Comments

1
There's already a facebook petition: Let's Bring Keith Back
2
I don't understand this logic - because Fox does not adhere to commonly held ethical standards for 'news' journalists, no one else should either? (I'm assuming that not making political donations is the historical policy for these folks?)
3
I think NBC's a little leery of copying the "Might Makes Right" playbook Fox has written.
4
They have a policy, in his contract, that says all donations must be cleared a head of time.

You can ignore his obvious ignorance of that all you like, but it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

6
MSNBC isnt' even being consistent among its own people.
From http://tinyurl.com/2eavwvt:

[MSNBC President] Griffin didn't go into why other MSNBC on-air personalities have not faced disciplinary action for contributing to political campaigns: Joe Scarborough donated to a Republican House candidate in 2006. Atrios notes that Pat Buchanan, an official MSNBC contributor, made 5 political donations between 2005 and 2008.
7
You are confused about the fact that different companies have different rules regarding employees' behavior?

Celebrate diversity, isn't that what you naive white Seattle libtards are always saying?
8
This Smells Like the Work of Kabletown.
9
All media sucks ass, get a real job people. I said it before, i just come here to practice tipeing and avoid living life.
10
This is a ridiculous discussion. Dan, are you willing to adhere to all the policies of the Seattle Times? Who knows, maybe you have some that they don't have.

Different companies have different policies. It doesn't necessarily make one "good" and the other "bad." But if you agree to the rules, and then break them, there's going to be a problem.
11
Sean Hannity and his wife gave $10,000 to Michelle Bachmann in August. The head of Fox News says it's all good: http://blogs.twincities.com/politics/201…
12
Dan's right, this is a stupid policy. Just like that silly policy that separates editorial from advertising.

Right Dan?
13
@8, Kabletown!

Srsly: Olbermann and the Fox hounds, easy as it is to distinguish between them, are still points along the continuum Albert Brooks talked about with Holly Hunter in Broadcast News:
What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit.
14
NBC-Universal/GE's policy is pure bullshite; American citizens don't give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech, just because they work in journalism. Olbermann didn't publicly endorse any of the candidates on-air, nor did he encourage anyone else to do so. And I'll bet if you suggested to any of his bosses that THEY give up this same right, they'd accuse you of being some sort of Commie-Pinko sympathizer.

And so sorry @9, but not everyone aspires to hold down the graveyard shift at 7-Eleven, like you do.
15
@14 that's swing-shift you commie!
16
Re: Update #2.

Still missing the point.

Who is to say Scarborough didn't follow policy? Nothing in your post indicates he did it behind the company's back.

Keep flogging that horse.

17
dan, GE/Comcast/NBC don't WANT to be the lefty version of Fox. they're willing to sell ads to the center & the just-barely-center-left, who drive NEW volvos and subarus. they have no interest in the actual left, who fix their OLD volvos and subarus. or might have a 30 year old volkswagen. these are not their advertiser's preferred demographic.
18
@COMTE - I agree; but the 1st amendment protects you from the gov't., not your employer or other individuals. Not a constitutional issue, just one of asshat-ery on the part of olberman's bosses.
19
Liberals need to wise up if they're going to fight back. Corporations are eating us alive with their money.
21
MSNBC is not as liberal as they like to pretend they are. True, Olbermann didn't follow their rules. I'm guessing that they will re-instate him before long.

But this past election was infused with a shitload of money from people who want to maintain the status quo of corporations doing whatever they pretty much damn well please. The SCOTUS Citizens United made this possible. Olbermann's few thousand was spit in the bucket.

Campaign finance needs to be reformed. Now.
22
I wonder how much Red China gave to the other side?

Ain't Sovereign Wealth Funds great?
23
This does sound like an overreaction, especially because Olbermann is more an opinion pundit and not a just-the-facts-ma'am journalist. It's like if "The View" suspended Joy Behar for donating money to Democrats. Silly.

