• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

No one could have predicted…

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Good lord, these people are nuts.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Bark louder, little dog.

A dilettante blog from the great progressive state of West Virginia.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Keith Olbermann suspended for making political donations

Keith Olbermann suspended for making political donations

by E.D. Kain|  November 5, 20102:21 pm| 322 Comments

This post is in: Media

FacebookTweetEmail

I don’t get it. Suspending Olbermann because he made campaign donations to progressive politicians in Arizona and Kentucky makes no sense. The policy at MSNBC makes no sense. There is no pretense of objectivity in a show like Count Down. It is an explicitly partisan show. That Olbermann is allowed to push partisan, progressive politics on prime time, but not allowed to donate a paltry $7,200 dollars to some congressional races, strikes me as exorbitantly stupid. What the hell is NBC thinking here?

All that being said, if Olbermann knew the policy going in – what was he thinking? That seems about as dumb as the policy itself. And two dumbs do not make a smart. Or something.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Distraction
Next Post: Open Thread: Saved! »

Reader Interactions

322Comments

  1. 1.

    meh

    November 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    $7,500 from olberman
    $1.5M from fox

    oh shit bitches, grab ur pearls and get the faintin’ couches – the MSM is gettin a strong case of the vapors…

    edit – like the dumb MF’s that watch fox are gonna be like “Oh shit MSNBC really is fair and balanced – I’m watchin that!”

    Democrat on Democrat violence FTL

  2. 2.

    Mouse Tolliver

    November 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    And according to Crooks and Liars Joe Scarborough and pat Buchanan donated to Republican candidates, but weren’t penalized. This stinks.

  3. 3.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Atrios has a list of some of Pat Buchannan’s donations to Republicans. IOKIYAR lives on at MSNBC.

    edit- Joe Scarborough’s probably not the only Morning Joe regular who donates. Although I think we can safely assume not to Democrats.

  4. 4.

    Nied

    November 5, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Given the well known spat between Olbermann MSNBC head Phil Griffin I wonder if he was trying to get fired.

  5. 5.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    @Mouse Tolliver:

    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.

    From HuffPo

    @Mattminus: IMO, it’s just as likely that MSNBC is sick of all the criticsm they receive from the Right over Olbermann.

  6. 6.

    Mattminus

    November 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that KO is insufferable off camera, and someone in management has just been waiting for an excuse to shitcan him.

  7. 7.

    jayboat

    November 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Hard to fathom the logic on this one.

  8. 8.

    Don

    November 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    You can summarize my confusion over this with a single question: would the $7,000 in donations buy a single second of commercial on Olberman’s show?

    Seriously, he does this with his voice and MSNBC’s channel every moment he’s on the air. Why does it make any difference when it’s cash? His support via the show is worth infinitely more than he could ever donate financially.

  9. 9.

    Napoleon

    November 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    E.D., What is there not to get, Olbermann just joined the list of high ratings entertainers to be suspended or fired for being liberal. Weren’t the Smothers Brothers the number one show on TV when they were cancelled? Wasn’t Donahue number one on MSNBC when he was canned by the same guy who just suspended Keith?

    Also as I said in the last thread, here is the by the seat of my pants wild ass theory I have. He knew the rule and he intentionally violated it on the theory that 1) NBC/GE are likely secretly funding part of the rights attack ads so wouldn’t dare fire him or 2) if they fired him he would sue NBC and seek to discover NBC and GE’s secret contributions to the right.

  10. 10.

    mantis

    November 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Will Hannity get suspended by Fox for his contributions? If you could see my face, you’d know I couldn’t type that sentence with it straight.

  11. 11.

    lamh32

    November 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    BTW, I love how none of this is being reported on MSNBC!

    How’s that for your “liberal” media

  12. 12.

    morzer

    November 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    This sounds like MSNBC looking for an excuse. If they wanted to, they could simply say that Olbermann had cleared it with them/free speech/we don’t see any conflict of interest here, given the nature of his show etc.

  13. 13.

    cleek

    November 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    lean forward!

  14. 14.

    Mike E

    November 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED to discover that there’s a double standard here…and besides, he’s an asshole so he brought it onto himself…I mean, a smug asshole unlike JoeScar, and..he hurt my feelings! Twice!

  15. 15.

    Jeff

    November 5, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    This has the look of MSNBC going “all Fox– All The Time”.

  16. 16.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    This is a perfect example of the double standard that has completely destroyed American politics. KO and Joe Scar are both loud-mouthed walking egos. They are identical media figures, the only difference being one’s a democrat and one’s a republican. Thus only one is allowed to fully participate in democracy, the other one has to stay out of the election or get sent to a free speech zone.

    Really, the idea that the sportscaster has to be held to a higher journalistic standard than the ex-congressman is so fucking ludicrous that it is impossible to miss that it’s BS. The real reason KO is suspended is because he gave to democrats. Period.

  17. 17.

    wengler

    November 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    @Mattminus

    Countdown w/ KO is money in the bank. Remember this is the channel that literally tried to flank FOX on the right with such shows as Alan Keyes Is Making Sense.

    It would take a terrible hit on the brand they are trying to create by taking out KO now, especially during November sweeps. I am guessing he will be gone for a week and then be back. What a ridiculous network decision.

  18. 18.

    Zandar

    November 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Olbermann got sent up the river for a reason.

    The question is why.

    The answer is either to draw attention to the rest of the media doing the same, or to do just the opposite and bury Olbermann.

  19. 19.

    ornery curmudgeon

    November 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    @Mattminus:

    I’m going out on a limb and guess that Mattminus is a corporate-paid shill trolling the web derailing conversations with inane character assassinations through pointless yet mean-spirited conjecture.

    Wow, these limbs are cheap to go out on, huh Matt?

  20. 20.

    New Yorker

    November 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    I give up. Can we please just make FOX News the official state media of the US? I want to know how Sarah Palin descended bodily from the heavens onto the peak of Denali. I look forward to learning how Ronald Reagan was born of a virgin on July 4, 1911 and his birth was heralded by a new star in the sky.*

    *I’m not just making reference to the birth of Jesus here. These are very similar to the story North Koreans are told about the birth of Kim Jong-Il.

  21. 21.

    Calouste

    November 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    I go with the theory that Olbermann did this on purpose.

    OT, this by a British-American teenager:
    __

    Happy Guy Fawkes Day/Night! Today, we celebrate the thwarting of the attempted bombing of Parliament by the Catholic terrorist Guy Fawkes. Unfortunately, after the plot was made public, a massive wave of anti-Catholic sentiment took hold of England and Catholics were persecuted en masse and accused of being a part of a highly organized terrorism campaign bent on destroying the most powerful nation on Earth.
    __
    Good thing that kind of stuff never happens anymore

  22. 22.

    kindness

    November 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Sue the bastards. Take it to court and let NBC say they don’t allow employees the same rights they have as a corporation.

  23. 23.

    MikeJ

    November 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say Mattminus is a paedophile.

  24. 24.

    Scott

    November 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Waiting for the right to start demanding the same thing for Maddow in 5, 4, 3, 2…

  25. 25.

    Quaker in a Basement

    November 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    And two dumbs do not make a smart.

    New tag!!

  26. 26.

    Zifnab

    November 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    What the hell is NBC thinking here?

    Republicans just took the House. That means Olbermann loses his job. Rachael Maddow is next, without a doubt.

  27. 27.

    Davis X. Machina

    November 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Pre-emptive truckling by MSNBC in advance of the congressional investigations.

    I blame Jack Donaghy

  28. 28.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    @Bullsmith: OK. So does anyone have any actual proof of a double standard? Do you know that Scarborough did not ask for and receive approval before making his donations? For that matter, do we even know that NBC had the same policy when Scarborough and Buchanan made their contributions in 2006? (Note: I refuse to click on Politico, but I have not seen anything that answers these questions in other articles I have read)

    I know it is easy to just throw it out in anger but I thought we were supposed to be the reality based community.

    (EDIT: @sven: I guess this kinda answers my question)

  29. 29.

    sven

    November 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    I thought this was the best part:

    Why wasn’t Joe Scarborough suspended?

    A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. “Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe’s. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.”

    Joe hosts an opinion program. Keith apparently does not.

  30. 30.

    Koz

    November 5, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    “Hard to fathom the logic on this one. “

    This might be an early example of remorse = responsibility.

  31. 31.

    taylormattd

    November 5, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    It’s not hard to figure out Ed. Despite years of lies to the contrary, the ENTIRE media is completely and utterly right wing.

  32. 32.

    Gravenstone

    November 5, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    It’s not as if MSNBC hasn’t addressed “conflict of interest” claims from on air contributors in the past. They briefly kicked Richard Wolffe to the curb over his ties to a public affairs firm, but eventually found a way to “save face” and brought him back into the fold.

    Either Olbermann is back in a week or two, or this is (as others have speculated) a public excuse for resolving a private spat with the dvision president.

  33. 33.

    Dusty

    November 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Re Mattminus, I like KO, but he’s got a pretty widespread reputation throughout his entire career for being more than a handful to deal with behind the scenes. I don’t even think you have to go out on a limb to speculate that management might not be all that fond of him on a personal level. Whether it’s bad enough to get him fired at a time when they seem to be rebranding the network as liberal and he’s pretty much the liberal face of the network is another story.

  34. 34.

    lamh32

    November 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Conspiracy theory number one, ComCast buyout of NBC real reason why Olbermann is out.Wait til they find out Rachel’s gay (/snark)

  35. 35.

    JPL

    November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    The policy does not make any sense unless MSNBC’s policy is IOKIYR. It might be time to write a few letters and make a few phone calls.

  36. 36.

    You Don't Say

    November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    I meant to link to this in this thread.

  37. 37.

    chopper

    November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    @morzer:

    sounds like it. looks like he got suspended not for making the donations, but not notifying management which is apparently part of the contract.

  38. 38.

    Citizen_X

    November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    @sven: Jesus. If Countdown is not an opinion program, then I’m a fucking unicorn.

  39. 39.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    They must making room for the Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Rodney King Fun Hour …

  40. 40.

    You Don't Say

    November 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    @sven: I know, what crap. How could anyone say that with a straight face?

  41. 41.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    November 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    KO and Joe Scar are both loud-mouthed walking egos. They are identical media figures, the only difference being one’s a democrat and one’s a republican. Thus only one is allowed to fully participate in democracy, the other one has to stay out of the election or get sent to a free speech zone.

    Not to mention that the Republican is on the air for three hours every day, nearly as much as all of the liberals combined.

    On the network that’s famously “all-liberal”. Just like FOX, but for liberals, which we hear non-stop from anyone truly serious.

    And then they suspend one of the non-conservatives.

    Go Joe! Soon they’ll have him on 24/7 and call it a liberal network because Mika occasionally tsks about something he says, between her mostly nodding and agreeing.

  42. 42.

    ericvsthem

    November 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    @sven: That’s it, I’m heading home now to begin drinking. I’ll stop around the time that explanation begins to make sense.

  43. 43.

    JenJen

    November 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    I’m just livid about this, but honestly, can’t imagine the suspension lasting long. MSNBC won’t be able to handle the backlash-tsunami coming their way from their loyal viewership.

  44. 44.

    BR

    November 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    @Calouste:

    Yeah, I agree. This one seems too obvious. And it brings up the Fox donation to RGA, etc.

    Not that it will matter, because NBC will can him for doing what others do, and then find a stellar “liberal” host like Harold Ford to take his place.

  45. 45.

    Scott

    November 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Republicans just took the House. That means Olbermann loses his job.

    The rule is: When Republicans are in office, you get rid of your liberals and hire more conservatives, because they’ll have better access to legislative sources and be more in-tune with the national mood.

    When Democrats are in office, you get rid of your liberals and hire more conservatives, because SHUT UP, JUST FIRE THE LIBRULS

  46. 46.

    bozack

    November 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    It’s hard for me to muster much sympathy for KO, if that is indeed the policy… but if they’re failing to apply the same standards to Joe Scar, that is the real story here.

  47. 47.

    Zuzu's Petals

    November 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Looking forward to Palin’s outraged FIRST AMENDMENT! tweets.

  48. 48.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    @MattR:

    The double standard comes right from the spokesman mouth (via the C&L link in comment 2 above). He says Joe Scarborough’s just opinion but KO is news so he’s held to a higher standard.

    That’s just fucking ridiculous. They’re both opinionated loudmouth MSNBC political hosts, one clearly a dem and one clearly a Republican. There is no logical reason KO should be suspended from his job for doing exactly the same thing Scarborough did. It’s a double standard, that is exactly the correct term.

    Edit- Sven already posted the quote. It really speaks for itself. One standard for the republican, a higher one for KO.

  49. 49.

    mclaren

    November 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    I’ll explain it to you:

    TV networks suck the mob’s dicks.

    When the mob changes direction, the TV networks follow ’em. Why did MSNBC and ABC and CBS and CNN stop inviting Ann Coulter?

    Because the Demos won big in 2008.

    Why is Olbermann getting booted now?

