For The Missing Keith, Your Morning Maddow

[filkertom]

You may have noticed that Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely by MSNBC yesterday.

There is some debate as to whether the rules were fairly applied, as well as what might happen when MSNBC/NBC Universal's new owner, ComCast, takes over in a couple of months. (Here's some perspective from Talking Points Memo.)

What there is no debate about, however, is what Rachel Maddow said about the situation last night.

I don't know which way things are going to go... but we need at least some of the news media to be on our side.

Comments

[kirylyn.livejournal.com]

is there any doubt that Faux "news" is so in the GOP's pocket, they might as well just turn the camera on fund raisers and political rallies. It isn't like they're reporting REAL news anymore.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Sure there's some doubt. Look at your own pants. Are you in your own pocket?

It's the same thing.

You might as well say Nancy Pelosi is in the pocket of the Democratic Party.

[laurel-potter.livejournal.com]

The first I heard about this was on Facebook, by someone who doesn't like Keith, and was hoping he was fired. I've since joined the "save Keith" page on Facebook, and signed a petition to get him reinstated.

This is just stupid.

[hanabishirecca.livejournal.com]

He deserves a reprimand and a punishment, but not to be fired.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

Amazingly, quite a few conservatives who don't agree with Keith's opinions are saying he should be reinstated. They see it as a free speech/freedom of association issue, from what I gather.

[hanabishirecca.livejournal.com]

There is a news media on our side. Unfortunately, they have integrity.

Honestly, while being able to donate money is a right, it doesn't mean it is a good thing. Ethically speaking, reporters should try and be as objective as possible. One of the ways to do that, is to refrain from donating to political campaigns even if you are writing opinion that is periodically supporting the people who are talking about. Because the second you start throwing money towards a candidate, it raises the question of ethical or preferential treatment.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't that standard be applied to both sides of the political aisle? Why should Keith be fired when Fox News as a whole has been giving preferential treatment to the GOP and nothing happens?

[tandw.livejournal.com]

...reporters should try and be as objective as possible.

That would be an excellent argument, if KO were a reporter. He isn't. His show is billed as opinion, just like Joe Scarborough's show. And Joe did the same thing--contributed to a candidate, then interviewed the candidate on his show.

I don't object to NBC/MSNBC promulgating standards. I object when they're unevenly applied.

My 2 cents. Do what you will with them.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

It makes sense that the news media has something stricter than the Hatch Act applied to its employees. Even "further restricted" federal employees are allowed to donate their personal money to partisan campaigns, provided they do so on their own time, and without using government property to do so.

However, the media is supposed to be even more completely neutral, in order to act as a sort of external check on the political system. (In theory, anyway... A certain Mr. Stewart suggested this system was "broken" just last weekend.)

So, while it's unfortunate that Mr. Olbermann lost his job, I actually agree with what MSNBC did.

I also think it is completely unfair those other news outlets are much more blatant and obvious with their apparent political conflicts-of-interest, but they're NOT firing/suspending anyone over it.

However just because they are getting away with it, it doesn't make it correct.

Re: My 2 cents. Do what you will with them.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

The fact other networks are getting away with it, just as Keith's replacement, indicates he wasn't really fired for making personal donations. It was done because for his opinions, the donations were just an excuse. If he didn't make those donations they would have found some other reason after the election. The timing of his firing can't be ignored.

Re: My 2 cents. Do what you will with them.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with what MSNBC did as well. Rachel was right to call out Fox News for the donations that Hannity has made; but that doesn't mean that Keith is immune to the rules and regulations that MSNBC and its parent company have in place to protect their objectivity.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

*Threadjack begin*
To those going to Windycon, they have their filk schedule up!
http://www.windycon.org/windy37/Departments/Filk.aspx (http://www.windycon.org/windy37/Departments/Filk.aspx)
Tom is playing with Toyboat at 9pm on Friday before the Open Filk.
*Threadjack end*

[thistlethorn.livejournal.com]

I love Rachel Maddow, but I doubt I'd tune in to MSNBC all that often without Keith Olbermann there as well.

