A policy that is selectively enforced and applies only to liberals, apparently. Where are the suspensions for Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan for doing what Keith did?

Well, I'm just pointing out that this whole thing shines a light on Fox's practices. I'm hoping that people will consider journalistic integrity and see how it applies to Fox.

Bullpucky! We already knew Fox's practices, it is why we don't watch Faux. Sick of the Liberals being pushed out, told to play nice...ENOUGH!

good comment to start with tonight. Thanks

Okay, I'm not talking about anyone here knowing Fox's practices. I'm talking about Fox viewers knowing Fox's practices. A lot of folks over there dislike Olbermann with a passion. I'm sure their viewers are giddy with the suspension. But, when their viewers actually look into the details of that suspension, it might open some eyes as to just how duplicitous and shady Fox truly is, and the horrible impact they had on this election.

As silly as this rule is, and as arbitrarily as it seems to be enforced, by suspending one of its most popular voices, MSNBC has drawn a line in the sand in terms of ethics and honesty that Fox will not ever cross. They simply can not cross it without showing everyone the proverbial ace up their sleeve. I'm hoping that it may actually lead a few people to value honesty in news.

Right now, all news networks are playing a stupid game and pushing whatever narrative ropes in the most sponsor money, and the public is suffering. Fox is winning that game because they've rigged the table. It's uneven because they have no value for truth or integrity or honesty where other networks still try to remain bound by these simple fundamentals of journalism.

The people at fox news are not going to get the details on his suspension. The people who watch faux news still think that Saddam Hussien was in control of the airplanes on sep 11.

If only Fox would comment.

I think that if FOX viewers had the capacity for thought, they wouldn't "waste" it on such frivolity as ethics and integrity.

You think Fox can't say anything about KO's suspension because they do the same thing??? Like hypocrisy has EVER stopped them before...

Oh, dearest Noodlehead, I can only WISH that Fox viewers would think about anything! I have to agree with Gristle on this one. =(

Once again, fans of Rachel, Keith, and the like are the only true thinkers.

Noodlehead - you're spot on.

Although, the Fox viewers have bought into so many baldfaced lies where the truth is so heavily advertised they can't possibly have their heads that far in the sand ... I'm not sure how this one will be any different. I still recall back in '08; split-screen images with one side showing the ethics report finding Sarah Palin guilty, and the other side showing a grinning Plain saying "I'm so glad they found me innocent."

Fox fans' utter failure to comprehend the meaning of hypocrisy and to comprehend when their idols are lying is something on the order of a superpower. Yes, I think that's it. The mutant superpower of gullibility.

It's actually kind of cultish. They are told to believe what Fox tells them the truth is, they are told what to think, and they know they will be punished by their fellow cult members if they question the propaganda coming out of Fox and other Conservative outlets (how many vapid threats has O'Reilly spat over the years for instance?).

The thing is, they can't talk about Olbermann without making something up to keep the criticism off themselves. However, considering all this is coming on the heels of the thorough and hasty debunking of the lies about the President's trip to India, this could get people questioning things in ways Fox doesn't want them to.

It will be interesting. If only a handful of people turn them off, it's a step in the right direction.

Fox viewers do not care about honesty, ethics or integrity, they care only about WINNING.................................

policy standards like "ask permission and we will decide for you, little stupid one, if you can contribute to a candidate or not."? if they pick and choose, that's messed up. if they don't, why have such a stupid rule that that takes away keith's rights as a citizen of this country?

They're not taking away his rights. he can say what he wants to say. However, if he wishes to retain his employment with MSNBC, he has to follow the rules. He took a risk and it worked against him.

It's not about whether we agree with MSNBCs rule or not, it's whether MSNBC will say Okay, you screwed up, whether they'll take him out behind the woodshed and chew him out, and then let him come back. He goofed, he made a mistake.

It's interesting how this is all happening suddenly. First CNN and Rick Sanchez, then the NPR guy, now Olbermann. Nothing from Fox, as previous posters have pointed out, but then I'd be shocked if there was anything. Hopefully it will make a point to at least a few out there.

I'm looking forward to Keith's return. He and Rachel are among the few I can stand to watch. I hate tuning into a show and having to listen to people try to ourshout each other. It doesn't add a lot to information when you only hear volume and gibberish.

I do not for one second believe anyone from Fox or any viewer of Fox will see any virtue in suspending Keith. It will be mocked as weakness and cheered as a victory for the Rightwing. Shutting down any debate is a prime goal of the party of NO. If the tea party can't out-yell the left they will just stick their fingers in their ears and yell to themselves. There is nothing good about any of this and MSNBC is making a mistake.

The issue isn't about Fox! Its about MSNBC. Who the hell is Phil Griffin? What are HIS political issues? What is the political bias of Comcast? That's the article I want to read. And if MSNBC fires Keith Olbermann...we are all in a world of trouble. There has to be ONE voice out there, that is raised against the lies and idiocy. This is very bad.

I am from Canada and I watch Keith and Rachel because as a caring nieghbour (yes that's how we spell neighbour in Canada) who lives with excellent health care, gay marriage, gays serving openly in the military, hate crime laws and heavily regulated banks, I want to understand why our cultures are so different. I spend my time and my money in your country every winter along with thousands of other Canadian snowbirds and I have become increasingly more concerned about the state of affairs in your country. Keith and Rachel reassure me that there are people in your country fighting for social justice and other progressive policies. If I had to rely on getting my information from other media outlets I would never venture across the border. As Newt said today the world should fear the U.S. and believe me we do. If MSNBC does not reinstate Keith immediately I will stop watching this channel because it will confirm what I suspect that progressive thought is dangerous in the United States. As an employer MSNBC should follow the concept of progressive discipline. This is Keith's first infraction of your "rules"- a warning would have been sufficient. Keith is a brilliant mind and a much needed voice in your country. Sometimes I wish he wouldn't name call but I understand his frustration and as you know we Canadians are accused of being way too polite (except that we love hockey and our politicians regularly call each other out right in parliament). Keith and Rachel have a great deal of support in Canada. I am surprised how many people up here know them and regularly tune in. Please MSNBC do the right thing and return Keith to where he belongs.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I cant believe this executive...phil "SOUL LESS" griffin could..with one swipe take my beloved keith olbermann off the air..WHILE HE GIVES A PASS TO SCARBOUROUGH FOR DOING THE SAME THING(the latest is he has given $5,000 THOUSAND DOLLARS!!! this election cycle to the repubs-teabags...griffin has it out for keith..HE BETTER PUT KEITH BACK ON THE AIR!!...GRIFFIN HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE WATCHING,WAITING,AND WILL NOT STAND UP TO THIS!!......KEITH IS MSNBC...HE MADE MSNBC WHAT IT IS...."LEAN FOWARD"..NOW APPLY THIS....NOW!!

It isn't enough to speak on Keith's behalf. This scandalous decision requires joint action. Rachel, Lawrence, Chris, even the conservatives like Joe and Pat, should stage at least a one-night walkout--and bring MSNBC to its knees. A message of courage and determination needs to be sent. After all, Keith is being used as an example to muzzle others at the network and in the media. Fight back French-style. We'll make do with Amy Goodman and Laura Flanders while waiting for MSNBC to regain its principles--and compass.

The corporatist pigs who run MSNBS have no principles. Neither does Rachel it seems who spoke the company line as she was undoubtedly told to.

If Rachel and Chris and the rest had a spine they would walk out. Lawrence wasn't scheduled for Friday night so we have no idea what his response would be but the rest went on as if business was usual. Well, it's not and the only thing that we can do is show our disdain for this by boycotting. I for one will not watch MSNBS until Keith is reinstated. This better be soon too.

