Far and away the most likely scenario with Olbermann

[Dreamer Tatum]

Like it or not, here's what probably happened:

1. Olbermann thought, 'Fuck it, I don't care what MSNBC thinks, I'll donate money wherever I want. I'm the Big Dog here. They can't touch me.'

2. Olbermann donated.

3. Someone found out, however they found out, and the news made it upstairs.

4. Olbermann's boss didn't like being made a monkey of, and since egos always override brains, he showed Olbermann who's got the bigger swinging dick.

5. Olbermann has some time off.

6. People freaked the fuck out and attempted to fill the new, outsized holes in their lives with ridiculous theories about who did what and why (it's called 'denial').


Sorry, folks. Occam is on my side.

[xchrom]

1. unrec -

[HughMoran]

7. rec

Because sometimes it's important to use logic.

[countingbluecars]

2. Or not. n/t

[chemp]

3. You may be right, but...

Company rules do not override Constitutional rights. He has the right to donate and participate in the political system. y'know, just like Dead intern Joe, just like Buchanan.
He was sacrificed to our new corporate overlords.

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. Not that it matters, but that is incorrect. nt

[sufrommich]

10. I would have to be the government stopping him from

donating to be unconstitutional.

[Beacool]

12. Yep, but they have the right to fire him for it too.

I work for a Fortune 100. Every year we get the Code of Conduct online. We all have to read it and agree with it. Otherwise, it's "don't let the door hit you on the way out" time. Olbermann knew the rules and he chose to break them. It was his choice.

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

13. Rachel said Joe got permission, also under prior management

Keith will back soon

[Major Hogwash]

25. So you're saying this is about the Citizens United case, then?

We know where the money came from as far as Keith is concerned because a private individual like Keith has to report it . . . but a corporation like say, GE, doesn't have to divulge the fact that they gave millions of dollars to a candidate.

I see.

Keith was making a point here.

[pipi_k]

26. First, and foremost...

he had the responsibility to ask his employers for permission to donate, as a term of his contract.


Would people be this foamy-mouthed over his "rights" if he had donated to the Republican party instead?

hah.



Capable adults who sign contracts are held to the terms of the contract, and that's the bottom line here. You sign it, it's your responsibility to follow it.


I'll bet people would understand well enough if it had been his employer that had violated the contract...

:eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. A mere fact is never a match for a DU conspiracy theory.

Don't you know that?

[chemp]

4. Damn reply mode

[chemp]

5. Dupe

get an error telling me that saying didn't post. then pops it up there three times.
AAAAAH poo.

[MiniMe]

8. I think the problem is more that they were guests on his show

I don't know which order it happened, but did they appear on his show first, or did he donate and then they came on his show. It makes it look like he bribed them to appear on his show. I don't think that is what Keith did, but this is all about appearances.

[Merlot]

11. Like a politician needs to be bribed to go on a national show?

Face time is what they live for.

[Recursion]

15. It doesn't bother you at all for a journalist to be paying people who come on his show?

I mean, that rule is there for a reason.

[JonLP24]

Journalist. Yes.

For a political commentator? No. Doesn't bother me.

[Merlot]

27. What bothers me is the idea that a commentator would HAVE to pay someone

to come on his show. Politicians line up for free face time. They certainly don't expect to get paid for it. And BTW, a donation to a campaign does not go directly into the politicians pocket (unless of course they use donations to pay their rent and their mother...odonnel, I'm looking at you)

Read the post. again.

BTW, Olberman is a commentator, not a journalist.

[Recursion]

28. I don't think the contribution itself is an insurmountable problem

But if the guy is on Keith's show, and Keith donated to him, he should have disclosed that.

And MSNBC's response should have been to make him disclose and apologize on air, not suspend him.

[Merlot]

30. Disclosure and on air apology would have been better, agreed.

[MiniMe]

23. I agree

It is all about appearances. Like I said, I don't think that is what Keith did at all. But I would wonder about Hannity and Beck in the same circumstances.

[sufrommich]

9. I agree. nt

[ljm2002]

14. Who the hell knows what really happened behind closed doors...

...my own pet theory is that Olbermann made his contributions without thinking much about the contract provisions, was called on the carpet for it and told he would get a 2-day or 1-week suspension with pay, and then he told the boss to f*ck off and was suspended indefinitely without pay.

