UPDATE: Olbermann suspended for Dem contributions

UPDATE: Olbermann suspended for Dem contributions

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co m

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's primetime firebrand host, has been suspended indefinitely for violating the ethics policies of his employer earlier this year when he donated to three Democrats seeking federal office, MSNBC announced Friday.

First reported by Politico and confirmed by Federal Election Commission filings, the primetime television host gave $2,400 – the maximum individual amount allowed – to each of the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalv

(visit the link for the full news article)

About time these folks started to get treated like journalists when they are touted out as such.

The entire news business in this country is in the tank, left and right. While there are legitimate news programs on most networks, 80% of what is on is opinion and ideological nonsense.

We have Stewart and Olberman touting themselves as legitimate news voices on the left, Hannity and Beck on the right and a host of others. NPR is a left leaning news organ as is MSNBC. Fox is clearly a right oriented news outlet.

The reality of it is that none of it can be trusted. Not saying that fining Olberman is any solution, it is at least a step in the right direction.

Bottom-line is that there are no places to get unbiased news any longer. At least with the internet you can cull from multiple sources and ascertain what you believe is the truth, to the extent that you have both the time and the insight to understand the bias of the individual sources, but that is a small minority.

The entire situation serves to dumb down the people and enable the one party system and its corporate masters to keep on doing their business.

I would be interested in member's thoughts on a solution to the problem, or even if they think there is one. I frankly don't see a solution because any solution would require integrity and that seems to be in such short supply I don't know where we would find it.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)

this is what i said before about corporations... they can back or donate and support any candidate, but an individual inside that organization cannot. something SERIOUSLY wrong with that.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
We have Stewart and Olberman touting themselves as legitimate news voices on the left, Hannity and Beck on the right and a host of others.

I was really with you there and then you just completely lost me. When did Stewart ever tout himself as a legitimate news voice? Other than that I agreed with you but come on, really?

Olbermann suspended - good.

Can't wait to hear about CNN's Matthews - another very nasty "news commentator".

Olberman is a sanctimonious boob, with apologies to boobs. They can't possibly sanction this arsehole enough. Who likes this guy?

This is not right, these corporations are all of control, don't care who you work for, individuals should have the right to support whom you please.

Of course these same corporations openly support who the hell they want to, I am tired of them saying do what I say not what I do.

Originally posted by dillweed
Olberman is a sanctimonious boob, with apologies to boobs. They can't possibly sanction this arsehole enough. Who likes this guy?

I do, never miss his show, whether you like him or not has nothing to with our rights to support any candidate we choose, corporations should have no right to tell us who we cannot support a candidate when they themselves openly do.

Originally posted by Aquarius1

Originally posted by dillweed
Olberman is a sanctimonious boob, with apologies to boobs. They can't possibly sanction this arsehole enough. Who likes this guy?

I do, never miss his show, whether you like him or not has nothing to with our rights to support any candidate we choose, corporations should have no right to tell us who we cannot support a candidate when they themselves openly do.

edit on 5-11-2010 by Aquarius1 because: (no reason given)

Well, according to ratings, you must be one of a very few.

The difference between olbermann and people on other networks is his delivery. Almost everything he says sounds like it comes from the meanest kid on the block when you were growing up. Just nasty in words and tone. Hardly a tolerant person.

Helps explain his extremely low ratings.

You actually like that? What does that say?

reply to post by Curiousisall


When you speak out against politicians and political movements, hold rallys to generate support for a particular side, interview politicians and toss them softballs, you are in fact touting yourself as a quasi-news commentator.

As far as everyone thinking they are comedians, there has long been a historical history about cartoons (comedy) and politics. I doubt any historian would not consider Thomas Nast a political force in American history. The medium of his era was newsprint. The media of today is television and the internet and comedians certainly have an impact on the thoughts of the general public on politics.

Easier to remember a joke than a serious news story.

I would put Stewart in the came category as Dennis Miller, other than the fact that Miller is twice as smart and three times as funny. In the end they deride what they do not like and that derision is transfered to the ignorant.

So journalists are a class of American Citizen that has no right to donate to politicians? Wow, 2400 bucks. Big deal why is everyone so gloaterific over this?

That aside I rarely watch him, and the few times I caught his show I was put poff by his snide attitude and ugly mug.

But seriously, why are journalists prohibited from taking sides?

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

When you speak out against politicians and political movements, hold rallys to generate support for a particular side, interview politicians and toss them softballs, you are in fact touting yourself as a quasi-news commentator.


