Olbermann was suspended for not disclosing the donations to his boss.

[Subdivisions]

True or False?

Discuss...

[tridim]

1. He was suspended because he is a strong liberal voice..

By people who are REPUBLICANS.

Rachel is next.

[Subdivisions]

2. Gee, ya think? n/t

[RamboLiberal]

7. No IMHO Ed will be next

He's been walking a thin line & I believe has had at least 1 or more warnings.

[prolesunited]

12. Bullshit

And only if Rachel donated to politicians.

[tridim]

16. So naive, they'll find thousands of other BS reasons to sack her.

[SidDithers]

18. When?...

is there a "suspended by" date on your prediction? Or is this a prediction that can never be proven wrong, because it just hasn't happened yet?

Sid

[JuniperLea]

3. LOL!

This is ridiculously funny. I can't wait for the rest of the story to unfold.

I imagine Olbermann won't take this lightly.

The GOTP are desperate... this makes me think their 'big win' doesn't feel too solid to them. Already resorting to dirty tricks.

Oh hell, what am I saying??!? Dirty tricks is all they have left!

[Ian David]

4. Supposedly. Who's to say Griffin isn't lying? n/t

[WillyT]

5. Well Let's Talk About That...

What I want to know is... exactly what Keith was required to TELL his boss?

Did he have to disclose the amounts of the donations?

Did he have to at least tell which party those candidates were from?

Did he have to actually name the candidates?

And if none of the above are true, what the hell is the point of the disclosure.

:shrug:

[AndrewP]

10. Also, when did MSNBC think that this was not a Liberal/Progressive show?

Since they probably have at least a 3rd grade education, they probably knew that. So why act all indignant that Olbermann sided with Democrats during the election?

[Egnever]

13. Well he sure as hell wasnt allowed

to donate to a guy without disclosing it and have the same guy on his show to promote him some more the same day. MSNBC is trying to maintain some integrity here. Keith fucked up not MSNBC. How anyone can not see what he did as anything other than piss poor journalism is beyond me. Maybe if he had disclosed during the interview that he had donated i would see it differently but without that it reeks of conflict of interest to me even if it is one of our guys. Rachel would never do what Kieth did.

[WillyT]

15. And Maybe Keith Is Challenging The Rule...

Maybe he wants to shed light on the sheer hypocrisy of the "neutral media" these days.

Maybe he wants to show how the Citizen's United ruling tend to make it look as though there are no rules when it comes to financing campaigns anymore.

:shrug:

Those donations would have bothered me before the ruling... now, not so much.

[Egnever]

17. Well if thats what he is doing then

He should have expected this result. No national news media wants to admit they have bias. We all know they do but they want to maintain that illusion and if kieth thinks they are gonna just let that go cause he is big man on campus he is deluding himself.

I agree that the rulling does sort of put it in another perspective but the fact that he is a "journalist" makes me think that ethics still apply. I have no issue with the donations but I do think disclosure is important. The citizens ruling was wrong and what kieth did was wrong. Disclosure is important IMHO.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. That's what I want to know. What's the point? Can they exercise prior-restraint?

If there is no potential veto of his donations, Kieth's violation seems to be about as serious as parking in the boss' reserved parking spot.

[pacalo]

6. I could care less. The point is that we need his voice. And the word "indefinitely" is harsh.

[opihimoimoi]

8. Tis revenge of the Far Right...brown shirt tactics

[EFerrari]

9. That seems to be the boss's story. n/t

[librechik]

11. that was part of it. He should also have disclosed his donation whenever he did a story on Grijalva,

or Conway or the other one he contributed to. On the air.

[mzmolly]

19. Correction - for not getting PERMISSION,

which is worse.