KO is a hero of mine. That is why I think he should resign.

[styersc]

The Rachel Maddow footage discussing the political tentacles of FOX personalities made me realize that WE don't mix professional jounrnalism and partisan opinion. Olbermann should make an example of himself and demonstrate that FOX and the like are not qualified to wash the feet of a liberal. We are principalled. They are not.

KO is a powerful voice because of the message not the delivery or personality. A replacement for KO who has the message can be as powerful. KO can make a great statement by saying that we are not above ethics, none of us, no matter how popular or charismatic.

[Duer 157099]

1. The problem with that strategy is that

the only people who would even pay attention already know it.

That's the fundamental basis of ALL of our current problems. There is no way to reason with the other side, at all. They don't use logic or intelligence.

[styersc]

2. Do right because it is right.

No other reason.

[hlthe2b]

3. Way to throw in the towel....

:eyes: Just a clue... we really DON'T win by losing.

[styersc]

5. Winning by ignoring ethics is the same as being FOX.

[sabrina 1]

8. What was the ethics violation?

[hlthe2b]

26. You stance is nuts, IMO.

Jumping to conclusions and selling out one of our own for your bizarre sanctimonious attitude. There is no clear understanding at this point whether or not he got permission, failed to get permission, or whether this is a set up of some type. Yet you are ready to throw him under the bus to show everyone how moral you are. Give me a break. That is not being ethical. That is being premature (and stupid).

[yourout]

4. Only if he is going to run for office.

[styersc]

7. I'd support Olbermann as a candidate.

But to suggest that now he can present himself as an objective party who adheres to journalistic ethics is absurd.

[sabrina 1]

6. There was no ethics violation, so it would be foolish of him to

admit to one. There was a rule, requiring that employees report to the boss whenever they were going to donate to political candidates.

HOWEVER, and I can see that many have not read that rule, ONLY IF, doing so would create a conflict of interest.

So, how on earth could Keith donating to Dems create a conflict of interest? Was he pretending to be impartial all this time? :eyes:

This is just an attempt to silence a strong progressive voice and he should fight them all the way to court, assuming there is nothing in his contract to worry about. I doubt there is or we would have heard that from MSMBC by now. We haven't, they have referred to that rule, which btw, NBC says they were not enforcing for a long time now.

Defeatism is not what we need. I hope he does not resign, unless he gets a better offer, then he should tell them to go 'shove it'.

[styersc]

9. The rule is that he had to get ok'ed. He may not have recieved it.

regardless, permission or not, it is sleezy for one to offer support and cash to a politician, then pretend to report objectively on same.

Permission or no permission, this is across the line for a professional journalist.

I prefer that progressivism be untainted.

[sabrina 1]

16. If it's across the line, then there will be a lot of suspensions

before this weekend is over.

I expected that Keith would be donating to some Dems. What's wrong with that? I expect rightwingers to donate also. He's a citizen too, and most people in the news business do it. Different networks have different rules about it, but there is no law against it, and most Americans assumed journalists were doing what every other citizen does.

Oh please with the untainted progressivism. This doesn't taint it, what taints it is the refusal to fight, the mealy-mouthed capitulation to bullies, over and over again. The 'don't think badly of me Mr. Republican, I'm a good, untainted little progressive who only wants the best for everyone' attitude.

This is WAR. The other side started it, to call donating to political candidate 'tainted journalism' is simply ludicrous. It has always been done, the only difference now is people have access to the records and political enemies can use them against you. Read the history of journalists and politics.

Political donations by individuals should be anonymous. If corps now have that protection, so should all of us.

You're falling for the hype, this is a nothing issue. It is intended to silence progressives and Keith will not be the last if we progressives, as we always do, continue to ask the bullies to beat us up.

And every respected individual who has addressed it so far, agrees, Bernie Sanders leading the way. I don't think Bernie would be defending 'tainted journalism' ~ wake up and start standing up, unless you want the next eight years to be a repetition of the Bush years. This is not a party where Ms Manners rules apply, it is a battlefield where the fittest and the strongest will survive.

[styersc]

21. sad

sigh

[sabrina 1]

25. Look, I understand that you are a moral person. And that is a very

good thing. I also believe that Keith Olbermann is moral person. I do not believe that most of our media is moral at all. They, unlike him, perpetuated lies to us about Iraq which in the end caused untold numbers of deaths and all the other human horrors we've heard of and many we haven't. THAT is immoral, unethical and downright criminal.

Because the crimes were so great and because for years we had a media that would not report on them, I lost all respect for most of them.

