Thinking the KO thing through...

[Raven]

The concept that journalists should be impartial is a good one, right? Fair and balanced. A news organization, in striving for that, has a provision in its contracts saying that the employee may not make political contributions or that political contributions must be disclosed. The employee signs the contract and then violate the provision. I'm not sure I see what's wrong with the employee being sanctioned for that. In fact, it might have been in the spirit of fair and balanced for KO to disclose to his viewers that he had made contributions to certain candidates.

So, I'm not sure I understand the outrage over this. If Fox News had the same policy (dream on, Raven) and had suspended one of its journalists for making contributions to Republican candidates or not disclosing them, how would we have reacted?

[madmax]

1. LOL loved the (dream on, Raven) but,

Fox wouldn't do that but, if they did we'd cheer. Seems to me that only the left has to play by the rulz. The Republicans, Teabaggers, and the rest right of center can just do whatever the hell they want. Out right lies, slander, libel anything goes.

As for the contract part. I think it can be challenged, but I'm not a legal eagle so...

[Bluebear]

2. 'I'm not sure I understand the outrage over this' - because Scarborough was not treated in kind?

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Olbermann is not a journalist. He said so himself.

He's a commentator. That, too, he said himself.

That said, he never tried to do a little on-air fundraising. He should have a right to donate to whomever he chooses, just as long as he doesn't tell anyone on air that he does.

Why is it, under our laws, okay for corporations to contribute unlimited funds just as long as they can claim "non-profit" {yeah, right!}, but it's not okay for an employee of a corporation to do the same? Doesn't Keith have the same 1st Amendment rights as any other?

[prolesunited]

5. What did his contract say?

[napi21]

7. From what I've read, it forbids any employee who is a journalist and speaks on politics from making

political contributions without PRIOR APPROVAL. Apparently Keith never asked for that approval.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. I don't know. I haven't seen it. Have you? eom

[silverweb]

10. Exactly.

The contract is what matters.

[napi21]

4. Ithink the outrage is that there are so few Dem leaning Cable hosts

that we all feel crushed if we lose even one. It feels like the other side is winning AGAIN! On another post I said Keith is a big boy and had to know that restriction was in his contract. Wether he forgot, figured h was to valuable to MANBC for that to matter, or something else, who knows, but I think he wll be able to work this out with the network and he'll be back.

[drmeow]

6. I agree

if he violated the policy and those are the provisions of the policy (suspension) then .... I'm not necessarily happy about this but it falls into the same category as thinking that Limpballs should have done time for his drug shit even though I don't agree with the drug laws.

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. Well, I'm not outraged, I'm more wait and see if it is temporary, but...

Objective journalists are a myth. News publications have always had POVs. Certain types of journalism should strive for objectiveness but it will never be fully achieved. Keith is not that type of journalist. He has a POV and that has always been obvious, intended and perfectly fine. That is all more or less irrelevant though.

He did sign a contract so MSNBC clearly has a right to enforce it. The question is if they really needed to be so extreme. I did read that he had on one of the people he donated to. That could raise legal issues for MSNBC I would think (I'm guessing here). This action might be a cover their butt kind of thing for MSNBC. Or it could be a power struggle between Keith and his boss.

Overall I don't think writing MSNBC to let them know we want to see Keith come back is out of line.