My Take on Olbermann... Someone's Got to Say It

[Yeggo]

Without taking up the question of whether MSNBC's rules regarding political contributions are fair or not, if the rules exist (which they do) and Olbermann knew about them (which he did) and them broke them (again which he did)... remind me what I'm outraged about.

http://conversation101.squarespace.com/liberal/2010/11/5/olbermann-giveth-msnbc-taketh-away.html

[HipChick]

1. They don't apply to MSNBC and it seems like it's being selectively applied = Problem

Read my post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9493855

[baldguy]

5. +1000

[meleleston]

10. call 212.664.3720 press 0 and tell them how you feel.

[hlthe2b]

2. I think you took a sharp left when you should have kept "right"

:eyes:

[Justitia]

17. no kidding

[TBF]

69. yup. nt

[Individualist]

71. +1

[BzaDem]

3. The rules do not apply to MSNBC apparently, and they have never enforced them before

despite many other journalists contributing. (Larry Kudlow, Joe Scarborough, etc.)

[WillyT]

4. The Fact That You Cannot Answer Your Own Question, Speaks Volumes...

:shrug:

[Botany]

6. please

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Egnever]

36. The people looking clueless

are the ones stating that joes donations and and kieths are the same wiothout having any evidence whatsoever that Joe failed to disclose his donations as kieth did.

[Yeggo]

41. Careful...

You'll get run out on a rail for saying stuff like that. It's a hornets nest in here.

[Egnever]

45. I Have never really been good at

Bowing to DU's kneejerk reactionaries.

[Caretha]

56. Oh aren't you clever

NOT!

[thunder rising]

50. Political contributions are like sexual orientation ... none of your fucking business.

[dkf]

8. You should be outraged that it's okay for Kudlow, Scarborough, David Faber

And Gary Kaminsky.

Looks like you only get in trouble if you donate to democrats.

[mstinamotorcity]

64. Seems like

that kitty may be purring the truth.

[nashville_brook]

9. why does this not surprise me from our resident anti-Grayson Dem?

http://conversation101.squarespace.com/florida-08/2010/8/26/district-of-the-day-florida-8-the-devil-vs-daniel-webster.html

In Yeggo's own words:

I hate Alan Grayson.

This puts me in the minority among liberals, most of which treat this “Democrat with a spine” as if he should be the model that all Democratic elected officials should aspire to. A man who’s not afraid to demagogue, to defame, and to generally sink to the level we hate that Republicans live at.

To me, he’s Michelle Bachmann in a tie. A member of the Liberal Mount Rushmore of Not Helping, along with Ed Schultz and a freshly chiselled Howard Dean. We’re still taking nominees for a fourth.

[Yeggo]

13. You're really stuck on that, huh?

Was I right or wrong about Grayson's ad being a royal screw-up? He was running ahead before it. Same with Conway in Kentucky. But by all means, let's start beating the troll drum again. It's why we lose.

[Dappleganger]

19. You didn't just attack the ad, you attacked Grayson personally.

I find that a deplorable action.

[Yeggo]

32. Yeah, that's the OTHER thing I did

I didn't know supporting 99.9% of Democrats instead of 100% made me a "spy." If I wanted to belong to a party that didn't allow any dissenting viewpoints, I'd be a Republican.

[Dappleganger]

34. You do know that Grayson is a member of DU

and that attacking DU members is against the rules?

[Egnever]

46. LOL

Now theres a stretch

[Born_A_Truman]

63. Maybe Obama should join ...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

93. He would be tombstoned for being an anti-gay-marriage bigot. Not so much for Grayson.

[Caretha]

61. In my lowly humble

and apologetic opionion...and mind you it is just my opionion...you are what thou doest protest.

[nashville_brook]

23. heheh -- posting links to your blog means some people might actually read it!

and then vomit.

[leftstreet]

14. lol

"freshly chiselled Howard Dean"

wtf do you suppose that even means?

[Yeggo]

28. Mount Rushmore was made with a chisel

I am unfamiliar with Mr. Dean's physique.

[Caretha]

58. That speaks volumes

There was a time when DU moderators and admins were quite aware of this type of diatribe on DU was really only a agitator trying to weasel his/her way in and act like a DEM.

Damn I miss those days!

Where for art thou...

[Yeggo]

62. It's easy enough to confirm I'm a progressive

and it's easy enough to verify is you REALLY wanted to. But as one example, I'm OK with people disagreeing with me.

