I guess FOX does not have the same journalistic standards.....surprise

The first Amendment say the GOVERNMENT cannot make laws taking away free speech but time and time again its been proven that  a private business can make that choice.  Like Huan Williams and Keith and you and I we are basically can be fired ro ant reason....least of all saying what you want.  Rand Paul would agree.

should be allowed to donate to political groups but you can't be serious that First Amendment principles of free debate are applicable to private employers.

     That would make no sense at all - under your approach, the waiter at a restaurant could tell customers "the food is terrible" and still not get fired. In the media context, news organizations wish to present their anchors as bias free -otherwise they know that NBC News would lose its sterling reputation as objective reporters and would be treated like Fox, an obviously right wing network. Keith purports to cover elections as an objective observer, not a commentator.

   Having the anchor disclose his bias does not cure the problem any more than having the waiter say "I just don't like the food."

NBC has suspended Keith Olbermann indefinately for making 3 different contributions to Democratic candidates campaigns. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!

KO disclosing his bias is about as newsworthy as Trannyboy coming out of the closet, or Charlie admitting he "is a member of the Communist Party" lol Damn, where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

I really don't give a fuck about KO, but I am slightly concerned about the precendent that it sets, of course if anyone has to be unjustly fired for their political beliefs, it really couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. rofl

I will confess to not having researched any of the facts, and after doing so my sentiments may change completely. Yeah I know that a cop out, but it's the truth.

It pains me to come to Olberman's defense, since I think he is one of the worst people in the media.

But I think reporters and commentators should be allowed to donate to any political person or group that they want.  I do think they should disclose their preferences, so you can know where they are coming from and what their bias is, and then you can evaluate their work accordingly.

However, the should not "lose" their First Amendment or other political rights because of the job.  (I know the First Amendment technically do not restrict private employers, but the same principles of free debate are applicable.)

I think it is far worse to pretend they are neutral and disquise bias.  Let them support who they want and disclose bias.

I'm supprised NBC has a policy. I thought they were just a bunch of fuck ups trying to run a new cluster fuck.

he is a screaming liberal. But I think he got caught in a network rule that had its origin in the notion that reporters/anchors were suppose to appear to the public as being objective.

    According to commentary by Ms. Maddow tonight, the MSNBC rule actually allows reporters to make contributions if they ask pernission first and it is granted. So his suspension apparently was not for making the contribution but for failing to ask permission to do so.

Under what provision of law can a private business take away the right of free speech, much less any other right?

MSNBC is a corporation. It is created with the PERMISSION of the state. The state exists with the PERMISSION of the People.

Liberty means nothing if institutions, regardless of what form they take, are permitted to reign over individuals.

This is a tough one. I actually applaud what CNBC does it with its business reporters. They are not allowed to own individual stocks and bonds, which makes sense due to the fact that they can influence the direction of an equity/bond by their comments.  I realize Olbermann provide commentary and can directly/indirectly influence opinion and votes, but to me political donations cross that conflict of interest line.

lackeys of the running dogs of capitalism it makes sense that CNBC would chastise one of its court jesters
for showing unauthorized favoritism towards the lackeys. The court jesters must consult their masters in such matters otherwise it would appear that CNBC is biased.  Apparently Olbermann did not.

To the KO bashers, this little nugget from Billy Kristol may surprise you:

"First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?"

BTW, Joe Scarborough did the same thing and did not get suspended like KO! The amount that KO contributed was the maximum allowable amount of $2400.00 per candidate. KO is the only person who breaks into the Fox news stronghold of the top 10 spot. Great for MSNBC and their very "smart" business move. Bravo!




-- Modified on 11/5/2010 8:16:26 AM

It is always a conflict when a news person reports on people or parties he likes (or dislikes).

Everyone except a machine has an interest.

However, donating money does not increase of decrease that conflict, it just explains the person's position.  

On the other hand, if the conflict is hidden,  because he does not donate and disclose, it is much worse. You have the conflict without the transparency.

Suppose a news media lackey wanted to create controversy by donating cash to the lackeys? You dont know what motivated the donation do you Phil?

