Keith Olbermann suspended over political donations

Remove all ads!

I don't agree with that. However, some corporations require the same of middle and upper management.

 

I based that comment on a report I heard regarding the NJ teachers union. I don't have the actually proof and it is possible I am wrong or the reporter was wrong.

 

I never been in a union, so this is news to me. While I know unions support certain candidates, I did not know that they required thier members to make contributions to these candidates. I also imagine it wouldn't require a specific worker to actually VOTE for that candidate (as your ballot is anonymous).

 

No, sorry I was not clear. I don't agree with the notion that union members have to donate. I've heard that as well. But my knowledge of unions is mostly second-hand, from current or former members.

The only union I have ever belonged to was the Musician's Union, and they didn't care what we did as long as we reported any contracts and paid our dues.

 

Trust me for tossing in a confusing issue. My knowledge is second hand also. I haven't done any research on it either. I don't know if they can actually force people to donate. Don't see how. Maybe they have a slush fund. I don't think all unions do this just some.

Since the vote is private I don't see how they can require people to vote for a certain candidate, just recommend it.

 

How your work or union can legally require you to donate to a particular candidate or party is beyond me. Unless you are speaking of indirect donations, as in "I paid my dues, and then the union turned around and used that money to support a candidate."

Sounds unethical as hell, and IMHO it should be illegal to require such donations of your employees or members.

 

It is illegal to require political donations from union members, and unions don't do that.

 

More on this topic, too. It turns out there was a lot more infighting over Olbermann then we knew. They were originally talking about suspending Olbermann for weeks, at least, and the article says Olbermann has basically burnt all bridges at MSNBC but Maddow. When Comcast takes over from Zucker, I wouldn't be surprised if Olbermann left once and for all.

 

Possible, but I'm not sure how much of that is truth and how much is rumormongering. After all, Olbermann is a rather confrontational figure and there are probably quite a few people want him gone from the major network supposedly most supportive of his point of view.

 

I agree Shaman - anyone who is that confrontational is going to make some enemies along the way. I'm sure not everyone at FOX News gets along with Bill-O, Beck et. al., either.

 

Idiots

This idiotic fear of being accused of bias, and the relentless pursuit of the unattainable goal to be super politically correct in America's partisan minefield, leads MSNBC to run amok among it's staff, punishing political donations left and right: And now they have suspended Joe Scarborough.

A former Republican congressman, donating to the GOP? Startling! Who would have thought that! These donations, heaven forbid, but one might just get the idea that Joe Scarborough isn't neutral but a conservative! OMG! OMG! OMG!

PS: BTA, posted it without having read your post.

 

Ragusa, there was a time when no one could tell a reporter's political affiliation. There was a time when, though perfectly unbiassed was still an unattainable goal, the majority of Americans trusted the news. That isn't true any more and I think it's very sad that it isn't. Almost any form of perfection is impossible to attain, especially over a continued event, but that doesn't mean we should give up on the goal.

 

NOG,
I couldn't disagree more. The good old days? IMO you probably need to largely imagine them since they probably didn't take place in your lifetime. Certainly not in mine, and I am older than you.

Whatever was 'once upon a time' has changed and political polarisation is a political reality in the US, for almost two decades, at least ever since the GOP mobilised their base against Clinton, and since the GOP based election campaigns on the truism that 50,1% is a majority, massively relying on wedge issues.

So that polarisation is not a bug, it was an inevitable side product of the divisiveness produced in these election campaigns - hand in glove with that lunacy came the bias trope. It's all bull. People were always biased. What the accusation led to was in full view during late 2002 and early 2003, when the big Wurlitzer was cranked up into full gear to sell the Iraq war. Now that was a spectacle to behold.

Being bull aside, the accusation of bias is virulent stuff: The news networks, even the liberal ones like MSNBC, were so scared of being accused of bias and lack of patriotism that they manned their panels with ratios like, I kid you not, five republicans vs two liberals to dispel any accusation of bias (and deservedly, they got accused of just that anyway). How one could conceive that concept is beyond me, but apparently the idea was to demonstrate that even the liberal media give that other side of the story 'equal representation', equal as in 5:2, creating basically subsidised jobs for right-wing pundits, giving them plenty of air time to reiterate their talking points. Preposterous. The main benefit of the concept was to allow the conservatives to be as outrageously biased as they wanted to be, and to conflate news with their opinion, after all, they were only reacting to prevalent liberal bias, adding their counterpoint. I beg do disagree.

