As you may have heard today, Keith Olbermann has been temporarily suspended from his job hosting Countdown on this network, because he made three personal political donations to candidates in this last election cycle. The reason for Keith's suspension is that here at MSNBC, there is an explicit employee rule against hosts making contributions like that.
You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you it's OK. That's what I understand happened with our morning-show host's political donations in 2006, under previous management.
But if you don't ask in advance for an exemption from the rule, you're bound by the rule. (For the record: the rule applies to us here at MSNBC and to NBC News staff. CNBC isn't under NBC News, so they're not bound by the rule.)
I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it. I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown.
Here's the larger point, though, that's going mysteriously missing from the right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking: I know everyone likes to say, "Oh, cable news, it's all the same. Fox and MSNBC -- mirror images of each other. But if you look at the long history of Fox hosts not just giving money to candidates, but actively endorsing campaigns and raising millions of dollars for politicians and political parties -- whether it's Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or Mike Huckabee -- and you'll see that we can lay that old false equivalency to rest forever. There are multiple people being paid by Fox News to essentially run for office as Republican candidates. If you count not just their hosts but their contributors, you're looking at a significant portion of the entire Republican lineup of potential contenders for 2012.
They can do that because there's no rule against that at Fox. Their network is run as a political operation. Ours isn't. 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.
Back before it was politically safe to do it, Keith Olbermann attracted the ire of the right-wing and a lot of others besides when he brought to light and raged against what he saw as the errors and sins of the previous presidential administration. Keith was also the one who brought to light Fox News's water-carrying for the Bush Administration; he was the one whose point-of-view journalism exposed and put exclamation points on the problems of disguising a political operation as a news one, the model embraced by the guys across Sixth Avenue, at Fox.
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.
UPDATED: Keith Olbermann will be back Tuesday night. Closing comments on this thread.
Good stuff Rachel...I hope Jon was listening.
Will there ever be a place on the net where the claw of "you can't do that..." won't be able to reach??? How about applying the same rules to everyone... What about Joe Scarborough's donations to the republican party??
Maddow addressed Scarborough's donations. She said Scarborough had permission, Olbermann did not. NBC's rules for employees like Olbermann, Scarborough and yes, Maddow, require permission before giving the donation. What is so hard to understand?
Thank You for the clarification.
I will boycott MS until Keith returns. I did watch Rachel for her comment and was proud of her courage and humanity. BRING BACK KEITH
Yes, bring Keith back!! The point has been made (Keith is smart and making himself a sacrifice). The truth will come out, but not for everyone. The people who watch Fox Noise watch only Fox, in fact I wonder if they even READ anything. And it is true, they hate Keith. Because I attend church regularly these bone heads assume that I subscribe to their hate and paranoia, so I hear a lot of their false garbage.
IF he broke the rules, there are consequences to be paid. However, I believe that the rules should be enforced across the board....not selectively. Not only that, but NBC has said that the rule Olbermann was supposedly suspended because of does not apply to the employees of MSNBC. Here's a link....interesting!
http://gawker.com/5682789/nbc-news-source-our-rules-dont-apply-to-olbermann-and-msnbc
Ah, an unnamed insiderat NBC. Good source, that. Gawker sure does their homework.
Like it or not MSNBC has found itself diametrically opposed to Fox News. When I see this attempt to maintain some veneer of absolute impartiality I am reminded of the Blue Dog Democrats who lost in the mid-term elections, thinking that if they stayed in "the middle" and/or shunned a progressive agenda that the GOP and voters would spare them. They were wrong. MSNBC is hoping to transcend Fox's level of partisanship and it cannot.
To quote the Hakagure, "Those who cling to life die, and those who defy death live." MSNBC has chosen its side, as the DNC has chosen its. Cowardice, capitulation, appeasement, conscientious objection, or any other attempt to be spared will not be successful.
Stand by your man MSNBC. Hannibal is at the gates, and he's not taking prisoners.
P.S. Any and all references to death and/or warfare of any kind are purely metaphoric. Obvious, I know but these days you can't be too sure how people will take you.
P.P.S. If this turns out to be some internal grudge match and not an ethics-based decision then never mind everything I just said.
To Rachel and The Show crew,
Re: Mind over Chatter's segment on Keith Olbermann and his suspension
Amen.
Sincerely,
PGW
I hope Rachel really speaks her mind. This Griffin character's got to go.
Sounds good to me, send this Griffin far, far away and bring Keith back!
A certain conservative news corporation (that shall remain nameless) actively and intentionally raised hundreds of millions of dollars for conservative candidates during the recent campaign season.
To quote one of those candidates, "[...]we've pulled in over [3,000,000] dollars just from that kind of a message going out.".
There are few justly impeachable offenses for employees. Spending well earned money in private to support this country's political discourse is not one of them.
False equivalency anyone?
[response to the general "it was in his contract, so he deserves it" line of reasoning]
No one is denying that the clause in question is in his contract; I was merely drawing the comparison to ask the rhetorical question: should it be?
