Skip to content

NBC lacks principles, proves it by suspending Olbermann

November 5, 2010

FoxNews.com – MSNBC’s Olbermann Suspended for Political Donations.

There is no hiding I can not stand Keith Olbermann.  He is arrogant, pompous, snide and a pedant of the worst kind.  He is also entitled to his opinion.

Just because I don’t like what he has to say, doesn’t mean he can’t say it.  It just means, I make a choice not to listen.  One form of speech is political donations, which Keith is now getting into trouble for.  He donated money to three democrat politicians that had been on his show.

Some would see a conflict of interest, and I assume that is why NBC has a policy against it, but seriously, who are we kidding?  The content alone is so biased that the fact he gave money to a politician he just finished having a love-fest with is rather minor.

In my opinion, this truly is no different from NPR firing Juan Williams.  The specifics are most definitely different, but the meaning is the same.  Olbermann is getting fired for a version of his thinking.  NBC is being decidedly hypocritical here.  While their policy might not allow donations to candidates, they don’t have any problem with the actual speech Olbermann uses to describe candidates, whether glowing or defiling.  I would argue his words are much more damaging than his money.

Again, while I despise this man, I feel his suspension is unjustified and strongly support him getting re-instated on his show that no one watches.  That is what principles are progressives.  You defend people you don’t even like because we all have the right to say and do stupid things, not just the stupid things we agree with.

Update – 11:03 pmThanks to NoOneofAnyImport for pointing this out – The distinguished Professor James McPherson (who spammed me below and started a small albeit fruitless discussion about his lack of ethics) posted his original spam message 8 times within less than 5 hours on other blogs.  What you got to say bout that teach?

Advertisements
14 Comments leave one →
  1. November 5, 2010 4:04 pm

    I am shocked at the hypocrisy of MSNBC, but if that is indeed their policy how could Olberman have been so stupid as to flout it?

    • November 5, 2010 4:33 pm

      Thanks for the comment.

      My guess would be, and this is based on his onscreen personality, he thought he was better than the policy. Which is pretty standard for progressives – if they don’t like the rule, just ignore it.

    • JustFacts permalink
      November 6, 2010 9:10 am

      My guess is that he has the same mindset of so many people today (particularly sports figures). Contracts mean nothing. It is just like all other legal issues.

      We used to be a country of laws. You obyed them, because they were there. If you didn’t agree with them, you got them changed. Somewhere, oh say, back in the 1960s, the whole thing turned around. There was no respect for any laws. It became, how far can I push it – to hell with authority. Contracts are only there to give you an advantage. You don’t have to live up to anything – unless you’re a little guy like me. The really elite sports stars, Hollywood stars, TV personalities, don’t have to follow any contract – they are too important to abide by those silly words.

      While I abhore Keith Olbermann and MSNBC, I think this policy is wrong, as Fleeceme has stated. But, I don’t believe Olbermann should be reinstated, because he did break his contract. Words have meaning (just like elections). If he didn’t like how the contract was written, then he should have renegotiated it.

      My guess is that Olbermann had become so toxic, that MSNBC was looking for a way to dump him. He provided them with an opportunity. This whole fiasco couldn’t have happened to a better bunch of people.

      • November 6, 2010 10:56 am

        I agree with your overall sentiment about rules, but I disagree with his suspension being made permanent.

        Again, the policy is such a bald-faced lie, “maintaining an impartial journalist”, that it is easy for someone to assume they could donate to a politician given the amount of non-tangible support Olbermann and MSNBC give to politicians every other day of the year.

        I compare this hypocrisy to newspapers. How can the public respect the “impartial” reporting of a newspaper when that paper endorses a political candidate? This aspect of the news has always bothered me. Once you throw your ethics out the window, don’t all of a sudden get high and mighty just to fire someone. Grow some balls and just fire them, don’t come up with a lame excuse. If the truth is he is such a douche MSNBC just got tired of him, then that should be the reason.

        Interesting how a company that is supposed to report the truth, has to lie about their own actions.

  2. November 5, 2010 4:38 pm

    …but them why wouldn’t they also suspend Buchanon, who has donated to conservative causes? It doesn’t add up.

    • November 5, 2010 4:50 pm

      Hmm, good question. Buchanon doesn’t have his own show correct? Maybe it is for salaried hosts or something, as opposed to guest MSNBC contributors, who are still paid, but would make it hard for them to have much of a political life if they weren’t allowed to support politicians.

  3. James McPherson permalink
    November 5, 2010 8:22 pm

    True, Olbermann shouldn’t have done it, because of the policy. But it’s accepted practice at Fox News: http://mediamatters.org/research/201010270005 — sad for an organization with “News” in its name.

    • November 5, 2010 10:51 pm

      Wow, its almost as if you didn’t read my post at all. I think the policy is stupid, because of its stated goal of maintaining journalistic impartiality. Last time I checked MSNBC and FOX and every other news source in America has left the impartiality bus a long time ago, so lets stop with the freaking charade already.

      If you would have read my post, I said Olbermann should be allowed to express himself through monetary support of a candidate, why not, he does it vocally every night on his show, so what’s the difference?

      I allowed your comment, even though it is spam, to show that yes FOX does it too, but they are not so deluded that they pretend they are impartial and suspend there people for doing it.

      Keep reading Media Matters you hack, and next time leave a substantive comment.

      • James McPherson permalink
        November 6, 2010 1:35 pm

        “If you would have read my post, I said Olbermann should be allowed to express himself through monetary support of a candidate”

        And if you had read my comment carefully, you’d have seen that I disagreed with you about Olbermann–while pointing out that Fox has a policy (or non-policy) that I also think is bad.

        But if my “spam” isn’t substantial enough for you, no problem. All you have to do is either block it or ask me not to send anything further. Or you could simply resort to insults.

  4. November 6, 2010 2:09 pm

    Okay, so to follow your reasoning.

    Olbermann should have been suspended. Ok, I can live with that. But then you throw in FOX, which does not have the same policy as MSNBC. And instead of addressing the point I made about FOX, you ignore it and suggest I resort to insults. You are a hack.

    How interesting. Are you challenging my point that you spammed me? Do you really want me to point out the other blogs you posted the exact same comment on?

    Is this a lack of originality on your part? Are you a one trick pony? These are all question, not assertions. Answer them to the best of your ability and we can have a discussion, but you bringing FOX into a discussion about MSNBC is an obvious red-herring. You don’t still rely on rhetorical tricks do you?

    You are a hack, the proof is in your comments on this blog and others. I asked you for a substantive comment and the best you can deliver is “And if you had read my comment carefully, you’d have seen that I disagreed with you about Olbermann–while pointing out that Fox has a policy (or non-policy) that I also think is bad.”

    Which is the exact reason you are a hack. I disagreed with you about this, but hey look over here a unicorn that is also bad.

    Try again. lets see if you can do any better on the third go round.

  5. James McPherson permalink
    November 6, 2010 2:27 pm

    Sorry, if a “discussion” is what you want–and I suspect you don’t–you can bring it on over to my blog (which has been around a lot longer and which offers a much broader range of discussion than this one).

    In the meantime, continue to have a good time exercising your “sheepish wit” here without me.

    • November 6, 2010 2:31 pm

      Excellent rebuttal. I am glad you won’t be around throwing red-herrings anymore.

Trackbacks

  1. Who is James McPherson? « Fleece Me
  2. A Focused, Non-Terminal Repeating Troll « NoOneOfAnyImport's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: