The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Olbermann suspended

Spoiler:

According to a report in Politico, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann gave money to the campaign of three Democrats—Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona and Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords—in violation of the company's policy regarding political donations. According to this tweet from NPR’s David Folkenflik, Olbermann has been suspended by management, though no further details are provided. Sure, it’s pretty stupid to make campaign donations when your employer expressly forbids it. But I can’t help but wondering why MSNBC has a one-size-fits-all policy on such issues. Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?

The Washington Post has more details:

In a statement to Politico, Olbermann said, "One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the reelection campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky." Olbermann went on to say he "did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."

The news comes in the wake of Olbermann's harsh criticism of Fox News parent company News Corp., which donated to Republican-leaning groups. MSNBC president Phil Griffin also issued an open challenge in light of the News Corp. donations, saying to The New York Times in October, "Show me an example of us fundraising."

In MSNBC’s defense, it should be pointed out that the News Corp donation (which I am also fine with) is slightly different from the Olbermann donation—one hosts a lefty opinion show, the other is the parent company of both opinion and straight news outlets. Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to say that Griffin’s sniffy riposte (“Show me an example of us fundraising”) to Fox News was a bit premature and just maybe contributed to the decision to suspend Olbermann.

Update: Mediaite has Griffin's statement: "I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." Indefinitely, eh?

Author:	Farther [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Olbermann suspended
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 ... campaigns/ I guess he put his money where his mouth is. Maybe he should have checked with his boss, first.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Guess he didn't read the employee handbook. Reason Magazine Spoiler: According to a report in Politico, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann gave money to the campaign of three Democrats—Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona and Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords—in violation of the company's policy regarding political donations. According to this tweet from NPR’s David Folkenflik, Olbermann has been suspended by management, though no further details are provided. Sure, it’s pretty stupid to make campaign donations when your employer expressly forbids it. But I can’t help but wondering why MSNBC has a one-size-fits-all policy on such issues. Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television? The Washington Post has more details: In a statement to Politico, Olbermann said, "One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the reelection campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky." Olbermann went on to say he "did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level." The news comes in the wake of Olbermann's harsh criticism of Fox News parent company News Corp., which donated to Republican-leaning groups. MSNBC president Phil Griffin also issued an open challenge in light of the News Corp. donations, saying to The New York Times in October, "Show me an example of us fundraising." In MSNBC’s defense, it should be pointed out that the News Corp donation (which I am also fine with) is slightly different from the Olbermann donation—one hosts a lefty opinion show, the other is the parent company of both opinion and straight news outlets. Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to say that Griffin’s sniffy riposte (“Show me an example of us fundraising”) to Fox News was a bit premature and just maybe contributed to the decision to suspend Olbermann. Update: Mediaite has Griffin's statement: "I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." Indefinitely, eh?

Author:	Aizle [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Oops.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:
I hate to see careers ended over dumb stuff.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm sure his career is not over; there's a reason they suspended him instead of firing him. That said, I think it's a good policy for a news organization to have, not what I'd consider dumb stuff.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Olbermann suspended https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4591	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Screeling [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:
See, this really hits home. Grijalva and Giffords are both super libs in districts in my area. Both barely won their races too. In Grijalva's case, I'm still waiting to hear there was voter fraud taking place. His supporters already got caught trying to submit fraudulent registrations. I'm glad Olbermann is suspended. I hope they fire him.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Doubtless just a ploy to claim they have more integrity than Fox News.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Vindicarre wrote: I'm sure his career is not over; there's a reason they suspended him instead of firing him. That said, I think it's a good policy for a news organization to have, not what I'd consider dumb stuff. Donating $2400 to a candidate (even a couple of candidates) is dumb stuff. I'm not arguing against the policy, I'm saying that Olbermann didn't get anything/much out of the donations; it's not like he's being fired for extortion. He just did something very minor. No, it's not a bad policy. It's like getting fired for having 1 beer with your lunch at a work function. Yeah, it's a good policy not to drink at work. But you just got fired for dumb stuff.

Author:	Serienya [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:25 am ]
Post subject:
I can't get bent out of shape over this. His employer has the right to enforce its internal policies. He knew the conditions of employment before he contributed.

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
No, **** that. Once MSNBC paid Keith Olbermann, it became his money. You don't get to tell your employees what they are and are not allowed to do with their money.

Author:	Taskiss [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Corolinth wrote: No, **** that. Once MSNBC paid Keith Olbermann, it became his money. You don't get to tell your employees what they are and are not allowed to do with their money. I lean heavily in this direction too. I could understand requiring full disclosure, but that's about as far as I'd go.

Author:	TheRiov [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:50 am ]
Post subject:
Of course a number of Fox news employees do this... must not be in their employee handbook. (Hannity for example) http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-pos ... -too-22312

Author:	Farther [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
An employer can set the terms of employment. If you don't like those terms, don't work there. MSNBC forbids such contributions. Fox does not. I see nothing wrong here.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:53 am ]
Post subject:
Even though its a piss poor policy designed not to control bias of its reporters but to hide it from direct revelation as donations to campaigns are public information.