[Caretha]

66. Hit a sore spot did I?

:rofl:

[Yeggo]

68. No, actually. n/t

[demmiblue]

76. That was telling. n/t

[liberalmuse]

11. The outrage is that the rules are selectively applied...

depending upon your political affiliation. They came for the Jews and all...

[Egnever]

30. Where is there any evidence of that?

[stop_the_oligarchy]

52. HAAA!

LOL!! GOD, what a stupid defense--blah blah blah CONTRACT blah blah blah NO PROOF blah blah blah (usual internet shillery).

This was NEVER about campaign donations. What it's about is eliminating voices from your mass media purview that make any sense whatsoever, courtesy of NBC/UNIVERSAL + COMCAST

Get used to it, America. Or find a way out.

[Peggy Day]

12. Sell stock

A boycott of MSNBC and their advertisers and selling GE stock might help-although no stock could be sold until Monday.

KFC
Chevrolet
Pfizer

No wonder-we have a trend now to have corporations totally take over the airwaves (our airwaves).
Senator KFC, etc.

[veganlush]

15. yeah, there must be more to the story

they wanted him gone, or he wanted to be gone, or some kind of stunt, i don't know, but he must have known what he was doing. stay tuned.

[Peggy Day]

16. We'll miss Thurber story

I really enjoyed that. I lived in Cols Ohio close to that area-Thurber Village.

[Curmudgeoness]

18. So don't be outraged. Suit yourself. But actually, no,

someone didn't have to say it. If you don't know how huge a problem this is, I can't help you.

[Yeggo]

27. It's not a "huge" problem

but it IS microcosmic of our tendency to get caught up in pet causes and lose the big picture. While we were boycotting Arizona, Republicans were busy keeping control of its' governor's mansion and taking two House seats there. While we were busy making sure ABC didn't use Andrew Breitbart for election night coverage, they were busy reporting a Democratic bloodbath.

If we were as vigorous in promoting our policies and ideals as we are sticking up for Olbermann and Grayson, and running down anyone who disagrees, maybe we'd win a few more elections.

[Doremus]

39. Your straw man is laughing at you. nt

[Tempest]

20. Why did it apply to Olbermann and not other MSNBC hosts?

Shortly After Major Bush Donor Takes Over MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules To Suspend Olbermann

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/05/burke-comcast-msnbc/
Media Matter's Eric Hananoki notes that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough gave a local Alabama Republican candidate $5,000 this April, and CNBC host Larry Kudlow donated $1,000 to Republican Chris Shays in May of 2009. Indeed, Kudlow also serves on the Leadership Council to the Club for Growth, a group that has donated over $2 million to Republican candidates this year.

That explains it.

[Egnever]

31. Brcause olberman didnt declare it to upper management and the others did?

[Tempest]

38. It wasn't a rule that was enforced until the right winger Burke took over

You know you fucked up when both the left and right are criticizing the decision.

[Cattledog]

21. Yeggo...

A Spy in the House of DU????

CD

[Dappleganger]

22. Well once again

you're in the minority.

[Demoiselle]

24. Joe Scarborough has also donated to candidates.

Somebody's gotta say that too.

[Egnever]

33. Yes but did he declare it to the bosses?

There is no indication they have a problem with donating in and of itself it donating without making them aware thats the problem.

Is there any indication whatsoever Joe also refused to declare his donations?

[Gold Metal Flake]

As you well know...

"The standards department has told us that MSNBC doesn't answer to NBC News standards," the insider said. "They don't have coverage over MSNBC. They used to, back before MSNBC went political, but at some point it became too hard and MSNBC was taken out of their portfolio. As far as I know, there are no ethical standards at MSNBC. And if NBC says MSNBC is supposed to be living up to the NBC News standards, that's a preposterous lie."

[Egnever]

42. when did MSNBC state they were following NBC rules?

Seems to me the never did and that oft repeated paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with the stiuation.

Get back to me when you can tell me what MSNBC's rules are.

[Gold Metal Flake]

43. Get back to me when you can tell me what MSNBC's rules are.

Because you don't know.

[Yeggo]

83. I'm getting back to you

"As you may have heard today, Keith Olbermann has been temporarily suspended from his job hosting Countdown on this network, because he made three personal political donations to candidates in this last election cycle. The reason for Keith's suspension is that here at MSNBC, there is an explicit employee rule against hosts making contributions like that.

You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you it's OK. That's what I understand happened with our morning-show host's political donations in 2006, under previous management.

But if you don't ask in advance for an exemption from the rule, you're bound by the rule. (FOR THE RECORD: THE RULE APPLIES TO US HERE AT MSNBC and to NBC News staff. CNBC isn't under NBC News, so they're not bound by the rule.)

