Is it me, or did Rachel just throw Keith under the bus?

[regnaD kciN]

Yes, I know, she urged her bosses to let him back on the air, but:

1) She stipulated the main part of their argument (that MSNBC hosts were under the "no contributions" rule, and that Scarborough had properly followed the procedures while Keith hadn't).

2) She then went on a lengthy spiel about how this proves the difference between themselves and Fox -- they have journalistic-integrity standards while Fox doesn't.

In other words, she admits that Keith violated a known rule of journalistic ethics, and what makes MSNBC better is that they keep to those standards.

But, if they let Keith (a known "ethical-standards violator," based on Maddow's admission) back on, doesn't that prove their standards are only so much window-dressing, to be ignored when convenient?

In other words, while I doubt Maddow had this in mind, didn't she just give MSNBC all the support from the progressive side they needed to fire Keith altogether...and pat themselves on the back for their "standards" in doing so?

That's sure the way it looked to me.

[Naturyl]

1. IMO, it's just you.

I do understand your points but I think Rachel was making lemonade out of lemons. She wants KO back as we all do.

Plus, she couldn't really totally blast her bosses without getting fired. And that wouldn't help anyone.

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. Conan had the guts to risk being fired by NBC.

Bring back AAR. No one seems to give a damn that DC, for instance, has no progressive talk since AAR's hosts all split for cable. Why should I have to pay for TV to be propagandized?

[Old and In the Way]

2. It's you...nt

[Gamow]

3. That was my first reaction to her comments.

She seemed to toe the line for her bosses. She even downplayed KO suspension as "temporary". As if the whole thing was being blown out of proportion.

[veganlush]

4. I think there's more to this story that we don't know

it's too strange that he would knowingly break the rule.

[regnaD kciN]

15. I'm wondering...

...if it was more a matter of RW hosts like Buchanan and Scarborough asking permission first and getting approval, then Keith asking and being told he couldn't, and telling Griffin "fuck you" and doing so anyway?

Note that I have zero evidence to support this, just my own speculation.

[Yupster]

33. In my job, I can make contributions, but

I have to get my company's permission first in writing.

It annoys the hell out of me but they've never turned me down.

Still it's none of their business.

[MH1]

52. I thought that was illegal for most jobs.

At least it seems it should be... I'm pretty sure they can't make me contribute to the company's PAC as a stipulation of employment ... if they can't make me support their candidates, why should they get a vote in who I support?

Maybe it is because my company is a government contractor and thus might have different rules?

[eleny]

5. I would bet a tidy sum that she discussed it with Keith earlier in the day

[bullwinkle428]

6. She sure made a hell of a point about how she could never have

even thought of being where she was without KO being the "pioneer", in effect, that he was!

[Supersedeas]

53. and then she swallowed Jon Stewarts false equiv argument hook line and sinker

frankly I like Rachael's approach to politics, even better than Keith's. But there is something snarky in her approach to this particular topic.

Keith may just be her stepping stone.

[defendandprotect]

7. Keith was supposed to play the "Simon Says/Simon Says May I?" game ....

which is nonsense considering the parent company is GE -- which defrauded the

government on military contracts and has always been able to play again --

and one of the foulest of companies which we've permitted to OWN a major broadcast

company. GE also contributes heavily to candidates --


I'm wondering also is this supposed to be revenge for that pig Juan Williams --

you know ... one for one? There's no equivalency -- it's just the scorecard?

One from the right ... one from the left?



There's an excellent article on this at Common Dreams -- re GE's contributions ....

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/05-15

[stray cat]

45. Do you follow rules set by your employers that are written in your contract

[defendandprotect]

61. Does GE follow rules? GE is a major polluter and criminal defrauder of government ....!!

Wake up

[applegrove]

8. Opinion people on faux have given money to repukes. When the opinion people on msnbc do

it they get into trouble. They've differentiated themselves from faux that way. I bet they were dying to after Jon Stewart's speech. So they've done it and it is good. And in a few weeks he will be allowed back on air and msnbc will be all the better for it.

[defendandprotect]

9. It's you --

[MagickMuffin]

10. I must've missed the part about JoeBlow

because I don't remember her mentioning his name at all. I'll check the transcript Monday after she posts it to her blog.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. you did and it is on the blog

[Kookaburra]

28. I don't think she said his name

Just said it was a morning host.

[jillan]

11. Definitely just you. I love Rachel for even having the guts to talk about it.

[flowomo]

12. correct description, wrong characterization

Yes, she did exactly as you described -- stated the network policy and acknowledged Olbermann's violation of it. She did not "throw him under a bus" -- he walked in front of the bus voluntarily. Why is that so surprising? That's what he does and why he's admired.