There is nothing more inhumane than forgetting that we are all human. The only thing we all have in common is that we all make mistakes. By all appearances, this was not intentionally done in secret and it does not seem to show malicious intent.
Now MSNBC has every right to burn one of their own at the stake for their mistake... but personally, I think that they should take this chance to differentiate themselves from the competition by forgiving him.
Ok. Good job, Rachel. I understand.
Still, bring Keith back soon.
This is wrong on so many levels..
I guess the right wing has been "playing the refs" for so long the networks very thin skinned. I mean, starting with Glenn Beck being hired by CNN for balance?!?
Now this?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/14/884359/-Phil-Griffin-and-MSNBC
Frankly, I find KO a bit too pompous for my taste, but this is BS.
Brilliant comment tonight Rachel on Keith's situation, and I hope that he's back soon.
Mr. Oberman violated his contract. What Fox news allows has no bearing on this violation. Trying to deflect his negligence by bashing Fox news should be beneath your standards.
One cannot contractually sign away your constitutional rights. And he didn't violate it. SHOULD != MUST
Mark, Ms. Maddow references to Fox news was not an excuse for Olbermann. She was using this opportunity to compare the validity of the two news networks and from the respect of Hannity's contributions and fund-raising actions, I think she has a valid point.
And Pizzaguy, if you are referring to free speech, yes you can sign a contract that restricts them. Try bad mouthing your employer on a blog or other public forum and see if they don't exercise their free right to fire your butt.
Bad mouthing an employer isn't "free speech." The constitution protects us from having the government chill our speech or punish us for it. It also protects us from having employers restrict free speech. I have no idea what the technicalities are in this exact situation.
Barbara, the U.S. Constitution only pertains to our Federal government, how it is organized and what it can and cannot do. The Consitution does not address private employers.
In Canada you cannot sign away your civil rights in a contract. Surely that is also true in the USA. That contractual limit on Keith's right to contribute is surely invalid. If GE itself and Iran (via the Chamber of Commerce) can anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money, surely Keith has the right to donate openly as he pleases. He has no unfair advantage. It is not as though MSNBC is trying to maintain the fiction their opinion shows are unbiased new shows.
The fastest way to get Keith back on the air is to write all of MSNBC's advertisers (not just Countdowns's) on hard copy telling them you are boycotting all their products until Keith is reinstated. Nothing personal. If this does not work, I would hope the whole gang (Cenk, Ed, Keith, Rachel and Lawrence) would move to cable taking the advertisers with them.
Unfortunately, journalists have been signing away their constitutional rights since the birth of modern journalism in the US (sort of in a backlash against the excesses of the Penny Presses) and the wealthy people who used such media outlets as personal soapboxes.
Every journalism school in the country teaches this. You could be a homeowner in a neighborhood that was being demolished to make room for a new curve in a superhighway. You would be forbidden from even appearing and speaking at the required public hearing held before your own property could be taken away from you, if you were a journalist.
You don't get to clap at public events, laugh at jokes, or do anything that might betray "bias." The reason is a fictional construct of "objectivity," to start with, and a false equivalency in forced dualism of "balance," as the very concept of objectivity was attacked for what it is, a lie, a fake floating god-eyeball that doesn't exist as a writer's POV.
Eyeballs live inside a human being's head, and that confers a POV. A situated eyeball is a truth, while a fake, floating god-eyeball is a fiction, a false capital T-Truth that is by its necessarily constructed nature, a LIE.
So these out-moded constructs remain, fostering lies in the US press (global media outlets are not nearly as constrained by restricted journalistic forms as the US is).
But with the rise of citizen journalism, new media and the blog movement, and other news and discourse forms on the Internet, we've finally seen an expansion of what is defined as journalism, to include fact-checking, analysis, and yes, commentary that takes a position, instead of adopting the absurd pretense of the god-eyeball that holds no position.
Going forward, journalists should demand to hold and exercise the same rights as any other citizen.
Chris, you remind me of the fact that there is an inherent contradiction in the term "fair and balanced." Fair coverage will almost never be balanced, and balanced coverage has almost no chance of being fair. To pretend otherwise leads to such mind bogglingly ridiculous things as the Genesis account of creation being taught along side evolution in a "science" class.
I have always (for the past two or three years, anyway) thought that MSNBC's evening programming was very fair, because the on-air personalities freely confess their bias and perspective, and make an honest effort to distinguish their opinions from the facts upon which they are based. Perhaps the best example is Rachel's opening interview line, after an introduction: "Did I get any of that wrong? I want to give you a chance to correct me if I did..." That's fair. Balanced? No - the hostess with the mostest has an agenda, but she wears it on her sleeve for all to see and judge for themselves.
thank you Rachel...i knew you would come through...:)
This is truly unbelievable, and unsettling. I do admire and respect MSNBC for having standards that seem to respect the apparent difference between themselves and "Faux News" . However in this instance, because there are so few liberal news outlets which attempt to balance the news coverage, this is appalling that this...had to happen. Rupert Murdock recently contributed1 million dollars to the Republican Party and no one seemed to notice, Glenn Beck helped support the Tea Party, Bill O'Rielly openly supports the Republicans, Sean Hannity, who I've had the dis-pleasure of meeting clearly gives and receives support from the Republican party, but I guess that's okay because the truth being told, they don't practice real journalism anyway. Keith you will be missed my "brother from another mother", a line stolen from a really bad movie, I think unless and until you return, I will need to take my viewership elsewhere. Losing the house pales by comparison to losing you from the airwaves my friend. MSNBC needs to seriously reconsider this horrific decision post-haste!
