free keith
free speech
keith olbermann
msnbc suspends olbermann
olbermann suspended for campaign contributions
Free Keith Olbermann!
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16676)
Boston, Massachusetts
November 5, 2010 2:35pm CST
Twitter is all, well... a-twitter, with the news that Keith Olbermann has been indefinitely suspended without pay from MSNBC. The reason? Seems Keith made three maximum donations to three separate Democrat candidate's election campaigns during this mid-term election season.
There is lots of speculation about. Was it Comcast that instructed MSNBC to suspend Olbermann? We know from the past that Keith sometimes butts heads with authority figures at the network. Is the reason stated - that he violated the standards of NBC- the true reason? More importantly, since everyone knows that Keith is far-left politically and his show is an opinion show, should he be constrained from making campaign contributions?
I don't agree with Olbermann on anything and despite his poor ratings, they are still the highest ratings of any show on MSNBC. That makes me wonder if "indefinitely suspended" means "whoa, we can't fire this guy or we go down the tube". It's been rumored that NBC is trying to distance itself from MSNBC because of their obvious slant and NBC wants to look like a more neutral, serious news network.
Personally, I don't think Olbermann should be fired for making campaign contributions. Featuring these candidates on his show over and over could be considered contributing the campaign if you ask me, and that's been allowed all along. If he were a news analyst who was supposed to give unbiased reporting of news and the possible meanings behind the stories, then a bias might be of more importance.
I could see MSNBC using Keith's demonstrated misogyny (he called Michelle Malkin a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it") as a reason to fire him. Perhaps some of the inflammatory statements he made might be reason enough, if they clashed with an ethics policy. But we all know Keith was four-square behind the Democrats, we know his positions, his opinions and his bias. Come on, MSNBC, we need the insane to measure our own sanity against. Bring back Keith!
1 person likes this
10 responses
@trruk1 (1028)
• United States
6 Nov 10
So individuals like Juan Williams cannot express their personal point of view and individuals like Keith Olbermann cannot donate to a campaign, but an entire network can devote itself to the exclusive promotion of one political party. Both of these cases are a firmly Republican perspective, i.e., people do not have rights but corporations do. Williams needed to be fired by NPR, not the way it was done, but he clearly had lost his interest in journalism. He wanted to be a shill for Faux News, so his firing actually enabled him to breathe a sigh of relief. He was actually pretty good in his early days at NPR, but it appears a little taste of affluence spoiled him completely. Olbermann will be back.
3 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
6 Nov 10
Juan Williams was told not to express his opinion by the liberal-leaning NPR, not by any Republicans. I never have heard anyone refer to Williams as a shill for Fox. The difference might be that Fox doesn't monitor or forbid his speech on or off-sir and Juan definitely gives the liberal side to any story. You probably wouldn't know what Juan Williams talks about when he is on Fox, since you don't watch it.
You may not have noticed this, but a lot of conservatives stood up for Juan Williams and a lot of them are standing up for Keith Olbermann right now, even on this thread. The fact that you wouldn't find liberals EVER standing up for a conservative who got his rights trampled on should tell you something about the difference. I believe in Olbermann's right to freedom of speech, even though I vehemently disagree with everything he says and all of his political positions. I started this thread to express my opinion that Keith didn't deserve to be fired for campaign contributions and I think he was exercising his constitutional rights.
I am amazed at how impossible it is for liberals to respond to something they should be in agreement on without finding a way to insult and blame conservatives. Listen, MSNBC isn't conservative, they are are left as you can get. MSNBC fired Keith, not Fox. So tell them how Republican they're being. Sheesh, you've got to take those partisan glasses off, they're messing with your vision.
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Making a private donation is much different than saying border line racist comments on air.
And, NPR is not left leaning.
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Re: NPR - They emailed their employees saying they could not attend the Rally for Sanity, so as to maintain objectivity and protect proper journalism.
And, the same way with Keith Olbermann, because MSNBC is not a left leaning site, they are suspending him for doing something against his contract.
He, of course, has too many supporters that need to hear the truth, so this suspension won't last long.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Ah, we have reached a point where the constitution, and the law clash. The interesting part of this story is that Joe Scarborough donated to republicans. I agree that he should have the same rights as others, and he should be able to donate money to how ever he wants. It will be interesting to see how many constitutionalists actually will defend him.
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
6 Nov 10
Actually, I first heard about this through the tweets of mostly conservative commentators. Even Ann Coulter started the #freekeitholbermann hash tag. Understandably, Michelle Malkin isn't as enthusiastic in her support as she tweeted
"So which lib misogynist crapweasel will MSNBC hire to replace Olby? We mashed-up bags of meat w/lipstick await."