    Because the Repubs just won big in 2010.

    If Communists win big in 2012, Larry Kudlow will get fired and the networks will hire some Marxist professor to explain why capitalism can’t work.

    If ufologists win big in 2016, the TV networks will hire a saucer cultist.

  50. 50.

    b-psycho

    November 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    I’d lean towards this being personal, seeing as how Chris Hayes is filling in tonight.

  51. 51.

    sven

    November 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    @BR: Great point. There are a slew of Blue-Dogs looking for work at the moment. I am sure that some of them will find work as ‘liberal’ voices on the networks.

  52. 52.

    Poopyman

    November 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    My guess is that he’ll be back in a week or 2. It could be the suits were sending him a message. Or the suits decided that suspending him and bringing him back just before sweeps week would be ratings gold.

    Of course, it could be both. Double win!

  53. 53.

    Scott

    November 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Hmm, what’s the bet that the MSNBC president has made some political contributions?

  54. 54.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    @mclaren:

    This is nonsense. Democrats won huge in 06 and 08 and Meet the Press went right on featuring Republicans as if they were the majority. Same is true for pretty much every MSM outlet.

  55. 55.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    November 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    @sven:

    Joe hosts an opinion program. Keith apparently does not

    Ahhh so.

    That explains why the rest of the media treats the bloviating on Morning ‘Ho as literal fact and ignores everything which comes out of Countdown with a wave of the hand. Because one of them is only an opinion show and the other is a..

    Hey, wait a minute!

  56. 56.

    TooManyJens

    November 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    This post sums up my feelings exactly. It’s a nonsense policy when applied to commentators who were hired to have a political point of view. At the same time, Keith Olbermann knew it existed, and I don’t feel sorry for him. It’s like Clinton getting a hummer in the Oval Office — you didn’t have to do that, you idiot.

    This whole incident really makes me think less of MSNBC if they’re trying to claim that Olbermann’s show is strictly news and doesn’t have a political point of view. Because that’s bullshit, and furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with having a political point of view as long as you’re not lying and pretending you’re being completely nonpartisan and unbiased. One of the things I like about Maddow’s show is that, at least most of the time, she brings the facts to the table. She has her very obvious views, but they are informed by reality. That’s a great model, and I’d feel a lot better if MSNBC would just embrace it explicitly.

  57. 57.

    Davis X. Machina

    November 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    @Citizen_X: Oh, you’re one of those unicorns. I guess we don’t trap you with a virgin, then.

  58. 58.

    Pangloss

    November 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    @Zuzu’s Petals: As usual, you’re awesome.

  59. 59.

    geg6

    November 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    I’m sure that Olbermann was simply thinking that if it’s okay for Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan to make donations to political candidates, then it’s okay for him to do it, too.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Scarborough%2C+Joe&state=&zip=&employ=MSNBC&cand=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=kb5h2&submit=Submit

    http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Buchanan%2C+Patrick&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=7766f&submit=Submit

  60. 60.

    El Cid

    November 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    If MSNBC’s policy is to ban political donations from on-air hosts or other employees, and it’s only applied to Olbermann, then it’s not a policy but an arbitrary selective punishment.

    [In other words, given Scarboy’s donation to Kitts, then it’s a bunch of anti-liberal horse-shit.]

  61. 61.

    change

    November 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    HA.

    Hahahhaha.

    AHAHAHAHAHA!

    This week just gets better and better!

  62. 62.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    November 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    @Scott:

    Hmm, what’s the bet that the MSNBC president has made some political contributions?

    Management and employees have the same right to make political contributions, except that some rights are more equal than others.

  63. 63.

    Mike E

    November 5, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    @TooManyJens: wait…Olbermann got a hummer, also?

  64. 64.

    Michael

    November 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    It won’t be long now.

    I fully expect there to be a “7 days in May” scenario in the next several months, led by some USAF Evangeligoobers. Boner will be the figurehead that will lead the government until “orderly” elections can get held in 2012.

    They’ll probably give the rump state a pretty name, and it’ll all sound vaguely constimatooshinal so as to make the low info right wing voters happy.

    We’ll have us some fine PO-lice state shenanigans, lots of arrests, some unfortunate deaths and wholesale disenfranchisement.

    White Christians that aren’t in positions of leadership will, as is par for the course, cluck and tsk tsk over the repression while doing nothing but praying at their filthy bronze age goatherd cult centers, while each news organ tries to out-Goebbels the others.

    It’ll only come to an end after angry brown people set off a nuclear IED in lower Manhattan, and ‘Murka’s Masters of the Universe hear their skin fry just before they die.

    I look forward to seeing pasty and chubby Red State men grovel before the Chinese, French, Latino, Spanish, Indian, Vietnamese and African occupation troops….

  65. 65.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    @Bullsmith: That quote is from an article posted in May 2009 and does not address the specific question of whether Scarborough asked for and received approval to make his donations

    (EDIT: The article may actually be from earlier, the first of two user comments attached to that list of journalists who contributed to political campaigns is from May 2009)

  66. 66.

    sherifffruitfly

    November 5, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Clearly this, too, is Obama’s fault.

  67. 67.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Does anybody remember whose place Olbermann took?

    Phil Donahue.

    Remember, Donahue was fired during the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

    This seems like a similar thing. The Congress turned hard right. And MSNBC is pandering to what they see as the new right wing mood.

    The only question seems to be whether or Olbermann saw it coming and provoked his suspension.

    Maybe it’s better to go out with a bang.

  68. 68.

    Sentient Puddle

    November 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    @b-psycho:

    I’d lean towards this being personal, seeing as how Chris Hayes is filling in tonight.

    According to TPM, Chris Hayes donated $500 to Democratic candidates in ’09. So…you’re probably right.

  69. 69.

    Rhoda

    November 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    This is crazy. And why the hell was Politico checking on donations made by Olbermann specifically? Someone’s looking to kick him out.

  70. 70.

    ed drone

    November 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    The double standard comes right from the spokesman mouth (via the C&L link in comment 2 above). He says Joe Scarborough’s just opinion but KO is news so he’s held to a higher standard.

    Well, if they conclude that KO’s show is “news,” then it’s because it’s a hell of a lot more fact-based that Joe’s, innit? After all, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

    I will say, though, that it’s indicative of something that NBC decides to follow its rules, silly as they are, while Fox Noise can donate billions (counting air-time and direct contributions) to Repubs with no acceptance of any sort of blame. It’s proof (if we even ever needed it) that Fox is not a News organization, in any way, shape or form, while NBC at least tries to keep an even keel.

    But I want Keith back, blow-hard that he is. He’s at least a citizen; Fox is just a corporation (and foreign-owned at that).

    Ed

  71. 71.

    Pangloss

    November 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Is he allowed to vote without permission? I guess that’s next.

  72. 72.

    Dusty

    November 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Re Sentient Puddle, Chris Hayes is a standard fill-in for both Maddow and Olbermann. I wouldn’t read all that much into the fact that they called the guy at the top of the phone tree to sub at the last minute.

  73. 73.

    J sub D

    November 5, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    That Olbermann is allowed to push partisan, progressive politics on prime time, but not allowed to donate a paltry $7,200 dollars to some congressional races, strikes me as exorbitantly stupid.

    I find Olbermann exorbitantly stupid. And condescending. And irritating. He’s almost a mirror image of Bill O’Reilly.

    That said, this is just stupid. Even idiots should be able to donate to a politician of their choice whether they are in the opinion or the “straight news” side of the house.

    To MSNBC – NOBODY believes you report the “news” impartially anyway. With or without that inane policy sane people will continue to consider MSNBC, like FOXNews, a network ran by partisan shills.

  74. 74.

    liberal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    @MattR:

    Do you know that Scarborough did not ask for and receive approval before making his donations?

    Point taken, but in all honesty, aside from the policy being stupid in itself, the idea that it’s OK if the donations are “approved” is beyond idiotic. WTF difference does it make if they’re “approved,” in an ethical sense? The only obvious thing would be concern about unseemly influence, but that’s a joke. The approval is nothing more than an idiotic rubber stamp. We’ve got enough of those these days.

  75. 75.

    Violet

    November 5, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Is anyone looking into the political contributions of ALL MSNBC and NBC anchors and commentators? I’d love for that list to be made public.

    So, Matt Lauer, who did you donate to? Is that how you landed that first post-presidency interview with George W. Bush?

  76. 76.

    John PM

    November 5, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    This is one of many reasons why I do not watch cable news

  77. 77.

    AlanDean

    November 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Countdown is News? I thought management loved his Special Comments, which were so newsy. This is a real blow if he does not return. Balloon Juice TV anyone? Every night can close with John playing with his dogs and railing on crappy mojitos. I’m going to go frack some shale. Drinking sounds good, also too.

  78. 78.

    Dusty

    November 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Re liberal, the approval requirement is a silly figleaf. But I do kind of think they ought to disclose when they’re covering specific races that they’ve donated to. So, for instance, maybe Olbermann should have noted that he’d donated to Conway when discussing Rand Paul. But that doesn’t seem to be the NBC policy.

  79. 79.

    Mnemosyne

    November 5, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    @TooManyJens:

    It’s a nonsense policy when applied to commentators who were hired to have a political point of view. At the same time, Keith Olbermann knew it existed, and I don’t feel sorry for him. It’s like Clinton getting a hummer in the Oval Office—you didn’t have to do that, you idiot.

    Yeah, I’m not sure that I’m willing to take MSNBC’s word on this one, especially since they’re now sputtering that Joe Scar’s donations without permission were A-OK but Olbermann’s were suspension-worthy.

    But I’m guessing this is just the first step in the future Supreme Court case of Olbermann v MSNBC where the Roberts court decides that corporations have free speech but people don’t.

  80. 80.

    And Another Thing...

    November 5, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    @change: GO.FUCK.YOURSELF.

  81. 81.

    Violet

    November 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    But I’m guessing this is just the first step in the future Supreme Court case of Olbermann v MSNBC where the Roberts court decides that corporations have free speech but people don’t.

    Please let this happen. PLEASE.

  82. 82.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    @Violet: My link up in comment 65 is a list of all journalists who made contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007.

    @liberal: I actually think the NBC policy makes sense as a way to make sure they are not donating to complete whackos. I am guessing if there is no policy (or if they just ask for notification) then there is nothing they could do to get rid of someone contributing to David Duke.

    @Mnemosyne: Please read my comment above as well about Joe’s contributions. They quote justifying it/creating the double standard is old and completely unrelated to Keith.

  83. 83.

    TooManyJens

    November 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    @Mike E: Of COURSE, haven’t you HEARD? And then afterwards, they flew to India at a cost of eleventy trillion dollars! Michelle Bachmann read it somewhere, so it must be true!

  84. 84.

    TooManyJens

    November 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yeah, I’m not sure that I’m willing to take MSNBC’s word on this one, especially since they’re now sputtering that Joe Scar’s donations without permission were A-OK but Olbermann’s were suspension-worthy.

    I hadn’t heard that JS’s donations were without permission. That’s just fucking great.

  85. 85.

    lamh32

    November 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    @MattR:

    From everything I’ve read so far, it seems as though Olbermann did disclose it.

    How much do you wanna bet that someone (GOP, FOX, hell someone maybe at MSNBC) did not feed this story to Politico.

    I don’t believe it for one minute. The BIG difference between Joe Scar and Olbermann is that the RW crazies would make banshee screams over this, cause it’s Olbermann.

  86. 86.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    @lamh32: Really? Several places I looked including the Crooks and Liars linked in comment 2 have updates indicating the opposite.

    UPDATE: MSNBC states it wasn’t the contribution itself, but the fact that Olbermann failed to get advance approval before making it.

    (EDIT: However at this point, I think the more important thing is that the quote from an NBC spokesman about Scarborough that is being used to fuel the controversy is old and out of context.)

  87. 87.

    And Another Thing...

    November 5, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Somebody needs to fire Phil Griffin. The entertainment world is full of talented, pain in the ass people like Keith Olbermann. The last time I looked Olbermann had the best ratings. Griffin’s a FUCKING FOOL. You.just.don’t.do.this.to.the.talent.

  88. 88.

    Steve

    November 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    I think it’s perfectly sensible to bar journalists from making donations, maybe even opinion journalists. But if you’re going to do that, saying they can do it as long as they get permission is all kinds of dumb. Either ban it or don’t.

  89. 89.

    ornery curmudgeon

    November 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    It’s odd watching ‘liberal’ sites churn with fluff and new or seldom-seen commentators when something like this occurs … Yes many here are liberal (I don’t buy the label ‘leftist’), but that’s not where the $$$ is…

    This is, on it’s face, a shocking example of hypocrisy and injustice and corporate purging of one of few remaining dissenting voices to corporate rule.

    Instead we pause for conjecture (even in the intro post), and then enters ‘concerned’ handwringing and ‘let’s wait to see how this plays out, he’ll be back next week probably,’ and more conjecture and off-topic resentment and scapegoating, until gradually it becomes Olberman who (might be?) is probably to blame and anger begins from the nuttiness so that any consensus or hope of productive reaction is lost.

