Olbermann Suspended

53 posts / 0 new

Excerpts: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-donated-to-three-dems-in-apparent-violation-of-nbc-policy/

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's primetime firebrand host, has been suspended indefinitely for violating the ethics policies of his employer earlier this year when he donated to three Democrats seeking federal office, MSNBC announced Friday.

"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 President Phil Griffin said in a statement.

First reported by Politico and confirmed by Federal Election Commission filings, the primetime television host gave $2,400 – the maximum individual amount allowed – to each of the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. (View PDF's of FEC filings for Conway, Grijalva, and Giffords)

Conway lost his bid to Republican Rand Paul while Grijalva eked out a win over Tea Party-backed candidate Ruth McClung for a fifth term. Grijalva found himself in an increasingly competitive race after he announced his support of a boycott of Arizona businesses in response to the state's controversial new immigration law and often appeared on Olbermann's show where he found a sympathetic audience. CNN, meanwhile, has yet to declare a winner in Giffords' race, but the Democrat currently holds about a 3,000-vote lead with all precincts reporting.

The contributions may have violated an NBC policy that requires employers of the news organization to obtain permission ahead of any political donations or activities that could be deemed as a conflict of interest. CNN institutes a similar policy.

Coalage's picture
Coalage
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Big deal. Conservative talking heads lie on-air and mouth Republican and corporate talking points in an overt effort to further Republican and corporate ends and Olberman is decried for "conflict of interest". This only means that conservative talking heads aren't guilty of conflict of interest as their job is to support Republicans and corporations. Yeah, these freak media outlets better get rid of the few liberals and progressives now.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What I find surprising about this story is that MSNBC has ethics. At the same time this could be promising. Perhaps this is a preview of what to expect with the new Comcast management. There might be some chance that Comcast is trying to bring MSNBC's ratings out of the bottom of the barrel by ditching the most offensive characters. The real test will be if Olbermann is replaced by someone rational that can attract an audience.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The real test will be if Olbermann is replaced by someone rational that can attract an audience.
Maybe Pat Robertson or Ernest Aingsly [faith healer] , see faith healing believers are exempt from healthcare coverage, since witchdoctors are not competition to the local primary care providers.

There was a proposal to cover faith healings [I think it was republican], reverend would fill out the health reimbursement form. I don't know the reimbursement rate, a reasonable and customary charge for lying on of hands is not in the AMA resource journal.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Maybe Pat Robertson or Ernest Aingsly [faith healer] , see faith healing believers are exempt from healthcare coverage, since witchdoctors are not competition to the local primary care providers.

I am not exactly why you think those would make good Olbermann replacements. I would suggest they would scare away even more audience. You can send a letter recommending those changes, but I doubt it will happen. Besides Pat and Ernest already have homes on other channels.

The best thing Comcast can do is to compete with Fox by emulating them. Put on unbiased hard news, and sprinkle the rest of the day with leftwing, centrist, and rightwing personalities. The far left will never accept hearing all views, but they make up a small percentage of potential viewers anyway.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I hate the hypocrisy of the channel that calls themselves Fox News. So, as a progressive, I cannot come on here and be hypocritical. MSNBC operates by its own rules. If they want to hold up a standard of ethics, then I commend them. However, I do not know if this is the case. Paleo-con, I am completely on a different page though about this being "good" under any other context. Where do you find rational, middle ground on Fox News? Olbermann was the loose cannon, Matthews is overcaffeinated, but overall, the hosts on MSNBC are rational. They just hold a different opinion. Dylan Ratigan has a good, rational program, Lawrence O'Donnell seems quite promising, Rachel Maddow is always respectful, funny and self-depreciating at times. I'm not on the same page as Joe Scarborough, but for the most part, he runs a sane show. Pat Buchanan is another story as an "analyst", but still.

What really angers me about all of this is that a corporate entity has more rights to "speech" than a person. If Keith donates privately of his own money, that is none of anyone's concern. I also have to wonder the timing of this. With Comcast poised to take over, and the right wing agenda there, I wonder if this is a hatchet job. I am also suspect if this is retaliatory in nature, based on the Juan Williams incident.

TheEvangelicalBuster's picture
TheEvangelicalBuster
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Keith Olbermann suspended from his job indefinitely without pay which he performs very, very well. What is MSNBC going to do now. One of MSNBC’s stars decided to support what he believed in, as in to contribute to the candidate that he believes that will make the correct choice for Americans. This should be a badge of honor for MSNBC for one of their stars decided to participate in democracy. In return he was deeply discipline which will probably hurt MSNBC on their actions.

The freedom of speech that is in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects us from the government ruling hand, but it does not protect us from this corporate power that rules over us, the employees of any corporation. This shows you how much we need regulations to protect the working man from this type of power. This is a sad day for us progressives/liberals that we do not have the power, to protect ourselves in our private lives. I will stand by Keith Olbermann and support this man because the loss of his freedom of speech. We need to return to the power of collective bargaining to gain the strength as one united, instead of individuals. I encourage everyone to aggressively e-mail MSNBC to return Mr Olbermann back to his position as anchorman where he belongs

Vegasman56's picture
Vegasman56
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 8:40 am

Now reports are in that msnbc has fired or whatever Keiths replacement for the same thing. FU to who ever is making this move at NBC

Liberal Man's picture
Liberal Man
Joined:
Aug. 12, 2010 2:59 pm

NBC needed a reason to get rid of Olberman because of horrible ratings.

