MSNBC Suspends Olbermann Without Pay

[Ziggurat]

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

Ah, the joys of language ambiguity!

The sentence can be parsed multiple ways.
1) Such activities may include participation in or contributions to (political campaigns) or (groups that espouse controversial positions).

2) Such activities may include participation in or contributions to (political campaigns or groups) that espouse controversial positions

You're arguing for the latter. But the former is also a logical parsing of the sentence as well. In fact, it makes more sense, because in the latter case, specifying both "political campaigns" and "groups" is redundant, since political campaigns are groups. The former parsing is not redundant.

Furthermore, when faced with a potentially ambiguous requirement, the sensible approach is to follow the broader reading to ensure compliance with whichever interpretation the current management might decide to use.

It's a stupid rule (I don't want the mere appearance of impartiality, which is all such a ban can accomplish, I'd rather have journalists permitted to expose their own biases). But it's still the rule.

 

[fuelair]

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

Actually, Hannity did. Fox "wish he hadn't" but that was it.

 

[Nova Land]

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.

No. The policy, as I quoted above, was that the employee needed to obtain approval before making contributions to groups which espoused controversial positions.

Thus Olbermann did not need to run to his superior and get approval every time he donated to United Way. He did not need to run to his superior and get approval every time he donated to the ASPCA. He did not need to run to his superior and get permission every time he donated to the League of Women Voters. If he were a Catholic he did not need to get permission every time he put money in the hat; ditto if he were Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, or Jewish, among others.

He did need to go to his superior and get permission if he wished to donate to PETA. He did need to go to his superior and get permission if he wished to donate to He did need to go to his superior and get permission if he wished to donate to the Church of Satan.

If there were any reasonable question about whether a group espouses controversial positions, he needed to ask. Otherwise he did not.

By "controversial positions", I think it is unreasonable to use that to mean any position with which some people disagree. There are people who disagree with everything, so that would make the word controversial unnecessary. If all groups and political parties were intended to be included, the policy would have read simply: "Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups."

A political party espousing the position that the income tax is unconstitutional and that members should refuse to pay it could reasonably be considered controversial. A political party espousing the position that Blacks are inferior and should be denied the vote could reasonably be considered controversial. The Democratic and Republican parties, in contrast, are by and large considered to be mainstream.

 

[Nova Land]

Ah, the joys of language ambiguity!

The sentence can be parsed multiple ways.
1) Such activities may include participation in or contributions to (political campaigns) or (groups that espouse controversial positions).

2) Such activities may include participation in or contributions to (political campaigns or groups) that espouse controversial positions

You're arguing for the latter. But the former is also a logical parsing of the sentence as well.

If the former were the intended meaning, the wording should be "Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or to groups that espouse controversial positions." In the absence of a second to, political modifies both campaigns and groups.

On re-reading I can see I'm wrong on that. You are correct; either one is a reasonable interpretation of the words as written. I believe the latter is more reasonable, but agree a case can be made for both.

In fact, it makes more sense, because in the latter case, specifying both "political campaigns" and "groups" is redundant, since political campaigns are groups.

No. I believe most sensible people can easily grasp the distinction between groups such as PETA (a political group) and groups such as Sestak for Senator (a political campaign), and understand these to be separate categories. The IRS certainly does; a political group such as the ACLU or Amnesty International may be tax-exempt, but a political campaign can't be. So including both terms in the policy is helpful in making the policy clear and avoiding ambiguity.

 

[Cicero]

(Somewhere, Cicero is going absolutely nuts.)

Hold on.

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

Agree

Um, no. Olbermann has become a buffoon. I think he wanted to become the Rush Limbaugh of the left and now he's over-achieved. He should have just gone for the illegal prescription abuse, after all that is forgivable not matter what one said about it previously.

Agree.

Um, no. Olbermann has become a buffoon. I think he wanted to become the Rush Limbaugh of the left and now he's over-achieved.

Agree

MSNBC management gets the Captain Louis Renault Award for being shocked, shocked! that Olbermann might display signs of bias.

Agree

Thank God, Maybe MSNBC news can chase after some credibility again, between Keith and Rachel I have trouble even switching through the channel. And I'm pretty far from a Reichtard dittohead, but Obermann and Madow are about as close to the left version of O'Reilly, Rush, Beck and Hannity as it comes. It is the distortions and falsehoods that make these people disgusting and repugnant, not the Right/Left perspectives from which they contrive those disingenuities.

Agree

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?