    We swallow sophistries and plausible or even far-fetched lies to keep believing ‘they’ are reasonable on some level, and that we are still good and brave and have a future acting just how we are acting.

    So many Progressive voices for the people have been tarnished and removed … yet re-elected Vitter sits in his diaper ruling us, Bush is on a book tour being rehabilitated by the corporate media …

  90. 90.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    @MattR:

    So what if it’s an old quote. Saying that Morning Joe is opinion but Countdown is straight news is bullshit on it’s face. KO’s entire schtick is opinion. MSNBC has a double standard, face it. By MSNBC’s logic if they approved donations only to Republicans, that would be perfectly within their rights, and A-OK with you?

    I do notice you’re trying to throw dirt on what’s a very, very clear bit of BS by MSNBC.

  91. 91.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    I believe Donahue had high ratings too when he was fired.

  92. 92.

    Poopyman

    November 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    From Crooks & Liars:

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

    So it’s not the -crime- donations, it’s the -coverup- failure to get approval.

    And do they every deny approval? On what basis?

  93. 93.

    eemom

    November 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    this thing actually started percolating over at memeorandum yesterday, and the early reports said it was an issue because he interviewed the people he donated to without disclosing that fact. So, fwiw, it appears the story has changed, if they’re now saying he wasn’t supposed to donate at all.

    Dunno. I understand the principle here, but after the events of this week I’m not going to be weeping into my pillow over KO’s big fat ego.

    Though I do think it’s kind of hilarious that he can’t do a Special Comment about this.

  94. 94.

    Mnemosyne

    November 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    @MattR:

    I actually think the NBC policy makes sense as a way to make sure they are not donating to complete whackos.

    Wait. Hold the phone. You think that your employer should be allowed to dictate to you where you’re allowed to donate your money?

    What’s next, making my boss approve all charitable donations? I’m allowed to donate to the Susan G Komen Foundation but donating to Greenpeace could get me fired?

  95. 95.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    @Bullsmith: You are completely projecting the bit about Countdown being a news program into that quote. Nothing in that quote has anything to do with Keith or whether his show qualifies as a “news program” in any way whatsoever.

    @Mnemosyne: I think for a media company that has to present an objective face to the public it is OK. I was also typing quick to respond to several comments, but my approval for the policy is also based on the premise that they approve all political contributions unless there is a very good reason.

  96. 96.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    MSNBC also fired Ashleigh Banfield for criticizing Michael Savage.

  97. 97.

    General Stuck

    November 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    I think, and am hoping this is taken by liberals and dems in general as another sign they are competing with rules, and the other side has none. And rule numero uno now days, is that the wingnuts do pay a price in the media, but it’s to buy our elections, without any shame which is saved for dems to suffer exclusively, and now with United, that extends throughout the moneyed world the republicans dominate that will be fed more and more money to up the dollar amounts, and democrats and their poorer constituents will be forced out of the democracy market.

    This is why I am predicting a more fierce and focused dem party leadership beginning with Obama and current dem congresscritters, finally rallying around the ugly notion that cash has first amendment rights. I think many dems, particularly in the House are seething over the mountains of cash they had to campaign against this election. And that seething is doubled because it was mostly cash from unknown sources who cannot be held accountable for their purchase.

    Dems may have lost the House anyway, but surely the margin of defeat would have been less, considering averaged out over all districts and candidates in House elections, the amount came to about 2 million per wingnut candidate, if I remember right. or 7 or 8 times more than the dem. It was a huge advantage, particularly for negative ads, and in the most competitive districts, much more than 2 million was spent and the ratio even higher.

    If house dems and senate too, are not pissed to the high heavens, they should be, as I know I am. And when even contributions to candidates is added to the United case, it will likely be lights out for dems, even with expected demographic gains, unless the public is educated to what is happening, and something is done.

  98. 98.

    Steve

    November 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    @MattR: Of all the possible reasons why you might want management to have discretion, allowing them to veto particular candidates based upon whether they’re a wacko is perhaps the worst. I mean, your example is David Duke, but maybe I think Sharron Angle is a wacko. Maybe someone else thinks Al Franken is a wacko. Any scenario where management is saying “if this was candidate X it would be okay, but I can’t approve candidate Y” is just nuts.

    The only justification for barring donations is that it undermines the appearance of journalistic objectivity. If that’s the rationale, then permission from management ought to make no difference whatsoever.

  99. 99.

    Mattminus

    November 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Wow, the groupthink is strong here. Most of y’all are really the mirror image of the righty commenters. There are no office politics, everything is a reich-wing conspiracy! Anyone who refuses to see the conspiracy is a plant! It’s simply impossible that anyone I agree with could have a reputation for being a jerk!

    Any talk of KO’s rights is just stupidity. He doesn’t have a right to be a cable talking head. Any comparison to Fox news is an even greater stupidity. Fox has nothing to do with this and doesn’t share MSNBC’s corporate policy.

    No matter what you think about the personalities involved, it appears that KO broke the rules. That much is entirely on him.

  100. 100.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    The thing that sucks about it is that Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough also made political donations. IOKIYAR.

    They’re saying Olbermann “didn’t ask permission first.” Meh. I’m so fucking over the liberal media.

  101. 101.

    Violet

    November 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    @MattR:

    My link up in comment 65 is a list of all journalists who made contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007.

    But that’s old news now. Is the list of who donated 2007-present available? That’s juicier info.

    @Steve:

    I think it’s perfectly sensible to bar journalists from making donations, maybe even opinion journalists. But if you’re going to do that, saying they can do it as long as they get permission is all kinds of dumb. Either ban it or don’t.

    Agreed. But can they ban journalists from donating? Legally can someone be banned from donating to a political campaign just because of where they work?

  102. 102.

    xochi

    November 5, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    @ornery curmudgeon: These limbs are easy to come by. I’m gonna go out on two and say 1) what the fuck are you talking about?, and 2) I agree with mattminus, because KO is pretty insufferable on-camera. But of course, that’s his schtick. It comes as no surprise that someone who has made so much out of being the anti-Bill O’Reilly comes across as obnoxious. Fight fire with fire, and all that.

    Still, this all seems pretty strange and stupid.

  103. 103.

    MikeTheZ

    November 5, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    @Southern Beale: I’m so fucking over it all. Someone get me a toga and a fiddle, I’m going to get my name changed to Nero.

  104. 104.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    @Steve:

    Any comparison to Fox news is an even greater stupidity. Fox has nothing to do with this and doesn’t share MSNBC’s corporate policy.

    It’s a little more nuanced than that. I know, nuance is hard. Follow me for a second:

    • Yes Olbermann broke the rules, the same rules broken by the Republicans on the network. Olbermann got fired, the Republicans did not. Well, whatever. … he should have asked mother may I, who knows, we don’t work there, what do we know. Slap him on the wrist and be done with it.

    • Tangentially (big word, look it up if you need to) there are people out there on The Twitter and The Facebook saying “Aha! Look! See this proves that MSNBC is biased and liberal and Commie and Socialist and stuff because Olbermann donated to the Democrat Party!”

    And so here is where we calmly and reasonably point out that Fox News is then also biased and conservatives and Fascist and whatever else because not only do their personalities donate routinely to the Republic Party but Rupert Murdoch gave $1 million to the GOP and another $1 million to the US Chamber of Commerce.

    So that is where Fox News comes in.

    Also, anyone who harbored delusions that Olbermann was somehow not liberal has been living under a rock for a few years.

    Too.

  105. 105.

    D-Chance.

    November 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    First, they came after The Liberal Orange Plastic Guy, then they came after me.

    Let Olbermanngate and its corresponding outrage wreak havoc, brothers in arms!

  106. 106.

    geg6

    November 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    @General Stuck:

    This is why I am predicting a more fierce and focused dem party leadership beginning with Obama and current dem congresscritters, finally rallying around the ugly notion that cash has first amendment rights. I think many dems, particularly in the House are seething over the mountains of cash they had to campaign against this election. And that seething is doubled because it was mostly cash from unknown sources who cannot be held accountable for their purchase.

    Not that I think this is the only reason, but I believe that it may play into Nancy SMASH’s decision to run for House Minority Leader. And to try to find a way to shove Hoyer out of the leadership completely.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/whack.php?ref=fpblg

  107. 107.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    @Calouste:

    I go with the theory that Olbermann did this on purpose.

    Impossible that he should have done so without first launching a tidal wave of self-aggrandizing explanation.

    By the way, Fox policy allows its employees to make political contributions and engage in political activities. Which is really the most honest thing they’ve ever done over there, when you think about it.

  108. 108.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    @MattR:

    Matt, some simple facts:

    1. When Joe Scarborough donated to a Republican, MSNBC said it was okay because he hosts an opinion show. No mention of “permission” was made.

    2. When KO did exactly the same thing, he was suspended without pay for failure to get permission. In this instance, the issue of “permission” is treated as the only relevant issue. In Joe’s case it was never even brought up.

    Same action by host, completely different reaction by MSNBC. Why are you so interested in clouding the facts here?

  109. 109.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @Violet:

    But can they ban journalists from donating? Legally can someone be banned from donating to a political campaign just because of where they work?

    Hell yeah. I’ve worked at places where you can not only not donate to certain campaigns or causes, you can’t do any activity at all. No rallies, or campaign work or even letters to the editor on political issues.

  110. 110.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @TooManyJens:

    I hadn’t heard that JS’s donations were without permission. That’s just fucking great.

    Now you’ve heard it, but that doesn’t mean that anyone has provided evidence that it’s true. As far as I can tell, this is still in the out-of-control rumor stage. It seems to rely on a MSNBC spokesman saying in 2009 that Scarborough runs an opinion show, without any reference either to whether or not Keith Olbermann’s show is opinion or news, or whether Scarborough cleared it with management first. The fact based community is on a roll again.

    As for Olbermann being an asshole, I thought this was pretty much taken as a given. It’s not like anyone in the industry is shy about saying so, or that his exit from ESPN provides any evidence to the contrary. He’s a jackass who made his name working with Dan Patrick, and he hasn’t been nearly as entertaining since he stopped working with Patrick.

    There are legitimate questions to be asked here, but I’m fresh out of sympathy for the protagonist of this story, and I’m fresh out of tolerance for the idiots on this thread who keep stringing together conjectures and calling it a case.

  111. 111.

    Mister Papercut

    November 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    I’m just waiting for the deluge of all the long-time MSNBC listeners registering their outrage at such a gross abridgement of this journalist’s free speech rights.

  112. 112.

    Bob L

    November 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    MSNBC explation why it is bad when Olbermann did it and ok when Scarboro did is truely hilerious. They basically admitted that since Olbermann is a liberal he telling the truth so they need to protect it and Morning Joe is just talking out of his ass so WTF. This really is damn funny in a black comedy kind of way.

  113. 113.

    lamh32

    November 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Hilarious, now Bill Kristol is defending Olbermann. I ain’t gonna link to it, but Ben Smith has it on his blog at politico!

  114. 114.

    Thoughtcrime

    November 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @Violet:

    Legally can someone be banned from donating to a political campaign just because of where they work?

    How about we ask Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy?

    They know what’s best for the American people.

  115. 115.

    David Brooks (not that one)

    November 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @Calouste: Not a teenager. My son is 31 :-)

  116. 116.

    MikeJ

    November 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I understand why media outlets want to stop keep their employees from donating. It’s to stop the appearance of bias.

    But it doesn’t do anything about actual bias. Not donating doesn’t mean a journalist has no opinion on politics. It simply means we don’t know what his or her real opinions are.

    Disclosure is the solution. Don’t like your money going to gay bashers? Don’t shop at Target. Don’t want your news coming from someone who contributes to Democrats? Don’t watch Keith Olberman.

  117. 117.

    Dennis SGMM

    November 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    @John PM:
    It has been two years this month since I’ve watched anything but old movies on the teevee.

    I guess that being old and tired has taken its toll. All that watching the nooz did for me was to make me furious about things over which I had no power what so ever.

  118. 118.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    I have a comment which is awaiting moderation and I don’t know whyyyyyy

  119. 119.

    Jay in Oregon

    November 5, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    @Scott:

    When Democrats are in office, you get rid of your liberals and hire more conservatives, because SHUT UP, JUST FIRE THE LIBRULS

    I thought it was more of “We need to provide a balanced view on the Democratic administration.”

  120. 120.

    piratedan

    November 5, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    wondering how in the hell that contract language is even valid…. getting permission to donate to whatever political candidates you wish is a right guaranteed by Citizen’s United, isn’t it?

  121. 121.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    It has been two years this month since I’ve watched anything but old movies on the teevee.

    I guess that being old and tired has taken its toll. All that watching the nooz did for me was to make me furious about things over which I had no power what so ever.

    Amen to that. It’s like a drug, it really is. It brainwashes people. They need to put down the TV-remote-shaped crack pipe.