Looks like they found it.

kulak.2.1
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 6:39 pm

Keith Olbermann suspended from his job indefinitely without pay which he performs very, very well. What is MSNBC going to do now. One of MSNBC’s stars decided to support what he believed in, as in to contribute to the candidate that he believes that will make the correct choice for Americans. This should be a badge of honor for MSNBC for one of their stars decided to participate in democracy. In return he was deeply discipline which will probably hurt MSNBC on their actions.

The freedom of speech that is in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects us from the government ruling hand, but it does not protect us from this corporate power that rules over us, the employees of any corporation. This shows you how much we need regulations to protect the working man from this type of power. This is a sad day for us progressives/liberals that we do not have the power, to protect ourselves in our private lives. I will stand by Keith Olbermann and support this man because the loss of his freedom of speech. We need to return to the power of collective bargaining to gain the strength as one united, instead of individuals. I encourage everyone to aggressively e-mail MSNBC to return Mr Olbermann back to his position as anchorman where he belongs

Vegasman56's picture
Vegasman56
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 8:40 am
Quote Paleo-con:

What I find surprising about this story is that MSNBC has ethics. At the same time this could be promising. Perhaps this is a preview of what to expect with the new Comcast management. There might be some chance that Comcast is trying to bring MSNBC's ratings out of the bottom of the barrel by ditching the most offensive characters. The real test will be if Olbermann is replaced by someone rational that can attract an audience.

What's the matter Pale, can't stand some contrary opinion? This is censorship plain and simple. Olberman has more brains and political knowledge than the entire gamut of Fox Noise clowns. You seem to be supporting censorship so I guess you and your ilk are afraid of the truth. I can't believe how much control military industrial corporations have over our politics and media. If you like Nazi Germany you should like modern day America.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I am so pissed right now . . .

Olberman was suspended for one reason; he was speaking truth to power. His parent company GE makes nuclear bombs and rotary cannons. They are a military industrial power that makes huge profits on war. GE, NBC and MSNBC's parent company was involved in the Dabhol, India electric power plant that was built in the mid 1990s. The project was run by Enron and George W. Bush flew in Ken Lay of Enron's corporate jet while campaigning for the 2000 election that was awarded to Bush by the Catholic Right Wing Fascist Supreme Court. The Dabhol power plant was managed by Clifford Baxter who was found dead with a bullet in his head. Enron was hemorrhaging money because they could not obtain natural gas as they expected from the Caspian Sea Basin. This Dabhol power plant was built by Bechtel, GE and Enron. Just like Unocal's John J. Maresca who went before Congress to plead with Congress to take action to remove the Taliban from power so that the pipelines could be built, Enron had a big stake in removing the Taliban that was dealing with Bridas Oil of Argentina but was not dealing with Unocal and their Saudi partners in the Centgas project. The Taliban were brought to Houston and even Mt. Rushmore in an attempt to sway them into allowing the pipelines to be built. When that didn't work there was only one solution, invade Afghanistan. It's all right here in this link.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

Follow it and see the real motive behind the 9/11 attacks and GE is in it up to their necks. Olberman is being silenced and this donation to dem candidates is a ruse. Building No. 7 fell at free fall rate and was not hit by a jet. Over 1380 licensed engineers and architects have signed onto A&E for 9/11 Truth and the professional opinion is that all three towers were brought down with controlled demolitions and GE is in this cover up. If you don't think GE is involved in the 9/11 attacks then why won't they ever talk about the pipelines in Afghanistan. James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Armitage, Zigenew Brezinski, Kissinger, et al are all involved in the Turkish American Council and the Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce with the mandate of using US taxpayer money to build up the infrastructure of those nations so as facilitate the transport of oil and natural gas for the PRIVATE oil companies.

General Electric/NBC/MSNBC hosted the Las Vegas dem primaries in 2008 and despite a court order obtained by Dennis Kucinich, would not let him debate the corporate candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This happened for several reasons: The president is a figurehead, the real power lies with the corporate global billionaires. Kucinich was for pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan so was Ron Paul, both were marginalized because GE makes money from war and all media makes tons of money from campaigns and from war. This suspension of Olberman is censorship plain and simple and it's time to hold these corporate criminals accountable for their crimes against humanity.

What's wrong NeoClowns, isn't Fox Noise enough of a propaganda machine for you? Can't stand a second opinion, you fascist bastards.

I tried calling NBC's Phil Griffin at 212-664-2456, which is the correct number, but the coward has taken his number off line because of the deluge of calls. We are living in the equivalent of Nazi Germany. Their Reichstag Fire was our 9/11. Their enabling Act as a result of the fire was our Patriot Act. Enough already. Get Olberman back on the TV NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please everyone with any sense should know what this is about. Olberman was the only one embarrassing the right wing machine and this suspension is about censorship and only censorship. What excuse will they use to shut down the internet? I hope and pray everyone here makes this issue go viral and. Feel free to copy and paste this information I provide about GE and the Dabhol power plant, the real motive for 9/11. Copy the link to the pipeline politics provided by Paul Thompson. This should be nightly news every night until the criminals are in jail and doing hard labor. What the hell happened to this country? We need an international investigation into 9/11 and GE/NBC cover up.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:The best thing Comcast can do is to compete with Fox by emulating them. Put on unbiased hard news, and sprinkle the rest of the day with leftwing, centrist, and rightwing personalities. The far left will never accept hearing all views, but they make up a small percentage of potential viewers anyway.