Nearly all those who responded here are supportive of the Keefer, even me. Although I can't disagree with those who think he should have been fired long ago, but for other reasons. No one thinks he should have been fired for exercising his free speech.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
8 Nov 10
I am proud of you Rollo for standing up for someone you really don't like. Like I have told others on here: Supporting the Constitution when it helps people, or causes you DON'T like or support, is more important than supporting the ones you do. Like when the ACLU supported Rush Limbaugh.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
5 Nov 10
Wow, this really came as a surprise to me as this discussion is the first I'd been aware of this news. I sure hope they don't get rid of Keith permanently because I happen to be a big fan. Yes, he's said some inflammatory things that went over the top now and then but certainly no worse than his counterparts on the right do on a daily basis. He's also APOLOGIZED on more than one occasion for things he's said and he discontinued his "Worst Person in the World" segment after Monday's show because of Jon Stewart's plea for "sanity".
I guess nobody can accuse NBC for being hypocritical. Keith is the most popular MSNBC personality so without him they may be in serious trouble. It's obvious Fox News doesn't have a similar policy since nearly every potential GOP Presidential candidate happens to be on their payroll and I'm sure most of the on-air personalities there made many campaign donations to Republicans.
Annie
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
5 Nov 10
You were being nice and I appreciate that! I didn't mean to be "nasty" by mentioning Fox, really I wasn't. I was just kind of stating the obvious - they DO have several contributors who will likely run for President. Anyway, I absolutely support anyone's right to free speech, whether I agree with them or not. However, as Keith himself has pointed out many times, if he was in violation of the company's policies they DO have the right to suspend or fire him.
Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
5 Nov 10
"they DO have several contributors who will likely run for President"
By several you mean... two? I could also point out that Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow have both talked about running for elected office as well. Besides, it's not like potential candidates are going to stay unemployed for 3 years while they wait for the next election.
I still don't know how you can be a fan of someone like him. Weren't you offended by his "Mashed-Up Bag of Meat with Lipstick" comment? Advocating that kind of violence against women is foul and disgusting, even by MSNBC's standards.
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
5 Nov 10
Aww, come on. I was trying to be nice here and I didn't compare anyone to anyone else. This is about Keith Olbermann and my view that his free speech is as sacred as anyone else's. You KNOW I don't like Keith and I have objected to a lot of what he has said and even been very surprised when others didn't think it objectionable, but I never said he should be tossed off the air. I wasn't all that mean to him in the original post.
I think that this suspension can't be the idea of anyone at MSNBC, he's their best rated commentator. I tend to think the axe came down from higher up, like Comcast.
I assume you agree with the concept of free speech and support him for that reason and would support others (even on Fox) for that reason should the occasion arise.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
5 Nov 10
I was going to start a thread like this too when I heard about it. Let me make it clear, I think Keith Olbermann is a scumbag. I honestly think that making Khalid Sheik Muhammad watch his show would have broken him faster than waterboarding. If I were his boss, I would have fired him for the "Mashed-Up Bag of Meat with Lipstick" comment if no sooner because the guy is just absolute filth.
That said I'm shocked that campaign contributions like this got him suspended. If it's in his contract then it is what it is, but seriously, it's not like we didn't all KNOW who he wanted to win. He's pretty much giving these politicians free airtime every time he has them on his show and airtime costs money too. It really makes me wonder if there's more to this than they're letting on.
According to the articles I've read this is a pretty standard part of a contract for commentators and news analysts. I wonder if this has ever come up before.
So the big question: Would I fire him? YES, but not for this.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
6 Nov 10
The standards at MSNBC say "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".
I would contest that no one believed that Olbermann had any standing as impartial journalist. If MSNBC wanted people to think he's impartial, they'd have chastised him long before now.
Nevertheless, the huge groundswell of support for Olbermann is coming from the right.
Probably because they truly believe in that freedom of speech thing.
Jonah Goldberg of National Review has a good point. He writes:
"So Olbermann gave money to some Democratic candidates. Ostensibly the rules against this are intended to prevent journalists from giving the appearance of bias. Whether or not such rules make sense for actual reporters, such rules are silly for someone like Olbermann. Does anybody, and I mean anybody, suddenly trust Olbermann’s opinion less because of this news? I’m waiting. Does anyone think he’s less biased? More biased? Un-biased?
Second, the larger problem with these kinds of rules is that they do little to prevent media bias and a great deal to hide an important form of evidence of it."