As much as I'd like to jump on the conservative schadenfreude bandwagon, this is silly. It doesn't make sense. MSNBC should put him back on the air and give him a raise.

Agree

I wonder what Stewart's take on this will be?

 

[BeAChooser]

Perhaps this is the real reason for Olbermann's suspension …

http://www.examiner.com/political-m...nnell-gets-prime-time-slot-at-10-p-m-on-msnbc

On Tuesday, MSNBC announced that Lawrence O'Donnell, had been given a contract to fill the 10 p.m. slot following the Rachel Maddow Show through the 2012 presidential election.

… snip …

MSNBC's decision to first sign Rachel Maddow into the 9 p.m. slot and now O'Donnell into the 10 p.m. was based on strong ratings showings as substitutes for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-on-air-i-am-a-socialst/

November 5, 2010

On Friday’s “Morning Joe” MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell made a startling admission: “I am a socialist.”

… snip …

“I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals,” he said

So perhaps Olbermann wasn't socialist enough for MSNBC's management? And campaign donations were just a convenient excuse to do a little housekeeping?

 

[Puppycow]

Apparantly Hannity also gave money directly to candidates but I guess that's different because Fox News doesn't have a policy against that.

Personally I don't see why this is even an issue. What Olbermann does with his own money should be his own business. He isn't supposed to be impartial, is he? He's a well-known partisan opinion-monger. It's just retarded to tell a partisan opinion-monger that they should avoid any appearance of partiality.

Score one for Fox News. Their policy makes more sense.

 

[Nova Land]

Ah, the joys of language ambiguity!

The sentence can be parsed multiple ways.
1) Such activities may include participation in or contributions to (political campaigns) or (groups that espouse controversial positions).

2) Such activities may include participation in or contributions to (political campaigns or groups) that espouse controversial positions

You're arguing for the latter. But the former is also a logical parsing of the sentence as well. In fact, it makes more sense...

And, on a few more moments reflection, I agree you are correct on this. The former is a more natural reading of the sentence as written. (That explains why no one else so far has raised what I thought was an obvious point.)

 

[quixotecoyote]

And that rule seems to put MSNBC in the same boat as NPR when it canned the conservative for breaking the rules: Sucks when it's your side's ox being gored, but rules is rules.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

I'd just like to take this moment to mention Fox News for no apparent reason.

 

[Puppycow]

I think that BAC has hit upon the real reason:

ratings

This is just a convenient pretext, as it was in the case of Juan Williams.
MSNBC probably already wanted to move in another direction, and this gave them a pretext to fire him for cause, thus saving them money. Believe me, if Keith Olbermann was a ratings winner, this would not have happened.

 

[marplots]

Well, on the up side, Keith is getting his own show on FOX now.

 

[Drysdale]

If this is the sole reason I'd have to disagree with MSNBC.

He should be able to donate to who the hell he wants.

 

[Cicero]

Well, on the up side, Keith is getting his own show on FOX now.

K.O. was already fired by FOX back in 2001. NPR would be the perfect fit for K.O. They don't care about ratings, only rantings.

 

[marplots]

K.O. was already fired by FOX back in 2001. NPR would be the perfect fit for K.O. They don't care about ratings, only rantings.

I didn't know he already worked for FOX. Somehow, this business of newscasters changing teams is starting to sound suspiciously like the artificial drama of World Wide Wrestling.

 

[Beerina]

I can't see "Hey, he donated to Democrats!" affecting people's view of him as a commentator. Who is surprised?

Now if MSNBC says "No, you can't do that if you want to work for us," that's their prerogative.

 

[Freddy]

I can't think of anything wrong with journalists making political contributions. I even prefer it, because it provides information about their personal beliefs, which is helpful in evaluating what they say and write. Not that there was any doubt where Olberman stands, which makes NBC's policy even sillier. As if anyone thought he was impartial before this news. I wonder if they were looking for an excuse to get rid of him. I hear he is very hard to work with. NBC has a right to set policy, but I think the ban on contributions is a bad one.

 

[Mumbles]

K.O. was already fired by FOX back in 2001. NPR would be the perfect fit for K.O. They don't care about ratings, only rantings.

Someone obviously doesn't listen to NPR. The only people on there that rant are the Car Talk guys, and they only rant about dumb things they did.

 

[Snide]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about what Olbermann did, not what MSNBC did.

Oh, that's very different.

 

[logger]

I always thought Olberman considered himself a "journalist".

Whereas Hannity and Beck freely admit they are commentators.

Has Olberman ever said he was a commentator.