I haven't been online much today but this story seems to have exploded far and wide ~ I don't know how it played out at Politico ~ whether Olbermann offered the information or if he was asked a direct question that he answered honestly ~ but I understand why news media would have a rule restricting political contributions, "... considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover" ~ there's lots more to post, including that Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely, without pay ~ I also understand Benen's distinction between legit news sources and Fox media ~ but I'm thinking it's exactly these kinds of corporate rules that support that distinction ~ Sooz

OLBERMANN'S CHECKBOOK.... [Update: there's an important follow-up to this story]

There's a reasonable debate to be had over the propriety of media professionals donating to political candidates. I have a hunch the discussion might heat up again.

Now, if Olbermann's employer has a policy prohibiting these kinds of contributions, I can assume the "Countdown" host should expect a call to the principal's office today. How that shakes out is between Olbermann and the folks who sign his checks.

But before Olbermann's critics get on their high horse, a little context seems appropriate. The MSNBC host donated a total of $7,200 in checks to help three candidates. He did so in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and did not encourage others to support these campaigns.

At the same time, News Corp made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.

I suspect Olbermann will take some heat over $7,200 in donations, but the qualitative and quantitative differences seem relevant here.

Postscript: In the interests of disclosure, I should note that I did not financially support any candidates for public office in 2010. I also did not donate to any political party or party campaign committee.

—Steve Benen 10:40 AM November 5, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_11/026492.php

This adds a new twist, especially the Scarborough/Buchanan contributions going unpunished ~ to me, Olbermann's show has very obvious liberal leanings, just as Scarborough's and Buchanan's have very conservative leanings ~ gotta be more to this story ~ Sooz

OLBERMANN SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY WITHOUT PAY.... Following up on an earlier item, there's been a pretty big development in the "controversy" surrounding Keith Olbermann making three campaign contributions this campaign season.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the personnel policies of NBC News, but if Politico's account is correct, Olbermann really did seem to break the network's rules. It appears to be a fairly minor infraction, but I suppose the host should have known better. A slap on the wrist, with a stern note about not doing it again, would probably be appropriate.

But an indefinite suspension without pay seems way over the top under the circumstances. We are, after all, talking about three checks -- one each for three candidates. As we talked about earlier, the MSNBC host's donations were made in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and he never encouraged others to support these campaigns.

As I understand it, the NBC News rule is intended to maintain a professional standard -- media professionals on the NBC News payroll are supposed to appear politically neutral. That's a noble intention. But the last time I checked, Keith Olbermann hosts a show with a point of view. His opinions are not only obvious, they're a key part of his program, which happens to be the highest rated on MSNBC.

As a "Countdown" viewer, I can say with confidence that I'm not surprised he cut a few checks for candidates he liked; I'm more surprised he didn't write more checks for other candidates he liked.

The network policy notes that the restrictions are necessary, because political activities may "jeopardize [employees'] standing as an impartial journalist." But therein lies the point -- those who watch Olbermann are well aware of his politics. Psst -- no one considers him "impartial."

Besides, if we're going to be sticklers for such things, I can't help but notice that Joe Scarborough has also contributed to like-minded candidates -- identified on his disclosure forms as an MSNBC host -- and Pat Buchanan has been writing some campaign checks, too. Neither faced suspension. (For the record, I don't think they should be punished, either.)

And just to reinforce the contrast, let's also remember that News Corp made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.

And Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay for $7,200 in donations? Granted, NBC News and MSNBC are legitimate news outlets with professional standards News Corp and Fox News lack, but regardless, it's a reminder that today's punishment far exceeds his fairly inconsequential infractions.

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM November 5, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026498.php

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns

I don't think such a "rule" would be legal in Canada.

Still more ~ Sooz

THE SEARCH FOR A SINGLE STANDARD.... In 2007, MSNBC.com ran an interesting report based on extensive research of Federal Election Commission records. The goal was to identify media professionals who "made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007." The investigation found a total of 143 journalists.

One of the 143 was MSNBC's own Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress, who joined the network in 2003. Three years later, in the 2006 midterms, Scarborough contributed $4,200 to a Republican congressional candidate in Oregon named Derrick Kitts, in apparent violation of network policy.

And what was the network's response at the time?

Scarborough faced no suspension. Indeed, he wasn't punished at all.

And I'm fine with that. Scarborough is not a reporter in the traditional sense, and his opinions permeate his program. I don't expect independence or neutrality from Scarborough, and whether he donates to one candidate or a hundred candidates is irrelevant. As MSNBC said at the time, he "hosts an opinion program." The donations don't affect viewers' perceptions of him as impartial, since no one considers him impartial.

So, why suspend Keith Olbermann indefinitely without pay?

Part of me can't help but wonder if MSNBC is upset with its top-rated host for some other reason, and is using this as an excuse -- a la NPR and Juan Williams -- to punish him.

Otherwise, this whole story just doesn't make any sense.

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM November 5, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026500.php

Reckon MSNBC is envious of FOX ratings and will be following the FOX model?

Canadian companies aren't in the habit of meddling in their employees' political preferences. It's bloody illegal to do so.

AHHHHH ~ methinks we're getting closer to the truth ~ Sooz

I think I'm going to be sick.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This is serious and dangerous shyte. A few decades ago an Austrian with a funny moustache was doing this kind of stuff. Eventually, millions died as a result.

Methinks Comcast should be boycotted.

