Uh oh, Keith

[96Qowner]

Seriously, if you didn't think he was a clown before ...

(CNN) - Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's primetime firebrand host, has been suspended indefinitely for violating the ethics policies of his employer earlier this year when he donated to three Democrats seeking federal office, MSNBC announced Friday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... bc-policy/

[telcoman]

Seriously, if you didn't think he was a clown before ...

(CNN) - Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's primetime firebrand host, has been suspended indefinitely for violating the ethics policies of his employer earlier this year when he donated to three Democrats seeking federal office, MSNBC announced Friday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... bc-policy/

I'm really bummed.

The news even made the front page of The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/us/06 ... ml?_r=1&hp

I hope I don't have to spend next weeking throwing $hit at the O'Reilly infomercial on faux news
Damm that news ruined my weekend.

Come back soon Keith

Obama in 2012

A big thank you to Nancy who continues the fight for the middle class.

And a big F U to the boner and McConnell who are in the pockets of big oil, banks, wall street, and insurance companies.

Telcoman

[IBCoupe]

Wait, wait, we're not rushing to his defense? The speech-stifling MSNBC-NPR-CNN axis of evil news media?

[n00b240]

I dont understand, why a news commentator cannot separate his personal life from his media life. Its not like he gave a donation on behalf of MSNBC, he gave a donation on behalf of Keith. However since that was in his contract that he cannot give contributions, he should have known better.

[stebo0728]

Hey for once Im with you guys here. Campaign contributions are really an equivalent of speech in my mind. Therefore freedom of speech should extend to them. If he is in a position where he is supposed to be an objective reporter of news, then he should report the news as such, but who he gives campaign money too shouldnt matter. If he is in the ring with a particular candidate, then hes there regardless of whether he contributes to his campaign or not. As long as he can keep his objectivity where it should be, then whats the harm, if his objectivity starts to wear off, then address that. And if he's not in a setting of objectivity, then anything goes!

Now, that fake plastic suspension was pretty funny, laughable, but considering he really didnt need any punishement then who cares.

But I do have to say, they whole thing does have a bit of publicity stunt smell.

[IBCoupe]

For the record, I support MSNBC's decision. That might not have been clear from my post.

[HashiriyaS14]

FWIW, this isn't really about Keith Olbermann.

This made the news because NBC *has* a policy about their commentators donating.

Fox News does NOT, their commentators can donate at will (and they do). What's more, their commentators, in some cases, are actually RUNNING for office.


Keith shouldn't have broken the rule, but the *real* scandal (if you'll call it that) is that Fox doesn't even have this rule whereas NBC does.

[IBCoupe]

FWIW, this isn't really about Keith Olbermann.

This made the news because NBC *has* a policy about their commentators donating.

Fox News does NOT, their commentators can donate at will (and they do). What's more, their commentators, in some cases, are actually RUNNING for office.


Keith shouldn't have broken the rule, but the *real* scandal (if you'll call it that) is that Fox doesn't even have this rule whereas NBC does.

Great, now they get to play the victim again.

[telcoman]

FWIW, this isn't really about Keith Olbermann.

This made the news because NBC *has* a policy about their commentators donating.

Fox News does NOT, their commentators can donate at will (and they do). What's more, their commentators, in some cases, are actually RUNNING for office.


Keith shouldn't have broken the rule, but the *real* scandal (if you'll call it that) is that Fox doesn't even have this rule whereas NBC does.

Great, now they get to play the victim again.

MSNBC saw the error of their ways.

Keith returns Tuesday evening.

Woo Hoo

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/busin ... ann&st=cse

Thank you Rachel. Very well spoken

"On Friday night, the MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asserted that MSNBC’s enforcement of its policy in this case confirmed that Fox News was a “political operation” while MSNBC was a “news operation.” Sean Hannity, a prime-time host for Fox News, has donated thousands of dollars to Republican candidates without penalty because Fox does not discourage such donations. (Fox has noted, however, that Mr. Hannity was not an anchor on the midterm election night.) "

[stebo0728]

But heres the thing....why should such donations be discouraged? Again the donations are assumed to be made not in the name of MSNBC but in Keiths name alone. Now its one thing if this is MSNBC's policy is against and he violated that. Then MSNBC is in rights to punish him for violating their protocol. But now we are getting into the discussion of whether or not that policy itself is a good one. Thats where I say no, that Faux News has it right. Heres are the things in my mind to figure out:

1) Is the person in a position of demanded objectivity? Or is the person given subjective freedom? If they are given subjective freedem (ie talk show host, pure commentator) then no more discussion necessary, they can donate as they please without scrutiny.