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

A bunch of Keith's "World's Worst People" honorees have created a petition over at National Review to pressure for him to be reinstated.

I believe that we desperately need Keith on the air to remind the American public of what liberal values mean.

His doing that is one of the greatest recruiting tools that the Tea Party has had and speaking from my heart--we owe him a lot.

I mean, seriously, is MSNBC, the home of Chris Matthews, trying to pretend it's not as biased as Fox? [Miz voice on] "Really? Really? Ree-lllly?" [Miz voice off]

Tom Trumpinski

[alverant.livejournal.com]

By "liberal values" you mean corporate responsibility, business ethics, how making money is not a blank check to do anything, truth in advertising, liberty and justice for ALL, facts over superstition? Yeah I can see what the TPers would be against those things.

Actually, he's right.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

It's an incredibly effective tool to ones cause to have a opposing figure to serve as an example of what one DOESN'T wish to be.

Heck, why do you think Angle lost?

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

As I heard it, it's less about Comcast and more about Keith's always-rocky relations with his immediate bosses.

That said, I could wish this would teach him a lesson about not being a dick to other people because it bites you in the ass... but I doubt it. If and when Keith resurfaces, he's going to be just as juvenile and petty as ever... which is a shame, because when he's NOT acting that way he's the best thing on television.

[hvideo.livejournal.com]

Hmmm.... "Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions."

Maybe it's a matter of how you parse that sentence.

If you read it as "contributions to (political campaigns) or (groups that espouse controversial positions)" then yes, all political contributions would have to be reviewed and approved by MSNBC.

OTOH, if you read it as "contributions to (political campaigns or groups) that espouse controversial positions" then unless you consider the Democratic Party (or those particular candidates) to "espouse contoversial positions" it would seem that no review/approval would even be required.

Isn't the English language wonderful?

[fredhuggins.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, it's NBC. They'll just replace Keith with Jay Leno.

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

VERY interesting distinction made between Faux "News" and MSNBC: Faux is a political show while MSNBC is a news show. I was unaware of this, and thought everyone in the news media was bound by the "no political contributions, no fund raising" rule (expected it to have been one of the federal fund raising rules). I see that I am in error.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I'm somewhat torn on this. On the one hand, I feel that *all* contributions to political campaigns are bribery and should result in donor and acceptor going to jail, so I feel rather squicked that I find myself needing to object to Olbmerman's being sanctioned for it. But on the other hand, I find myself feeling much more strongly that *no* employer has *any* right to dictate how their employees live their lives outside of work. A boss does not gain the right to dictate another person's identity when they hand over a paycheck. Don't ask don't tell, mandatory drug tests, and "appearance guidelines" that ban beards all fundamentally offend against the principle that people have their own lives that their employer has no business being involved with, and this notion that journalists have to be "objective" outside of work is another example of the same thing.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

As much as I like Keith Olbermann, to me it all comes down to a question of whether or not the policy is enforced across-the-board. If it is (and has been), then he should definitely be reprimanded, and subject to whatever penalties the policy calls for (and that have been given to anyone else who broke the rules). Otherwise, if he's being singled out, then his indefinite suspension is definitely unreasonable.

The ugliest thing that seems to be coming out of all of this though is that it's stirring up the old false equivalency between Keith Olbermann and people like Glenn Beck.

The biggest, and most important, difference is that no matter how passionate Keith gets (and sometimes even a little over-the-top), his "rants" are always based in fact, rather than being something he made up or just saw on the Internet.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

This is the real measure of a journalist -- not whether he is "objective" or "balanced", not whether he has opinions, but whether what he presents as fact is actually true.

He's baaaack!

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2010/11/08/olbermann-msnbc-suspension_5251.php

Re: He's baaaack!

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

That's great!

I look forward to, once more, not watching him--relaxing and playing DDO while he works wonders for my cause.

Nice to be able to take some time off.

Tom Trumpinski