Stickin' up for Olby!
By matersfish
@matersfish (6306)
United States
November 6, 2010 7:40am CST
NBC is one of the most blatantly biased "news" organizations in America. Make your arguments about others, if you must, but that doesn't change the fact that MSNBC is on the air! 
That's all good with me, though. They get the ratings they deserve. I won't go on a Soros-like crusade and try to have them silenced. Whatever.
But after they suspended Keith Olbermann, I'm hella ticked at these bozos.
Just like Juan Williams shouldn't have been fired from NPR for stating his feelings, Olbermann shouldn't have been indefinitely suspended w/o pay for donating to Democrats' campaigns.
Sure, it's their right to do so. But get real.
Okay, so "indefinitely" probably means a month in NBC language. Even still.
NBC cites a breach a contract and that journalists need to "avoid activities that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest..."
Have they never seen Olbermann on the air? This guy is the loudest, meanest, most partisan sum'bit&c on the air. He's like Rush Limbaugh if Rush Limbaugh was a commie and dreamed of standing out in drama class.
His entire show, Countdown, is a "conflict of interest." It's 100% one-side - left-sided. He is the biggest proponent of progressive policy, and also the biggest detractor of Fox News and right-wing policies, on cable news.
I really don't understand why he was suspended.
It's not like NBC can look like they're attempting to keep any type of journalistic integrity. Along with Maddow, Matthews and some other uberlib whose name escapes me, Olbermann co-anchored MSNBC's election coverage. And the network knew exactly what they were in store for, as they let Matthews and Olbermann cover the elections two years ago. (Leg thrills, anyone?)
Could this have been done solely for publicity? Does the NBC network realize they're in serious ratings trouble and figure that a little attention drawn to its primetime lineup will save it?
After all, while Olbermann gets absolutely destroyed by Bill O'Reilly (even Bill's rerun!) on a nightly basis, Keith's viewship is still three-times what MSNBC was pulling before he got a show. So maybe they're trying to turn Keith into Juan and bring some attention his way.
Or are they really trying to clean up shop over there?
This really confuses me. They gave the guy all the rope in the world and then turned right around and hung him with it. The entire network is bass ackwards - ask Conan!
That's all good with me, though. They get the ratings they deserve. I won't go on a Soros-like crusade and try to have them silenced. Whatever.
But after they suspended Keith Olbermann, I'm hella ticked at these bozos.
Just like Juan Williams shouldn't have been fired from NPR for stating his feelings, Olbermann shouldn't have been indefinitely suspended w/o pay for donating to Democrats' campaigns.
Sure, it's their right to do so. But get real.
Okay, so "indefinitely" probably means a month in NBC language. Even still.
NBC cites a breach a contract and that journalists need to "avoid activities that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest..."
Have they never seen Olbermann on the air? This guy is the loudest, meanest, most partisan sum'bit&c on the air. He's like Rush Limbaugh if Rush Limbaugh was a commie and dreamed of standing out in drama class.
His entire show, Countdown, is a "conflict of interest." It's 100% one-side - left-sided. He is the biggest proponent of progressive policy, and also the biggest detractor of Fox News and right-wing policies, on cable news.
I really don't understand why he was suspended.
It's not like NBC can look like they're attempting to keep any type of journalistic integrity. Along with Maddow, Matthews and some other uberlib whose name escapes me, Olbermann co-anchored MSNBC's election coverage. And the network knew exactly what they were in store for, as they let Matthews and Olbermann cover the elections two years ago. (Leg thrills, anyone?)
Could this have been done solely for publicity? Does the NBC network realize they're in serious ratings trouble and figure that a little attention drawn to its primetime lineup will save it?
After all, while Olbermann gets absolutely destroyed by Bill O'Reilly (even Bill's rerun!) on a nightly basis, Keith's viewship is still three-times what MSNBC was pulling before he got a show. So maybe they're trying to turn Keith into Juan and bring some attention his way.
Or are they really trying to clean up shop over there?
This really confuses me. They gave the guy all the rope in the world and then turned right around and hung him with it. The entire network is bass ackwards - ask Conan!4 people like this
6 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
6 Nov 10
The wording in the contract is a bit vague, I think poor Keith got screwed when he hired his contract lawyer. I see it this way, it's his money. No one should be able to tell him how to spend it. After all, he earned it, not anyone else. And your right, if all his on air ranting, which is also his right, didn't get him fired, a few donations shouldn't have qualified as "creating the appearance of a conflict of interest"
2 people like this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Nov 10
It's definitely fishy.
I certainly don't mind any contract stating that they don't want their employees creating a conflict of interest. But, obviously, there has been one long, long before he decided to donate to these campaigns.
Keith definitely got screwed!
Thanks for the response.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
6 Nov 10
I agree with pretty much everything you say. In fact, when I saw the news on Twitter yesterday, I started a discussion for pretty much the same reasons.