2) If person is in position of demanded objectivity (ie news anchor only) then perhaps an argument can be made regarding limiting their ability to donate. But then does that mean they are forfeit in their freedom of speech by choosing to be a new anchor? Can they not back a candidate personally, have a strong personal opinion, and still maintain objectivity in reporting? As I said already, the person is going to back the candidate of their choosing whether they are allowed to donate or not, the only argument against the donations that I can fathom is the paper trail it leaves, that the trail could be used to paint a biased light on the news agency. But I think that the tone, style, and patterns of the reporting along with the tendancy toward or against accuracy in reporting speaks much louder towards a bias on the part of any news agency, and those traits encompass more than one individual reporter or commentator.

[AZhitman]

MSNBC saw the error of their ways.

Keith returns Tuesday evening.

Woo Hoo

Whoever has their hand up your a$$, moving your lips (or your fingers across the keyboard), should read more carefully.

Keith "37 Viewers and Growing" Olbermann violated the terms of his employment contract.

This is no different than the Juan Williams situation... which, if you were TRULY objective, you'd have opposed as well.

My guess? You didn't. Check back when you can remain consistent and impartial.

[IBCoupe]

But then does that mean they are forfeit in their freedom of speech by choosing to be a new anchor? Can they not back a candidate personally, have a strong personal opinion, and still maintain objectivity in reporting?

This tired argument aggravates me to no end. That you have a right to say whatever you want does not mean someone else must subsidize that right. Unless there's something in your contract prohibiting you from being fired for whatever reason is given, you should be on notice that anything your employer does not like, for whatever reason, could cost you your job.

Congratulations - welcome to the world of grown-ups, where what you sign your name to actually affects your life.

[stebo0728]

Well actually I understand that, and agree, as in Georgia is a "right-to-work" state, boss-man can decide your new haircut stinks, and its adios. But then theres a difference between having the right to fire someone on whatever whim, and actually exercising it. Firing someone for a practice that is deemed socially acceptable paints an employer in a negative light, and may result in fewer applicants when a position opens up.

Again I dont think MSNBC was outside their contractual rights, or even that they were wrong. Im now asking the question as to whether allowing objective reporters to make contributions.

And that Juan Williams thing was just wack, I hated that from the start. But then NPR is a bit screwy anyway.

[audtatious]

So, Rachel Maddow did the following piece on how Fox news is a political organization and MSNBC is not:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nZnMumCKXU[/youtube]

Looks like someone decided to do a compilation response:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjXBx9-2c0[/youtube]

[AZhitman]

Maddow needs to go home and have her Austrian bodybuilder lifepartner punch her in the mouth.

[audtatious]

On another forum members were all like "see!!!!!"....then someone posted the 2nd video and you could hear crickets

[IBCoupe]

Can't see the videos. I feel left out.

[IBCoupe]

Im now asking the question as to whether allowing objective reporters to make contributions.

I expect you meant the question "as to whether news organizations should allow..." or "whether allowing objective reporters to make contributions is incompatible with their role as 'objective' reporters." Often times I find myself thinking the question completely, but writing it less so.

Look, there are two schools of thought on the matter: one school of thought says reporters should plant their flags; let the biases get out there in the open for people to see - that way people can make estimations of how much value to place on the . The other school of thought says reporters should observe, not advocate, and planting your flag means that you're telling yourself on some level that it's okay to advocate. It invariably leads to a perception (justified or otherwise) that the reporter is arguing for a thing when he or she reports on it. The second view of journalism says that, once this happens, that journalist is functionally useless.

I belong to the second camp, not just because I personally prefer my news in an NPR-like venue, where the audience is expected to come to their own conclusions on the basis of fact presentation, but because I believe in the ideal of an intelligent, educated population. Especially in politics, we don't need more partisan voices: I really don't need you to tell me who you like and why; that's what the candidate is doing, and they're doing a fine job at it. I need you, Mr. Reporter, to dig up their Congressional voting record/lobbying ties/Argentinian girlfriends (okay, not so much the last one) and let me know how much I should actually buy what they're saying.

If the Press is to be a check on government and political figures, it can't be complicit in it/with them.

[stebo0728]

Well I hear where you're coming from there, and I would agree that I dont want a news anchor telling me who they like or dont like and why, just report the news. But how does contributing to a campaign equate to reporting their preference? The only way I would ever know their preference would be if I investigated it, and if I investigated it then I was obviously interested in knowing. You say a reporter shouldnt plant their flag. Well the world doesnt work that way, WE dont work that way. Everyone plants their flag, the question is whether you know they planted it, or whether you know WHERE they planted it. Lets say they are banned from contributions, that does not mean that they havent planted their flag, it just means they havent contributed to a campaign. I would even say that allowing contributions may help dissuade some *biased* reporting. How so? Well I would wager alot of reporters that DO contribute, chock that contribution up to all they are obligated to do for the candidate they support. If you cant fight the war, you fund it. Now those who are not allowed to contribute, they still feel an obligation to aid in the fight, perhaps the only way they do so is to (even if unintentional) allow a bias to creep into their reporting.

