This, by the way, is nonsense. He’s taken time off before without needing to invent a reason. (Most notably, when his parents were ill.)
But but when he did that Lawence O’Donnel was available to fill in for him! Now that O’Donnel has his own show, Olbermann couldn’t possibly find anyone to fill in for him on his highly rated show!
Let’s just move on to the next nonsensical conspiracy theory,
I heard Keith Olberman was actually suspended because he was secretly a Republican and those donation were just a front to hide that fact! The mastermind at MSNBC saw through his ploy.
rachel maddow cited the contracts on her show last night. msnbc and nbc news divisions have that clause; cnbc does not.
Keith Olbermann is not an at-will employee, he has an employment contract. He has things he has to adhere to within that contract, they are clearly enumerated and spelled out. We can hand wring all day about the wisdom of any action MSNBC might take or that they have already taken, but Keith Olbermann (and presumably his legal and business representatives) went over his contract with a fine-toothed comb so he really has no excuse at all here. He violated the terms of his employment contract and MSNBC is fully within its rights to handle the matter as appropriate per the terms of the contract.
I also see a bit of an internal struggle going on at MSNBC. Go back to the time when Fox News became the next big thing, most established media outlets decried Fox News because they had an open and obvious political bent. However, the problem for them was, Fox New started taking all of their lunches in the ratings war. MSNBC has since that time started pushing a few left-leaning partisan hacks onto prominent time slots, Olbermann is the most notable of that group and also the one whose show has the highest ratings.
At the same time, I think within MSNBC there are still a lot of real journalists, both at the management level and lower down the pyramid. I think a lot of those people are probably a little uncomfortable with the fact that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are using the network as a political mouth piece. While it isn’t anything that hasn’t already been done by Fox, and while it’s a clear smart business decision (giving the viewers what they want) I think it rankles the established journalists that this kind of thing has spread to all major news outlets. Most likely the people behind the decision to suspend Olbermann are from the old line journalism camp, and I imagine it wasn’t done solely because of Olbermann but because of what he represents. I wouldn’t even be surprised if there is some level of internal jockeying within MSNBC in which various parties are trying to move the network towards their idealized news outlet.
It’s actually not that uncommon for working journalists to avoid publicly donating money to political campaigns and attending public political events to avoid the appearance of impropriety. When NPR fired Juan Williams, a lot of their policies became known. For example, NPR employees (at least the on-air staff) are not permitted to attend political rallies, even on their own time, unless the reporter is covering the rally. (The link goes to the NPR Ombudsman’s blog.)
I’m thinking that Olbermann’s suspension has more to do with the fact that he was outed by a third party; if the network had discovered this on its own, they might have dealt with it internally.
I think this makes sense. It’s discussed in that New Yorker piece I linked to, and it’s also true that Olbermann was not hired to be a political commentator. He was hired to be an anchor and his show morphed into something else because that’s what he wanted to do. I haven’t read anything new about this story today, but some of what I read Friday referred to tensions between Olbermann and Griffin over some of those issues.
TPTB at MSNBC would have put a stop to his move from journalist to commentator long ago if they had been that unhappy about it. And they continue, apparently, to encourage partisan commentary by the other people in their evening lineup. They are concerned about good ratings and they are aware that the shows are more interesting, generally, when there is commentary than when the ethics of journalism are followed. As long as viewers know the difference and the commentaries are honest opinions and accurate facts, I don’t see that any harm is done.
I think that Olbermann has done this for other unknown reasons – perhaps to bring attention to how stupid the rule in the contract is for programs that are obviously commentary.
Those of you who think that people shouldn’t go around breaking rules must not care much for the techniques employed by Thoreau, Gandhi, or Dr. King. Thank heavens for rule breakers!
Has Olbermann himself commented on his suspension? If he is willing to accept the consequences of his actions, I admire him for it. It is a stupid rule anyway for commentators. I think it’s an invasion of their privacy and their rights as citizens. I would have the same opinion if he were an honest conservative too.
What gets me are those who give money to both sides knowing that whoever wins will favor them.
Can you provide an example that does not involve giving money to individuals on both sides (wanting the best Republican and the least-bad Democrat to win, for example), or involving money given by more than one person taken in aggregate?
The real money isn’t there, anyway. These days, the real money is in pro-business “grass roots” organizations. You don’t even need people, really. Civic minded donors will come forward.
This is a vapid, idiotic, pointless comment. I honestly am a little disgusted anyone would feel the need to say something so mindless in Great Debates.
How in the name of God you can associate something so unrelated as Thoreau, Gandhi, and MLK to a pundit violating the terms of an employment comment I can’t even begin to understand. I also on an intellectual level find it odd you lump Thoreau in with Gandhi and King. Thoreau was a man of theory, not of action, King and Gandhi were men of action who actually employed the sort of civil disobedience Thoreau really only wrote and vacillated about (I have no ill will towards Thoreau, but he was not a man of action or any great leader of men in the vein of King or Gandhi.)
I’d actually like you to try and demonstrate that you put some level of thought into this horrible statement by expanding on it. How do you specifically link the actions of Keith Olbermann, in regard to making a political donation that he probably never thought would be discovered, in violation of an employment contract with a private business that employs him to the actions of civil disobedience against the actual government of the United States and of British India (for King/Gandhi respectively)? Please explain how those actions, the actions of Olbermann towards his corporate employer are the same in anyway as the actions of Gandhi and King.
I’m waiting.
Thank you. It is silly for the rule to be in the contract of MSNBC employees, since there’s no expectation that they’re non-partisan. (I mean, I have no idea which political party Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams belong to, but it’s really obvious for Keith Olbermann or Lawrence O’Donnell.)
Having opinions that tend to agree with one side ormthe other is not the same as partisan. And even someone openly supporting one party is very very different from someone who actually has financial ties with mbers of that party.
It appears Olbermann wasn’t just suspending for making the donations he refused to apologize for making them on air.
I can understand Olbermann’s position but I think he has a much weaker hand then he did in the past.
I think MSNBC trying to reestablish they are journalists first and partisans second. Getting rid of Olbermann even if just on a temporary basis does help them do that. I question whether that’s a good competitive model though as the most success in the industry goes to the network who puts journalism second.
They’ve announced that his suspension ends on Tuesday. So he will miss two shows as a result of this.
I believe Countdown is their highest rated show, so I’m not sure about that. The New Yorker piece shows there was some conflict within the organization about the way Olbermann does his job, and I think there’s plenty more evidence as far as that goes.
I think networks convince themselves that devolving into partisanship is OK under those conditions. Unfortunately the reality is that you can do plenty of harm when biased commentators present half-truths and out-of-context information in a partisan manner even if their work is labeled as opinion.
I think it’s possible he felt he didn’t have to follow the same rule as other people on his network.
Oh please. This comparison could not be any more ridiculous. Olbermann didn’t break a law because it was unjust. He broke a stipulation in a contract that pays him millions of dollars because he didn’t feel like following it anymore. This is about Keith Olbermann and MSNBC, not justice or any larger principle. All three of the men you named did time in prison for their beliefs and two of them were murdered. Olbermann didn’t get to do his partisan schtick on a low-rated cable network for two or three days. You’re trivilizing the sacrifices those people made.