This is absurd:

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

The announcement came in a one-sentence statement from msnbc TV President Phil Griffin: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

MSNBC has a policy that prohibits its journalists from contributing to political campaigns, because, the article continues, it creates the “appearance of a conflict of interest.” I get that media outlets don’t want their objective journalists* to reveal their biases to the public by reporting campaign donations, and that Olbermann broke the rule. But it’s a dumb rule for pundits. Olbermann’s bias is front and center every night—that’s the point of his show.

Donating to some Democrats demonstrates that there’s no conflict of interest between what he’s saying and what he’s thinking.

* Truly objective journalists don’t exist. Any reporter can attempt to create the appearance of neutrality, but every story is careful selection of facts and quotes taken from a much larger pool of information; what a reporter chooses to include or omit is never a fully objective decision. Wearing your opinion on your sleeve is often more honest. But the thinking from MSNBC et al is that making political donations makes a reporter partisan, when in fact it just reveals the bias that already exists. Furthermore, a reporter following a story is an expert by the time a piece of any size is filed, and sometimes** it makes sense for that expert/reporter to weigh in with his or her conclusions.

** They shouldn’t weigh in all the time, just sometimes.

30 replies on “Keith Olbermann Suspended for Making Political Beliefs Clear”

  2. For more on journalistic objectivity and how ridiculous a notion it is, everyone should read Robert Fisk’s The Great War for Civilisation.

    Plus, he tells the story of the time he blew past Rupert Murdoch’s secretary, walked into his office and gave him the finger as soon as Murdoch bought the Times and pulled something from one of his articles.

    He also tells the stories of all the times he interviewed Osama bin Laden and his field trip to an international arms expo. Best living journalist, in my opinion.

  4. At first blush, I had the same reaction Dominic did, and then I thought about it some more.

    People who make assloads of money in the public eye often contractually agree to give up a number of things we take for granted. For example, pro athletes aren’t allowed to smoke pot or ride motorcycles (for fear of embarrassing the team and injuring themselves, respectively).

    By donating to the Dems (and not disclosing), Olbermann undercut his own authority, and made himself a hypocrite based on comments he’s made earlier when the shoe was on the Right foot. He also gave fodder to opponents of the network, damaging MSNBC.

    By slapping this down, MSNBC told all of their journalists that the rules will be enforced equally, all the way to the top. They also told their detractors that they weren’t going to take this kind of conduct lying down, making it harder for the whole network to credibly said to be tied to Olbermann’s politics.

    Bottom line: as long as he isn’t fired for this (too harsh a punishment), I’m fine with the current outcome.

  5. “By slapping this down, MSNBC told all of their journalists that the rules will be enforced equally, all the way to the top.”

    MSNBC has no problem with its other employees donating to political campaigns, and it is aware of people like Scarborough and Buchanan doing so. This is just a case of Griffin having it in for Olbermann and looking for a reason to fire him. There’s no desire at MSNBC to enforce this policy equally.

    Citation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

  7. @ guspasho, well without conceding anything, how about we fall back on – “it’s in his fat contract, he knew the rules, and he broke them?”

  8. I like Olbermann’s show (even if it is biased as hell), but I can’t believe how everyone is biting this carrot. It’s obviously a PR stunt. It’s common for new anchors to take time off right after a big news sweep (like a mid-term election), so he was due to take the time off anyways.
    So he just got a “suspended” vacation, and a day or two of press coverage. Plus MSNBC gets to make a grand jester that they are not equal to Fox.

  9. He broke the rules and got punished. That would be fine if Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan hadn’t broken the rules and gotten off scot-free.

    And the rules are dumb. It’s fine for people to make political donations. It’s not as if there’s some kind of conflict of interest in attacking conservatives and promoting liberals on TV, then giving money to liberal politicians. As long as it’s legal and disclosed, no problem.

  10. @CC: Proportional response. This seems like throwing someone in jail for jaywalking. I don’t love Olbermann, but MSNBC limp dickery like this makes us all look bad.

  12. In principle, I agree that an opinion media figure, like Olbermann, should be allowed to give money to whoever he wants. He’s not a news journalist.

    I wonder, though, if there are legal issues here that we’re not aware of. Perhaps they’re worried that it could appear that his guests are receiving, essentially, campaign contributions and free advertising when he has them on if he’s also giving them in-kind donations.

    If something like this isn’t a factor, though, the suspension is totally lame. And I despise the guy. He’s no different than Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, or Glenn Beck — just a leftist.

  13. @extramsg: I totally agree that an opinion media figure, like Olbermann, should be allowed to give money to whoever he wants….. unless he’s expressly promised someone he won’t, in exchange for fame and millions of dollars.

    I don’t like him either, but that doesn’t really factor into what I’m saying.

  14. That any company can dictate one’s political actions as part of terms of employment is chilling. I don’t care whether it’s Olbermann, or Glenn Beck donating millions to Michelle Bachmann; it’s his right (and I would argue, his duty) to ardently support his chosen position in a democratic society. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

    The other issue is that this is apparently a one-way street. GE and NBC are pouring MILLIONS of corporate dollars into lobbyists to support their chosen positions. Here are _their_ donations by year:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php…

    Apparently, their top donations to an individual this year went to Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4192

  15. Anything that gets partisans off from jobs as anchors is a good thing for democracy. Whether it’s Beck or Olbermann shouldn’t make a difference (although I’m sure to a lot of people it would). Britain has a law that TV news must remain politically neutral at all times; that would do wonders for the state of this country. Restore Sanity!