I have no way to know if my scenario is correct nor do I care much. It's fun to speculate!

Meanwhile we do not have Keith's voice out there, which is truly unfortunate.

[Recursion]

16. Also, I love Keith, but he's not exactly non-confrontational

And I seriously doubt this is the first time he pissed off Griffith.

[Iggo]

17. Occam's Razor fits easily into outsized holes.

:P

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. LOL!

And what might Occam reveal about your motives?

Cheers!

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. My motives?

HUH???

I'm NOBODY, laughing at a gaggle of other NOBODIES who are trying to blame the Illuminati for the actions of a TV personality.

Good grief. Are you under the impression that anything that gets said here actually matters?

[backscatter712]

19. Not too far off.

I'll bet that with the huge outcry, Griffin's going to back down on this, based on what Maddow said last night. Olbermann's going to get a few days off, but eventually get reinstated, if my read of Maddow is correct.

Basic office politics is what happened last night.

[whathehell]

20. "...and since egos always override brains.."...I'd say that's correct, sir.

:rofl:

[CC]

21. So far I've opnly seen one small blip from

one side on what happened with a short thing from Rachel so people are trying to make sense out of it. Specially this week when their audience needed a bit a sanity and truthfulness.

As for me, MSNBC doesn't need my ratings and I'm throwing NBC in just because I can. They made a big deal over "loyalty" when they threw Shuster off yet I wasn't seeing that loyalty work both ways. They called him in all hours for breaking news, couldn't seem to find a permanent time/show for him yet hired two more people and gave them shows. Then they wonder why the man might be looking out for himself and boot him for interviewing with another network.As a viewer I could care less what his contract said. The remote and the off button on my TV is the only way I have of showing my displeasure with their practices. Some one else said it best, MSNBC is its own worst enemy.

[Major Hogwash]

22. HOW did they come to find out about those contributions so quick?

Answer that question, genius.

[Recursion]

Dupe

Why does this keep happening?

[Recursion]

29. Because campaign contributions are publicly disclosed (nt)

[CC]

36. Because Keith told

he had done them in an interview.

[Hamlette]

24. That answers the question no one on DU has dared ask

why the hell did he do it?

It was a well known policy. How could it not have been? Political donations are public. He had to know he'd get "caught".

He was flaunting it.

And as much as I like and appreciate Olbermann I can't help but think he's sitting back some place basking in the glory of those who have come to his defense thinking we are all taking it to the man. That's the only explanation for his silence. If/when he breaks it, I might change my opinion but his silence makes me think he did it on purpose as you describe in the op.

[asjr]

31. It seems to me, even though there is

some arcane rule about telling your employer you want to give to a political party, that it would be denying Keith his right to do so unfettered.

[Mz Pip]

35. This is the issue I have

with the whole fiasco. what I find curious is that an employee has to check with his employer and get permission to donate to a political campaign. The parent company can donate however much it wants and remain anonymous but the employee can't?

I don't see some conspiracy here but I do see some hypocrisy on the part of NBC.

This would make an interesting test case onhow much control an employer has over its employees, particularly in the area of political contributions.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Agree. Fanciful theories about MSNBC playing 18th dimensional chess are silly.

Sure, Rachel jumped on it in her comment to highlight the difference between her and Keith and the shills on Fox and good on her for doing it but it was not some grand scheme planned in advance.

[Avalux]

37. Nice little slam you got in there on Olbermann viewers. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. Some of them deserve it. nt

[MagickMuffin]

38. Looks to me as though you are in the same box as the other theorists

There has been an awful lot of speculation and yours isn't any different. Unless you were there when everything went down then you are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist yourself.

[Dreamer Tatum]

39. What;'s different about mine is that it's probably true.

If not, then where is Olbermann today?

Why is he so quiet?

[MagickMuffin]

41. Again you fail to win your theory

"What;'s different about mine is that it's probably true."

Probably does not make something true!

Olbermann is probably remaining quite because he wants to stay out of the fire by not adding more fuel to it and wants to return to his job @ MSNBC. And yes this is only my speculation, as I don't know Keith personally.

[sufrommich]

42. Looks like Occam was on your side. nt