Keith Olbermann suspended over political donations

Remove all ads!

Linky


It has never been a secret that MSNBC and Olbermann have always been in bed with the Democrats, but I'm not sure how I feel about this. I gave up on expecting many journalists to be impartial a long long time ago. While they had no choice but to suspend him due to their policy that he clearly violated, I'm not sure that policies like this should be in place. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have to publicly disclose who the media make donations to? Although, they probably don't want to do that as it is one thing to have your bias be a theory, and it is another to have it be a fact.

 

The suspension wasn't over his donations, but for not clearing it with his superiors before doing so. MSNBC does not prohibit it's on-air talent from making such contributions. Still, there's got to be more to this story. It's a pretty minor infraction.

While this is a clear violation of NBC policy, we're talking 3 donations - which Olbermann did disclose - totaling less than $8000. When you consider that Fox News donated over $1.5 Million to the Republican Governer's Association, a million to the Chamber of Commerce, and they regularly help GOP candidates raise money on air (something no other network ever does), it seems pretty severe to admonish their biggest star over comparatively trivial (but still serious) infraction. NBC certainly has higher standards of ethics than FOX, as this case illustrates - but there's got to be more to the story.

 

Snook, I think I'm on the same page. I think the problem is that NBC is applying a policy intended to maintain the [appearance of] impartiality amongst journalists to the likes of Olberman, Maddow, Hannity, Beck, Matthews and O'Reilly -- these guys all run highly partisan personality-based news shows centered more around commentary and speculation that actual journalism -- they really aren't journalists. Policies like this kind of make sense when applied to auspiciously objective journalists doing a non-partisan show on prime time network TV -- but I'm even ambivalent in cases like that. I see this as a right to privacy issue. As long as there is full disclosure, and all campaign contributions must be disclosed by law, I see no conflict of interest in allowing journalists to donate their own personal funds to political campaigns. We need to move beyond the notion that our journalists are impartial automatons and somehow devoid of political conviction. Last I checked, journalism majors weren't required to submit to a lobotomy before graduating. If a journalist finds himself in a situation where there is a conflict of interest due to a prior donation or a pre-existing relationship with a politician, he can simply recuse himself just as any other professional would do.

Regarding Olbermann's suspension, though? While I disagree with the policy, I do agree with the suspension. Olbermann's signed a contract, and he clearly and flagrantly violated it. In my mind, NBC only has two options -- either scrap the policy entirely or punish Olbermann for violating his contract. Since they haven't scrapped the policy, they had no choice but to suspend him in order to avoid the appearance of selective enforcement.

EDIT: @DR: We obviously differ on this one. For me, the salient difference is that FOX doesn't have an ethics policy barring its journalists from actively participating in the political process or donating personal funds to campaigns. NBC does.

 

Point noted, and agreed. And I hope my above didn't convey that I didn't think he should be punished for violating his contract, he should. I just think the public and severe admonishment is pretty harsh, considering that Olbermann is specifically paid to be opinionated, so maintaining the appearance of impartiality for someone in his position is moot. Still, a contract is a contract, and Olbermann should have known better.

 

Just like you know which station has been in bed with the Republicans....

Well, yes, FOX did that to me years ago, during the time when CNBC fired Charles Grodin for being too liberal (the MSNBC sister station), before MSNBC found it's groove, during the impeachment trial of Clinton. CNBC had to hire Charles back again because of pressure from the viewership (1997?). I still remember being a part of the email campaign which got him reinstated.

I did want to point out that this was fully expected by your's truly. Because MSNBC was just recently sold off by GE, hence there are changes coming, in case anyone missed this. Has anyone else noticed the sudden tilt towards the Tea Party on the MSNBC website? Or is it just me?

 

I, too, suspect something more is going on. Maybe, when he was confronted, there were some 'harsh words'? That could definitely both result from the situation and result in such a suspension. It's also possible he was already grating on people's nerves and this was a 'last straw'.

