Can people stop being children re: Keith

[Dreamer Tatum]

Olbermann is a big boy. He signed a contract forbidding him from doing X without permission.

He did X, and he's being punished for it.

What anyone else did, anywhere else, is IMMATERIAL.

Why is that difficult for people to understand?

[slackmaster]

1. Dream on, Dreamer Tatum

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I knew when I recommended this it would remain 0.

I think it is a crappy thing for MSNBC to do, but Keith did sign a contract where he was supposed to disclose it.

[gateley]

7. Oh -- so it's okay if it's disclosed? I'm still trying to find the 'rule' -- I'm confused.

[ScreamingMeemie]

57. Apparently so. While I think it's a horrible clause to have in a contract

he did, apparently, break his contact. Whether it's to draw attention to the idiocy will remain to be seen.

[gateley]

76. Agree - but apparently it's not that rare to have such a provision (I'm learning

from DUers). And yes, he's too smart not to know he wasn't breaking the contract. If only (if only!) he'd have disclosed it. I don't think he did it to draw attention to the policy, I think more than anything it was a lapse in judgment. We'll see.

[ScreamingMeemie]

85. And I hope he is back sooner, rather than later.

We need him.

[Egnever]

74. Yes

sort of...Msnbc has to OK the donation but lots of anchors donated and disclosed. Kieth not only didnt disclose but he had the guy on his show the same day. That has a huge potential to make all kinds of trouble for MSNBC. Kieth was wrong here what he did was stupid and unethical IMHO and MSNBC should be slapping him down for it.

I think as long as Kieth says he is sorry he will be back in no time but if he lets his ego run wild we may never see him again. I think its all up to kieth at this point.

[gateley]

83. That policy actually seems fair (whereas minutes ago I thought it sucked). They're

not saying 'you can't', but rather 'just let us know so we're not blindsided'. I hope you're right, and that's how it will be resolved. I'm thinking they'd want him back because I'm sure his show is one of the highest rated and generates good advertising revenue.

Thanks for the clarification. I had the hardest time trying to 'get it'. :hi:

[Egnever]

89. Right

you can easily see where this could get into violation of campaign financing rules. Although as someone pointed out in another thread the citizens united ruling changes things some so I am not sure how that would work out.

[gateley]

92. Good point! The Citizens United! It will be interesting to watch this unfold!

Thanks again! :hi:

[skepticscott]

142. CU changes nothing

with regard to this incident. You do understand that, don't you?

[AndrewP]

13. Hopefully it stays at 0

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. It's in times like this that I wish they still showed the negatives. -nt

[sabrina 1]

116. And here are their own rules:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19178161

"If a contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a candidate or group with a political or social agenda could create the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the employee’s responsibilities at MSNBC.com, the contribution must receive the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief

So, how many people thought Keith was an impartial news reporter who if he were to openly support Democrats, would be engaging in a conflict of interest?

Seems to me he did nothing wrong, and will be back when his lawyers remind MSNBC of their own rules. No conflict of interest, no need to report contributions.

[Matariki]

144. Not disclosed - permission sought.

[gateley]

3. Well that's the bottom line, you're right. We can't blame MSNBC (except for having

the clause to begin with) -- he's the one who signed on and is smart enough to know it probably would have been discovered.

Almost like me getting high every day and going to work knowing that my employer does periodic drug testing.

I'm just so sorry this happened.

[handmade34]

34. good analogy

if reporting is true... I am subject to drug testing for my job... I wouldn't jeopardize it by smoking marijuana (unless I had enough money and didn't really like my job) B-)

[JonLP24]

4. I'd like to see the contract

or even a news article that says the donating part was in his contract.

[sufrommich]

5. Yeah, i don't get it either. Sounds like Keith decided he didn't

need the permission he agreed to in his contract.

[HughMoran]

6. I hope he returns to the air at some point

I understand the whole hypocrisy thing and he needs to be punished.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Interestingly, I posted the answer to this three minutes earlier.

Oh, and before I forget, IBTL.

[arbusto_baboso]

9. The question is, did others similarly break their contracts and NOT get punished?

If we find out that is the case, then MSNBC is the one who needs to be slammed, and possibly sued. Arbitray contract enforcement is not, as far as I know, a legal thing in labor relations.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. The only 'others' that would matter are those who signed the same contract.