  122. 122.

    kay

    November 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    It’s so hard for me to gin up any sympathy for Olbermann. He was a complete mental case on the health care bill. I stopped watching after the “take me to jail if you must” nonsense. For God’s sake, shut up and read the proposed bill. You’re not going to jail, Mr. Millionaire.

  123. 123.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    @General Stuck:

    And when even contributions to candidates is added to the United case, it will likely be lights out for dems, even with expected demographic gains, unless the public is educated to what is happening, and something is done.

    Educating the public is *never* the answer to combat dirty tricks. Fully 2/3 of the voting public is simply uneducable about this stuff-too partisan or too stupid-and those who do care already know. I know that sounds harsh, but lefties had got to get over the idea that the public will respond to this type of thing with any real force. They won’t. The last 30 years has shown us that many, many people can very easily be conned into voting against their own interests with nothing but a few well-placed words and pictures, so I think we need a different strategy.

  124. 124.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    1. When Joe Scarborough donated to a Republican, MSNBC said it was okay because he hosts an opinion show. No mention of “permission” was made.

    2. When KO did exactly the same thing, he was suspended without pay for failure to get permission. In this instance, the issue of “permission” is treated as the only relevant issue. In Joe’s case it was never even brought up.

    That’s because no one was asking whether he had permission. They asked why he was allowed to make the donation. Saying that they didn’t answer a question that wasn’t asked is dumb.

    You’re drawing conspiracy lines in your own head.

  125. 125.

    Todd Pearson

    November 5, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    The point is hyprocisy, which probably shouldn’t result in a supsension since we are all guilty of it to some degree. Being pro-life is fine; being pro-life until your daughter gets pregnant is hyprocisy. Olbermann blasted the exact same actions that he personally engaged in. I have no sympathy for his predicament. He makes a living slamming people for not living up to some standard that he won’t live up to himself. Glenn Beck is Howard Beale, but Olbermann is his understudy.

  126. 126.

    Paris

    November 5, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Faux will hire him, right?

  127. 127.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    @Violet:

    Legally can someone be banned from donating to a political campaign just because of where they work?

    Yes. That’s an easy one, and has been true for the entire history of the Republic.

  128. 128.

    chopper

    November 5, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    by sheer coincidence, palin’s official tweeter broke both her hands in a skeeball accident.

    BTW, just as an aside: my 22 month-old girl has taken to saying “also, too”. and i had nothing to do with it. like i’ll tell her when we’re going to day care that she’s going to see a friend of hers and she’ll name another one “also, too.”

  129. 129.

    Dennis SGMM

    November 5, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @Southern Beale:
    If any of the words contained the letters “c,” “i,” “a,” and “l” and “s” in that order then you have your answer. I forgot that the other day and correctly the spelled the “ism” that’s soshul and my pithy, urbane, Dorothy Parker-grade comment went to mod.

  130. 130.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @kay:

    Keith Olbermann is a blowhard but he’s a blowhard on our side. My guess is that this was an in-your-face provocation on his part, daring his bosses to do anything about it. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

    (btw, Rachel is not going anywhere. She’s smarter and nowhere near the hothead Keith is.)

  131. 131.

    MikeJ

    November 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @piratedan: It’s not the government stopping him from donating, it’s our betters at GE. Citizens United Not Timid doesn’t have anything to do with this case.

  132. 132.

    Mark S.

    November 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yeah, I’m not sure that I’m willing to take MSNBC’s word on this one, especially since they’re now sputtering that Joe Scar’s donations without permission were A-OK but Olbermann’s were suspension-worthy.

    I haven’t seen that either. Do you have a link?

  133. 133.

    The Moar You Know

    November 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    This week just gets better and better!

    @change: Gotta agree with you on this one, troll. I find Olbermann both unwatchable and insufferable. He’s an embarrassment to liberalism and we are far better off without him.

    Fortunately, we still have Maddow, whose awesomeness knows no limits.

  134. 134.

    Violet

    November 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @Southern Beale:

    Hell yeah. I’ve worked at places where you can not only not donate to certain campaigns or causes, you can’t do any activity at all. No rallies, or campaign work or even letters to the editor on political issues.

    What kinds of places were those, just out of curiosity? Was there some concern with an appearance of a conflict of interest or something?

    Seems like there could be a First Amendment freedom of speech here. Why should the employer dictate what you do on your off time? Weird gray area.

  135. 135.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    @Bullsmith: Geez. I am trying to clarify the actual facts instead of lump them all together. The reason why? I have heard the story of the boy who cried wolf and learned a lesson from it. If you want to be taken seriously when there is a real double standard, it helps if you are not constantly whining about imagined ones.

    As for no mention of permission being made. That is true in the quote itself, but the article that lists Scarborough’s contribution prefaces the quote by noting the NBC policy requiring that permission be given. Which might make you think the quote was explaining why permission was given. (The headline of the article reads: “The list: Journalists who wrote political checks
    And their explanations, from ‘Yikes!’ to ‘They’re all in somebody’s pocket’ “) At the very least I find the notion doubtful that the reporter discovered that Scarborough violated the policy by not asking permission but did not include that info in his listing.

  136. 136.

    lamh32

    November 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    @kay:

    I’m where you’re at kay, but I still think Olbermann for all his self-righteousness (I really was done when he started his whole “primary Obama” thing during the HCR fight), but darn, it still seemed like MSNBC we way overboard for what superficially seems like a first-time infarction.

  137. 137.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    There are legitimate questions to be asked here, but I’m fresh out of sympathy for the protagonist of this story, and I’m fresh out of tolerance for the idiots on this thread who keep stringing together conjectures and calling it a case.

    This.

  138. 138.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @kay:

    It’s so hard for me to gin up any sympathy for Olbermann. He was a complete mental case on the health care bill Barry Bonds (and I don’t even like Barry Bonds) Ken Burns (and I don’t even like Ken Burns) Suzy Kolber (I do like looking at Suzy Kolber) pretty much anything he’s ever opened his mouth on.

    Fixed

  139. 139.

    martha

    November 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @Dennis SGMM: I’m about there with you, only I’m partial to Home and Garden and the Food Network and PBS and sports on ESPN if there’s something I can stand watching. I’ve stopped watching the news and MSNBC and all of it. I’m not as crabby, that’s for sure.

  140. 140.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    MSNBC, oddly enough, seems very similar to the Democratic Party itself.

    Every once in awhile they throw a liberal (Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Olbermann) to the right wing wolves.

    But they don’t necessarily change their center left politics.

    Chris Matthews seems untouchable. But he probably still has some clout in the Democratic Party. Didn’t he write the “Malaise” speech for Carter?

    And does anybody think Mika Brzezinski would be on the air at all if her name were “Snooki Brzezinski” and her father wasn’t the ex head of the Trilateral Commission.

    If they give someone like Cenk Uygur Olbermann’s place it wouldn’t really suprise me. Olbermann was the ultimate piece of red meat to throw to the right.

    But I don’t think MSNBC wants to become right. I just think they want part of Fox’s audience.

  141. 141.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    @Violet:

    What kinds of places were those, just out of curiosity? Was there some concern with an appearance of a conflict of interest or something?

    One was a federal government agency and one was a media company.

  142. 142.

    chopper

    November 5, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    can we replace him with another hour of rachel maddow? maybe we can clone her? or does she have a sibling who is anywhere near as awesome as she is?

  143. 143.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    @leftist:

    I’m sorry but exactly why do we need to throw red meat to the right? What do we get out of it? That wolf is always hungry.

  144. 144.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    @eemom:

    this thing actually started percolating over at memeorandum yesterday, and the early reports said it was an issue because he interviewed the people he donated to without disclosing that fact.

    That was what I speculated at Steve Benen’s:

    Is it important that, from the previous story, “He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s ‘Countdown’ show”? Is that much more journalistically unethical than giving a contribution at any other time… like it might suggest a quid pro quo? I have no idea, I’m just guessing.

  145. 145.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    @Violet:

    Seems like there could be a First Amendment freedom of speech here. Why should the employer dictate what you do on your off time? Weird gray area.

    It isn’t even vaguely a gray area. It’s just about as black and white as you can get. The First Amendment forbids the government from putting restrictions on your speech. The government only. Contractual relationships, such as working for someone, are not relevant to the First Amendment. At all.

  146. 146.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    @Southern Beale:

    I’m not saying I agree with it anymore than I agree with Obama’s using James O’Keefe as an excuse to get rid of Acorn.

    I’m just speculating about their motives.

  147. 147.

    kay

    November 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    Keith Olbermann is a blowhard but he’s a blowhard on our side.

    I’m picky about “my” advocates, and I know I can’t choose them, but there it is. There was so much stupid noise around the health care bill and he has to start throwing prison into the mix. Idiot.

    I’d like to deliver Huffington back to the GOP, actually, while I’m at it. Drop her on their doorstep. “Here! I believe this is yours!”

    I freaking cringe when I see her presenting herself as the champion of the middle class. It’s comical. Please, please don’t advocate for me Arianna. You’re killing me with kindness.

  148. 148.

    wasabi gasp

    November 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    To stem any further job loss induced by the shady crossroads of politics and money, the public’s interest would be best served by making donations to liberal candidates a capital offense.

  149. 149.

    chopper

    November 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    this. for example, i can’t leak trade secrets if i work for some company or i’ll get shitcanned at the very least. that isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s an employment contract issue.

  150. 150.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @chopper:

    can we replace him with another hour of rachel maddow? maybe we can clone her? or does she have a sibling who is anywhere near as awesome as she is?

    This. If we had a world full of Rachels-who doesn’t apologize, back down or or twist herself into knots trying to appeal t everybody, and does it with a smile and oh-so-politely-progressives would rule the world.

  151. 151.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @Mark S.:

    I saw it at C&L, there may be other links.

  152. 152.

    Elia

    November 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Isn’t O-mann a huge PITA for management?

    I would imagine this has been a long time coming and is not really about the donations – much less a response to Boehnmentum.

  153. 153.

    tamied

    November 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    But this is excellent news for John McCain of course.

  154. 154.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    @Southern Beale: There is nothing there that says that Scarborough gave a donation without permission (which I belive is what Mark S was asking about)

  155. 155.

    Poopyman

    November 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @Southern Beale: Yeah, that day is coming real soon. I realized not long ago that I couldn’t eat with the TV on because it ruined my digestion.

    Guess I’ll be eating in front of the computer screen. Oh, wait ….

  156. 156.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    No I’m not drawing conspiracy lines, I’m reacting to a schizophrenic PR response from MSNBC. They’re the one’s who decided to frame two examples of the identical issue as somehow completely different. Will they now say Joe had permission? That makes it okay to have a double standard, because they pre-approve it?

    One more time the FACTS are: Morning host gives to Republican, it’s okay. Evening host gives to Democrats they get suspended. Everything else is just spin. If the rules were iron clad they would’ve brought up the “permission” policy in the Joe Scarborough case. They didn’t because it’s only relevant if they decide it is, there is no real standard being applied here.

    That’s the picture MSNBC is presenting to the world. No conspiracies required, they made this mess all by themselves. They have a stupid policy and they don’t apply it evenly as proven by the completely different PR spin given about Keith’s donations as compared to Joe’s.

  157. 157.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @kay:

    I’d like to deliver Huffington back to the GOP, actually, while I’m at it. Drop her on their doorstep. “Here! I believe this is yours!”

    Arianna Huffington is useful for her money, but that’s about it. Every time I see her representing liberal positions on some talk show I just cringe, mostly because she usually has no idea what she’s talking about.

  158. 158.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @kay: I don’t mean to keep picking on you, but . . .

    Please, please don’t advocate for me Arianna. You’re killing me with kindness self-promotion.

    As much of a jackass as he is, I do believe that Olbermann’s stated opinions are honest. I have never thought that about Huffington, even back when she broadcast from the same bed as Al Franken. (No, literally, for those of you too young to remember Strange Bedfellows.)

  159. 159.

    artem1s

    November 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Hmmm, backlash for Juan Williams anyone?

    also, looks like its not such a bad gig being a progressive in the House…

    http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12713

  160. 160.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @kay: And this, too.

    I know we don’t have that many guys on our side on cable, but must we heap praise on such shoddy work?

    Maddow is 30 Rock and Olbermann is Third Rock from the Sun. I recognize that the latter was a very popular sitcom. Doesn’t mean it was a smart, witty, or fast-moving comedy.

  161. 161.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    @J. Michael Neal: Was that a George stunt? Or am I misremembering in my middle age?

  162. 162.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    @Elia: Except for the way that there was a lot of chatter about how the MSNBC hosts on Election Night had been badgering and laughing at Republicans. Jon Stewart was banging that particular drum, and so was Bob Somerby. I expect that the right was baying for blood. Could be a coincidence, but it’s interesting.

  163. 163.

    Poopyman

    November 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    The last 30 years has shown us that many, many people can very easily be conned into voting against their own interests with nothing but a few well-placed words and pictures, so I think we need a different strategy.

    Yeah, we need a way to con them into voting for their own interests. It sounds stupid, but that’s the only way I see out of this mess.

  164. 164.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    @leftist:

    I hear ya.

