NOT QUITE RIGHT

[Samantha]

Comcast" and "US Chamber of Commerce" appear to be political buds:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/comcast-partners-bring-new-right-wing-broad

A couple of snippets from this article follow. These snippets confirm an intersection of thoughts independently recently expressed here. Specifically, COMCAST makes no secret of its right-leaning political bent, BUT BUT BUT it also partners with the US Chamber of Commerce. I am going to take a wild guess and assume in all likelihood it probably made a quite impressive "undisclosed" donation along with other corporations who choose not to disclose their identity to the public.

But how dare anyone employed by one of these corporations presume to contribute within the legal parameters of defined political contribution limits without asking the permission of the corporate owners first .... These large corporations, with the blessings of the Supreme Court, are focusing on dividing this Country politically and reaping the political spoils, and those employed by them need to avoid doing anything NOT QUITE RIGHT.

(From the article)

"Comcast is fighting its way through a battle to acquire NBC and related assets (including MSNBC) without being deemed a monopoly (which they are, and should be barred from owning NBC). For a preview of how dangerous it is to have one corporation control access to the Internet and cable TV, have a look at their new joint venture: RightNetwork."

"On television, through partners including Comcast, RightNetwork delivers programming on demand that enables our audience to watch what they want, when they want. Everything Right, at the click of a remote. the lineup focuses on entertainment with pro-America, pro-business, pro-military sensibilities — compelling content that inspires action, invites a response, and influences the national conversation." (emphasis added.)

"They don't even try to hide it anymore. It's just outright, blatant partisanship and propaganda, brought to you by Comcast and the US Chamber of Commerce. "

Two words -- Citizens United. That would be Comcast and other large corporations, with the blessings of the Supreme Court, focusing on dividing this Country and reaping the political spoils.

Apparently, Keith Olbermann's political contributions to candidates were NOT QUITE RIGHT.

Sam

Postscript: This article is dated April 17, 2010. I apologize if this was previously posted. If so, I missed it. Finding it today seemed to only confirm a lot of things people here have been thinking.

[jillan]

1. Maybe I should dust off my tinfoil hat, but I really think Keith is trying to send a message.

He's no dummy. He knew what the rules were.

Was he trying to expose Faux, Comcast - both?

Time will tell.

[Samantha]

3. Well, if you read the language that was posted here

there was a lot of wiggle room in what management could do. It seems any employee making donations might face consequences; it didn't say "will." If they truly wanted to drive home that policy, they could have simply given Keith a warning. I think they preferred to inflict a little public humiliation on him to let him know who is the boss. In other words, ego was at play.

It also has been posted MSNBC employees are not required to follow NBC policies. There is that distinction as well.

I don't pretend to have a locked-down perspective on the literal truth of the situation, but as far as I can see, the message being sent was by the management of MSNBC, not by Keith.

Just my take, jillan, thank you for posting a comment here. It is always nice to read people's thoughts on a subject.

Sam

[PufPuf23]

2. I hope KO did this situation deliberately and with bravery

and was not sabotaged.

Rush is on Armed Forces radio, most MSM is blatantly right wing, and yet people like KO and Dan Rather are removed for ethics breaches.

Pretty high strange.

I hope KO has good liberal lawyers and this was planned and impacts Citizens United (surprise another Orwellian phrase)and soem sort of future fair and fact-based media.

KO was fine with me years ago as a sports writer and still would be.

[Samantha]

4. Also remember Bill Press and The Spin Room

He continued to comment on the 2000 election after Bush* was selected and disappeared from the network due to Republican pressure. Only recently have we seen his face again on cable; he did eventually find a place on radio, but that is not really quite the same thing. Press is truly an excellent commentator. If it happened to him, and it happened to Olbermann, it can happen to anyone.

Sam

[onenote]

5. article dated April 17 2010. On April 19 it was debunked

Comcast is not a "partner" with RightNetwork.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/comcast-denies-connection-to-rightnetwork/?src=busln

If Comcast was a "partner" of RightNetwork, you would think that, as a the company with the largest number of subscribers in the country, it would be carrying it. But Comcast not only isn't a "partner" of the RightNetwork, its cable systems don't carry the network. RightNetwork is carried by Verizon FIOS, which competes with Comcast. On the other hand, Comcast widely (but not universally) carries networks such as here! and LOGO, which offer programming of interest to the LGBT community.

I may come off like a toady for Comcast, but the fact is that Comcast and many of its executives have been major supporters of the Democratic party and Democratic candidates. In 2010, Comcast's PAC gave to Democratic candidates by a 55/45 margin. Moreover, its current chairman and immediate past chairman gave over $100,000 to the Democratic party and Democratic party candidates, and not a single cent directly to any repub candidates. Another Comcast executive, who left the company for a job in government after the 2008 elections, gave over $70,000 in the 2008 election cycle and was a top bundler for Obama and the Democratic party.

There is a tendency here to believe anything and everything they read without checking. Sometimes it pays to check things out.

