Looks like Keith Olbermann has been suspended by MSNBC for donating to several Democratic campaigns, which is against his company's policy.
Now, I am no fan of Olbermann, but I guess I don't understand why NBC should have a policy against this, even for their news folks (if Olbermann were news this would make more sense - see, I TOLD you I was no fan). Seems like a person should be able to donate and keep that separate.
well, I hate to say this, but I hope this is quickly resolved and he makes a return. The other voice is always needed, and at least he's not as bad a Joy Behar
(edited by AWArulz on 5.11.10 1623)
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
I'm a left side of the aisle guy, but I liked him better when he was hitting both sides. He turned himself into the guys he has hammered on on the right, which I don't think was his plan going in.
Yeah, I was a fan of Olbermann when I thought he was saying the stuff that needed to be said, but Ben Affleck's caricature of him on SNL was spot on and after that I could no longer take him seriously.
Originally posted by Matt TrackerA rule is a rule, but MSNBC needs different rules for opinion-show anchors. Olbermann is in no way objective nor does he claim to be.
That was the case when Joe Scarborough did the exact same thing a few years ago. Then, the line was: "Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts [Republican House candidate in OR-1]. Kitts is an old friend of Joe's. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter."
Anyway, this post at Gawker seems to suggest that while NBC has explicit rules against political donations, MSNBC has no codified ethics standards and "doesn't answer to NBC standards".
If Keith broke a rule, suspend him. Fine. But if a) there were no rules, and b) you have a history of making excuses for your opinion people doing this exact thing, I have a problem with it.
Anyway, how may times do you get to hear Bill Kristol defend Keith Olbermann?
Originally posted by Matt TrackerA rule is a rule, but MSNBC needs different rules for opinion-show anchors. Olbermann is in no way objective nor does he claim to be.
That was the case when Joe Scarborough did the exact same thing a few years ago. Then, the line was: "Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts [Republican House candidate in OR-1]. Kitts is an old friend of Joe's. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter."
Anyway, this post at Gawker seems to suggest that while NBC has explicit rules against political donations, MSNBC has no codified ethics standards and "doesn't answer to NBC standards".
If Keith broke a rule, suspend him. Fine. But if a) there were no rules, and b) you have a history of making excuses for your opinion people doing this exact thing, I have a problem with it.
Anyway, how may times do you get to hear Bill Kristol defend Keith Olbermann?
The policy applies to NBC News & MSNBC but not CNBC. I really don't think it should count towards the opinion guys (Matthews, Maddow & Keith), especially when Fox "News" has no such policy so not only do you have hosts like Hannity donating to Republicans all the time, but bringing them on the show (incl after he's donated to them, with no on-air mention that he has) & not only letting them ask for donations, but himself ask the audience to do so. Plus he also headlines Repub fund raisers.
Then you have at least 2 likely GOP presidential candidates in Palin & Huckabee who also donate to candidates of one party all the time, while FNC has itself donated over 1.5 million to the Republicans.
Why is Fox news when mentioned? Two separate companies with two sets of rules. That's Like complaining your office doesn't have casual Friday when the office next door dies. Two separate things.
This is just the first step. Comcast will be gutting MSNBC and probably re-branding and re-purposing the channel over the next few months. It's absolutely abysmal in the ratings.
Apparently they offered him a way to get around being suspended and he refused, according to Politico:
Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.
Olbermann, however, is MSNBC's highest-rated show by a fair margin. so you think he would've been given some slack. That said, if all it took was for him to disclose these donations to his boss beforehand, Olbermann should've just taken that simple step.
Why is Fox news when mentioned? Two separate companies with two sets of rules. That's Like complaining your office doesn't have casual Friday when the office next door dies. Two separate things.
Here's Rachael Maddow crying about the same thing. Bottom line us that everybody knew the rule and he broke it.
I don't see this as 'crying.' Maddow is taking it as a point of pride --- MSNBC has rules because they're an actual news organization, whereas Fox is a joke.
Keith Olbermann will return to the air on Tuesday after being suspended without pay for two shows (this past Friday and the upcoming episode on Monday).
The host of MSNBC's "Countdown" was given an indefinite suspension last week after his boss, network president Phil Griffin, discovered that Olbermann had made political contributions without seeking prior approval, as per NBC News policy.
That wasn't really much of a suspension, was it? Hell, that's not even a three-day weekend.
Originally posted by Big BadMSNBC has rules because they're an actual news organization, whereas Fox is a joke.
If the latter is true, the former is laughably false. Laughably. As in, I'm laughing. And it's false.
For weeks, Fox News was telling their viewers that they had to track the money for the NYC Mosque. It's "dirty Muslim money." When it turned out to be the 2nd largest shareholder of News Corps (owner of Fox News), Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, Fox News quietly stopped caring about the money trail.
As it turns out, he had been a guest on the network and praised over and over again for his philanthropy. Suddendly, it was no longer "dirty Muslim money" because of the Prince.
From what I have read and heard, it was never disclosed on the network that the source of funds for the Mosque came from an owner of Fox News' parent company.
That is probably one of the small reasons that people dislike Fox News.
You don't think that that bastion of hard news and journalistic integrity MSNBC could have done this as a publicity stunt to get attention for the show in the post-election period?