quote:WASHINGTON (AP) - MSNBC'S Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay for contributing to the campaigns of three Democrats during this election season.
NBC News prohibits its employees from donating to political campaigns unless the head of the news division gives special permission. Olberman's bosses at MSNBC didn't find out about the donations until after they were made.
He gave $2,400 to the campaign of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and an equal amount to each of two Arizona House members.
Olbermann's "Countdown" show is MSNBC's most popular program. His transformation from the host of a straight news program to a liberal commentator led the network itself to go in the same direction.
And the rise in opinionated cable news program has led to questions about whether the traditional rules of impartiality should apply.
Sean Hannity, a conservative with a popular hour on Fox News Channel each weeknight, donated $2,400 to the congressional campaign of New York Republican John Gomez in May. And Fox host Neil Cavuto donated $1,000 to President George W. Bush in 2002.
posted
This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
If you want to fire him because he's a jackass with flagging ratings (and apparently also a primadonna to boot), go for it. But this pretend impartiality (Olbermann is obviously, patently not impartial/nonpartisan/unbiased whatever you want to call it) does nobody any good. Hell, he's not even a real reporter, he's the TV equivalent of an Op-Ed.
I don't even think this rule makes sense for actual reporters. I think Jonah Goldberg (who definitely doesn't pretend to be impartial or nonpartisan) summed it up well.
quote: Second, the larger problem with these kinds of rules is that they do little to prevent media bias and a great deal to hide an important form of evidence of it. Banning liberal journalists from giving money doesn’t prevent them from being liberal, it just gives them a bit more plausibility when they deny it.
Obviously, since Goldberg is a staunch conservative, his example uses a liberal reporter, but you can pick your particular poison and the comment remains equally valid.
But seriously. Can anyone explain here why what Olbermann did should get him fired? I mean, if it's against MSNBC policy then they certainly have that right, and I'm not clamoring for him to get back on the air or anything. But it seems like an asinine policy.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't watch any of these people, and can't tell how similar or different they are as representatives of each "side." But I think she makes a good point about the differences between MSNBC and Fox.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But seriously. Can anyone explain here why what Olbermann did should get him fired?
When I look at the particulars of this case, it's pretty profoundly obvious that he's in a feud with his superiors at the network, and this is their way of showing that he's crossed the line with them.
Good, fire him. MSNBC picking up Olbermann is essentially them trying to copy the Fox News model for a liberal audience (in terms of mainlining blowhard partisans in place of news), and it's a bs model.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
But Olbermann is hilarious to watch.
IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I kind of had the same opinion. I have no reason to believe that a single person actually wrote or emailed to say, "I really liked to watch Olberman, but now that I know he's contributed to the democratic party, I'm done with your network!"
They fired him because they wanted to. They either didn't like him or didn't like his ratings.
That said, it's a ridiculous decision.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I'm speaking as someone who doesn't likke Olberman at all. I consider him the Morton Downey Jr. of the left.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juan Williams, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, Laura Schlessinger, 2010 seems to be taking its toll.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if they're getting pressure from the NBC news side of the house, which reportedly doesn't like the "liberal slant" model, or if they're positioning themselves for the incoming Comcast buyers.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nbc news at least claims impartiality or a desire for impartiality, msnbc tried being fox light on the left side, even if not as bad. If they want to move away from that then more power to them.
... but I have trouble watching any network news so what I want probably hardly matters. People who want partisan network news are mostly on the right.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I don't watch any of these people, and can't tell how similar or different they are as representatives of each "side." But I think she makes a good point about the differences between MSNBC and Fox.
I'm not really sure that she "makes a point" about how they are different. Sure she says they are, but it's not the same thing as proving that one is more "fair" or "newsworthy". Donating money to a cause you openly advocate and attempt to sway others to doesnt ruin credibility. Not having credibility to begin with ruins it. Neither of these networks have it, seeing as neither is interested in reporting news.
quote:People who want partisan network news are mostly on the right.
Is there some sort of evidence to back this up? I am fairly certain evey person likes to be told their views are correct.... no matter where they fit on the soci-political spectrum...
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Sure. But the rule itself seems silly. If it's really as Samp said, that he was fired because his superiors don't like him... great! I don't like him. I think he's a pretty awful person, all things considered. I certainly hope he never finds work in media again. But the stated reason seems dumb. That MSNBC apparently has that as a rule, seems dumb.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a ridiculous rule really. When you put that much money and promotional time into making a particular person the face of your network, his actions reflect upon the network. The rule isn't that he can't make donations, it's that he can't do it without getting approval first. And it's not like he didn't know this was a rule. He could have given the money through his wife or a family member, or simply attempt to obtain approval.
