# Keith Olbermann Suspended from MSNBC



## Big Don (Nov 5, 2010)

*Keith Olbermann Suspended from MSNBC*

  Posted by Brian Montopoli *Updated 2:38 p.m. Eastern Time*
*CBS NEWS EXCERPT:*

Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay from MSNBC for making donations to three Democrats in violation of NBC's ethics policy. 
  "I  became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Phil  Griffin, President of MSNBC, said in a statement. "Mindful of NBC News  policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
  Olbermann,  who does not hide his liberal views, has acknowledged donations of  $2,400 each to Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona Reps.  Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords during this election cycle. 
  NBC's  ethics policy generally bars political activity, including  contributions, without the approval of the president of NBC News, Steve  Capus, according to a 2007 story on MSNBC.com. 
  "Anyone  working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside  activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing  as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a  conflict of interest," it says. "Such activities may include  participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that  espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential  conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of  NBC News or his designee." 

END EXCERPT
hahahahaha
The funniest part:


> may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing  as an impartial journalist


 They simply can't be talking about Olberman...
hahahaha


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

Yeah, I saw this article earlier.  I refuse to believe that Olbermann didn't know about those terms, so he must have thought they wouldn't enforce them.  Shame, I'll miss his "Worst Person in the World" awards.

But on a good note, anyone accusing NBC of blatant partisanism should remember this story.  Canning one of their more well-known pundits took some commitment to the rules.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 5, 2010)

Such a scandal. He should've done the responsible thing and sexually harassed someone, or bought illegal drugs to fuel an obscene addiction like responsible pundits do.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 5, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Such a scandal. He should've done the responsible thing and sexually harassed someone, or bought illegal drugs to fuel an obscene addiction like responsible pundits do.


Oh look! Unfounded allegations, and lions and tigers and slander, oh my...


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 5, 2010)

"The News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association this summer, the Bloomberg news service reported this week."  LINK


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 5, 2010)

WTF, he can be a lefty mouthpiece but he can't support them financially?  That word - impartial - I do not think it means what they think it means.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> WTF, he can be a lefty mouthpiece but he can't support them financially? That word - impartial - I do not think it means what they think it means.


 
Being impartial isn't really the concern. It's more about the company's liability for potential conflict of interest. At least the MSN article put it that way, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40028929/ns/politics-decision_2010?gt1=43001. 

It's less about being impartial (I mean, what kind of pundit really is?), but more about conforming to the company's liability policy.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> "The News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association this summer, the Bloomberg news service reported this week." LINK


 

NBC gave at least  that much to Dems... and Republicans....

Of course, this is a personnel issue, not a political one. The man violated a condition of his employment.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> NBC gave at least  that much to Dems... and Republicans....



Sure, but the post was really aimed at Don, not to make a point about news corporations.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Sure, but the post was really aimed at Don, not to make a point about news corporations.


 
WARNING: Anonymous rep ding incoming.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 5, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Sure, but the post was really aimed at Don, not to make a point about news corporations.


So, you were attacking the messenger and not the message?


> *"Attack the Message, Not the Messenger"*
> While we welcome debate, we aren't the place where personal insults will  be tolerated. Each and every one of us has things we hold dear, things  we believe in, things we know, and we are all entitled to those, and  entitled to express ourselves, as long as that expression is done within  the site rules. If you have a rebuttal, keep it free of personal  insults, shots, slights and other things focused on members of this  forum. Please, debate topics to your hearts content, but refrain from  making things personal. Stick to debating on facts, back them up with  verifiable information, and avoid personal insults and retaliatory  cracks. Our staff is monitoring and when things go too far, action will  be taken. We insist that while you may disagree with the position of  another member, that you respect their right to feel the way they do,  and express yourself appropriately.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 5, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Being impartial isn't really the concern. It's more about the company's liability for potential conflict of interest. At least the MSN article put it that way, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40028929/ns/politics-decision_2010?gt1=43001.
> 
> It's less about being impartial (I mean, what kind of pundit really is?), but more about conforming to the company's liability policy.


 
I understand that it's about following company policy, I just don't see what "potential conflict of interest" there could possibly be unless they honestly believe themselves to be a neutral party.  Which is laughable, to say the least.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I understand that it's about following company policy, I just don't see what "potential conflict of interest" there could possibly be unless they honestly believe themselves to be a neutral party. Which is laughable, to say the least.