However, I disagree with the argument that upholding a certain journalistic standard is "outdated" because Fox News has run roughshod over journalistic standards. I understand the temptation to say, "We should fight fire with fire!" But following Fox News's lead will just speed along the death of American journalism. The right gets away with it, so the left follows suit, then the right escalates, and so on. The victim of that back-and-forth is an increasingly ill-informed electorate.
24
@17 i'm usually put-off by your daft comments, but i like this one. though it works conversely for the Actual Right as well. they fix their OLD tractors and sometimes have to hot-wire their back-up generators.

but i do like your point. don't expect much influence upon Dan however. he's terribly narrow-minded, and that's why we luv him. I'll stop here because I don't want to belabor the fact of his meager intellectual capacity.
25
@23 I actually don't disagree with your nuanced take on here. It's more scary seeing the sheer amounts being thrown around by the other media sites plus their more questionable ethics (donating to and then hosting; not disclosing, etc) and a lot of that is coming out surrounding the issue of Olbermann's suspension and I think *that* is to the good.

Corporatocracy -- very real, very scary, and with the $$ they have, I wonder how stoppable.
26
@18:

But it IS a First Amendment issue: your employer can no more tell you to whom to make campaign contributions than they can tell you for whom to vote; it's all political speech (as SCOTUS recently made perfectly clear) and it's all protected.
27
Dan, you've got it backwards: NBC shouldn't be chastised for suspending Olbermann; they should be chastised for NOT suspending Scarborough and Buchanan. So they have higher ethical standards than Fox-- should they abandon them, and wallow in the muck with those jackoffs? I think instead, they should stand by their standards, and apply them consistently.
28
This is a payback firing. Olbermann has been pissing off GE and Vivendi's wealthy shareholders for years.
29
Sign the petition to get Olbermann back on-air
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/pet…
30
@26 You can get fired for exercising your First Amendment rights to swear like a sailor at work. You can still get fired for it.
31
I don't understand. Where is the outrage from the right? Where is Sarah Palin defending his rights? Why hasn't he been offered a job on Fox News?

Oh, I remember...
32
Seriously, Comte, I don't understand why you're having such a problem with this. The first amendment most definitely does not guarantee you the right to say or do anything you want while on the job - especially when you've signed a contract to that effect.
33
shocked, shocked i tell you!!!
that an entity like msnbc would sanction someone who had the gall in the run up to the election to speak out openly against the dangers of the citizens united ruling and corporate influence on elections... only *gasp* mere days after that same election showed so painfully the disastrous effects of that influence.
34
Or better yet, maybe I should put it differently. You do have the right to say whatever you want. You just don't have a right to keep that job.
35
Has anyone pointed out how terrible and unwatchable Olberman's show is yet?

No? OK.

MSNBC brass did us a favor.

If it makes you feel any better Bill Kristol IS defending him.

36
So, you're saying if your boss finds out you voted for a Democrat or contributed to a Democratic election campaign, (s)he has the right to fire you, even while AT THE VERY SAME TIME (s)he or the very corporation both of you work for can contribute an unlimited amount of money to the opponent's campaign?

Yeah, I guess it makes total sense in this day-and-age that corporations now have MORE rights than individual citizens...
37
Comte, I'm pretty sure Washington is an at-will state the same as Colorado, so in a nutshell, yes, your boss can fire you at any time. For any reason, or for no reason (which is usually preferable). But when you have a contract saying "it's OK for you to fire me if I do XYZ," and then you go ahead and do XYZ anyway, then yep, you're fair game.
38
Right on, Comte.
39
first off, isn't he suspended? not fired?

and doesn't that point to more of a slapdown about his stated opinions than about contractual trivialities that they chose to arbitrarily apply?
40
@34 -- if you are in an at will state. Don't think you can do that in California, unless you have a specific contract otherwise.

