Keith Olbermann SUSPENDED From MSNBC Indefinitely

[Knife]

Keith Olbermann suspended over political donations

Msnbc TV host Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely on Friday for making campaign donations to three Democratic congressional candidates, apparently in violation of NBC News ethics policy.

The announcement came in a one-sentence statement from msnbc TV President Phil Griffin: “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.”

The donations were first reported by the Politico website earlier in the day.

Olbermann acknowledged the donations in a statement to Politico, saying he gave the maximum legal donation of $2,400 to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who waged an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate against Tea Party standard-bearer Rand Paul.

Like most news organizations, NBC News, parent of msnbc TV, prohibits political contributions by its journalists without prior approval of the president. (Msnbc.com, a joint venture of NBC News and Microsoft, also has a policy against its journalists contributing to political campaigns.)

"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,” it reads. “Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee."

Politico noted that the donations to Grijalva and Giffords were made on Oct. 28, the same day that Grijalva appeared on Olbermann’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” show. Grijalva won re-election on Tuesday, while Giffords on Friday was clinging to a narrow lead over Republican Jesse Kelly in a race that the Associated Press has not yet called.

In his statement to Politico, Olbermann said he did not encourage his viewers or other staff members to donate to the candidates.

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

Interesting.

Now, I don't think his donations should be, or could be, equated to say Fox News as a whole organization, donating to the GOP but like Williams and NPR, if the company says 'don't do it or your fired' then you're up shit creek if you do. I hope they don't fire him, I rather like his show, but I can't get up a frothing rage about it if he violated policy.

[Losonti Tokash]

That was a pretty dumb thing of him to do, but it's good he's being held accountable. I don't look forward to the gloating, though.

[SirNitram]

Wonder when the more conservative folks who made donations will be called to the table.

Looking at you, Pat.

[General Zod]

Wonder when the more conservative folks who made donations will be called to the table.

Looking at you, Pat.

It doesn't sound like he's being fired for just making donations, but being fired for making donations without properly reporting it beforehand.

[Flagg]

This is pretty shocking since it seems like a pretty minor infraction. I'm thinking MSNBC was looking for any excuse, which makes me wonder.

[Liberty]

What shit. I mean he shouldn't have violated the policy, but this sucks. I wonder what his explanation is? Did he not know about the policy? Did he forget? That seems like something to know and remember.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this does appear to be convenient timing.

[Morilore]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this does appear to be convenient timing.

Convenient in what way? Why would MSNBC be "looking for an excuse"? Did he do something else that was untoward but not strictly censurable?

Has he been losing money/viewers for the network? Did his decision to stop the WPITW not go over well? Do you think they just get sick of his editorializing?

[Flagg]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this does appear to be convenient timing.

Convenient in what way? Why would MSNBC be "looking for an excuse"? Did he do something else that was untoward but not strictly censurable?

(Has he been losing money/viewers for the network?)

According to Huffington Post he and his boss have been at odds, so this may just be his boss waving his dick around. It doesn't sound like they are going to fire him. If they did I'd boycott the network since it's such a minor thing.

[Liberty]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this does appear to be convenient timing.

Convenient in what way? Why would MSNBC be "looking for an excuse"? Did he do something else that was untoward but not strictly censurable?

Has he been losing money/viewers for the network? Did his decision to stop the WPITW not go over well? Do you think they just get sick of his editorializing?

This is the first election I've really paid attention to the media, so I don't know how it usually is, but his diatribe against all the tea party candidates was pretty...well let's just say he was in no ways indirect. And then the right picked up like a million seats, including candidates he ranted about in his diatribe (including in my district, I'm sorry to say). Again, I'm not trying to say it's a conspiracy, I'm just explaining what I meant by "convenient." NBC's story that they just found out about the donations today or whatnot doesn't sound that far out, though. And they did have the policy already.

[Morilore]

This is the first election I've really paid attention to the media, so I don't know how it usually is, but his diatribe against all the tea party candidates was pretty...well let's just say he was in no ways indirect. And then the right picked up like a million seats, including candidates he ranted about in his diatribe (including in my district, I'm sorry to say). Again, I'm not trying to say it's a conspiracy, I'm just explaining what I meant by "convenient." NBC's story that they just found out about the donations today or whatnot doesn't sound that far out, though. And they did have the policy already.