 
Hypothetical example:

Journalist 1 and Journalist 2 both work for NBC.  Journalist 1 makes a contribution to Candidate X's campaign.  Later, Journalist 2 fails to cover some controversy about Candidate X for unrelated reasons.  

FOX News: "Clearly NBC is bought and paid for by Candidate X and his party.  They didn't even cover his [insert controvery here]."
NBC News: "Hardly!  Journalist 2 had her own reasons for not covering that story."
FOX News: "Pfft, with Journalist 1 making contributions to his campaign?  Suuuuuure."
NBC News: "..."

Note that Journalist 2 may very well have had legitimate reasons not to cover the story.  But with Journalist 1's contribution, NBC's credibility in the case goes bye-bye in the public's eye.  That's the type of liability I'm meaning.

Being partial to this party or that is almost inevitable in a free-market media.  Being bought, paid for, and compromised, or the perception thereof, is something that most media companies still try to avoid.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 5, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Being bought, paid for, and compromised, or the perception thereof, is something that most media companies still try to avoid.


I can see you've never watched 2 minutes of Olbermann...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

Big Don said:


> I can see you've never watched 2 minutes of Olbermann...


 
And I can see you're still not capable of typing more than one sentence.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 5, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Hypothetical example:
> 
> Journalist 1 and Journalist 2 both work for NBC. Journalist 1 makes a contribution to Candidate X's campaign. Later, Journalist 2 fails to cover some controversy about Candidate X for unrelated reasons.
> 
> ...


 
You've got it backward.  A journalist _giving_ money to a candidate is not evidence that the journalist was "bought and paid for".  It _is_ evidence that the journalist has a partiality toward the candidate and his agenda.  But that's something that is blindingly obvious to anyone who has listened to Olbermann.  The idea that he is an objective journalist is a total joke, and whatever money he gives to the candidate of his choice is nowhere near as valuable as what he gives them every time he opens his mouth on national tv.  He's a party cheerleader, and between him and Chris Matthews, methinks MSNBC doth protest too much.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 5, 2010)

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! i am truly depressed now I always look forwad to Keith every day but Impartial???? Pleaseeeeeeeeee  none of them are but at least 2 and 2 added up to 4

I knew he was going off the reservation ever since he started reading a book in the leather chair and having a violinest play? Its a sign of too much money too much time he just had to do it knowing he was going to get a woopin?

Bad enough the tea party took over the house. I have been listening to CNN all day in the office and I heard nothing leave it to you guys to give me the scoop first wonder what the network will say at 4 pm? and what will Racheal Say???


----------



## MJS (Nov 5, 2010)

Folks, lets try to keep things civil ok?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 5, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> You've got it backward. A journalist _giving_ money to a candidate is not evidence that the journalist was "bought and paid for". It _is_ evidence that the journalist has a partiality toward the candidate and his agenda. But that's something that is blindingly obvious to anyone who has listened to Olbermann. The idea that he is an objective journalist is a total joke, and whatever money he gives to the candidate of his choice is nowhere near as valuable as what he gives them every time he opens his mouth on national tv. He's a party cheerleader, and between him and Chris Matthews, methinks MSNBC doth protest too much.


 
That's all correct, but I was just addressing why NBC would have and enforce the policy.  It's not to avoid Olbermann appearing impartial or anything; that much is obvious.  It's to avoid conflicts for the media company itself.  I was trying to use the hypothetical to underscore that point.  

If I came across as sounding like I was trying to argue that Olbermann himself actually is impartial or objective, my apologies.  I was more discussing the policy.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 5, 2010)

MJS said:


> Folks, lets try to keep things civil ok?


 
you should read the 7,000 posts on yahoo right now I got mine in but I never realized so many peopel had hate for him so much the common sense people are saying they will no longer watch MSNBC and one good point is that the network is being taken over by COMCAST and has no left or right wing agenda just stupid related to income?


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 5, 2010)

I am going back to Jerry Springer this is too much I love to watch the fights?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2010)

Again-the so-called "liberal media" is as liberal as the usually _conservative _corporations that own them (in MSNBC's case, GE) allow them to be. No more, no less.

This was a personnel issue, and a conflict with the corporation's interest.


----------



## crushing (Nov 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Again-the so-called "liberal media" is as liberal as the usually _conservative _corporations that own them (in MSNBC's case, GE) allow them to be. No more, no less.
> 
> This was a personnel issue, and a conflict with the corporation's interest.