I don't watch Olbermann enough to really have an opinion on him, but I find MSNBC's attempt to create a liberal version of Fox News to be repulsive. Maybe not as repulsive as Fox News itself, but the idea that partisan news services need to be created at all to cater to a specific part of the electorate is abhorrent to me. Truth and news should be neutral. Having two major news networks spinning or creating news out of nothing for the sake of balance is stupid and counterproductive.
At the same time, I hate how networks that really are more neutral, like CNN, go out of their way to appear neutral. This appears in two forms:
1. False equivalency so they don't look partisan. In other words, there are two sides to an argument and one is totally and utterly bogus by any reasonable standard of investigation, but CNN feels compelled to give them both an equal voice for the sake of fairness. You know after the Civil War ended and the South started to rewrite history to forget the war as quickly as possible, a lot of people began to look back on the War and say "well, both sides had good points, they were both right and wrong, and one side just happened to win." Frederick Douglass responded to this with outrage, and said something to effect of 'I'll never forget the difference between the side that fought to imprison my people, and the side that fought to free them.' False equivalency drives me up the wall.
2. The other thing you see is a firm reluctance to call people out and fact check. You know that whackadoodle story floating around Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Savage, and the GOP leadership (though perhaps most notably hammered away at by Michelle Bachman) about how Obama's trip to Asia involves like a tenth of the navy, $200 million a day, and almost ten thousand people? Anderson Cooper did a little segment on it to debunk the story, saying that the only time that figure was quoted anywhere by anyone was a Indian news agency quoting an unnamed provincial Indian governor. The Pentagon said the navy numbers were ridiculous. The White House said the budget numbers were ridiculously overblown. By comparison, Bill Clinton's trip to Africa sometime in the nineties was days longer, had three or four thousand people involved, and cost eight million dollars a day. This story was virtually invented out of nothingness. But the real kicker was that while Cooper took the time to debunk it, he was insanely cognizant of the fact that he was doing so, and was extremely reluctant. He mentioned maybe two dozen times that it isn't the job of the media to defend the president, and he's not partisan, and it's just about truth, yadda yadda yadda. The fact that he feels the need to go through that rigmarole shows just how dangerous fact checking can be. If you fight against the popular narrative, you must be an enemy partisan, regardless of whether or not the narrative is true.
So I can't really say I care that Olbermann was fired. His network annoys me. He violated a clearly stated rule, whether that rule is stupid or not. So sad, too bad.
posted
It is really sort of a ridiculous rule in application. To the extent that once I read what the rule actually was, I knew with certainty that what this meant was that olbermann was feuding with his bosses.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Did you say the same thing about Juan Williams, the guy from NPR who was fired, Lisa? No ambush here, just wondering.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. But Juan Williams didn't break any rules. He said something that offended the sensibilities of the same people who seemingly had no problem whatsoever with Nina Totenberg wishing that Jesse Helms or his grandchildren would get AIDS. In one case, Williams mentioned his personal feelings of discomfort. In the other, Totenberg wished a deadly disease upon someone. But which one got canned?
Now, if NPR had an explicit rule that said, "You aren't allowed to express personal feelings without first getting approval from management," and Williams had said what he said and gotten fired, then yes, I would have said the same thing.
Frankly, I'm a little amazed that you would think there's any parallel whatsoever between Olbermann and Williams. Olbermann was suspended -- not fired -- and Olbermann knowingly broke the rules. He wasn't suspended for being a leftist. Anyone who didn't know he was a leftist must have been blind, deaf and dumb.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Sure. But the rule itself seems silly. If it's really as Samp said, that he was fired because his superiors don't like him... great! I don't like him. I think he's a pretty awful person, all things considered. I certainly hope he never finds work in media again. But the stated reason seems dumb. That MSNBC apparently has that as a rule, seems dumb.
Seriously? So if your employer has a rule that seems dumb, it's fine for you to violate it? And appalling if you get punished for doing so?
I guarantee you that if they had a conservative commentator and suspended him for making contributions to Republicans, you all would be all over it. "But he broke the rules! Damned conservatives just don't think rules apply to them!" A bunch of hypocrites, you are.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: But Olbermann is hilarious to watch.
Olbermann is the worst person in the world.