    I think this probably has more to do with Olbermann’s long battles with Phil Griffin and Comcast’s pending purchase of NBC/Universal than anything else. Rather than this being red meat thrown to the right wing Olbermann could have been sacrificed to make the Comcast deal go down. They may have had a boner for him or something.

    Anyway this was a major fuckup on MSNBC’s part — also, a major fuckup on Olbermann’s part, it’s possible he knew they wouldn’t let him make the contribution if he asked permission so he did it anyway.

    I predict Olbermann will be suspended for a week without pay and be back and that will be that.

  165. 165.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    One more time the FACTS are: Morning host gives to Republican, it’s okay. Evening host gives to Democrats they get suspended. Everything else is just spin. If the rules were iron clad they would’ve brought up the “permission” policy in the Joe Scarborough case. They didn’t because it’s only relevant if they decide it is, there is no real standard being applied here.

    Let’s try an analogy. I have a brand new sports car that I don’t let anyone else drive without permission. One day a reporter sees that my friend Joe was driving the car and asks me about it. I tell the reporter that Joe is a very cautious driver. Later on my friend Keith takes the car out for a drive without asking me. I get pissed and decide to no longer be friends with Keith.

    Did I have a double standard? Am I spinning things since I never explicitly mentioned that Joe had permission to take my car out when the reporter called and asked?

    @Southern Beale: Bear in mind that Keith said this was his first political contribution (at least while at MSNBC) so there is a decent chance he was not fully aware of the policy, or that he forgot about it.

  166. 166.

    Bulworth

    November 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/today_in_shortsightedness.php?ref=fpblg

    OT and open thread stuff, but when did Kurtz start concern-trolling?

  167. 167.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    @shortstop:

    Maddow is 30 Rock and Olbermann is Third Rock from the Sun.

    Can Lawrence O’Donnell be Cop Rock? No one’s quite sure why the weird premise got greenlighted.

    Who gets to be “Schoolhouse Rock”?

  168. 168.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    @shortstop: No, it was a stunt on Politically Incorrect back during the 1996 national conventions.

    Jesus, it was *that* long ago?

  169. 169.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @Southern Beale:

    The way he was suspended (for not asking permission and not for the donations themselves) seems to conform to standard right wing practice.

    Remember Ward Churchill. The actual reason he was fired was the 9/11 speech. The “official” reason he was fired was because a group of scholars spent a few weeks going through his work. They eventually found a few questionable footnotes.

    This not only brings in Fox viewers. It sends a message.

    If “we” are going to be attacking Iran any time in the near future, Rachel Maddow might just need a reminder of what could happen if she doesn’t go along.

  170. 170.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @Bulworth: When did Kurtz _not_ concern troll? I feel like he’s done that, um, always.

  171. 171.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @Bulworth: 2007

  172. 172.

    Sentient Puddle

    November 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @chopper:

    can we replace him with another hour of rachel maddow?

    I vote this.

  173. 173.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    @artem1s: @artem1s:

    Hmmm, backlash for Juan Williams anyone?

    ?? As I remember it, Juan Williams got a $2 million contract at Fox News after saying Muslims on planes make him nervous. And I also recall Olbermann defending him for making that statement.

  174. 174.

    geg6

    November 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    @leftist:

    I’m not saying I agree with it anymore than I agree with Obama’s using James O’Keefe as an excuse to get rid of Acorn.

    WTF? Link, please. I had no idea that Obama was the one that disbanded ACORN. Especially since the executive branch has no control over the budget, which is how ACORN got de-funded.

  175. 175.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    @shortstop:

    I know we don’t have that many guys on our side on cable, but must we heap praise on such shoddy work?

    I think it’s entirely possible to take this too seriously. For myself, when I watch Countdown I do it for the sole pleasure of watching the right wing get pounded into dust for an hour. It certainly serves that purpose and from that perspective is a very entertaining show.

    However, I watch Rachel Maddow to actually get some real news and learn something. The shows are two sides of the same coin.

  176. 176.

    kay

    November 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    As much of a jackass as he is, I do believe that Olbermann’s stated opinions are honest.

    Absolutely true. Good point.

    In my more paranoid moments, I think Huffington is actually on the other side :)

    Not a good feeling, but can she be that bad and be well-intentioned?

  177. 177.

    leftist

    November 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @geg6:

    Pelosi might be the more accurate reference. Let’s just say “The Democratic Party.”

    They controlled both houses of Congress and defunded Acorn without hearings.

    James O’Keefe was a transparent fraud from the beginning. Pelosi and Obama weren’t stupid enough to buy what he was selling.

    He was an excuse.

  178. 178.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    And again what kills me about all of this is the BAZILLIONS of dollars the media has raked in on this midterm election in the form of campaign ads.

    We need to find a better way.

  179. 179.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    @Southern Beale: One other thing that popped into my head is that I don’t think we have any way of knowing if Joe Scarborough (or anyone else) gave $$ to entities like Rove’s Crossroads GPS.

  180. 180.

    Mister Papercut

    November 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    @shortstop: I would actually go for Big Bang Theory for Olbermann: nowhere near as smart as it or its hard-core fans thinks it is.

  181. 181.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    @Poopyman:

    we need a way to con them into voting for their own interests. It sounds stupid, but that’s the only way I see out of this mess.

    No, that’s clever, but I’m not sure it’s possible. My idea has long been to try to expose the con _as_ a con. Some version of “Don’t let them get away with treating you like you’re stupid” as a tag line. My best example is the way Republicans started caterwauling about Bill Clinton’s “largest tax hike in American history,” which was only true if you counted it in _raw dollars_. But it sure sounds like it must mean an _increase in the rate_. The important part isn’t the explanation, but to hammer the fact that Republicans count on your trust and play you for a chump, _but you’re not a chump_.

  182. 182.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    In non-Keith Olbermann news, the Log Cabin Republicans are officially vacating the 9th Circuit and taking Dont Ask Dont Tell repeat to SCOTUS.

    Wow. I picked the wrong week to stop shooting heroin.

  183. 183.

    Mark S.

    November 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    @MattR:

    Yeah, it doesn’t say Joe gave his w/o permission. The NBC spokesperson kinda dumb:

    A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. “Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe’s. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.”

    Never mind that nobody thinks KO hosts anything but an opinion program, nobody cares if Kitts is an old friend of Joe’s or if they used to be fuck buddies. What we care about is if there was disparate treatment between Joe and KO. If there was, KO could sue the pants off of NBC.

  184. 184.

    batgirl

    November 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    @Thoughtcrime: Probably, if it is in a private employment contract, as it is in this case. I’m guessing that many news organizations have something like this. Not surprised FOX doesn’t because they aren’t a news organization no matter how much Jack Tapper likes to think of them as his sister organization.

    Of course, it would be an interesting case to take to the Supreme Court. — Can you require an employee to give up some of the first amendment rights (donating to a political candidate/cause) in an employment contract? In any contract? Or just in an organization, such as a news organization, where the perception of political bias, can affect the way one does his/her job? Definitely, interesting questions.

  185. 185.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    @leftist: An excuse to kill ACORN? To what end? Is this one of those “shadowy corporatists control everything, bwahahahah” posts?

  186. 186.

    Bulworth

    November 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: I hadn’t noticed until some DFH on these threads mentioned him. But I read that post at TPM and was like, WTF?

  187. 187.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    I think it’s entirely possible to take this too seriously. For myself, when I watch Countdown I do it for the sole pleasure of watching the right wing get pounded into dust for an hour. It certainly serves that purpose and from that perspective is a very entertaining show.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I have no problem with the concept of political entertainment on cable news channels (although I have a huge problem with the reality of having only political entertainment on cable news channels). I just have moderately high standards for entertainment (thus my comment above about 30 Rock vs. Third Rock). Olbermann is excruciatingly hamhanded, slow-paced, unprepared, florid, smug, and repetitious. Five minutes of his show feels like 50.

  188. 188.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    @Mark S.: You have to remember that quote in from 2009 and has nothing to do with Keith.

    @Southern Beale: Good for them. Though color me shocked that the Log Cabin Republicans are actually trying to advance gay rights

    @Southern Beale: Now that is an issue worth bringing up. I find it hard to believe though since it really opens the door for an Olbermann lawsuit and I have to believe some lawyer somewhere at NBC would have brought that up.

  189. 189.

    MikeJ

    November 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    @Southern Beale: It’s just the injunction. No way Kennedy or the full court will lift it. Ok, I suppose it’s possible, but it would surprise me a lot.

  190. 190.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Uh-oh. MSNBC might just be making it all up:

    NBC News rules explicitly bar employees from making political donations without prior approval, which is ostensibly why Griffin suspended Olbermann. But according to one NBC News insider, it’s common knowledge within the organization that MSNBC’s increasingly left-wing programming and personalities aren’t required to abide by NBC News’ exacting rules—if they were, it would be a much less bombastic and politically charged network. So while Olbermann’s donations may have run counter to the NBC News brand and Griffin’s wishes, there doesn’t appear to be a chapter-and-verse policy applying to MSNBC employees barring them.

    “The standards department has told us that MSNBC doesn’t answer to NBC News standards,” the insider said. “They don’t have coverage over MSNBC. They used to, back before MSNBC went political, but at some point it became too hard and MSNBC was taken out of their portfolio. As far as I know, there are no ethical standards at MSNBC. And if NBC says MSNBC is supposed to be living up to the NBC News standards, that’s a preposterous lie.”

    Will be interesting to watch this ….

  191. 191.

    geg6

    November 5, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    @eemom:

    this thing actually started percolating over at memeorandum yesterday, and the early reports said it was an issue because he interviewed the people he donated to without disclosing that fact.

    They couldn’t go with that as the story because the blowback would be that, also too, Scarborough interviewed the guy he donated to on his show after he donated.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12172226/

  192. 192.

    Poopyman

    November 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Ruh-roh. Crooks and Liars is now playing Follow the Money. It doesn’t seem to me that that’s going to uncover anything we haven’t seen already, except that they do post what is said to be the NBC policy in question:

    “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.”

    ETA: And Southern Beale made this moot two comments above. (Shakes fist.)

  193. 193.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    I keep thinking about Ronald Reagan when he said, “Never speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Thirty years later, Democrats and liberals *still* don’t understand the power of the united front.

    No matter what one might think of Olbermann in general, can any of us imagine Fox even thinking about doing something like this to one of their biggest primetime hosts, no matter how much of an idiot they thought that host was personally (cough*SeanHannity*cough)?

  194. 194.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    @J. Michael Neal: Ah, right. But I also have a clear visual image of a magazine cover photo of Franken and Huffington in bed together waving exuberantly at the camera above. I even remember Franken’s blue-striped pajamas. If I’m hallucinating this, things are worse than I thought.

  195. 195.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    @shortstop:

    Five minutes of his show feels like 50.

    Have you watched the Lawrence O’Donnell show? It feels like you’re drifting in the Phantom Zone, where neither time nor space have meaning. You drop a coffee cup on the Lawrence O’Donnell show and it falls up, then you remember the shards of the cup forming into a cup shape a moment beforehand, because entropy has been reversed and memory is running forwards. The longer you watch it, the longer it takes for it to be over.

  196. 196.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    I confess I rarely watch Olbermann any more, I’m a news junkie and usually have already heard whatever it is he’s talking about that night anyway. Heard about it, blogged about, commented on it, am done with it.

    That said, just because I don’t watch, I realize there are people with real lives out there who might not have an opportunity to get this information without his show. So.

    Free Olbermann!

  197. 197.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    @Susan Ross: Well, again, Fox policy openly allows their people to donate to whomever they want — which, again, is far more aboveboard than Fox usually tries to be.

  198. 198.

    eemom

    November 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    at this very moment, Olbermann is probably on a conference call with an army of lawyers whose hourly rates combined could feed the entire population of a good-sized third world country.

    Just a little perspective zall.

  199. 199.

    jl

    November 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Why? they are big sack o’ rocks stoopid. Like the rest of the corporate media.

    edit: Given corporate media stupidity, I would like to hear KO’s explanation, if he did understand the policy, and knew it, and has to abide by it for his contract. Is he arrogant, or trying to make a statement of some kind?

  200. 200.

    Steve

    November 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Actually, it is 100% illegal in New York State to fire or punish an employee for engaging in political activity… except for, wouldn’t you know it, professional journalists.

  201. 201.

    Waynski

    November 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Cough… Cough.. Bullshit… Cough Cough

  202. 202.

    JGabriel

    November 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Anonymous NBC Insider Source @ Gawker via Southern Beale:

    As far as I know, there are no ethical standards at MSNBC.

    Queue up the Fox Wurlitzer. They’re gonna jump all over that quote.

    On the other hand:

    But according to one NBC News insider, it’s common knowledge within the organization that MSNBC’s increasingly left-wing programming and personalities aren’t required to abide by NBC News’ exacting rules … “The standards department has told us that MSNBC doesn’t answer to NBC News standards,” the insider said.