I see why you italicized conservative.  

General Electric

2008 Democrats:  $2.3 M
2008 Republicans:  $1.2 M

2010 Democrats:  $1.3 M
2010 Republicans:  $ .8 M

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2010)

crushing said:


> I see why you italicized conservative.
> 
> General Electric
> 
> ...


 
And if you look back further, you'll see that they typically give more to the party that's perceived as being "in power." Both parties are "corporate owned," lock, stock, and barrel.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

I was listening to Rush today and I would have to agree with something he said.  He believes they are getting ready to get rid of olberman and this is a convenient excuse.  His ratings have been horrible and eventually poor ratings will get you fired.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

Corporations for the most part are either neutral in their politics or they lean to the left.  The reason for leaning to the left is that corporations like big government, especially when it comes to giving them tax dollars or destroying their enemies or giving them tax advantages.  Look at Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ben and Jerry's, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and so many other really rich people.  They are all lefties who support democrats and their causes.  If you look at donations from corporations you will see as you did above with G.E. that they gave more to democrats.  The notion of the democrat party being the party of the "little guy" or the "working man" is sadly outdated.  Most of the wealthiest people in congress are democrats. If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Corporations for the most part are either neutral in their politics or they lean to the left. The reason for leaning to the left is that corporations like big government, especially when it comes to giving them tax dollars or destroying their enemies or giving them tax advantages. Look at Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ben and Jerry's, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and so many other really rich people. They are all lefties who support democrats and their causes.


 
You're confusing individuals with  corporations, which are for the most part, conservative-this is how we have the Bush generated TARP, deregulations through both his and Clinton's administrations that heloped corporate profits, etc., etc., etc.



billcihak said:


> If you look at donations from corporations you will see as you did above with G.E. that they gave more to democrats.


 
IF you look closely, corporations lend support to both parties, with the greater amount going to the party in power, and _larger_ amounts going to the Republican party when they are in power.[/quote]



billcihak said:


> The notion of the democrat party being the party of the "little guy" or the "working man" is sadly outdated.


 
THe notion that the Democratic party is any different from the Republican party, and vice versa, arre what is outdated.



billcihak said:


> Most of the wealthiest people in congress are democrats. If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.


 
If you look here you can see that this is patently untrue.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

What part is patently untrue.  8 of the top 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats and of the top 50, 28 are democrats and 22 are republicans.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2010)

billcihak said:


> What part is patently untrue. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats and of the top 50, 28 are democrats and 22 are republicans.


 
Of those top ten, only three could be said to have family wealth or married into it-the rest made their own (in some cases rather large) fortunes. This trend actually continues through the rest-especially in the case of Republicans, though some of them also notably married into wealth.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

Elder999, corporations love big government no matter who is in power.  The three things you mentioned, Tarp, deregulation and profits all go to my point.  Big government gives these corporations the hammer to make all of these things happen.  For example, I was listening to an interview with Jonah Goldberg about his book Liberal Facsism.  He made the point that big business uses big government to take out their up and coming competition.  He sited the early american meat packing industry.  When it came time to regulate the industry, the meat packing industry wrote all the regulations.  Why would they regulate themselves?  They knew that whatever regulations they came up with, they could withstand the financial cost, their smaller competitors couldn't and would go out of business.  Tarp, helped big guys in the financial world, regulation and deregulation helps the big guys in business.  For example, Chris Dodd and Barney frank and the democrats, as well as some republicans, stood in the way of President Bush when he tried 17 times to correct the mortgage industry.  Why?  The financial institutes paid for Frank and Dodd and the other politicians to keep the regulations from happening.  Profit?  Big business always uses big government, through big gov. contracts, tax breaks and other means to increase  their profits.  That is why big business loves big government.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

Of the top 10 richest congressmen, 8 are democrats of those 8, two married wealth and the other two inherited it.  The two republicans made their money in private enterprise.


----------



## crushing (Nov 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And if you look back further, you'll see that they typically give more to the party that's perceived as being "in power." Both parties are "corporate owned," lock, stock, and barrel.



It's at the same link in the charts.  The giving was fairly even each year, until 2008.  The two most recent election cycles may be an anomaly.  

Be careful about saying both parties being owned, you might get reamed for "not doing your homework".


