997–1998)^[112]
• Major League Baseball on Fox, studio host (1999–2000)^[112]
• The Keith Olbermann Evening News, anchor (1998–2001)^[112]
• Football Night in America, co-host (2007–2010)
• Countdown with Keith Olbermann, anchor (MSNBC: 2003–2011; Current TV: 2011–2012)^[112]

Bibliography[link]

• The Major League Coaches: 1921–1973 (Card Memorabilia Associates, 1973).
• The Big Show: Inside ESPN's Sportscenter (Atria, 1997) (coauthor: Dan Patrick). ISBN 0-671-00918-4.
• The Worst Person In the World and 202 Strong Contenders (Wiley, September 2006). ISBN 0-470-04495-0.
• Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values (Random House, December 2007). ISBN 978-1-4000-6676-6.
• Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans (Wiley, October 25, 2010). ISBN 0-470-61447-1.

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Keith Olbermann

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Keith Olbermann

• Keith Olbermann on Twitter
• Keith Olbermann's blog on The Daily Kos
• Baseball Nerd, Olbermann's Major League Baseball blog
• Biography at TV guide
• Appearances on C-SPAN
  • C-SPAN Q&A interview with Olbermann, March 12, 2006
• Keith Olbermann on Charlie Rose
• Keith Olbermann at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Keith Olbermann in libraries (WorldCat catalog)