Olbermann slapped for donations to Democrats

Link

MSNBC TV host Keith Olbermann has been suspended for donating money to Democrats in violation of MSNBC's ethics policy.

I didn't realize that was a violation of NBC's ethics policy. Maybe read your contract harder, Olbermann.

If it's in the contract, what can you do? Only in our bizarre cable media culture would the guy who nightly hosts an obviously liberal talk show get in trouble with his bosses for contributing to liberal candidates.

It isn't that he contributed, it's that he didn't get permission first. Probably some sort of liability/disclosure thing.

There's no indication that anyone is concerned about liability. I don't even see how a news organization could be liable to someone for an employee contributing small amounts to a political campaign. It's a public image thing.

Seth wrote:

I didn't realize that was a violation of NBC's ethics policy. Maybe read your contract harder, Olbermann.

It's a violation in most news organizations' ethics policies. If you're going to be covering politics, you need to either not donate to a candidate so that you don't give the appearance of bias, or you need to disclose your donations so that your coverage can be weighed accordingly. This is a good idea.

Olbermann obviously works as more of a commentator for MSNBC than a straight news anchor and would likely have been allowed to make his donation if he had requested it. However, because he's still called on to report news at times, he should be held to the same standard as the rest of MSNBC's news team. The issue doesn't appear to be the donation so much as his failure to disclose it.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

The issue doesn't appear to be the donation so much as his failure to disclose it.

Disclosure doesn't prevent the appearance of a conflict, which according to MSNBC is the problem:

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest,”

The thing is, Olbermann is obviously NOT an impartial journalist. He's not hired to be an impartial journalist. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone, right or left, considers Olbermann an impartial journalist. All a donation does is confirm the bias that everybody already knew he had.

Yes, because this is obviously the crux of the problem America is facing today with political contributions.

Shouldn't that part of his contract be ruled unconstitutional? Corporations don't have to disclose so know we hold individuals to even higher standards?

fangblackbone wrote:

Yes, because this is obviously the crux of the problem America is facing today with political contributions.

Shouldn't that part of his contract be ruled unconstitutional? Corporations don't have to disclose so know we hold individuals to even higher standards?

I was wondering this same thing.

fangblackbone wrote:

Shouldn't that part of his contract be ruled unconstitutional? Corporations don't have to disclose so know we hold individuals to even higher standards?

I think the answer you will get is "No! Because...shut up! That's why!"

My question is, where is that champion of the First Amendment, Fox News? Why are they not swooping in like the offspring of Superman and an eagle to protect Olbermann's rights as they did with Juan Williams? For God's sake, now is the time for heroes!

fangblackbone wrote:

Shouldn't that part of his contract be ruled unconstitutional? Corporations don't have to disclose so know we hold individuals to even higher standards?

There's nothing in the Constitution preventing you from signing a contract that says something like that. If the FCC had a policy like that for all newscasters, that would be unconstitutional.

On a side note, this is why the solution to Campaign Finance Reform isn't preventing corporations from giving donations, but in preventing candidates from accepting them.

kaostheory wrote:

On a side note, this is why the solution to Campaign Finance Reform isn't preventing corporations from giving donations, but in preventing candidates from accepting them.

Public financing of elections. If it's OK to piss away $4 billion a month in Afghanistan, then it should be perfectly fine to spend $4 billion every two years to ensure that the election is about the needs of the people, not corporations.

Heck you could make the argument purely on the grounds that not having members of Congress constantly raising funds for their next election they'd have more time to, you know, actually do the work we elected them to in the first place.

fangblackbone wrote:

Yes, because this is obviously the crux of the problem America is facing today with political contributions.

Shouldn't that part of his contract be ruled unconstitutional? Corporations don't have to disclose so know we hold individuals to even higher standards?

It's an ethics policy. The media doesn't have any rules against donating to candidates (which a vast majority contribute to democrats) it's just he needed to submit the donation before making it.

If Olbermann was one of a handful of billionaires subversively funding liberal astroturf movements across the country, I'd be concerned.

If the shoe was on the other foot and I found out Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly did not disclose donating to republican candidates as was required by his contract with Fox News, I wouldn't give a rats ass either. f*ck man, Beck held a partisan rally at the Lincoln Memorial and my only reaction was a half hearted shrug.

He's been suspended indefinitely. I'd say that's more than a slap. I wonder if this has anything to do with his new corporate Comcast masters?

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that there's got to be something else at work here. This seems like a large reaction to a relatively minor transgression.

Xeknos wrote:

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that there's got to be something else at work here. This seems like a large reaction to a relatively minor transgression.

I agree with Xeknos - there's something else going on that we're not seeing. MSNBC is technically in the right because it's in Olbermann's contract, but what they are doing is both wrong and obviously inconsistent. I hope he gets picked up immediately by someone else.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

My question is, where is that champion of the First Amendment, Fox News? Why are they not swooping in like the offspring of Superman and an eagle to protect Olbermann's rights as they did with Juan Williams? For God's sake, now is the time for heroes!