Here are the questions I have:

1. Was Keith aware of this policy before he made his contributions?

2. If so, did he do it precisely to spark this discussion?

3. How did this information come to light, and how was the suspension decided upon? Is there some "Get Keith Obermann" conspiracy, originating on the right?

4. So, members of corporations (like MSNBC) cannot make individual political contributions, but the Supreme Court says that corporations are free to contribute as much as they like to anyone... did Keith make his contribution as a private individual or as the Keith Obermann corporation? Surely he has his own corporation to handle the profits of his book publishing?

You assume that Fox viewers ponder at that level–about ethics. I wish they would. Most of them are not dumb people.

Until they bring Keith back all I can say to the network is, "Good night and good luck."

I think the whole point of this exercise, along with getting ride of wpitw is to show Jon Stewart that MSNBC is not the left wing version of FOX. Instead of pulling this caper they should have just come out and said "ya know what..busted..ya got us Jon and now we're going to review what we do and make it better". Going forward all of the on air staff should declare their contributions when interviewing somebody they have given cash to. Better still they should be asked to excuse themselves from a round table if the interviewee is somebody they contribute to or ya know..their freakin' Dad [Mika]. Clean up your act MSNBC stop acting like the anti FOX and get KO back on the air and apologize to him and his viewers for pulling such a lame, obvious stunt. While we're at it stop giving air time to Hannity, nobody cares what that moron..or is it moran?.. has to say. It's all lies and distortions and complete fantasy and everybody knows it. Plus, dude looks like somebody whacked him in the face with a shovel. Nobody wants to see that.

Everyone's missing the point. This isn't about the contributions or the NBC rule. It's an excuse to reopen Keith's employment contract and lower Keith's pay. Griffin thereby shows his value value as a manager and keeps his job when Comcast takes over. Simple as that.

Now, weirdly, it is Keith who is once again illustrating the difference between what he does at MSNBC -- what we do here -- and what goes on across the street.

The game is rigged and I hope MSNBC reinstates Keith Olberman.....

No, you are not the only one to think that at least the appearance of ethics is a good thing and sets MSNBC apart from "Farce" News(?). However, if the MSNBC management quotes regarding Joe Scarborough’s contributions as reported in the Daily Kos is accurate then this appearance of just following the company’s policies is a joke! When a question arose about Joe’s contributions NBC replied:

"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."

Really? What's Keith?

Wrong. Keith Olbermann portrays himself as commentator. A noun which by definition is a person who COMMENTS on events, especially on tv or radio. There is a difference between an commentator and a journalist.

Mr. Olbermann portrays himself as a “Journalist” yet he spews his ultra-liberal views from his pedestal of a “News Anchor.”

You are wrong about Fox viewrs.....they can't think-they blindly follow the Fox hacks.

I sent the following e-mail to NBC news.

Hello,

I don't expect this letter to go anywhere or be seen by anyone who would need to see it.

I write this letter not as a case for outrage against your decision, or a case for support of your decision. What I do suggest is that you evaluate your policy in the environment of the world as it currently exists. I fully acknowledge that you have the right to enforce your stated policy. However, merely putting out a statement confirming you have suspended Keith Olberman for not getting prior approval for three $2400 campaign contributions does not adequetely serve the public good for a few reasons. As distasteful as this will seam, NBC news management owes its listening audience and the public at large, a greater discussion and explanation of the issues concerning what is the condition of news in this day and age. NBC news management should have talked about the blurring of the line between News, Reporting, Opinion, Commentary, Analysis, and Topics for Discussion. I know the reason for the policy is that you are trying to uphold the tenants of journalist integrity. That is important. The independence of the "Fourth Estate" is critical to the health of our nation As much as we believe in objectivity of our hosts in the examples Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, we need understand the difference between News Anchoring and Opinion and Commentary. Those distinctions are real.

You compete on a nightly basis with Fox and CNN. Fox respects very few of the journalistic tenants that you attempt to maintain. By merely suspending or firing people who have transgressed your policy, you are, in effect, falling on your own sword. If you are going to maintain this standard, why not also challenge others that would ignore these standards. In my opinion, you are not adequately supporting the journalistic standards if you do not forcefully challenge other organizations while they accept their members 1) contributing to campaigns 2) running packs (Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, & etc.) that contribute to millions of dollars to candidates and initiatives 3) supporting organizations (American Chamber of Commerce and others) that accept and spend many millions that do not have disclose their campaign contributors 4) running rallies (To many to list) and political movements 5) preparing for their (Mike Huckaby, John Kasich, Sarah Palin, & etc.) runs for political office 6) being the bulwark for the dissemination of lies, half-truths, misinformation, and propaganda.

I look forward to Keith Olberman returning to your lineup and a opportunity for Keith and (MS)NBC yet another Edward R. Murrow Award. He is an important part of the information universe, in spite of this apparent breech of your policy.

I look forward to your response, reply, or action.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Madsen

The MSNBC policy does not prohibit political contributions. The effective MSNBC policy requires you to get permission from the bosses before you contribute, and presumably that permission can be granted or withheld on a whim. That's a very scary policy in my view and not the admirable "not fox" rule some would like it to be.

Applenut, since no one answered your questions, I thought I'd give them a shot.

1. Was Keith aware of this policy before he made his contributions?

Yes, Keith is by no means a stupid individual. The fact that in his statement to Politico he said, "...nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level," seems to imply knowledge of the policy, too.

2. If so, did he do it precisely to spark this discussion?

Only Olbermann would know this for certain and he has not addressed motive.

3. How did this information come to light, and how was the suspension decided upon? Is there some "Get Keith Obermann" conspiracy, originating on the right?

Politico seems to have broke the story, "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates." The only statement about "who" suspended him comes from MSNBC President Phil Griffin. As to conspiracy, my guess is that operatives did not make him donate money to the campaigns.

4. So, members of corporations (like MSNBC) cannot make individual political contributions, but the Supreme Court says that corporations are free to contribute as much as they like to anyone... did Keith make his contribution as a private individual or as the Keith Obermann corporation? Surely he has his own corporation to handle the profits of his book publishing?

This question seems to imply the "free speech" defense. This is not applicable. Employers can make demands and boundaries on employees. For instance, most organizations would fire you if all you did was bad mouth the organization even though you have the "right" to free speech.

And to Jasmine:

Keith Olbermann portrays himself as commentator.

Rachel calls Olbermann a journalist and seems to be making the case that MSNBC is a journalistic organization unlike Fox News.

ok for one thing you are implying that viewers of Fox News Entertainment actually think, which we know is a major falsehood lol

Chris-382117, I'm not old enough to remember any of the news anchors you mentioned, but I frankly don't believe your rosy memories of journalistic "objectivity." I've worked in print journalism, and it's easy to very subtly spin a story without ever revealing where you stand.

I prefer to know up-front where journalists stand, so I can make my own decisions about how objectively they are presenting the story, rather than blindly trusting it is objective fact.

Noodlehead, I doubt very much that Fox viewers think very deeply about ethics and honesty. They seem to have a mob mentality at best...... "Yeah, let's you and him fight".

They think with their guns and not with their grey matter.

Fox viewers don't think. PERIOD! So no need for them to worry about ethics!

Yes. This is a win-win for the politically astute: MSNBC has admitted to having standards that Fox does not have, and, if Fox were to adopt similar standards, most of the Republican candidates would no longer receive a "pass" on the Fox network. This problem just might add a little illumination.

Further...this is a chance for the viewers of Countdown to express their dismay at MSNBC, and to rally around Keith Olbermann and thank him for the years of witticisms we've enjoyed thus far.

