MSNBC: Worst person in the world.

    By kgb999 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 3:46pm |

    So, MSNBC decided to suspend Keith Olbermann. Why? Because he dared to participate in Democracy!

    I've made no bones about the fact that I think systemically the product produced by MSNBC is the same as all the other cable outlets in selling outrage over information - anger over reason. And as one of their flagship personalities, I've mentioned the way Olberman presents himself as an example.

    But I don't blame Olbermann. Or Rachel Maddow. Or Ed Shultz. They are required to give MSNBC the product the corporate executives demand ... or they don't have a job. Likewise will all MSNBC personalities. Any value a commentator on MSNBC is able to sneak through the General Electric corporate system of baloney that has turned our nation to the cesspool it is today is in spite of what their corporations are selling, not because of it. And they do manage to sneak in value. Equally important, as many Dagblog readers have so correctly observed, for the most part they are the only personalities in Cable News who consistently put in what must be the soul-crushing battle to provide a bit of truth along with the underlying message of "Hate Thy Neighbor" that their corporate master, General Electric, forces them to sell to America day in and day out.

    I will criticize Olberman's product - because that product is the public face of the festering sickness infecting the executive priorities that lie beneath. But what I will never, ever do is say that Olbermann's position as a journalist and commentator precludes Keith Olbermann - or any American - from being allowed to drink from the fountain of American Democracy. Everyone should be allowed to make in impact to improve the nation, as they see it. And they should be honored for doing so honestly and openly - not punished for it.

    In a world where corporate titans are pouring untold millions into subverting American democracy, does anyone have any doubts that General Electric is putting their fingers on the scales through secret funding of groups that exist only to promote corporate interest in our electoral system? If you do hold such doubts, I propose that you are either naive or a fool. Did Keith Olbermann hide behind a tax-exempt shell? No. He put his hard-earned money to a cause that means something to him and did so the correct way - above board. Honest.

    MSNBC should be ashamed of what they have done. What message does this send? That if Olbermann had just done like the Fox boys and laundered his participation through a shadowy shell group that allows those who participate to hide their identities ... he would have been A-OK? That is just sick.

    America is broken, people. And these cable outlets who have long served as the head of a puss-filled zit on the face of America's discourse have now become the same on the face of America's democracy. I don't consume the product they sell, so I am powerless to impact MSNBC. But I *do* consume products that their parent company, General Electric, produces. I will not purchase any product associated with General Electric as long as this suspension stands. And I used this handy little form to inform them of my position.

    I'm disgusted. MSNBC, Bring back Keith Olbermann and quit undermining the very essence of American freedom. If this is what passes for journalistic integrity in your organization, your organization is truly without even a shred of journalistic integrity.

    Comments

    This post provokes so many conflicting thoughts. I'll just throw them out there.

    1) I believe that media networks have not only the right but an obligation to constrain what their journalists and analysts say and fire them when they don't listen. If Fox News took more responsibility for reigning in its demagogues, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    2) But requiring approval for employees to make private donations seems like a stupid and possibly illegal rule.

    3) But if Olbermann knew the rule, why didn't he follow it? Democrats don't need his $5000 that badly.

    4) Sorry kgb, I hate it when people hypothesize corporate intrigue without evidence. Conspiracy speculation is a Glenn Beck tactic.

    5) Why is it OK for corporations to pressure Fox by boycotting Glenn Beck ads but not OK for them to pressure MSNBC (if in fact they are pressuring MSNBC)?

    6) It sounds like there is a serious personal conflict between Olbermann and Griffin, and Griffin found the excuse that he was looking for.

    7) If Fox fired Glenn Beck for violating some rule, I highly doubt that you would have written this post. I think you're pissed off because MSNBC fired Olbermann, not because MSNBC is "undermining the very essence of American freedom." If that's true, don't pretend otherwise.

    8) Olbermann is not a journalist (any more than Bill O'Reilly is a journalist).

    9) Some other network will probably hire Olbermann. American freedom will be preserved.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:19pm

    Many purely journalistic enterprises, including the Associated Press, ban their employees from making political donations.  Even the AP union is fine with that.  It's legal and has held up to challenge.  I also think, given that its misguided.  Whether or not a journalist finds themselves under such a ban depends very largely on where they work.  Some people like Howard Kurtz have argued that journalists should never donate money even if their employers allow it as it feeds public skepticism about the motives of journalists.  I disagree but there you go, there's the argument.