I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it. I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown." - Rachel Maddow

[geckosfeet]

25. Apparently - you are not.

[Gold Metal Flake]

26. You do not know what rules Keith worked under and if they were violated of not.

Your non-outrage outrage is fail.

[nashville_brook]

29. that doesn't matter to him -- anyone to the left of Evan Bayh "doesn't help the cause"

according to Yeggo.

[Gold Metal Flake]

35. Oh. I guess we know what that means.

[Yeggo]

37. I'll let you guys keep carving into me...

I'm not one that insists everyone agree with me. All I'll say is that if we put the type of effort we put into boycotting this or that or the other and rabidly defending a news host against anyone who might have a countervailing opinion into talking up our accomplishments the last few years, shit may have been different Tuesday. We need to prioritize our passion, quick.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna get drunk and watch hockey.

[Caretha]

65. Damn good thing to

What makes you think that you could insist that everyone agree with you? What a flippin ego you got buddy.

[tpsbmam]

97. The majority of the people here have worked their asses off, some for decades, for

the Democratic Party. You're brand new here -- who the hell do you think you are to be lecturing people about what they should be doing when you don't have any frigging idea what people HAVE been doing?

[Yeggo]

98. My life didn't start when I joined DU

I've been doing paid work for Democratic political campaigns since 1996, and volunteering since '92. And with all due respect, I'm not exactly the one questioning people's motives. What I was ACTUALLY questioning with this post was made moot almost immediately by those either lashing back with accusations or, in some cases, bad information. Questioning and lecturing aren't the same thing, and if people who question aren't welcome in the Democratic discussion, we're going to experience a lot more election days lie the one we just suffered through.

[tpsbmam]

99. I wasn't questioning what YOU did, I was questioning your gall at lecturing

people here about getting out and working to get Dems elected. You joined in September, for god's sake -- you have no idea what people here have been doing to get Dems elected. And believe me, it's a lot. My response to you had absolutely zilch to do with all of the rest of your posts or with your OP, it had to do with your haughty tone in telling DUers what they should be doing. I don't give a damn what you question -- that wasn't what I was addressing and it is what you failed to address in your response.

[Yeggo]

100. Fair enough...

I don't know what the folks who took issue with what I said have been doing, just like those who questioned whether I belonged here had no idea what I've done. You're right. I was overly sensitive to the reaction I got and overstepped. I'll give you that.

But I maintain that this type of reaction to someone who's on the same side - at least on bigger, far more important issues - is indicative of a problem we have in our liberal community. It's one that I've seen play out over and over again over the last couple of years whenever someone isn't seen as being 100% "on board" and I consider it counterproductive and detrimental. I hope that's understandable.

[DirkGently]

40. There are indications that MSNBC either does not have such a rule, or does not normally enforce it.

[crim son]

44. I posted the same thing in the original thread,

and got the same responses. It does look like Stinky the Clown has found evidence of other, undisclosed donations so there is a chance the rules are being unevenly enforced. No doubt we will soon know for sure!

[rufus dog]

47. I have a different take

To follow your example to a logical conclusion. Then you support giving Corporations the right to determine what a person does with his or her own money. Thus and individual must get approval from a Corporation before spending money on a candidate OR any event that the Corporation finds objectionable.

[Yeggo]

49. Interesting point...

but corporations make rules for their employees. They all do. I work for a certain company that's pretty well known for being hippy-dippy liberal, and aside from no drug testing, the rules that determine our conduct are pretty standard, and they include, for example, no political garb/discussion/etc. at work. Now, this isn't because this company doesn't believe in free speech, it's just ... you know... a rule they have. And the folks that say I'm talking out of my ass and have no idea what rules Keith knew about and worked under? That's fair. But neither do they. I haven't read his contract. I haven't read MSNBC by-laws or regulations. But neither have they, and I'm not the one calling for a boycott. For all we know, Keith's going to issue a statement in a few days that amounts to "my bad." Then what? We'd have wasted all this get-up-and-go on nothing.

I'll tell you one more thing, though... the type of reaction I got is NOT what I expected. Suffice it to say, another attempt at sharing an opposing view goes down in flames.

[rufus dog]

53. "hippy-dippy liberal'?

I don't even know what that means!

Is your place of work "the place for politics?" Does it have anything to with politics?

This comes across as trying to selectively silence rights of employees. The message is very clear, Andrea Mitchell is allowed to let her opinions come out in interviews, Joe S can promote his viewpoint and donate, Russert was allowed to promote his viewpoint, yet Keith is the one singled out. In no way would I peg Keith as nothing other than a opinion journalist, similar to numerous others on MSNBC and all other cable networks. And in the last six months two people on MSNBC have been disciplined, both have come from the Liberal side. (and yes they have a Liberal and a Conservative slant in their anchors.