Is Phil Griffin a vindictive God? Heck Ya! Please contact Phil Griffin and let him know that his dirty tricks and politics will no longer be tolerated. People like Keith Olbermann, Markos Moulitsas, David Shuster, and others who have offended Phil Griffin should be reinstated. The suspension of Keith Olbermann is the last straw. Phil Griffin should be terminated and his "Blacklists" destroyed. Tell Phil Griffin it's time to go: phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

I am afraid the Fox viewers are not used to doing a lot of thinking. I think Rachel's comments about Keith are great. Lets get Keith back on the air as soon as possible. He put his money where his mouth is. OK, he should maybe have to apologize for not following policy, but we need him sticking it to the conservatives and bringing us the truth, like Rachel and all the other MSNBC hosts.

Noodlehead, you are right on the money. NBC and its other groups of employees agreed to ask permission to give; apparently permission has been given in the past. Rachel is correct in what she says. MSNBC shows they walk the walk AND talk the talk which gives them a whole lot more legitimacy than Faux and some of the others. He 'paid the price' now it is time for him to return.

Hey, Jo-Jer...

Fox fans' utter failure to comprehend the meaning of hypocrisy

How's this for comprehending hypocrisy from a Fox New watcher: When Olbermann appeared on the View in Fall of 2008 he said this...

“I don’t vote,” Olbermann said, saying it is the only thing he can do to suggest journalistic objectivity. “It’s a symbolic gesture.”

...I read it on the Internet...and saw the video. Now who's two-faced?

I think you give WTFox viewers too much credit. I may be making a low and cheap blow, but to watch Lonesome Rhodes and Bill-o the Clown, and Fox & Friends (which I always thought sounded like a children's show), I don't see how you can really hold ethics, integrity, and honesty close to you.

Fox has neither honesty nor integrity. They do not report the news, they make up the news. I used to watch Fox years ago when they were a more credible operation, but they've moved so far away from the truth to the point of blatant lying, that I had to stop watching. A quote from a recent Bill Moyers speech which seems to sum up Fox , "George Bernard Shaw once complained that journalists are seemingly unable to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." MSNBC, we need Keith Olbermann and Rachael to bring truth and sanity. Bring Olbermann Back!

Cry all you want Rachel Madcow Obama was doing way worse than anything you described as far as fund raising goes. You guys took a thumping at the polls and now all you can do is cry. Plz! Fox news is killing you guys and you cant stand it. Nobody watches this show.

Tank, whether you watch the show or, obviously, read the blog, you are clearly a fan of Rachel. That is wonderful.

True, but I don't think there's any danger of Fox viewers 'thinking and talking quite seriously about ethics and integrity and honesty'. I really don't think these things concern them.

Dear Barnett,

Honestly...I don't know why you have to bring up swear words in this place, or if you are so mad at 'Madcow' why you'd even...look this up or...comment on this at all but let me help you get a few things straight.

1) Judging by how fox news runs...yes they do have a lot less standards than Msnbc like oh...I dunno, running fake videos of a guy lying and saying he was dressed as a pimp while walking into Acorn but yet somehow not showing it when he's walking OUT of acorn? As shown on this very show. Or oh...I don't know, some of the hundreds of other things fox news has done to really warrant the so-called war against fox-news.

2) As a non-viewer of either network...you seem rather quick to defend fox news. Maybe you should watch it before you jump into conclusions at how ethical it actually is?

And 3) Maybe Keith's show did not have the best ratings but they did not -suck- so to speak if you can tell from a lot of the comments here. If you are comparing them to other shows? Every show should get canceled since there are better rated shows out there. If the world was based on ratings I have a feeling that Glenn would be crying -a lot- more than he already is...hard to believe but true.

Anyways...I'm done ranting now...sorry if people don't like what I am saying but I -do- have a right to say it =3, Ciao.

Barnett,

Spoken with the true eloquence of what I would suspect from a fox fan. I can tell by your expansive vocabulary, your parents must be proud. You are a true and perfect example of what you can become if you consistently drink the cool-aid. Of course I would not expect you to understand the tenants of journalism, because fox does not practice them.

From what I am watching, they are saying a lot.

That would be her business as it is Keith's.

A "best case" outcome of this mess would be for this Sunday's Meet the Press panel to discuss the appropriateness of a corporation subjecting the personal, private, individual political activity of its employees to scrutiny, such as requiring management approval for campaign contributions.

reinstate keith soon (he knew the rules). chg the policy (for pundits) to be consistent w law governing campaign contributions. hire rick sanchez.

And THAT's the part that pisses me off nbabyak. Don't go off and suspend one person but then let another one stay when he did the same exact thing. The only difference between the two is I see is donations to "Democrat" and "Republican" I'm just saying. At least we know who and where the money went to unlike others....

Like anyone was actually watching him .... on election day MSNBC had 1.9 million views compared to Fox with 6.9. Nobody is watching and nobody really cares what this clown does. If MSNBC doesn't do something quick, they will not be able to compete!

Let me guess ... you're a tea bagger. Am I right? Maybe you should staple a few more tea bags onto your hat and go back to the Faux News site.

Don't forget Mika and her "On-Air" admissions that she was working with the White House on talking points.

Joe, don't be scared of these guys, you will be taken care of, just like we took care of Juan Williams when the left turned on him.

Not actually a t-bagger, but you are right. Everyone else seems to be watching Fox news as evidenced by the ratings. You guys are so out of touch! KO needs to go back to sports, because he is a terrible political commentator. All he does is alienate mainstream America and it doesn't help your cause. What a joke! Chris Matthews can be next. He was absolutely the rudest of all. It was like mob mentality, all the liberal commentators in the room really showed their arse on election day. Just pitiful!

I agree with you. I love Rachel but this attack on KO is petty and if MSNBC stands by it then they have lost me as a viewer.

Keith neither hurts or helps the content or delivery of Rachel's show. Not sure of the logic here. What will you watch at 8est now?

I personally will be watching Rachel and now I always watch "Last Word" too because I live in a community of teabaggers here in Texas and I need a sanity check.

Keith gives me food for thought, information he has double and triple checked, a laugh I need especially this week and even Thurber.

I started listening listening to Rachel when she first started on Air America and when she came on Keith's show...I found my home..Keith and Rachel.

For those of us isolated in a sea of wing nuts, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow bring us hope and reason. Please keep us posted.

Love ya

Same here jeanie1wer1country, and in the middle of that Reddest part of Texas....

I can't see Keith standing there, with hat in hand, humbly asking for permission from some corporate hack to donate to a political campaign. And I'm glad Keith cares enough to donate to a worthy cause. But I think Keith is off for good. He won't come back muzzled and chastised. Not his style. It may well be the end of an era, and an end to the main reason to watch MSNBC.

I like Rachel's show, but aside from that, Ed is too early or late, and Mathews and O'Donnell are too representative of beltway inside-the-box mentality. I'll pass entirely, thank you very much. There is too much good reading on the political blogs to catch up on anyway.

Prediction: Change is underfoot on MSNBC, and a move to centrism will manifest over the next year, as Comcast's shadow of influence grows closer and closer. Rachel: Don't give them any minor excuses to "suspend" you. Ed, your days are numbered.

damn I thought I was the only one " a blue island in a sea of red". Keith and Rachel is what keeps me going.

. Rachel: Don't give them any minor excuses to "suspend" you. Ed, your days are numbered.

I strongly suggest they join a tea party group or 2 of if Rachel and Ed want to keep their jobs. Both also need to ask for permission to donate to a Sarah PAC , even if they don't follow through. It is a type of job insurance policy.

One more thing: This seems to be an MSNBC official kick off for the 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign.

Me 3, jeanie1wer1country and jeberly. I love Rachel and the whole gang at MSNBC!! I even have my 19 yr old college student, daughter watching now too. She's starting to get a serious interest in politics and I know that by her watching MSNBC, she will learn the real facts, and truths, and not be fooled by what's said on 'faux' news.

