The Keith Olbermann Affair

Background on GE and Comcast's political contributions, plus their rather different treatment of an earlier political donation (to Republicans, natch) by one of their media personalities:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4192

Equality, liberty, and justice for most people making more than half a million a year, unless they're race traitors who want to help the underprivileged, or equalize the gender and race playing field, or otherwise generally behave in a non-rapacious, more-or-less empathic fashion.

The hypocrisy of MSNBC/Comcast would be shocking, if it wasn't so common.

So...is MSNBC making the point that, contrary to every ruling SCOTUS has made on the question, money is not equal to speech and that political donations do not enjoy 1st Amendment protection?

I think that Comcast and DirectTV should follow MSNBC's example and suspend Faux News for donating $1 Million to the Republican Governor's Association. Faux should suspend Karl Rove and Dick Morris for their conservative PAC's which raise millions and millions of dollars, and Sean Hannity for speaking at Republican fundraisers.

Olbermann really didn't break any rules. First MSNBC doesn't follow NBC rules and this was an NBC rule. Also the text says "should" advise not "must'. Both Buchanan and Joe Scarborough donated to political campaigns and were not punished.

Last the ruling was to help prevent the appearance of bias .. but in Olbermann's case .. who doesn't know he's biased.

This is Comcast trying to make MSNBC it's own little FOX.

If it weren't for Rachel Maddow, I would just boycott MSNBC.

It's just another example of our loony-leftist ultra-liberal media run amok. Waitaminnit... I think I thunk something backwards there back-a-ways.

Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen an "objective" unbiased Olbermann piece ever... isn't that the point of political editorial shows like his in the first place? I admit I haven't had cable in nearly 15 years, though -- all I know is gleaned off the webz.

By Comcast/MSNBC's logic, they should take themselves off the air entirely for their long history of political donations to both major parties (more so the Dems, though). Slightly OT, but there's a hell of a lot of great work by Charles Lewis on what/who buys our political system, BTW. I cannot recommend his investigative efforts highly enough.

In such a context, suspending an employee for making such puny personal contributions is even more laughable.

For more on Scarborough's unpunished donations as well as those by Kudlow on CNBC, check out this article tat the Media Matters blog:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011050037

I am still gathering info on this, but NEVER let it be said that us liberals are namby pamby, panty waisted softies. Of course, the repugnicans would obviously never even put them selves into a position of questionable contributions like that *choke* sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face through that post.

Rachel has a good comment on this. Basically, "Yes, he broke a rule. You made your point. Give him his job back. Oh, and we are sooo not Fox."

Two things: First, he probably should have asked first. That was dumb. Second, so what? It's not that big of a deal. He is definitely an op-ed journalist, and I really don't think the same rules should apply. It's different game than hard journalism.

FAIR has exposed some critical facts on this story.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4192

NBC's current owners, GE, make political contributions.

NBC's incoming owners, Comcast, make political contributions.

Well, everyone knows that Keith Olbermann is a liberal communist muslim Kenyan who doesn't have a real US birth certificate. MSNBC is just doing its patriotic duty by not allowing that foreigner to buy America.

Is anyone really surprised that those who own the media would like to run it and have it reflect their point of view? You hve to have money to run a TV or radio station.

If the little people want to have their views expressed they can mumble it under their breath from a suitable distance. A freedom graciously allowed to underlings.

Some TV talking-head millionaire pseudo-journalist doesn't follow his workplace's rules so his boss suspends him. Not worth caring about. That FOX sucks worse isn't relevant and doesn't make it worth caring about.

Hope he never comes back- he is totally crazy/

Quote Madscientist"Well, everyone knows that Keith Olbermann is a liberal communist muslim Kenyan who doesn't have a real US birth certificate."
You forgot to add 'socialist'...

Olbermann worked for a company that has clear rules and regulations. He violated them and deserves to be disciplined just the same way a guy in a factory who smokes when there is a no smoking rule would be disciplined. If your employer has rules and you violate the rules, you are subject to discipline, plain and simple. Olbermann figured that he is the star of MSNBC. They wonât touch him. So he could violate any employerâs rules that he feels like. Olbermannâs friends in the media will portray it as a free speech issue. I am sure that we will hear from the boring men of Countdown. Eugene Robinson, Alter, etc. will do their Keith as martyr act. To these clowns, liberal journalists do not have to comply with company rules.
Actually, Chris Matthews is far worse than Olbermann and he showed it when he interviewed Michelle Bachmann the other night. The best part was when she reminded him of his remarks in 2008 about how libidinous he feels when he listens to Barack Obama. Olbermann can join Rick Sanchez on the dung heap of cable television.