As far as everyone thinking they are comedians, there has long been a historical history about cartoons (comedy) and politics. I doubt any historian would not consider Thomas Nast a political force in American history. The medium of his era was newsprint. The media of today is television and the internet and comedians certainly have an impact on the thoughts of the general public on politics.

Easier to remember a joke than a serious news story.

I would put Stewart in the came category as Dennis Miller, other than the fact that Miller is twice as smart and three times as funny. In the end they deride what they do not like and that derision is transfered to the ignorant.

You are really stretching there because that would mean you put Miller in the same category as Olberman and so and so forth. Unfortunately Stewart goes out of his way to tell people not to take him seriously. He makes it a pretty big point and often. If you take him seriously, that is your problem. Seeing as how you think that complete coward Miller is funnier, that is not your only problem. If you want to consider Stewart a newsman, then I guess that is all on you. It is not my fault you choose to ignore that fact that he is not.

p.s. what side was his rally in support of and can you show me how you come to this conclusion?

After carefully reading the article and seeing what it stated, the reality is, that he did violate the rules of the company he worked for, and thus is being punished for it. Those rules are present for a purpose and everyone who works should understand that. They may not understand why a rule is in place, but there is usually very good reasons for such. Most of the time, a rule such as the one on political contributions are present, or talking to the media, are present as it means that sometime in the past history of a company or its parent, there have been problems or lawsuits involved with such. So here you have it, a person in an organization and a large corporation wants to donate money to a political candidate who favors their views, ok, that is fine, but do it with in the rules of the company that the person works for, and do not make an announcement about such.
But let us also consider Olbermann, and the actions he also did. Donating to a candidate in the state he lives in, I can see, perfectly acceptable and should never be questioned, as that is the person who is going to represent his personal interest at some level of government. But where it starts to become questionable and one has to wonder, is that he donated too three different candidates, in three different states, that I would say is ultimately a conflict of interest, or at least verges on it. If he donated to say the Democratic national convention, where he is not supporting any personal candidate, that too would have been acceptable, as that is a choice of party, not person, and would not be a conflict of interest. Do you see the difference?
To put and donate, when you are a large corporation or company or big name, to a specific party, means you are supporting that party, and would technically have no influence over an election, as that party would distribute money to the different candidates, as they see fit, but to donate to different specific candidates in different states, does verge on tampering with an election. And when the suspicion on if the elections are fair, or have been tampered with, the last thing anyone wants to see is another scandal concerning voting fraud or election tampering.

reply to post by dolphinfan


As I understand it, NBC's policy is the issue here. Specific to its news staff employed by the parent company. (GE, in this case, or perhaps only related to those working for the NBC subsidiary).

But what about the corporations themselves, who own the various networks? What is the Fox policy, anyone know? The "News Corporation Ltd." is the parent company of "Fox".

News Corporation Ltd - Political Campaign Contributions (1999 to present)

Opinion?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Aquarius1

I do, never miss his show, whether you like him or not has nothing to with our rights to support any candidate we choose, corporations should have no right to tell us who we cannot support a candidate when they themselves openly do.

edit on 5-11-2010 by Aquarius1 because: (no reason given)

Nobody is telling him he cant support a certain someone, they are simply saying he will not work for them by showing support for anyone. It shows a conflict of interest.

Imagine a prosecutor contributing to the campaign of a certain judge. How would that look?

Certain professions require neutrality, a journalist is one of them.

reply to post by pplrnuts

After viewing your avatar, its hard to imagine how you have the guts to insult anyones "ugly mug". No offense, but seriously.

Tho i do no agree with bakedtater, that comment was extremely unacceptable , personal attacks of that kind of voracity are not tolerated on ATS, you might ought to read the terms and conditions as i see you are new here....

As to the OP and Tater, i can see where donating money would be over the line, because of its blatantly bias, and as a news commentator that calls into question objectivity........the man can vote for whoever he wants, but thats a private affair, something that can be pulled up like a donation, which is public , probably calls into question his ability to be balanced, and im sure MSNBC doesnt like that.

reply to post by dolphinfan


What a Hypocrate Olbermann has finally been Exposed to be . From his Totally Biased News Reporting in Line with the Liberal Agenda , to using his Position at CNN to Attack Conservative Views Expressed by members of the Fox Network . His Dismissle is also a result to his Personal Attacks of Tea Party Candidates on the Air during CNN's Mid Term Election Coverage , most Notablly the Horonable Mr. Ron Paul . Cris Matthews is also another Completely Biased commentator employed bt them who's Days are surely numbered on that Sorry Excuse for a Unbiased News Network .