Unbiased hard news. How f*&^kn stupid do you think we are here on the TH site? You have just lost all credibility with me and I hope everyone here. You can speak conservative economics and other issues all you want and that's fine, but to suggest that FOX is "unbiased hard news" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You have exposed yourself as a nutjob not to be taken seriously at all on anything, pale. I recommend that the TH moderators throw your sorry ass off this site. You shouldn't complain if it happens, after all, you just supported censorship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

One more time, deluge this bastard with phone calls. Phil Griffin NBC 212-664-2456. Call and leave a message about GE's power plant in Dabhol, ask them why that is never discussed and why the pipelines are never covered by their esteemed news station. How many people have to die for oil tycoons money. This level of greed is why unbridled capitalism must be overthrown. This people literally, I don't mean figuratively, literally, worship money and the power that comes with it.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's much more genteel to misconstrue reality the way we do it rather than the way the German Propaganda Minister did it, or Pravda did it. Subtle, rather than overt.

We let the special interests of the free marketeers decide such things.The greater the wacko illusions take hold, the more wacky those showing the illusions for what they are will appear.

Probably attempting to fix what aren't the problems isn't the best way to economic recovery. Of course, in the wacky world of the right, the real problems are non-existent!.

Increasing the wealth disparities becomes the solution to the meltdown on Main Street. The circular production/distribution of goods and unemployment will take care of itself once the top tiers get even more of the nation's diminishing monetary supply. Wacky..

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Whats scary is most people don't see Faux News as commentary. They see it as hard fact, like Paleo. I think he actually believed that statement.

The problem with the U.S. will be similar to what happened to Germany after their depression, and rise of the 3rd Reich. Little by little there will be excuses and justifications to widdle away at the constitution and our democracy. In some cases there will be appologies, "sorry, we didn't want to do this, but because of the terrorists we have to take away this right of yours." Then there will be an uneducated populist movement that will supress liberal ideals. And then one day our own kids will turn to us and say those damn rag heads need to be killed off. And then we'll look back and realize how far we fell.

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

Hopefully not... as least we have people like Thom blowing whistles.

makuck's picture
makuck
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 10:13 pm

I have to admit being pretty indifferent to Keith Olbermann.

He certainly supports Democrats, and I don't think he hides this fact. But then I think if you are going to have Fox news on television, you certainly need a balance to that POV. It's called choice. I would think no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on, everyone would like the US to be a place where the tv "news" offers both sides. You don't have to watch it. I think that is why we have the remote control. I thought conservatives believed in the idea of being able to make up one's own mind.

I have read that Joe Scarborough (who I really can't stand- more because I think he is a complete idiot than his actual views) has donated far more money to Republican campaigns. Yet the network has done nothing to him? Why is this? Because Keith's show is a "news" program? Well that is debatable.

It looks to me like the owners of MSNBC wanted a reason to get rid of Keith Olbermann. It seems as if they found one, no matter how weak it may appear.

What I fail to understand is why ANYONE believes this is good for the state of media in America? It doesn't matter if you agree with Olbermann, he offered an alternative for people. What happens to a nation when there is no option for watching (or listening to) a differing opinion?

PS. I have to admit Paleo, I am extremely surprised and slightly disappointed in your narrow minded views on this issue. I too thought you were a bit more pragmatic in your thinking.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I read somwhere that Keith had a history of butting heads with Griffen. From what I see Griffen saw this technicality as a way to "put him in his place".

Other theories don't make much sense as he was the horse drawing the largest ratings and this "offense" was minor at best.

Vonstrohm's picture
Vonstrohm
Joined:
Nov. 2, 2010 4:58 pm

This is the E-mail I sent to Rachel Madow and I have sent slight variations to others including my satalite provied. The point I make about our rights being taken away by contract and simple work place rules should be carefully considered. We are willinglly giving up our constitutional rights as a condition of employment. If you were offerd a job that paid well but you had to sign a statement that you would only buy products from certain companies , would you do it?

What about a company paying their employees on a credit card that only worked at specific stores or for specific products?

How many of us have signed employee handbooks that state that engaging in union related activities is cause for termination?

How many of you read the employee hand book before you signed the last page?

How many of you have signed multi page non disclosure agreements without reading them?

The email;

I don’t know if I can properly describe how I feel about this whole situation but I will try.

Freedom of speech is not conditional by contract. Or is it? Is this the end game to the conversion of America into a fascist state? Is this just a corporation exercising its control over its employees? Is this real fascism?

Is there emotion involved? Have the management of MSNBC been looking for an opportunity like this for some time?

I have too many questions to be able to process this into a coherent thought. There are too many questions.

I just got a new job and part of the employee hand book was a statement that political activity on the job would not be tolerated. This does not effect my private life or does it?

Our freedoms are being stripped from us by contractual obligation.

If what happened to Mr. Olberman is allowed to stand as a precedent, then the game is over. Any business or corporation large or small would be able to suppress any issue by simply adding a new policy to the employee hand book.

What activity or opinion is outside of that kind of control? Is religion next? A dress code seems like a childish manifestation of a rule in a book compared to this outrage.

If this situation stands could a corporation simply write into the employee handbook that union activity will not be tolerated? Where does it end?

Ok, maybe I am paranoid. Maybe my tin foil hat is slipping.

But I feel I need to do something in response. So here we come to it. I started watching Countdown because I discovered it was available on my extended satellite TV service.

MSNBC is the only channel that service provides that I am interested in. This costs me about $15 per month extra.

