MSNBC suspends prime-time TV host Keith Olbermann

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation and a previous fill-in for Rachel Maddow, will fill in for Olbermann tonight, MSNBC confirmed.

Olbermann is one of MSNBC’s most recognizable faces, and has emerged as one of the country’s most prominent liberal commentators. A former ESPN star, Olbermann’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” started in 2003 as a traditional news show but evolved into a left-leaning opinion program – and in some ways, led the network into its new identity as the cable-news voice of the left and an attempt to be a counterweight to Fox News.

Inside MSNBC, employees were shocked at the news of Olbermann’s suspension. Despite a reputation for a prickly personality off-air, Olbermann was given wide berth inside the network because of his stature – and his ratings.

Insiders were stunned that Griffin moved so swiftly to yank one of the network’s true stars off the air, and some suspected that the recent tensions with NBC News, which has grown increasingly uneasy with its sister network’s more ideological stance, contributed to the swift decision. Some have even speculated that Comcast’s coming merger with NBC Universal has heightened sensitivities about MSNBC’s ideological profile.

MSNBC has branded Olbermann as a prominent face in its new “Lean Forward” marketing campaign. He tripled MSNBC’s ratings at 8 p.m. In the past two years, MSNBC’s more opinionated hosts have helped propel it past CNN in prime time, and even lately during the daytime, too.

Despite MSNBC’s embrace of a more opinionated format, NBC News has a policy against its employees making political contributions – and it appears that Olbermann ran afoul of that policy, even by contributing to candidates he gave a platform on his show, like Grijalva.

In addition, Olbermann has been a critic of the political donations made by Fox News’s parent company, News Corp., which contributed $1 million each to a pair of organizations trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

Griffin also tweaked rival network Fox over the contributions. “Show me an example of us fundraising,” Griffin told The New York Times last month.

A 2007 MSNBC.com story laid out the rules for the network regarding such contributions:

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee.”

POLITICO discovered the Olbermann donation to Grijalva in a Federal Election Commission filing, and when MSNBC was asked for a comment, it forwarded a statement from Olbermann:

“One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the reelection campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords,” Olbermann said. “I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky.”

In his statement, Olbermann said he wasn’t using his influence to solicit any donations for the candidates.

“I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level,” Olbermann said.

Under FEC rules, an individual donor may give only $2,400 to a candidate per general election campaign. The FEC filings for Olbermann’s contributions list an address that is a Mailboxes Etc. storefront in New York, and it also lists his occupation as a newscaster for NBC Television.

News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, came under fire from liberals during the past election cycle for its contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On Oct. 7, Olbermann had House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) on his show to discuss the donations. At one point, he asked Clyburn: “Is there a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable-news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party?”

Olbermann’s contributions came amid a brutal campaign season for Democrats.

Giffords had appeared on Olbermann’s program in May, as did Conway. During his more recent broadcasts, Olbermann also made frequent references to the “Aqua Buddha” controversy involving Conway’s Republican Senate rival, Rand Paul, who handily won election Tuesday.

Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was just declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea-party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on "Countdown" — one of several appearances he made on the show.

Grijalva had seemed to be in a safe race until the month before the election, when he became targeted by outside groups. In mid-October, national Democratic interests began putting money into his district to compete with fundraising for McClung from outside conservative groups.

On Oct. 28, Grijalva went on Olbermann’s show and fielded questions about a story linking profit motives of private prisons to Arizona's new immigration crackdown. It was the sixth time Grijalva had appeared on "Countdown" in a little more than the past six months.

Grijalva not only opposed the immigration law — known as S.B. 1070 — but inadvertently put himself in electoral jeopardy by calling for an economic boycott of his own home state in response, a move that didn't go over so well with cash-strapped Arizonans.

