Here's my theory re: Olbermann

[Hailtothechimp]

By the way, my user name is a holdover from the Bush years, NOT a slap at President Obama. Please do not take it as such. And this is my first thread since just before the 2008 election. It's been a little while.

The beatdown that Keith and Lewis Black gave to Sarah Palin at the end of Thursday's show was classic. I hope everyone has seen it by now. But I think it rankled the powers that be at MSNBC.

The very next morning, some young Politico reporter points out Keith's political donations, and he's suspended immediately, and whether or not he's ever back on MSNBC seems to be up in the air. For the record, the sooner he's back, the happier I'll be.

My thought is that someone (and I wish I knew who it was) called up this young reporter at Politico, gave her this tip (which they knew about as soon as the donations made, since these things are in the public record) and encouraged her to run the story. Was the encouragement a promotion? Future considerations within the right wing media? We won't know this. But something was in it for her.

So the story appears and MSNBC seizes on it as the pretext to suspend Keith. They want him off the air, because he eviscerated Sister Sarah so completely, but that's not really grounds for suspending him. But violating the ethics code, that's something else. In their minds, at least.

The timing on this is not happenstance. Like the old saying goes, "I was born at night, but it wasn't last night."

[HereSince1628]

1. I suspect there was a tip-off, but I hypothesize that "the event"

happened before someone had Keith suspend "worst persons."

This is a facile enforcement of a contract clause, Keith position as a "professional leftie" has been obvious, and nothing he did was inconsistent with the 'practice' of job. To try at this late date to squeeeze him into the role of a news personality after years of being a commentator would be an interesting issue in court argumentation. His employer allowed for years, and if we could get the evidence, probably over those same years encouraged Olbermann to be a commentator. Consequently, the parties have both been in a practice of ignoring and violating the conditions of employment. With handshakes and such along the way it is arguable that Olbermann was working under mutually understood, and effectively practiced addenda to his contract.


And this sort of thing is why contract lawyers are always busy.

[emulatorloo]

3. Rachel Maddow says the rule applies to all MSNBC hosts. Is she wrong?

Video:
RACHEL MADDOW Comments on Olbermann Situation - 'Different from Fox'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x522722


QUOTE about Rule:
Maddowblog - On cable news and cable not news.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/05/5417114-on-cable-news-and-cable-not-news


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.

[jgraz]

5. We don't know yet if she's wrong

Let's just say there's plenty of evidence against that position.

[emulatorloo]

7. dunno she's right about pretty much everything.

Great researcher, great reporter.

[jgraz]

9. Almost everything. But when she's wrong, she can be really, really wrong.

For example, she got slammed for her fawning coverage of the Iraq fake-withdrawal earlier this year -- and rightly so. Both Media Matters and FAIR nailed her.

If she makes an error, it's usually where she's a bit too accepting of conventional wisdom. About a week ago, she did a cold open on the "accomplishments" of the Democrats that made my teeth hurt.

[emulatorloo]

13. She probably knows how to read her contract, don't you think?

[EFerrari]

16. That may well be. But it raises the question of unequal enforcement.

We know a right wing Bushie is the new boss and that he's put right wing Bushie managers in. :shrug:

[emulatorloo]

17. she addressed the Joe Scar thing in her comment. She said rule applied to hosts

She says host can contribute if they clear it first with management for conflict of interest.

She says Scar asked first and got the required permission. {she didn't name him, called him "our morning-show host")

Pat Buchanan, Chris Hayes, are not hosts, they are "MSNBC Contributers"

I think we need to remember Occam's Razor.

[EFerrari]

19. Right. Occam's Razor would say tha a new right wing owner

wants Keith off the air.

[emulatorloo]

20. then why is Keith's Face and Name still all over the network? Ads, Promos, Pictures

Keith's face and name was everywhere last night. There were several statements along the lines of "keith will be back soon"

As you know, from a corporate standpoint the goal is to make money. MSNBC is a business.

KO = Ratings = MSNBC can raise Ad Rates = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MSNBC has been INCREASING its branding as the "liberal" station -- the Move Forward re-branding, adding more liberal shows (the final word).

[EFerrari]

22. We seem to be watching some kind of power struggle.

But the Bushies that came in are hyper partisan. And now, they don't have to worry much about getting their deal approved. It's not like the DoJ will get in their way.

[jgraz]

24. They've been pretty clear from the beginning this was not a contract violation

This is a violation corporate policy. A policy that has, historically, not been applied to hosts on MSNBC.