So, any silly rules they make about ethics are laughable, considering their own ethics, not only that, they are questionable since they do not get applied equally.

Keith otoh, took an ethical stand against the war criminals at a time when it was very risky to do. He helped break down the solid wall of silence surrounding and protecting war criminals and he did it on the MSM. He opened the door for others, like Rachel Maddow to be able to help in that endeavor and finally we had a small, tiny, window into the real world of facts on the MSM.

I admire people who care, as you do, about ethics. I also think we need to be careful about 'rules' made by unethical people.

Here is the rule they are hanging this suspension on:

"If a contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a candidate or group with a political or social agenda could create the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the employee’s responsibilities at MSNBC.com, the contribution must receive the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief.

Now, considering the fact, which even some Conservatives have stated in Keith's defense, that he is one of the most openly partisan commentators on Cable, no one, not even several Republican bloggers and writers, saw anything unethical about him contributing to Dems.

That rule was clear in that if there is no conflict of interest, which there wasn't, proof being the rightwing didn't even want to go after him for doing so and they hate him, then there was no violation of that rule.

If there is anything in his contract that was violated, that is different. But so far, no one has said that is the case.

Anyhow, for what it's worth, I appreciate people wanting to keep standards high, I do too. But as I said above, we are in a fierce battle for this country and we have few tools to fight it with. Having reviewed the facts we have so far, I do not believe Keith Olbermann violated any rules of journalistic ethics, nor do many others whose opinions I respect.

[dgibby]

20. Keith is a well known LIBERAL commentator.

As such, his support of Dems is not a conflict of interest, as Sabrina clearly stated, and which you have clearly chosen to ignore.

I'm with Lawrence O'Donnell on this one. "You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts".

[styersc]

23. OK. KO is a commentator, not a journalist.

make it clear that his presentation is opinion driven and not an objective presentation of fact.

I don't think he is as important in that case, but....

[Hissyspit]

10. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9496772&mesg_id=9496808

[styersc]

14. OK so you're argument is that he never claimed to be a journalist.

Fine. Then he should say that he is presenting partisan opinion and not objective reporting so that his stories can be judged for their bias. Then he can donate all he wants to anything at all- like Beck and Hannity, etc.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. MSNBComcast has a HUGE (!) PR issue on their hands with this one.

I hope Keith plays his cards right. This could be a huge statement against the logic behind Citizens United. GE can spend at will (anonymously), but an open liberal commentator can't? Lets rock & roll.

[styersc]

12. In the context of the Citizen's United discussion you have a good

argument.

Too bad that it is contrived. Would have been interesting to see such a challenge sincerely pursued and not broached as a cover for a mistake.

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. We need a 'victim'.

SCOTUS made their decision. Without 'victimhood' (corporate, union, individual), we don't have the 'poster boy' issue needed to address the court's lunacy. Dems don't have the will/spine to bring this to the floor without a 'victim' to show the American Idolized public WHY this is an issue - and will hold off until they have something black and white that can be expressed in microwave-mentality 6-words-or-less soundbytes (even if it is unrelated in a literal sense). Give them some shred of gristle to make a loose connection, and we have a chance.

[Doctor_J]

13. Have you been drinking?

Fox just hand-picked the current ultra-right-wing Congress. We certainly wouldn't want to do that, would we?

WTF is wrong with you? Please tell us who is going to replace KO? Comcast isn't going to hire another liberal, unless it's someone like Alan Colmes.

Arrgh! Wake up!!!

[styersc]

18. The congress should be chosen solely by the electorate.

An objectively informed electorate.

Olbermann wields power because he exposes the truth and lets the audience make their own decisions. If he is viewed as manipulating his audience, then he cannot retain credibility.

Power is in the message, not the messenger. If the messenger is tainted, the message is threatended. I believe the message is to important to be sacrificed.

[Doctor_J]

22. Yep

You've been drinking.

The other side is not going to quit. And they are winning. If we don't fight back, as if we're in a fight for our lives, we will lose. Why are you unable to comprehend that?

[madmax]

17. What?!

No way!

[opihimoimoi]

19. He should be offered a Team Obama Slot....Head the DEPT of REASON & SANITY

[BootinUp]

24. Why I support the right of journalists to contribute to politicians:

If the contributions are made to organizations or candidates that must disclose, I fully support journalists speaking their mind in this way. It becomes part of their public record. It lets us know who and what they support instead of guessing. I think its a great thing. It is really only the corporations that do not like it, I would guess. Not the public.

[RagAss]

27. We have 5 voices on the Left...and you want one to go away ?????

You must be one of our "Moderate" members !!!