I read the release. Tom, even if Olsen were a credible, competent manager, there was always the risk that the channel's programming would not catch on. That is a legitimate business risk that every rational investor would accept. Clearly Olsen was aware of this risk, too. Whether he actually formed this committee, who knows. He lied about so many things.
Clearly you didn't understand this risk. This is why you blame Olsen for not doing his job. So many new TV channels fail. If you complain that they simply 'didn't listen to a brilliant man like Tom Gaughan who knows what everyone wants to watch', you're going to hear a lot of skeptical groans. I am 99.9% sure that you don't know how to program a GLBT TV channel better than the average network programmer. Or gay man, for that matter.
What is not a legitimate business risk for rational investors to accept is false information on subscribers, revenues, sharecounts, funding, and asset values. Not coincidentally, there are laws against this. These are the legitimate criticisms of Olsen. Note also that they have nothing to do with Jack E. Jett or the boom operators or the wardrobe personnel. Those folks had as much to do with Q's failure as the VP of marketing or the IT department had to do at Enron's.
If you lost money on Enron, you'd probably be sore at the IT department. And if you met one of their techs at a bar and yelled at him for losing your investment he'd probably grab your collar and tell you (#1) he lost his job there and (#2) he had nothing to do with the illegalities and get the f-ck out of his face. And he'd be right. You'd be lucky if he didn't smack you around the bar for accusing him of being a crook.
So chill out. And think before you start scapegoating.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
