-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Well, the news certainly does move fast in the Internet era! Indeed, no sooner had I posted couple of pieces (at both the Daily Caller and FrumForum) arguing that conservatives should support Keith Olberman’s right to free speech, than MSNBC president Phil Griffin announced (today) that Olbermann will back on the air Tuesday night.
“After several days of deliberation and discussion,” Griffin wrote in an emailed statement obtained by the Huffington Post,
I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.
As you can surmise from my posts, I’m glad that Griffin has done the right thing and reinstated Olbermann. However, Griffin and his NBC management colleagues still have a lot of explaining to do.
• First, does NBC still prohibit its journalists from donating to political campaigns and to political candidates?
That policy makes little sense, I argue, given a free and open journalistic market in which journalists can be judged — and, in fact, are judged — by their work product and work performance. And it makes even less sense at an avowedly partisan and ideological network like MSNBC.
• Second, even if NBC still prohibits its journalists from donating to political campaigns and to political candidates, does this proscription apply to commentators like Olbermann?
Commentators, after all, are paid to have an express point of view; and they are paid, oftentimes, to make partisan, ideological attacks. What sense does it make, then, to prohibit a commentator from putting his money where his mouth and his opinions are?
• Third, was this policy ever applied to Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, both of whom, it has been reported, gave money to political candidates during the 2010 election cycle, even as they opined about politics while in the employ of MSNBC?
Moreover, did Scarborough and Buchanan report their political campaign donations to NBC; as required; and did NBC approve of these campaign donations? Inquiring minds want to know. Certainly, the public has a right to know! :) Hell, I’d like to know; and I hardly think that I’m alone here!
For these reasons, and to answer these questions, Phil Griffin should, I think, hold a 90-minute press conference.
Come clean, Mr. Griffin. Let the public know what NBC News’ supposed journalistic standards are, the rationale for these standards, and whether these standards are applied fairly and uniformly throughout the network.
The public has a right to know.
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/07/nbc-news-phil-griffin-still-ha
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Espersen| 11.8.10 @ 12:14AM
John, the answers to these questions have been public record the day Olbermann's suspension was announced.
"While NBC News policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....79586.html
Booger | 11.8.10 @ 6:23AM
From the desk of Keith Olbermann:
To: Rupert Murdoch
Re: Employment Wanted
Dear Mr. Murdoch,
As I am sure you are aware, I was fired by the back-stabbing weasels at MSNBC the other day. Phil Griffin, who is the worst person in the world and a secret tea-bagger, has denied me my first amendment rights to support the candidate of my choice. After being betrayed in this manner, I recalled your recent hiring of the racist Uncle Tom Juan Williams after his being fired by NPR. NPR was, quite frankly, justified in firing Juan since he made his Islamophobia known in his on-air comments, not for anything he did in his undoubtedly execrable private life. Since you have provided that pathetic bigot, who is the worst person in the world, with a sizable contract, I believe it stands to reason that you should offer an even bigger contract to me, as I have never been disciplined for any on-air comments; rather I was fired for supporting the non-bigot, non-homophobe, non-racist, non-misogynist candidates in various races, which is my perfect Constitutional right.
Mr. Murdoch, you claim to be fair and balanced. Well, here's your chance to prove it. You give airtime and perfectly good money to that racist, bigoted, puppy-beating maniac Bill O'Reilly, who is without a doubt the worst person in the world. You give a perfectly good time slot to that nut job alcoholic Glen Beck, who's a freaking Mormon for crying out loud. You know he's probably got twenty-six wives, right? Besides that he's the worst person in the world. And then that ignoramus Hannity takes up airtime in prime time. I mean seriously? He's a freaking ex-construction worker, not an ivy-league trained broadcaster like me. He probably beats his wife and kids and has four or five girlfriends on the side, besides which he's a well known racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynist, tea-bagging freak who is the absolute worst person in the world. And you put him in prime time!
Listen, Rupert, if you're going to claim to be fair and balanced then you HAVE to give me a contract. Look at this lineup of KKK nut jobs and Uncle Toms you have right now. Where's the balance? Who do you have right now who will call those tea-bagging traitors who oppose our Great President out for the racists they really are? Who do you have who will call Rush Limbaugh, that fat, drug-addicted, racist, woman-hating, America-hating douchebag out for what he really is, the worst person in the world? Who do you have there with the guts to punch that frigid stick-figure Ann Coulter right in her filthy mouth if she shows up at the studio? Who do you have who's willing to throw a vial of acid right in Greg Guttman's filthy, fat face so he can figure out what red eyes are really all about? Nobody, that's who, so how can you call yourself fair and balanced?
Let's face it, if you don't hire me then you can't call yourself fair and balanced anymore. All you can call yourself is a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, baby-eating freak. I'll sue you if you don't hire me and keep saying you're fair and balanced. I'll tell everyone that you're the worst person in the world, and they'll listen to me. They'll always listen to me. Everyone always listens to me. I'll MAKE them listen to me. I'll MAKE you listen to me you sexist, imperialist, war-monger dog. HIRE ME NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!
I look forward to meeting with you soon to discuss terms of my contract and taking over Hannity's time slot.
Sincerely,
Keith Olbermann, the Best Person in the World
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
John Guardiano| 11.8.10 @ 12:26AM
Espersen,
I wish it were that simple. I'm afraid you haven't been staying abreast of this issue.
It is by no means clear that that policy was designed to apply to commentators like Olbermann; and it is by no means clear that the policy was applied uniformly throughout the network.
Read beyond the headlines and beyond the spin.
