UPDATE: Olbermann suspended for Dem contributions

reply to post by Justaposter


He is not the only one. One of the announcers MSNBC said would be filling in aside from Rachel Maddow has since been pulled. MSNBC found he made a 250 dollar donation to a candidate (Chris Haynes if I remember right).

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Justaposter

 

He is not the only one. One of the announcers MSNBC said would be filling in aside from Rachel Maddow has since been pulled. MSNBC found he made a 250 dollar donation to a candidate (Chris Haynes if I remember right).

I didn't know about others, I personally do not watch MSNBC, just read online.
How many people is MSNBC letting go of?

It's ironically convenient that Keith, after 7 years, suddenly forgot that he needs to ask permission before donating politically to avoid 'possible conflicts of interest'. And after watching The Rachel Maddow 'Show' today it's obvious to me this was an orchestrated event.

NBC is not a 'political corporation' says Rachel, because they do not shape the views of politicians (through donations). Fox News (News Corps) does in fact shape the views of Republican politicians much like any large corporate lobbyist does and the liberals are not happy about it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) reply to Keiths suspension:

"It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.

We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between."

In my opinion, this is a ploy to distract Americans and to sweep the 'real news' under a rug, at least for the weekend. I'm positive Keith will be back to work by Monday.

reply to post by philis



Again he was not suspended for making the donations. He was suspended for not disclosing it and seeking permission from his bosses to do it. The argument this is a private matter does not apply to this situation due to the nature of his work. The exact same argument can be made for Fox news provided their contracts read the same.

I don't care for MSNBC at all, however I do watch Maddow from time to time to see what the other side of the fence is talking about. To donate to a candidate while having the same person on air, while endorsing said candidate without disclosing the donation does create ethical issues.

For a person who covers politics, one would think he would know better. Aside from his contract, any donation to a candidate will end up on a public list that is filed with the FEC, so sooner or later it would be found, just as Maddow did with Hannity and Palin.

It looks like their is something more to this issue that has not been disclosed yet.

Chris Haynes (I think im getting the name right) was not let go or suspended. He was pulled from hosting Countdown though. His donation was 250.00 bucks. Olbermann and Matthews got in trouble during the last election coverage. So much trouble they were yanked from covering it due to complaints from viewers. Olbermann's stats have continued to drop, so its possible this was a loophole MSNBC used to end his contract.

Chris Matthews has stated in the past he is thinking about running for office at some point.

And yet Murdoch who donated a million dollars to Republicans remains in power. At least the other Networks are strict and have dignity.

Originally posted by dolphinfan

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)

I have mixed feelings about this. First I think, they all do it he shouldn't be treated any different. Plenty of the hosts on Fox news do this. Then second I think.. these people shouldnt even have shows on news channels (or there should be a 5 minute long warning before and after saying THIS ISN'T THE NEWS). Journalism shouldn't align it should inform. OReilly is the worst he is always taking a side when he has guests with differing views. Why are these people on news channels and allowed to confuse the (mostly ignorant) viewers. There shouldn't be a "news thats right."

reply to post by Xcathdra


I understand, Keith has been suspended because:

NBC News, parent of MSNBC TV, prohibits political contributions by its journalists without prior approval of the president (of NBC).

Olbermann has worked at MSNBC since March 2003. NBC's policy regarding donations (above quote) has not changed in those 7 years. In my opinion, he didn't 'forget' to properly disclose his contributions to management. It was purposely orchestrated by NBC to show how moral they are. And how evil FOX is.

This crisis will be used by Liberal politicians who will come to Olbermann defense, (such as Sen. Bernie Sanders) demanding all news agencies, especially Fox News, to limit their donation amount. After the Nov. elections, MSNBC realizes how weak they are in comparison to FOX. They are on the defensive and are trying desperately to limit the power FOX has over elections.

Olbermann will not be fired. He's the largest talking head at MSNBC (literally). His stats have dropped because Liberal stats accross the country have dropped. He will be back on Monday.

reply to post by philis


That is the consensus going around. So far I have come across about 6 articles breaking down the incident as such.

