Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UPDATE: Olbermann suspended for Dem contributions

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I guess it's all about standards. FOX's are very low... Of course we knew that.


Sooooo typical of the left. Olbermann couldn't possibly be at fault.

No, let's turn this thread into a "blame Fox News thread" instead.



I don't see anyone "blaming" Fox News; rather, it's an indictment of Fox News' journalistic integrity.

That being said, if there was a stipulation in Olbermann's contract prohibiting him from contributing to political campaigns, then MSNBC is fully within their right to discipline him as they see fit.




posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
But I really can't see much difference between Olbermann and Hannity other than they represent the different ends of the political spectrum.


I totally agree. Even Rachel is easier to watch than Keith. I like Keith, but his program is totally liberal-biased. It's not any individual that I take issue with, it's the corporations behind the "news". Keith is taking a fall to prove something about FOX. That their journalistic standards are LOW.



An executive with another television news organization, who asked not to be identified in offering analysis of competitors, said NBC may even see the disciplining of Mr. Olbermann as an opportunity to distinguish itself from Fox News, which has been increasingly identified with Republican positions.


Olbermann Suspended



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I agree, but this is the same stupid network that cancelled the Phil Donahue show that was at the time practically the only one in media against the Iraq war.

It seems that according to some Olbermann’s ratings are going down and right–wingers are speculating [ and hoping] that he may be cancelled.

MSNBC suspending him indefinitely is strange considering his contribution to that network. Perhaps they should have just suspened him a day or two.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I don't think he got in trouble for donating money to these candidates. I think he got in trouble for not disclosing his donations to his bosses. Without disclosing that, and then anchoring and offering analysis, is a conflict of interest. Plus, by not disclosing his donations, and then going on air and advocating for the candidates he donated to, could possibly be seen as an illegal campaign contribution.

It also destroys any credibility MSNBC (not much) had left in terms of reporting in an unbiased manner. Not everyone on the left would find it ok for an anchor to donate to a candidate and not disclose it, and then plug the candidate on tv.

His on air comments would be an extension of the monetary donation.

Olbermann needs to go back to covering the sports and be done with him.


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



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
MSNBC suspending him indefinitely is strange considering his contribution to that network. Perhaps they should have just suspened him a day or two.


"Indefinitely" could be a day or two.


The more I read, the more I see this as Keith taking the fall to prove that NBC has more journalistic integrity than FOX. Duh!


From my previous link:



No one at NBC News, MSNBC’s parent, would speculate about what this might mean for Mr. Olbermann’s future, though two NBC executives privately suggested this was not a step toward firing him.

One executive said the network decided it was imperative to take this kind of strong action as a way of underscoring that MSNBC, while featuring prime-time shows that overly support Democratic policy, remains a channel that adheres to fundamental journalistic values.

edit on 11/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Comcast is replacing GE as the top owner of MSNBC and President Phil Griffin is trying to prove to the more Conservative Comcast that MSNBC is ‘fair and balanced’, we all know it is not. It is Liberal to be the opposite voice of the right-wing Fox News.

This is just more power shown by corporations over the lives of their employees. I know it was a contract that involved not giving to campaigns without formal approval by the network but it just shows how far the corporate want to control our lives.

I hope Keith Olbermann resigns from MSNBC or teaches Phil Griffin that without him the network wouldn’t exist. Phil Griffin is just looking to become big and all he’s doing is setting the stage for his network’s collapse. CNN and MSNBC will be dead and we will all have to watch FOX!



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Oh thank god
I hate seeing him when i'm flipping the channel

I hope he never returns!



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I thought that the right to support whatever candidate you wanted in a political election was one of the primary things that distinguishes Americans from everyone else -- their "democracy" or so they brag.

Why do American corporations get to put limits on an employee's expression of his political views anyway? Why do American corporations get to violate personal freedoms with invasive drug tests?

It is obvious who is in charge in America -- and it ain't Joe Bloe citizen/newscaster. Newscasters are citizens, aren't they?

It is complete hypocracy to limit employee contributions when the Network (corporation) can contribute as it sees fit. Hypocracy! Nothing sane or reasonable about it.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
1. I only watch Olberman when I am in the mood to openly laugh at the man. He's an imbecile and almost without fail I find myself ridiculously amused at his tirades and furor rather than at his silly attempts at actual humor. I strongly dislike him and consider him one of a handfull of people I would not be courteous to if I ever met him.

2. I am a bit confused by MSNBC's decision here. It's not like anyone should be surprised at Olberman's political leanings or contributions. I also think this may, in fact, be an effort to force a re-look at the Supreme Court's donation ruling now that a more sympathetic voice is on the court in the form of Kagan. MSNBC was one of the entities which bristled openly over that ruling and, at least in theory, this suspension is a testing of that as Olberman will undoubtedly claim his rights have been violated. And, as much as I dislike the man, he'd be right in saying that.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


He did not get in trouble for donating money. He got in trouble for donating and not declaring it to his bosses. The guy is a news anchor and covered the elections. His donations, and then endorsement on TV, could be taken as an illegal campaign contribution, getting olbermann and MSNBC in a lot of trouble with the FEC.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Oh thank god
I hate seeing him when i'm flipping the channel

I hope he never returns!