Clearly worse than any murderer, rapist, or abuser out there. He should be taken out and shot at the earliest opportunity.
I'm pretty sure Lisa was poking fun at a segment Olbermann had everyday called "worst person in the world." I thought it was funny. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Sure. But the rule itself seems silly. If it's really as Samp said, that he was fired because his superiors don't like him... great! I don't like him. I think he's a pretty awful person, all things considered. I certainly hope he never finds work in media again. But the stated reason seems dumb. That MSNBC apparently has that as a rule, seems dumb.
Seriously? So if your employer has a rule that seems dumb, it's fine for you to violate it? And appalling if you get punished for doing so?
I guarantee you that if they had a conservative commentator and suspended him for making contributions to Republicans, you all would be all over it. "But he broke the rules! Damned conservatives just don't think rules apply to them!" A bunch of hypocrites, you are.
Huh? Are you... are you sure you meant to say this to me?
1: I'm not appalled in any way that Olbermann was fired. The only thing I find appalling in the situation is Olbermann himself. I wish he'd been fired months ago, before he could continuously smear the Tea Party all the way up until Election night.
2: I have no problem with companies having their own rules for their employers. I also have no problem with companies firing people for no cause at all. When I ran my own business it was in Arizona, a Right to Work state. I live in California right now, and I'm kinda thankful that here I'm just a drone at a company, because I could not stand jumping through the ridiculous hoops that seem to be in place in order to can someone around here.
3: That being said, I'm still commenting on this scenario. MSNBC is by far the least impartial news network on TV. So it seems absurd that they have this rule. If anything, using this as the reason seems like MSNBC trying to pretend towards impartiality, when the reality is that Olbermann is, by insider accounts, just as much of an insufferable blowhard off camera as he is on. He probably pissed off his superiors. Add to this the fact that his miserable hyperbole and obsessive campaign of hatred against the Tea Party has resulted in flagging ratings, and I imagine they decided he was no longer worth the headache of putting up with him.
I agree with you that the Juan Williams situation is totally different. That's more of an injustice, and less of an eye-rolling, chuckle inducing absurdity.
So, anyway, Lisa... how exactly am I a hypocrite here?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. But Juan Williams didn't break any rules.
Wrong — he had been violating NPR's ethics code.
quote:The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, anyway, Lisa... how exactly am I a hypocrite here?
Or for that matter, arguably three of the five figures whose fates I objected to are figures that were drummed out for their conservative views as opposed to liberal views.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I honestly don't care either way about this. If he broke a rule, whatever. If this is really about something else, whatever.
I mean, he was funny sometimes, but he was not really my thing, at least not for the attempt to find actual facts. I read enough obviously biased blogs. I don't need to watch an obviously biased tv show, too.
Meh. I'm soured on cable news to begin with, though.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My roommate (a staunch conservative), defends Fox News this way: "Everybody else is against them. They're the same as everybody else, except on the other side."
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's typical, sure. False equivalence is old news; now I'm addressing claims that Fox exhibits the lesser bias among news networks, despite the fact that it is the most reliably and purposefully partisan news network, has a brazenly clear strategy to pander to conservative interests in order to market and hold its share of viewers, etc. It's also the most reliably misinforming news network on account of this strategy and the degree to which it pursues it.
I mean, look at this:
quote:The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[43] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."
quote:The researchers stated, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”
quote:Studies have consistently shown Fox viewers to be among the most misinformed Americans. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News dead last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers, with only 19 percent of Fox viewers able to correctly identify the majority party in Congress (Democrats), the name of the U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice), and name of British Prime Minister (Gordon Brown at the time)
We're getting the same misconceptions and evidence of larger, more open and purposeful bias at Fox today. Especially in the realm of the health care debate.
This is what's good, if anything, about Olbermann getting canned, because it should show a sparked willingness on the part of MSNBC to step away from Fox's model of willfully politicizing news. For the past years, MSNBC has been looking at fox's news share and deciding 'fine, we'll just be the liberal version of them.' The last thing American media needs is more abandonment of journalistic credibility in favor of Fox's model of "if you tell people stuff they want to agree with and make them feel right, they'll tune in more than if you tell them facts without bias, so let's feed them bias."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Sure. But the rule itself seems silly. If it's really as Samp said, that he was fired because his superiors don't like him... great! I don't like him. I think he's a pretty awful person, all things considered. I certainly hope he never finds work in media again. But the stated reason seems dumb. That MSNBC apparently has that as a rule, seems dumb.