The most insidious consequence of that accusation is the implicit point that suggests that in perfectly neutral news that tell both sides of the story one can suspend the own judgement, because one gets all the information one needs. That's bull as well, but alas, in FOX there is a tv channel that thrives on just that sales pitch.

And perfection? That tormented 'neutrality' we witness today has taken the teeth out of news. The point is that news need bias to see clearly. If one reports on an outrageous human rights abuse like torture, outrage is not only completely warranted, it is a healthy and sane human reaction, and thus essential to make the reader, listener or viewer understand the injustice that is being committed. The perfection you imagine - neutrality - is the death of news.

The NYT doesn't even use the word torture any more because they fear they will be targeted for bias by the snipers of Cheney's rearguard squad, and those on the right who think torture is a splendid idea*. Same for NPR**. Preposterous. The bias accusation has led to extensive self-censorship - as to be observed at MSNBC's suspending Olbermann and Scarborough, after all their campaign contributions could be perceived as signs of bias. What a joke***. The result of that extensive self-censorship is anaemic reporting. Deliberately almost killing people by near drowning them, and doing so repeatedly until they get insane like KSM becomes 'applying enhanced interrogation techniques' (torture) which are 'controversial' (clearly illegal) followed by an uncommented reiteration of a statement by a government spokesperson - in the process torturing language as much as common sense.

American media today are in pathetic shape; if it wasn't for the web and blogs it would be far worse. To recklessly maul a famous dictum: Seeing this, George Orwell couldn't possibly eat as much as he probably wanted to puke.

But then, in the good old days people were sentenced for torture as war criminals and then hanged. And George Bush, just having admitted, with pride, to have ordered torture, received a presidential medal of freedom last week. Now I think I need to have a puke. I am hung over anyway.

Spoiler

* I have still not gotten over my revulsion over the degrading spectacle of 2008 GOP presidential primary candidates out-enthusing themselves over torture.
** ... and does their timidity do them any good? No, of course not. Their enemies are implacable.
*** ... this being the sort of campaign contribution I would bother concerning myself with. That's news material.

 

Yes, but what's changed is that talking heads can now get very lucrative careers out of political division; guys like Rush and Beck are raking in millions off of who can be the biggest dick head to the other side. Even Olbermann doesn't just editorialize any longer, but just attempts to prove that he can be a bigger dick head with the best of 'em. But it's all about ratings and the nastier the food fight, the higher the ratings. It's really more political sport now, then it is about policy or rational opinion. When a rational point is produced by a news person, most in the room looked confused.

Look at how Katie dismantled Sarah with just a plain, rational queston: "What books or newpapers do you read?" Really! Would you have ever imagined that such a question could be "gotcha politics?" Or proof of "liberal bias?" Basic questions caused her to hide from the "unfriendly media" and retreat to her friendly camp at FOX where they have the gall to complain and make snide comments about the "biased media." What a joke.

 

And you think that was an improvement over what came before Clinton? You prefer Rachael Maddow to Walter Cronkite, for example?

One of the reasons so many people don't trust any news these days.

That's true, though I notice you single Fox out and ignore MSNBC. Again, though, I point to Cronkite. He was called "the most trusted man in America" for good reason. He reported facts, and all of them* at that. Cronkite reported stories that were relevant to the people, not ones he liked. He reported on politicians he agreed with and disagreed with, both. He didn't bring his politics into the job.

There's a huge difference, though, between American bias (the Nazis are evil) and political bias (the Republicans, Democrats, liberals, libertarians, Christians, atheists, etc. are evil). What you seem to miss, though, is that this toothless modern news environment was the result of biasness and accusations thereof, not the result of neutrality. Just like there are different kinds of peace (honest peace, 'peace of the sword', deceived peace, etc.), there are also different kinds of 'neutrality'. The modern is the one where the reporters dive for cover if the politicians even look at them. The old one was the kind where the politicians (of both parties) dove for cover if the reporters looked at them.

*as far as anyone could tell at least.

 

Your romanticism for the old days lets you overlook that Cronkite was able to call torture torture without having the proverbial harpies descending down on him to the extent they do today. He could do that because torture then had not yet been made a partisan issue. He worked when America had a different political climate. But never mind his supposed qualities as a news man, to the staunch right Cronkite was one of them liberals anyway. Take that for implacable hostility.

During Nixon the people were appalled that the president broke the law by ordering the illegal wire tapping of political opponents and Nixon then had the good sense to step down over it when impeachment was threatened. Against Clinton the Republicans started impeachment proceedings and Starr goaded him into lying about a consensual extramarital affair, which was not only pretty unimportant as far as governance is concerned but most of all his effing private business, probably as much to their general glee as to their titillation. Bush ordered torture, extra-judicial killings, illegal wire tapping and more - and yet he finished two terms and gets a presidential medal of freedom. One gets the idea.