Let me get this straight:  news corporations can be given individual rights and can make political donations to the party(s) and candidates of their choice, but their individual employees cannot?  Unless, as in the case of  Scarborough and Buchanan the donations go to candidates the corporation approves of? And these same news corporations want to censor editorial comments made on their broadcasts?  All in the name of "pure" journalism ?  What a load of crap....blink blink....

Not only that Cannalee... they want to control what you read online as you have your morning coffee. They want to control who gets to post what. They want you to pay for every link you click on.

This is getting really, really ugly.

ThinkProgress has updated the Comcast item [my post #8] by changing the words "Shortly After Major Bush Donor Takes Over ..." in the title with the words "UPDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover of  ...", and adding the following correction:

"[i]UPDATED: We have been notified that Comcast has not yet officially taken over MSNBC/NBC Universal. Although Comcast has tentatively finalized a deal to purchase a majority stake in NBC, Comcast awaits final approval of the takeover from the Justice Department and from the Federal Communications Commission. A statement from Comcast reads: “The joint venture between Comcast and GE has not yet received regulatory approval. Comcast is not in any way involved with decisions made currently by NBC News.â€

Realizing that bashing Obama at this particular time is not exactly pc, wasn't the present administration discussing some sort of plans to "monitor" the internet?
I'm thinking it had to do with terrorism, SIDs or something like that....

  

Phil Rosenthal is the Chicago Tribune's media critic ~ I think this commentary supports my earlier comment that there's got to be more to the story than we are privvy to ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ Sooz

Keith Olbermann pays price for political donations
Host of MSNBC's 'Countdown' suspended indefinitely without pay

Phil Rosenthal
Media
November 7, 2010

I've known Keith Olbermann for about 25 years. Seven years ago, we were talking about his then-new "Countdown" show on MSNBC, which seemed tailored to him but had not yet become a bully pulpit. I observed it seemed like his perfect venue.

"I hesitate to say that only because I've kind of learned that there aren't any perfect venues," said Olbermann, who had butted heads as he went from network to network. "If there's one thing my little path of self-des-, er, discovery has taught me, it's don't expect everything to be perfect."

With MSNBC suspending Olbermann for making campaign donations to three Democratic candidates in the midterm elections, an apparent violation of NBC News ethics policy, the issue of "self-des" comes to mind.

When he has run up against bosses in the past, it has been because he felt they compromised his standards, not the other way around. I have no idea why he would make this unnecessary political gesture. He is too smart to be unaware of what he was doing, what it called into question, and what it put at risk.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," MSNBC boss Phil Griffin said in a Friday statement. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Admittedly, Griffin's push to make MSNBC a commentary-driven counterpart to Fox News Channel under the slogan "Lean Forward," with proudly liberal Olbermann among its biggest stars, confuses the issue.

"To not stand for something is a recipe for failure, because they want something more," Griffin told me earlier this year, professing his admiration for Fox News' ability to carve out its niche.

Most news organizations, including the Chicago Tribune, have policies restricting political involvement. The stated rationale in NBC News' prohibition of such activities for its employees is that they might "jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest."

But Olbermann's job isn't to be an impartial journalist.

No one with even a passing familiarity of Olbermann would consider his donations of $2,400 each to support U.S. House incumbents Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords from Arizona and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who lost his U.S. Senate race to Rand Paul, as conflicting with any interests he has already espoused.

"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," Olbermann said in a statement to Politico, which broke the story.

It is OK in 2010 for a news organization's parent company to make donations to candidates, OK for cable commentators to clearly advocate candidates and OK for some cable commentators to be all-but-declared candidates.

So there is a case to be made that a commentator should be able to make a donation. Or there was a case to be made. With one's bosses. Before opening one's checkbook.

NBC News' policy on this includes a requirement to report "any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee."

That's because these policies exist less to protect the reputation and standing of those they govern than the news organizations for which they work.

Olbermann popping for a few thousand dollars wasn't going to change anyone's view of him any more than political contributions by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity did. Some point out MSNBC's Joe Scarborough was not reprimanded for a Republican contribution in 2006, although NBC told The New York Times he asked for permission.

What someone such as Olbermann says to his nightly audience of 1.1 million viewers is liable to have greater impact on elections, and, even then, not so much because his audience tends to agree with him already.

But if NBC News doesn't enforce its own policies, how will those in the government who must sign off on Comcast's $30 billion takeover of NBC Universal trust whatever promises are made to gain approval?

It doesn't take much to envision grandstanding politicians teeing off on NBC News and arguing it would be a mistake to make it potentially more powerful as part of the nation's top cable and residential Internet broadband provider, as well as the No. 3 residential phone-service provider.

There's a scene in Paddy Chayefsky's frighteningly prescient 1976 movie, "Network," in which newsman-turned-oracle Howard Beale gets a boardroom baptism of fire for potentially spoiling a multinational deal involving his network's parent company. "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature," the chairman booms.

Olbermann knows the scene well.

"I have had that exact speech given to me by an executive of a television company whose name I will not mention," Olbermann told me a few years back.

One imagines him getting it again.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 009.column

As much as Rachel Maddow would want him reinstated, I doubt NBC will do it.

That's about all that can really be said. 

With whom doe Olberman have a contract... MSNBC or NBC?

true.  do you think this firing has anything to do with contract violations?

Just received this POLITICO Breaking News email ~ Sooz


POLITICO Breaking News
-------------------------------------------------

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann will return to the air Tuesday night, after being suspended Friday for making political contributions to three Democrats. "After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement.

Well... guess I was wrong. It'll be interesting to hear what he will have to say about this.