I'm so disappointed. I was hoping that one of those people who were ready to take up arms for Juan Williams' "First Amendment rights" would at least show up to whoop it up for Olbermann. I guess liberals don't get the same rights, even when those rights don't actually exist.

Mark, I've been out of town and away from the internet so I'm not too sure what is going on with Olbermann, but I have to say that what you are saying here is thoughtless and possibly stoopid.

worked for a company that has clear rules and regulations. He violated them and deserves to be disciplined just the same way a guy in a factory who smokes when there is a no smoking rule would be disciplined. If your employer has rules and you violate the rules, you are subject to discipline, plain and simple.

I worked for the University of Minnesota for several years and I violated their internet policy every single day, even though their rules were "clear." So does everyone else who makes web sites there. They have a whole shitload of rules that if you followed, you could not get your job done. These rules are summarily ignored in order for people to do their jobs well, and applied post hoc selectively when useful to someone in power. From what I see just in these comments, this may be the same thing.

Seeing, post hoc, that someone has been punished for breaking a rule leads to the following conclusions if you let your limbic system do your thinking for you:

1) There was a rule, evidenced by the fact that one was broken (apparently not in this case).

2) It is an important rule, because someone was punished for it (but that is a post hoc estimate of the importance of the rule, not a true evaluation).

3) The rule is clear and well known. This is evidenced because you think it is clear and well known to you. But that is only because you read about it on a blog or something. (It may or may not be true in this case.)

4) It assumes that companies can routinely "discipline" rule breakers. I don't like the sound of that. Are you a shill for the coming Corpamerica? Lookingat your web site, I'm pretty sure you are spam. Why am I talking to spam?

You make some good points, Greg. Olbermann is stupid enough he may not have known the rule. Besides, it's bizarre his bosses wish to maintain the fiction he and his fellow anchors are impartial when they are obviously biased in favor of liberals.

Stephanie: The Juan Williams case was a more serious matter. He was fired, and he had no way of knowing in advance his remarks could result in his firing.

Olbermann will be back on the air Tuesday evening: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/business/media/08olbermann.html?_r=1&…. It is sad, stupid, and ridiculous that this happened in the first place.

Gord, they run opinion shows. They are not "biased in favor of liberals." They are liberal. MSNBC hired them because they are liberal. Every show they do, every night, has a liberal slant. They are not reporters with an audience that expects them to be objective. People tune in knowing they are liberal. The only reason for a policy on contributions is to present an "aura" of objectivity. It's a matter of trusting the news, if present as news. Olbermann does not present news, he takes news and interprets it.

That is why this is so ridiculous.

Gord, so much wrong in one comment. Olbermann is nothing like stupid (which is not a synonym for "disagrees with me" despite what your sources tell you). That isn't anything like what Greg said. You seem to be confusing the issues of bias and fairness--we're all biased; the question is whether the parts of Olbermann's job that involve reporting are done fairly despite that. While Olbermann does take on the occasional anchoring duties, the role you refer to as biased is hosting his own opinion show, not being a news anchor.

Juan Williams had every reason to know what the rules at NPR were. They're significantly more strict than in most media entities. Ask Peter Sagal, who wrote this weekend about the expectations for him, as a game show host, to maintain political neutrality. And no, firing and indefinite suspension just aren't that different in scope. Suspension is often a precursor to a firing. Either way, I still didn't see any conservatives urging Olbermann be reinstated.

If you're a conservative being told to maintain some kind of neutrality, your rights are being trampled. If you're a liberal, you were just asking for it.

Gord, get real: "Olbermann is stupid enough he may not have known the rule."

He's obviously not stupid. You calling him stupid opens up serious questions about your credibility.

"it's bizarre his bosses wish to maintain the fiction he and his fellow anchors are impartial when they are obviously biased in favor of liberals. "

Yes, indeed, this is one of the points the various Libruls myself included have been making. And, that Olberman has been making about FOX.