[audtatious]

Can't see the videos. I feel left out.

Maddow goes on and on about Fox News being a political organization and shows a couple of clips where people on the show are talking about donations to their right-wing organization. The second video starts with her saying the same thing and then transitions to clip after clip of MSNBC doing the same thing.

[IBCoupe]

Everyone plants their flag,

Not me. Not Len Downie, the former executive editor of the Washington Post, who even forewent voting to avoid allowing himself an inkling of bias.

Said Downie on NPR & WNYC's On the Media:

So many of the most important public issues do not have a clear-cut right and wrong, and in fact the public divides evenly over them. And if one of our journalists covering that issue were to have a strong conviction on one side or the other, it would be impossible for them to cover that story fairly.

It is very difficult for non-journalists to understand how so many journalists, so many people who choose this profession, and particularly choose to work with the ethics of The Washington Post, have chosen almost to be monks, if you will - to be observers, not participants, but observers. That's what we do here.

Here's the link to the transcript on a great examination of the issue:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/05/03

[IBCoupe]

Maddow goes on and on about Fox News being a political organization and shows a couple of clips where people on the show are talking about donations to their right-wing organization. The second video starts with her saying the same thing and then transitions to clip after clip of MSNBC doing the same thing.

Ah. A pox on both their houses, I suppose.

[audtatious]

Pretty much. Guess she just ignores her side doing the same thing.

[stebo0728]

Ok well Jamie Dupree, a white house correspondent for the local news/talk radio station here, does the same thing, avoids voting in an attempt to avoid bias. Admirable no doubt, but must that same standard be imposed upon everyone because a few? Theres some women who dont get epiderals for childbirth because they think it jeopardizes the baby, does that mean everyone must follow the same standard?

And dont try to persuade me that some people dont form a bias. Bias is human nature, in any arena. The trick is being able to hold a personal bias, and keep it disjointed from your reporting patterns. This is possible, and I would argue though we love to throw bias labels on our least favorite news agencies, most people there maintain the balance well, and a few let the bias squeeze in.

[IBCoupe]

...but must that same standard be imposed upon everyone because a few?

Nobody's arguing for that, Stebo. You're getting side-tracked. If a news organization wants to maintain that standard, they are perfectly justified in doing so. Further, and this is just my estimation, the news organization is better for it.

The whole system suffers when journalists become participants in the political system, rather than the watchdogs of it.

And I think, Stebo, I've been able to avoid retaining any ideological bias on these forums, despite what you believe. If you keep an open mind and consider at all times the very real possibility that any given position, even one you choose to support, could be wrong in the presence of new information, it's not a difficult task at all. There was a sentiment expressed by Len Downie that I echo: I don't understand how anyone can be so closed-minded as to behave otherwise.

[stebo0728]

I realize the OP was regarding Keith specifically, and admittedly I did side-track into a more generalized version of right/wrong regarding the policy. Yes MSNBC is well within rights to hold the policy, up until the point the policy is prohibited by law.

I dont think the system suffers when ANYONE becomes politically involved, the system suffers when someone fails to be able to compartmentalize the different facets of their life. Now I can understand the arguments your making, and admittedly it is a bit tough to watchdog media bias, and so in light of that perhaps a moratorium on political involvement of media persons makes sense, but I tend to disagree with that notion, like I said before, for media persons perhaps the contributions is the best way for them to silently support the candidate that meets their own personal needs beliefs and desires.

And I never claimed you present a bias here. Im being bold enough to suggest that you do in fact HOLD a bias. Can a bias change? Sure, mine does quite frequently, but I dont deny that I hold the bias. Everyone holds one, and everyone has a favorite this, and a preference toward that, and thats natural and acceptable. As I said before, its when an individual who is demanded to maintain objectivity fails to compartmentalize properly that things get out of balance.

[IBCoupe]

I don't believe that I do - left or right. My biases have to do with the way an argument is presented and argued, but that's something that works independently of any given issue. It's how I can argue against the right one day and against the left on the next. It's how I can criticize Republicans and Democrats. Bias is a thing you choose to foster, Stebo, and you can eliminate it by asking: "What is the reasoning behind this opinion?" And then when you get to that, "What are the assumptions involved in that reasoning? What datapoints are significant, and what am I ignoring?"

And I stand by: if you're going to take on the mantle of "journalist" and "social observer," you have an obligation to actually be an observer. Otherwise, as the anthropologists might say, you're going native.