That is absolutely nothing new for him. He did the same thing to Republicans and Blue Dogs who were holding up health care reform a while ago. And let's not forget "in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees," a rant that he ended up apologizing for after Jon Stewart mocked the shit out of him for it.

According to Huffington Post he and his boss have been at odds, so this may just be his boss waving his dick around. It doesn't sound like they are going to fire him. If they did I'd boycott the network since it's such a minor thing.

Ah, really? I've always kind of suspected he had some personality conflict with a boss somewhere. It seems to come out from time to time - remember when he temporarily renamed the WPITW to "Hall of Shame"? When he announced it I got the impression that he was forced to rename it by someone he clearly thinks is a douchebag.

[Mr Bean]

Now the question is are Ed, Rachel and Lawrence going to get themselves fired tonight by donating to campaigns tonight or will they just gloss over the story. This is one of those areas if another host steps in they could break the network. Has Keith made good enough friends who the other three hosts who have shows because of him or will they abandon him?

[Liberty]

This is the first election I've really paid attention to the media, so I don't know how it usually is, but his diatribe against all the tea party candidates was pretty...well let's just say he was in no ways indirect. And then the right picked up like a million seats, including candidates he ranted about in his diatribe (including in my district, I'm sorry to say). Again, I'm not trying to say it's a conspiracy, I'm just explaining what I meant by "convenient." NBC's story that they just found out about the donations today or whatnot doesn't sound that far out, though. And they did have the policy already.

That is absolutely nothing new for him. He did the same thing to Republicans and Blue Dogs who were holding up health care reform a while ago. And let's not forget "in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees," a rant that he ended up apologizing for after Jon Stewart mocked the shit out of him for it.

Wow, I did not know that. Like I said, I haven't paid much attention to the media until recently!

[Dominus Atheos]

I also don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what happened is...

Well, let's just look at the facts that have surfaced after this event. First off, the excuse they used is a load of horse shit:

MSNBC 'Doesn't Answer' to NBC News Standards

MSNBC chief Phil Griffin suspended Keith Olbermann today for violating "NBC News policy and standards" by donating to three Democratic congressional candidates last month. But according to an NBC News source, MSNBCers have been exempt from those rules for years.

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."

We've asked Olbermann and an MSNBC spokesperson whether any rules specific to MSNBC were cited in the decision to suspend him. We're not exactly fans of Olbermann's fat-headed sanctimony, but if you're going to suspend a guy for breaking the rules, they ought to apply to him. Especially since the rule in question is designed to promote a notion of journalistic disinterestedness that Olbermann's show openly shreds on a daily basis.

Two, this non-existent policy only seems to apply to Olbermann:

Joe Scarborough did the exact same thing

If you have any doubt about Phil Griffin's real motive in suspending Keith Olbermann, you need look no further than how the network reacted to Joe Scarborough's donation of $4,200 to a Republican House candidate in 2006:

Joe Scarborough, host of the "Morning Joe" talk show and the evening newscast "Scarborough Country," $4,200 in March 2006 to Derrick Kitts, Republican candidate for the House from Oregon. ... 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."

Griffin might try to defend himself by saying the difference is that Olbermann interviewed one of the candidates that he contributed to after making the contribution. But Griffin's problem would be that Joe Scarborough did the exact same thing. As JohnKWilson pointed out in a diary, after donating to Derrick Kitts, Scarbrough interviewed Kitts on his program.

The bottom-line here that both Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough both host opinion shows. They both made personal contributions to political candidates. But Olbermann supports Democrats, and Scarborough supports Republicans, so even though Olbermann is the network's top-rated host, and even though Scarborough hides his ratings sheet in a little box in the basement, it's Olbermann that gets silenced.

[SCRawl]

snip

I don't doubt the veracity of these reports, but could you please put in a link (or links)?

So, yeah, if these reports are true, then it looks like the skids have been greased for Olbermann. For whatever reason, he's become expendable. Maybe his show just isn't cost-effective anymore, or perhaps there's a clash of personalities behind the scenes. I personally think that it's a miscalculation, especially in light of Atheos' news: if they want an excuse to get rid of Olbermann, they'll have to do better to avoid failing the smell test.