Seriously? So if your employer has a rule that seems dumb, it's fine for you to violate it? And appalling if you get punished for doing so?
I guarantee you that if they had a conservative commentator and suspended him for making contributions to Republicans, you all would be all over it. "But he broke the rules! Damned conservatives just don't think rules apply to them!" A bunch of hypocrites, you are.
Huh? Are you... are you sure you meant to say this to me?
1: I'm not appalled in any way that Olbermann was fired. The only thing I find appalling in the situation is Olbermann himself. I wish he'd been fired months ago, before he could continuously smear the Tea Party all the way up until Election night.
2: I have no problem with companies having their own rules for their employers. I also have no problem with companies firing people for no cause at all. When I ran my own business it was in Arizona, a Right to Work state. I live in California right now, and I'm kinda thankful that here I'm just a drone at a company, because I could not stand jumping through the ridiculous hoops that seem to be in place in order to can someone around here.
3: That being said, I'm still commenting on this scenario. MSNBC is by far the least impartial news network on TV. So it seems absurd that they have this rule. If anything, using this as the reason seems like MSNBC trying to pretend towards impartiality, when the reality is that Olbermann is, by insider accounts, just as much of an insufferable blowhard off camera as he is on. He probably pissed off his superiors. Add to this the fact that his miserable hyperbole and obsessive campaign of hatred against the Tea Party has resulted in flagging ratings, and I imagine they decided he was no longer worth the headache of putting up with him.
I agree with you that the Juan Williams situation is totally different. That's more of an injustice, and less of an eye-rolling, chuckle inducing absurdity.
So, anyway, Lisa... how exactly am I a hypocrite here?
I wasn't referring to you in specific. Hence the plurals. But I am so sick of the hypocrisy around here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. But Juan Williams didn't break any rules.
Wrong — he had been violating NPR's ethics code.
quote:The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. But Juan Williams didn't break any rules.
Wrong — he had been violating NPR's ethics code.
quote:The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot.
quote:8. NPR journalists may not speak to groups where the appearance might put in question NPR's impartiality. Such instances include situations where the employee's appearance may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization. This would include participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring group(s) or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue or issues and NPR journalist's participation might put into question NPR's impartiality.
quote:10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. But Juan Williams didn't break any rules.
Wrong — he had been violating NPR's ethics code.
quote:The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot.
quote:8. NPR journalists may not speak to groups where the appearance might put in question NPR's impartiality. Such instances include situations where the employee's appearance may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization. This would include participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring group(s) or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue or issues and NPR journalist's participation might put into question NPR's impartiality.
quote:10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.
I think she means: 'I choose not to see any violation here'
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist"
now, someone could make the case that juan william's multiple statements (the final straw comment as well as the ones preceding it which had hm on thin ice anyway) are 'views they would air' as an NPR journalist, but that's pretty easy to knock down.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MSNBC prefers it's employees make political contributions, "On the Air".
What would be the dollar value of a Democratic Party Infomercial on MSNBC?
What's the dollar value of Oblerman's entire show?
They can "appear neutral" with this move. Great PR move. Maybe they'll get some viewers back.
Personally, I think a private citizen's employment shouldn't be impacted by one's political affilliation or activities. NPR is irrellevent to MSNBC or Fox. NPR is tax payer funded and should be neutral....although. Maybe by 2015 the conservatives will be in control and NPR can be their government funded propoganda news agency, firing everyone who's a left leaning moderate. I hope not. Remove all government funding. Let people choose what to watch.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
It was a PR move, in a vain attempt to pull back some of the viewers that defected to Fox. It seems, MSNBC is quicker to "PLAY" the middle than Obama. A few sucker viewers will return to MSNBC because this PR move will give them some "Hope" for "Change" at MSNBC.
MSNBC is considered more biased than Fox, and it's ratings show it. They did this stunt to "prove" their neutrality.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This seems incredibly dumb to me. Did anybody think Olbermann was an impartial "reporter" prior to this information? Really? Really?
I don't get the uproar. When you work for a place that has rules, you follow the rules or you work somewhere else. How hard is that? Olbermann knew the rules and broke the rules and got suspended. BFD.
Sure. But the rule itself seems silly. If it's really as Samp said, that he was fired because his superiors don't like him... great! I don't like him. I think he's a pretty awful person, all things considered. I certainly hope he never finds work in media again. But the stated reason seems dumb. That MSNBC apparently has that as a rule, seems dumb.