NOT someone at Fox, ABC, etc.

[arbusto_baboso]

27. I was referring to others at MSNBC. Don't be deliberately dense.

An employer cannot treat employees differently if they are under contracts with similar terms.

I've personally seen what happens to employers who try that. It ain't pretty.

[backscatter712]

148. Why yes, Joe Scarborough. n/t

[Township75]

10. Exactly! People here are such freaking babies.

Keith is a grown man who should know his contract. It doesn't matter what people who sign contracts at Fox or any other station do, because he doesn't have a contract with them.

If he made an agreement with MSNBC and violated it, then he can be punished by MSNBC according to the contract.

Unless there are examples for MSNBC letting this violation slide for other employees, people need to stop crying.

[Demstud]

91. You are a scum sucking soulless corporate shill

Since we're calling each other names, figured I'd join in ;-)

[Township75]

105. Hey, it's Friday! Go for it!

!

[Kadie]

11. I believe the reaction you see here is not that he is being punished,

it is the strength of the punishment.

[Dreamer Tatum]

55. He'll be back as soon as his nose gets a little browner.

Jesus, people are so idealistic and naive.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Because people smell a rat.

He wasn't suspended for making a donation. He was suspended for making one without prior approval. That means donations aren't prohibited as some (not you) are mistakenly stating.

At worst, this seems like a procedural mistake/violation.

Why the heavy handed suspension?

From a boss who thinks Joe Scarborough is the bomb?

[AngryAmish]

14. No. THis is DU.

[HereSince1628]

15. No sooner than you could stop being NAIVE

The network gets to CHOOSE what it enforces.

THIS IS WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO ENFORCE?

It's clearly a play to get viewers from the RIGHT.

MSNBC actually believes it can compete with FOX for the RIGHT.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. OK - what evidence do you have that MSNBC selectively enforces contracts?

I'll just guess that you don't have any.

[prolesunited]

29. Who needs evidence

when we can have a cause!

[AngryAmish]

46. evidence? This is DU!

[SargeUNN]

35. here is one

Joe Scarbrough donated in 07 to a candidate and he is now being defended for the same thing they suspend Keith.

[HereSince1628]

36. Corporate counsel pretty much ALWAYS selectively enforce contracts.

It'd be a waste of time to and money to do otherwise.

According to my son who is a station Director, the media generally uses a producer to lean on an on-air personality, if that doesn't work a station manager leans on the personality etc.

When some nut won't be ground into flour corporate counsel and a VP considers whether it is financially worth the trouble. Only after that do the lawyers act.

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. In other words, you don't know. Thanks. NT

[sufrommich]

48. Are you calling Rachel Maddow "corporate flour"?

She does far more damage to the right than most other MSNBC commentators.

[HereSince1628]

54. Regarding Rachel and Big Ed, too, the shoes may continue to fall

we shall see.

And the issue surrounds how MSNBC with parse Racheal's job as a commentator or a reporter.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arbusto_baboso]

19. CNN thought that and it got them nothing. Once again proving....

That not only do corporations not know what is in America's best interests, they don't even know what's in THEIR OWN best interests.

[Township75]

22. And so what happened to Ed and Rachel if this is what they do ...

to get the members of the right. why are they still on?

Your tin foil hat is too tight.

[HereSince1628]

41. There is also the possibility that the shoes have not stopped falling.

See Talkingpointsmemo.com

[NeedleCast]

39. So...you think a channal who's prime time hosts are all left-leaning

is suspending KO to gain right-wing viewers, while risking a much larger loss in left-wing viewers?

In what world does that make any logical sense? The station has intentionally hired left leaning anchors for it's prime time slots in what seems to be an effort to draw in democratic viewers. Why would they suddenly abandon that track and in an attempt to swing to the right?

[HereSince1628]

44. Yep. I do. MSNBC is "adjusting" its position to the right.

[Egnever]

58. They just spent millions on new add campaign promoting their leftward lean

some of you folks are very odd in your conspiracy theories.

[HereSince1628]

71. The vikings just spent big on Randy Moss and then sent him packing

Tuesday changed things.

[NeedleCast]

99. Did you watch MSNBC on Election Night

Their "round table" was comprised almost completely of left-leaning anchors and pundits.