The country has changed, and the media reflect that. Just lionising the late Walter Cronkite puts him out of context.

PS: You used the terms 'American bias' * (the Nazis are evil) and 'political bias'. The salient point that you miss is that it needs a warped perception to be incapable of differentiating between the two biases. That is happening constantly. The reason why that warped perception persists and exists is very simple, and can be summed up neatly with Bush's quip that 'Who's not with us is against us' and the tribal mentality it describes. Domestic criticism of torture was routinely and with fervour denounced from the GOP circles under Bush as nothing but a partisan attack and as unpatriotic if not outright treasonous. There was no differentiation. If you doubt that, go read older articles on the subject among the usual suspects (National review, Weekly Standard, Washington Times etc pp). That lack of differentiation persists even after Bush, just read articles by the egregious Marc Theissen.

Under Bush that undifferentiated partisan reaction was applied to all criticism of torture, international or domestic. That that found domestic support, is the result of a tribal world view that pits them liberals against the conservatives. The allegation of ever prevalent liberal bias plays right into that. In that narrative conservatives are perpetually under attack from The Left - preposterous if one looks at the extent to which the conservatives have in fact dominated public discourse in the US in the last 15 years. Jon Stewart offered a glimpse on that on that segment where he savaged Beck's latest lunacy - that 'George Soros is the puppet master'.

Spoiler

* I object to that term out of principle on grounds that it is quite presumptuous to put it that way (but that's for another thread). Americans don't have a claim for that sort of bias. That is about universal principles.

To close the circle to our thread here, while FOX is unabashedly partisan (and while their parent company NewsCorp is making political donations to the Republican party), it is especially hilarious that MSNBC pains itself with bothering about private political contributions of their two talking heads and the impression they might make. What that shows is simply the considerable extent to which American media that the US right likes to accuse of bias are actually on the defensive. The result is, as I said, crippling self-censorship.

 

I didn't overlook it. You're right that it's more than just the reporters, it's also the society, but I think the reporters led us here, and the reporters will be critical in getting us back (though they can't necessarily lead us there).

Oh, I'm fully aware of that, and I'm also aware of how he's made his views known since he stoped being a reporter. You'll note, though, that that group had to wait until he had retired to find evidence of bias.

I fail to see what your point is here, unless it's just a full disection of exactly how our culture and news organizations fell into partison hackery. Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with anything you've posted here.

 

Since news are a business now, they cater to the tastes of their customers. Your assertion that the media led the US into polarisation is not plausible.

Take FOX: FOX success builds on telling their listeners what they want to hear. FOX isn't about creating polarisation; they are about perpetuating it and keeping the folks riled up. They're a megaphone, not the voice.

The polarisation is the result of irresponsible and divisive electoral politics - electoral strategies - wherein the GOP carries IMO the largest share of the blame with their polarisation strategies utilising wedge issues. The democratic strategies using 'triangulation' (at the expense of identity) are exactly the opposite of that.

PS: Rather than polarising the D's effectively tried to become more Republican in order to be 'electable' (and at times more Republican than Republicans), to the chagrin of their base; the discontent among today's progressives gives testimony to that; in essence the D's shifted to the right. And what did it get them? Preposterously, their and Obama's pretty much centrist policies are being decried by the R's as the imminent Socialist takeover of America. Wouldn't it be so harmful politically to the body politic, it would be hilarious.

With D competition at the centre, the R's are left with one choice - either go back to the roots and run on a platform of good governance and try to re-win the centre, or move to the anti-government pro-corporate right. They have apparently decided for the latter, if the tea parties are any indication. As as sign of the times, the Birchers are back after hibernating in their fallout shelters. Last year was iirc the first time in decades they were allowed back into CPAC./PS

To the extent that the media are responsible they are guilty of not reporting on that with clarity. But they didn't make that happen. They were just a participant in that, and an eager one since political conflict sells - and all that under perpetual and perfectly justified fear to be smeared with the accusation of bias.

 

I think you're glossing things over, and paying way too much attention to Where We Are for a discussion of How We Got Here. The glossing over is on issues concerning the Dems (really? Cap and Trade was centrist?), while the How We Got Here is concerning the role the media played. I agree the Rep politicians bear more of the polarizing blame than the Dems, but that was largely a reaction to an actual liberal bias that emerged in news. Now, of course, the liberal bias is a boogey-man. Even what is there isn't as bad as it's portrayed.