I agree, time to boycott MSNBC. Tonight I listened to Rachel and was so very disappointed. It was apparent that she was handed copy and was told read word for word and do not deviate. There is no reason to compare MSNBC policy to Fox policy (for whatever insane reason you did this), the comparison is between Olbermann's contribution, Scarboroughs contribution this year (not in 2006), and Pat Bucannan's blatant support of conservative views and candidates. Keith was not giving us news, he was commenting on the news already out there. He should not have been penalized by this policy. It is pretty obvious that he (and you) are biased to the left. That is why we watch. The fact that you did not stand up for or refuse to read the company propaganda about Keith leaves me no alternative but to turn off MSNBC permanently.

The point here is about permissions not contributions. Perhaps Keith did not get permission from the boss to donate, but Phil did not get permission from the viewers, his bosses, to suspend, so now I am following my policy and am suspending MSMBC, it's parents company NBC Universal and Comcast, along with many of their advertisers from my television.

We love you Rachel and wish you nothing but the best, but we cannot just sit back and accept this idiotic move by MSNBC.

Go ahead and boycott MSNBC you fool. Then even the one who started this blog will be looking for a job you senseless boob!!

or they'll throw out their "mommy needs to approve" rule and bring keith back. they are running themselves into extinction by their own actions.

Can you ever trust MSNBC again? Rachel caved last night and spoke the corporatist line. Can she ever be trusted again?

Multi, you are so wrong. Rachel didn't cave, she said what needed to be said.

I agree. Boycott anyone who advertises on MSNBC and for that matter boycott MSNBC

Ditto, goes for me too. Except for one thing, there is no other network to get true information from. How hacknied is it to allow corporations undisclosed, enormous contributions but not their employees. This rule is at best hypocritical and worst diabolical. Shame on MSNBC!

Same here. I never watched MSNBC, just got my news sources, which was rarely since I wasn't really involved in any news for the most part, from the newspaper, or once in a while tuning in to CNN once in a while or my local news station. When Keith Olbermann became a part of the MSNBC crew with Countdown, I started watching because my husband was excited about his commentaries on air. I became hooked! Everyday I have MSNBC on, especially 8 pm every weekday. It has to be something really drastic for us not to have the channel set for Countdown. As a result, my viewing msnbc included Rachel Maddow, Ed Show, and lately O'Donnell's new show. I also would listen, in the background, to Morning Joe and the msnbc lineup after that while I was cleaning, online, or just relaxing. In light of what has happened I am appalled! I also agree with our fellow Canadian, in that this was Keith's first infraction, if we can even call it that, of the "rules" (which I do not agree with, it is his right to donate to who he will, it wasn't like he was airing this on MSNBC or making it public) then it should have been handled it as such, with a warning, and perhaps a 3 day suspension. But indefinitely?? without pay??? And to have a "rule" that corporate MSNBC can only approve who you donate to, endorse, etc. by an individual is a violation of our right to free speech. It sounds pretty biased to me, and a control issue, and sounds like the corporate nonsense we see going on in our government. Could it be because Comcast and NBC are/becoming partners? Could it be something more? I don't know, but I don't like it. It's like, you can donate to a political candidate as long as you clear it with top brass and we'll decide who you can donate to. It doesn't make sense. None of this would have even been an issue ON THE AIR. From what I understand Keith made a donation, didn't advertise it or mention it, and it wouldn't have become an issue if someone hadn't made it an issue. By the way this was all handled, it is now an issue and MSNBC is going to have to deal with it and the repercussions. If they don't reinstate Olbermann soon, they will lose a huge amount of viewers, and it will become an even bigger issue. As much as I enjoy Rachel and the other shows, if Keith isn't back on soon, I will not be watching MSNBC very much, except maybe to watch Rachel Maddow. That's if I even do that. I can get my news online, on Politico or many other sources. Its not the news I am watching, its the commentary, opinions, etc. of a few people on MSNBC. And, Olbermann's show, is exactly that, his opinion, his commentaries, his point of view. He's not a "news reporter" for MSNBC. He's a Commentator, his whole show is "Commentary". So what on earth is the big deal? I don't like the bias I'm seeing here. That's just my rant.

Marsha, Have you considered the Huffington Post?

I get real news there and enjoy being part of that community.

I too love watching Rachel, Keith and the MSNBC gang, but I/we don't need teevee in this computer age.

Come on folks, if mnsbc is boycotted and the ratings gone. the station will fold and close the doors,they need ratings. We viewers will be left with only right wing information, I choose to look at all the views(or at least as long as I can stomach them) and to come to my own conclusions. Write ,call,email,whatever to get your point known to mnsbc, just don't jepordize the channel we all love to watch.

for those of you out there mad at msnbc and threatening to boycott...y??? they did what they are supposed to do. I am a diehard liberal and Keith fan but he broke the rules and this highlights the major difference between fox news entertainment (rupert said they were entertainment and not real news) and msnbc,.....i believe he should get about a week off and that should be it....I dont know the details about Joe And newt but im guessing they asked permission beforehand which according to rachel is allowed....soo good for msnbc for sticking to their principles and sitting down their biggest draw

Personally, I think this "rule" is pretty draconian. It's not as if Olbermann *didn't* wear his politics on his sleeve or hasn't *donated* to democrat campaigns in other ways. But, part of this "statement" caught my eye:

"[FNC] is run as a political operation. Ours isn't. They can do that because there's no rule against that at Fox. Yeah, Keith's a liberal, and so am I. But we're not a political operation -- Fox is. We're a news operation. The rules around here are part of how you know that."

Yeah... it's an NBC rule, so why even mention Fox and their rules (or lack of rules?) Much of the statement points an accusatory finger at Fox for being run as a political operation... but the average non-aligned viewer would *never* think MSNBC is devoid of a political bias. Any semblance of objectivity by Maddow, Olbermann, or that Lawrence guy is usually destroyed in the opening statements. Fox, at the very least, makes an attempt to separate hard news from analysis. Their product isn't very different from MSNBC's... MSNBC "hard news" is as detached as one would expect from a reputable news outlet.... but to suggest that MSNBC doesn't do what Fox does is a bit absurd. We KNOW that Olbermann is political... and so did MSNBC. If there's anything to a contractual "waiver by consent", MSNBC had effectively waived this rule after Olbermann's second episode. Fine again. He can challenge the network from that angle. But it's hard to take anyone too seriously whose attempt to apologize for their own foibles includes a dedicated attempt to implicate a third party's.

well... I should say that if the spirit of the rule is to promote a facade of objectivity, then that's a complete wash. I don't know if Olbermann or anyone else routinely gives to campaigns. Does anyone have a reason for this rule? I only know that it exists, but I can only speculate why.

Yea, boycott, boycott, lets get going...

Stop watching MSNBC all together. That will show them... and stay out of Arizona...

One word: Sheep !!!

Are you employed by MSNBC because that is a huge pucker up to the corporate GOP that runs MSNBC..........

Probably not. Nor am I. But I also believe in living by the rules. He knew them, he broke them, he paid. It's possible he would not have gotten suspended had the story not come out but it did and it violated NBC rules. Suspension does not equal firing, remember. They are probably trying to see how this will affect their reputation.

first offense should be fine and punishment, then maybe if continues then you could consider firing....this is too big a step for first offense, especially when their are others that do the same thing (but with prior warning-WTF that got to do with ethics). Either wrong or not.

@ gooch-2597419

Even your mama thinks you're worthless.

