I am a big Keith fan but he broke the rules. . .

[wndycty]

. . .and there needs to be some accountability. As long as he is welcomed back and not fired I have no problem with their action.

[rubberducky]

1. Fox doesn`t break any rules??? WTF

[digitaln3rd]

4. Fox doesn't have to follow MSNBC's rules..

We're not talking about Fox, we're talking about MSNBC.

[Myrina]

2. I'd like to buy a clue, please?

:wtf:

[tridim]

3. Anyone can legally donate to candidates. Including KO.

WTF are you talking about?

[BzaDem]

6. Not if your contract with NBC says you can't. n/t

[tridim]

12. That would be an illegal contract.

ANYONE can donate to ANY candidate they want, as long as the law is followed. Period.

[BzaDem]

15. Complete bullshit. It would be a perfectly legal contract. n/t

[tridim]

17. So contracts can eliminate constitutional rights?

THAT is bullshit.

[sufrommich]

He signed a contract making his constitutional right

conditional on his employment.The contract wasn't forced on him.

[BzaDem]

22. Of course they can! Do you know ANYTHING about contract law?

The First Amendment applies to the government. It says that the government can't pass a law suppressing your right to speech.

It says NOTHING about private parties and voluntary contracts. If Keith wants to speak, he has the absolute right to resign his post at MSNBC and speak. But he does not have the right to stay at MSNBC and simultaneously violate his contract.

[tridim]

25. The last contract I signed was not honored.

Contracts are bullshit.

[slackmaster]

28. That happens a lot, and you do have recourse

Did you exercise your right to sue the other party for breaching the contract?

[tridim]

31. Yes, I can't sue because the contract is bullshit, completely worthless.

Already talked to many lawyers.

If I were Keith I'd be prepping a lawsuit right now. He was sacked for political reasons by his corporation.

[slackmaster]

39. Then you didn't actually have a valid contract

If it's not enforceable, it is indeed worthless.

[tridim]

49. It is 100% valid per the lawyer.

He said, "You'll easily win the case in 5 minutes, then your boss' LLC will file bankruptcy, you'll get nothing and owe me about $3000".

Worthless.

[BzaDem]

29. "Contracts are bullshit."

:rofl:

[tridim]

34. They are.

Just wait, you'll get the shaft some day.

[kick-ass-bob]

40. Contracts are enforced when one side finds it convenient

to do so.

If they didn't want to mess with Keith, they would have overlooked this, handled it privately, and moved on.

[sufrommich]

46. They couldn't overlook it. Politico broke the story today. nt

[kick-ass-bob]

48. ah. Didn't realize it was already public knowledge

(as opposed to merely public record)

[HereSince1628]

57. I totally agree.

:) :Hi:

[slackmaster]

23. Of course not. He has a constitutional right to donate.

And they have a right to fire him for doing so.

[uncommon]

43. It's bs but yes. NPR told their employees they could not attend the Rally last weekend.

:shrug:

I don't think it's right.

[Caretha]

83. Hey....I'm going to kick in a quarter

and buy you a clue. You can't sign away your constitional rights.

Now I know you're a wise one, so I'm sure you can figure that out without the quarter, but again...maybe not so keep the quarter.

[Renew Deal]

66. You can sign contracts agreeing to give up certain rights.

Also, political contributions are generally not an accepted practice for journalists.

[Common Sense Party]

74. You're not "giving up" the rights. You're agreeing not to exercise it

in a certain way for the length of your employment under the contract.

He still HAS the constitutional right to free speech. MSNBC didn't take that away from him. He just AGREED not to exercise that right by giving $ to candidates so long as he is employed by MSNBC.

And then he violated that agreement.

[sufrommich]

9. His contract says he can't donate to politicians without

approval from MSNBC. It may be legal to donate, but a contract is a contract.

[slackmaster]

19. I can be fired from my job for many things that I have a civil right to do

There are a lot of things I cannot say in public without risking termination.

[Beako]

5. Does anyone see the up side to this?

Cenk Uygur of TYT may replace him! How awesome would that be? x)

[handmade34]

30. like Cenk, but that is not an upside!

trash talk

[RamboLiberal]

32. NOT - Cenk is ok but he's no KO

[JoePhilly]

59. Cenk voted for Bush in 2000 ... and, whem honest, says he is ...

more of a fiscal conservative, than not.

Keith has been far more progressive.

[tishaLA]

73. I'd be watching Parker Spitzer every night then

[budkin]

7. Oh give me a fucking break...

[Luminous Animal]

8. Yes he did but indefinite suspension is overkill.

[BzaDem]

11. Yea, I agree. It definately does not warrant indefinite suspension. n/t

[kick-ass-bob]

10. Is he an impartial newsman?

Everyone knows that he is the left's quasi-answer to the RW shills.

My question is this: does every single employee have to get permission? Or just the news department?