Seriously? So if your employer has a rule that seems dumb, it's fine for you to violate it? And appalling if you get punished for doing so?
I guarantee you that if they had a conservative commentator and suspended him for making contributions to Republicans, you all would be all over it. "But he broke the rules! Damned conservatives just don't think rules apply to them!" A bunch of hypocrites, you are.
Huh? Are you... are you sure you meant to say this to me?
1: I'm not appalled in any way that Olbermann was fired. The only thing I find appalling in the situation is Olbermann himself. I wish he'd been fired months ago, before he could continuously smear the Tea Party all the way up until Election night.
2: I have no problem with companies having their own rules for their employers. I also have no problem with companies firing people for no cause at all. When I ran my own business it was in Arizona, a Right to Work state. I live in California right now, and I'm kinda thankful that here I'm just a drone at a company, because I could not stand jumping through the ridiculous hoops that seem to be in place in order to can someone around here.
3: That being said, I'm still commenting on this scenario. MSNBC is by far the least impartial news network on TV. So it seems absurd that they have this rule. If anything, using this as the reason seems like MSNBC trying to pretend towards impartiality, when the reality is that Olbermann is, by insider accounts, just as much of an insufferable blowhard off camera as he is on. He probably pissed off his superiors. Add to this the fact that his miserable hyperbole and obsessive campaign of hatred against the Tea Party has resulted in flagging ratings, and I imagine they decided he was no longer worth the headache of putting up with him.
I agree with you that the Juan Williams situation is totally different. That's more of an injustice, and less of an eye-rolling, chuckle inducing absurdity.
So, anyway, Lisa... how exactly am I a hypocrite here?
I wasn't referring to you in specific. Hence the plurals. But I am so sick of the hypocrisy around here.
In both cases you quoted me specifically, so it seemed as though you were targeting me as an example of what you were saying. I don't think I am. In part or in full. Do you? Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
But you're malanthrop, so there's little sense in spending too much energy trying to correct you; just putting that out there.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: EDIT: quit quote-vortexing you nooblords
FOR MALANTHROP:
This was not a PR move.
The supposed motive is also nonsensical.
This has already been explained.
But you're malanthrop, so there's little sense in spending too much energy trying to correct you; just putting that out there.
Ok...sorry. It was just a temporary suspension...about a day.
Maybe MSNBC will start demanding neutrality, on the air. Seriously. They're an evil corporation too. When push comes to shove, ratings matter.....unless you're NPR.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: now, someone could make the case that juan william's multiple statements (the final straw comment as well as the ones preceding it which had hm on thin ice anyway) are 'views they would air' as an NPR journalist, but that's pretty easy to knock down.
How is that easy to knock down?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, he will be back on the air tomorrow night. I don't know why some of you thought he was fired. He was put on suspension without pay.
I really don't have a problem with him making political contributions. I don't think it is NBC's business to be honest. If he wants to contribute, he has every right to. It isn't as if he was going on the air telling everyone who he contributed to and urging people to do the same.
That being said, rules are rules. Something tells me Olberman threatened legal action of some sort so they decided to keep him around.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: now, someone could make the case that juan william's multiple statements (the final straw comment as well as the ones preceding it which had hm on thin ice anyway) are 'views they would air' as an NPR journalist, but that's pretty easy to knock down.
How is that easy to knock down?
I'd look at this part:
quote:"Respect" means treating the people we cover and our audience with respect by approaching subjects in an open-minded, sensitive and civil way and by recognizing the diversity of the country and world on which we report, and the diversity of interests, attitudes and experiences of our audience.
It seems that the comment by Juan Williams was not respectful of those who wear traditional Muslim clothing. Or you could use this:
quote: "Unbiased" means that we separate our personal opinions - such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology - from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas.
Mr. Williams expressed a personal opinion about Muslims wearing traditional clothing that is evidence of bias. He did this on Fox News, which "counts" just like saying it on NPR because of the section earlier quoted by Samp.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucky you: NPR does not claim to be free of bias, and its ombudsmans regularly track how much bias ends up in the end programs in reports. What it makes a claim to is a functional desire to minimize bias and to strive towards impartiality. It largely succeeds at this. But even if it were completely impartial, conservatives would consistently view it as having a left-wing bias. Guaranteed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's back? How disappointing. I thought he was fired. I guess I should have actually read the article, but I didn't really want to devote that much time towards thinking about the guy.
As silly as I thought the firing was, it's still much more depressing to know he's back.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