"It's almost extraordinary to believe that once we got past the original phony reason for it, which was security at the border, when obviously it didn't pertain to that whatsoever, that the real reason behind that was well, this is to intimidate people of Hispanic descent. Well, it turns out there's an even more base, cynical reason behind it. Am I wrong about this?" Olbermann asked. "Is there anything you can tell us about the relationship between these private prisons and the lawmakers who supported this monstrosity of a bill?”

Grijalva responded: "It is a wonderful I-told-you-so moment."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734.html

As much as I dislike Olbermann, seems like he's getting a raw deal. I mean, I understand NBC not wanting journalists to contribute to political campaigns. But I don't consider people like Olbermann, O'Reilly, Beck etc journalists. I dunno, it seems like people (and evidently companies) insist on treating these people as journalists when it's not really what they do.
 
"NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover."

Fox doesn't bother contributing, they just hire the fuckers
 
He knows the rules and got suspended. I don't have a problem with this and I like his show... LOLZ. But hey, welcome to the new world of worker's rights, or lack thereof.
 
Yeah, I'm with you RAM. Those kind of people aren't journalists and no one in their right minds considers them unbiased commentators. They're all pundits for one side or the other so this seems silly to have those kind of rules in place. Can't disagree with the punishment, as he broke the rules, just think it's silly to have those rules for commentators.

MSNBC is just in denial about being the lefts equivalent of Fox News. Not saying they're as bad as Fox news with bias, spin, making shit up. Just that everyone knows if you turn on MSNBC most commentators are going to be leaning strongly to the left.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nope, if you sign a contract that says "I won't do this" but you go ahead and do it anyways, that's not a violation of worker's rights...
 
He's not a journalist, so I don't care if he gives money to politicians.

What is bizarre is that a guy who crapped on Bush's wars and civil liberties violations donated to Jack Conway, but not Russ Feingold.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I'm with you RAM. Those kind of people aren't journalists and no one in their right minds considers them unbiased commentators. They're all pundits for one side or the other so this seems silly to have those kind of rules in place. Can't disagree with the punishment, as he broke the rules, just think it's silly to have those rules for commentators.

MSNBC is just in denial about being the lefts equivalent of Fox News. Not saying they're as bad as Fox news with bias, spin, making shit up. Just that everyone knows if you turn on MSNBC most commentators are going to be leaning strongly to the left.[/QUOTE]

yeah, he broke the rules. but i dont see what message nbc is trying to send here. "we hold our fake journalists to a higher standard"? i guess it just bugs me because people try so hard to make pundits journalists, and this seems to stem from that.
 
MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay," MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in a statement.

Politico reported Friday that Olbermann had donated $2,400 each to Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and to Kentucky Senate contender Jack Conway. While NBC News policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

In a statement earlier Friday, Olbermann defended his donation, saying, "I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."

Griffin's statement underscores that it was Olbermann's failure to obtain approval, and not the actual political donations, that prompted the suspension.


The move is doubly significant in that it represents a major development in the relationship between Griffin and Olbermann, who once told the New Yorker, "Phil thinks he's my boss."

"Keith doesn't run the show," Griffin told New York Magazine recently. "I do a lot of things he doesn't like. I do a lot of things he does."

In recent months, Griffin has taken several bold steps to declare his authority over the network and its sometimes unruly talent: he sent a stern memo warning hosts to not publicly fight with each other, he suspended David Shuster indefinitely for filming a CNN pilot, suspended Donny Deutsch, banned Markos Moulitsas from the network, and reprimanded Ed Schultz for threatening to "torch" the network.

The New York Times' Brian Stelter and Bill Carter report that, according to one NBC executive, Friday's suspension is "not a step toward firing" Olbermann, though a source also told the New York Observer that there was "no time frame" for Olbermann's potential return. The Nation's Chris Hayes will host "Countdown" Friday night, the network said (according to a tweet from Yahoo's Michael Calderone). (UPDATE: Stelter later tweeted that Hayes will not host Friday's show after all. MSNBC has not announced who would be replacing him.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspended_n_779586.html

To be honest, I don't really care about this. Seems like a pissing match between Olbermann and his boss more than anything else.
 