And you think two days after the election the station that makes a significant portion of it's money off advertising on it's prime time shows is going to start getting rid of those shows in favor of right-leaning shows (despite the fact that there's already a station doing this better than MSNBC could ever hope to do it)?

Nah, you don't really believe that, because that would be insane.

[HereSince1628]

100. Yep,I did and yep I do.

[NeedleCast]

102. Well, there you go then

Your thought process has no basis in reality, but you're welcome to it.

[HereSince1628]

104. Yep, I am.

[joeybee12]

Why is it so hard for some people to see the obvious...someone targeted him...

The only one being childish is the person getting kicked in the nust and sayniog, Please ire, I'd like some more.

[prolesunited]

24. Who targeted him?

Who FORCED him to make the donations? Is he denying he did so?

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. Know who targeted him? Um - HE did.

He can donate to politicians - he was just required to disclose it beforehand.

He didn't. He is reaping the blowback.

[immoderate]

49. Apparently "obvious" is a word with no meaning.

--mm

[laughingliberal]

17. I've never seen the details of KO's contract & belittling people's opinions is not persuasive.

Why is that difficult for people to understand?

[JonLP24]

33. +1

I'm just waiting for more details to emerge myself.

[fishwax]

127. +1

[Barack_America]

20. If it's not enforced for everyone, it's not a rule, it's a witch hunt.

That's why it matters who else did it without getting punished.

I'm not even a big Keith fan, but this much is clear to me.

[Township75]

31. Do you know they haven't enforced this violation with other people?

Meaning we know it is in their contract and they violated it. If so, I will change my opinion, but I haven't seen any evidence that this happened.

[JonLP24]

42. Another thread has something on Scarborough

I'll try to find it, but MSNBC justified it by saying he was a friend and something else about it.

[Barack_America]

47. For your consideration:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9489079

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9488989

I also submit that if only certain employees have this clause in their contracts, that also constitutes a witch hunt.

[JonLP24]

62. See

That is why I'm waiting awhile for this story to play out to make a judgment. I'm interested in what KO as well as MSNBC has to say as well as for all the facts to come out. This story only spread like wildfire not too long ago but so many respond like they were there for the contract signings and everything and MSNBC is 100% correct.

[Egnever]

94. in the second link theres a huge difference

Joe disclosed his donations MSNBC was defending his right to donate. Kieth did not disclose and thats why he is in trouble.

The first link is just speculation.

[Township75]

103. Thank you for posting.

i looked at both links.

THe first offers nothing other though...just a few sentences which say nothing more than evidence will supposedly come.

The second makes it look as if MSNBC allows some people to do this if they are not journalists, or that others have done this and nothing has happened. Given that MSNBC did say this was not about contributions, but that KO didn't disclose this to them before hand, their arguement will still stand.

That doesn't mean I think it is a good policy, but it would mean they are within their powers.

[handmade34]

23. yes

[kiva]

26. During the 2008 election cycle,

Keith said he didn't vote because he wanted to be perceived as neutral (if anyone has his exact wording, please add to this). I don't understand his logic that voting was inappropriate for a journalist/commentator, but making political donations was OK?:shrug:

[madfloridian]

28. The more I am belittled for having strong liberal opinions....

The more I move to the left. The more I find that my party left me far far far behind.

SO thanks for another insult here.

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. Selectively sticking to a contract is now a liberal trait?

Somehow I doubt that.

Oh well...sorry. Rules is rules.

[madfloridian]

45. Bull hockey.

Apparently the contract did not forbid it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

52. It didn't, so long as he notified his bosses.

He didn't. Ergo, violation.

Sorry you don't like it.

[madfloridian]

61. I am tired of the insults here. I don't like it.

People here will defend anything anymore. Then ridicule those who have the guts to stand for something.

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. I didn't insult you. I just have the temerity to have a different opinion.

Which, as always, I am sorry that you don't like, and I am sorry that my different opinion causes you such angst.

[Individualist]

79. "stop being children" isn't an insult?

Fuck DLC!

[madfloridian]

86. No, you did not just have a different opinion. you compared us to children.

And I am sick and tired of folks here and of our party leaders talking down to those of us who believe in standing up for things that matter.

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. It's childish to throw a fit over something that, until proven otherwise, is cut-and-dried.