Now I am off to ponder hippy dippy liberal, is that something like a prostitute fucking conservative?

[Yeggo]

54. Isn't it a saying from the 60s?

I must have heard it somewhere... I can't imagine I'd make it up. And no, I don't work for a political corporation

I get what you're saying... but maybe EVERYONE should chill out until we hear about this from the horse's mouth. I've heard a lot of "you don't know what MSNBC's rules are," but at the same time, nobody's actually been able to confirm that he was allowed to operate outside them.

And upon further review, what's bugging me more than anything is the amount of passion we show in standing up for Keith Olbermann (who, I maintain, does us no favors with Christine O'Donnell "witch" skits), and calling for boycotts and all the other things we do when something upsets us... we're coming off a year and a half where very few of us stood up like this for JACK SHIT. Why are we always so passionate about the little battles that don't mean anything, but when some of this gumption (another old-fashioned word) could have come in handy, there were either yawns or talk about what a pussy the president is?

I dunno, screw it. Forget I said anything.

[Curmudgeoness]

57. Hippy-dippy was (and is) derogatory. You know,

those dippy pot smoking, drug using, dirty hippies.

[Yeggo]

59. I didn't mean to insult hippies. n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

72. I didn't think you did, it just sounded like you didn't know what the

term meant.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

89. Bullshit. You knew what was coming with "Someone's Got to Say It"

in your subject line.

Let me guess: Burt's Bees.

[Yeggo]

92. I thought there'd be a difference of opinion

and an attempt to explain why people were so worked up about it. I didn't expect to get called a conservative plant, or an idiot.

And you're pretty damn close. That's a hell of a guess.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. No way to deflate the outrage balloon here...

no matter how you cut it, the peanut gallery sez it's all bias and bullshit. A few of us made the same point, but we are just plain wrong. No need for a reason-- we're just wrong.

And it's Friday night-- no school tomorrow so they have all night to huff and puff about it.

[Yeggo]

51. Well..

at least I gave them an outlet, I guess. I shudder to even post it, but one of my co-contributors has a similar view:

http://conversation101.squarespace.com/liberal/2010/11/5/honey-hush-reactions-to-olbermanns-suspension.html#entry9388614

[Caretha]

55. I'm outraged

that you joined Sept 23, 2010 and decided that you were smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes.

How about that Jackwagon?

[Yeggo]

60. I don't get it. n/t

[Caretha]

67. you know

I think you are really really smart. Yes I do. I also think that you get it. I'm not that damn subtle.

[Yeggo]

70. In the context of your other comments, yeah

I get it. But you're wrong.

I got the same thing when I suggested Kendrick Meek get out and Dems get behind Crist, which apparently put me in the same fake-Democratic boat as such conservatives as Robert Wexler. I'm used to it. But I'm not a conservative. I just question whether bomb-throwing (rhetorically) does us any good. I get shit for it. I'm used to it.

[Caretha]

73. Just listen up here a minute, k?

We have so few liberal "comentators" in the MSM. The man made a legal contribution - his choice, a perfectly legal choice in the United States of America. Whether he was a democrat or republican really doesn't make any difference, it was still his right. Just because a corp. decides to insert an illegal clause into a contract doesn't make it right.

A true democrat could never support any of the above behavoir.

It is really down to the nut cuttin' Yeggo and if you can't see the games being played here, and if you cannot still stand up for what is right, I have to say it, you are part of the very very very very very big problem that is going on today and you are contributing to the downfall of this nation and democracy.

It is past time to pick sides.

[Yeggo]

74. PLEASE read this...

I hear you. And my argument was never whether the rule is right or not. In fact, I started by saying "Without taking up the question of whether MSNBC's rules regarding political contributions are fair or not..." It's not an argument I was trying to make.

I was saying something very clear: if Olbermann broke the rules he was bound by, why are we spending our time and outrage on this? He got suspended, he'll be back, he'll be fine. Now, a lot of people called me an idiot, said I had no idea what I was talking about, that he wasn't bound by the rules. So I hope they were watching Maddow:

"But if you don't ask in advance for an exemption from the rule, you're bound by the rule. (For the record: the rule applies to us here at MSNBC and to NBC News staff. CNBC isn't under NBC News, so they're not bound by the rule.)

I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it. I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown."

THE RULE APPLIES TO US HERE AT MSNBC. I UNDERSTAND THE RULE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO BREAK IT.