    If true, Olbermann will sue their asses off. That’s an open and shut case if Olbermann’s contract doesn’t require him to notify NBC heads of his political donations.

    .

  203. 203.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    @shortstop: I did really like Olbermann during his time at ESPN (except towards the end, when it was obviously a relationship headed downawards). (And contra Mister Papercut, I think Keith Olbermann is really smart. He’s just really smart but arrogant, annoying and not very funny anymore.) I still maintain that he misses Dan Patrick a lot, and that’s the big problem with his gig.

    Every so often, I would hear him show up on Patrick’s ESPN Radio show (which must mean he does it a lot, since I’ve probably only heard Patrick’s show 3-4 times total, and caught Olbermann multiple times). The two of them were still really good together. Most importantly, Patrick knows how to let some of the air out of Olbermann when he gets out of control. Then again, Dan Patrick is really good at what he does.

  204. 204.

    eemom

    November 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    tee hee. that is teh funny.

  205. 205.

    cleek

    November 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    @kay:
    clap clap clap

  206. 206.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    @Mister Papercut: I’m chuckling knowingly (but unconvincingly, because I haven’t seen it) at your analogy.

  207. 207.

    Larkspur

    November 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Keith Olbermann is obnoxious. Michael Moore is obnoxious and fat. Blah blah blah. Niceness and slenderness are not bona fide occupational requirements. I don’t know if his suspension was nitpicky, retaliatory, or what, but I assume he’ll be back after his suspension and I will resume watching him, when I can (I don’t have cable at home), and, as usual, I’ll be agreeing with him and disagreeing with him. His personal charm doesn’t concern me.

    I get tired of having to give these little prefaces that go, “Well, I know Michael Moore is a blowhard and kind of obnoxious, but Fahrenheit 911 was nevertheless a powerful film,” or “I know Keith Olbermann comes off as a big self-important jerk, but sometimes he’s right on the mark, and he often brings interesting people on deck to interview, so shut up that’s how I justify watching him even though I should be way cooler than that”. Ya know?

  208. 208.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    @Steve:

    Actually, it is 100% illegal in New York State to fire or punish an employee for engaging in political activity.

    This may be true, but it has nothing a

  209. 209.

    fasteddie9318

    November 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Well, there goes MSNBC. Sorry, Rachel, but you’re next.

  210. 210.

    priscianus jr

    November 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    @MattR: IMO, it’s just as likely that MSNBC is sick of all the criticsm they receive from the Right over Olbermann

    Awww, MSNBC diddums don’t wike bad kwiticizm?

  211. 211.

    TooManyJens

    November 5, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    (No, literally, for those of you too young to remember Strange Bedfellows.)

    …there are people too young to remember Strange Bedfellows, aren’t there. Oh God.

  212. 212.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    @Steve:

    Actually, it is 100% illegal in New York State to fire or punish an employee for engaging in political activity

    This may be true, but it has nothing to do with the first amendment to the *US* Constitution.

  213. 213.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    I keep thinking about Ronald Reagan when he said, “Never speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Thirty years later, Democrats and liberals still don’t understand the power of the united front.

    Yes but our side is different. We are neither authoritarian nor homogenous. Fighting against that is like asking the wind to stop blowing.

  214. 214.

    Dennis SGMM

    November 5, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @martha:

    I had a moment of clarity. I’d gone to see the doctor for something relatively minor and my blood pressure was so high that they threw me down and gave me an EKG to make sure that my heart wasn’t orbiting Jupiter. Doc prescribed a fistful of meds and I didn’t want to go that route because I see lots of people my age (I’m in my sixties) who have to take meds and then meds for the meds etc. I turned off the box, did more of other things, rescued a dog, and did some other old fashioned things. It worked. My BP went down to what doc considers optimal and I’m a much more happy person.

  215. 215.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @shortstop:

    Well, again, Fox policy openly allows their people to donate to whomever they want—which, again, is far more aboveboard than Fox usually tries to be.

    And good on them for doing it. At least in this little tiny corner of the universe, they aren’t trying to pretend to be something they are not, which MSNBC clearly is.

  216. 216.

    Tim I

    November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    MSNBC doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They took no action against Scarborough or Buchanan for similar infractions. It is also being reported that the NBC News rules have never been applied to hosts of opinion shows on MSNBC.

    I hope Keith is already discussing how to proceed on this matter with his attorneys.

  217. 217.

    JGabriel

    November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    … can any of us imagine Fox even thinking about doing something like this to one of their biggest primetime hosts, no matter how much of an idiot they thought that host was personally?

    To be fair, their demographic requires that Fox’s hosts be idiots.

    .

  218. 218.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: No, I admit that I haven’t. Because he does his homework and knows his stuff, I do like him as a guest or panelist on other shows (except when he realizes suddenly that 15 minutes have passed without his mentioning that he was a Senate staffer, and he hastens to rectify the omission). You’re convincing me that trying him out for an hour is not a good use of my limited time!

  219. 219.

    Calliope Jane

    November 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    For what it’s worth, I’m really, really grateful for the AZ donations. Really, really grateful.

    And now HuffPo updated that Chris Hayes isn’t going to host tonight’s show? Jeez.

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

  220. 220.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Chris Hayes no longer subbing for Olbermann tonight.

  221. 221.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    @MattR:

    When Scarborough gave to a Republican the official response from MSNBC was it’s no big deal, he’s just an opinion host who gave to his friend.

    When KO gave to Democrats the official response from MSNBC was this is a deadly serious matter that requires permission in advance and failing to obtain it has forced us to suspend him without pay.

    There is no evidence in the record that Scarborough asked for permission, as you seem to presume he did, but even if he did the reaction to the issue by MSNBC was night and day. In the Scarborough case it was treated as fundamentally not an important issue for reasons that logically apply to Olbermann as much as to Scarborough (basically that his political views are already clearly out there), but this time it’s so vitally important KO has to be taken off the air and his pay suspended. To use your analogy when Joe drives my car he’s just borrowing an old sedan, but if Keith does it he’s stolen a Mercedes Benz. It’s not just that there’s a double standard, it’s that in the KO case breaching the standard requires action, where as the possibility of Joe having done it didn’t merit more than a one line explanation. The difference in MSNBC’s whole framing of the underlying issue in the two cases is unmistakable to me. You feel that Joe probably asked permission and Keith didn’t so this is all okay. I strongly disagree, and frankly if Scarborough had asked permission a competent PR strategy would’ve had that fact at hand before suspending Keith.

    One reason we disagree I think is that I read the MSNBC PR and it screams bullshit to me, whereas you’re inclined to take it as good faith truth-telling. My wife spent decades doing PR for big oil, and this smells awfully familiar, but that’s just my opinion.

    But still, in the end MSNBC on-air personalities have made multiple political donations to Republicans without any reprisal. A donation to Democrats, however, got the guy who made it yanked off the air. For a news organization that is deliberately targeting a democratic audience, that’s just atrocious PR.

  222. 222.

    JGabriel

    November 5, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    But I’m guessing this is just the first step in the future Supreme Court case of Olbermann v MSNBC where the Roberts court decides that corporations have free speech but people employees don’t.

    Corrected for likely SC reasoning: that employees aren’t people.

    .

  223. 223.

    Steve

    November 5, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    This may be true, but it has nothing to do with the first amendment to the US Constitution.

    That’s correct. However, people tend to want to avoid breaking the law even if they aren’t violating the Constitution.

    I wouldn’t want anyone to go away from this thread with the idea that it is perfectly legal for your employer to punish you for supporting or donating to the wrong candidate. At least in some states, it is illegal for them to do so. If your state hasn’t made it illegal yet, maybe they should.

  224. 224.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    @J. Michael Neal: I took Mr. Papercut’s comment to mean not that Olbermann isn’t smart, but that his show isn’t.

  225. 225.

    Scott

    November 5, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    I suspect that Olbermann will be back on the air in less than a week — the buzz is that he got fired for donating to Democrats, while Scarborough and Buchanan get to donate to Republicans without penalty.

    Yes, he got fired for not requesting permission to make the donations, but the buzz is already too strong for MSNBC’s PR to overcome — “everyone knows” that Olbermann was fired for donating to liberals while his bosses ignored the conservatives donating to the GOP.

    Pressure will be high to explain themselves better, bring Olbermann back, or apply the policy to other MSNBC personnel — and they don’t want to fire Buchanan or Scarborough, so they’ll have to bring Keith back.

    However, since Keith now knows that the brass want his head, he may not come back at all. Not sure who he’d go to, since neither Fox nor CNN would want him… Might just go back to sports full time…

  226. 226.

    cleek

    November 5, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    @batgirl:

    Can you require an employee to give up some of the first amendment rights (donating to a political candidate/cause) in an employment contract?

    sure.

    not sure about political donations, but you can be certainly forbidden from speaking publicly against your employer, for example.

    In any contract?

    sure!

  227. 227.

    Martin

    November 5, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    For-profit corporation fires employee. There’s a story here?

    The only reason MSNBC tacked to the left was to get the under-90 demographic that Fox News was leaving on the table. They’re not interested in ‘balancing’ out Fox, or in delivering news. If Maddow does that it, it’s because of Maddow, not MSNBC. They’re only interested in picking up all of the advertisers that aren’t Viagra, Depends, Goldline, and Hoveround.

    Stop expecting MSNBC to be less dishonest than Fox. They aren’t. They’re simply less profitable.

  228. 228.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    @Southern Beale:

    Yes but our side is different. We are neither authoritarian nor homogenous.

    LOL, my parents were different, too, but at least they knew enough not to fight in front of the kids. Not being able to find consensus even amongst ideological friends smacks of disorganization and weakness in the public’s mind. We may not like that, but it is 100% true. I don’t see barking and sniping and going all Bart Stupak on each other as a strength, frankly.

    Fighting against that is like asking the wind to stop blowing.

    *shrugs*

    Prepare to keep losing, then, even when you win. Ben Nelson, anyone?

  229. 229.

    Mike E

    November 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Olbermann is a pro. He put in his time, honed his craft, and worked his way up to where he is. I appreciate this every time I watch, but I never wish he wasn’t on the air whenever his self-referential act becomes a positive feedback loop. I don’t care.

    I love Rachel, but she isn’t as gifted in the craft as Keith; how can she, her track record is a blip in comparison (and she can get a bit loopy sometimes also too). I don’t care. We need the non-CW dialog, from Keith, from Rachel, from Michael Moore (fat, I know, right?) whatever its low percentage, whenever possible.

  230. 230.

    Bob L

    November 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    @Larkspur: Their obnoxious but fuck ya’. It’s goddamn being “nice” to assholes out to destroy the country for their screwy ideology. Fighting back is not what “nice” people do, but it is what has to be done.

    “When they get in trouble they send for the sons-of-bitches” Admiral Ernest King, Commander in Chief of the US Navy during WWII. King was not a nice guy.

  231. 231.

    JenJen

    November 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    @Bullsmith: You nailed it. Thank you.

    And I’d like to add, I’d give just about anything to see Keith Olbermann show up on Bill Maher’s show tonight. I’ll bet Maher would have some great advice for him.

  232. 232.

    Martin

    November 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Since some people need a review:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    MSNBC isn’t Congress, nor are they empowered to make laws. That’s also true of NPR.

  233. 233.

    Southern Beale

    November 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Geez, even Bill Kristol thinks the suspension is “ludicrous.”

  234. 234.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    When Scarborough gave to a Republican the official response from MSNBC was it’s no big deal, he’s just an opinion host who gave to his friend.
    __
    When KO gave to Democrats the official response from MSNBC was this is a deadly serious matter that requires permission in advance and failing to obtain it has forced us to suspend him without pay.

    And this could have nothing to do with the fact that Scarborough followed the rules so there was no reason it would be a big deal but Olbermann broke the rules which made it a big deal?

    One reason we disagree I think is that I read the MSNBC PR and it screams bullshit to me, whereas you’re inclined to take it as good faith truth-telling. My wife spent decades doing PR for big oil, and this smells awfully familiar, but that’s just my opinion.

    But the damn PR quote you are focusing on was from 2009 when there was absolutely no reason to think that bringing up and confirming the permission aspect was the least bit important. Yes, ideally they should have been out in front of all of this and made sure that the announcement they made today clarified all of this. But it sounds like it was hastily done on a Friday afternoon so it is just as likely to be incompetence as deceit.

    (EDIT: BTW, I am not saying that people should not keep digging or that we should assume and accept that everything they did was on the up and up. All I am asking is that we wait to have the facts instead of jumping conclusions because Olbermann is “one of us”.)

  235. 235.

    bemused

    November 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    @Sentient Puddle:
    Yes! I feel like Rachel is just getting really warmed up and the show is over.
    I was scratching my head when Olbermann suspended Worst Person in the World. I thought, oh great, more time for him to prattle. I like watching his guests but I tuned out his solo huff n puff segments long ago.

  236. 236.

    ricky

    November 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Wow. Keith Olbermann donated to two losers out of three
    donations. Is his batting average above or below Sarah Palin’s? As a news commentator/donor, I mean.

