Keith Olbermann suspended for Demo donations

So... WHY did he do it this time?

How much do you want to bet that Fox News makes this their lead story for the next day. Of course, they'll neglect to mention how NewsCorp was one of the major funders of the Tea Party movement.

ETA: Not that I'm saying Olbermann was right to do it. As a journalist, he should've known better.

So we're still pretending that Keith is "un-biased," are we? Jesus, so ridiculous.

That's what I'm saying. Even if he didn't contribute money, he's still actively campaigning for them every night. This is pretty stupid.

Because he's most likely done it before and is saying he hasn't to cover his butt.

The illusion of objectivity on any of these news shows, even the ones that aren't on Fox or MSNBC, is idiotic. Obviously, if MSNBC has a policy against political contributions, then they were right to suspend KO. But evidently Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan's political donations are OK.

I don't like the idea of "news" people backing anyone's political campaigns, but judging from info like this:

... I can see where Olbermann's inclination came from. I think it's also worth noting that he set up donations for the guy whose house burned down in the "free market" fire dept. debacle and also set up donations for free health clinics across the country. He may see helping candidates being slammed with shadowy corporate money as an extension of his spirit of giving.

Of all the things they could have suspended him for...

If they are suddenly worried about impartiality and conflict of interest, I guess they'll also have to change their slogan and suspend Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O' Donnell, Joe Scarborough and that twitchy guy who still does The Young Turks.

That's what he gets for saying "Good night and good luck."

Murrow's grave gets more views daily than your program, fuckface.

EDIT: Spitzer4lyfe

I fucking *hate* that we have to be the smart, reasonable people on this.

Yes, he had to go because of the policy. And good riddance to him for being *stupid* enough to think that no one would notice, or that he wouldn't get caught. Also, being right most of the time isn't enough when you're a huge dick about it.

But it burns my ass that there's no such standard for the other side. Fox News "contributor" Sarah Palin has her own fucking PAC, and she'll be among the voices decrying Olbermann's partisanship.

I may explode.

The Weekly Standard editor, PNAC founder, Fox News contributor and frequent "Worst Person In The World" Countdown target Bill Kristol has responded by arguing in favor of Olbermann's integrity and inviting Republicans to protest his suspension.

So reason and principle still exist on the right. I never thought that the Log Cabin Republicans would turn out to be better champions of gay rights than the HRC, either, but we live in crazy times.

This is my thought. Something else is going on. Olbermann stretches the very definition of journalist much like the opinion people on FOX.

Holy shit...I may explode.

Funny thing, that:

Also, this is interesting.

Jonah Goldberg is also defending him on National Review. Also on National Review:

And just because I had so much fun writing it, here's my post in response to gillis in the other thread on this topic in the TV forum:

Mandela, Solzhenitsyn, Havel, and now Olbermann. Political prisoners, all. Persecuted, prosecuted, and pummeled for taking a principled stand against torture, tyranny, and totalitarianism wherever it rears its ugly head. NBC Ethics Rules? We've had such callous, cold, contemptible "Rules" in this country before. Last century we called these rules "Jim Crow." The century before that, "Slavery". In South Africa: Apartheid. In Nazi Germany:The Final Solution. Whatever you call it, monstrous, malicious and malignant policies such as NBC's so-called Ethics Rules ruin lives, livelihoods, and the liberty upon which I thought this once great country was founded. Where is the justice for Mr. Olbermann? He has no justice. Only persecution and prosecution. No more! No more, I say! And to you, gillis, I say, "Have you no decency, sir?" Your fickle,feckless focus on so-called fanaticism on the part of Mr. Olbermann speaks volumes about your awful, arrogant, and asinine absence of appreciation of alliteration. Like Havel and Mandela, Mr. Olbermann shall overcome and rise like a phoenix out of the ashes of authoritarianism and apartheid to claim the presidency of this nation. And when he does, he will make this nation great once again. Good night and good luck.

Kind of ironic that Kristol and Goldberg are standing up for him on this issue, where Olbermann was clearly in the wrong. I mean, it's nice that they can be bipartisan, but they're essentially standing up for the blending of money, media and politics.

I guess it can be considered a step forward that they're being consistent about it?

It makes sense that Scarborough is still there. His donations predate the acquisition by Comcast, who lean right anyway.

I don't see why Fox News would make a big thing out of this unless they have a really elaborate spin, because simply by bringing it up they draw people's attention to their own dodgy journalistic ethics. And Fox's ethical breach is far worse, frankly. If MSNBC has a policy, I can respect that, but in the larger sense, I wouldn't have any problem with Olbermann donating to liberal politicians, nor would I have a problem with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck donating to conservatives. It's pretty clear where their allegiances lie.

I do, however, have a problem with a news organization like Fox donating to political causes, because that's a clear breach of journalistic ethics.