When someone tries to justify KO's behavior with, "YEAH, WELL, LOOK WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DID!" well, that pretty much puts their level of contractual sophistication in the schoolyard.

[Joe Fields]

113. apparently it is about disclosure.

please get your facts straight.

[smiley]

108. I'm with you

Having your own opinion and exercising your free speech rights on a political discussion board does get under some liberals skins. Weird when all that liberal would have to do is hide thread or ignore. But then again I guess said annoyed liberal is also exercising his free speech. What a country!

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[SargeUNN]

30. drop your idealism for one please

First the contracts are very complex and it is a proven fact that one can go against their contract accidently. Example: when Scott Brown used Rachel Maddow for fund raising and one of her responses to it was in violation of her contract and she didn't know it. She did stop but she wasn't aware of it. So you need to quit being so simple minded in your thought here and not do the knee jerk thing. Also Joe Scarbrough did the same thing and yet he isn't suspended but actually being defended for it. Maybe you should get some maturity on this.

[sufrommich]

38. Perhaps Joe Scarborough notified his employer first?

Like the contract demands

[JoDog]

Please see my post below

We are not talking about some obscure contract clause here, What we are talking about are basic journalism ethics. NBC news just put those well-accepted ethics in print in the contract. Anyone with as long a career in sports and news as Keith should know better. I'm sorry, but he kind of screwed up here. Doesn't mean he's not a good journalist or a great guy. But there does need to be a penalty.

[Egnever]

63. Seriously?

you think secretly donating to and having the guy on your show the same day without disclosing your donation is something kieth didnt know he should not do?

If so i just lost a lot of respect for jieth cause thats no way to be a journalist, it reeks of conflict of intrest. He should be slapped for this.

[JoDog]

32. I adore Keith's show, but

as a formal journalist, I have to side with NBC on this one. His contract and the ethics policy of NBC news are pretty clear on this one: no political donations or activities.

When I worked for a regional newspaper none of the reporters, editors or copy editors were allowed to engage in any political activity at all. NONE. Even a part-time reporter donating a penny to a candidate could be misconstrued as showing support and bias.

At the very least, Keith should have disclosed his donations on the air after running stories about or interviewing the candidates in question. Or, arrange for someone else to handle it.

If he keeps a cool head, he likely will be back from suspension in a week or two, with his docked pay as the lone penalty. He gets ratings, so I doubt he will be fired.

[madfloridian]

51. Oh, goody, just what we need. More "cool heads" as Fox rules everything.

This is a stupid thing for them to do.

We will not turn on that station at all.

[Egnever]

67. Take your ball and go home

that folks is exactly why we lost this election. Dumb cut off your nose to spite your face stuff like that.

[EFerrari]

59. If you are a journalist, you know better than to simply accept one side

of any story.

[JoDog]

115. Keith has admitted to making the donations

He thought he was in the clear by not encouraging any of his staff to do the same. MSNBC suspects this action defied the letter of its contract. Those are the 2 sides. Unless Keith can produce evidence that he sought and got approval of the donations.

Now, is it possible that MSNBC is selectively enforcing the rules? Absolutely. In fact, I am not in journalism now because of such an incident. (Standards were not being applied fairly across the board. I complained. They found a reason to fire me.) The truth is, donating or openly supporting a candidate is a cardinal sin of journalism. There could be an argument that Keith is no longer a journalist and is a commentator. It is also possible that this is a power play within MSNBC, designed to remind the tail of the dog that wags it. But those argument don't get us around the contract clause.

I hope to see Keith back soon. But he may need to take a lump on this one.

[EFerrari]

118. The language of the contract also says "should", not "must".

And Keith is not a reporter, he's an opinion guy. He's never been a reporter, as far as I can tell.

And Griffin is the one that will be collecting the lump here, not Keith. What an incredibly stupid thing to do.

[Parker CA]

37. He's a big boy, but we're his supporters and he deserves our voice behind him.

[Individualist]

50. Fuck DLC!

[hfojvt]

53. unrec for your lack of understanding or compassion

First, the loss of KeithO is a loss to his fans, quite naturally they are upset.

Second, this is the first anybody is hearing about said clause in his contract. Many are likely to think that clause is bullsh*t, wrong or otherwise unAmerican.