It's a good point. By not making any contributions, one could deny having bias or being on any particular side. It might be more useful to viewers to know which side a journalist is on. A recent poll showed that people are turning to blogs and internet sources more often - not because they think they are unbiased, but because they don't hide their bias and it means the reader is aware of the bias from the start.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
That's just the thing. He's not unbiased and doesn't pretend to be. He's a proud left wing loon and that's what he's paid for. Now if this were a "reporter" whose job it was to report news without opinions or bias I "might" be able to understand it. Even then, I say let them spend their money where they like. Journalists, commentators, and reporters are just as much Americans and have just as big a stake in elections as the rest of us.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
5 Nov 10
I....*cringe*....am going....*cringe*.....to defend...*cringe*...Olberman.
Damn that was painful. In all seriousness, I can see it if it was a condition of his contract, perhaps he should have negotiated the contract better. But I would stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone to defend their right to speak as they see fit, including him. I would also defend his right to spend his money any way he sees fit. It's his money, he earned it.
2 people like this
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Rachel Maddow explains the difference between Fox News and MSNBC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/maddow-keith-olbermann-su_n_779851.html
Fox News is a political action committee, msnbc is a source of news.
There has been some debate on the candidates that Fox reps supported financially, and endorsed directly on their shows.
There were more than two - and Rachel's bit highlights the huge differences.
2 people like this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Rupert Murdock, chairman of Newscorp, and founder of FOX News also donated $1 Million to the US Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has some very questionable lobbying practices involving inspection of packages on cargo planes. They also refuse to release the names of the people that they were lobbying for, and if that money came from over seas (maybe someone in Yemen?). Not like anyone has ever tried to put bombs on cargo planes and tried to blow them up over the US.
2 people like this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
6 Nov 10
"Fox News is a political action committee, msnbc is a source of news."
The irony being that it's MSNBC--and other wholly anti-Fox sources--stating such.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
6 Nov 10
I wonder if they did this to avoid the fiasco surrounding NPR when they fired Juan Williams. I realize the circumstances are slightly different. If it was in his contract, he does deserve some kind of punishment. I am not a fan either and I do support his right to have his opinion and the right to spend his money the way he wants. His show is an opinion political show and his bias isn't really a secret. So, it is not like he is compromising his position by contributing. It really isn't swaying his opinion by giving them money.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
6 Nov 10
Exactly. It's an opinion show and we know his opinions so we're not shocked to find out that he supported Democratic candidates.. One of the candidates he gave money to had been on his show a great number of times. Whether he is highlighting them as candidates on his show or giving money to their campaigns, it isn't much different, both are supporting the candidate. So if MSNBC didn't have a problem with the former, they ought not to have a problem with the latter.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
5 Nov 10
From what I have read it stated in his contract that he was not allowed to make political contributions without first getting an ok from his bosses. The problem is that he did not ask permission before he did it. So therefore he is in breach of contract. It makes MSNBC look bad after they dogged Fox news for their parent company contributing to the republicans. As if Fox news could tell their parent company no.
Personally I don't think it was because of his on air comments. If they wanted to fire him for snarky remarks they would have to fire Meadows too.
It was probly a combination of low ratings and the publicity off of the contributions. The company did not know about it before hand and when the press found out the company got caught flat footed. Companies don't like that.
Fox is biased...MSNBC is biased...heck all of them are biased to one degree or another. I don't like it...but that is the way it is.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
5 Nov 10
You could be right, it might be that the press found out first and the company had to do something to look like they did the right thing. Maybe that is why it is an "indefinite suspension" without pay. They'll wait a decent time and bring him back. The network does have poor ratings but Olby is their highest rated show, so I can't think they'd voluntarily take him off the air.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Ah, I didn't see this discussion when I went on my rant this morning. 
I usually like responding instead of starting.
They shouldn't have suspended the guy.
His show on the network is entirely about promoting D and dissin' R.
It makes me think they're trying to bring in some publicity. His show still won't be able to beat O'Reilly's 5am rererun, but it's worth a try.
I usually like responding instead of starting.
They shouldn't have suspended the guy.
His show on the network is entirely about promoting D and dissin' R.
It makes me think they're trying to bring in some publicity. His show still won't be able to beat O'Reilly's 5am rererun, but it's worth a try.1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
6 Nov 10
I think mylot can support two discussions, no problem.
I prefer quietly responding but often, people take exception to my views. At least on this one, the more left-leaning mylotters won't call for my head on a platter.
I wonder if it's because they made a fuss about Fox and contributions to campaigns by their parent company. They want to look squeaky clean.
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Sign this petition. Put Keith Olbermann back on air.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?akid=2628.169120.-pRs-w&rd=1&source=e1-3mo-subj&t=1
1 person likes this
