Olbermann Suspended From MSNBC for Campaign Donations

IIt's a no-brainer re Keith Olbermann.

If the Supreme Court could give corporations the right to donate to candidates without restriction, on what basis can CSNBC and other broadcasters deprive their staffs of the right to make donations?

BBB

Whether Fox has that policy is relevant to the policy making sense for someone in the business of providing news unless you are saying the Fox is NOT in the business of providing news.

Right. Corporations and unions have no greater right to protected speech than individuals.

You and others can try as hard as you please to insert you displeasure with Fox into this story, but any and everything happening at Fox is entirely irrelevant.

NBC is not run by Ruppert Murdoch , nor would it ever admit it patterned its internal policies on those of Fox.

Fox didn't suspend Olbermann.

I very much doubt that you are in favor of NBC considering the policies of Fox as anything like a standard in terms of administering its own.

This is quite typical though.

If the subject of Islamist brutality comes up, the same usual supsects will insist on introducing whatever "facts" they can muster about American brutality.

Unless Fox has weighed in on it (and it has not) whatever may or may not be true about Fox, it has absolutely nothing to do with this story.

I get that you hate Fox.

I hate the smell of cigarettes, but I don't attempt to find a avenue to express that hatred in every thread on A2K.

I never said NBC couldn't do those things. I never said FOX couldn't do what the hell the wanted to.

I was only pointing out your statement that it is reasonable for a news organization to restrict it's people from donating to campaigns. That means FOX isn't reasonable or isn't a news organization or your statement about it being reasonable is false.

I think all news organizations should have the policy. I think they should also have the policy of sticking to facts.

Perhaps you didn't read the entire story. It does talk about FOX and how Hannity gave money to campaigns. To claim it has NOTHING to do with the story is complete bunk. The story TALKS ABOUT IT.

You are merely sputtering pointlessly. Finn's arguments were sound. These news organizations are free to make and enforce any lawful employment policies they choose. There is no external requirement for (say) Fox to apply identical policies with respect to political contributions as (say) MSNBC, or the reverse. Each is free to do as it chooses - even if you assert that they should all adopt some policy you happen to prefer. That there may be some inconsistency between the policies of different corporations is entirely permissable.

It seems to me somewhat odd for MSNBC to be so obviously partisan in its reporting while, at the same time adopting policies based on the ludicrous pretense of impartiality. I also have the suspicion that there may be some inconsistency in their application of the policy in question to Oberman, and that there may be other factors also involved here. However, that is merely a suspicion. I don't know all the facts (and I believe you don't either). Certainly Fox in this matter appears to be more self-consistent than MSNBC.

Sure.. Fox is consistent in claiming they are not biased while at the same time acting in a fashion that shows them to be biased.

If it is reasonable for a news organization to maintain impartiality. Then what does that make Fox?

You are pointlessly grasping at straws. MSNBC in this instance is strangely - and very selectively it appears - applying a "policy" based on a "journalistic principle" it quite obviously ignores in almost all of its "rteporting". The usual term for that is hypocrisy.

Actually, I think it's more along the line of -
"george makes up facts and presents them as truth."

If as you claim MSNBC obviously ignores in it's reporting then you should be able to point to reporters doing just that. I would love to see your examples.

Perrhaps you would also like proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Perrhaps you would also like proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.

As far as they went, in Finn's and your little minds. You two are completely missing Parados's point.



Parados didn't argue that they couldn't. In fact he said,

"I never said NBC couldn't do those things. I never said FOX couldn't do what the hell the wanted to.

His point is that Fox makes no attempt, zero hypocritical or not, to being impartial.



While MSNBC criticises the right, it doesn't simply carry the water of left leaning candidates. By maintaining control of who gives what to what, management can remove a donor/reporter from covering a certain candidate.

Fox doesn't worry about any of this because Fox's sole raison d'etre is to be a vehicle for conservative/Republican policy. That's what Parados is getting at.

It appears the question is now moot. Just read an announcement that the esteemed Oberman has been reinstated after, no doubt, a period of deep soul searching within MSNBC. Tempest in a teapot.

this is more than that....MSNBC seemed to be trying to establish their cred as a journalistic organization, and they got laughed at. Management was out of touch with the America people, which is a consistent problem with American media.

Griffin jumped the gun in immediately suspending Olbermann, who is, after all, the most popular personality on the network. Didn't he expect there to be an enormous outcry from Olbermann's many fans and supporters? And, didn't Griffin figure that if Politico.com dug up the info on Olbermann's campaign contributions they'd also find that others at MSNBC might have done similar things--like Joe Scarborough? And who knows who else at MSNBC might have confessed to making a campaign contribution since Olbermann was suspended? This could have snowballed for them all over the place.

This doesn't seem to be a case of management being out of touch with the American people as much as it is a case of just bad management at MSNBC.

MSNBC is trying to establish and maintain some credibility as a journalistic organization. That's fine. And they should have some ethical standards about things like campaign contributions, and anything else they feel might compromise a journalist's integrity or credibility. They are in sharp contrast to an outfit like Fox News (or Faux News, as Olbermann calls them) which actually distorts facts if that will help to advance the Republican agenda. MSNBC may be partisan or liberal, but they aren't downright deceptive or deliberately misleading, as is often the case over at Fox, and they have a right to highlight such differences and hold to a different standard.

I'm very glad Olbermann will be returning--at least I hope he's returning (he hasn't issued a statement). I find him refreshing and rather unique. His sharing of his late father's final medical ordeal earlier this year was very moving and it helped to illuminate his own passionate concern for health care reform, and for a government sponsored insurance option. You can see the video here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/35572842#35572842

There really isn't anyone else on TV quite like him.

[Gob1 pulls a High Seas. ]

"Whew" says Gob1, wiping his brow. "Thank god for that. It was becoming all too evident just what an idiot I am."

If the Supreme Court could give corporations the right to donate to candidates without restriction, on what basis can CSNBC and other broadcasters deprive their staffs of the right to make donations?



On the basis that it's their company and they can make any policies they want. They feel that his position in front of the public demands impartiality, a somewhat bogus thought, so therefore the policy. The policy seems so ambiguous to me that it seems to be a tool to be enforced when they need to beat someone for something else. He must have pissed off the wrong person, which is easy to believe, hence the action. Also it they may think it makes them look like they are trying to be ethical.

The whole thing looks bogus to me. Who is surprised that Olbermann contributed to a Dem? No one. So what?

It may all be a scam to get some attention. Including Olbermann.

Corporations, as I'm sure you know, have the legal right to include such things in their employment contracts - even independently of recent Supreme Court decisions. For a supposed journalist in a news organization that asks the public to accept its journalistic impartiality and objectivity this is at least arguably a legitimate position.

I believe the truly strange element of this odd event was the ludicrous disconnect between MSNBC's obvious political bias (something that is also their legal right) and the standard they claimed to be applying to Oberman (and none of their other commentators.

I agree the thing looks bogus. It will be interesting to hear (if we ever do) just what new information rationalized the reversal of their action.

I sense a phenomenal business opportunity here. I will collect anonomyous donations from individuals with sensitive jobs, take a cut, then donate the money from organization "Enterprise for American Greatness" to designated candidates. Olbermann can donate all he wants for a small cover charge and MSNBC none the wiser. All above board according to SCOTUS.