Third, it seems just like a corporate double standard for liberals to have such restrictions put into their contracts while conservative contracts have no such stipulations.

Fourth, the scale of the punishment seems way out of proportion to the crime. People could deal with a week or two, but indefinite sounds like it could be forever. It's kinda like he got the death penalty for running a stop sign. Even Janklow didn't get that after he killed a motorcyclist.

So your own tone seems uncalled for.

[proud2BlibKansan]

153. I agree

[EFerrari]

56. Unrec for buying into the official story and ignoring the consequences. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. Chuckle - OK, what's the "real" story?

Because I think it's a simple case of KO signing a contract and then doing whatever the hell he wants to do because he thinks he can get away with it.

[EFerrari]

70. Yes, that is his boss's story. You got it! n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. Then I will wait for Keith to simply prove that he didn't do it.

When is that press conference scheduled, again?

[EFerrari]

77. Because your default is to side with authority, I know. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

81. Looks like his "default" is to side with facts. Your "default," eh, not so much. n/t.

[JonLP24]

87. I don't know

The OP claimed he signed a contract that forbidden from doing this but even the press releases from MSNBC don't mention it was in a contract. They said it is a policy they have but nothing specific about it being in a contract that I can find. I asked for a link that says what the OP says, he signed a contract that says he can't do X.

On edit-"because he thinks he can get away with it" is not a factual statement either.

So I'm not sure where he got that fact. Now the "default" I saw with the poster seemed like someone who is willing for all sides of this issue to come out, more information to be known, etc. rather than someone that readily accepts something right away. If you did you could say those condemning the citizens on day 1 of the Danzinger Bridge Shooting "defaulted" on facts, but if they waited, they would of learned the police were totally in the wrong on that day and tried to cover it up.

[apocalypsehow]

93. I was with you at "I don't know," and it was all downhill from there. Give that edit button a try.

:thumbsup:

[JonLP24]

95. It looks like you didn't respond to any of my points

Even the "I don't know" you got wrong. Because I was saying "I don't know" that Tatum "defaults" to the facts.

[apocalypsehow]

96. What "points"? You honestly believe that messy collage of rambling sentences had any "points"?

:shrug:

Please try again.

[JonLP24]

97. You're not interested in real discussion.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Show me some real discussion, and I'm game. n/t.

[JonLP24]

101. Let me try again

You said "Looks like his "default" is to side with facts."

I pointed out his first sentence in the OP says this "He signed a contract forbidding him from doing X without permission." What I can't find is an article, even from MSNBC that says exactly that. They say he violated a policy but didn't say it was in the contract.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40028929/ns/politics-decision_2010/ns/politics-decision_2010 A link. Doesn't say anything about a contract. For someone whose "default" is to side with the facts, than he found a link or something that specifically mentions a contract or he is just assuming it was in a contract in which case is not siding with the facts. I pointed out that I asked for one.

I also pointed out that "because he thinks he can get away with it" is not a factual statement either and I'm sure you could find others that aren't.

Pretty much why I said "I don't know".

I used the Danzinger Bridge as an example of a situation where if people reacted right when the story hit the presses they were wrong and better off waiting for ALL of the information to come forward before making a judgment one way or the other. I pointed out you could say those people that condemn the citizens right away were "siding with the facts" because they were reacting to a news story that was new, posted that day.

I apologize for mistakenly thought I brought up some real discussion. Even though this is exactly what I said up-thread, I hope I clarified many things that could add to this discussion. If not, than I don't know how else to exactly say it. :hi:

[apocalypsehow]

106. "I apologize for mistakenly thought I brought up some real discussion" - See what I mean?

"If not, than I don't know how else to exactly say it" - No one's forcing you to hit "reply." :hi:

[JonLP24]

107. You're not fooling me

Out of everything I said, you pick up on that. You have nothing to add but clever replies that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[apocalypsehow]

131. Oh, that ship has long sailed. It started with that long rambling discourse above - a string of

sentences that added up to less than the sum of its parts.

"You have nothing to add but clever replies that have nothing to do with what I'm saying" - And yet you keep replying. Curious, that.