MSNBC can't reasonably claim that Olbermann's donations affect his "standing as an impartial journalist". He doesn't have a standing as an impartial journalist. Everyone knows where Keefer stands. Whether he's interviewing the same Democrat candidate three times a week or donated to his campaign, it's still contribution to that candidate's success.
If MSNBC didn't want Olbermann to appear biased, they should have hauled him up short a long time ago.
I note that MSNBC did have very partisan personlities hosting their election night coverage. Fox was smart enough to use Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier, two hosts whose shows are not all opinion and they spent a lot of time talking to strategists and journalists on both sides of the aisle.
Maybe after they excoriated Fox News for its parent company making campaign donations, they felt they had to suspend Keef for the same thing or look hypocritical. But as someone pointed out to me the other day, the left doesn't bother to hide their hypocrisy anymore.
Maybe it's their new shareholder Comcast that objected to Keith - Maybe the serius NBC news anchors were just too embarrassed, who knows?
Interestingly, the news broke over Twitter yesterday with about 90% being tweets from conservatives saying "bring Keith back". I don't know if it's that reverence for free speech that drove them to this desperate cry or just the fact that Olbermann is so over-the-top that he makes them look even better by comparison.
But that's it, really - free speech. Keith has it, so does everyone else. Bias is bias and we all know what sort of bias Keith has. In fact. we are better informed when we know the bias of the reporter than when we don't. At least we know how big a grain of salt we should take their report with. Contract or no, Keith should be reinstated. All he did was to exercise his constitutional rights.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Nov 10
I watched MSNBC, Fox and CNN for my election night coverage. I was very thrilled to see both Fox and CNN keep it professional. AMESSNBC, on the other hand, allowed four clowns to sit there all night poking fun at Republicans and Republican voters and all but cancel any further "reporting" once Reid won - they then focused the rest of the night on how much Angle and the TPers suck and how liberals rule.
Like I said to laglen: it seems to me that if someone was objecting, whether Comcast or big wigs at NBC, they wouldn't have allowed MSNBC to let the thrill-seeker, the mad cow and Mr. Measured Histrionics anchor the coverage.
Or maybe the way they covered it and the abysmal ratings they received caused Comcast to look past bias and for any real attempts by those clowns to effect change.
It's certainly a solid theory and one I would like.
I'm all for those loons having a platform to sit there night after night and do absolutely nothing but attack Fox News and Republicans and non-leftist Americans with their favorite "we have facts" (subjective and sometimes manufactured, but that's another debate) line. But as a company whose networks need bigger ratings, it would be a great thing to slap that machine around a little bit. MSNBC is the disgrace of the news world - and I know this because I actually live in the world. So I don't care how many scream "FOX NEWS!!!!" at me.
But yes: he should be given his job back pronto.
I can't allow my neighbor to walk through my yard 18,000 times and then let my dog loose on him on 18.001. I mean, I could - but that's a little stupid.
But yes: he should be given his job back pronto.
I can't allow my neighbor to walk through my yard 18,000 times and then let my dog loose on him on 18.001. I mean, I could - but that's a little stupid.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
6 Nov 10
I was reading an article about this and saw that NBC is trying to distance itself from MSNBC because of the blatant bias. Good luck!
As much as I hate to say it, I agree Olberman should not be suspended. I can understand that clause for a real journalist. But Olberman is up there as an entertainer as Limbaugh, Beck etc. No matter how you feel about their agenda, every body knows their stance.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Nov 10
Well, NBC calls the shots, obviously, as they suspended Olby.
If they were trying to distance themselves from MSNBC, it seems like to me they would have stopped them for letting Matthews, Maddow and Olbermann actually anchor the election coverage.
It's like they trapped The Old Dramatic One.
One day:
"Okay, Olby, you'll be heading up our election night coverage. Do what you do!"
The next day:
"Sorry, Olby, we'll have to suspend you for doing what you do."
It all seems weird to me.
Thanks for the response.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Telling employees how to spend their money is a serious denial of basic rights. I can see where they wouldn't want an employee to publicly demonstrate or something but heck, how is donating to Dems any different from the tripe they broadcast?
I quite watching national news and news shows from the "big 3" a couple of years ago when I realized how biased they were. Now I can add "hypocritical" to their list of faults.
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
6 Nov 10
For once I actually agree with most of what you say. NBC has been a downhill network for a long time and they really don't have much in the way of "reporting". Our local NBC channel has news on like twice a day when the others have it for like 6 hours a day. I don't believe any of the shows on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News are actual "reporters" they are just entertainers. To expect any of them to report in an unbiased way is just insane.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Nov 10
Yes. They've all got their bias and they've all got a platform for delivering it. And the big wigs in charge of programming for the respective networks know it better than the rest of us.
So it's just a stupid move by NBC to yank Olby at this point.
Unless it's for publicity, then they'll probably drive his ratings up some.
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Sign this petition. Put Olby back on air.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?akid=2628.169120.-pRs-w&rd=1&source=e1-3mo-subj&t=1