@ gooch

Fox has yet to fire any P O S

Go back to the other side of the street

You should have an answer for it, it's called a soul and a conscience. Did you ever go to Sunday School when you were a kid and learned the difference from right and wrong? This was wrong, it was hypocritical, and it stinks

So, whatever it says in his employment contract is ok, right? Sure, Keith has enough in the bank to be able to walk away from a job offer that comes with unconscionable contract terms, but what about those who do not?

What if the contract prohibits Keith from having a girlfriend? What about a black or Hispanic girlfriend? What if it makes it a firing offense to be caught in a gay relationship?

Can his contract include a covenant not to convert to Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity?

What if Keith's contract forbade him from voting, or registering to vote? Or perhaps it only forbade him from voting in a party primary... would that be ok?

There is a reason that it is illegal to pay someone to vote. A person's right to vote, like the right to marry a person of his or her own choice, is a right so fundamental to our democracy that it is clearly against the common good of our society to permit that right to be abridged by an employment contract.

Public campaigning and fund-raising is one thing, but small, private, personal donations within the low limits set by law for individual contributions must not be subject to an employer's whim, nor even to a requirement to provide an employer notice of the contribution. This is an exercise of one of our most basic rights as citizens - not a privilege like driving a car, but a fundamental right.

If Phil Griffin can prohibit Keith from making unapproved campaign contributions from his personal funds, does that mean that Comcast can forbid its employees from supporting candidates who vote in favor of net neutrality? Can Exxon Mobil prohibit its employees from donating to candidates who endorse cap-and-trade legislation for carbon?

It doesn't matter whether Keith signed such a contract in blood with 20 bishops as witnesses. It is anti-small-"d"-democratic, it is unconscionable, it is contrary to the good of our society. It is, to borrow a favorite phrase of some of my least favorite people, "Un-American."

Remember, if Griffin can do it to Olbermann, your boss can do it to you.

Richard Esq, I gather by you nom de plume that you are a lawyer. You of all people should know that it does matter whether or not Olbermann signed a contract. Each party to a contract relies on performance by the other party. When one party does not perform, there is a breach and the other party has the right to take action. If one does not like the terms of a contract, one has the right not to enter into the contract.

The only ways I know of to void a contract and legally be freed from performance under the contract are proving that one party was mentally incapacitated or physically threatened when he entered into the contract, or legally not able to enter into the contract (e.g., a minor).

Richard Esq, that is the most cogent, coherent analysis I have read to date.

I am indeed a lawyer. Please note that it is NOT my intention to give any legal advice whatsoever in this forum. For the sake of argument, please assume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

With that out of the way, the issue here is the willingness of a court to enforce the contract in question. Courts refuse to enforce contracts (or specific terms of contracts) that are found to be in violation of public policy. It is for this reason, for example, that a contract for prostitution cannot be enforced. Similarly, if I buy one of your kidneys, and you change your mind after I pay you, I will never be able to obtain specific performance of that contract as a remedy from the court.

In our democracy, it is (in my opinion) against our public policy to make any employee obtain the permission or approval of his or her employer to exercise his or her right to participate in elections. Clearly and unequivocally this applies to voting - you would never be able to enforce a contract that forbade another person from voting. My position is that the same public policy should protect a person's right to vote in a political party primary, and to make a personal, individual, private contribution (within the legal limits) to a candidate. No employer, regardless of its industry or the public status of the employee, should be in a position to approve or forbid that contribution.

This is not an issue of clear "black letter law" that I am aware of. (I have not researched it at all.) I do believe that I could form a very persuasive argument that would prevail in a trial court and on appeal, however.

It is worth noting that if MSNBC were to fire Keith, and the argument I set out above were to prevail, then Keith would very likely have a very significant wrongful termination case against his former employer.

Don't take my word for it, though. I'm just talking as a random forum guy, today.

to richard esq's point(s) - since the SCOTUS has held that donations (by corporations) are free speech, can we conclude corps have extra-legal rights above citizens due to NBC's contract restrictions on employees?

Richard Esq, thank you for your reply.

I think the distinction here is between public and private acts. Voting, whether in a primary or a general election, is a private act. Making an individual political contribution is a public act. In this instance Olbermann apparently revealed the donation during an interview, however should an interested person review the donation records on file for the candidates in question, Olbermann's donations would be listed. This may then lead to valid questions regarding the donor's "independence" as a journalist. If NBC's intent is to ensure their journalists are perceived as independent, a policy prohibiting certain activities including personal political contributions makes sense to me. I believe ensuring the press has an observable level of independence is a public policy good.

It is worth noting that other businesses, such as certain non-profits, also restrict their employees' political activity including private donations.

As I understand it, The Nation scoured donor lists, found Olbermann's name on these three, and asked him about it - that is how the interview came to take place in the first place.

Were it not for someone checking up on donors to these Democrats, I suspect that Keith would never have mentioned the donations to anyone, ever. He was simply participating in the democratic process as a citizen, the same as you or I would.

That's the part of this that I find to be the most disturbing. If Keith isn't free to participate in democracy by donating to candidates he believes in, then none of us are. If his most basic rights of citizenship can be stripped away by virtue of his employment contract, then what can any of us lose in a credit card agreement, or a mortgage?

Those of you who believe that Keith should not be able to contribute to a candidate because he works for MSNBC should think about whether or not it would be acceptable to accelerate your mortgage because you sent $25 or $50 to your local representative's campaign. A contract is a contract.

Let's be clear here - we're talking about contributions directly to a candidate in the amounts allowed by law. The law is written that way for a purpose: you cannot buy many favors from your US Representative or Senator for 2 or 3 grand. The amounts are small to effectively eliminate impropriety. That's what individuals get to do.

Corporations buy politicians. They get to spend millions through PACs that run their own commercials, but the politicians know who has buttered their bread, you can believe that. Our next Speaker of the House will pick up the phone when Phillip Morris calls, there is no doubt at all.

Ask yourself, do you feel better not knowing who Brian Williams supported in 2008, or 2010? Would it really change your mind about the way he delivers a newscast? Is that worth taking away his right to participate in the process with private donations in small, legal amounts without NBC's expressed approval of the amount and the candidate?

We all know Olbermann's politics. MSNBC makes a lot of money selling advertising wrapped around Olbermann telling us his politics. There is not one shred of an illusion of impartiality there... he's blatantly partial, and honest about it. Even if you can rationalize limiting Brian Williams, the argument falls apart with Olbermann.

Richard Esq, thanks again. I appreciate the dialogue.

The argument that Olbermann is not impartial in his journalism, that he is open with his politics, is something that Maddow addressed in her segment. I believe you are suggesting that leads to the conclusion NBC should not apply the policy in question to Olbermann. This argument has been suggested by many on this blog thread, and certainly bears some consideration, but NBC apparently does apply the policy thusly.

However, saying that if Olbermann is not free to participate in democracy by contributing to candidates he believes in, then none of us are, is a considerable stretch, arguing adverse consequences that are not really plausible.

Credit card contracts and mortgage contracts can indeed impose severe financial consequences on consumers who enter into those agreements without fully understanding the terms. This is probably why there are laws intended to protect consumers from the most onerous of these. I think it is specious to suggest that a mortgage contract might include a clause proscribing political contributions, although it is possible. (That is why savvy home buyers should employ legal counsel to review the contracts and protect their interests, imho.)

Perhaps we need laws to limit the restrictions employers are permitted to place upon their employees in employment contracts or personnel policies. As an employee, I would likely support such a law, but I do not believe it would have a snowball's chance of being passed in the 112th Congress.

This guy is sensible. Maybe there is hope.

I am on an MSNBC strike. Yes, I'll miss Rachel, but no more MSNBC till Keith is back.

no one can say it as well as Rachel. she always seems to be able to make multiple points with one intelligent comment.

