Yawn

[HughMoran]

I told you it was a stunt.

Let me clarify - I think the suspension was real, but I don't think Olbermann's job was ever at risk.

[Drale]

1. I don't think it was a stunt

but I think people took it way out of proportion. I never read anything about him being fired, but thats what allot of people where saying.

[HughMoran]

2. They may have arranged this to "prove" that MSNBC has standards

But Olbermann's job was never at risk IMO.

[knowbody0]

4. my thoughts as well

to show the contrast between them and Fox, especially now when they are absolutely reporting false news daily and being called out for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. It wasn't a stunt

but you keep telling yourself this.

[HughMoran]

6. Maybe not, but I never thought his job was at risk

So it was clear that a boycott was premature.

[Luminous Animal]

7. I never thought his job was at risk, either. Who would. It was clearly stated that the suspension

was temporary. Why you would claim that it was a stunt, based on the facts that we know, is baffling.

Also, taking the offensive quickly is often better than scrambling for a strategy in reaction to the possible.

So no, I do not think the boycott was premature.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Have you seen Shuster on the Network anytime

in the near past?

Indefinite and no pay...

[HughMoran]

10. Yes, these are comparable one-for-one examples.

:rofl:

[cynatnite]

5. It wasn't a stunt, IMO. n/t

[MineralMan]

9. I don't know whether it was a stunt or not, but I just couldn't

join in all the wailing and moaning and MSNBC bashing that was going on over this. I like KO, even though I normally only see the last five minutes of his program. I've worked as a magazine journalist for much of my adult life. Every contract I ever signed had a disclosure clause of some kind in it. Most of the disclosure stuff made lots of sense, in that it forced any potential conflicts of interest out in the open. None of the clauses in my contract were punitive, and disclosing an investment or whatever didn't necessarily keep you from writing about things where there had to be disclosure. Those clauses were all about not having surprises pop up after something you had written.

Mostly, I reviewed software. I also had a small software company of my own. That was a point of disclosure, and I made that disclosure. Some of the software published by my tiny company got reviewed by others in the magazine, and every review contained a disclosure that I was a writer for that publication. I could not mention my company's programs in any of my writing, and any review of one of my products was done without any communication with me. There was no conflict, but the disclosure protected me and the publication from accusations.

And so it was with Keith Olberman. Now, the disclosure is public, so he's back on the air, with everything out in the open. It should always have been out in the open. Nobody really cares that Olberman donated to Democratic candidates. That's not the issue. It is the non-disclosure that is required by MSNBC that is the issue. That issue is now finished. There's been more than ample disclosure, and he goes back to work at his multi-million dollar salary.

Not such a big story, after all, and certainly not worth all the tumult here on DU.

[HughMoran]

12. I knew from the beginning that the tumult over this was excessive

I knew this would be resolved and I knew the paranoia that the storm troopers were about to descend was comical in it's absurdity. He lost 2 days worth of pay for refusing to apologize on air - BFD - apparently the multi-millionaire will survive.

[MineralMan]

13. Exactly. That's why I ignored all the hand-waving and panic.

It was just excessive. I did start one OP about disclosure clauses, which was jumped on with both feet by a number of people. In it, I said that I was sure he'd be back soon.

We do, sometimes, overreact to things on DU. {understatement alert}

[sufrommich]

11. I don't think it was either. I do think the "Rachel is next" OPs

were pretty funny though.