Nor did she give MSNBC all the support it needed to "fire" him. He broke a rule; he was suspended. The suspension fulfills the nerwork's obligation not to cut special deals for its stars. The offense does not require, and doesn't appear to justify a firing -- nor did Maddow ever suggest that it did.

I thought Maddow's comments were honest and fair. Painful to deliver and to hear, perhaps, but the only available path.

[benddem]

13. You must have slept through her segment. N/t

[regnaD kciN]

19. Watched the segment and read the transcript...

...but would you care to tell me why you saw it differently, instead of just providing a snarky subject and no message?

[YankeeLeft7x]

16. Rachel's Sarcasm

I think Rachel Maddow was reciting the company policy in a sarcastic manner but could not be totally obvious of how she really felt. She talked about company policy at NBC in contrast to FOX "News" but also talked about the differences between the two networks and false comparisons made by others regarding these two cable channels.

No, she was showing what stuffed shirts and shortsighted the bosses at GE are in this case.

Rachel's sarcasm at it's best because people actually think she would "throw her pal Keith under the bus." NOT

[geckosfeet]

17. I suspect that they waited until after the elections to avoid riling up Keiths fans.

Did not see her show - don't watch television - but to me it sounds more like she was damning them (MSNBC) with faint praise.

In other words yes, they followed 'the rules', but at what cost?

[sufrommich]

49. If by "they" you mean MSNBC it was Politico who broke the

story.

[dorkulon]

18. The parts about Joey Scar and CNBC were subtle digs.

She was drawing attention to the fact that they can make these donations without repercussions, and Keith is being singled out, in a way that she can say on the air.

[YankeeLeft7x]

20. Yep

Agree

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. OK, here's the answer to the OP's question. Joe "followed the rules" because rules were different

Calling attention (in a way that nobody but media wonks would understand, unfortunately) to the fact that he give money to candidates too.

[Toucano]

21. He did not violate JOURNALISTIC ethics or any other ETHICS.

It isn't unethical for a journalist to make a political contribution. They have the same rights as anyone else.

He violated a company policy regarding employer notification.

[the redcoat]

22. It was the exact opposite.

She was stopping Fox from shit-talking him before they even started. She was protecting his decisions and actions by providing the counterpoint that he supported candidates by personal donations, while Fox supports candidates by passing the burden to viewers and manipulating them into donation.

By doing this, she showed how much more of a burden is on them because integrity is expected of them, unlike on Fox.

[blogslut]

23. No

What she proved is that while Keith may have donated to Democratic candidates, he did not use his position and platform to endorse them or campaign for them. Fox anchors campaign for and endorse candidates both off-site and on set.

[CatWoman]

24. it's most definitely you

she was masterful in her approach.

she had to walk a tight line, and she did it with precise precision.

she is under the same contract as him, and had to stay true to her employer.

she also stayed MORE loyal to keith in pointing out the massive double standard

[KharmaTrain]

25. She Said It As It Was...

...based on the facts that have been made public. I'm sure she spoke to the principals involved. I'm glad she did speak out...her silence would have spoken a lot louder. We're already seeing so much tin foil flying around about this issue...most of it emotional rather than as the business decision it is.

As one who worked in the media for years, I was fortunate to work with some true journalists and reporters...people who may have had a political ideology but there was no way they would cross that line into their work. Ironically, a person who was very much of that mold was Keith's role model Edward R. Murrow.

It's a shame that there are several equivelency games here. The first is the faux noise comparison...and sadly there is none. That cesspool has no scruples and yet are given a pass as being a media power purely based on money and ratings. They never had integrity and never will. But that's not how other networks view themselves and thus have had long established policies involving their personalities giving endorsements or contributions. While I'm not happy about what's transpired here, a contract is one's word. Yes, you do trade away certain rights in exchange for good money, job security and a prominant position. This isn't freedom of speech...Mr. Olbermann signed a contract and unless there's proof otherwise the terms were violated. Again...this is a suspension, he hasn't been fired.

The timing is dubious considering a combination of the criticism at the Stewart rally, the big Democratic loss on Tuesday and the upcoming Comcast/NBC merger, but for those who've followed Griffin's tenure at the network they've seen he's been a big supporter of Keith; making him the "franchise player" of his network.

Kudos to Rachel for being straight forward as she always is...she's right there to know more of what's going on than anyone here does.

[Subdivisions]

26. It's you. She spoke truth-to-power as we know we can depend on her to do. n/t

[DimplesinMI]

27. No, she did not throw him under the bus, at all....

Watch the video again..........

http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2010/11/video-of-rachel-maddows-response-to.html

[LibraLiz1973]

29. I don't agree at all

I think she jumped in front of the bullet with him and put Faux on blast. If anything, she subtly put Scarblow under the bus.

