Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BSmith1068, Nov 5, 2010.
What to make of this? Is this suspension justified in your opinion?
Personally, I don't like the very idea of out of staters being able to donate to someone that won't be representing them anyway.
If the money was out of his own pocket then I don't see how this is justified. I don't know though does anyone know the exact details?
(Edit: I read that there is some rule that 2400 dollars is the maximum donor that one can give out of pocket. That seems pretty ridiculous when you figure it is an individual and not a special interest group or a company)
I don't like the idea of private donations to campaigns period.
Yep. $2,400 to each of the three candidates (says so in the article)
My thoughts exactly. It’s not like he is some paragon of non-bias. He is a commentator that has a point of view. Not exactly surprising that he may want to contribute to some campaigns, and I don’t think it really undermines the credibility of MSNBC in any way for him to do so.
My other first thought was – I wonder how much the FOX guys contributed! FOX probably doesn’t have this rule on the books though!
Too bad hes liberal, so he doesn't have a backup plan to get hired by Fox News where journalistic ethics have no meaning.
Won't be surprised to see a lot of conservative hypocrisy coming out of this news story.
Seems an odd rule that employees have to get permission from their bosses before they can donate to political campaigns.
And yes, I also agree you should not be able to donate outside your own representation - same rule ahould apply to PACs.
Facts, unfortunately, don't sell. Sensationalism does.
This is odd. I would have thought the entire network counted as a donation to Democratic election campaigns.
Not for a journalist, who is supposed to be impartial. The cable networks like to pretend their pundits are journalists and pretend to hold them to journalistic ethics standards, even when its obvious who they support.
“Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.”
Olbermanns problem isn't that he donated, its that his donations were not approved by MSNBC bosses.
I don't watch much TV. When I did have satellite, I rarely watched Countdown. I still don't get why people like partisan talk shows so much. Why not just view regular news and make up your own mind about things instead?
This is shocking. Fox would never allow this.
Hannity has better ratings though.
Of course he does. He's better at the loud idiot game than Olbermann, if only by a hair.
I never claimed to like Olbermann or his pundit program.
I'm just saying what protects him along with the fact that I don't think Fox pretends Sean and Bill are journalists.
Like when Prop. 8 was getting donations from Utah? Or the countless corporations that can now donate wherever they want?
If so, I agree entirely.
That said, NBC did have this in his contract. He IS in breach of contract, regardless of the fact that I agree with him more than any other commentator.
Interesting. At least NBC plays by its own rules and doesn't make crap up.
I think it's insulting to Bill O'Reilly to lump him in with the likes of Hannity and Beck. Bill O'Reilly may be WRONG, but Hannity is an idiot, and Beck is just plain nuts.
This is a rather key distinction. After 8 PM, Fox doesn't claim what you're watching is journalism. In fact, I think at least Bill is quite honest with the fact he's not a journalist. They have no obligation to present unbiased material if the programming is op-ed.
Separate names with a comma.