    To apply this to an opinion guy like Olbermann is, of course ludicrous.  But I suppose many of us who have jobs live with one ludicrous rule or another.  He had to get his supervisor's permission to make a donation.  I just had to ask the CEO of my company for permission to write a column for a start-up publication in my spare time.  Do I agree I should have had to have asked?  No.  But them's the rules.

    I think MSNBC should have been smarter about this but they weren't.  It does sour me on them.  I know NBC is a big company and part of an even larger conglomerate and every organization needs rules but didn't anyone read Antigone?  Sometimes the rules don't work well in every situation and it's better to bend them.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:33pm

    Good comment (as per usual). I think when a corporation's rules dictate how an employee exercise their rights as a private citizen in a democracy it crosses a line (with notable exceptions for specific conflict of interest). There is a profound irony to me that journalists are ultimately at the mercy of editors who have a primary objective of collecting money from advertisers with specical interests of all types ... yet journalists (and related ilk) are the one's who would be seen as compromised if they participate in the political system that impacts everything from how much their fuel costs to if they can get decent education for their children. Of course, on more than one occasion I've felt Howie Kurtz is kind of an asshat.

    For me, as long as it's above board we're better off knowing where a journalist is coming from. I got into a big debate with Quinn over "neutrality" in journalism (etc). I agree with him that it is not really possible for anyone to be neutral. I'm more comfortable knowing where they are coming from than having them throw up a faux facade maintained by keeping their true beliefs and motivations secret.

     


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 6:48pm

    I'm with you about "neutrality" which is a fiction.  Just tell me who you are and what you believe and then do your job honestly and I'll absorb your work but make my own decisions.  I don't need "on one hand, on the other" style journalism.  I'd much prefer honest analytical work done by people who tell me what their biases are.  To me it's the movie reviewer formula:  if a reviewer says "I hate horror movies but I like this one" and I love horror movies, I just take their biases into account when I read their reviews.  All I need is for you to do an honest job and tell me we're you're coming from.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:07pm

    6) It sounds like there is a serious personal conflict between Olbermann and Griffin, and Griffin found the excuse that he was looking for.

    BINGO! I've gotta BINGO! ova heeya.


    by mageduley on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 5:05pm

    1. Completely agreed.

    2. Completely agreed.

    3. Kind of irelevant to my thesis. But the policy should be noted:

    The policy does not ban staffers from donating to political campaigns, but it does require them to "report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee." It is not clear whether Olbermann obtained such approval.

    certainly seems like a tenuous application of the policy at best.

    4. Noted, but I wouldn't change it. In the current environment verification is literally impossible - that was the entire point of Citizens United. Failure to capitalize on the current reality in an environment where competitors have been empowered to do so (and by the money flowing, clearly have taken advantage) would be a market disadvantage. In the absence of an affirmative statement from a corporation with such overarching political interest that they aren't engaging in [such behavior],  the presumption seems warranted - and since it's not illegal, the principle of "presumption of innocence" doesn't seem to apply in the strictest sense. Are you seriously saying you don't think they are funding?

    5. It is perfectly OK to do so. Although, I've never seen anyone boycott Beck for a political contribution and I have not heard of anyone boycotting MSNBC over Olbermann.

    6. It was an undemocratic excuse.

    7. Wrong. You can believe that or not.

    8. Agreed, that's why I also included the verbiage "commentator".

    9. Doesn't change what I'm complaining about.

    Thanks for the feedback.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 5:57pm

    7. If you say so, I believe it.

    Rereading my comment, it seems belligerent, which was not my intent. More of a stream-of-consciousness response.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:25am

    How does your view fit into the now known information that Scarborough and Buchanan have also donated?  If they ran it past management and it was approved, what the hell does THAT mean?  Scarborough interviewed the guy he donated to on his show.  

    I don't think any employer should be able to limit a person's rights to free speech or anything else.   It is one thing to actively (and publicly) campaign for someone who then might be covered on your show; it is quite another to participate as a citizen in the political process.   Why can't an employer require someone not have a child?  After all, it would impact their business if a woman had to have time off, and then was not 100% involved in her job.  Could an employer require an employee not to marry someone who was running for office?

    I think this is a stinky mess, and as much as I tire of Keith from time to time (especially his sports metaphors and animal injury videos) I cannot imagine how MSNBC can get away with this.

    The biggest smoking gun is this in my mind:  It is OK to donate as long as the management approves....WTF?  If it is ok to donate, then it is okay to donate!  If they are going for objectivity, they lost the argument right there.

     

     


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:19pm

    CVille -- I think this is a huge, never discussed problem in our society but, in America, employment is mostly "at will."  And that means that, odious as it is, your boss can fire you for donating to political candidates or even for flashing their bumper stickers.  It has happened over and over again and has been supported by courts.  In a lot of ways Rand Paul has his fantasy -- you can mostly hire and fire whoever you want and the people on the other side have scant recourse.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:08pm

    Yes, and yet Hannity and his wife can give $10,000 to Michelle Bachmann and get praised by Fox News for it.

    Ain't that just something.

     


    by LisB on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:25pm

    Oh my god.  I think I need a paper bag now. 


    by anna am on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 5:18pm

    I have beef with Olbermann. And I was pleased when he recently scrapped the counter-productive "Worst Person in the World" segment.

    As far as MSNBC's policies go ... hiring on-air personalities who have been candidates for high office, or actual officeholders, but claiming that they are "objective" because they are not allowed to make personal donations to campaigns, is silly.

    If you're going to put a former Congressman in your morning slot, saying that he's not in politics anymore is ridiculous. If you're going to get op-ed from anyone who's ever won a Presidential primary, you can't call that person non-partisan.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:39pm

    I share the same beef. Been pretty vocal on it. I can't help but wonder if Olbermann easing off from playing the "red meat" game ... exemplified by axing "worst person" might be what's really behind this.

    And you get to exactly what I find so mind-boggling about this whole thing. THIS is where they've decided to stake out the high-ground concerning "neutrality" standards? Gaaaa. Cable News is a blight on society. I really am done with GE.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 5:47pm

    If Olbermann had incorporated himself, could he have had his corporation donate anonymously?


    by Donal on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:43pm

    If he uses the right vehicle, can't he donate anonymously anyhow?


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 5:48pm

    Thanks for this, kgb.  The news escaped me and I'd probably have stayed behind the learning curve on it for a good long while. 

    What comes to my mind most vividly is Jon Stewart.  I guess we have the answer to any questions about his genuflection last weekend.  Definitely got his finger in the wind, I'd say, because I sincerely doubt that the contribution in and of itself is the reason Olberman got the gate.  Falling ratings?  Out of sync with the changing mood of the country? 

    Who knows? But I'd be surprised if the $5,000 check is the whole story. 


    by anna am on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 5:38pm

    Thank you, kgb99, as well as thanking all the people who have added comments to your blog -- for helping those of us who feel, or have felt, well, foggy, about what matters and what does not.

    I have been irritated by Keith Olbermann -- knowing that he has it in him to be Edward R. Murrow, but knowing that he has muddied those waters with ratings-related "schtick".... yet.

    WTF? Keith Olbermann -- the private person -- is entitled to contribute to whichever campaign, whichever person as he sees fit. Quietly, privately, personally. Or -- the price for a nice paycheck is to be nobbled....

    Oh. Of course -- nobbling. 

    Poor Keith. Poor America. 

    GOD -- I HATE LAWYERS ... although, in their defense, their loophole, corporate-minded clauses and sub-clauses are only virtuoso performances to prove how much they learned at HARVARD and YALE and COLUMBIA and PENN....

    ACHHH! Olbermann makes me crazy, but .... he is an American citizen, with a right to free speech and also, donation, apart from his role as a GE stooge.... ISN"T HE???


    by wws on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 6:15pm

    The Supreme Court says money is speech, this action by MSNBC would seem to violate a fundamental Constitutional right. An entire network exists solely to destroy Democrats, so the absurdity of suspending one guy for writing a check seems highly ironic.  Then again look what happened to Dan Rather when he tried to tarnish the image of the Great White War President (bad intelligence to start a war-forgivable, bad intelligence to make a questionable news report-career ending)

    Additionally, even active duty military members are free to donate to political campaigns. They are only restricted from working on campaigns in uniform or using government time/phones etc to do so.