[Dominus Atheos]

snip

I don't doubt the veracity of these reports, but could you please put in a link (or links)?

http://gawker.com/5682789/msnbc-doesnt- ... -standards

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/ ... same-thing

[SCRawl]

Someone pointed out in one of the replies to the first article that Olbermann refuses to vote. The following is a snippet from here to describe why:

I don't vote -- I don't believe journalists covering politics should (and I don't think the democracy would suffer if however many of us there are, recused ourselves). I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.

Isn't his decision to donate money to a campaign at odds with that philosophy?

[Dominus Atheos]

That was 6 years ago, back before the GOP was as obviously bugshit crazy. I mean, as bad as GWB was, the 2004 election didn't have nearly as much riding on it as the 2008 or 2012 elections.

[SCRawl]

That was 6 years ago, back before the GOP was as obviously bugshit crazy. I mean, as bad as GWB was, the 2004 election didn't have nearly as much riding on it as the 2008 or 2012 elections.

He said the same thing in 2008, just after the election. Granted, the 2010 election featured much crazier people than 2008, but this isn't ancient history here.

[Kyler]

That was 6 years ago, back before the GOP was as obviously bugshit crazy. I mean, as bad as GWB was, the 2004 election didn't have nearly as much riding on it as the 2008 or 2012 elections.

I think your exactly right, If the Right had found out about it they would have been all over MSNBC saying is just another example of the liberal media. They put the hammer down on him to show that they support journalistic integrity, so Fox News and the crazies teabaggers have nothing to say in the future. I bet he'll be back in a month.

[Elfdart]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this does appear to be convenient timing.

Convenient in what way? Why would MSNBC be "looking for an excuse"? Did he do something else that was untoward but not strictly censurable?

Has he been losing money/viewers for the network? Did his decision to stop the WPITW not go over well? Do you think they just get sick of his editorializing?

Comcast is planning to buy NBC, and has a history of having people fired for ridiculing Falafel O'Reilly.

[Liberty]

Okay, NOW this is making me mad. If those article snippits are accurate, this whole thing is complete bullshit! And all those tea partiers are still crying about the "lamestream" media, which is supposedly in the liberals' pocket! What the fuck?

[Morilore]

OK, if it's true that the suspension isn't the result of a legitimate policy, then it's a crying evil and someone needs to be taken to task, hard. (Interesting that Jon Stewart isn't on tonight.) However:

I don't vote -- I don't believe journalists covering politics should (and I don't think the democracy would suffer if however many of us there are, recused ourselves). I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.

He said the same thing in 2008, just after the election. Granted, the 2010 election featured much crazier people than 2008, but this isn't ancient history here.

There is a whole lot fucking more about Keith Olbermann than a simple donation that is inconsistent with this philosophy. I like him, I agree with him a lot, but he should not get up on a goddamned high horse and talk a game about journalistic objectivity if he's going to bluntly say that this or that politician is bad for the country and you should not vote for them.

[MKSheppard]

As I posted on HPCA.....

I hate to defend Olbermann....but....

Come on. We know that the people who run the news, report it, etc all donate to the Democratic party overwhelmingly.

The rationale that MSNBC has put forth is thence bullshit.

My suspicion is that this is just being used as a pretext by the upper ranks of MSNBC to oust Olbermann in a way they can , without breaking his contract and being forced to pay him teh monies.

[MKSheppard]

Has Keith made good enough friends who the other three hosts who have shows because of him or will they abandon him?

Keef? Make friends? HAHAHHAHAHA

Olbermann's always been notorious for making "friends" with fellow workers and the people who sign the checks; to the point that when he's fired from a job; nobody sheds any tears, except Keith.

As for the other MSNBC Hosts...I can see Rachel Maddow simply saying nothing; and then making a bid for Countdown.

COUNTDOWN.....WITH RACHEL MADDOW!

(ratings improve three times over Olbermann)

That's the real reason MSNBC fired him -- they went looking for any excuse to terminate him via the contract; since he gets paid only $100k less than Bill O'Reilly; yet only pulls in 1.1 ratings, while O'Reilly does much, much better than that.

So yeah, classy classy move by MSNBC.

[General Zod]

Come on. We know that the people who run the news, report it, etc all donate to the Democratic party overwhelmingly.

Like Fox?