You can tell an argument is really well crafted when it has to start with a nasty insult.  Shows a real articulate mind.  Then there is no need to actually discuss what was said and show why it is not correct. "As usual, you are full of shit." Wow. That is a real good intro for an argument. No. I recently took a crap, so i am not.

The next step in a silly argument is chose an extreme example, jump down that slippery slope, and use that to refute the normal situation.

You should not allow abortion because that will lead to infanticide, which has no set limits, so the next thing is suppose you want to kill a 13 year old because he has acne.  Yeah, use the extreme to rebut the common.

Finally, even in your scenario, the lackey gives cash to "create a controversy."  If it is known who did it and how much he gave, there is no controversy.

''Giffords had appeared on Olbermann’s program in May, as did Conway. During his more recent broadcasts, Olbermann also made frequent references to the “Aqua Buddha” controversy involving Conway’s Republican Senate rival, Rand Paul, who handily won election Tuesday.''



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734_Page3.html

-- Modified on 11/5/2010 4:44:23 PM

So Olbermann donates 2000 plus bucks to a couple of canadates and gets suspended for breach of contract. Now let me see, a guy who makes what, a million a year fucks it up over a couple of thousand. Yea, I really want to hear his opinion, smart guy like. Gee, maybe they could give him a show like Kudlow or Cramers.

Anybody that fucking stupid should be a liberal and an unemployed one at that.

Hey, I'm no leftie but it seems to me a person has an individual right to contribute to campaigns if he so chooses.

While it is perfectly legal in this country to fire someone over his/her political views, expressions or activities; I believe that doing so is wrong.

They fired him because they owned him. When you go to work for an organization as a mail clerk they don't give a damn who you spend your money on. But when you move up and become visible to the public things change. Now I'm talking about any American Corporation. Once they give you the Blackberry you had better answer it. The higher you go the more control. They tell you what to wear, how your hair should look, who you should marry and where your kids go to school.

I always laughed my ass off when I had to do semi-annual reviews.  What a fucking waste of time, but the reason why we did them was to make sure we could fire someone when we wanted to.

When I reached a certain level in the corporation I did my reviews and turned them in and waited for mine. After a couple of weeks I went and asked the person I reported to when I was going to be reviewed. He looked at me and smiled and said, "You will never be reviewed again. You see your on continuous probation until you leave the company. But don't worry, the reason why we pay you so much is so we can fire you at anytime for any reason."

He was the CEO.

used to that sort of talk by now and not take it personally. I ment no insult and you know I didn't. What I implied was that you can't possibly know what motivated the behavior of the persons in question. Now matter how well crafted your arguments may be , if you base them on assumptions, they are shit. What you want readers to believe is that you are an authority on how to present arguments. granted , you have the fundamentals down pat but you come off as a petty government official with no real knowledge of what you are arguing about. Being full of shit is a common description of people who employ your methodology in an argument.

can create their own source of employment. His employment is not a real issue here. I think that there is more to this story than meets the eye.

be made for your position to have any merit - whether the debate is on the job or off the job.

       If it is on the job - as in the example I gave with the waiter - it is preposterous to say 1st amendment free debate principles should apply. I hire you to do the job and debate the merits of my business. So absolutely the employee has to hide his bias on the job.

      Off the job, your position is at least a reasonable one. But whereever a brand is involved, the employer is going to take the postiion that employee comments deragatory to the brand cannot be tolerated even if off the job. And that is just sound business.

Partial disclosure. I generally agree with dncphil’s opinions, most of which he articulates quite well.

Even though I rarely agree with your opinions you occasionally present interesting witticisms and useful information in between your piles of repetitive and boring shit. However, from time to time you do demonstrate an irrationality in your interpretations when dncphil is involved.

To start a rebuttal with "you are full of shit," and not imply insult, reaches a new level of lack of articulate abilities.  "Yo, Joe, you mama is ugly," is not exactly a refutation of a person's position.  If you think  "being full of shit" explains a weakness in a position, that is your level of debate.