I am sorry Ms, Madow, I do respect you and I enjoy your show but if Mr, Olberman is gone then you cannot be far behind. I will end my extended service and go back to my blissful ignorance. And I will suggest that my friends do the same.

I can only control a few things in my life and which services I choose to purchase are among those few things.

Please feel free to forward this to the management of MSNBC for all the good it will do.

I will also be sharing this note with my satellite provider when I cancel my extended service.

MA'AT's picture
MA'AT
Joined:
Jul. 6, 2010 6:45 pm

MSNBC also dumped Phil Donahue even though he was drawing the highest ratings on MSNBC. But Donahue was an Iraq war critic and GE is a military contractor and MSNBC and NBC makes a lot of extra money during wars and campaign seasons.

Let's face it folks, Timothy was right: the love of money is the root of all evil.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If that were the case Choco why would GE tailor MSNBC to a progressive audience?

Vonstrohm's picture
Vonstrohm
Joined:
Nov. 2, 2010 4:58 pm

Yes, I mean why should the US have anything but right wing and far right wing media. Just another way in which the US is becoming more and more like Russia.

I expect the internet in the US to be going the way of television soon. I suppose at least that way, most Americans won't realize what is going on with them any longer. In some ways it is almost like creating your own little prison of 300 million.

Very sad.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

(to MA'AT above):

Dump your satellite service entirely and watch Keith & Rachel on the internet. You can watch the entire show (+ bonus material) at your leisure & with fewer commercials. My TV is disconnected, but my library card gets a lot of mileage (currently reading vintage Krugman -- does he own a crystal ball, or is it just me?). It is entirely possible to have a "balanced diet" of cultural/informational input without ever turning on a TV, in my opinion.

Cable/satellite is just another bill, anyway, and for my 2 cents, it feeds an evil machine. Fox gets $1 per month PER CUSTOMER from providers like Time Warner. And, in case you haven't noticed, every year it books big sports events/schedules (Superbowl, NFL) and uses them and shows like Idol and Simpsons as leverage to shake down cable providers. Then they put out their own ads on 3rd party airwaves -- "Don't want to miss [event]? Call your cable provider and demand they reinstate their deal with Fox!" I heard those ads on talk radio here in L.A. in October.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/31/deadline-looms-foxtime-warner-...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/30/technology/fox_cablevision/index.htm

***

And those (providers) are the companies who are REALLY trying to overturn Net Neutrality, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality (Wikipedia is not usually my first choice for info, but the "Opponents" paragraph pretty much spells out the major players and their strategy -- and hundreds of MILLIONS in lobbying money!).

Verizon, TWC, and Comcast would LOVE to be set free to put a "toll booth" on EVERY internet transmission, and they are spending your cable $$$ to push their case in Congress.

***

I realize the hypocrisy of posting these ideas over a privately-provided internet stream. No, I don't personally pay an internet bill -- it's easy enough to find here in the "big city." Nevertheless, I would advocate strongly for a Finnish-style national mission pooling resources to provide broadband as a national utility. Why did the FCC auction the former analog TV bandwidth, anyway? Those USED to be OUR airwaves...

think_r
Joined:
Sep. 26, 2010 9:38 am

BTW, MSNBC doesn't have any progressive shows (even Rachel's message has been severely watered down compared to the message of her radio show).

It's an alternative POV. Why wouldn't you want that in American media?

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Almost forgot: How does a company like Fox charge $1/cable viewer/month on programming that already carries ads, which is available for free (ad-supported) over the airwaves to anyone with a cheap (formerly government supported...remember that last year?!?) digital antenna? Would I be in violation if I put up an antenna and shared it with my neighbors? What if I charged a nominal fee, like a buck a month? They're not buying the programming -- they're "chipping in" on the usage of the antenna!

The beginnings of cable TV are not dissimilar to this concept -- an appliance store owner in PA in the 40's couldn't sell enough TV's because the mountains were blocking reception in his town. So he put up an antenna on the hill and ran the cables to his store and houses in the community. Everybody won -- his store sold TV's, the community could access programming choices, and the programmers obtained an audience otherwise inaccessible to them. What happened to change this model?

think_r
Joined:
Sep. 26, 2010 9:38 am
Quote Vonstrohm:

If that were the case Choco why would GE tailor MSNBC to a progressive audience?

Money, plain and simple. It's a virtually untapped market. The heads of the corporations: GE/NBC/MSNBC were cashing in on the progressive message but when Olberman became so successful of exposing the hypocrisy and utter foolishness of the extreme right, which is the right nowadays, many corporate/political conservatives became nervous. I'm sure they feel better with the lesser informed and more status quo so called "liberal" voices like Ed Schultz or Chris Mathews. Rachel is walking on eggshells now as corporate America does not want open public discussion and she is/was also successful at exposing the utter hypocrisy and foolishness of the right.

I was censored at the newspaper I used to write for so I know what's going on and how insidiously censorship works. Olberman's contributions to dem candidates was just a weak excuse. Olberman is a political pundit and doesn't hide his bias so what's the problem with him donating to dem candidates? It's telling how eager the right is to see America become totally fascist when the Supreme Court can claim corporations are people and thus have the right to lie as a freedom of speech issue and the Citizens United decision allows unlimited campaign ad contributions under free speech, but one person excercises his free speech and the reich freaks out. The anti-American people conservative/tea bagger movement wouldn't last two months with an equitable media presence. The media is controlled from top to bottom by corporate money. Maybe you should check out Mockingbird.