So your fellow Americans should be denied the right to watch what they choose because you don’t like to see him when you are flipping through the channels?

Freedom, why do we need that? Every channel should be FOX News!



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pplrnuts




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




And you do not find that comment of hers insulting in the first place? I find is very bothersome hearing someone insulting another when they in fact are much more suitable to be on the receiving end of such a comment. Perhaps such comments she should keep to herself in the future, unless of course she doesnt mind receiving such input. End of topic.


Olberman is a TV personality.

I am not.

My ugly mug is not placed upon millions of tv sets across America.

Olberman's is. I am reminded of Groucho Marx or someone everytime I see him, then he opens his mouth and I cannot even take him seriously, he is more entertainer or talking head vs true journalist anyhow.

And, part of TV comsumption is choice and opinion, of the consumer on the couch.

Why should I consume a product (Olberman) I find aesthetically repugnant when there are plenty of other choices to consume who are more pleasing to me?

Everyone judges on looks. If mine are repulsive to anyone, remember the new feature shutting off avatars with the new redesign. I suggest you utilize it.

As far as journalists not being allowed to contribute towards political campaigns, I think that is restrictive, but if you sign a contract abide by it, or don't and accept the consequences.
edit on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:09:29 -0500 by hotbakedtater because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
If you want to make the big $ like Olbermann then this is the price you pay.
You sign a contract and are supposed to uphold it in good faith, just as you expect your employer to do for you.
Even if corporations are dishonest and crooked there's no reason that we as individuals should stoop to their levels.
Olbermann signed his rights away for money, just like most of us have to.

We have no real journalists left.
The Lefties are just as obnoxious and untruthful as the Right wingers are.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I wouldn't take it as that. After all the guy was just expressing his 1st amendment right to not like someone and express the same. I cannot stand Olbermann either, and am glad he might be on his way out the door.

Ever think the reason people do not watch MSNBC is because of the bias their anchors show? People bitch about Fox News all the time, but at least they make the attempts to get people on from the other side of the argument.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



That makes sense and is what I feel as well - that he is being made an example of for reasons other than his donation.

Now that being said - If this makes MSNBC seem more "above board" than Fox - does it really matter?

In other, words - Fox is what it is and a ton of people watch it.

Gah - I'm struggling for the right words here to make what I'm trying to say more elequent - so I'll just say it.

Would MSNBC viewers really give a flying hoot if they bar contributions or not as long as they continue to bash the evil right? Much like Fox viewers don't really give a sliding fizzle as long as Fox continues to bash the evil left..

Also, will anyone (other than MSNBC viewers) believe they have higher journalistic standards due to them doing this or will people think they just want to give the appearance of having higher standards?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Oh thank god
I hate seeing him when i'm flipping the channel

I hope he never returns!


So your fellow Americans should be denied the right to watch what they choose because you don’t like to see him when you are flipping through the channels?

Freedom, why do we need that? Every channel should be FOX News!


Really.

I just did an ATS post search for "Fox News" with "misoir" as the author and guess what I found ...

"Only" 11 (that's eleven) pages of hits mostly bashing Fox News.

You sure you want to keep posting on this thread about people trying (you think) to censor what's on TV?
edit on 11/5/2010 by centurion1211 because: added more text



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The thing is journalist are suppose to be non-bias (we know you cant be 100 percent NON-BIAS) but be as close as you can. This is not juan williams getting fired for stating his oppinion, This is a journalist who we already knows is in bed with Obama but it just proved how BIAS he really is by donating money to the democrats... If you know one thing about journalism it is that YOU ARE NOT a politician and ARE not to be funding campaigns that could hurt your employer (make them loose money) Hence CNN. I am no CNN fan screw CNN but I am not for journalist funding political parties.. I don't care if it's Hannity, Beck, Cooper, King, this is a BIG NO NO in that business..



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
Now that being said - If this makes MSNBC seem more "above board" than Fox - does it really matter?

In other, words - Fox is what it is and a ton of people watch it.


I know there are a lot of people who watch whatever news channel supports their views, but I also think there some who watch them all. The smart people do, let me say that. And if those smart people learn that MSNBC has higher journalistic standards than FOX, then they may be inclined to give up FOX. Or maybe that's what MSNBC is banking on. Of course, the hard-core conservatives are going to watch FOX, no matter what, but the more critically-thinking among us, who tune into various channels to get the WHOLE story may see this as a black mark against FOX and start watching MSNBC more often because of their higher journalistic integrity.

In other words, MSNBC suspended Olbermann as a giant MSNBC commercial.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
www.campaignmoney.com...

Just a link to a whole bunch of journalists and the campaigns they donated to. Should they all be fired, because to donate is to shame their employer as a good journalist, according to one side of this debate, correct?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
www.campaignmoney.com...

Just a link to a whole bunch of journalists and the campaigns they donated to. Should they all be fired, because to donate is to shame their employer as a good journalist, according to one side of this debate, correct?


No but I think you are missing the point. Olbermann did not disclose his donation, which is why he was in trouble. He is not being denied the ability to donate in any way shape or form. As I have said before failing to disclose a campaign donation, and then go on air and endorse those people, could be an illegal campaign contribution.

The list you posted means these people disclosed their donations. Candidates are also required by law to disclose a list of all contributors, and the amounts.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join