• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MSNBC Suspends Olbermann Without Pay

Drudgewire said:
They can't be both, because that would mean Justin Bieber is neither and we all know that's impossible.
Click to expand...

He is just the Canadian Antichrist...lol

But seriously, where is all this talk of "firing him" coming from? He has been temporarily suspended. Indefinitely simply means they do not know for how long. They will make an example of him, and then let him return.

Of course, with his ego (I like his show...at least story #5 and #1, the rest is usually crap, but he is full of himself), he might decide to leave and start his own network...lol

TAM:)
 
While I don't expect it to be the case with Keith, when a member of the media is "indefinitely suspended" it's often the period where the company is deciding what wording to use when they eventually fire them. Opie and Anthony, JB and Elvis, and Don Imus are three instances right off the top of my head where "indefinite suspension" turned into firings.

So I don't blame anyone for jumping to conclusions. A has led to B enough times to at least consider the possibility.
 
Drudgewire said:
While I don't expect it to be the case with Keith, when a member of the media is "indefinitely suspended" it's often the period where the company is deciding what wording to use when they eventually fire them. Opie and Anthony, JB and Elvis, and Don Imus are three instances right off the top of my head where "indefinite suspension" turned into firings.

So I don't blame anyone for jumping to conclusions. A has led to B enough times to at least consider the possibility.
Click to expand...

I guess. However, given the influence and ratings help he has produced for them (despite what some here try to imply, he has helped their ratings), i suspect it will be very hard for them to let him go, especially given the relative benign and minor nature of his transgression.

TAM:)
 
leftysergeant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute! Lefty, are you saying that donations to political candidates are covered by the First Amendment? I agree, but you might want to rethink that issue carefully.

I agree with most of the commenters here; MSNBC has the right to demand compliance with their policies, but it's rather idiotic to claim that Olbermann's supposed to be objective. That said, the fact that he donated to Grijalva the same day he interviewed him, and did not disclose that fact to his employer or to his viewers strikes me as pretty unethical.
 
Olbermann unethical? This is the same guy who tried to portray McCain as a racist after McCain called Obama 'a decent person.' Yup, that sure was a racial slur directed at Arabs, wasn't it Olby? :rolleyes:
 
thaiboxerken said:
Perhaps they want to re-negotiate his contract for less $$$.
Click to expand...

My first thought is something along those lines.
Although I did not read his contract and most contracts are written in ambiguous term it sounds like he violated it. Many times companies overlook minor things (many would consider this minor) and certainly MSNBC doesn't think his show was unbiased it would be a surprise if he didn't contribute to left causes.
 
I actually agree with those here who have postulated that MSNBC is doing this to some how convince their viewers, and perhaps others, that they are a news organization first. Trying to juxtapose themselves against FOX.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I guess. However, given the influence and ratings help he has produced for them (despite what some here try to imply, he has helped their ratings), i suspect it will be very hard for them to let him go, especially given the relative benign and minor nature of his transgression.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

But if you have a quarterback who brings you from a 3 and 13 season to 5 and 11 probably you may be in the market for a different one. In spite of the fact he has helped you.
 
The TIMING of the Olbermann firing is interesting, coming right after the midterm Democratic apocalyse.

An opinionator donates to liberal desperate candidates and a station desperate for viewers fires said opinionator, so what.

So did they care about the making of contributions during Obama 2008?

NO?

Figures.
 
Lets get right into some CTs on this.

1. Keith is seeking election, and this was a convenient "out".
2. Keith was caught doing something much worse, and this is a swallowable "out".
3. Keith is really the antichrist, and the end is near!!!

TAM:D
 
Kestrel said:
Rachel Maddow made exactly this point. The suspension shows that in contrast to Fox, MSNBC is a news organization.
Click to expand...

BeAChooser said:
LOL! And your reason for being on a skeptics site?
Click to expand...

Maddow postulated it, and perhaps even believes it. I think that MSNBC has elements, just like SOME of Fox, that are legitimate NEWS elements. However, ALSO like Fox, MSNBC has a strong band of shows that are CLEARLY SKEWED toward a political POV. Fox on the right, MSNBC on the left.

A key difference, though, is that FOX donated AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION to a political party/group. AFAIK, MSNBC has not done the same.

That is at least worth something.

TAM:)
 
Kestrel said:
Rachel Maddow made exactly this point. The suspension shows that in contrast to Fox, MSNBC is a news organization.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is their point, but I'm not sure if it really makes the point for them. Fox does have a similar rule that pertains to their ANCHORS. They differentiate (rightly or wrongly) between an anchor and a host of an opinion show. It's also why they used ANCHORS for their election night coverage.

MSNBC doesn't really have a distinction between their news ANCHORS and their opinion hosts... thus KO holds himself up as Edward R. Murrow JR, and has to live with the rules expected of anchors. You noticed who MSNBC had hosting their election night coverage right? It wasn't their news journalist anchors, it was their opinion hosts.

I'm not saying 1 way is right and 1 is wrong, just that both organizations have logical standards that one could accept. It's wrong to paint 1 as the exemplar and the other as the anathema.
 
Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously have never heard Terry Gross, Nina Totenberg, Cokie Roberts, Daniel Schorr, David Corn, Dana Milbank, Eleanor Clift, E.J. Dionne, not to mention the CEO Vivian Schiller, who after firing Juan Williams said he should talk to a psychiatrist for his Muslim remarks.

BTW: Even Click & Clack admit to being liberals.
 
T.A.M. said:
Maddow postulated it, and perhaps even believes it. I think that MSNBC has elements, just like SOME of Fox, that are legitimate NEWS elements. However, ALSO like Fox, MSNBC has a strong band of shows that are CLEARLY SKEWED toward a political POV. Fox on the right, MSNBC on the left.

A key difference, though, is that FOX donated AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION to a political party/group. AFAIK, MSNBC has not done the same.

That is at least worth something.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

GE owns MSNBC and has given to both parties.
 
T.A.M. said:
Maddow postulated it, and perhaps even believes it. I think that MSNBC has elements, just like SOME of Fox, that are legitimate NEWS elements. However, ALSO like Fox, MSNBC has a strong band of shows that are CLEARLY SKEWED toward a political POV. Fox on the right, MSNBC on the left.

A key difference, though, is that FOX donated AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION to a political party/group. AFAIK, MSNBC has not done the same.

That is at least worth something.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Olbermann said that GE, MSNBC’s parent company, donated an equal amount of money to both the DGA and RGA. He didn’t mention, however, that according to OpenSecrets.org, in 2008, 100 percent of MSNBC Cable’s donations went to Democrats and 99 percent of NBC’s donations went to Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom