NewsCorps itself donated a million dollars to Republican candidates in the 2010 elections.
This isn’t even close to the kind of things that Beck does. This is, as I said, more akin to Bill O’Reilly. I said that Olbermann is a demagogue, but he is not in moonbat, Howard beal, La La Land like Beck (nor is he as blithely dishonest as Hannity).
I can’t think of a worse defense than ‘Fox does it too.’
Salon points out that several on-air personalities on CNBC also made political contributions and that by this rule, they should also be suspended.
That’s pretty damn funny !
I used to like KO. The truth is his guest hosts do a better job than he does. His funny voices and so on have completely ruined his creditability. The show is a great idea, but it needs a new host.
If Olbermann ever did call Limbaugh “a big bag of mashed up jackass”, that’s pretty funny too.
A ‘suspension’ that happens right after an election when people are sick of politics? Gets the name of Keith Olbermann in the news? This looks Olbermann taking time off after the election and still keeping his name in the news.
I didn’t even like him on SportsCenter and imagine he got much more abrasive and smug when he moved to commentary. I’ve never seen him on MSNBC.
I have Olbermann’s book, “Worst Person in the World”, which I have to say is really funny.
But when he started doing the whole, “special comments”, then he jumped the shark. It’s not that he’s partisan – that’s a given. It’s just that he pretty much lost his sense of humor, and started taking himself too seriously.
For what it’s worth, EVERY conservative commentator I’ve seen weigh in on this says Olbermann should NOT have been suspended. EVERY one of them says, in effect, “What’s the big deal? NOBODY ever thought Keith was impartial or unbiased, and he never pretended to be. He’s a left-wing commentator, and everybody KNOWS he’s a left-wing commentator. Why SHOULDN’T he give money to liberal candidates?”
Much unlike others who have been called out in a similar manner by John Stewart, Keith Olbermann accepted the criticism and apologized for it. On his own show re-airing the awesome John Stewart clip you noted and admitting he was over the top.
That said I don’t much care for Keith, he is very much like O’Rielly and I don’t much care for punditry on loose facts.
MSNBC has shown they do have some journalistic standards. I have no idea why they felt the need to emphasize these on an opinion commentator. He’s highly partisan, it should be no surprise he donates to candidates aligned with his views. Yes he violated their policy. I give them credit for having such a policy but come on applying it for this is unneeded. Save it for when your actual journalists are doing it.
Rachel Maddows comment on it is here
FOX does it is no defense, but this does highlight how the 2 agencies are different. Equivalences between MSNBC and FOX are often false. Similarities can be found but they are by no means the same thing.
Yes, we discussed that around here when the news broke and it was pointed out that Time Warner and other companies that run news stations do similar things, and NewsCorp just gave a larger amount and did not split its money between the parties as much (or at all). I already pointed out that Fox News’ journalistic credibility is zero because of things like that, along with their content. There are comparisons to be made (both are openly partisan TV news networks), but there’s no point in making an equivalence between MSNBC and Fox here: Fox wins when you start saying ‘Fox did it, too.’
There is actually a justification for that restriction, though. If you own shares in a company and are telling other people whether that company is doing well or not, your comments will influence the value of your shares.
The same is not true for political donations. If you donate $1,000 to Obama’s reelection campaign, any conflict of interest exists because you want Obama to win, not because you put your money where your mouth is.
But most journalists wanted Obama to win, donations or no donations. So this restriction does nothing to remove bias or provide balance - it’s just a fig leaf for the media organization.
people on cnbc do not have the clause in their contract.
your break a clause in your contract, you take the chance that it will be found out, and have to be ready to take the chips when they fall.
he broke the clause, he was found out, now the chips fall, and he is off the air.
it is nice to see a company do what is right and not what is money.
Cite?
How do you know it’s actually in his contract and not that of CNBC employees? Because the Salon.com article links to a Gawker blog posting suggesting that the NBC News rules never applied to MSNBC (and that if they had, MSNBC could never have been as partisan as it is). And I’m not able to find any article suggesting that the reason for the suspension is that he violated the contract, just that he violated NBC News standards.
I agree journalists need to maintain an unbiased reputation but MSNBC punishing Olbermann for losing his is a bit pot and kettle.
He was not suspended for making campaign donations. It was for not getting permission from his corporate masters who poured tons of money into Repub campaigns. Why does he have get a permission slip ? Because they they so. Now we have to check out all the station personnel to find others who sinned.
Was Keith going to lose viewers if it came out that he donated to some Dems? Of course not. What was the harm to the station? The network decided to teach him a lesson.