Well, that didn't take long. I think Forbes just cracked the case.

The person who will likely be approving the merger is Republican Joe "Apologize to BP" Barton, whom Comcast supports in campaign dollars and who probably doesn't like Olbermann that much.

They are probably just doing it to rub salt in Olbermann's wound. Proably hurts to have Kristol and Goldberg fighting his corner.

This is amazing, jvc. Bravo!

I think the main issue is the ridiculousness of rules meant to ensure the appearance of neutrality applying to overtly partisan commentators. Olbermann is not a hard news guy or journalist. He may do journalisty-type things in digging up stories others aren't covering. But mostly he's a commentator who editorializes and advocates for a progressive view point. They pay Olbermann to be what he is. To say that donating to progressive candidates somehow betrays what Keith Olbermann and MSNBC stand for is ludicrous. When MSNBC came out with its "Lean Forward" motto, it was clear what the network is doing. When MSNBC came out on election night with a four person panel consisting of Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, and O'Donnell*, their four loudest progressive partisan voices, it was clear where MSNBC stands. For MSNBC's target audience, this is a slap in the face. Why punish a leading progressive advocate for supporting progressive candidates? Did anyone think Olbermann was politically neutral before this? Did this cost him any credibility whatsoever? For critics of the network and Keith Olbermann, this is like saying Susan Smith is a bad mom because she didn't buckle the kids in their car seats on the way to the lake.


*Lawrence, not Christine. Although that would have been hilarious.

Right, well, the thing is they're using a vaguely worded standard that applies to the NBC News team, begging the question of whether Olbermann's MSNBC show is even considered part of that umbrella or not. There's no shortage of commentators giving money to political campaigns (friggin' Hannity gave Michelle Bachman $5K), so the timing is suspect and definitely points to the whole Comcast merger/Joe Barton circle jerk, to me anyway.

Maybe he can go back to stalking Rebecca Lobo. Lurking like a stalking butler....

Chris Hayes of the NATION refuses to sub for Keith!

Tonight's COUNTDOWN will be interesting, I guess.

Ah, MSNBC/GE/Comcast. Well, the Olbermann show was good while it lasted. I imagine there will be a pretext for getting rid of Rachel soon as well.

That would be truly crazy. She is regularly knocking out Larry King in the ratings, and is doing award winning journalism

The pretense of impartiality has consistently had a toxic effect on journalism. Hunter S. Thompson lamented it in the 70's, when it created blind spots that allowed Nixon to run for re-election without it being pointed out that he "oozed evil out of every pore of his skin" (Thompson's turn of phrase, not mine. I don't have his gift for language.) Today, it permits televised debates where one side can lie through its teeth and the journalists can pat themselves on the back for "reporting the debate." Choosing a side isn't a terrible thing, especially when you're paid to do analysis.

Yeah, but the stuff I've been reading today is painting a pretty bleak picture of who these Comcast people are and what the consequences to this merger might be.

God, knock it off already. We get it. You see the big corporate demon boogie man behind every corner and in every shadow cast by your tinfoil hat. Olbermann fucked up, Olbermann was punished. There isn't a bullshit conspiracy here, so stop fucking trying to make it into one.

And no, I won't be apologizing three days later for this.

This whole story is just bizarre. If MSNBC's PR story is about impartiality or news cred, there has to be something else going on. Why would they pull their star prime time player unless ratings were bottoming out or Olbermann came out as (the liberal equivalent of) a birther? We're not getting the whole story or even a discernible fraction of the story.

As others have stated and I said in the other thread, I think this has much more to do with the results of Tuesdays election than Olbermann donating as a private citizen to political campaigns.

When you keep in mind the fact that MSNBC is constantly promoting the soulless hack Andrea Mitchell (who has only existed to parrot Republican talking points from day one of the administration) as their weekday afternoon star player, the Olbermann thing is all the more insane. Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, and yet still reports on financial matters nearly every day of the week

Or what about Matthews? He used the past five years of HARDBALL as a pseudo campaign for an aborted run at the Senate (he'd been thinking it over and sending out feelers, and decided not to run when he thought it would be a bad year for dems), which MSNBC higher ups were apparently fine with.

The other thing you guys are forgetting, and I realize that it's hypocritical to lambast yt for conspiracy theories and then suggest this, but Olbermann is a guy with no shortage of skeletons in his closet. It's quite possible that something from his past or present is about to blow up, and this is pre-emptive.

Havent Olbermann and Phil Griffin been at each others throats for, like, ever?

I'm pretty sure they despise each other, so perhaps Griffin simply used this as an excuse.

What do you mean by that? Skeletons how?

Rachel, kicking ass


And.. this seems like a terrible PR move for MSNBC. Dems (the audience for the network) are upset about the election. Olbermann tried to help the dems get elected, and now he is punished for it? Bound to piss people off.