[JonLP24]

135. You still haven't addressed anything I said

You just pick something insignificant and go for it. It has nothing to do with the way I presented it. The second time around I made it longer so you would understood what I was saying and I'm confident you did. For some reason you choose to ignore it and pick on something insignificant I said like "I don't know."

Like I said you're not fooling me into making me believe I'm the one making the mistakes here. It clearly is you for your failure to address what I said which was me challenging your assertion that the OP's "defaults" on the facts.

[apocalypsehow]

140. And yet you keep replying. Curious, that. n/t.

[rsmith6621]

65. UNREC X1000

[LiberalArkie]

66. Yep, When I hired on to the CORP I am employed they had a 1 inch thick manual of rules

ABout the type of clothes, how you are to talk to people how loud you can be, how close you can park your car to another, what kind of shoes, shirts, belts etc. Political contributions, political talk, religious talk etc. What you can say at work, after work etc..

Their are rules to guarantee that you will always violate a rule. They do not like it if you don't.

[Common Sense Party]

138. Me, too. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but my

employer doesn't want me to carry my pistol in my company car. Okay, I won't.

If I were an executive hotshit with my company, I would be prevented from making a contribution to an elected official's campaign, because it would be construed as trying to buy influence.

I'm not sure why all these people are screaming about a VERY common practice in the REAL world. Employers have certain rules. If you don't follow the rules, you don't keep your job. What a concept. When you AGREED to work for the employer, you AGREED to obey the rules. That's part of every employment contract. Don't like the rules? Go work someplace else.

[edbermac]

69. OK, suspend him for a few days, then put him back on.

If they fire him, then we'll cut MSNBC a new one.

BTW, I love your name Dreamer. Semi-Tough is one of the funniest sports books ever written. The movie sucked though.

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. +1 the guy will be back within a couple of weeks

Pretty clear.

[Azathoth]

75. The irrational hysteria is truly disturbing

People act like this and then wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

[apocalypsehow]

78. I have always liked most of KO's commentary, and expect he will be back rather quickly.

What is so depressing, and why I Rec'd your post, is the instant proliferation of conspiracy theories, special pleading, and "bu-but that's different!!!" arguments that wash up here anytime something like this occurs.

I guarantee you that if this had been Bill O'Reilly that had been suspended from FOX for a reason similar to this, the triumphant high-fiving threads about it would dominate the Greatest Page. One would hope progressives and liberals would be more intellectually consistent than their opposite numbers.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

80. Do you EVER take the Democratic side of ANY arguement

I don't know who is more obvious. You or the Stray Elephant.

[Divine Discontent]

90. ;)

[Dreamer Tatum]

119. The DEMOCRATIC side of adhering to a contract is...what, exactly?

Following it when you want to?

Is that really a Dem position?

Not mine. I'm a Dem, and I abide by my promises.

[jgraz]

128. How do you know what was in his contract?

The only thing I've seen is that he violated NBC News policy -- which, historically, hasn't applied to MSNBC personnel.

You need to try a little harder at hiding your glee over the loss of a true liberal voice.

[kstewart33]

82. K&R!

[sufrommich]

84. I wonder what' is going to happen here when Keith makes his

inevitable apology.

[apocalypsehow]

88. "He was forced to" * "He sold out" * "He said it, but doesn't mean it" * "Someone got to him" *

How's that for a start?

:shrug:



Edit: snagged a stray word.

[RamboLiberal]

109. Waaaaaaah - I'll cry if I want to

till MSNBC brings KO back!

[leftynyc]

110. Simply because

I don't for one minute believe it's a coincidence that for the second time MSNBC is firing (suspending, whatever) their highest rated personality and they both happens to be strong liberals. And I'm not even a Keith fan. I know bullshit when it's right in front of me.

[ShamelessHussy]

111. because stupid rules are made to be broken

and challenged at the very least

[Naturyl]

114. Yes, because it's perfectly okay for an EMPLOYER to decide our personal life for us.

Bet you don't mind the idea of piss tests, either.

[Dreamer Tatum]

117. What part of HE SIGNED THE CONTRACT is unclear? nt

[Naturyl]

121. So? You can sign all sorts of things - doesn't make them legitimate. (n/t)

[Dreamer Tatum]

123. Actually, your assent makes it uniquely legitimate

Because it is an agreement.

As in, 'I agree to obey the terms of this agreement.'

I seriously shake my head at some people.