So, since I never defended the rule, only questioned why I should be mad about someone getting reprimanded for knowingly breaking it, why did I just spend the evening getting shat on?

[Yeggo]

75. Maddow's reply

"As you may have heard today, Keith Olbermann has been temporarily suspended from his job hosting Countdown on this network, because he made three personal political donations to candidates in this last election cycle. The reason for Keith's suspension is that here at MSNBC, there is an explicit employee rule against hosts making contributions like that.

You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you it's OK. That's what I understand happened with our morning-show host's political donations in 2006, under previous management.

But if you don't ask in advance for an exemption from the rule, you're bound by the rule. (For the record: the rule applies to us here at MSNBC and to NBC News staff. CNBC isn't under NBC News, so they're not bound by the rule.)

I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it. I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown."

Anyone want to rethink any of those "it didn't apply to him/you don't know what you're talking about" comments?

Probably not.

[Caretha]

85. Okay

you've asked for a reason why "you should question" the rules for MSBN, and I'm going to help you out a little here.

Now it's going to take a some work on your part, but I'm convinced you can do it. I'm only going to give you one little excercise and see if you can accomplish it.

If you complete the task, it will help you see a different point of view and perhaps shed some light on why you are such a very inflexible person. I'm not being derogatory here, I'm sure you have heard that from personal acquaintances of yours before.

Go to this sight and read it. It's free to download and there are some very insightful studies that have been done on your type of personality, and why you have a hard time stepping out of the box.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

When you pull up the sight, you will see "Whole Book". It is a free to download. The book is called "The Authoritarians".

I'm going to give you a tiny snippet of what some of this is about:

Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.

If you are willing to grow, learn and find some personal insight, you will do as I have suggested.

[Yeggo]

87. OK, this is getting a little weird...

You know personal acquaintances of mine? You want me to take a personality test? Evil authorities ordering people to kill me? All under the auspices of helping me answer a question I didn't ask?

I'm all for ambiguity, but what does this have to do with anything?

[Caretha]

88. Don't be so closed

I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to show you where others are coming from. You are shooting from the hip and high emotions right now. Just check it out or don't, it is up to you.

[Yeggo]

90. With all due respect...

maybe the "high emotions" speech should be saved for the folks that spent the last three hours calling me an idiot or a plant instead of waiting to find out whether I was right about Keith breaking the rules.

and obviously, don't post it here... but who do you know that knows me personally?

[Caretha]

95. Breaking the rules

breaking the rules, breaking the rules... You sure do have a high fear factor.

Just nevermind. I don't know you or any of your acquaintances. Do you feel better now. Just move along and do what you do best...follow the authorities rules and you will be just fine. Do you feel better now?

Don't bother to reply, I'm done.

[Yeggo]

96. OK...

but whether or not he knew what he was doing was wrong is KIND OF an important part to the story, especially since it was the whole reason I was questioning why we were putting so much effort into this.

[UTUSN]

77. Oh, outraged over Faux's 1M donations? How'bout PAYING political candidates as Faux contributers?!1

Oh, you know, the 3 presidential candidates (to spell out, PALIN, HUCKABEE, GRINCH).


Anything else you're NOT outraged about?!1

[Yeggo]

79. Different story

That IS ridiculous, and frankly, it's what makes me glad we don't operate that way. But once again, drawing equivalencies between MSNBC and Fox News wasn't what I was getting at. I was simply questioning why I should boycott MSNBC (and it's sponsors, and get all pissed about this) for enforcing their rules. I was told it WASN'T their rule... turns out it was, so we can argue all day about things I WASN'T saying, but now that it's clear (per Rachel Maddow, who yes, I like and watch) that Olbermann was bound by the rules, was aware of the rules, and broke the rules), are we going to talk about what I WAS saying, or are we going to forget this all ever happened?

[Nite Owl]

78. You don't know what to be outraged

about?

My ignore list is growing....

[demmiblue]

80. Yeggo my Eggo. n/t

[Yeggo]

84. Frankly, I'm surprised that took that long n/t

[H2O Man]

81. o

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. Sigh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9488854

[akbacchus_BC]

86. Clue me in, did Keith get shafted by MSNBC? Keith O, I liked but not always

[akbacchus_BC]

91. Do you have a copy of the contract between KO and MSNBC, if not,

why you on here?

Lemme guess?

[Yeggo]

94. Maddow acknowledged the rule

on her show tonight. She confirmed she knew about it, confirmed it applies to MSNBC contributors, and confirmed she knew what happened if it was broken.