What I haven't seen yet in these comments is who does msnbc think they are by even acting like they should have say in who people who work for them donate to. I can see them asking for disclosure but approval?????? They never had the right to put such a violating claus in a contract. Sorry Rachel but I'm not watching msnbc until they explain why they think they have a right to approve or dissapprove anyones private business.

I've wondered that too. Have a sick out or a Keith out or something to show solidarity

When one party does not perform, there is a breach and the other party has the right to take action. If one does not like the terms of a contract, one has the right not to enter into the contract.

This isn't necessarily true.

The fact that any employer tries to inhibit an employee from exercising his rights as a private citizen to contribute privately to a campaign should be illegal. It is honorable that Keith felt strongly enough about a candidate that he gave to their campaigns, and it is equally as honorable that he did not advertise it, publicize it, nor did he suggest that anyone else do the same. He did not publicly endorse any candidate. He has a right to his private life, and to his freedom to do whatever he wants in his private life as long as he does not behave in a manner that discredits his employer. He did not do that. MSNBC has an illegal policy, in my view, and therefore has no real basis for suspension. They do have the right to do something really stupid that may cost them tons of viewers and backers and may sign their death warrant, which is what they may well have done by suspending Keith.

Well said jbluewolf, with an exception; Dr. Maddow does provide verifiable empirical data, whereas Fox makes it up, verified. Keith is alleged to have broken the rules, I await to hear his side. I suspect Rachel has heard from him but can only say so much with out breaking an MSNBC rule. Keith, if you are reading these comments please come back, don't let overt pride get in the way of doing what you are so good at; telling it like it is. We, thinking/book reading people, need you. Your middle position in the MSNBC line up from 1800 ET to 2200 ET is ideal. It was your show that hooked me as an MSNBC viewer and I spread the word to my friends; a place where you're not allowed to get away with your own facts, except some morning shows. Mr Griffin, please return Keith to the air as soon as possible. I hope you have been evenhanded with him.

Classic.

They are not only getting their viewers, but judging from ratings they are getting MSNBC's viewers to think too.

Is the documentation related to personnel actions normally made available to the public in this country? I think not.

PERFECT - BRING HIM BACK - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, PERFECT! Just how I feel...

Ed,Chris Matthews,Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow is MSNBC. The rating will go down because all Joe Scarlborough does is waste the Morning away about nothing. Keith is fresh breath of air. He tells it like it is and have facts to prove what he speaks about.PLEASE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bring this Man back, with full back pay and a Bonus! Mr. Griffin why're you worried about the Republicans and not your Employee? You seem to be playing fair and balance as Faux News. MSNBC Rating will deminish without Keith and we Love him.

Please bring back Keith!
To whom do you send e mails to get him back?

BRING KEITH BACK:

CALL MSNBC at (212) 664-4444 and urge them to bring Keith Olbermann back!

SEND faxes to MSNBC urging Keith's return here at: Fax: (212) 664-4426

You can e-mail Phil Griffin who suspended Keith at: phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

Donna B. - you're awesome!

There's also an online petition, just borrowed this link from another commenter in another thread: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?akid=2628.3133.L3uAyM&rd=1&source=e1-3mo-subj&t=1

Here, Here! Bring Keith back.

MSNBC is punishing it's viewers just as much as it is punishing Keith.

First, we lost the House - a low blow if there ever was one. Then the next day, they take Keith away, adding insult to injury.

C'mon, guys, give us a break. O.K. he deserved censure for breaking a house rule. I'm sure he won't do it again. Point made, point taken - now it's time for him to be re-instated. Don't keep punishing your viewers, MSNBC.

Yes, do as Donna B says. I am sure that Phil will change his ways.

Also, Moderator, that works for MSNBC, I am sure your boss will want to know how come you sensor some, but leave his contact info up for the world to see.

not if it's inyour contract, KO grangious persona has been grounded

KO has not been fired. He's been suspended without pay. Phil Griffin needs to get over himself and put him back on.

Did you mean "grandiose"?

I don't think what he did was a fireable offense. IMO.

There's more to this than meets the eye.

If it was expressly in his contract that is one thing. If this is a loosely enforced policy of NBC news that has been selectively applied (Scarborough and Kudlow) than NBC is acting more than irrationally, they are possibly acting illegally.

What is disturbing about this is really the timing of this event. Right after the midterms. Makes me think about why I started to watch MSNBC in the first place. Before 2005, the channel was actively placating to the craziest elements of the right with Joe Scarborough and Michael Savage each having their own shows. After Katrina and the denigration of Bush's agenda, KO and Rachel are promoted as the mood of the country tracks towards that of the Democrats.

I watch both KO and Maddow religiously. Is this a form of selective sourcing for my news (which is also joined by Stewart/Colbert) probably. But they are also the single voices on television that are actually presenting intelligent discussion with an open and obvious opinion. Pretending that bias does not exist within people presenting the news of the day is idiotic and self defeating. Hannity and Beck are gigantically annoying but I appreciate the fact that they acknowledge their slant on the news. Hiding one's own political ideology in some worthless attempt to display a tenuous grasp of "objectivity" only works to degrade the quality of political debate.

Can you imagine an employment contract that included a covenant forbidding the employee from voting? Do you think that that provision would ever be enforced by any court?

It is the right and the responsibility of each citizen to participate in fair elections, including voting and making private donations from the citizen's personal funds within the limits established by law. That is not something that an employer should be able to frustrate by contract, ever.

If a large corporation used a FOIA disclosure to identify employees who had individually contributed to candidates that supported regulation of its industry, then fired those employees, the outcry would be deafening. This situation is only slightly different.

It is, under any circumstance, wrong in the extreme for an employer to try to impose a limitation under an employment agreement on an employee's personal and private political participation. When that participation becomes public (e.g. hosting a rally, fund-raising, etc.) that might be different, but private, personal political behavior like voting and making individual campaign contributions must be off limits, period.

Well honestly that's why they have suspended him. They can't fire him for fear of having one of the largest and best documented civil cases in history.

Tell that to the lowly Union Worker that gets laid off right after the elections because he voted oppisite of the the Union Leaders.

That is pure BS and you know it. Quit that, we are not on that subject, are we?

Kat51, I think we are on that subject. Keith needs his boss's approval to exercise his right to privately participate as an individual citizen in an election. If he makes an individual contribution that management does not approve of, he faces retaliation.

I think we are definitely on that subject.

Individual political contributions to candidates are not private, they are on the public record. It seems perfectly logical to me for a (legitimate) news organization such as NBC to have such a rule for their hosts.

In contrast, voting is a private act.

You would be shocked at how many of your private matters have become public records. Big Brother watches all of us.

True enough. Still I do not believe anyone knows how I voted last Tuesday. If you believe otherwise, let me know.

It is the right and the responsibility of each citizen to participate in fair elections, including voting and making private donations from the citizen's personal funds within the limits established by law. That is not something that an employer should be able to frustrate by contract, ever.

I disagree, to some extent. When you've two competing rights/freedoms, you have to be able to weigh them against each other. Should Keith Olbermann be allowed to contribute to a campaign? Sure. I can't see why not. Should MSNBC be free to contract and, with proper consideration, have one waive a "right" to participate? Sure... it's the "freedom to contract"... one of the most fundamental freedoms we have. I can see where we wouldn't want journalists (and by "we", I mean MSNBC, who I do not represent) overtly contributing to political campaigns as it *may* call into question our own objectivity. Had this been a broad proscription voting, then I'd agree with you completely. It wasn't, so I don't.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Sorry Rachel, Chris, Lawrence, Ed; I will not be watching MSNBC until Keith is back on the air. In the event MSNBC doesn't bring him back, I'll never watch MSNBC again.