Well, Fox News may not be supporting him, but Reason is - with an argument very similar to Funkenpants' argument.

Aetius wrote:

I agree with Xeknos - there's something else going on that we're not seeing. MSNBC is technically in the right because it's in Olbermann's contract, but what they are doing is both wrong and obviously inconsistent. I hope he gets picked up immediately by someone else.

Turns out Olbermann is way down from his peak ratings, and he's always had a somewhat antagonistic relationship with his bosses at the network. Rachel Maddow's show now beats Olbermann's in the ratings, so it's possible that they saw this as an excuse to break his contract and slip her into his spot. Lawrence O'Donnell then maybe goes into Maddow's spot, and Chris Hastings takes over in O'Donnell's spot.

I don't see any other place for Olbermann on TV. Despite it's reputation, CNN's evening lineup tends to be either conservative or determinedly non-controversial.

That would be a horrible year for him. He lost his father earlier this year.

It would be a big blow to MSNBC to lose Olbermann. Without "Countdown", the shows would all become the same format, just different personalities behind the mic. And what other show would read Thurber in the last minutes of the show every friday.

The biggest surprise of this whole thing was that apparently cable news networks have ethics?

The public backlash must have done something. If they were only going to suspend him for two shows, they probably would have said so from the beginning. The "suspended indefinitely" really felt like it was supposed to be something larger.

When I hear "suspended indefinitely" I hear "we need to figure out what to do," not "we technically can't fire him so we'll do the next best thing." Honestly I wouldn't mind if Olbermann went away (maybe he could take Maddow with him). He does have interesting things to say on occasion but he also says a lot of ranting left-wing stuff that gives the right ammo for the anti-liberal crap. He isn't changing anyone's mind, let's put it that way.

When someone has become nothing but a target - whether they deserve to be or not - they should step down. Keep working toward their goals but do so quietly as they are no longer helping by being a public figure. Take note, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.

And yes, there are plenty of examples on the right as well. We've named quite a few here. I think they should do the same.

LobsterMobster wrote:

When someone has become nothing but a target - whether they deserve to be or not - they should step down.

There is an entire media machine dedicated to targeting democratic leaders with whatever is today's outrage of the moment. If it's not about something real, they just make it up.

So if you go with the idea that every time someone becomes a target, they should step down, the effect is to give the republican party a veto over who should be democratic leaders.

I think the key phrase there was "nothing but a target". Olbermann does very little to actually promote or inform people of liberal/Democratic ideas. He simply rants to the choir. Other people may become targets of anger, hatespeech, or plain ol' reasonable opposition, but they probably have other elements to their careers as well.

Works both ways, Funkenpants. I think O'Reilly and Limbaugh should step down too. I thought that was implied... well, actually no, I said it directly.

If that leads to a huge exodus on both sides of the aisle then good riddance. When someone's opponents refuse to even hear them based on nothing but their name, they no longer have a purpose beyond entertainment for their base.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Works both ways, Funkenpants. I think O'Reilly and Limbaugh should step down too. I thought that was implied... well, actually no, I said it directly.

The fact that you make your point symmetrical between the two parties doesn't mean it makes sense. Why should anyone step down just because their opponents loudly disagree with what they say? Olbermann has something like a million Americans who like his method of expression. O'Reilyl something like 3 million. Shouldn't they step down when people that like them stop liking them? That makes a lot more sense.

It's because ideally when people have a conversation it's to find middle ground or at the very least to communicate. At least that's the stated purpose. If the person you're talking to stops listening the moment they know who you are then nothing will get done other than a whole lot of shouting and righteous indignation. If you don't believe me then look at any discussion of Rush Limbaugh anywhere, ever.

If these individuals are looking to make a difference and affect actual change then they should step down as they are no longer a viable vector for that. If they are looking to have a career in entertainment, then they should keep on doing what they're doing.

Of course your opinion might differ if where I see "respectful withdrawal from a fruitless conversation," you see only an exploitable weapon. On the other hand if both sides can pick off each other's pundits and policitians merely by screaming then eventually none of those idiots will be left and Washington will be left to the grown-ups who would like to actually get some work done. Even if that means we lose every last politician, maybe that's what we need. I don't believe in keeping someone on the payroll only for fear of an empty seat.

LobsterMobster wrote:

It's because ideally when people have a conversation it's to find middle ground or at the very least to communicate.

People still agree on all sorts of issues, but you're going to have basic political disagreements that involve political battles. If you eliminate Olbermann and Limbaugh you're still going to have people rhetorically smacking each other, and you're still going to have issues on which people will never agree. It's not a communication problem, just a matter of different views of the world. That's why we have voting and elections. This is the nature of politics. Always has been. Go back all the way to the founding and it's the same.

Funkenpants wrote:

This is the nature of politics. Always has been. Go back all the way to the founding and it's the same.

Yep. About the only progress we've made in the fundamentals of politics is that assassination is slightly less common than it used to be.