  237. 237.

    JGabriel

    November 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Southern Beale:

    Geez, even Bill Kristol thinks the suspension is “ludicrous.”

    Uh oh, that’s not a good sign.

    .

  238. 238.

    b-psycho

    November 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Who the hell CAN they have sub for Keith then? Cenk?*

    (* – Lemme just say this to get it out there: anyone else find it weird that this name is seemingly pronounced “Jay”?)

  239. 239.

    Innocent Bystander

    November 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    @morzer:

    I couldn’t agree more. MSNBC could easily have covered for KO if they had wanted. Instead, they handed down this rather substantial penalty (indefinite suspension without pay). If nothing else, this creates the patina of someone who is corrupted….when the reality is that every political pundit is allowed the right to his free speech (including financial contributions). I get this feeling that this is the 1st act of a multi-act play and, if nothing else, it may well have send a negative message to the remainingliberal/progressive voices there.

    Wish I wasn’t such a pessimist, but given the Citizen’s United ruling, the coming take down of Net Neutrality, and the economic slide of the middle-class (who, every election cycle has less and less financial money available to invest in politics)…I’m bearish on this country’s ability to maintain an informed democracy.

  240. 240.

    Poopyman

    November 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Oh, good grief! I just got an email from BoldProgressives.org wanting me to sign their emergency petition to MSNBC “to put Olbermann back on the air NOW!”

    Let’s all take a deep breath, people….

  241. 241.

    General Stuck

    November 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    I don’t disagree with what you are saying, but wingnuts winning elections by buying them will not occur in a vacuum. Or, there will be consequences, and the public is already mistrusting and put out by big business, and elected wingnuts will be giving the corps more and more power. People pay attention to their bank accounts, and don’t like getting screwed by the plutocrats, at least past a certain point. We are heading into new territory, in an age flush with big corp cash in elections, and there will be a threshold point of diminished living standard when the pitchforks come out. I don’t know when that will be, but it will come at some point, when the right begins to think they have bought the presidency for life, and now have their permanent majority, and their impulses for unbound greed go full metal.

  242. 242.

    JGabriel

    November 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    @ricky:

    Is his batting average above or below Sarah Palin’s? As a news commentator/donor, I mean.

    Apples and oranges. Palin expected her candidates to win. Olbermann’s donations were to help candidates that were behind.

    .

  243. 243.

    Mike E

    November 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    @Bullsmith: Shorter Groucho: I’m a Jew, you’re an exclusive country club…wtf?!

  244. 244.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    @MattR:

    Please provide evidence that Joe followed the rules.

    edit- According to an unnamed source at Gawker (noted up thread) the standards referred to are for NBC and have not been applied to MSNBC’s highly opinionated staff for years. Which certainly makes sense why they reacted to nonchalantly to Scarborough’s donation without saying, notice, that they had pre-approved it.

  245. 245.

    cckids

    November 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Hell yeah. I’ve worked at places where you can not only not donate to certain campaigns or causes, you can’t do any activity at all. No rallies, or campaign work or even letters to the editor on political issues.

    Yes, again. You have the First Amendment right to donate, speak, rally, etc all you want. Your employer has the right to let you know they’ll fire your ass if you do those things. They cannot (yet) tell you how to vote. Though they do try (see McDonald’s).

  246. 246.

    batgirl

    November 5, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    @cleek: @Martin: I don’t think (most) people here are arguing here that MSNBC violated Olbermann’s first amendment rights. I think they are arguing that MSNBC made a dick move, or that they aren’t applying their policies uniformly, or that they are lying about their motivation for suspending Olbermann, or take your pick.

  247. 247.

    And Another Thing...

    November 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    While I find the legal discussions up thread interesting, what blows my mind is the wisdom of Griffin’s choice. I consider myself a customer of MSNBC. Maddows show is hands down my favorite, but Olbermann is clearly the #1 show on MSNBC, and Griffin just discontinued the product AND humiliated his product in the most high profile manner possible. As a viewer/customer, that REALLY pisses me off.

    I don’t seem to be the only one, it’s almost impossible to get a call through the NBC Universal switchboard. They are getting blasted.

    As a retired executive who spent 10 years in an entertainment company, as a business decision it’s baffling. It’s a jackass decision. While I’m pretty sure Olbermann is a major pain in the ass, if Griffin can’t figure out how to deal with the talent, then he’s in the wrong business.

  248. 248.

    fasteddie9318

    November 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    @ricky:

    I don’t know about their batting averages, but I wonder which one has the higher IQ?

    @b-psycho:

    It’s not weird. Turkish ‘c’s are pronounced like English ‘j’s. The Turkish ‘j’ is pronounced like a French ‘j’ or like we sometimes pronounce ‘zh’ in English.

  249. 249.

    neil

    November 5, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    @J sub D: He’s exactly the same as Bill O’Reilly? You’re not terribly perceptive, are you.

  250. 250.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    November 5, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    @Susan Ross:

    I keep thinking about Ronald Reagan when he said, “Never speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Thirty years later, Democrats and liberals still don’t understand the power of the united front.
     
    No matter what one might think of Olbermann in general, can any of us imagine Fox even thinking about doing something like this to one of their biggest primetime hosts, no matter how much of an idiot they thought that host was personally (cough*SeanHannity*cough)?

    This. Oh ever-so-fucking this.

    If there are only three* people in your tribe, and when the wolves come to eat one of them, the first question you ask yourself is: “Am I being too tribal if I defend this guy despite the problem that he is an asshole, and after all I don’t care for the quality of his work, and really we could do better?“, THEN YOU ARE DOING TRIBALISM WRONG.

    *How many actual liberal voices are there on TV? I count K.O. and Rachel, and on a good night maybe Ed Schultz.

  251. 251.

    GregB

    November 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    MSNBC is reverting back to form. I mean they are the network that gave Michael Savage a platform.

    They panicked over the elections and they are taking it out of the biggest name to show that they aren’t in the pocket of the left.

    Brave MSNBC.

  252. 252.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    @b-psycho: The Turkish “c” is a cross between “j” and “ch” and “e” is pronounced “ay.” Our week in Istanbul this spring was fraught with unintentional comedy on our part.

  253. 253.

    morzer

    November 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    So, what happened to Sarah Palin and the principled defense of Freedom Inc.? Shouldn’t she be twittering right now and telling Olbermann not to retreat but to reload?

  254. 254.

    fasteddie9318

    November 5, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    @Martin:

    MSNBC isn’t Congress, nor are they empowered to make laws. That’s also true of NPR.

    Except, who said anything about Olbermann’s first amendment rights? It’s a douche move by the douchebag who runs MSNBC, it reeks of a double standard and an attempt to can a guy that management has been out to get for a while, and oh, you know, the rest of us have a first amendment right to be pissed about it and decide to watch some other channel.

  255. 255.

    bemused

    November 5, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    @Southern Beale:
    Really? Rats. I love Chris Hayes. Very smart. Adorable, also.
    Any word on who will be filling in for Olbermann?

  256. 256.

    fasteddie9318

    November 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    @shortstop:

    Closer to ‘j’ than ‘ch’–Turkish has a separate character for ‘ch’ (ç).

  257. 257.

    fasteddie9318

    November 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    @bemused:

    Any word on who will be filling in for Olbermann?

    Dick Armey.

  258. 258.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    @And Another Thing…: Oh, I agree that MSNBC’s action was dumb beyond belief. I’m just saying that none of Bullsmith’s huffing and puffing amounts to any actual evidence. His argument seems to be that, because no one explicitly said that Scarborough notified his bosses that he was going to make a contribution, back when they weren’t asked about it back in 2009, somehow constitutes evidence that he didn’t. It’s an idiot argument, and sometimes I can’t keep my mouth shut when someone takes several comments that were never related either temporally or on intent, makes creative extrapolations from subjects that the comments didn’t cover, and comes to a conclusion that someone has contradicted themselves.

  259. 259.

    kay

    November 5, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    @neil:

    He’s here to lecture us on partisanship. Again.

  260. 260.

    J. Michael Neal

    November 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    @fasteddie9318:

    Except, who said anything about Olbermann’s first amendment rights?

    Violet did.

  261. 261.

    Calliope Jane

    November 5, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Actually, KO donated to two winners out of three (or, one winner and one is currently winning as they’re finishing counting all the votes and her lead keeps increasing–and I say that as I knock on wood, spit, and spin around). That’s Grijalva and Giffords. 2 out of 3 ain’t bad and I’m certainly relieved.

    These are also two members of Congress that had their respective offices attacked during the HCR uproar; Grijalva’s got so bad that he had to close the office in Yuma and someone still sent his office some sort of substance with swastikas all over it. Giffords’s opponent was apparently the guy salon.com had as their #1 scariest potential congressperson. So, yeah, very grateful for the donations.

  262. 262.

    FlipYrWhig

    November 5, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    @b-psycho:

    Cenk?*
    __
    (* – Lemme just say this to get it out there: anyone else find it weird that this name is seemingly pronounced “Jay”?)

    Ooooooooooooh! I was so confused the other day when he popped up, and I confidently said something like, “That’s Senk Eiger,” only to be told that it was some really similar-looking guy named “Jay.” Now it all makes sense!

  263. 263.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    @fasteddie9318:

    Dick Armey.

    And as usual, he’s been drinking since 9:30 a.m., so get ready.

  264. 264.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    I’ve been looking for that magazine cover and I can’t find it. Someone distract me with something shiny.

  265. 265.

    bemused

    November 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    @fasteddie9318:
    That actually would be fun to watch if he had to cohost with Joan Walsh (Armey once so charmingly told her he was glad that she wasn’t his wife) or some other feisty female or two.

  266. 266.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Ah, here’s something shiny: Cenk’s kid is named Prometheus Maximus Uygur. Awesome.

  267. 267.

    kc

    November 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    @sven:

    A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. “Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe’s. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.”

    Oh . . . so Countdown is NOT an opinion program. Who knew?

    How did that asshole keep a straight face when he said that?

  268. 268.

    lamh32

    November 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    From Greg Sargent:

    Did Keith Olbermann even violate NBC policy?

    Check out the fine print of what NBC policy said, as of 2007, about political activities on the part of NBC employees:

    “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.”

    Emphasis mine. This is a bit difficult to parse. But this does seem to say that those who are worried that their “standing as an impartial journalist” would be jeopardized by political activity should report it. Last time I checked, Keith Olbermann doesn’t pretend to be an “impartial journalist.”

    Likewise, neither do Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan, both of whom have also given political contributions. [Emphasis by Steven D] It seems possible that none of these three would think they may have violated company policy.

  269. 269.

    fasteddie9318

    November 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    @bemused:

    Sure, but he wouldn’t have to do that. It’s a Brave New World at MSNBC, dontcha know?

  270. 270.

    kc

    November 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Well, Somerby will be tickled pink.

  271. 271.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    @bemused:

    That actually would be fun to watch if he had to cohost with Joan Walsh (Armey once so charmingly told her he was glad that she wasn’t his wife)

    Watch that again and tell me I’m wrong about the 9:30 a.m. thing.

  272. 272.

    Mike E

    November 5, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    @bemused:

    That actually would be fun to watch if he had to cohost with Joan Walsh (Armey once so charmingly told her he was glad that she wasn’t his wife) or some other feisty female or two in the octagon.

    Yes, eminently watchable.

    Is it beer o’clock yet?

  273. 273.

    Nick

    November 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Clearly, if Obama used the bully pulpit, this double standard wouldn’t have happened

  274. 274.

    morzer

    November 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Anyone wonder just when Juan Williams’ name is going to be thrown into this discussion by the media?

  275. 275.

    beergoggles

    November 5, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Any network that employs that racist Buchanan is right wing at best. The rest just fits into place.

  276. 276.

    Larkspur

    November 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    @And Another Thing…:

    “…As a retired executive who spent 10 years in an entertainment company, as a business decision it’s baffling. It’s a jackass decision. While I’m pretty sure Olbermann is a major pain in the ass, if Griffin can’t figure out how to deal with the talent, then he’s in the wrong business.”

    Exactly. This is what is so ridiculous.

  277. 277.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    Shit on a stick Michael, I’m not alleging any conspiracy, I’m comparing the way MSNBC reacted to Joe Scarborough’s donations versus how they reacted to KO’s donations. Those reactions are strikingly different. The issue of prior permission may or may not be an important distinction between those two cases, but MSNBC has failed to make that point and since it’s such a fucking obvious point that’s bad PR. This whole thing is bad PR. It isn’t my allegation that their employees who made donations to Republicans did not face sanction while the one we know of who gave to Democrats did, that’s simply the fact. The question is about why and my argument is there’s not really a good explanation available to them. As E.D. points out their action is stupid on it’s face, so the motives are of limited value since the stupidity remains. I’m not alleging an evil anti-liberal conspiracy I’m saying that it’s a) a self-inflicted PR disaster for MSNBC and b) that regardless of their motives there is an established image that Republican shills can do what they want but speak up for the left and you’re going to get punished for it and this event resonates pretty strongly with that.