[mstinamotorcity]

6. + 1,000,000

facts,not fiction is always good.

[Samantha]

7. Snider by Comcast's own admission appears to be an investor

Looks to me like this falls within a gray area. I did read a number of articles on the web before I posted this thread. Looking at those again, it appears Ed Snider specifically promoted RightNetwork:

http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/right-wing-rightnetwork-already-causing-a-stir/19446063

“Asked for comment on Snider's role in the new venture, a spokesperson for Comcast-Spectacor told AOL News: "Ed Snider is simply an investor in RightNetwork. His investment is separate and not affiliated with Comcast-Spectacor."

“Snider's role in the new venture is of particular interest to media analysts, as he is an executive and senior member of Comcast-Spectacor's parent, Comcast Corp., the largest cable provider in the United States and the recent corporate suitor of NBC Universal. (emphasis added).

Also from that same article:

“A "look book" document posted briefly on the website before being inexplicably removed today (emphasis added) features statements of support from Grammer and one Ed Snider, multimillionaire owner of the Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers and chairman of the cable TV subsidiary Comcast-Spectacor, who says:

“We're creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who've been looking for an entertainment channel and media network that reflects their point of view. RightNetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and connect with the American majority about what's right in the world.”

Looks like Comcast the parent corporate entity is not an official investor. Perhaps while the build-up to implementing RightNetwork was underway, Comcast itself squashed officially sponsoring RightNetwork, but at least this one official of the parent corporation invested in it. Note the use of the current admission in the above quote as in the current tense: “Ed Snider is simply an investor.”

And then there is this:

“Kelsey Grammer, of 'Frasier' fame, along with Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast Spectacor and the guy in charge of running the 76ers and Flyers, have launched a new TV network aimed exclusively at conservatives called "Rightnetwork."
“The network will offer a mixture of documentaries, reality television shows, stand-up comedy and sitcoms targeted at conservative viewers.

“The interesting thing is that Ed Snider's buddies at Comcast will not be carrying the channel. As of now you can see shows on demand through verizon or if you own a Nokia phone.” From http://philly.sbnation.com/2010/9/11/1682438/ed-snyder-and-frasier-launch-right-wing-tv-network written September 11, 2010.

It is entirely possible that Comcast saw the controversy as a threat to its intended merger of NBC, and so it spoke out of both sides of its Corporate mouth (a frequent Washington political phenomena): Comcast does not support RightNetwork (even though one of our executive and senior members does).

You are right about Verizon currently promoting it. I violated one of my own rules and went to this right-wing website and saw that corporate name posted as a sponsor. Perhaps Verizon saw an opportunity to capitalize on Comcast’s equivocation and took the leap.

My personal opinion is that there is no doubt at least one Comcast official took a keen interest in this opportunity, but a decision was made to enter it from the back door as opposed to the front door, if only by Snider. But it is clear from Snider’s repeated remarks and Comcast’s admission quoted above, there is a connection there at the very least by "an executive and senior member of Comcast-Spectacor's parent, Comcast Corp."

But, hey, no where has it been reported Snider has been suspended without pay for his participation in an investment of RightNetwork....

Sam

[onenote]

8. Again, you would be better off going to source documents rather than internet stories

Snider is not listed as a member of Comcast's Board of Directors or as a member of Comcast's executive team (senior or otherwise) on any documents published by Comcast, including its filings with the SEC (linked below). Snider founded a company, then known as Spectator; several years ago, he sold a majority interest (around 60 percent) to Comcast and that company was renamed "Comcast-Spectator" and Snider stayed on as chairman. Snider is not listed anywhere that I can find as a significant "investor" in Comcast. On the other hand, Comcast can properly be called an investor in Comcast-Spectator, just as Comcast is an investor in a lot of companies in which it has purchased an equity (often a majority equity) stake. The executives of those companies have no more influence over Comcast than Snider, which is to say next to none.

I've already pointed out that the Chairman and Chairman Emeritus of Comcast are major Democratic party donors. If you look at the folks who actually are executives and board members, you will find a that many of them also are major Democratic donors, including Vice Chair Julian Brodsky ($15K in 2009-10, none to repubs); David Cohen, Exec VP ($91K in 2009-10, only $1k to a repub); Arthur Block, Chief Accounting Officer (nearly $20K in 2009-10, none to repubs);Decker Anstrom ($7400 in 2009-20, none to repubs); Sheldon Bonovitz ($21K in 2009-10, $17K to Democrats); Jeffrey Honickman ($91K in 2009-10, none to repubs). SOURCE: opensecrets.org

Are there some Comcast execs and directors that support repubs? Yes. But their contributions are dwarfed by the volume of financial support that Comcast's top executives and board members give to Democrats.

But rather than fact check the data, some people just prefer to make an assumption about a conclusion and then assume facts to support that conclusion. But doing so simply smears a lot of good Democrats.

http://www.cmcsk.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual&Year=2010
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=CMCSA.O
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=CMCSA.O