[HereSince1628]

23. Sorry, I dropped off to rake leaves...I think it's arguable.

On the face of it, it seems that both MSNBC and Olbermann were for all practical purposes treating Olbermann as a commentator rather than a news reporter--to whom the clause is pertinent.

Who is right will depend on the reconciliation of the parties, or a court determination.

[jeff47]

26. It's not clear

It was widely known that the people at MSNBC were not subject to the rule before.

The suspension clearly indicates they are subject to the rule now.

[emulatorloo]

2. "They want him off the air, because he eviscerated Sister Sarah so completely" That gets RATINGS!

Ratings = eyeballs = MSNBC can raise its advertising rates.

I am going with Rachel maddow's explaination. If you haven't seen it, it is really worth watching.

RACHEL MADDOW Comments on Olbermann Situation - 'Different from Fox'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=522722&mesg_id=522722

Summary

- all hosts at MSNBC are under a rule to get approval from management before donating
- Scarbourogh got permission, Keith did not
- Keith's been suspended temporarily he will be back. I hope soon, because the point has been made.
- we have this rule because we are TOTALLY not like fox, so no more false equivalencies. They are a political organization, we are a news organization.
- Keith is a true pioneer, he was out there holding Bush accountable and is amazing and inspirational

[jeff47]

27. The problem is ratings are not everything

If GE could make a billion on another business by having NBC intentionally lose ratings, NBC would intentionally lose ratings. Say, for example that the top-rated host on their spiffy new MSNBC network happens to speak out against W shortly after 9/11. They might fire that host in order to receive the larger benefit to the parent company.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about when MSNBC fired Phil Donahue.

And your summary is wrong. It is not clear that they were subject to that rule before. However it's abundantly clear they're subject to that rule now.

[arcane1]

4. I hadn't heard of the Lewis Black thing until now

and I'm currently watching it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ8rUc5e5Uo

[EFerrari]

14. Thanks, hadn't seen that.

She does sound like the voice mail lady. lol

[emulatorloo]

21. Yeah, that was hilarious and very true. The voice over is Robotic!

[HughMoran]

6. Yeah, he's never done a beat-down before.

:eyes:

You've GOT to do better than that.

[HughMoran]

8. Oh, C'mon!! Did you not see the beatdowns Lawrence O'Donnell did on his NEW show??

This is the most ridiculous theory of all.

MSNBC is EXPANDING it's line up of people who beat on Palin and the rest of the right-wing morons daily, and suddenly they realized that their original guy could be controversial at times???


:rofl:

..and people are reccing this!!

:rofl:

[emulatorloo]

12. KO Beatdowns = Ratings = MSNBC gets to Raise its Advertising Rates = $$$$$$$

which means KO will be back.

Tweety announced: "Stay Tuned for Countdown wiht Keith Olbermann," showing the standard Big Ass Picture Of Olbermann he always does.

That himbo who stood in from Keith said "this is X, I'm in for Keith Olbermann" A clear signal Olbermann is coming back.

Later in the show he said "Keith will be coming back soon."

All I can say is DU likes conspiracy theories?

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. So suddenly political contributions are all hush-hush, save for...um...

"...some young Politico reporter?"

:eyes:

Come on. Does that actually make sense?

[Hailtothechimp]

29. Someone gave her the story. That's all I'm saying.

Whoever really outed Keith for his contributions is much older. My money (such as it is) is on Karl Rove or someone of his ilk.

[gmoney]

11. I think it's simpler than that...

They wanted Olbermann out for a while, but felt that if they did it BEFORE the election, it would look like censorship and the backlash might benefit Democratic candidates and get a few of people off the dime to vote.

So, they waited until after the election and lowered the boom. The "Ethics Violation" has been up their sleeve for a while, I'm guessing, just waiting for the right time to play that card.

[Gin]

15. he tested the waters (contributions are public) and got burned

part of him had to know what he was doing....even if he leaves that station....he will be heard elsewhere...this is a job...he will get others..this is not the end of KO

[emulatorloo]

18. every mention on MSNBC last night said he will be back.

He may not want to come back. But that is a different story.

[jeff47]

28. Well, this 'temporary' suspension has created quite the shitstorm

What do you think would happen if they had actually fired him? Perhaps they'd like to move him off the air, let things settle down and then fire him.

[Liberal Gramma]

25. I think it's one of those useful rules

that allow a company to get rid of an employee that otherwise can't be fired. The bank I used to work at had a rule that any employee who overdrew their checking account could be fired, but never used it except to fire employees they wanted rid of but didn't have cause to fire.