I know another forest beat reporter from Vancouver Sun, Ben Parfitt, who was pushed out of the Sun after he wrote an article, called, All the President's Men. This was about how the captains of the forest industry formed a corporate umbrella/think tank called the Forest Alliance. This was set up to counter their bad public relations around the world and to stymie the associated boycotts of BC lumber and pulp and paper because of the unsustainable forest practices (rape and run). They hired Manhattan PR firm Burson Martseller (everybody in politics and environment should know what this group is about by now) to come up with a strategy and they sent a man to BC who was a former Nixon Administration hack. Parfitt was moved out of forest reporting and continues to write for eco-forestry magazines today.

Our newspaper, The Prince George Citizen was part of a large chain, Southam News. But it was taken over by Conrad Black of Hollinger's News, very similar to Fox and the editors, protecting their own careers, would not allow very much critique of the pulp, paper and timber industry that was the main employer in Prince George. I was not allowed to cover issues on the unsustainable rate of cutting, the fact that as the cut went up, the employment went down and worse, I was not allowed to write about the spread of the bark beetle infestation that was excarcebated by hauling logs during the beetles' annual flight in June. In other words, the logs were loaded on trucks and rail cars and hauled for hundreds of miles in June. The beetles flew from the infested logs. I've talked to Natives living along the rail lines who said they could watch clouds of beetles leaving the trains and spreading throughout the healthy timber and this was repeated throughout the Province. You might notice, I know Poly has,that the beetles have now spread through the Western United states.

By the way, the unsustainable harvesting caused virutally every timber industry town to shutter their mills as the remaining timber was too small, and too far away for the mills to remain viable. We protested this for years and were called tree-hugging environmentalists--as if that was a bad thing. This despite the fact that much of the anti-industrial logging movement was comprised of disgruntled loggers who could see that their industry was failing and that their children would not have career in logging or sawmilling as they had. So not only did this greed-inspired industrial forest model threaten the habitat of truly wild animals, not park animals, it also threatend eco-based tourism and even traditional and long standing methods of making a living in the bush, guide outfitting and trapping.

By the way Von, why don't you have a comment on GE's and Enron's power plant in Dabhol? You wouldn't want to bring attention to that, now would you? If your reich wing media is so thorough and unbiased why won't they discuss the pipelines emmanating from the Caspian Sea and the need to remove the Taliban so they could be built? Either FOX Noise is hiding this information from the dolt ditto heads, or they don't know about it. One is very very bad, the other is much worse.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So people who want to protest Olbermanns suspension should send e-mails to MSNBC because they suspended a guy for a blatant breach of contract? They could have fired him if they wanted to.

If you get a speeding ticket because you were knowingly speeding, are you gonna petition the judge and everyone else to get the ticket dropped? Of course not, you screwed up and you pay a fine. Those are the laws you agree to when you get a drivers license in your state.

He knew he wasn't allowed to do what he did, but he did it anyway and got caught. His choice. Sucks, I agree, but there wouldn't be a news story if he'd just lived up to his end of the deal.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

"Sucks, I agree, but there wouldn't be a news story if he'd just lived up to his end of the deal."

In other parts of the "civilized" world, such a "deal" would be illegal in the first place.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote norske:

"Sucks, I agree, but there wouldn't be a news story if he'd just lived up to his end of the deal."

In other parts of the "civilized" world, such a "deal" would be illegal in the first place.

Exactly, this was censorship plain and simple. His Constitutional rights to freedom of speech is assured. This superscedes any corporate contractual rights. Corporations, since 1890s, are legally identified as persons and therefore free to express themselves. This expression can also extend toward a misrepresentation of their products and/or services and lie, under freedom of expression. The recent Citizens United granted further "freedom of expression" rights to corporations by allowing unlimited contributions to campaigns.

GE just likes to play dictator as they did when Dennis Kucinch tried to debate in the dem primary in Las Vegas. He got a court injunction to be allowed to debate, but somehow GE/MSNBC got it ignored and proceeded to exclude this real progressive off the democratic stage. GE has a vested interested in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage complex in Nevada, the host state for the dem primes.

If we allow corporate tyrants like the GE nuclear arms manufacturer, GE Rotary Cannon people, pick Depleted Unraniun poisoner's people, to pick and choose our candidates, then we have a serious problem here.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This isn't the Federal Government coming in and telling him he can't make donations, this isn't a 1st amendment issue because HE SIGNED A DOCUMENT saying that he would forefit his employment if such an action was made. This was completely optional on his part, it was a decision he did not have to make.

Are you telling me that if you hired a librarian who talked on the phone and burped and farted all day long, even though the job description strictly forbade these kind of actions, that you can't fire him for doing so because he's merely expressing his first amendment right?

If someone has a problem with the stipulations of an employment contract, they simply don't have to take the job. Or at least they can try to negotiate the details before agreeing to it.

If it were my company, I probably wouldn't have had any kind of restriction on these sorts of things, but the fact is that the company he works for DOES have these kind of restrictions.

It's just like drug laws (and I'm someone who's never been high, never tried drugs, never even tried a cigarette), I believe it's stupid to arrest people for smoking a joint in their own household, I believe drug laws do more damage than good, I see nothing but problems with our drug policies. But that doesn't change the fact that I can get arrested for using them. I can argue all day long that it's a dumb law and I should be allowed my freedom, but by choosing to live in the state of Illinois, I acknowledge that I can be subject to penalties incurred as a result of being caught with these items. And if I DO get arrested, it's nobody's fault but my own.