That said, it's the differences between Olbermann & Scarborough at MSNBC, and the differences between MSNBC and Fox that are galling.

This is why transparency in political donations is so freaking important. (And Olbermann complied with all those rules.)
41
Oh, hey this is getting more & more interesting: Olbermann’s Replacement? Wait for It…

Olbermann's replacement is himself getting axed for the same reason. I'm waiting to hear about them axing Scarborough too.

....

....

Yeah.
42
They should all be suspended. What's good for the goose.....
43
BEG, California is also an "at will" state and an employee can be terminated for any reason unless it's illegal, i.e. age, race, sex, religion, national origin, disability or pregnancy.
44
Phil Griffin is Scarborough's butt boy. Eeww that mental image just made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Washington State has incredibly strong unions compared to the backwoods HATE-STATE known as Colorado which seems to attract non-natives from East, South, and West who have nothing better than to do than express their hatred of the "other." Thanks Colorado Springs--you shit-hole Glenn Beck diseased hemorrhoidal city.

That being said, it's being confirmed that NBC News (the parent body over MSNBC) doesn't hold MSNBC to the same "ethical" standards.

Is Keith being hypocritical? No. Philly Griffa is the one making the distinction that Joe is opinion and Keith is not. The visual evidence of course belies that tripe.

Now I have to figure out how to get rid of the slime that is Comcast. Phil Anschutz--the right-wing anti-gay piece of crap--is a major shareholder. (Yes, I need my Internet at the very least)

On top of that Colorado is still a piece-of-shit HATE-STATE.
45
@43 You're right, my bad. Should have looked it up first. Was thinking of the rather long list of illegal by discrimination which not all states have :-P
46
I hope this can help turn some people off the idea that MSNBC is in any way a liberal network devoted to the progressive viewpoint. It's a corporate media station just like the rest, that tries to fake the part betwixt the hours of Maddow and Olbermann. While they aren't on 24/7 (and hence are still watchable) there's actual progressive shows like DemocracyNOW! and The Young Turks that aren't owned by giant multinationals.
47
Brownie, most, if not all, of that "long list" is stuff that's barred by federal law. No biggie; I'm sure they don't cover employment law in paralegal school. Hell, they shouldn't cover 95% of the things they do cover, seeing as you'll never use them again, but they've got to justify charging all that money somehow, right?
48
poor danny

the buttsore from this election won't be going away anytime soon....

look for lot's of retarded childish tantrums from danno
49
Remember when the Stranger fired its music editor for ethics violations? How dare they infringe on his right to pay advertising pals under the table to write editorial puff pieces.

I demand he be reinstated immediately!

#ethics
50
@14 I <3 you.

I would really appreciate it if people would stop telling me that my job in broadcast journalism is "not a real job." Screw you. I busted my ass in school and bust my ass at my job to keep people informed. Just because the t.v. station in the U.S.A play on fear mongering that does not mean all journalists do so.

Finally Keith in still a private citizen and should be able to spend his money how he sees fit. And as it's been said before he didn't go on campaigning after the fact. So MSNBC is in the wrong and should pull the giant stick out of their asses.

51
Fox has no ethics, anyone who is anyone knows this. Asking a network to lower their ethical standards just because Fox did is asinine.

Frankly Fox shouldn't be doing it, either. But hey, given that there's no law against these conflicts of interest, and given that the average Fox viewer doesn't give a shit about ethics/is willing to do whatever it takes to get their conservative mouthpieces into power, I don't see how Fox would be motivated to change.
52
Also it seems like most of the posters here are VASTLY misinformed about how campaign contributions work for high-level corporation employees. I work in an industry which has nothing to do with politics or news/reporting. But executives and high-ups of ANY ethically-concerned company are not allowed to make political contributions without clearing them with the company first.

This is quite normal in corporate America.