He was selectively suspended using an improper interpretation of his contract which was unconstitutional at best. Nothing he did on the air precipitated this, or so they are saying.

I wonder- with the right wing cackling over Keith's suspension, how does this compare to Juan Williams? Both were fired for aggrieving the views of their employers. Both were fired for using their free speech against the will of their employers. Both were fired as a result of their employers attempting to keep a "neutral" air. Both were fired as a private company's decision. Seems to me hypocritical that those who complained about Juan Williams would then laugh and say "good job MSNBC" about KO.

Also should note- I am aware that you Rob have a different view about the Juan firing and that this isn't necessarily a hypocritical stance on your part. I posted this comment as an attachment to your statement because I figured you might be able to shed light on it.

I see some parallels, the biggest difference is that Mr. Olbermann's actions seems to be specifically prohibited or at least the process spelled out in his contract and that was recently reiterated to MSNBC on air staff.

While Mr. Williams situation was more subjective, Mr. Olbermann's case will come down to objective facts...at least as I see it.

I don't really see either as a free speech issue. I would not make that argument for Mr. Williams or Mr. Olbermann. Both, as professional journalist have an ethical and contractual responsibility. If they violate that then they subject themselves to the consequences.

I guess each side is making the case that their "favored" journalist did not violate these responsibilities. I don't see free speech as an issue in either case.

@Pizzaguy1, how do you know this was an improper interpretation of Olbermann's contract? And whatever does the Constitution have to do with this issue?

I don't really either- whether people like it or not, legally both companies have the right. I was using free speech because that's the claim being given by people on here and was the claim given by Juan supporters at the time. Several people came on claiming "you shouldn't be limited in your speech." Technically if you look at Juan's situation as a speech issue then you have to look at Keith's as a speech, since SCOTUS has ruled that money is a protected form of speech (in this context anyways). To me this is a company trying to give off an unbiased air (whether deserved or not) who feels it's journalists have to adhere to a certain standard. Keith was relieved for violating that standard. Juan was also relieved for similar circumstances. I think it both cases it was a lamentable overreaction on behalf of the employer, but it's still the company's decision. Juan was given a $2 million contract to go to Fox, where he remains now. My hope is KO gets some similar treatment (although I'd like him to return to MSNBC if possible).

Was just curious if the irony was lost on anyone else. =)

To me this is a company trying to give off an unbiased air (whether deserved or not) who feels it's journalists have to adhere to a certain standard. Keith was relieved for violating that standard. Juan was also relieved for similar circumstances.

This observation is spot on. I think Keith will be back. He brings too much to the network and they will find a way to graciously move on. The question is to me, and I don't know the answer, will Keith want to return?

He actually has listed himself as "Worst person" from time to time. He also was very open about his belief system, and how he knew it interfered with his ability to be completely objective, but that he also was committed to having as much integrity as he could.

Did you miss Keith's announcement on Monday's (11/01/2010) show, where he declared that the segment "Worst Persons in the World," was suspended, pending a decision to resume or replace the segment?

And how many of us have been subjected to a suspension at work without it turning into a dismissal?

He actually has listed himself as "Worst person" from time to time.

Did you miss Keith's announcement on Monday's (11/01/2010) show, where he declared that the segment "Worst Persons in the World," was suspended, pending a decision to resume or replace the segment?

I didn't know either of these. I watch Olbermann only occasionally. I want to know more, for what did he "honor" himself for with the WPINTW title and what was his rationale for suspending the segment? Outdated? Run its course?

Thanks for the info.

@Rob- he was humbled by the Stewart rally. He agreed that he was going to try to tone down his rhetoric and said he would stop doing the "World's Worst."

Stewart was WRONG to compare Olbermann to Beck and others on Fox. Olbermann tells the truth. Fox makes things up. There is no way they are even remotely similar. Stewart needs to apologize for putting Keith in the same category as the goons on Fox.

Yes Keith got upset, but his was honest righteous indignation over the propaganda spewing from Fox. He was the only one who had the guts to call them on it and reveal it to the world for years. Then he helped Rachel get her own show. She should have refused to go on until Keith was reinstated. She should have defended Keith instead of MSNBC's intrusive, unfair, unequally applied rule.

Here's at least one example of Olbermann listing himself- it's the only one I could find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaEWY3StMTg&NR=1

The U.S. Constitution defines how our federal government is organized and what it can (and cannot) do. The Constitution does not have direct bearing on what a private corporation may require of its employees, or on contracts. That is why I do not think the Constitution bears on this issue between Olbermann and NBC.

Thanks for info on Worlds Worst segments. I found some of the information, too. I applaud his self awareness and I do wish others would follow the lead to tone done some of the anger and harsh emotion.

Barb, interesting that you say,

Olbermann tells the truth.

Because in looking up the info on Olbermann's reason for suspending Worst Person segment I notice Olbermann told a lie. He said Stewart used him for condemning Kilmeade's comment that "all Muslims are terrorist." He was wrong. Kilmeade said that all the terrorists were Muslims.

Go back and watch both clips, the original Worst Person on Kilmeade and then the segment where Olbermann suspends Worst Person segment. In the first Kilmeade says "not all Muslims are terrorist...but all the terrorist were Muslims."

But in the later segment, Olbermann says that Kilmeade said "all Muslims are terrorist." Quite a difference. So much for Olbermann telling the truth.

yeah,, FOX has the right policy for them because they ARE a propaganda machine for the Republican party and as such have no journalistic integrity. Saying FOX is a news media in any form is an oxymoron. Rachel's exposure of the contributions made by Fox employees just brings to light what a fraud FOX news is.

MSNBC at least has principles .. or appears to have them. They have made their point and in so doing have substantially pointed out the differences between two networks. I also would not be surprised if Mr O did this on purpose to draw attention to the issue. And if it's true that Joe S and Pat B have made contributions, that needs to be clarified.

Nothing MSNBC has done would send me to FOX or defend all of their policies.

Bring Keith Back!!!

I, too, have been wondering if MSNBC is being entirely honest with the public about this. This reminds me of something that happened on MSNBC many years ago. Does anybody on here remember when Phil Donohue had a show on MSNBC? He, too, got fired. At the time Phil Donohue was the most popular program on that network and he was the most liberal. I am wondering whether having Comcast as MSNBC's newest boss has something to do with Keith's suspension. Tonight both the new host of Countdown and Rachel said pretty much the same thing. They were sticking to what the network said. I just wish that somebody could tell us what is going on there. BTW, did anybody notice that Ed Schultz did not do his tv show tonight? Where was he?

I remember Phil Donohue and his show on MSNBC and his firing. He had the highest ratings of anyone on the network, but they fired him for being too liberal, period. (Incidentally, they re-hired Keith Olbermann the same year they fired Donohue.)

I didn't notice that Ed Schultz was missing tonight because I haven't had MSNBC on since hearing about Keith's suspension this afternoon. (And I won't have it on until the suspension is rescinded.)

Schultz wasn't supporting Keith. He went hunting.

All of your viewership has MSNBC in last place. Maybe the soon to be new owners ComCast would like to make money and save some of the jobs at MSNBC before the whole network goes belly up.

William, according to the ratings, MSNBC is not in last place. http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/11/05/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-november-4-2010/71003

You are absolutely correct. I didn't think of CNBC, or HLN. Does CNBC cover "the news" or are they financial. I don't have HLN (Head Line News) but don't they just cover head lines.

I liked your link, I think others should check it out. Really dive into what those numbers mean.

When looking at the numbers, no wonder everyone tries to bash Fox.

They are winning every time slot in every age group.

And that has got to be scary.

Wonder what they are doing right.

Ad populum is a logical fallacy and is not a valid argument

You can podcast Rachel without subscribing to cable!