In relation to the NPR discussion (it's an obvious comparison), I have no problem with MSNBC doing this for two reasons:
1.) MSNBC is not, in the least, funded by the US government.
2.) MSNBC has a clear contract clause on this matter which, as far as I know, it applies fairly to everyone (this is actually the first time I've heard of this, but if other people were getting away with the same, I may change my mind on the matter).

 

I bet you don't have a problem with it.

 

Chandos, please note the part where I said I would have a problem with it if the policy were being applied unfairly.

 

Right.

Just like in the instance of NPR, you were never able to explain how that mattered in the end. And by your own admission, NPR receives how much from the government? Please tell us again.

I did not know that you actually saw Keith's contract. Much like Juan's, you SEEM to know excactly what's in it. I take it that Juan's firing was within the contract limits because he never legally disputed it, at least that I'm aware.

 

supposedly Keith will be back today. I'm surprised, but glad. Liberals need somone who knows how to rant on TV.

 

I agree - while I did not know Olbermann made any kind of political donations, I would have assumed that they would be to Democrats is he did. Just like I would have assumed that any political donations Bill O'Reilly may make would be to Republicans. I actually think the Olbermann's popularity may have helped him in this regard. If he had been a peon, he may well have been fired.

 

I also assume that his parent corporation, Comcast, makes political donations as well.

 

Just because you didn't understand it didn't mean I didn't explain it.

Estimated at 2.5%, which is 2.5% that shouldn't be going to politically motivated actions.

I am aware of what is being reported. I'm assuming the reports are accurate, but then we all do that unless we see the evidence ourselves. Keith's case pretty obviously involved a contract violation, though whether it was for the contributions or for not clearing them first I neither know nor care. He was punished for the contract violation and, if the people at MSNBC are satisfied he's 'learned his lesson' (or maybe that the public has learned theirs), then that's fine with me. Expecially if he didn't know it would only be for two days.

 

You still haven't. Because you can't.

Why not? Politically motivated donations are made all the time. Big deal.

Obviously they have resolved this matter.

 

Er, some Democrats. While I don't doubt his sympathies towards Obama, the last time I listened to him - which, granted, was in 2008 - he wasn't particularly friendly towards some other Democrats, Hillary Clinton in particular. I don't think it started with the Democratic primaries, either.

Still, if the organization he works for has such a policy in place, and he's working for them, he should face the consequences for breaking it. It's hardly a drop in the bucket to the funds some other public personalities give, and I personally don't think it's that big a deal, but that's how it works when you work for someone else.

 

They actually have a number of conservatives on everyday, who are well-represented, which is far more than FOX does. "Morning Joe" is one of the most conservative programs on cable. And MSNBC also has CNBC as a sister station that is jammed full of corporate loving, conservative, talking heads.

Of course, if liberals get any representaition in the corporate media at all, then it's "liberal bias" in the media. What a joke that tired, worn out, old line is in 2010.

 

Olbermann responded on his first show following his suspension last night. While he includes some clips from late night talk show hosts making fun of him (including Jay Leno and Jon Stewart), I did find one point a bit interesting. He admits that MSNBC does have a rule prohibiting political donations from their employees without prior approval. However, he also states the such wording is NOT in his contract. Keith Olbermann's Response

Apparently, it's a rule that applies to all the company employees, so it didn't need to be explicitly stated in his contract. Anyway, I think this is pretty small potatos. When speaking of organizations like MSNBC, there's no real mystery that their on-air personalities are liberal, and that they will likely make contributions to Democrats - if they make any at all that is.

Finally, it should be pointed out that while Olbermann's actions violated MSNBC policy, there's absolutely nothing illegal about what he did. He gave three different candidates $2,400. That's not exactly the kind of money that's going to swing the outcome of an election.

 

He has been known to donate to Democrats as well.

 

Some unions support certain candidates and require their members to make contributions or make contributions in the Union members name. I can understand a news media that is at least trying to have the appearance of impartiality having a policy of not contributing to any political canidates at least by employees that are public figures.

It would certainly be nice if reporters, researchers and contributors were impartial in their facts. Editors are another matter. Editorials are biased.

The suspension didn't last very long, two days I believe. So it seems the matter was resolved.