Bill Maher discussing Keith's suspension with Darryl Issa, Dana Gould, and Fareed Zakaria along with special bonus guest the Mayor of DC Adrian Fenty on REAL TIME with Bill Maher

Needless to say, I'm with Bill on this one

If it's his ESPN days, I don't think he was guilty of much more than being a fearless dick to his co-workers. The popularity of the Big Show went to his head, big time. But iirc he was one of the few ESPN big guns to support any of the female employees who made claims of sexual harassment. That big unauthorized ESPN book should be good reading next year, good supplement to Mike Freeman's book.

He does seem to carry around some baggage from his ESPN days. I don't know what much about it, though.

I do wonder about this:

Was Hayes saying he was uncomfortable because of what Olbermann supposedly did? Or was he protesting the network's decision to suspend him? In any event, the guy they did go with to fill in on Friday was pretty much the lowest head on their totem pole. I think he hosts the five AM hour or something.

Keith thanks his supporters..

Meanwhile Dan Choi refuses to go on air till Keith is back, as MSNBC demands a mea culpa from it's star prime time host

Did Olbermann break the rule or not? I mean, I like the guy, I like the points he makes, but if he did something wrong, he has to pay the price. For MSNBC to look the other way would give the FOX News of the world even more fodder than they're getting now.

probably the only thing Fox News does that I don't have a problem with. They are supporting what they beleive in every way possible. MSNBC is behind the times, we all know they side with the Left on basically everything, why is it so wrong for someone to contribute money when the whole channel is pretty much actively campaigning for them?

Nothing compared to his Hollywood Squares days though.

I disagree with what MSNBC did, but I appreciate the effort to keep the network from becoming nothing more than a front for the Democratic Party. And no matter what anyone says, MSNBC is not that. Of course they come at things from a liberal perspective, but this network has been tough on Obama in ways Fox never was with Bush (save isolated incidents like Harriet Myers). During the Healthcare debate, you'd more often see MSNBC talking heads criticizing the Democrats than carrying water for them. MSNBC was a big part of the reason people like Robert Gibbs criticized "the professional left" -- liberal media figures have made things tough for them. When it comes to things like Don't Ask, Don't Tell/Immigration Reform/Cap And Trade, MSNBC has not been a blank check for the party, despite their Liberal leanings.

I give MSNBC some credit. This little stint has given them more attention then they have received in a very long time. Would not be surprised if Olbermann gets a spike in ratings come Tuesday.

Well, I don't know if they deserve credit for it. I doubt this played out in any way they hoped it would -- suspending the guy for two days makes them look silly.

EDIT: Huffington Post's current headline is pretty funny:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Exactly. They're slobbering all over themselves for the opportunity to say "both sides do it." Now they can. Thanks, Keith!

I assume it was because of MSNBC's suspension. Keith inspires a fanatical loyalty in his followers. Hayes owes his current high profile to Keith, and I doubt he'd want to participate in the devious side lining of his patron.

And.. Yes, I'd never even seen that guy before, LOL! He seemed really awkward reading Keith's material, like he was more familiar with reporting on the weather

In the context of FOX's regular on and off air campaigning for GOP candidates, Keith did nothing wrong. He made a donation as a private citizen. MS's (as we called them when I interned for NBC News) rule was only implemented under Griffin, and it had no set course of action to take were it to be violated. The suspension was Griffin's idea. He could have just sent Keith a memo. The suspension was not required by the rules. With that said, I'd be angry if he had NOT donated. Again, when I first saw the headline for this "scandal" I thought the scandal was he'd only donated to three races


And... as I posted before, given the fact that they have Andrea Mitchell reporting on financial matters and Chris Matthews using his program to further his own political ambitions, Keith's "violation" looks all the more trivial in comparison

I think Mr Griffin didn't count on the X factor of audience loyalty. That article about MSNBC demanding a mea culpa states (and someone no doubt leaked this bit) that 'Keith might not hold as many cards as he thinks because now MSNBC has Maddow too and she costs less than Keith does'. Um, there isn't anyone watching MSNBC who isn't a fan of Rachel and wouldn't like to see more of her. With that said, there are few people watching the network who don't respect and like Keith , and getting rid of him would raise the ire of many of those people

What I find really shocking is Griffin's tone in his statement about reinstating Keith. It's dripping with venom, and seems designed to humiliate his employee. It reads like it's designed to assure whatever corporate cronies GE was trying to court with this disastrous suspension that Keith really is on a short leash:

"Punishment"? He runs a news network, not a kindergarten class. That is extremely harsh language to use. Why not "disciplined"? Why not talk about a disciplinary action, a 'teachable moment', or a need to 'make a point'?

And right there is the "something more to it" that I asked about earlier in the thread.