    ..KGB how could you infer a cabal in a country which had the Iran-contra scandal, the impeachment of Clinton, brought the world Enron, the Iraq War and the 2008 investment banking/Wall Street collapse? 

    "the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of unpatriotic `conspiracy theorists', who not only are always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life." Gore Vidal on 9/11, The Enemy Within, 2002 link 


    by NCD on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 7:56pm

    KGB, This is a good blog [IMO] and I agree with your conclusion. Put Olberman back. There are though, several questions that come up. One is, do we like Olberman and/or his show?

    Olberman  has played to a niche market. He has been successful spreading ideas and information favorable to, and supportive of, the non- Republican side of the Democratic party and I believe he and Maddow have been a large net plus towards informing a broader swath of the American public about the nature and tactics and aims of our current political machines. His success has come largely by imitating elements of the Right's talking machine in his delivery, but as far as I can see he stays away from deliberate lies. He succeeded where Air America failed and even if we wish we had a more sterling champion, I am glad he has been successful. Bill Moyer could not attract a large enough audience on commercial television to survive and spread his message in his more socially acceptable and high-minded way.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:00pm

    Good post, kgb, and I agree--Olbermann should be allowed to continue.  He is not a journalist and from what I can gather, isn't treated like one by MSNBC.  Rules, schmules, if it's true that Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan have each given to candidates of their choice.  The timing is suspect, too, coming just days after election night, when the talent sat together around one table.  Did he say something Chris didn't like?  They all were going at it hot and heavy there for a while.

    So hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube after it's been oozing out, so why so hasty on the part of management?  He's one of their stars, as he would be only too happy to tell them.  Why couldn't they have waited until after the weekend to make a decision?  After some private heart-to-hearts, they might have changed their minds.

    I like Keith in small doses.  I hated "Worst Persons" and I hate his smug, self-righteous sniffle when he thinks he's pulled a good one, but all is forgiven (by me) when he does a "Special Comment" that blows me away.  That happens often enough that I don't want to see him go. 

    I wonder, too, why he didn't give the donations anonymously or at least in the shadows.  He had to know the MSNBC rules.  I get that he thinks he's a maverick and rules don't count for him, but I also think there's more to this story than we're hearing.  I imagine he's insufferable in meetings where they're trying to get him to do something he doesn't want to do.  It's no secret that he's "difficult", but this a punishment not even close to fitting the crime. 


    by Ramona on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:01pm

    I liked Olbermann.

    His "violation" of NBC rules seems like a fairly strong confirmation that he meant what he said. 

    His indefinite suspension by NBC represents a corporate policy decision. If they'd  wanted to keep him they'd have found a way to do that.

    Let's see, who won the election?

    Better watch your back, Rachel!


    by Flavius on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:14pm

    You are right on the money with this Flavius.  The oh so coincidental suspension just three days after the Republican putsch in the House is the significant development.  And yes, first Olbermann goes, then Maddow and then Ed.  Tweety bird will be allowed to say because like any good employee of a totalitarian regime he will sing the tune the bosses desire.


    by oleeb on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:02am

    Her on-air reaction could be interpreted in several ways, one interpretation could be it sounds like she's flexing her windpipes.


    by kgb999 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:08am

    Ach ...give me a break here. There's no conspiracy. It's a power struggle between a producer and a star anchor gone amok, and the producer found a way to make his move. From all I hear, Olbermann is a class A schmuck with a huge head both figuratively and literally. This isn't a left-wing purge, or a conspiracy, MSNBC has made its name, its ratings and its money being a leftist answer to Fox and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Move along now...


    by Deadman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:57am

    He costs $4 million+ a year since early 2007:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2007/02/15/four-more-years-k...

    (when he had 715,500 total viewers and 283,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demo--big frigging deal, not even a million--doesn't sound worth $4M to me--but whadda I know about ad rates?)

    Sorry, but I really have to laugh seeing the job security issue raised as regards someone like this.  Your average joe or jill would think about quitting and retiring after a couple years of getting, not worry about keeping the job. It's not like he's going to starve if his contract isn't remewed.