[monmouth]

13. Let's check on Scarborough, Buchanan, Tweety, Chuckie Todd for starters...n/t

[HipChick]

20. Buchanan contributed 5 times..

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Contributors are set to different rules

Usually they are paid by appearance, like a contractor.

[JonLP24]

14. I only read 2 articles

but I can't find out if this was the policy beforehand. Obviously we know now that he can't contribute to candidates but what about before?

[ishaneferguson]

16. In the interim

I will stay with NPR (and "Dr Martin") until Keith comes back.

[Swede]

18. As long as he's welcomed back quickly

It will give him and his network more credibility. Unlike fox.

[Quixote1818]

87. Bingo! This is a great illustration as to why MSNBC is not Fox!

Keith will be back in no time. People are over reacting. He broke a rule and is getting a slap on the wrist and all will be forgotten by next week but everyone will know FOX doesn't play by any rules after this is over.

[glowing]

21. Pay a fine... Say u r sorry... And move on with life.

The most he could donate to a campaign is $2000.00.

[redirish28]

24. BUT What company has ANY right to tell you what you can do

as a private citizen away from the workplace?!!!



If he had donated or called people to donate on the air that's rightful grounds but when someone does it on their own time it is something completely different.

[slackmaster]

26. Lots of companies have conditions of employment that restrict the exercise of civil rights

If you don't like the contract, don't sign it.

If you violate the terms of a contract that you signed, sometimes you have to suck it up and take the consequences.

[Common Sense Party]

37. My company does. Executives are limited in donating to certain candidates

if there is the possibility of a conflict of interest, e.g., if we could get awarded a government contract, and said donation to said official could be construed as an attempt to influence the awarding of said contract.

This happens all the time in the real world.

I'm not sure why so many here have a difficult time grasping it.

[TheWebHead]

27. How dare you sir!

actually I agree with you. Not sure about the yeah but look at those guys argument. NBC has a policy, Keith violated it and appeared to be thumbing his nose at execs, combine that with Comcast coming in as new owners who may be less sympathetic to KO's views, they may be sending in a message that Keith can't play by his own rules anymore.

[AngryAmish]

33. I just want to get in here on what is bound to be a long thread full of thew worst sort that we have

around here. This is...interesting.

[Individualist]

35. Fuck DLC!

[prolesunited]

41. What does this have to do with the DLC?

[JCMach1]

36. Is he wanting to get out of his contract?

just asking the question...

[SargeUNN]

38. Here we go

we can side with Keith or we can get rid of him. What he did was on a personal level and the contracts are so lengthy and complex that even Rachel once tried to do something in countering Scott what's his last name in Mass. and had to stop. This is corporations overreaching into personal venues and we need to stand for Keith on principle. Of course we need to stand for Keith but sadly I wouldn't count on progressives doing it because we can't team up to do much of anything.

[bluedigger]

42. Me either.

Keith broke his employer's rules and is being punished. An "indefinite suspension" could last from six minutes to six months or more. Who knows? My only fear is that Keith's immense ego will allow this to escalate. Otherwise, I suspect he gets a week off without pay, and life goes on in MNBC land. The drama here at DU,however, will be epic!

[kick-ass-bob]

45. Contracts are enforced when one side finds it convenient

to do so.

If they otherwise didn't have a problem with him, they would have let it slide. The fact that they didn't means there are other issues.

[bluedigger]

50. No, rules are enforced when they are publicly flouted.

It's called leadership. Keith is like a star player on a team who broke curfew. The coach has to control his team. I predict even Keith will see that. Let's see what the punishment is before we cast judgement.

[kick-ass-bob]

55. I didn't realize it was already public knowledge

I thought the suspension was the breaking news of the donations.

[bluedigger]

56. You are probably right to an extent.

Once it was brought to his bosses attention it was public knowledge within the organization, however. If this wasn't a public figure nobody would care. I actually have some sympathy for his bosses - Keith put them in a very difficult position.

(Bravely standing by for the nucular flaming that is no doubt inbound. :rofl:)

[Greyhound]

44. Happy to unrec the voice of unquestioning obedience to authority. K&U. n/t

[ipaint]

51. +1

Subservience rules. Probably why we end up with wealthy doormats for politicians.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Egnever]

54. +1000

Kieths ego got the better of him. He doesnt have to follow rules ya know. I think msnbc is letting him know he does.

I doubt he will be gone for more than a few days unless he digs in his heals and lets his ego run his mouth.

[prolesunited]

53. RULES?!?!?

We're Democrats. We don't need to follow no stinking rules. Or abide the clauses in our employment contracts.

Here's a list of ethics guidelines for many media sources:
http://www.journalism.org/resources/ethics_codes

Most prohibit media employees engaging in partisan politics and campaigns, including donations. Most recently, NPR reminded its employees that it could not attend the Rally to Restore Sanity.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not employment. A BIG distinction.

I love how people here are using Fox as a standard, when it is repeatedly argued that Fox is NOT a credible media organization. I am happy that MSNBC is holding its employees to a higher standard. Buchanan is a contributor, not a direct employee, so that's how he gets away with it.

