MSNBC Suspends Olbermann Without Pay

[leftysergeant]

If corporations can donate money, there is no reason that an indivual should not. He is not expected to be neutral toward the candidates if he is there to take a position on issues.

That that slimeball Murdoch uses his whole news organization to promote GOP candidates is a violation of journalistic ethics and no honest reporter should agree to work for the dirt bag.

Olberman's First Ammendm,ent Rights are being stepped on by his employer.

 

[T.A.M.]

If corporations can donate money, there is no reason that an indivual should not. He is not expected to be neutral toward the candidates if he is there to take a position on issues.

That that slimeball Murdoch uses his whole news organization to promote GOP candidates is a violation of journalistic ethics and no honest reporter should agree to work for the dirt bag.

Olberman's First Ammendm,ent Rights are being stepped on by his employer.

Yes but provided he read and signed a work agreement that had this policy in it, they have every right to suspend and or fire him for breech of contract.

You cannot yell fire in a theater, you cannot tell a customer to go **** themselves, you cannot wear a nazi outfit (yes I godwined the thread) to work, and cry foul when your employer sends you home. In other words, there are limits to your "rights to free speech" when you are ON THE JOB for a private employer.

TAM

 

[Ranb]

Yeah, I'm crying a river for Olbermann. Just another dork who spends too much time giving us his views on the news instead of just reading it. He is hardly any different from most of the other talking heads on the national news.

Ranb

 

[WildCat]

Olberman's First Ammendm,ent Rights are being stepped on by his employer.

Unless his employer is the government they cannot step on his 1st Amendment rights.

Olbermann's a douche, but he shouldn't be suspended for this. It's not like anyone thinks he's non-partisan.

Comcast (which owns NBC) gives millions to politicians and political parties, maybe Olbermann just didn't donate to Comcast's favorite pols?

 

[Region Rat]

According to Howard Kurtz on CNN just now, he donated the $2400 to the Arizona candidate the same day he had the candidate on his show. I would think you would want your interviewer to disclose this to the audience. Anchor or commentator, or whatever you want to call it, if you are interviewing a candidate, you are doing hard news at that time, not opinion.

Also, if I heard Kurtz correctly, it seems that if it was disclosed, it may have been OK. Haven't seen it in writing though.

 

[Drudgewire]

If corporations can donate money, there is no reason that an indivual should not. He is not expected to be neutral toward the candidates if he is there to take a position on issues.

Again, I'm on Olbermann's side here, but he's not being suspended for donating. He's being suspended for violating MSNBC policy which states he has to inform the bosses he's making those donations.

Olberman's First Ammendm,ent Rights are being stepped on by his employer.

MSNBC isn't the government. Just like with Imus the 1st Amendment doesn't apply.

 

[T.A.M.]

Unless his employer is the government they cannot step on his 1st Amendment rights.

Olbermann's a douche, but he shouldn't be suspended for this. It's not like anyone thinks he's non-partisan.

Comcast (which owns NBC) gives millions to politicians and political parties, maybe Olbermann just didn't donate to Comcast's favorite pols?

yes, but if it was in a contract that he signed, is he entitled to break that contract and not receive "punishment" for such?

TAM

 

[WildCat]

yes, but if it was in a contract that he signed, is he entitled to break that contract and not receive "punishment" for such?

TAM

Sure, MSNBC can do what they want. It's a stupid policy in Olbermann's case, his job is die-hard liberal commentator, not unbiased news anchor.

 

[Ziggurat]

Olberman's First Ammendm,ent Rights are being stepped on by his employer.

Oh, so how one spends one's money is a first amendment issue? Funny: I thought the whole logic behind campaign finance regulations was that it wasn't. Go figure Lefty adopts the libertarian position.

 

[Ziggurat]

And now he is in the dog house at MSNBC because a drop in the bucket for the democrats took the scenic route into the party coffers?

He's in the dog house because he didn't follow his employer's rules. I bet they're regretting those rules right now, and they might change them in the future, but they'll still enforce them right now, because not doing so sends a very bad message to the employees.

As much as I'd like to jump on the conservative schadenfreude bandwagon

I think you'll find many conservatives find the whole thing ridiculous. Of course they aren't going to cry about Olbermann getting punished, but I haven't seen any who think that MSNBC management is upholding some great principle with this rule.

this is silly. It doesn't make sense. MSNBC should put him back on the air and give him a raise.

The rule is silly, the rule doesn't make sense. But enforcing rules does. MSNBC will put him back on the air (though it would be stupid to give him a raise for this), after he's been off the air long enough to send the message that management won't let employees break company rules without any repercussions. Which probably won't take long. I'd guess under a week.

 

[T.A.M.]

Sure, MSNBC can do what they want. It's a stupid policy in Olbermann's case, his job is die-hard liberal commentator, not unbiased news anchor.

We agree 100%. He is far from an unbiased news anchor...the policy is stupid. But it is there policy, and I would assume he OR his lawyers knew it was in there.

It just annoys me when someone makes his suspension a 1st ammendment issue. The first ammendment says you are entitled to free speech without retribution from the govt, does it not? What does it say about the right of your employer to fire you if you say or do something they deem to be inappropriate, or negatively effect their business?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

He's in the dog house because he didn't follow his employer's rules. I bet they're regretting those rules right now, and they might change them in the future, but they'll still enforce them right now, because not doing so sends a very bad message to the employees.