Williams was fired for doing something quite stupid, not just racist, and there is an argument there for his limitations having been exposed by that act. Well, not exposed, just reiterated.

By the way, I'd like to add this. Assume Williams did NOT know the rules. I'm not making that assumption for anyone, and I'm not assuming anything about the rule system for any institution here. The truth is that Olbermann did something we all do and should be allowed to do: Donate to a party or candidate. Williams did something stupid and harmfull: Making a racist remark that supports mindless profiling. NPR did not need a rule to fire Williams. MSNBC needs an outrageous rule (given the nature of campaign funding as of last year) do slap his wrists.

It is interesting and useful to contrast these cases. Or really, Contrast. contrast with a Big C.

Stephanie: There's nothing in Olbermann's body of work to indicate he's smart. NPR's reaction to Williams remarks was subjective. There was no way he could have known beforehand his statements would lead to his firing, and NPR does not apply a uniform standard. MSNBC informs all its news personalities of its rules regarding political donations in writing.

"You seem to be confusing the issues of bias and fairness--we're all biased"

I'm not confusing anything.

Greg: Williams remarks weren't "racist" or "harmful". Muslims aren't a race, and no one is harmed by the fact that some people sometimes make Juan Williams nervous.

Gord, I posit that you're unfamiliar with Olbermann's body of work. You also didn't bother to read Sagal as I suggested. (Let me make it easier for you: http://petersagal.com/wordpress/?p=302) Hint: NPR goes beyond providing their policy in writing. Williams, had he ever displayed any ability to think things through, could certainly have seen this coming. The only reason he didn't is that he's been on a years-long slide in that direction instead of performing a single act. But hey, you don't get to keep your job just because you've been lifting paperclips for years before you start pocketing pens.

As for your comments on racism, what exactly is a "race" that you know so clearly that Muslims can't be construed as one? "The Mosselmen" have certainly been historically considered a race. And are you really that unclear on the difference between Williams being nervous and him lending his support to someone who had just said all Muslims are terrorists? Or would you just prefer that be glossed over?

Gord, you are a moron. The objects of profiling suffer, and William's remarks gave support to profiling. Where have you been the last decade or so?

There was no way he could have known beforehand his statements would lead to his firing, and NPR does not apply a uniform standard.

Both are probably true, but what is the point? Are you positing a rule that one can only be fired if one expects to be fired? In the words of Arte Johnson ... "Very interesting ... but Stupid!!!

"Muslims aren't a race,"

Neither are chinks, kykes, niggers, or honkeys. Wait, is "kyke" spelled with a y or an i? Whatever. The point is, racism is not about race, it is about classifying people into categories the better to hate them.

Like you. You come to us from the stupidest state in the union. Does this automatically mean that you are stupid?

Well, in your case, yes. But I would be unfair to make that prediction.

Stephanie: Nothing in the Peter Sagal post you linked to is relevant to the Williams incident. He does mention being informed of NPR's ethics policy. It's almost certain Olbermann was informed of MSNBC's, so he probably deliberately violated it.

Greg: "William's remarks gave support to profiling"

No one who advocates profiling does so because Moslems make Juan Williams nervous.

"Are you positing a rule that one can only be fired if one expects to be fired"

No, I'm saying I have more sympathy for someone fired for a subjective transgression "applied post hoc selectively when useful to someone in power", than someone suspended for violating an explicit policy, probably deliberately.

"The point is, racism is not about race, it is about classifying people into categories the better to hate them."

Williams said nothing hateful, and there is no indication he hates Moslems.

Just so people know, the term "Moslem" (instead of "Muslim") is considered to be a racist slur. It is a subtle difference that will be lost on many, but it is real.

Especially if you pronounce the "s" like a "z."

Then don't pronounce the 's' like 'z'.

Gord, again, you read like you came from the Louisiana school system or something. "Moslem" is racist. Don't use it on my blog. Get it?

Gord, you're the one saying there are big differences between the policy that applied to Williams and the policy that applied to Olbermann. You've gotten to the point where they were both informed, in essentially the same way. Now you're just making shit up about who did what deliberately. Until you've got some kind of reliable mind reading scheme going, I think you're done.

Besides, you're just getting creepier the longer you write.