Keith made a contribution and had the politician on his show for an interview. How is that not a conflict of interest? I don't care what Fox does. From a journalistic standpoint, it is a clear violation of ethics.

I regularly watch Keith and am a fan, but he did a stupid thing and has to face the repercussions.

But, that's the amount of time I will spend trying to reason with posters here. Go ahead and launch your tirades, finger pointing, boycotts, etc.

Bottom line is Keith screwed up, and whether we like him or not is irrelevant. There is no conspiracy here to "silence the left." If he hadn't made the contributions, he wouldn't have been suspended.

[Common Sense Party]

58. How dare you appeal to common sense?

This is DU, dammit.

[Xicano]

64. Since when does a contract supersede constitutional rights?

:shrug:

[Common Sense Party]

72. You've gotta be kidding me.

No one's rights have been denied. He VOLUNTARILY entered into a contract with an employer, which stipulated certain things couldn't be done. He VOLUNTARILY violated the terms of that contract. His employer is choosing to reprimand him for violating said terms of the contract. If he is determined to violate those clauses, then he can VOLUNTARILY choose to be employed elsewhere.

[Throd]

60. I'm not a fan, but I think his suspension is wrong.

[Common Sense Party]

75. Why?

[DireStrike]

61. Not all rules deserve to be followed.

This is a pretty clear case of an unjust, unjustifiable, and stupid rule being broken. No "accountability" is called for, except perhaps from the people who instated the rule.

[Common Sense Party]

77. This isn't just a rule. It's a term of a contract. A contract is an agreement

between two parties. Both parties agreed to the contract, thus, both parties agreed to this term.

It may be a stupid term, but it is the employer's right to enforce the terms of the contract as agreed upon.

[DireStrike]

81. Or as is convenient.

[NotThisTime]

62. you're right, he broke the rules so he should be fired, which essentially this is... so should Scar

Afterall you don't see Schuster back and you never will... very similar situation. You will never see KO back... but Buchanan and Scarborough? Forget about it, they're safe.

[EFerrari]

63. The way folks fall in with the official line is a little scary.

We don't know if he did break the rules. We don't know how those rules are even enforced or if they're enforced fairly.

[DebJ]

65. So did German officers who refused to kill Jews.

[prolesunited]

80. Yeah, this situation is JUST like that

Why dishonor the memory of those who died in the Holocaust by throwing their tragedy around in such a way. Last time I checked, MSNBC did NOT kill Olbermann.

[apocalypsehow]

82. Oh, good grief. The ultimate abuse of Godwin's Law.

:eyes:

[earth mom]

67. You have GOT to be kidding! The corporate media is so damn corrupt it ain't funny.

They pick and choose their so called "rules" and everyone here on DU should know that by now.

The reason this past election was so fucked up is because of the right wing propaganda Faux News spews and that MSNBC and CNN spew to a lessor degree.

Olbermann is on the chopping block because he is one of the few left voices remaining on t.v. I'm sure he's had a target on his back for a long time now.

[Pathwalker]

68. Resistence is futile, You will be assimilated.

All Hail The Corporation(s)!

[Swamp Rat]

70. Obey

or die quickly.

[Doremus]

69. Such sanctimony should qualify you for something. ... any ideas? nt

Oh yeah, and here's an unrec to add to the many dozens you've already acquired. Ciao.

[End Of The Road]

71. I'm worried about the growing employer trend to invade privacy

AND to try to control employee behavior on the employees own time.

I agree with the background checks, and depending on the position I can live with drug tests.

I've never liked their right to do a credit check.

But now some employers are testing for legal drugs, which can get you fired if it's against policy.
Some are trying to coerce you into voting a certain way (recent McDonald's example)
In my town, a firefighter was fired for some pictures he posted on Facebook which had nothing to do with his job.
And now this Keith thing, which may or may not be legit, but it bugs me.

As I posted elsewhere, it's as if our government has privatized its Big Brother role.

Shouldn't the line be drawn somewhere? Amend the FLSA to spell it out, or sic the ACLU on it.

[JoseGaspar]

76. Spoken like a boss...

Those rules are all important... Why, there would be anarchy without those rules. It would be the end of Western civilization.

Let me help the OP with the rest:

"Private property - Harumph - Free speech doesn't apply to private business - Harumph, Harumph - Where would we be without standards? - Harumph, Harumph - It's the principle of the thing - Harumph - Our noble free press must be above reproach - Harumph, Harumph"

[Gold Metal Flake]

78. You don't know what the rules are, and you don't know that he broke any.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Link to TPM.. you might see it is a tad more

complex than this binary thinking of yours.

[Rosco T.]

84. No he didn't...

.. try to keep up.

[Quixote1818]

85. I agree and I think MSNBC will be putting him back on real soon. Even Rachel agrees with the

decision.

[Naturyl]

86. Yeah, fine, he broke the rules, etc, etc - a week suspension should do.

If he's not back in a week then screw MSNBC.