Like I said - there would be no news story here if he'd just lived up to his end of the deal. Perhaps if MSNBC feels a big enough threat, they'll renegotiate their contracts and allow these kind of things. But nobody has the right to tell them what standards they should hold their employees to.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am

I won't argue your point of contractual obligation but I suspect that they were looking for any reason to shut him up. We have not seen the details of the contract so it's hard to know for sure at this point if he, in fact, violated the terms of his contract. I have no doubt this was politically driven.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

That, I agree with you on. The fact that there was even a stipulation like that in the contract should raise red flags already, lol.

Olbermann is great at what he does as long as he doesn't actually have to think off the top of his head. I just think that a lot of the people he tends to pick apart on his show, would actually eviscerate him in a legit one-on-one debate. Which sucks, because as "right leaning" as many of you might consider me, the truth is I can't STAND these asshats like Beck and O'Reilly and most of these retards on the right. I love it when Keith scorches them on his show because he's very good at exposing a lot of their BS.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am
Quote Choco:

What's the matter Pale, can't stand some contrary opinion? This is censorship plain and simple. Olberman has more brains and political knowledge than the entire gamut of Fox Noise clowns. You seem to be supporting censorship so I guess you and your ilk are afraid of the truth. I can't believe how much control military industrial corporations have over our politics and media. If you like Nazi Germany you should like modern day America.

To the contrary, I insist on contrary opinion. What does opinion have to do with Olberman's situation? He was not suspended for opinion, he violated his contract. If any back door shenanigans are going on, this would be all about ratings. Olberman does not have very good ratings. Perhaps this was just a way to replace hime with a better draw. Then again, since Olberman was removed from suspenion and returned to his show, this whole thing could have been a publicity stunt gone wrong.

Thanks for the personal attacks and the strawman, they help me with a lot more understanding of your position.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Choco:

Unbiased hard news. How f*&^kn stupid do you think we are here on the TH site? You have just lost all credibility with me and I hope everyone here. You can speak conservative economics and other issues all you want and that's fine, but to suggest that FOX is "unbiased hard news" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You have exposed yourself as a nutjob not to be taken seriously at all on anything, pale. I recommend that the TH moderators throw your sorry ass off this site. You shouldn't complain if it happens, after all, you just supported censorship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First let me say that your call for censorship while feigning concern against censorship is classic projection at its best. Thanks for the example.

Their hard news is unbiased. If you have any proof or examples otherwise, I am open to hearing about it. Their commentary shows, like Hanity, are very biased; I can provide my own proof for those shows. Unlike some others on this site, I am open to contrary views, even when those views fly in the face of reality as I see it.

Once again, thank you for the personal attacks, straw-man, and projection.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Paleo, could you please provide an example of this "unbiased" Fox news of which you speak?

I have watched Fox news before, and its a joke. In fact the first time I ever saw it (the "real" news not Hannity or Beck) was when I was on holiday in Italy (why it was on the television in Rome, I have no idea). My first thought was that it was some kind of SNL skit. But upon closer observation, I noticed it was meant to be serious.

Good lord, and you fellows wonder why its so difficult for so much of the rest of the world to take Americans seriously. (Unless we are bombing the s**t out of them of course)

BTW, I just read over Choco's posts here, and he did NOT call for censorship of Fox. He just called you out, on wanting MSNBC to emulate Fox, therefore offering NO ALTERNATIVE viewpoint.

Now about that example of unbiased, open-minded Fox news reporting. We will be waiting...

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Paleo, could you please provide an example of this "unbiased" Fox news of which you speak?

I have watched Fox news before, and its a joke. In fact the first time I ever saw it (the "real" news not Hannity or Beck) was when I was on holiday in Italy (why it was on the television in Rome, I have no idea). My first thought was that it was some kind of SNL skit. But upon closer observation, I noticed it was meant to be serious.

Good lord, and you fellows wonder why its so difficult for so much of the rest of the world to take Americans seriously. (Unless we are bombing the s**t out of them of course)

BTW, I just read over Choco's posts here, and he did NOT call for censorship of Fox. He just called you out, on wanting MSNBC to emulate Fox, therefore offering NO ALTERNATIVE viewpoint.

Now about that example of unbiased, open-minded Fox news reporting. We will be waiting...

Mel, Mel, Mel, where do you come up with some of this stuff? Nobody said Choco wanted to censor Fox. I am the target of the Choco's censorship demand.

Obama gave a speech in India. - Nat Geo Channel is showing a special on Hillary Clinton's job behind the Scenes at the State Department at 9:00 tonight. - GOP plans to fight the Health Care law by cutting funding; Democrats say it will not work. - GOP wants to extend tax cuts for everyone, while Obama wants the cuts only to expire on the wealthiest. - Military is stepping up efforts to find Awlaki in Yemen. I got all of that in about 5 minutes in watching just now. It looks unbiased to me. Can you point out where I am wrong? I am always open to criticism.

Now that we finished the mirror game, can we get onto showing me where Fox's hard news has shown any bias? Liberals have organizations like Media Watch that have entire armies monitoring Fox News’s every syllable 24 by 7 and they can't find any. I was just wondering if anyone here had any special insight; I guess I was wrong.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Are you kidding? Keith Olbermann supports Dems? Shit, I thought he played it straight down the middle with no bias whatsover!

Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If this MSNBC rule is supposed to present some semblance of objectivity, it's a farce. That's not Keith's job... he's paid to be a Progressive cheerleader,and he's pretty good at it. He should be able to donate to those candidates that he shills for on his show.

The bright side of this for Keith and MSNBC is that this publicity will be helpful for his show when he does return, and he needs all the help he can get.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It might have been part of his rebel persona. If it was really risky it was stupid and unnecessary because he could just as easily donated annonomously, or through a charity. Giving to nonprofits is likely not prohibited, but there are some really strange flags risking financial surrender, and nofly lists. Did he use a credit card? That cost Spitzer. Jerry Springer wrote personal check to a prostitute when he was Mayor of Cincinnati. Both Spitzer and Springer were just helping the poor.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I did my own little research on Fox news. I noticed their information sources are the Wall Street Journal (also owned by Murdoch), Fox Business, Fox Money and some kind of Christian media site (I think it's called Belief).

If you find that non-biased, than you have a pretty limited view of what is going on in the world. But that doesn't surprise.

Of course to be fair to Fox, I am not sure REAL news exists anywhere in the MSM in America. So perhaps it is ALL opinion pieces, in which case the best the American public can hope for is at least having more than one POV.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

In the first place, and as Morning Joe was allowed to do, opinion and commentary is not "journalism." Those who report the facts do appear on the MSNBC shows, but Keith has not presented himself as a "newscaster" or "anchor," much less a journalist. He is a commentator, and info-tainer. On FAUX, you have the disinfo-tainment.

Paleo may confuse Chris Wallace with unbiased journalism. Hell, his Dad leaned to the Right and Chris has gone a lot farther. The selection of stories and the frame continues to misconstrue and mislead, but that is like saying that the NYPost has a point of view.

The much larger problem with FAUX is that it brands itself as NEWS and does not make any clear distinction about the show appearing on the FNEWS Channel. It is the frame of 24 hour news like CNN. And CNN is no Left perspective on the world.

What we get on MSNBC is liberal, non-radical fact-checking on the idiots on the Right. I have not heard serious public policy proposals that are not being voted on in Congress get exposure on 'our' media. I am not exactly blaming the Liberal Talking Heads for the lack of a Progressive media source on basic cable.

Finally, it is what does not get reported at all that gives the Left the best case to indict and condemn the corporate media, including PBS and NPR. The idea that Larry O'Donnell was defending, that an informed electorate made a decision, makes "informed" a value neutral term. The real news does not get on TV and can barely be found on radio. The real news does not make it into the local paper or the national press. Project Censored makes that clear, year after year.

What did we expect when we "franchised out" our media to merchants who love their cash cows? We have let them get out of any pledge of social responsibility, and we have turned our elections into a cash feeding fest for them as "political speech" is degraded. After all, they "own" our media and have the right to do with it what they please. What?!!!!

Keith butted heads with . . . No doubt. He does not suffer fools, has a huge ego and walks the talk. This is not about ratings. And it is not about MSNBC being a vehicle for political advocacy like FAUX. The rest of the MSNBC programing is either middle conservative commentary or lurid and vicarious crime and prison tabloid crap.

I enjoy seeing the shows and hearing the insider chat, and the fool exposure helps keep us all laughing. But beware, this is part of what Hedges is pointing out about the impotence and codependency of Liberals with the Illusion of Empire, etc. If we start to believe that Keith and Rachel are the balance for Hannity and Limbaugh or that what they explore is the Left while the Right is defined by Beck, we will be blinded by the narrow spectrum that gets through the corporate filter.

Keith is back. The Left is still not on TV.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Their hard news is unbiased." Paleo

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/11/07/fox_news_sunday_interviews_only_republicans.php

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/11/05/fox_news_uses_islam_baiting_graphic.php

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/10/29/fox_news_objective_news_more_biased_than_ever.php

As for the others Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et al versus Maddow and Olbermann, being biased is one thing and perfectly acceptable. Outright lying and distortions, not so much.

Still, Maddow and Olbermann are reigned in tightly and are restrained from giving the true progressive perspective more times than not. Much as with our "democracy," giving the illusion of choice serves the interests of those in power more than total compliance regarding their true agenda.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

What we get on MSNBC is liberal, non-radical fact-checking on the idiots on the Right. I have not heard serious public policy proposals that are not being voted on in Congress get exposure on 'our' media. I am not exactly blaming the Liberal Talking Heads for the lack of a Progressive media source on basic cable.

MSNBC does the exact same thing Fox News does, just from a different perspective. Of course they are both biased. That's the whole point. The only real difference is ten times more people watch Fox than watch MSNBC. There's a much bigger appetite for Fox News bias than for MSNBC bias, but that a whole nuther thread.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote norske:

Still, Maddow and Olbermann are reigned in tightly and are restrained from giving the true progressive perspective

That's interesting. Who gives them their marching orders?

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The corporate filter is very effective. There are producers and execs who speak to them who make clear where the incentives and disincentives are. If you are working in a bordello, you might not be able to condemn prostitution, at least not over and over.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Choco, I think you're going to like what I have to say.

