Keith Olbermann Suspended from MSNBC

[Big Don]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

WARNING: Anonymous rep ding incoming.

 

[Big Don]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Folks, lets try to keep things civil ok?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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?