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2010)

Billcihak, corporations don't give a damn about big government or small government.  What they care about is profits.  That means less regulation (less government) and control over legislation.  If they happen to have government contracts, then more government spending is okay too.


----------



## crushing (Nov 6, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Billcihak, corporations don't give a damn about big government or small government.  What they care about is profits.  That means less regulation (less government) and control over legislation.  If they happen to have government contracts, then more government spending is okay too.



Actually, corporation often ask for more regulation and stricter rules because this helps create a barrier to entry to those markets by competitors.  It still boils down to profits though.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 6, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Oh look! Unfounded allegations, and lions and tigers and slander, oh my...



It can't be slander if it's true. That aside, the reasoning behind the suspension is kinda strange. Are they really trying to fool anyone by playing the fair and balanced card? Olberman was hired specifically to be a partisan hack. 

Was there anyone who thought the dude was unbiased and middle of the road before they found he'd made political donations?


----------



## Carol (Nov 6, 2010)

Rather convenient that a hotly partisan talent is taken off the air quickly _after _election day, eh?   

This wasn't done because of Olbermann's politics, or MSNBC's dutifully following their own rules.  It was done because he is losing the audience that brings in the biggest chunk of ad revenue.  

From June 2010:

http://www.businessinsider.com/quar...pping-in-the-key-25-54-age-demographic-2010-6



> Olbermann *averaged 1,059,000 viewers in 2Q2010* (March 29-June 27), *down slightly from 1,159,000 *during the same period a year earlier, but up slightly from the first quarter of this year (*1,000,7000*).
> 
> 
> His ratings in the advertiser-friendly 25-54 demographic, however,  have been declining rather sharply every quarter since 1Q2009, when he  averaged *452,000*. He's now* down to 263,000* in that demo​





Emphasis theirs.

MSNBC started looking for a reason to replace him with a talent that will presumably bring in better ad revenue.  They found it.  
​


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 6, 2010)

Carol said:


> Rather convenient that a hotly partisan talent is taken off the air quickly _after _election day, eh?
> 
> This wasn't done because of Olbermann's politics, or MSNBC's dutifully following their own rules. It was done because he is losing the audience that brings in the biggest chunk of ad revenue.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting analysis, Carol, thanks.  I wonder if MSNBC is about to have an "I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords" moment.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 6, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Interesting analysis, Carol, thanks.  I wonder if MSNBC is about to have an "I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords" moment.


I believe you mean: I, for one, welcome our youthful new overlords...


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 6, 2010)

I am impressed for the most part with all of your imformed and studied opinions and giving them as such not gospel that i must accept or die. Oberman was therapy for me It lowerd my blood presure and soothed my stomach from ultra right stating made up stats as the only truth and anybody who does not agree is a low life, un American so and so!

Last night on yahoo comments were up to 10,000 with in 2 hours and I would have to say that close to 70% from the right were hateful, racist, ugly comments not just at Keith but at anyone who liked him. 

Why is it that anyone who professes to care about all people and domestic issues has to be labled a Liberal like its a dirty word? 

As a fan I think Keith started going off target with his book reading in the lether chair and having a violin play for him. Its pretty bad when the Wall Street Journal has to speak up yesterday to condem all the right wing propaganda over complete false reporting to the costs of Obama going to India. I think the bigger issue is going at all related to jobs? or snubbing Pakistan and the Cashmire problem wich will now increase extremist activity because Obama went to India only?

Why is the Right allowed to say or do anything but if the left is considered vial. I don't even like the terms in the east you eat with your right and wipe your *** with your left? 

I am disapointed in Obama it seems the lesson in America is nice guys finish last and Democrats have no balls!! All the incumbant polititions need to go replaced with people who will serve and do what has to be done for the greater good. 

I think Keiths Ego lead him to believe he had the right to violate his cotract over Murdock's support of the Chamber and he could not deal with Mudock having more power than him. He lost touch with reality and wrote ego checks his real world could not cash. 

It will be interesting to see if he comes back, goes some place else and if he does has learned from this or spins off into space?

One thing is for sure money and power seems to have the same effect on all individuals left or right after awhile thier bank balance seems to convince them every thought or action by them is ok or they can get by with it.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Of the top 10 richest congressmen, 8 are democrats of those 8, two married wealth and the other two inherited it. The two republicans made their money in private enterprise.