Where do you get this stuff? Seriously.

http://www.masjiddearborn.org/

Gord, I dunno, maybe here: http://tinyurl.com/2fhjck

Face it, the world is too complex a place for your one dimensional mind.

For others, who are actually interested in learning about this sort of thing, this is a good source: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151921.pdf

Stephanie: Williams had no way of knowing what he said would get him fired. His co-workers at NPR were surprised he was fired. Olbermann was almost certainly informed, in writing, that MSNBC's ethics policies prohibited him from making contributions to political campaigns.

Williams knew he wasn't to engage in political activism. What else is defending the "all terrorists are Muslim" statement by speaking out favorably on the subject of racial profiling? You've already had this explained to you. Which part don't you get? Do you think it's not a political issue? Did someone else from NPR do something similar, with a history of working for a political organization like Fox, and not get fired? Do you think Williams is too dumb to understand that? I might be persuaded that this is the case, but you seem to be arguing the opposite.

I still don't understand this: "Williams had no way of knowing what he said would get him fired"

What does that have to do with anything? Once and for all, are you making the claim that one can only be fired when one see it coming otherwise it is not a valid firing?

You should be fired for thinking that.

Stephanie: Williams admission Moslems make him nervous isn't "poltical activism", and in his exchange with Bill O'Reilly Williams was arguing against racial profiling.

Greg: It's not that complicated. I have more sympathy for someone fired arbitrarilly than someone suspended for violating an explicit policy they have been informed about. If NPR had told Williams not to discuss religion, or told him not to go on FOX it would be a different matter.

Gord, yes, I know you think it's simple, but it is not. For instance, have you asked yourself why either of these men were fired/suspended for their particular activity? Why not just spoken to sternly by the appropriate internal administrators or editors/producers?

I personally, by the way, thought Williams should not have been fired for that. But I also think he is not good enough for NPR. I've always seen him as not exactly sharpest knife in the drawer. Better for him that he be at fox.

The basic problem with MSNBC's screwup is the simple fact that Joe Scarborough, who has a news summary morning show, did not get suspended when he donated 9 grand to a Republican candidate, but Keith Olbermann, who operates a highly opinionated liberal opinion show, got suspended when he gave Democrats 7 large.

Explain that.

I suspect Williams was fired because his going on FOX annoyed his bosses, and they were looking for an excuse.

Scarborough sought and recieved approval to make a donation. Also, because he is not a liberal like Olbermann, his bosses don't feel compelled to maintain the fiction he is unbiased.

IF Scarborough sought and got permission (I don't trust the source) it really makes little difference that there is an inconstancy. Or are you saying that the exact rule that was broken was not making the donation but not filling out the paper work? Is that still grounds for suspension, or, again, shouldn't there have been a talking to?

The idea that there was some sort of fiction regarding Countdown as a show is absurd, post hoc and simply untrue.

Regarding Williams: Yes, I think you are exactly right about that, or at least, that is the feeling I had when it happened. But why is this so likely with NPR's case, but not for MSNBC, even though there is strong evidence that this is the case with the Olbermnn suspension?

There's a transcript of the Williams piece here: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams/

What Williams says is confused and contradictory at best. It's quite possible he's against profiling from the reading, but that just isn't what he said. He did agree with O'Reilly at several points.

However, the article does note that he was told specifically not to be identified as an NPR correspondent while working for Fox, which despite you glossing over the fact, is a political organization. Then the transcript identifies him as an NPR employee. Want to tell me again he didn't do anything he'd been told was wrong?

Your argument here is that Williams is somehow cleaner and more deserving of sympathy that Olbermann, which is why the right was loudly angry about one and gloating about the other. You've failed to show this at any point.

"Your argument here is that Williams is somehow cleaner and more deserving of sympathy that Olbermann"

Yes, because he was fired for a harmless remark that NPR chose, arbitrarily, to make a big deal of, unlike Olbermann who was suspended for violating a rule he knew existed.

"Want to tell me again he didn't do anything he'd been told was wrong"

Maybe you can tell us what NPR's official policy on what can and can't be said about Moslems is.

It seems that Gord's appellation is appropriate. His head is hard-shelled like one and just as hollow. They make nice rattly toys, though, to keep kids entertained.:p

Gord, you've hit the point where the only thing left to say is nice story, but you're saying that's how it works doesn't make it so.