Yet, you missed my point entirely.  If there is disclosure, then the problem of hidden bias is news people is solved.  It may be true that you cannot always know what motivates people. But here, in the vast majority of cases you will.  True there may  the one in a thousand who gives money to one person's campaign to serve as a red herring.  But the vast majority give money to support the person the like.  

Laws and rules should be for the 99% of the time, and have a means to deal with the exception.  You cannot make policy based on whether it suits 100% of the time.  

FInally, I am not asking the reader to assume I am an authority on anything.  I present the argument which can then be evaluated, accepted, and/or rejected.

To have to get your point across by saying someone is full of shit three times in about seven sentences..... Well, you judge how articulate that is.  If you think it sounds good, then continue in that style.  It served H. Miller well.

If I have the Constitutional right to be wrong, then why are there laws preventing me from firing people on the basis of their religion?

Just like political views, expressions and support; religious expressions are a choice.

Should these laws that keep me from firing people on the basis of religion be repealed?

Don't get me wrong -- KO was subject to contract and violated that contract. And as the contract didn't contradict law, his firing was entirely acceptable -- those who live by the sword die by the sword.

But in a broader context; one important fashion is which soft totalitarianism works is by exercising economic sanction through threat of job loss on those with whose politics one disagrees.

As an example, a few years back I was familiar with the case of a fellow who, on his own time and dime, was an anti-illegal-immigration activist. His employer was informed, and he was fired for this.

Because our labor market is now global whereas people by definition live local; there is no longer a parity of power between employees and employers such that threat of job loss is truly a very grave threat indeed; equivalent in effect to the threat of a court imposed fine of the magnitude of the person's salary in many cases.

It seems to me that either ALL such laws that restrain my ability to fire someone should be repealed -- because of my Constitutional right to be wrong -- or existing laws should be extended to include political views, expressions and activism on one's own time and dime.

I am not sure if you are responding to me.  By "principles" applying, I do not mean that private individuals are constrained by law in the same manner that the government it.  I know that the Bill of Rights applies to government.

While I don't like this firing, I understand that the company has that right, and I do not want to change that, even if I don't like the result.

What I mean by principles applying is that in the exercise of their right to fire him, I would like them to be guided by the wisdom of the First Amendment as a tool to allow for full debate and a means on not hampering that debate.  They do not have to, under penalty of law, but using those principles as a guide would be a good thing.

The waiter analogy is kind of weak.  A waiter at a restuarant should not discourage people from buying the food by saying it all is bad.  He would just get them to "change channels," so to speak.  However, there is nothing wrong with him saying, "I really like the fish tonight."

The fact that new programs may wish to present their anchors as bias free is a silly wish. I wish I could fly.  In fact, everyone knows that Keith is as biased as anyone on The Evil Fox.  For some reason that only network to be a little honest about their bias is the one that gets the bad rep, even though the others are equally biased on the other side, but just try to deceive people.

If they were open about their bias, people could understand and evaluate how Rather ran a story that he had been told may have been based on forged documents.

60 Minutes did not have its reputation smeared by the fact that Rather was biased.  It's reputation was smeared because it ran a false story prentending to be neutral.

If Keith "purports to be an objective observer," the audience is deceived and has the right to be angry when the truth is revealed.  

I disagree.  Hiding the bias does nothing good.  Revealing the bias allows the audience to be the judge.

Everyone will have a bias.  Let them say where they are coming from

No. I didn't miss it.

NBS hires him to do something.  No one, in or out of the company or audience, really expects him to be a neutral machine.  WHile it is true he should not dispaly it on the air, that wasn't what cause this controversy.  Of course, he should not get on the air and say, "I hate Bush, so here's the news."  He is not paid to display his bias on the air.

If Keith, of the air, is open about his views, there is nothing lost.  He cannot make derogatory comments about the network, but they can control what their employees say about the company.  

In any event, this entire thing started with them suspending him not for degrading their brand, but because he exercised his right off the air to support the candidate he likes.

IN FACT, in this case he hid his bias on the air.  I agree that he should do that ON THE AIR.  During the time he is working, they can tell him what to say or not say, especially since his entire job is getting paid to say something for them.

THe issue is not hiding his bias on the air, but not being allowed to have one off the air.