He knew the rules I'm assuming, yet he did it anyway, that's his own fault. I do have to agree though that people like him and O'Reilly etc. aren't really journalists anyway, besides in the mind of their employer it seems.
 
He knew the rules, he violated them. I can't stand Olbermann personally, and based on the thread title I thought this was going to be about suspending Chris Matthews for his "interview" with that Bachmann lady, but KO knew the rules, he elected to contribute anyway. He shouldn't feel like he was blindsided, surprised, or be disappointed really.

But more than anything...he supported Jack Conway? Seriously? I'd feel better if KO donated $2400 to Aquabuddah himself.
 
MSNBC isn't impartial, neither is Fox. They need to just embrace it and change their format to openly reflect it.
 
[quote name='berzirk']He knew the rules, he violated them. I can't stand Olbermann personally, and based on the thread title I thought this was going to be about suspending Chris Matthews for his "interview" with that Bachmann lady, but KO knew the rules, he elected to contribute anyway. He shouldn't feel like he was blindsided, surprised, or be disappointed really.

But more than anything...he supported Jack Conway? Seriously? I'd feel better if KO donated $2400 to Aquabuddah himself.[/QUOTE]

What's most ironic about KO's donation to Conway is that AquaBuddha and KO have more in common politically than KO and Conway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rule is rather absurd when applied to someone like Olbermann, but it's not like he didn't know he was breaking it. Meh.
 
So this is against their rules and gets him suspended but everyone on Fox can cheerlead non-stop for Republicans and that's basically what they do...
 
For those that won't bother to read Msut's link:
Media Matter's Eric Hananoki notes that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough gave a local Alabama Republican candidate $5,000 as recently as this year, and CNBC host Larry Kudlow donated $1,000 to Republican Chris Shays in May of 2009. Indeed, Kudlow also serves on the Leadership Council to the Club for Growth, a group that has donated over $2 million to Republican candidates this year. Do NBC ethics rules apply to Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Kudlow, or other conservatives working for the media company? As Greg Sargent reported, a close reading of the NBC ethics rules suggest that the political donation standards do not even apply to opinionated hosts like Olbermann.
Whoops.
 
Remember the ethics rule talks about merely getting permission from dudes before you give those contributions.

Maddow last night said she believes that 'the morning host' i.e. Scarborough apparently did get permission. That's the difference, I believe, between what happened to Olbermann and what didn't happen to Scarbie.
 
It's pretty obvious that NBC's news division is attempting to regain control of MSNBC, and with that, looking to get rid of Olbermann. This is merely a technicality that is being used to fire him (if he is, in fact, getting canned).

What should be the story, instead of a guy donating his own money to a politician, is this:

A prominent member of news media who used his post to (rightfully) bash civil liberties and war violations committed by Bush supported a pro-PATRIOT Act, pro-foreign interventionist Democrat against an anti-PATRIOT Act, non-interventionist Republican, while letting the only Senate nay vote on the PATRIOT Act and a critic of pre-emptive war Democrat hang against garden variety neocon in Wisconsin.

Olbermann deserves sympathy for being the target of an apparent witchhunt.

He also deserves ridicule for being hilariously two-sided.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Remember the ethics rule talks about merely getting permission from dudes before you give those contributions.

Maddow last night said she believes that 'the morning host' i.e. Scarborough apparently did get permission. That's the difference, I believe, between what happened to Olbermann and what didn't happen to Scarbie.[/QUOTE]

What would happen if they would/did say no?

If it was a given they would say yes, then everyone is stupid. If not the it is clearly a double standard.

Anyhoo:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/231499/83512
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love think progress. 1 wrong + 1 wrong = noone was wrong. Well....except the person we don't like. They were definately wrong.

I especially love the rolling stones article as well. "Do you guys see all this other unethical activity going on? Why are you enforcing ethics over here and not there?"