Mr. Oberman violated his contract. What Fox news allows has no bearing on this violation. Trying to deflect his negligence by bashing Fox news should be beneath your standards.
Looks like you and I agree, rules are rules and when you break the rules....
just looks like you need to know the rules (and the Constitution)
The point that she was making is that, that clause in Keith's contract exists because MSNBC strives to be better. Not to be rude but you really need to pay better attention. This is not the first broadcast where you've totally been off the marker in getting the point Rachel was making.
You totally missed Rachel's point. She said MSNBC does have rules but Fox doesn't have rules.
Keith will need to deal with the situation of the contract and how just or clear it was and do you suspend a person for making donations that are public record???? but on Fox they actually promote donations...
But Bottom line...Get Keith Back NOW. Maybe make him miss one sports event or say on the air OOOOPsss....
I was appalled to hear that Keith had been suspended. The big oil and other companies can give as big a contribution as they want to their desired candidates, and even do it anonymously. But Keith gets in trouble for contributing to the candidates he believes in? Keith is a citizen, supposedly allowed to contribute without repercussions. He shouldn't be punished for that. I watch both Keith and you often.
I respect you for being a good friend, and speaking up for your friend in this trying time. To do that is not simply the province of the Liberal elite, but also for the nameless majority who struggle and strive everyday. In the end the only thing that gets us through sometimes is our friends. Thank you for what you did.
Will MSNBC management be as screwed up as Air America? Do R's keep a black ops person on the inside? Would they even need to?
Certainly there must be a moderated / situationally appropriate response. Make Keith promise to not watch baseball next year? ...something.
Rachel: just listened to your rant on Olbermann's suspension from MSNBC and compared Keith to
Hannity who also made campaign contributions. Only difference is that Hannity works for FOX/ Olbermann for MSNBC. Sounds like FOX's workplace has different rules than MSNBC. Isn't your complaint then with MSNBC. I know that in my 40+ years of work experience that different workplaces have different rules and regulations, but I thought that was a constitutional right in America...... Oh, wait, that's what you and your wing-nuts want to eradicate, isn't it?
Clearly her statement went over your head. She is saying that the people over at FOX are not punished for their contributions because there is a difference of rules and MSNBC holds itself to a higher standard. FOX people make greater contributions in greater numbers and they boast about it, Keith made a minimal contribution and was thrown overboard for it.
Rules are rules, but 'indefinitely' suspending Keith Olbermann says to me that the Right wing can get away with anything, and people on the left will be censored for the smallest infractions.
That being said, the party that has actually done a great deal to eradicate the constitution would be the Republican party. Don't believe me? Read the Patriot Act signed into law by former President Bush. Democrats and left wing people are probably the last thing standing between our constitution and the shredding machine and it's downright scary that you can't see it.
If Keith Olberman promoted candidates he supported on-air while contributing to their campaigns, he deserves the suspension. Rules are rules. If he did not pull a "Hanety," and made contributions to candidates as we all have the right to do ... and if he did not give them the opportunity to toot their horns during his show ... than NBC News is wrong. In any case, Olberman is not only one of the best commentators I've heard, he is a powerful countermeasure to the propaganda emanating from Murdock's crew of robots parading as newscasters. BRING KEITH BACK NOW!
I saw your show tonight, and what you said about the policy conflicts with what I read in direct quotes in the Politico article where it said that "impartial journalists" needed prior approval for contributions. No one has ever called Keith an impartial journalist. Was Politico incorrect?
Just as a note to all of you posting here - do you have a contract with your employer? Chances are - if you do - there is a clause in there somewhere that states that you are not to embarrass them somehow - that states that you are a 'representative' of your company and as such - should behave accordingly. Think about it ... you're owned. They have a say in what you do outside of work - as long as whatever that is doesn't effect them - fine .... but the moment they see what you're doing as somehow looking bad to them ... bye-bye.
We need to start standing up to these corporations and how they are determining what we can and cannot do ... it's sickening. They know they have us over a barrel because they know you 'need' the job. Try to start a small business - there is a reason why a lot of small business owners believe the right wing stuff about how unfair the government is to businesses - because most of the laws only pertain to those who can't afford to work around them. For a reason.
Just saying ... think about it.
As I said, earlier, on the twitter, I just like to think that it was Keith's money that paid specifically for the jumping castles seen at Grijalva HQ in the previous weeks.