My cable company wanted to sell me MSNBC and FoxNews bundled together. I paid an extra three bucks a month for years (till unemployment took my cable hookup and drove me to the Net) just to get MSNBC as a singleton (and not Fox), largely because of Keith.

Slightly off topic: Can anybody confirm something I have read elsewhere regarding Fox News availability on satellite TV? Does anyone subscribing to basic packages with Dish or Direct TV get Fox News included, and have to pay for an upgrade for other cable news (and points of view)?

I had heard that in many parts of the country, cable TV providers and satellite services make you pay for higher price bundles to get MSNBC, CNN, HLN, and (on satellite) even CSPAN. All because Rupert Murdoch has semi-controlling interest in Dish and/or DirectTV.

In the UK, this is getting to be a BIG DEAL with Murdoch's Skye News operation. They take their media monopolies and concentration issues seriously over there. Not that many of their Conservative Members of Parliament aren't Fox-droids (just like their American cousins now packing for Washington this winter.)

According to the Dish website, their basic package includes Fox News, CNN, C-SPAN, and HLN, but not MSNBC. According to the DirecTV website, their basic package includes all of these and MSNBC also. I am not including links to these websites so as to avoid promoting them.

Nah, go the Podcast route, maybe by chance one of your ISP providers go through Comcast.

It's my understanding that this policy wasn't in place in 2006 when Scarborough made his donations. Also, Scarborough is strictly an opinion show host. Olbermann does host a commentary show as well, but he also anchors hard news (like election coverage or major breaking news when warranted), so there is that distinction.

Look, it stinks that Olbermann's gone for the time being; I love his show. But he violated a policy, and he needs to be held accountable for that. I won't be boycotting the network, because Maddow and O'Donnell are like crack to me and I don't have the time for podcasts and the like. If I miss the scheduled air time, that's pretty much it.

Daily Kos --Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 04:30:07 PM PDT

"Politico's Ken Vogel flags another donation from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough to a Republican candidate, this one made in April of this year for $5,000 to a GOP candidate in Alabama.18039/-Another-Scarborough-political-donation.... It's not just contributions, either: Vogel points out that in August, Scarborough traveled to Alabama to headline a fundraiser for the county GOP where he made his contribution."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/5/918039/-Another-Scarborough-political-donation

Sorry, part of the url for the story somehow ended up in the middle of the quote I wanted to post. Here's how the quote actually reads:

"Politico's Ken Vogel flags another donation from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough to a Republican candidate, this one made in April of this year for $5,000 to a GOP candidate in Alabama.... It's not just contributions, either: Vogel points out that in August, Scarborough traveled to Alabama to headline a fundraiser for the county GOP where he made his contribution."

Scarborough made a $5000 contribution? You are only allowed by law to make a $2400 contribution to any candidate.

It's okay. He's a Republican. They can do anything they want because their donations go to the "right" party.

Joe is, wait for it ................... SAFE !!!

SAME HERE

same here!!!!!!! Bring Keith Back NOW!!!!!

I will not watch any show on MSNBC until there is a public apology for Mr. Olbermann. Second of all I thought Rachel would stand by Keith like ED. I did not see him on his show today.

Neither will I, and so did I. Last night's comment by Rachel is a huge disappointment.

There's one already out there with over 60K signatures...

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?rd=1&source=e1-5mo

Thanks! I just signed it and posted it to my Facebook.

128000 at last check.

60K signatures in just a few hours? Do you think this also is going to cost MSNBC 200 million dollars a day?

Hey great outlook there Will Femia. The fact that over 100,000 people have signed a petition to reinstate Keith says a lot. I hope it lands right on Phil Griffin's desk so he can fully understand that Keith is one of the reasons some of us even watch MSNBC. He was the sole reason why I began watching, and Rachel was a wonderful bonus to see after I watched Countdown the first time. I love me some Keith Olbermann and Mr. Griffin would be an epic dumbass to not reinstate him post haste.

About Progressive Change Campaign Committee (boldprogressives.org)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-activists-plan-pccc-t_n_155873.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressive_Change_Campaign_Committee

'cause these things are checkable. ;)

I reckon a lot of people are going to be getting some spam all of a sudden in the wake of this.

140,000 spam e-mails is quite a lot- just let them try!!!

100,000 sign petition for Olbermann

Sort of agree with Will. Am sure the petition won't make it NBC, nor would they even care. But, maybe an early rush of the ratings might suffice? ;)

Google the following: "petition site:boldprogressives.org" and you will find that this site has dozens of petitions all asking for email, name, zip. Those showing a goal are all close to their goal, 93%, 95%, etc. Some have a goal at few as 7,500 others have large goal like Evil Google's 350,000. Olbermann's goal has changed several times. All seems suspicious to me!

All petitions ask for email, name and zip. They have to in order to show they're real people. Standard practice to reset a new goal once they hit one.

I guess it depends on whether you think Huffington Post would publish articles by the Co-founder of boldprogressives.org, Adam Green, if he was just collecting email lists for spam.

And yes, I know conservatives and centrists like to think the worst of liberals, so their answer is "Of course Huffington Post would publish articles for the sole purpose of spamming people!" Even though it doesn't make any kind of logical sense to do something that unpopular to your readership.

If you're that uncomfortable signing any online petitions, here's the Facebook page you can just "like" Keep Keith Olbermann On msnbc by way of Russell Simmons.

See post above.

Kudos for the Sandman reference, if it was intentional. :-)

Monk, GE makes political contributions as well. Like you, not trying to justify or excuse anyone's behavior.

It is disquieting that the parent corporation, GE, may donate unlimited amounts with impunity, while the individual citizen must abide by contribution limits set by law and even then faces the risk of retaliation by an employer corporation.

It is an uncomfortable reminder that we, the people of the United States of America have unequivocally become second-class citizens, with fewer rights and privileges than the corporate citizens that enjoy the first class benefits.

If you doubt that sad state of affairs, consider that if a corporation owes twice the value of the collateral securing the debt, they typically simply forfeit the collateral and move on. If a private citizen defaults on a mortgage, however, the stain on the individual's credit report is crippling for seven years or more. The same is true of a bankruptcy. Restructuring is often a good business decision for a company, but a mark of shame for a real person.

I'm feeling very proletariat at the moment.

Oddly enough, I've heard a few conservative commentators coming to Keith's defense on this. I was really surprised to hear Bill Kristol defending him ...

True "conservatives," not the right-wing reactionary police power bozos who have co-opted the term, but true conservatives would be horrified at corporate actions to punish free speech.

That is INDEED the way it is at our house as well. Walter would be DISGUSTED by this turn of events. I'm glad he didn't have to see this.

totally agree with you - signing off msnbc until he comes back - maybe too many republicans on msnbc's board!!!!!

I highly doubt there are ANY republicans on msnbc board.

Really? Maybe you'd like to review just who runs both GE and Comcast?

Gee, then I hope they don't bring him back. bye bye

Boycotting MSNBC until Keith is reinstated. If it does not happen soon, I will boycott NBC as well and get to work convincing others to do the same.

Indeed, thank you Rachel! This week has been rough. msnbc taking Keith away just makes it all the more painful.

PLEASE bring him back SOON!

Yes, thank you Rachel. You guys have had a very long week. You and your crew do such a great job, and all the hard work is greatly appreciated. Get some rest. Have a good weekend.

Rachel, what a very well done, well thought through video. I feel some better.

I think they should punish Keith for his "misdeed" by making him work on more of the FREE CLINICS.

Like public service work. Oh I forgot, he already does that.

I NEED you both, oh and Lawrence too now, for my sanity

y checks i this right wingnut area of Texas I call home.