[Naturyl]

124. Shake, shake, shake, senora

Shake your body line. Work, work, work, senora, work it all the time.

Head-shaking does not scare me too much. :)

[Dreamer Tatum]

125. In contract law there is a distinction between things you sign that are meaningless

and things that you agree to that define the agreement.

For example, if you sign a document that says, "The parties to this agreement decree that the Earth is flat," then that agreement is meaningless, and any statement you make to the contrary of that agreement is not a violation.

THEN there are agreements of the quid pro quo variety, as in, "I will pay you the agreed-upon amount for the agreed-upon time period, provided you do NOT do any of the following..."

That agreement has teeth, alas, and is enforceable.

It's a shame that so many people choose to ignore this distinction.

[Naturyl]

126. Okay, it may very well be enforceable.

Maybe we're talking past each other. I don't particularly care if MSNBC was technically or legally in the right. Were they *morally* in the right? That's all that matters to me.

[TBF]

133. The judge will decide what the contract says -

duh.

[laughingliberal]

137. It's not part of his contract. nt

[Catherina]

122. Unrec for supporting the scapegoat silencing of a real liberal

It's time to shut up the professional leftists in time for 2012. We're not stupid.

[TheKentuckian]

130. That is the only point of any conversation. It isn't just the Right that wants to shut up liberals

but the "centrists" as well who despite some difference in rhetoric have the same goals of shaking loose every nickle to funnel to the wealthy, enhance corporate power, and maintaining the status quo.

Its time to put them out to pasture and if it means losing then so be it. Sometimes it takes 40 years in the wilderness to be ready for the promised land. I don't want that but it is where it is, the centrist can't drive so getting elected is a quick fix that digs us in a deeper hole before the victory celebration is over.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. God knows that no one here ever broke a single work rule.

I know that I never did..except on the days I worked.

[NotThisTime]

132. Well, now we find out it's not even an MSNBC rule!!! It's an NBC rule that doesn't apply...

[Common Sense Party]

139. Where do you get that idea?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19178161/

NBC and MSNBC TV require permission of the president of NBC News. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Microsoft.)

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."

[jillan]

134. When someone is being treated unfairly you're damn right we are going to stand up for that person.

Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough have also made political contributions.

[Common Sense Party]

141. Did they get prior permission from their boss?

If so, they obeyed the company rule.

If Keith didn't, he didn't obey the rule.

[JonLP24]

143. There is a Gawker story floating somewhere

that says the NBC policy didn't apply to MSNBC employees. http://gawker.com/5682789/nbc-news-source-our-rules-dont-apply-to-olbermann-and-msnbc

Also if we were to take the policy literal, it makes a big deal about impartial journalist which Olbermann is not.

[Common Sense Party]

146. "there are no ethical standards at MSNBC"???

Nice statement from an anonymous "insider."

msnbc.com put the policy up on their website three years ago:

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19178161/

[JonLP24]

147. I think he means

when it comes to normal journalist ethics. I wasn't here three years ago to know one way or another but look at how it says "activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist". So it was a donation that affected his standing as an impartial journalist? Not his Weekly Comments or other opinions?

That is where that policy loses me. Either way, I'm just waiting for all the facts come out for this before I reserve judgment one way or the other.

Damn! I was really trying to get an "appeal to common sense" comment from you! I guess I failed. :(

[Common Sense Party]

149. You haven't failed.

You just haven't succeeded yet.

Those comments are handed out sparingly.

And, yes, bribery can help.

[fadedrose]

136. They took OReilly back at Fox after he made obsene contacts with a coworker..

and had the case sealed, secret, finished....

and the lady got a million bucks.

[City Lights]

145. Oh, not this shit again.

Unrec.

:eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

150. BUY KEITH'S BOOK ---- "PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES" TO SHOW SUPPORT

It may be the only income anyone even "close" to Edward R Murrow in the last 40 years will be making in the future months.

[RedCloud]

151. What about undeclared wars? Are you cool with that?

[kudzu22]

152. Let's be honest

KO was not sacked for making donations. If the NBC brass wanted to keep him they'd forget about their "policy". The truth is they wanted him gone for whatever reason and this donation story is just what they came up with as the "official" reason. Conveniently it also allows them to get out of paying his contract.