[quote name='Rolling Stone']
We had a whole generation of journalists who sat by and did nothing while, for instance, George Bush led us into an idiotic war on a lie, plus thousands more who spent day after day collecting checks by covering Britney's hair and Tiger's text messages and other stupidities while the economy blew up and two bloody wars went on mostly unexamined... and it's Keith Olbermann who should "pay the price" for being unethical? Because, and let me get this straight, he donated money, privately, to politicians?
[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='IRHari']Remember the ethics rule talks about merely getting permission from dudes before you give those contributions.

Maddow last night said she believes that 'the morning host' i.e. Scarborough apparently did get permission. That's the difference, I believe, between what happened to Olbermann and what didn't happen to Scarbie.[/QUOTE]
Wtf is the point of getting permission? In what cases would it be ok and others not be?

This whole thing seems like BS meant to get rid of Olbermann now.
 
Just out of curiosity, do you guys think rules like this are ok? I don't think a rule where you have to ask permission to politically contribute should be anywhere near acceptable to anyone. As long as it's transparent (ie can be looked up), I don't see how it's anyone's business but my own.
 
Not really to be honest, I don't see why a journalist should have to give up their right to donate to a campaign, just so long as they're not out their shilling for the candidate too.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Just out of curiosity, do you guys think rules like this are ok? I don't think a rule where you have to ask permission to politically contribute should be anywhere near acceptable to anyone. As long as it's transparent (ie can be looked up), I don't see how it's anyone's business but my own.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think rules like this are ok and it scares me that the "rules are rules" crowd are so willing to give up control of their lives to their employers.
 
I don't have a problem with rules about journalists not donating to politicians in the same way I don't have a problem with rules about journalists not accepting money from politicians. They work the same way.

Whether Olbermann counts as a journalist is another issue. I'd say hardly anybody on any 24 hour news station counts as an actual journalist, but I would very much like it if they tried to be.
 
Well here is the thing, he knew about the rules when he went to work for them I'm assuming. I don't think rules like that are right, but if you accept them to become employed, that's your choice.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Just out of curiosity, do you guys think rules like this are ok? I don't think a rule where you have to ask permission to politically contribute should be anywhere near acceptable to anyone. As long as it's transparent (ie can be looked up), I don't see how it's anyone's business but my own.[/QUOTE]

I'm sort of torn. I can understand a news network's desire to remain impartial. That's a fairly difficult thing to achieve and once money starts going in one direction, it sort of all goes out the window.

However, at the end of the day, pundits are still people. Why shouldn't they be able to donate, especially seeing as they are some of the most informed individuals when it comes to politics? Also, I would wonder if forbidding them to donate wouldn't make them more willing to try to sway viewers on their show since it'd be the only way they'd be able to participate in the outcome of the election.

I think it's a difficult balance to maintain, which is likely why MSNBC has the rule about getting permission first. While I think it is good to see Olbermann getting reprimanded for disobeying their company policy, I think it'd be fairly ridiculous to fire him over this. I mean, really, is anyone surprised to hear Olbermann donated to the Democrats?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

MSNBC is just in denial about being the lefts equivalent of Fox News. Not saying they're as bad as Fox news with bias, spin, making shit up. Just that everyone knows if you turn on MSNBC most commentators are going to be leaning strongly to the left.[/QUOTE]

If they aren't as bad then they are really equivalent are they? No offense, it's a tired argument. Fox is in a class by itself of being off the charts biased.

It's simple, if Olbermann broke the company's rule, he earned his time off.

To the larger point. He should be allowed to contribute how he wants BUT he should recuse himself from any related stories.
 
So then what if MSNBC will only give you permission if you donate to liberal causes? Is that ok? What about giving to non-profits? Reporters often do stories on non-profs. Do you have to be a "reporter" for this to apply? Can governments bar its employees from donating to anyone, since they're (potentially) giving money to their boss?

I understand the rule, but I disagree 100%.
 
I agree with MSNBC's right to the policy and their right to apply the policy selectively.
I think it's a crappy policy and it's a crappy way to run the company if you do apply it selectively.