 
Dianne Feinstein may have married a wealthy man in her third husband, but she already had consiederable assets of her own-and, while she inherited _money_ from her father and second  husband, and may well have received alimony from her first, it was hardly "wealth." She invested wisely, and her financial statements reflect this, as well as the clear delineation between her funds and those of Richard Blum. Kerry and Harman are the only ones who can clearly be said to have "married wealth "in that top ten, and Rockefeller is the only one who can be said to have "inherited it."

Which is a far cry from what you originally said:



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.


 
Which was patently untrue, as shown.

In any case, of the top 50 wealthiest congressmen, 28 are Democrats and 22 are Republicans-I'll let you bother with sorting out who "inherited," "married," or "earned," as I find the distinction offensive.


As to the rest of your "point"(?), corporations-no matter the leanings of the individuals who may be their public face, ala Bill Gates, tend to lean with the conservative, free market, limited regulation approach to politics-as the corporate entity stands the most to gain from this.


----------



## crushing (Nov 6, 2010)

elder999 said:


> As to the rest of your "point"(?), corporations-no matter the leanings of the individuals who may be their public face, ala Bill Gates, tend to lean with the conservative, free market, limited regulation approach to politics-as the corporate entity stands the most to gain from this.



I've never though of Bill Gates as being or leaning conservative.  Salon did an interesting article on Gates several years ago which discussed his political leanings:  http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature.html

Since this article Gates has gotten more involved in causes which could be portrayed as being to the left, including pushing for more taxes and more regulation, especially when it comes to Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming, but soon to be called Biodiversitee).


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

crushing said:


> I've never though of Bill Gates as being or leaning conservative. Salon did an interesting article on Gates several years ago which discussed his political leanings: http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature.html
> 
> Since this article Gates has gotten more involved in causes which could be portrayed as being to the left, including pushing for more taxes and more regulation, especially when it comes to Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming, but soon to be called Biodiversitee).


 
You're missing the point, and making it for me. I said that corporations lean to the right, even if their very public face, founder and individual onwer leans left.Yes, Bill appears to lean a bit to the left for a "_Master of the Universe...."_

but which way does _Microsoft_ lean?

In 2000 and 2002 (election years), the company's Republican donations were $2.5 million-more than it's *ever* given to Democrats-a pattern followed by most corporations, whatever the amount of donations they make to that other party that they own....:lfao:


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

You might give money to the republicans as well if the clinton justice department came after you to.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> You might give money to the republicans as well if the clinton justice department came after you to.


 

In 2000 and 2002 there was no "clinton justice department," or case against Microsoft-more to the point, though, they gave money to the Democrats in those years as well, just not as much as they gave to the Republicans-'_cause that's how corporations *roll*_! :lfao:


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 7, 2010)

Divide and Conquer... still working the magic after all these centuries;-)


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 8, 2010)

Whether it is conservative or liberal bias, it doesn't matter.  

The bottom line here, is that NBC's policy is that their "news guys" aren't supposed to be doing what Olbermann did.  He violated their rules, and now must pay the price.  It's a company policy, not a universal code of conduct amongst all agencies.  

If he doesn't like that policy, then he should go work for someone else, where such a policy isn't in place.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2010)

As he'll be back on the air tomorrow night, this smells like a publicity stunt...


----------



## crushing (Nov 8, 2010)

Don't know about his area, but it would have been a beautiful fall weekend to have off here in West Michigan.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2010)

crushing said:


> Don't know about his area, but it would have been a beautiful fall weekend to have off here in West Michigan.


A long weekend, a teeny tiny bump in viewers...


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 8, 2010)

Here is an interesting point. In grant writting to find 1.3 million to build a dojang I spent 6 moths studing the non profit giving of every single Fortune 500 company in 2002. Many or most have 501C3 foundations and the federal law requires that they are not alowed to do political contributions? 

However in most cases while many allow national or anyone to apply in most cases they give only to demographic areas and projects that effect voter bases of the congressional people they want to have favor with that will give them protetions, deregulation or other things they want. Whe the senator or House member wants votes they point to look what I was able to do some unsaid some blantant. bottom line its all political no matter how they paint it.

AT&T gives 350 million a year and does business in Alaska but does not or did then not give one dollar period why we have a total population less that many large cities and only two electoral votes we do not count related to demographics? However Ted stevens by seniority could stand in on our behalf depending on the issue.

I do agree corporations tend to ride both sides what ever it takes to help them related to access, funding, sales, profits, regulation.


----------