Author:	Hannibal [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Xequecal wrote: Somehow I get the impression you guys wouldn't be as accepting if the contract had a different restriction, like, "you must agree not to own any firearms in order to continue working here." I'm pretty sure you'd be pressing to get the government to not allow such contracts. We do that, its called living on some military bases. Some apartment complexes have clauses in their leases against keeping firearms or any explosive material (ammo). Read a contract before signing. Cross out parts you don't like and sign. If they accept it, its binding I believe. I do it with my employee handbook every year. When we switched to an online version and electronic signature, I asked it be printed out, crossed off the few clauses I disagree with, signed the page and handed it to them. Olbermann should be able to. Spend and contribute however he chooses. Its not like MSNBC operatea under the guise of being bipartisan. However he also accepted the terms of employment and was too stupid to do a simple work around for that clause if he even wanted to. Crap way to go, but in the end the blame is his.

Author:	Rafael [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Xequecal wrote: Somehow I get the impression you guys wouldn't be as accepting if the contract had a different restriction, like, "you must agree not to own any firearms in order to continue working here." I'm pretty sure you'd be pressing to get the government to not allow such contracts. The Second Amendment does not apply in such a way. It does not restrict people from choosing how and if they hire people who possess firearms or possessing firearms on property etc. Quite frankly, it's asinine. Choosing to enter a contract is not something enforced on anyway and thus, the right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. Would you also argue someone would say everyone should be allowed to just take any gun they want because if they weren't, their right to bear that arm was being infringed? So please take your impressions elsewhere, because it's almost insulting that you think people are that dumb.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rynar [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Corolinth wrote: No, **** that. Once MSNBC paid Keith Olbermann, it became his money. You don't get to tell your employees what they are and are not allowed to do with their money. It is there for conflict of interest purposes, and while I agree with you, Olbermann didn't have to sign on the dotted line. He chose to, however, and was then in violation of his contract. Like Arathain said, dumb stuff, but oh well. As a condition of my employment I had to agree not to run for office without the permision of my company.

Author:	Raltar [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:
It's a stupid rule, but yeah...if it was in his contract and he signed it, he has no one to blame but himself.

Author:	Xequecal [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Somehow I get the impression you guys wouldn't be as accepting if the contract had a different restriction, like, "you must agree not to own any firearms in order to continue working here." I'm pretty sure you'd be pressing to get the government to not allow such contracts.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:
TheRiov wrote: Of course a number of Fox news employees do this... must not be in their employee handbook. (Hannity for example) http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-pos ... -too-22312 No, it's not in their employee handbook. As for Scarborough, according to what I've read, he cleared it first, thus not violating his contract - see how that works? Taskiss wrote: Corolinth wrote: No, **** that. Once MSNBC paid Keith Olbermann, it became his money. You don't get to tell your employees what they are and are not allowed to do with their money. I lean heavily in this direction too. I could understand requiring full disclosure, but that's about as far as I'd go. That's what he violated, it wasn't the contributing, necessarily, he just didn't get it cleared with his boss before he did it. Arathain Kelvar wrote: Vindicarre wrote: I'm sure his career is not over; there's a reason they suspended him instead of firing him. That said, I think it's a good policy for a news organization to have, not what I'd consider dumb stuff. Donating $2400 to a candidate (even a couple of candidates) is dumb stuff. I'm not arguing against the policy, I'm saying that Olbermann didn't get anything/much out of the donations; it's not like he's being fired for extortion. He just did something very minor. No, it's not a bad policy. It's like getting fired for having 1 beer with your lunch at a work function. Yeah, it's a good policy not to drink at work. But you just got fired for dumb stuff. Yes, it was dumb of him to do it in violation of his contract. As far as your analogy goes, it's like drinking said beer while on the air, seeing as he had one guy (a little known candidate outside of his locality) on the air at least a half-dozen times after, and the day of, his contribution.

Author:	Rynar [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Xequecal wrote: Somehow I get the impression you guys wouldn't be as accepting if the contract had a different restriction, like, "you must agree not to own any firearms in order to continue working here." I'm pretty sure you'd be pressing to get the government to not allow such contracts. No, because there is choice. You can choose to work there, or you can choose not to.

Author:	Corolinth [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Farther wrote: An employer can set the terms of employment. If you don't like those terms, don't work there. MSNBC forbids such contributions. Fox does not. I see nothing wrong here. That something might be perfectly legal does not make it right. Conversely, that something might be wrong does not necessitate there be laws to prevent it.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Corolinth wrote: Farther wrote: An employer can set the terms of employment. If you don't like those terms, don't work there. MSNBC forbids such contributions. Fox does not. I see nothing wrong here. That something might be perfectly legal does not make it right. Conversely, that something might be wrong does not necessitate there be laws to prevent it. I support the right of two individuals to make whatever agreement they choose. Why is my right to be able to spend my money on elections more important than my right to enter into an agreement?

Author:	Rynar [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
Corolinth wrote: Farther wrote: An employer can set the terms of employment. If you don't like those terms, don't work there. MSNBC forbids such contributions. Fox does not. I see nothing wrong here. That something might be perfectly legal does not make it right. Conversely, that something might be wrong does not necessitate there be laws to prevent it. There is nothing wrong with this at all, Coro. No one said he had to accept employment there. Sure, it was hit money, but it never would have been his money if he hadn't accepted the terms of his emplyment.

Author:	Xequecal [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Olbermann suspended
I'm trying to point out that allowing people to contract for anything leads to horrible atrocities. Major employers have a considerable amount of power. How about a major employer updating their employment contract to require that all employees send their children to work 16 hours a day for the company without pay? If you don't sign, you're fired.