I think you'll find many conservatives find the whole thing ridiculous. Of course they aren't going to cry about Olbermann getting punished, but I haven't seen any who think that MSNBC management is upholding some great principle with this rule.



The rule is silly, the rule doesn't make sense. But enforcing rules does. MSNBC will put him back on the air (though it would be stupid to give him a raise for this), after he's been off the air long enough to send the message that management won't let employees break company rules without any repercussions. Which probably won't take long. I'd guess under a week.

I think for the FIRST TIME EVER, you and I are in 100% agreement on something.

TAM

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm gonna step completely out of character and say that I'm with Keith Olbermann on this issue.

I disagree with their policy, if it applies to pundits. I would have no problem with Hannity donating $2400 to every single REP who ran for congress.

I agree with S.o.T and T.A.M.



- Just wanted both of them linked to an agreement with each other for all eternity.



ETA DAMN. Missed my chance to add Zig, too.

 

[Nova Land]

Apparently Keith Olbermann donated some money to several (Democratic) political campaigns - which is a breach of MSNBC's ethics policy.

Is it really?

Greg Sargent has a column in the Washington Post arguing it isn't. Funny thing: I agree with Sargent that it isn't, but for an entirely different reason. And it's such an obvious reason I'm surprised no one else has pointed it out or made the argument I'm about to.

Here's the relevant bit from Sargent's column:

Did Keith Olbermann even violate NBC policy?

Check out the fine print of what NBC policy said, as of 2007, about political activities on the part of NBC employees:

"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. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."​

Emphasis mine. This is a bit difficult to parse. But this does seem to say that those who are worried that their "standing as an impartial journalist" would be jeopardized by political activity should report it. Last time I checked, Keith Olbermann doesn't pretend to be an "impartial journalist."

Likewise, neither do Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan, both of whom have also given political contributions. It seems possible that none of these three would have thought they were violating company policy.

Sargent bolded the wrong portion. What jumps out at me and should have been bolded is the part which reads: "contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions."

This is the section of the contract that Olbermann is being accused of breaching. And I fail to see how he violated it.

It does not say contributions to political campaigns. It specifically says contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions.

That's a reasonable provision to include. The reputation of MSNBC could be considerably damaged if it were to come out that one of their on-air personalities was donating to the KKK. Or to the Westboro Baptist Church. Or to a militia group advocating violent overthrow of the government. Or to PETA. Those are groups espousing controversial positions.

If the contract said that political contributions are forbidden, that would clearly include donating to the Democratic and Republican parties. By specifying campaigns that espouse controversial positions, it seems clearly (to me) to be exempting contributions to what are considered mainstream groups and parties.

I'd be curious how many other MSNBC employees understood the contract as written to bar contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates. Sargent lists two high-profile employees who apparently did not take the wording to mean that. I suspect there are others. Indeed, I'd be somewhat surprised if there were very many employees at all who took this to mean contributions to the Democrats or the Republicans -- prior to Olbermann's suspension.

 

[novice skeptic]

See, he just should have done what Hannity does which is to have his favored candidates on so they can ask for money and he can agree with them....

Olbermann is a tool, but this sudden burst of journalistic ethics by MSMBC is meaningless.

1) Olbermann did have his favored candidates on and ask for money (not sure why Hannity is being brought up except as a clear case of Tu quoque)

2) Not a sudden burst of anything, just a long standing policy of NBC, the parent company of MSNBC.

Batting 0 for 2 on that one.

 

[novice skeptic]

Well he suffers from his network not being a financial supporter of a given party. Hannity and them do not have to donate to their fav REPs, FOX takes care of that for them.

TAM

GE owns NBC and MSNBC. GE gives plenty to the both parties: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

Again, why the constant bringing in of Fox news here.

Either Olbermann was right or wrong, or MSNBC was right or wrong. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning Hannity. Well, actually I AM sure why they are doing it, but I just think it's deflection.

 

[novice skeptic]

If corporations can donate money, there is no reason that an indivual should not. He is not expected to be neutral toward the candidates if he is there to take a position on issues.

That that slimeball Murdoch uses his whole news organization to promote GOP candidates is a violation of journalistic ethics and no honest reporter should agree to work for the dirt bag.

Olberman's First Ammendm,ent Rights are being stepped on by his employer.

This just in: MSNBC is not Congress. Last time I checked the 1st Amendment, it didn't protect you from penalties given by your employer, only by the government. In Lefty Sergeant's world a McDonald's employee who called a minority customer a racial epithet and was fired for it could bring a case for free speech to the Supreme Court.

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree with S.o.T and T.A.M.



- Just wanted both of them linked to an agreement with each other for all eternity.



ETA DAMN. Missed my chance to add Zig, too.

lol...go over into the 9/11 CT archives and there are TONNES of posts that SOT and I are in 100% agreement.

TAM

 

[novice skeptic]

For the record, from what I understand NBC's policy did allow for donations to candidates IF the person gave advance notice (or asked for permission... I can't remember which) to a superior. Olbermann didn't do that. You can argue about the policy but the guy knowingly broke it. Doesn't seem worth shedding any tears over.

 

[T.A.M.]

GE owns NBC and MSNBC. GE gives plenty to the both parties: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

Again, why the constant bringing in of Fox news here.

Either Olbermann was right or wrong, or MSNBC was right or wrong. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning Hannity. Well, actually I AM sure why they are doing it, but I just think it's deflection.

because Fox is satan and the antichrist.

TAM