Olbermann was, from what I've seen, the most outspoken against the Citizens United decision that Choco brought up. Is it possible that the real reason Olbermann was suspended because he was so outspoken about Citizens United? I was one of the 300,000 who signed the boldprogressives.org petition for his return, and on the petition I commented about that and the fact that I've been singing the praises of GE and NBC for allowing Olbermann to speak out against the overbearing powers of corporations. But when he was suspended I doubted the integrity of GE/NBC, and I warned them in the petition that I will scream as loud as I can all over the internet about this until they bring Olbermann back. The night of the passage of Citizens United, January 21, 2010, Keith Olbermann's Special Comment was AMAZING! Here are the final four minutes of that comment, of which the first sentence sends chills though me!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcL_zkx6kE

dstack's picture
dstack
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Pale, looks like Norske in post 41 quickly provided proof that Fox news is anything but unbiased. Hell, Cheney would ONLY give interviews to Fox and nobody else, and he is, perhaps, the most evil person in the world and responsible for hundreds of thousands of violent deaths in the Iraq war he lied us into.

As for banning you from here. That is a result of you saying ridiculous, unsubstantiated things such as Fox News in unbiased. Once again, see post #41 for starters. Anyone here that is not honestly trying to advance constructive dialog, or at least recognize that up is up and down is down, shouldn't be here wasting our time. I have no say in the issue and have no desire to push for your removal, but I really don't think your dogma is constructive to advancing understanding in any way whatsoever.

And DRC makes a good point here:

Finally, it is what does not get reported at all that gives the Left the best case to indict and condemn the corporate media, including PBS and NPR

Nobody here can tell me they've heard any media in this country mention Enron's power plant in Dabhol, India that was hemmoraging money by the hundreds of millions because the Taliban wouldn't allow the pipelines from the Caspian to be built. This power plant was engineered by GE (MSNBC's parent company) and built by Bechtel, one of the largest military construction contractors in the world. No media has talked about John J. Maresca of Unocal pleading with Congress in 1998 to Remove the Taliban so the pipelines could go through. Nobody in the media is talking about how conflicted the heads of the 9/11 Commission were. Liberals have let the corporate right wing media innundate the public with the T-word, Terrorism-- code for the dark skinned Muslims did it, no doubt about it, but no questions should be asked-- without challenge.

We need to be talking like Thom did this morning about the other T-word. Treason. The Bush/Cheney oil tycoon administration is guilty of TREASON and the media won't touch it, which is bad enough, but Fox news has an agenda to make sure the public hates Muslims and it's an easy sell to their largely racist, white supremisct, xenophopic audience of intelectually-challenged self annointed psuedo-christians.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Now, I'm thrilled that Olbermann will be back! Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just posted about this on the Huffington Post. I love Senator Sanders, but I disagree with the main "carry home" message here. But one thing that we need to capitalize more than anything is what Rachel Maddow brought up on Friday night. That is the stark contrast of what this says about Olbermann, a political commentator who works for a news organization verses Fox which 1) explicitly endorses candidates 2) promotes fundraisers for candidates 3) who's hosts donate to campaigns

When I worked as a video editor for news stations (WFAA-Dallas, WFLA-Tampa, WTVJ-Miami) I was strictly forbidden from participating in politics other than voting. This the norm for news organizations. So my head use to explode when I heard the right-wingers use the term "liberal media"! Now I simply correct them saying it's not at all about "liberal", it's a corporate media.

I've been listening to the podcasts of Thom Hartmann from the week that Citizens United past on January 21, 2010, because I agree that this is the issue of our day. This is what we need to be screaming about. I've heard the 90 page dissent from this case is PROFOUND! If someone knows where I can find a great summery of the dissent, please let me know.

Thanks!

dstack's picture
dstack
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote dstack:

Choco, I think you're going to like what I have to say.

Olbermann was, from what I've seen, the most outspoken against the Citizens United decision that Choco brought up. Is it possible that the real reason Olbermann was suspended because he was so outspoken about Citizens United? I was one of the 300,000 who signed the boldprogressives.org petition for his return,

I do like what you said and I watched the video and saw your comments there. Keep up the vigilance. I signed the petition when it was at about 150,000 and left some tasty comments myself. The video shows that Keith was almost expecting to get axed over his comments on the Citizens United decision. We progressives are reaping the results of not pushing for investigations of the crimes of the Bush administration from the beginning with the stolen Florida election. Had Bush's theft of the office of the Executive branch been seriously challenged then Roberts would not have been the Supremely corrupted head of the court of the land.

We can't have democracy without justice and we can't have justice without truth. Fox news assures that the truth is obscured and is replaced by corporate-globalist-benefitting ideology. The rest of the media isn't much better, but Keith and Rachel are a hope, at least, and I have a lot of fun watching how effectively they expose the hypocrisy, ignorance and outright lies of the reich wing.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have always wondered about the supposed "low" ratings of Keith's program? I mean if his ratings are such crap, why hasn't his program been cancelled.

I read somewhere (back when I lived in Seattle) that the reason Fox had such "high" ratings is because the majority of their demographic audience was mainly old, retired people (those who didn't spend much time on the internet). Certainly not to read about news.

While MSNBC mainly catered to a younger crowd. More likely those who watch television "news" as a second or third method to get their information.

At any rate this should mean that in about 20 years time, all the old conservatives will be dead, and the younger generation (well the majority of them anyway), are just not that far right.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

I have always wondered about the supposed "low" ratings of Keith's program? I mean if his ratings are such crap, why hasn't his program been cancelled.

I've wondered the same thing

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

We Need to Listen to the Founders and Stop the Forever War.

Just a little over a year ago during his speech at the National Defense University here in Washington, D.C., President Obama talked about winding down Bush’s War on Terror. But as American bombers continue to strike against ISIS in Iraq and now Syria, it now looks like the War on Terror will be with us for years to come. And that’s a really dangerous thing for our democracy.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system