    And I suspect down deep you agree with all of that you just don’t like my tone. Which is fair enough, if true.

  278. 278.

    Mister Papercut

    November 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    @shortstop: Nah, Keith is smart, but not, say, Dr. Maddow-smart. He’s also at least ten times more self-impressed than he needs to be (but then, which media prima donnas aren’t?).

  279. 279.

    PaulW

    November 5, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    That Olbermann has to sit out with a suspension while others who did the exact same thing don’t receive suspensions… that smacks of hypocrisy, favoritism, and failure of the ownership/managers of NBC to equally apply their rules to ALL employees.

  280. 280.

    JenJen

    November 5, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    @b-psycho: In a way, getting rid of Keith only makes sense if MSNBC is trying to clear some airtime for Cenk. Cenk’s new niche is attacking the President from the left, and so I can see where that might be a good move from the corporate standpoint.

    It also makes me sick to my stomach. And finally, this theory of mine is a little tinfoil-hatty, but you just never know until it happens.

  281. 281.

    Rhonda

    November 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    I agree you you!!!

  282. 282.

    gbear

    November 5, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Crooks and Liars (link is in John’s list) has an interesting take on this. It looks like Olberman’s firing may be a result of Comcast’s purchase of MSNBC. (excuse the lack of links. I’m still at the office).

  283. 283.

    Dennis SGMM

    November 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:
    You can call him Ray or you can call him Jay…

  284. 284.

    kdaug

    November 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    @batgirl: It’s legal in most states to fire someone for being gay, so I can’t imagine actual behavior would be something the courts wouldn’t uphold as a termination event.

    I work in the video games industry, and we sign NDA’s as a matter of SOP. Break the NDA, you’ll be packing your desk in short order, First Amendment not withstanding.

  285. 285.

    licensed to kill time

    November 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Three hours old, this thread is >.< :::eyes glazed:::

  286. 286.

    morzer

    November 5, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    Cenk Uygur (pronounced “John Smith”)……

  287. 287.

    SteveinSC

    November 5, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    @MattR:

    You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.”

    What part of the word should do you confuse with the word must ? Take your asshole trolling somewhere else.

  288. 288.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    @kc: I feel like Ahab chasing Moby Dick, but that quote was made in 2009 explaining Scarborough’s donation and has absolutely nothing to do with Keith.

  289. 289.

    george romeo

    November 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    i am deeply upset that Keith Olberman was suspended, I watched every night and will no longer be watching that station.
    The owners have no balls and run at the sight of trouble.

  290. 290.

    bemused

    November 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    @shortstop:
    Hey, every time I’ve seen him, I’ve thought the guy was half soused.
    In that video, I think he was past half. I hadn’t seen that in awhile but at the end I thought the guy was going to start sobbing. He and Boehner have a lot in common.
    I still would love to see strong females reduce him to tears on tv more often.

  291. 291.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    November 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    @licensed to kill time:
    There haven’t been any new threads put up. Obviously MSNBC execs deliberately planned the timing of this coup d’Fourth Estate to coincide with John Cole being on vacation. They fear the power of Tunch.

  292. 292.

    Bullsmith

    November 5, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    @MattR:

    We’re COMPARING the way Scarborough’s donation was treated in 2009 with the way KO’s donation was treated today. Is that so fucking difficult to comprehend?

  293. 293.

    Dennis SGMM

    November 5, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    @kdaug:
    I did IT work for medical practices, the last few years for a Beverley Hills cosmetic surgery practice. The terms of their NDA would have had me welded into a 55 gallon oil drum and then dropped off at sea for talking in my sleep.

  294. 294.

    Mattminus

    November 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    But you’re doing it without any knowledge of the particulars.

    Hey, just like Michelle Malkin, why should we let things like facts or reality get in the way of a good ragegasm?

  295. 295.

    licensed to kill time

    November 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    D’oh! ‘tiz a conspiracy! :::starts shaping tinfoil hat crunch squish:::

  296. 296.

    MattR

    November 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    @Bullsmith: The comment I was replying to said in it’s entirety.

    Oh . . . so Countdown is NOT an opinion program. Who knew?
    __
    How did that asshole keep a straight face when he said that?

    If kc did not think that the quote was made in reaction to Olbermann’s firing, what would the spokesman have to keep a straight face about? Saying that Scarborough is an opinion program and not news?

  297. 297.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Jesus Christ. Is it not likely that these unanswered questions about whether Scarborough explicitly asked permission, etc. will be resolved in the next 12 hours? Until then, is it really necessary to fucking endlessly litigate this based on assumptions?

  298. 298.

    bemused

    November 5, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    @JenJen:
    I had the same thought. Please not Cenk but I have little hope they will choose anyone better either.

  299. 299.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    @JenJen: Yikes, is that what he’s been doing? I haven’t read/seen him in ages.

  300. 300.

    JenJen

    November 5, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Via Twitter, @brianstelter reports that MSNBC news anchor Thomas Roberts will fill in tonight for KO on “Countdown.”

    Errrrr, who? Just put on a “Lockup” repeat and be done with it, MSNBC.

    @bemused: Glad it’s not just me. And, @shortstop, yeah, he gave one helluva rant yesterday on Dylan Ratigan’s Shitty Show saying it’s time to go to war with the Obama White House. And earlier today, Cenk was on MSNBC ranting about how he’s not a Democrat anymore. I mean, OK, I get it, whatever, who cares? But I just see something nefarious in all of this. I’m a cynic-defeatist. It’s just how I roll.

  301. 301.

    kdaug

    November 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    @Dennis SGMM: Yup. You’ve got the right of free speech, but not the right to a job.

  302. 302.

    scarshapedstar

    November 5, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    @General Stuck:

    there will be a threshold point of diminished living standard when the pitchforks come out. I don’t know when that will be, but it will come at some point, when the right begins to think they have bought the presidency for life, and now have their permanent majority, and their impulses for unbound greed go full metal.

    Totally. For example, if the Republicans steal a presidential election and then leverage their coup d’etat into two wars and a new Gilded Age.

    The people would never stand for that.

  303. 303.

    Calouste

    November 5, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    @JenJen:

    “Coffeeparty” in 2012 to attack the Dems from the left.

    Considering the actual success of teaparty candidates this year (farily rubbish), that would be a good plan for Rove.

    Just run ads during the primary season against the Democratic mainstream candidate and get some Alvin Green type candidate to win the primary, than close the money tap. A lot cheaper to run ads during primary season than during the actual election season as well.

  304. 304.

    nepat

    November 5, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    @kay:

    I’d like to deliver Huffington back to the GOP, actually, while I’m at it. Drop her on their doorstep. “Here! I believe this is yours!”

    It’s amazed me that no one’s figured Huffington out yet. Her naked opportunism is just so, well, naked. She’ll take whatever political position will make her the most money. Riding the Dem wave for cash and TV time was her greatest success, but she’s been at it for a long time – including marrying a guy for a couple of years who she thought was her ticket to Washington. I remember a while back when she was pretending to be an environmentalist and got busted flying around the country in private jets and driving gas-guzzling SUVs.

  305. 305.

    piratedan

    November 5, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    @ricky:
    at last check it looks like both AZ Congressional candidates won re-election, that would be Giffords in CD 8 and Grijalva in CD 7.

  306. 306.

    General Stuck

    November 5, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    @scarshapedstar:

    Now, come on, don’t introduce a straw man into my argument. My comment was specific to economic issues and favoring corps TO THE POINT OF LONG TERM diminished living standard and even much more obvious and craven catering to the rich than we have seen thus far, and it can get much worse, and I think will. If the money spicket keeps wingnuts in power they will rightly get the blame for it. I know the electorate is dumb and un attentive, except when it comes to their financial well being, and I think it will suffer more than anything we can imagine right now, regardless of who is in power for the short and medium term, but with wingers able to buy elections with their cash, that will go critical mass and explode fairly quickly, and a threshold of tolerance will be met.

  307. 307.

    JenJen

    November 5, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    @Calouste: Bingo!! And for me, it’s just that, you know, I’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t work out in the end the way Cenk thinks it will.

  308. 308.

    ricky

    November 5, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    @MattR:

    I feel like Ahab chasing Moby Dick, but that quote was made in 2009 explaining Scarborough’s donation and has absolutely nothing to do with Keith.

    Try convincing someone John Stewart said nothing about Olbermann at his rally or that Rahm never called anyone retarded. Both these facts can be verified on the internet, which Al Gore invented, BTW.

  309. 309.

    ricky

    November 5, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    @piratedan: Thanks Pirate Dan. Good to know Keith’s average is not below the Mendoza line.

  310. 310.

    che

    November 5, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Chris Hayes tweets that his not hosting tonight had nothing to do with his own campaign contributions. It was his own decision not to sub for Keith tonight.

  311. 311.

    chaseyourtail

    November 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    I really couldn’t care less. I used to really like KO but I’ve lost a lot of respect for him these past couple of years. His incessant sniping and griping at Obama since the Health Care debacle has only helped the Repigs take power. With friends like Olbermann and dumb-ass Ed Shultz complaining and criticizing all the time, who needs FOX? Constant attacks from the so-called left hurt the Democrats more than being hit from the right.

    No, this doesn’t bother me at all. Now, if MSNBC gets rid of Rachel, then we have a big problem.

  312. 312.

    chaseyourtail

    November 5, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    @kay:

    I’d like to deliver Huffington back to the GOP, actually, while I’m at it. Drop her on their doorstep. “Here! I believe this is yours!”I freaking cringe when I see her presenting herself as the champion of the middle class. It’s comical. Please, please don’t advocate for me Arianna. You’re killing me with kindness.

    A thousand amens to this.

  313. 313.

    AhabTRuler

    November 5, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    @MattR: Sorry, I don’t chase dicks, I just come here.

  314. 314.

    chaseyourtail

    November 5, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Arianna Huffington is a duplicitous shrew. She is exploiting the gullible liberal masses to make herself even more filthy rich than she already is. I can’t turn on MSNBC with out seeing her phony, smug mug espousing her populist shtick. Why can’t the gullible liberal masses see through her facade? Oh right, cuz they’re gullible.

    If I could have one wish, it would be to walk up to Arianna and slap that phony-ass, perma-smirk off her stupid face.

  315. 315.

    JenJen

    November 5, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    @chaseyourtail: I happen to do the best Arianna impression you will ever witness.

    And yes, of course, I’m available for parties.

  316. 316.

    chaseyourtail

    November 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    @JenJen: I’d love to see it. I may have to give you a call.

  317. 317.

    shortstop

    November 5, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    @chaseyourtail: That is nonsense. Jen is going to post her impression on YouTube so everyone in the BJ community can enjoy it. Right, Jen? ;)

  318. 318.

    Anne Laurie

    November 5, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    @kay:

    In my more paranoid moments, I think Huffington is actually on the other side :)
    __
    Not a good feeling, but can she be that bad and be well-intentioned?

    Friend of ours knew Arianna back when they were both in the Cambridge debating society. When she first surfaced in American politicomedia (any remember the John-Roger cult?), he said that Arianna was never on anybody’s side but Arianna’s, and that no matter how eloquent her speeches, she could not be trusted “further than you can drop a champagne-dipped strawberry down her cleavage.” Nothing in Ms. Huffington’s subsequent career has ever caused me to doubt his assessment…

  319. 319.

    Tone In DC

    November 5, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    @Mattminus:

    If everyone (who fits YOUR definition of an asshole) got fired for being “insufferable off camera”, then no one would work at Fox News. Not a one.

  320. 320.

    Susan Ross

    November 5, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    @General Stuck:

    I know the electorate is dumb and un attentive, except when it comes to their financial well being, and I think it will suffer more than anything we can imagine right now, regardless of who is in power for the short and medium term, but with wingers able to buy elections with their cash, that will go critical mass and explode fairly quickly, and a threshold of tolerance will be met.

    I’m 47, and I’ll be dead long before that happens.

  321. 321.

    Triassic Sands

    November 5, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Suspending Olbermann because he made campaign donations to progressive politicians in Arizona and Kentucky makes no sense.

    I’m sorry, but implying that Conway is progressive is a bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say? This is the guy who was boasting about his zeal for the War On Drugs.

  322. 322.

    Stillwater

    November 5, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Haven’t read any comments, so don’t know if this was already mentioned, but…. NBC isn’t making a principled decision here. They already had their reasons, and this is simply the pretext for firing Olberman.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Matt McIrvin on Florida Man No More (Jan 30, 2023 @ 10:13am)
  • mrmoshpotato on Monday Morning Open Thread: Rise and… Feed the Beast! (Jan 30, 2023 @ 10:10am)
  • Princess on Monday Morning Open Thread: Rise and… Feed the Beast! (Jan 30, 2023 @ 10:10am)
  • Spanky on Monday Morning Open Thread: Rise and… Feed the Beast! (Jan 30, 2023 @ 10:09am)
  • Math Guy on Monday Morning Open Thread: Rise and… Feed the Beast! (Jan 30, 2023 @ 10:07am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!