Corporations making campaign contributions has NOTHING to do with individual employees making contributions. Corporate contributions are made/approved by the board of directors, which is NOT comprised of employees of that company. There's not even any semantic hairsplitting going on here. One person is not going to have "the power" to decide which candidate to contribute to. The entire board will come to a decision as to which candidate will best benefit the company's interests, and contribute to it.

The more you know...
53
Hey guys, even more info on this whole thing:
UPDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover Of M…
54
It's like that calvin and hobbes cartoon. After getting pummeled by the bully, calvin says, "I keep forgetting that rules are only for little, nice people"
55
Does anybody really think that Obama fired General Petraeus because some of his staffers shot their mouths off in front of a Rolling Stone reporter? No, he wanted him gone, and that was just a convenient excuse. I figure this was probably a lot like that.
56
What critics are missing is that Olbermann is held up as a news anchorman on a "news" vs. opinion show. That is why MSNBC uses him to anchor news events like election night.

Buchanan and Scarborough on the other hand are pundits. They are meant to have an opinion. I don't see anything inconsistent with holding news anchors to a higher objective standard than pundits.
57
#21 MSNBC is not liberal? Did you watch their election night coverage? The panel was all liberals and Democratic party boosters: Olbermann, Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Eugene Robinson, and Rachel Maddow. They couldn't even "flavor" it with Buchanan or Scarborough? At least CNN and Fox included people all across the political spectrum.

I like MSNBC's plain news coverage. Kris Jansing and Alex Witt are great, objective anchors. Bret Baier and Chris Wallace on Fox, and Candy Crowley and Anderson Cooper (for the most part) on CNN are likewise.

The problem these news channels have is when they try to sell opinionated pundits as serious news anchors. There should be a line between the two and between shows of one or the other. When they stray it causes problems. That is why Dan Rather caused such a firestorm. I used to like Brit Hume as an anchor, but it made me uncomfortable to see him as an opinion panelist on the Wallace show.
58
Dunno if anyone is still checking this thread, but:
200k strong to Save Olbermann!
59
There is a whole other question: How much do Fox and MSNBC earn off campaign ad air time? Fox's right-wing agenda is obvious, but could it be that way because ugly politics drives demand for commercials? Seems like there's a (corrupt) negative feedback loop in the system: when politics get divisive, commercial media can sell more air time for profit.
60
I wish Dan and other critics/ journalists would stop being so coy.

This has NOTHING to do with Olberman's donations. It has everything to do with punishing him and sending a signal to so- called liberals that you will lose your job if you criticize the current powers that be. A columnist in Grants Pass OR was fired after 9/11 because he dared to criticize George Bush.

It's the same old , same old bull shit and we need to be honest about it.
61
"In March 2006, Scarborough, who hosts the show Morning Joe, gave $4200 to Derrick Kitts (R-OR). And, as the Daily Kos points out, a month later Kitts was a guest on Scarborough's show."

If Wikipedia's entry for Scarborough is correct, "Morning Joe" didn't premiere until 2007.

If.
62
"In March 2006, Scarborough, who hosts the show Morning Joe, gave $4200 to Derrick Kitts (R-OR). And, as the Daily Kos points out, a month later Kitts was a guest on Scarborough's show."

If Wikipedia's entry for Scarborough is correct, "Morning Joe" didn't premiere until 2007.

If.
63
His ratings sucked and they wanted to can his ass. He gave them a reason, so they took it. What? You people think bosses at that level don't operate the same way your Starbucks' assistant manager treats you? PFFFFT.

"Liberals need to wise up if they're going to fight back. Corporations are eating us alive with their money."

Put down the bong, moron. Liberals need to start coming up with policies that garner more than 17-20% support among the voting populace. Your stupid refusal to appeal to, you know A FUCKING MAJORITY of voters is what eats you alive in the political arena.

But hey, you are right, is the The Man, er, the Corporations that are the problem, not your policy preferences and inability to garner support.
64
Dan you are a marxist homosexual liberal hypocrite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjXBx9-2…

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.