I think it is akin to not letting him broadcast football if he is going to get policital ON THE AIR.  100,000,000 million people want to watch football without having to talk politics.  They want to relax and get away and have fun. They are sitting in their living room with friends they may not agree with, but they want to have a beer and have fun.  The sports caster should report the game in a way that makes the audience happy.  They turned in for sports and should not have to hear religion, politics, ballet, or gardening.  Of the air, the can say and believe what he wants.  

How's that for articulate-not? What you present in your posts is based on your opinion and nothing more.  I find your presentation of trivial  arguments  ponderous ,wordy and cumbersome. Your posts are the quicksand of the P&R board. To rebut one of your posts is akin to getting stuck naked to a giant piece of fly-paper.  

it's the way it is. What don't you understand. This is as simple as dirt. The higher you go in a corporation the more visable you become to the public. The Corp. will pay you more and more money and they will own more and more of you until you don't have enough spit to call your own to lick a stamp without permission.

As for repealing these laws or those laws or any laws the answer is yes, most of them.

MSNBC suspended KO for breach of contract under section 1 of his contract. You know if they didn't do that they might have done it under section 2 or 32. Section 32 of his contract says he can't wear mismatched boxer shorts and socks on Thursdays in months starting with the letter O.

Now here is some of my logic.

If good ole KO wants to sell his soul to MSNBC for 20 million over 6 years based on certain conditions which are legal under the law, fine by me. Now if he blows the deal because he wanted to give $2,200 to two or three political candidates, which was a legal clause under the law, fine by me.

Now we can't fire someone based on their choice of religion.  However, it does not specify anything about "The wearing of mismatched boxer shorts and socks on Thursdays in months starting with the letter O."

Now I will freely admit we need to pass that law to protect the poor KO's of society. There are a few others we need to pass also. I personally know people who won't vote for a woman, a Jew, a black a Provider or a commie for public office. This is pure and simple discrimination, well maybe not the commie (sorry Charlie445). I'm not sure about the Provider?

Now you may well say I have a terrible choice of  acquaintances and friends and strangely enough, I agree. And in addition, I think we should pass a law against anyone having acquaintances and friends of this nature.

There is already laws on the books about Providers. We may need to strengthen them also.   It could be illegal for anyone to be friends with a SW, whore, provider or escort. Then all of the Hobbyist would have to fuck someone they didn't like.
 
I hope this adequately explains my position on this matter. If not, perhaps a new law could be passed?

Thank you.  I couldn't have made my point better than weak minds stooping to insults.  Yep, if I try to show why your argument isn't valid, I am a pompous asshole.

Yes, my posts are based on my opinion. And, pray tell me. Have others been shy about expressing opinions.

You may have noticed that I rarely respond to your posts, because I don't read them unless they are specifically addressed to something I posted.

Why would one read something ponderous, wordy, and cumbersom.  I am glad to see that you are unable to resist my boyish charm.

And yet, it seems Olbermann is the only one who gets suspended for it.

So much for the liberal media.

behavior towards Phil's posts. I agree with some of what he says but Phil's biased nitpicking and his narrow minded pursuit of meaningless trivial points of view are a thin veil for his true motives. I must admit at this point that I despise the legal profession. Phil claims to be a member of that profession.

I am a masochist to some extent. BTW I read almost all of the posts on this board.

You think YOU have some terrible acquaintances? LOL

I understand this as a legal matter; and in general agree.

For example, in some of my businesses, I establish qualifications such that the odds of a serious leftist being on my payroll are minimal. In others in the past I have established rules such that people with blue hair and facial piercings couldn't be hired, etc. My view is that it is MY business -- my risk, my rules. Anyone who doesn't like working for me is free to leave.

There is another business I have where everyone has to sign a contract agreeing not to tell anyone who doesn't work there the identity of anyone else who works there.

So in principle, I agree with the concept of employment contracts. I use them rather ... liberally. And I agree that it is acceptable to fire KO for this. After all, what he did simply confirms the stereotype of overall leftist bias in media, as if we didn't already know this.  So what he did could be seen to hurt the credibility of his employer, and thus could be a legitimate contractual term.