    He's a business selling himself to the highest bidder, not an employee, and he pissed off the most current buyer in some manner.

    Where did all the bashing of greedy rich people go all of a sudden? Wink


    by artappraiser on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:28am

    Not speculating if he was worth the money. Not worrying about his economic well being either. I think you missed the point - and you are a sharp enough cookie that I imagine it was intentional.

    There are rich people and then there are ultra-rich people. Shouldn't make the mistake of confusing the two.


    by kgb999 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:47am

    I admit to exteme prejudice in this case. I don't like sportscasters and former sportscaster, I think they are  nearly alll asses, providing lousy infotainment, Just the kinda gal I am, I guess.Laughing

    He's always been the stuff of easy parody. And it's my right as a cable TV subscriber to be prejudiced against him.  He hasn't a right to that job. He's a business, as good as the value of the audience he draws.

    Fuitermore, I've never been sure of the sincereity of righteous liberal act, I half suspect him to do a 360 degree flip anytime, just like Arianna Huffington did should it become profitable for him in money or power or popularity (the latter in the mid 90's was the conservative "she said" to Al Franken's liberal "he said" on a short-lived political debate program.)


    by artappraiser on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:08am

    I agree with much of that. I'm no fan - I'm a critic. Nobody has a right to a job per say. Although I do think that people deserve to have rights and protections of their basic freedoms without fear and question how far an employer goes before they start stomping on the constitution. By nature the employer-employee relationship is a power relationship subject to serious abuse by those who don't act responsibly on the employer side of the equation. Everyone has a right to participate as a private citizen in America's political system.

    I guess I'm glad to give you a place to voice your anti-Olbermann sentiments. But it is kind of OT as I don't really like the guy myself and this isn't an endorsement of anything but the right of every American to support who they want in elections. I felt the same way about the McDonalds who put those "vote for republicans or I am going to attack your wages" letters in his employee's payroll envelopes (the AG is looking in to that BTW - so there must be some limit).

    If they wanted to fire him, they should have fired/suspended him for a reason that didn't totally suck. I'd feel exactly the same way if Glenn Beck had been fired/suspended for the same reason ... and I full on helped promote a boycott of that asshat.

    And AH is a serious piece of work .... more than I have time to address at this point ... whoooo.


    by kgb999 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:32am

    Occam's Razor:  if he says liberal things, he's a liberal.  If he makes campaign donations to liberals he does it because he wants liberals to win.  And if he risks his job doing that, he really wants them to win. 

    It's not that he can hope to use his firing as a springboard to a better slot.  My guess is MSNBC sucks up all the ad $s available for a liberal channel so where -ever he goes, it'll be for fewer $s.

    Of course  it's possible Rush and O'Reilly are secret liberals or Keith a secret conservative. Anything's possible . But for me, until proven otherwise, they are what they say they are. 


    by Flavius on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:21am

    P.S. The New Yorker, June 23, 2008. (Phil Griffin is a producer who has worked on and off with him for decades)
    Griffin added that a certain level of stress is part of the job of managing Keith Olbermann. “You ride the horse, and you start winning, and then all of a sudden you’re off. And we’re just riding, full speed. And it can be a dangerous ride."
    and
    “Bill O’Reilly made Keith Olbermann,” Phil Griffin says. Olbermann concurs, saying, “I really do owe him a percentage of my salary.”

    by artappraiser on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:48am

    mmmmmkay. your point?

    Though irrelevant to the topic of this post, I have noted elsewhere the fact that Olberman plays the O'Reilly character for MSNBC (not a popular suggestion at the time BTW).


    by kgb999 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:02am

    Well I will be only watching E. Shultz and R. Maddow from now on.  I bet the ratings in that time slot drops.   He was well like by many people.  When he was fired from ESPN my family stopped watching sports pundents on that channel and only watched the games they wanted.  They really liked Keith O.  They now listen to sports radio over the internet. 

    Right leaning commentary doesn't hold my interest.   I bet I am not alone on that.       


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:16am

    Ed Shultz. Bit of a nutter, eh? His msnbc promo would suggest so:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBjkaR19TRA


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:51pm

    Latest Comments