  16. @Stu: Only problem is who decides what is “politically neutral”? Personally, I don’t want “neutrality” legislated by whoever is in power at the time or by whatever regulatory body they appoint.

    We get the media we deserve — as in the media we watch and support — just like we get the politicians we deserve. If you want better media, then don’t watch shows like Beck or Olbermann and do watch shows that are more reasonable and fair minded. Convince your friends, family, and neighbors to do the same. And then write emails or letters to the media you don’t support, telling them why you stopped watching, and write emails or letters to the media you do support, telling them why you are watching.

    You know, take responsibility for the world you live in, instead of having papa-gubmint be our dom daddy.

  17. @ Community Colin: Olbermann didn’t break the rules, he is an opinion commentator, not a news reporter. When asked to explain why Scarborough’s contributions were exempt, MSNBC said, “Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.” That’s in the MSNBC (ironically enough) link I posted earlier.

    Also, it would appear these rules haven’t applied to *anyone* at MSNBC for years. Apparently the rules are NBC rules, and since the whole network became very opinion-ey NBC spun off MSNBC and MSNBC has never had those rules since then.

    (http://gawker.com/5682789/nbc-news-source-…)

    The rule about political contributions don’t apply to anyone at MSNBC, they haven’t for years and MSNBC never enforced them against anyone when “infractions” did occur, until now. So Olbermann never did anything wrong and Phil Griffin is lying about why he suspended Olbermann, indefinitely and without pay. That suggests to me that this is about Phil Griffin’s personal vendetta.

    And other people make an excellent point about how chilling the idea is that businesses might regulate the political activities of their employees in their private lives such as to even ban contributions, especially when businesses are now allowed to make unlimited contributions of their own, and in secret. That is SCARY.

  19. This seems kind of backwards.

    Now …. If Olberman was taking money from one of the campaigns, THAT would be a conflict. If that was happening, one could argue that he was being paid to shine a brighter or more positive light onto the candidate via the network. ( aka Payola)

    But it’s just the opposite. Olberman must have felt that his favorite candidates needed help. Since it would be unethical and probably illegal (not to mention obvious) to promote the candidate on the network, he did what he thought was the next best thing.
    Cash money.
    Maybe he was even approached by these campaigns and they asked him for more attention or publicity. He may have declined to give them special treatment on MSNBC, but offered a personal cash donation instead.

    If it violates his contract … however petty and inconsequential it may be … he should have known it was there. If you sign a big dollar contract like his, it’s your responsibility to know what’s in that contract and adhere to it. I guess he should be punished in some way for violating his contract.

  23. I agree with guspasho.
    It seems like a personal vendetta against him for supporting someone who might be in direct opposition to someone else’s favorite.

    But he might also have volunteered for this drama as a way for MSNBC to make a point against Fox.

    Also .. Does anybody really consider Olberman to be a ” news anchor” as Stu suggests ? I think Olberman is just another talking head in a stuffed suit.
    He’s not my favorite on MSNBC, but he’s OK.
    Personally, I like Ed Schultz better. And Chris Matthews too. I’ve seen both of those guys just tear people up. Rachel Maddow isn’t as sharp tongued as those guys, but she’s smart as hell.

  25. NBC and all networks should now disclose publicly if and to whom all their “correspondents” and pundits have donated. Apparently it’s okay to donate to the right.

    You can sure bet Andrea Mitchell and husband (oh yeah, Alan Greenspan, the father of our current economic woes) gave some bucks to someone.

  26. DailyKos appears to have a lot of insight in to the internal workings at MSNBC, and from what I’ve read there it sounds like a power struggle. Olbermann is enormously successful, hosts MSNBC’s highest-rated show, and thus has a lot of influence at MSNBC, to the extent of being responsible for Rachel Maddow’s show being on the air. Phil Griffin can only claim responsibility for Scarborough, which happens to be MSNBC’s worst show, ratings-wise. And Griffin has apparently been doing a lot of disciplining lately, this is just the latest case. And then there’s an upcoming merger with Comcast which could mean Griffin’s head if Comcast doesn’t like him. So it really sounds like a big power play.

    As for what I said earlier about NBC policy not applying to MSNBC and extramsg’s link, I’ll take Rachel Maddow’s word about MSNBC policy over an anonymous source. But I still have a major problem with the policy as it applies to opinion guys. Olbermann is an advocate, he has people on his show to advance his advocacy, there is no conflict of interest in also privately exercising his constitutional right to also contribute to them monetarily. However, being silenced by his employers for supporting the wrong people, that’s just disgusting.

  27. The takeover of the mainstream media is nearly complete with this. Can Rachael and Ed S. be that far away?

    I hope Keith O. rejects any negotiations on the part of NBC and gets another show on another network. Remember the Conan fiasco? K.O. will land on his feet and will be able to speak unrestrainedly — and write a boffo book about HOW the corporations control the message. There’s a lot of dirty laundry there, in the process of news control, and we should know about it.

Comments are closed.