MSNBC attempting to push the fallacy that they are not a rabid progressive and socialist propaganda site falls on deaf ears. Even Chris Mathews calls his co pundits out once in awhile, then commences to jump right back on the bandwagon.

I do not know if anyone saw the heated progressive and socialist debacle. Here it is for those that may not have seen it-

Greenwald and O' Donnell going at it.

newsbusters.org...

The whole problem with MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, etc is that they continue to think no one sees their bias. It is like they live in their own head.

I believe the Indoctrinate U is a big part of it.

They get into these group think situations where any conservative counter points are attacked and ridiculed to the point that no one wants to open their mouths in fear of being attacked.

Problem is, the politically correctness is wearing off and many are just not going to put up with their fantasies anymore.

Like someone pointed out-Thank God for Obama

I said this to my bosses 3 years ago, that I hoped Obama would be elected instead of the RINO McCain.

The author put it together quite well, a snippet-

In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. In just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.

4. He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well.

Liberals tax, borrow and spend - check

Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America - check

Liberals want to take over the economy - check

Liberals think they know what is best for everyone - check

Liberals aren't happy till they are running YOUR life - check

5. He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year he has rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans. Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America !

This whole thing has an ulterior motive, IMO.

Originally posted by SaturnFX


you would rather the rich have it forcefully removed by a desperate father trying to find money to pay for his childs surgery? what would you do if someone you loved was dying and couldn't afford the surgery to save them, meanwhile, some obscene multimillionare across the street was simply flaunting their money, buying golden toilets and such?
principles end when emergency starts

The "wealthy" have a right to their money, if they want to spend it on golden toilets, that is their choice to do so. They, much like anyone else who isnt wealthy, do not have an obligation to fund healthcare for others. There are numerous hospitals that treat people, regardless of their ability to pay. Shriners Childrens Hospital is one of them.

I double dog dare you to go to a construction worker working 60 hour weeks and tell him he isn't providing for himself and he deserves no help
dont worry, your premium health care service will pay for the claw hammer being extracted from your head shortly after

If he is working 60 hours a week, why would he need help in the first place?

there is no right to life either then...do you believe abortion is a perfectly legal and moral choice? funny, your side demands babies get born, but take no responsiblity to keep them alive or healthy.
I suggest you have no right to safety then...lets put things back to the law of the jungle...see how long you and yours keep onto your forture when suddenly there is no big sweeping social service to protect your hoarding.

Of course abortion is a perfectly legal and moral choice.

Specifically, what is my side? Generalize much? Making broad assumptions like that is a sign of ignorance.

oh, lemme guess, you have a right for police to be there to defend you..pfft..nope...just a wasteful social service, just like health care...can't afford security guards for your own home...oh well...work harder you hippy!

Police have no legal obligation to protect or defend anyone who isnt in their custody, nor would I expect them to.

nor do you, and again, I say you have no right to police or even life...I think you personally should have a house as long as you can personally defend it...sleep with one eye open mate.

I have no need for police, protection and security begin and end in the home. Police are reactive, and as such are useless when it comes to protecting myself or my family. They are basically the cleanup crew.

Yes, we have no right to anything, yet when humans get together and try to better themselves, this is an ideal worth working for...do you not believe in ideals? all for yourself kinda thing?

Believing in the vanishing notion of personal responsibility and providing for oneself and their loved ones is hardly silly. Too bad you would rather have the government take care of you.

either you go with those wacky liberal philosophies,

You are the one promoting liberal policies. I want government out of our lives, you seem to believe it takes the place of your nanny since you cant take care of yourself either due to irresponsible choices or just plain stupidity.

reply to post by inforeal


You do know the Preamble to the Constitution doesnt confer any powers to the government dont you?

Please tell me that isnt news to you.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Ummm, have you read the 9th Amendment? Let me refresh your memory:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean we don't have the rights mentioned.

Um, have you read Article 1 Section 8?

It specifies the ONLY expenditures the feds are authorized to make with public funds.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

Unless you are contending that you know better than the man known as the Father of the Constitution (Madison),
you are simply wrong in your assertion that the feds should be providing anything other than exactly what is specified.