But wait to stick to your guns, MSNBC. :p
 
How is it them not sticking to their guns? I haven't read anywhere where MSNBC said they'd fire anyone who disobeyed the rule. Olbermann broke it, MSNBC punished him, and now they're moving on.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']How is it them not sticking to their guns? I haven't read anywhere where MSNBC said they'd fire anyone who disobeyed the rule. Olbermann broke it, MSNBC punished him, and now they're moving on.[/QUOTE]

Go back and read Msut's post.

Basically they punish liberal commentators but let conservative commentators donate without repercussions.

It's basically more of the same - liberal media being held to a higher standard. I have no problems with high standards - but when they are selectively applied that's just a way of corporations censoring opinions they don't like.
 
No, you're not listening. We have no idea whether or not conservative commentators have asked and gotten the required permission. Remember that's why Olbermann was fired.

Like I said before, Maddow acknowledged that Scarbie got permission as far as she knows.
 
[quote name='IRHari']No, you're not listening. We have no idea whether or not conservative commentators have asked and gotten the required permission. Remember that's why Olbermann was fired.

Like I said before, Maddow acknowledged that Scarbie got permission as far as she knows.[/QUOTE]

Why bother having rules about integrity if you can get permission to break them?

The whole thing makes no sense.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why bother having rules about integrity if you can get permission to break them?

The whole thing makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

Would Olbermann have gotten approved to donate had he asked? You are assuming they would have denied his request because they favor republicans (lol). Stop assuming he would have gotten rejected.
 
I don't think that's what meant at all. It is absurd to have rules concerning integrity if you can get permission to break them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I agree with MSNBC's right to the policy and their right to apply the policy selectively.
I think it's a crappy policy and it's a crappy way to run the company if you do apply it selectively.[/QUOTE]
Should a company be able to screen and actually prohibit political donations? I don't remember there being a right to do that anywhere in law.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Should a company be able to screen and actually prohibit political donations? I don't remember there being a right to do that anywhere in law.[/QUOTE]

Should I be forced to hire and pay someone who's going to spend the money I'm giving them on political causes I completely disagree with? Perhaps, political causes that will work to harm my company? (Not just talking about MSNBC here).

Just as an individual has the right to seek or terminate the agreement of their employment with a business of their choosing based on whatever criteria that individual desires, so should the company have a right to seek or terminate the agreement of one's employment with individuals of their choosing based on whatever criteria the business desires.

Would you be okay with living in a world where you're simply not allowed to make your employment decisions about who you want to enter an agreement with regards to their political viewpoints?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Would Olbermann have gotten approved to donate had he asked? You are assuming they would have denied his request because they favor republicans (lol). Stop assuming he would have gotten rejected.[/QUOTE]

Stop being so binary.

I was just saying it's a dumb policy that is really nothing more then poor window dressing.
 
You see what you guys did, now Bob is off on his old rant about how businesses should be able to discriminate however they want.


fuck
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would you be okay with living in a world where you're simply not allowed to make your employment decisions about who you want to enter an agreement with regards to their political viewpoints?[/QUOTE]

Yes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Should I be forced to hire and pay someone who's going to spend the money I'm giving them on political causes I completely disagree with? Perhaps, political causes that will work to harm my company? (Not just talking about MSNBC here).[/quote]
Whaaaaaaaaat? You can't be serious man.
Would you be okay with living in a world where you're simply not allowed to make your employment decisions about who you want to enter an agreement with regards to their political viewpoints?
Uhhhhh, yes? I can't even believe you really think that.

I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole goes. Should an employer be able to fire you for not voting a specific way? Can they fire you for changing your religious beliefs?
 
Should you be allowed to quit an employer who donates large sums of money to political causes you disagree with? Should you be allowed to quit if you work on commission/tips and your employer decides to close on Sundays - the day where you make 75% of your income?
 
bread's done
Back
Top