[DearAbby]

30. It's just you

[CommonSensePLZ]

31. Aggravating....

Yes, she admitted Keith broke a rule, that's just fair. I wouldn't say she 'threw him under the bus,' though. She still had his back.

What she really did was make yet another case to the people who say MSNBC is just a liberal version of Fox or that all cable news is the same, that they're wrong and need to understand that.

Annoying how DUers are ganging up on others.

[OHdem10]

32. No.No No. MSNBC is not Fox was her point.

This may be why the Mgmt.came down hard on Keith.

She feels bad for Keith but it is important that
they keep the rules.

They consider themselves a New Station and have a specific
rule. Fox is a political organizwtion. MSNBC seems to
be avoiding this .

[BzaDem]

34. Even if that is true, just because someone violates a rule doesn't mean they should be fired.

Letting someone back on after a suspension does not "prove their standards are only so much window-dressing."

If you get a speeding ticket, your license isn't suspended for life.

[OHdem10]

35. Temporarily suspended --not fired

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. IIRC, weren't Juan and that guy who said that Jon Stewart was not a persecuted minority "suspended?"

[emulatorloo]

36. No n/t

[donheld]

37. Yep, just you.

[Raine]

38. It's just you, Rachel told the truth

but some don't like to hear it.

[the redcoat]

39. Way off, Nick. Stick to Cracked ;)

[Hekate]

40. It's you. And she didn't. It's called providing context.

[stray cat]

44. Absolutely just you

[pgodbold]

46. just you

[JoePhilly]

47. Just you.

[sufrommich]

48. It's just you. The truth is not created to support anybody. nt

[aikoaiko]

50. She is not throwing KO under the bus - She IS being intellectual honest about the situation

And ultimately, KO shouldn't be suspended any longer and be permitted back on his show.

Edited to add: I don't think the details of this situation are fully known and its possible there are more mitigating or exonerating facts that could change the situation very much for KO. But as things are known now, I think RM is right on.

[alsame]

51. I thought she was defending the decision to suspend him. By

making a comparison with Fox, she was making a case that MSNBC is a 'real news' organization with ethical standards while Fox is a GOP tool with no pretense of ethics. MSNBC enforces their ethics code, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, but that's beside the point.

The real issue for me is the hypocrisy and double standards operating within MSNBC, where it seems like conservatives are allowed to publicly support candidates on air and financially while Keith was suspended for private donations that we wouldn't have even known about.

Comparing Keith to Hannity is absurd. Instead, I would have liked to hear why different standards apply to Keith and Joe Scar.

I really like Rachel and I think she did the best she could do under the circumstances and made a plea to bring Keith back after his 'time out'.

But what's most troubling to me are the internal contradictions at MSNBC, not how they compare to Fox.

[sufrommich]

54. But it's not a contridiction, Rachel said last night that Joe Scar

told them about his contributions ahead of time. That is the difference. Keith made a mistake, but his punishment for the mistake was over the top.

[alsame]

55. Then that should have been the story - Keith made a mistake, we

enforce our ethics code and he'll be back soon.

Almost all of that segment was about Fox, she didn't even mention Scar until the very end and didn't even say his name, I think she referred to the morning host, or something like that.

And the word from MSNBC yesterday about Scar changed - the first comments said that Scar was exempt from the policy because he has an opinion show, not a news show. Then the story changed to Scar having disclosed his contributions ahead of time.

I understand what she was doing, trying to give MSNBC the moral high ground in relation to journalistic ethics. However, I wish she would have talked more about the policy - there were lots of reports yesterday that MSNBC and CNBC do not have to follow the NBC disclosure standards. I would have liked to see that addressed in relation to the contributions made by other employees at MSNBC and CNBC, to clear up any perceptions of double standards.

[Greybnk48]

56. It's your imagination.

It's all you. :hi:

[fascisthunter]

57. nope

[Fla Dem]

58. I just want to know how they found out who he contributed to.

I know there are all sorts of web sites that list contributors to political campaigns, but.....

Does that mean someone from the back office of NBC has the sole responsibility of checking up on their employees, or did someone inside/outside NBC rat Keith out. Or did Keith volunteer the information after the fact? Finally as someone else suggested, he asked for permission, was told no and said FU I am going to anyway.

[sufrommich]

60. The story broke on Politico. nt

[madmom]

59. I'm wondering if Keith didn't do this on purpose, maybe trying to make

something come to light about his suspension vs Citizens United. Stranger things have happened :tinfoilhat: :shrug: