Dozens of viewers rejoice! Keith Olbermann back on the air!

You know... ever since I heard about this, I suspected it to be a publicity stunt, planned to show a stark difference between MSNBC and FOX, but I'm having serious doubts now. Here's why:

1. Olbermann's original replacement (Chris Hayes) was found to have also made contributions to a Dem candidate. Wouldn't MSNBC have checked out his replacement before announcing it if this had been an actual "plan"? This would indicate that they brought Hayes in in haste, not as part of a well-planned publicity stunt...

2. As this video shows, MSNBC had PLENTY of their journalists pushing candidates on air and publicly supporting Democratic candidates. Would they have tried to make a stark comparison to FOX if they knew that they had skeletons in their own closet?

Perhaps this is just something the head of MSNBC noticed about Keith and decided to take action. Sure, he may have seen it as an opportunity to set MSNBC apart from FOX as having more journalistic integrity (which I believe they do) but I'm doubting that it was the big PLANNED stunt that I first thought it was.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I saw Saltheart talking about it and now you talking about it, what ‘plan’ are you even talking about? I know your thread pretty much says that any plan is false but I just want to know what the plan was.

reply to post by Misoir


Shortly after I heard about Olbermann being suspended, my mind started wondering about a conspiratorial angle:

The conspiracy: Since FOX news' ratings regularly tromp on MSNBC's, the head of MSNBC wanted a way to make a stark comparison between the two, showing that MSNBC has more journalistic integrity than FOX and hopefully pick up some viewers, while knocking FOX's viewership down. So, he arranged with Olbermann to make these contributions without officially letting the network know so that he could get "caught" and suspended. Basically saying - "even though FOX commentators regularly contribute to GOP candidates and have them on their programs, MSNBC is far above that. We actually maintain standards and suspend our employees who break our rules, even if they are one of our biggest and most-watched commentators. We're so much better than FOX"

That's what I thought. But then, it was discovered that his replacement, Chris Hayes, had ALSO made some contributions ($250) to a Dem candidate, so they got a different replacement. THEN, come to find out that many commentators on MSNBC had 'promoted' Dem candidates on-air, making the comparison between the two kind of weak.

It seems to me that IF this were a "plan" MSNBC would have had the brains to:

1. Check on Chris Hayes donation history before naming him as Keith's replacement and
2. Make sure that MSNBC didn't have anything FOX could use against them, should they attack FOX for journalistic integrity.

Neither of these steps were taken, leading me to think that this wasn't a big plan after all. Just a bunch of stuff that happened. I think the official story is probably the truth on this one.

Does that explain it?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thank you. That explained it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

 

1. Olbermann's original replacement (Chris Hayes) was found to have also made contributions to a Dem candidate. Wouldn't MSNBC have checked out his replacement before announcing it if this had been an actual "plan"? This would indicate that they brought Hayes in in haste, not as part of a well-planned publicity stunt..

Hi BH,
This argument doesn't hold water because;
Hayes said on Twitter that his decision not to fill in for Olbermann had nothing to do with his donations, and that the donations were made before he became an MSNBC contributor.

"My not hosting tonight has *nothing* to do with several donations I made to two friends *before* I ever signed an MSNBC contract. I didn't feel comfortable doing it given the circumstances.” Hayes wrote.

So why did MSNBC announce that Hayes would be the host last Friday? Also why is MSNBC pretending it was their decision not to have Hayes host the show?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

 

2. As this video shows, MSNBC had PLENTY of their journalists pushing candidates on air and publicly supporting Democratic candidates. Would they have tried to make a stark comparison to FOX if they knew that they had skeletons in their own closet?

Perhaps this is just something the head of MSNBC noticed about Keith and decided to take action. Sure, he may have seen it as an opportunity to set MSNBC apart from FOX as having more journalistic integrity (which I believe they do) but I'm doubting that it was the big PLANNED stunt that I first thought it was.

Only in time will we be able to determine if this event was staged, or just some cable news host forgetting (after 7 years on the job) that he needs permission prior to donating. In the meantime, we can see what some Liberal Senaters think;


North Dakota State Senater - Tim Mathern
"The time has come for the profession of journalism to police itself and give the public clear measures as to who qualifies as a journalist. As important is Congress setting right the meaning of person in regards to free speech. Nothing will change until this is done."


Vermont Senater - Bernie Sanders
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.

At a time when the ownership of Fox News contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party, when a number of Fox commentators are using the network as a launching pad for their presidential campaigns and are raising money right off the air, it is absolutely unacceptable that MSNBC suspended one of the most popular progressive commentators in the country."


NY State Rep. Rory Lancman
"Here's the difference between Keith Olbermann donating to a few individual candidates and Fox News's parent company donating $1 million to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Olbermann is a self-professed advocate who happens to have a television show centered on his advocacy, and Fox News purports to be "fair and balanced" when in fact its entire network is the media arm of the Republican Party. If Fox would just be as straight as Olbermann is about its on-air advocacy -- which permeates its programming -- people wouldn't have such a problem about its donations to the very same causes it promotes throughout its supposedly fair and balanced "reporting.""

Originally posted by philis
Hi BH,
This argument doesn't hold water because;
Hayes said on Twitter that his decision not to fill in for Olbermann had nothing to do with his donations, and that the donations were made before he became an MSNBC contributor.

Hmmm... Well, wouldn't MSNBC have ASKED Hayes to fill in and gotten his approval beforehand as part of the "plan"? Whether he or MSNBC decided he wouldn't fill in, it seems it would have been settled *before* the announcement of Keith's suspension... If it was a plan...

And last night, Keith said he had read that it was a publicity stunt and it definitely wasn't. Of course, if he was in on it, that's that he WOULD say.

I don't know. I'm still doubting the publicity stunt idea, but I could be wrong.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH, that is what I love about your comments, you do not tip toe through the landmines, you go out there and stomp around.

Thanks for the comments on the threads on this topic.

I am just trying to understand the actual nature of this maneuver.

I have been sent home while working for past employers. Usually when I went off on sub contractors using illegal immigrants, the whole is it my right or my duty to call out subs for using them. Anyway, thanks again for your comments.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I watched the show last night and IMO he was exceptional.

Sorry mods for short reply I am using PS3 for post.

reply to post by Misoir


I have been a little busy so I have not had the chance to catch up on the MSM talking points.

I have always found KO to be absolutely humorous.

Some of his stuff is spot on, most is just blatant pandering to his ideology. Nothing wrong with that, as long as folks know that EVERYTHING that does not come from first hand knowledge comes through the eyes of those they are receiving the information from. Some peeps actually believe everything they hear from second hand knowledge.

Of course I am completely 180 from KO's ideology, so my viewpoint is skewed. I hope EVERYONE realizes this while reading my comments. I am sure it is obvious, but sometimes you never know.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


He openly said on television that journalism in the 21st century is biased and based on personal opinion, he has nothing to hide. I already know he is very Liberal and to take what he says about current events as opinion and when he does real journalism 99% of the time it is real hard facts.

I watch his show because I enjoy his spin on the days events, not because I am watching for hard-hitting journalism. I know not to expect that from any cable news source. The closest to real journalism is RT and they aren't even American.