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Why is is nutty anarchist tea partiers wingnuts always refer to the consitution?

We either take this stuff seriously or not..lets not cherry pick..

Are you serious?

Since the Constitution means nothing to you, I assume you freely give up any and all of the rights protected by it as well correct?

Originally posted by Curiousisall
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.

Unfortunately .. the boobs at the Obama White House feed into Jon Stewart and take him seriously.
Lil' Timmy Geithner met with Jon Stewart to discuss the economy

Seriously .. ya' just can't make this crap up. :shk:

reply to post by hotbakedtater

next question is.....
will my boss (screenprinting business) be able to fire me, and have as many people rallying behind that decision....or can your boss, or yours, or the guy that lives next door???

every american citizen should have the right to make whatever political contributions that they wish to make, and it shouldn't be anyones's business....
take that right away from any of them, and well.....aren't you making it possible for them to take it away from everyone...thus leaving the corporate world with the only ties to our elected officials?

reply to post by dolphinfan


Obviously you didn't watch the rally. Stewart knocked both sides in video segments showing both liberal and conservative commentators injecting partisan hackery and fear Into the nations jugular. The media is complicit in the destruction of our way of life. Anyone touting one side or the other is being taken for a fool. We need to start making our own minds up and stop following the propaganda. By supporting democrat or republican(aka tea party), you become part of the problem, not the solution.

This was John Stewarts message. It must have gone right over peoples heads because they are neck deep in fear or paranoia.

I love Olbermanns show, I think it's hilarious.




It's not really that I agree with everything he says, but you must admit that he is extremely entertaining, a very good speaker, and is extremely good at attacking people (sometimes deserving, like George Bush, Bill-o). But is he balanced or unbiased? Obviously not.

With that said, I think it's absurd that he cannot donate money to what ever political party that he chooses. And it's not like we didn't already know that he was biased, donating to democrats proves nothing about him. I bet you, if the people criticizing Olbermann were not allowed to donate to whatever political party that they choose, they would be up in arms.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

next question is.....
will my boss (screenprinting business) be able to fire me, and have as many people rallying behind that decision....or can your boss, or yours, or the guy that lives next door???

Maybe it needs to be made clearer to some.
If you have an agreement with your boss that you will not come to work with Green hair, and then you show up with green hair - - - YES - he has the right to fire you.
Clear enough now ?
If you don't like the terms of your contract - Don't Sign It Go find another place to work

No company should have the right to control, establish pre-approval requirements or otherwise restrict the personal political opinions and investments of any American citizen. It is every American's right, including journalists, to engage in the election and political process of the United States of America. An employer, paying for 40-hours of someone's time, has no rights to infringe on an individual's right to participate in determining the representatives, for themselves, in our representative democracy.

Readers, listeners and viewers of news "personalities" have the right to full disclosure of campaign contributions, as is reported for every other contributor giving more than $99 cash to a candidate, at any time. Such is the case as these contributions were appropriately recorded and made public as personal contributions.

In terms of your news "personalities" having personal opinions, those opinions should be considered part and parcel with whom or where you choose to turn for your news. Editorial opinion can and often does offer valuable insight from studied sources - namely the journalist him or herself. The only rights the news corporation should have to control the individual is their right to hire journalists who they feel can and will represent their policy positions.

One should expect an editorial writer or reporter to have an opinion in some matters and independently judge all information they consume as having some bias, therefore, seeking out multiple sources for any news. Turn to journalists whose abilities to report comprehensively and whose opinions you respect as considered when you tune in for your news.

2 cents

Olbermann and Rick Sanchez should get together and start their own network, even if everything sucks, they should be able to compete with MSNBC and generate similar ratings.

Seriously, all of these news personalities are openly biased on all of the cable news networks, it doesn't surprise me in the least that any or all all of them are contributing to campaigns, parties, and candidates. What is a surprise is MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann.

Wouldn't it be great if all of the networks did this? Beck, Hannity, O'Riley, Matthews, and others....

Maybe we could actually get some news without all of that spin and other biased garbage?

Nah, will never happen.