Regards,
John
Brubaker| 11.8.10 @ 9:01AM
Although the policy may not have been "designed to apply to commentators," it did not explicitly exclude them and, therefore, de facto, did apply.
If Olbermann has a problem with his employer's policies, he should look elsewhere for employment.
Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 1:04AM
Let's Stop The "I Can't Be Wrong" Tap Dancin' Sport.
The Operative Words Are:
"it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so."
John Guardiano| 11.8.10 @ 1:24AM
Tim,
Let's stop the "I can't read and comprehend what's at issue here" tap dancing sport! : )
The operative questions remain: what, exactly, are NBC News' standards and policies; what is the rationale for these standards and policies; for whom, precisely, are those policies and standards designed ; to whom do these standards and policies apply (and why); and how, in practice, have these standards and policies been applied -- or not applied?
These are the questions for which we need serious and substantive answers -- not glib one-line talking points with which you seem content.
Regards,
John
Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 3:07AM
Very correct, John. Wait 'til Tim starts Capping at you.
Essentially, did he violate journalistic integrity. Well, yes; but the boys at MSNBC have none to begin with.
Warrior | 11.8.10 @ 9:42AM
I believe the real question is, does any of the 14 MSNBC viewers really care? This loser of a cable channel has gotten a lot of publicity over a commentator that very few watch and even less take seriously.
John| 11.9.10 @ 12:04PM
Your screen name,says a lot about you,so
all I can say about you,are IGNORANCE IS TO
BE PITIED,AND I WILL NOT LAUGH-NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT BEING STUPID AND NOT KNOWING IT!
Tim*| 11.8.10 @ 10:17AM
Duuuuuhhh !
NBC and MSNBC TV require permission of the president of NBC News. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Microsoft.)
"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."
Espersen| 11.8.10 @ 6:59PM
John, Tim is correct.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19178161/
There are times when you should correct other people when they don't have all of the facts. And then there's now.
Sarah| 11.8.10 @ 1:45AM
I'm with Tim. Their policy is outlined and he shouldn't have any special treatment. Neither should Joe or Buchanan if they didn't follow policy but it was reported last week that they both reported and received clearance for their donations. But the issue is not a compare and contrast. It is an isolated incident and should be treated as such. He should serve his suspension.
Are you kidding me? A facebook group to 'Save Keith'?! People who are starving need saving. People caught in natural disasters need saving. Children subject to rape and incest and disease need saving. Keith Olbermann did not need saving.
Never mind that what passes for 'news' on MSNBC is just as biased as FOX and they've all degraded themselves to what amounts to a playground rivalry - except it's on air and we're subjected to watch it. I say wipe the slate clean on both networks. Get rid of Beck, Maddow, the whole bunch. It's a shame he is being reinstated as now we won't get enough of a break from listening to him.
John Guardiano| 11.8.10 @ 2:10AM
Sarah,
I find it disconcerting that you apparently are willing to countenance corporate censorship of journalists simply because there may be a corporate newsroom "policy" that excuses this censorship.
What about asking whether corporate censorship is even right or wise to begin with?
Also, the NBC News rules that you reference may be more murky and ambiguous than you suggest — especially given how these rules might have been applied and enforced in practice. NBC News needs to be more forthcoming and to explain itself.
Finally, if you don't like what they're serving up on Fox, MSNBC, or any other channel for that matter, then don't watch these channels!
It's a free country. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to watch Fox or MSNBC. After all, as you well know, there are many other choices available to you.
Regards,
John
Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 3:09AM
My only disagreement, John, may be that if Keith signed a contract with those rules in place, then he has a contractural obligation to abide by those rules, or challenge them in court.
That being said, the rules may be nonsensical, and I think they are. Keith is a turd, but what he does outside of work should be his own business.
Warrior | 11.8.10 @ 9:43AM
Keith is a liberal so rules don't apply and facts are just little annoying things to avoid.
Bob K.| 11.8.10 @ 11:20AM
There is always corporate censorship of it's employees whether they are "journalists" or not and it is particulary visible when it is exercised by a news media outlet as it is here. What is going on here is simply a reminder to Olberman of who is boss and who is employee with a subtle unspoken reminder that there are such things as "gross insubordination" and "petty insubordination," the latter being apparently how management is treating this issue or Olberman would not be returning to work. (I'll bet he is not getting his back pay for the days he was suspended.)
You can't hide behind the 1st amendment on these issues. Owners of media outlets may keep their employees on a longer and looser leash than other industries do but they are on a leash never the less.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.8.10 @ 5:44AM
No one missed Keith Olbermann during his suspension. Fewer and fewer people watch his nutty out of control behavior.
It's quite possible the whole thing was a set up to boost his lagging ratings. The whole NBC/MSNBC/CNBC is nothing but a state run media operation, as evidence by their nickname National Barack Channel.
There are many more serious issues then the Jerry Springer types on TV. Keith Oblermann's last ounce of respect was gone long ago.
Since the channel is run by liberals their reaction to Keith Olbermann is understandable. Nothing liberals do make any sense.
J Kelley| 11.8.10 @ 7:23AM
MSNBC was reacting to an outcry over their election night coverage. Not many people watched, by the way. To have four Liberals badger the Republican winners was over the top. MSNBC made a business decision to target the Fringe Left . This is at most 20% of US population. This does not seem to be a good business model. But who am I, just an uninformed bitter clinger.
AJsDaddie| 11.8.10 @ 8:40AM
First amendment? Hardly. It's either in the contract or it isn't. If it is, he loses. If it isn't, he sues. Those are the options.
In fact if this were legitimate the only outcome that wouldn't make sense is what is actually happening: a huge kerfuffle and immediate retraction, but KO doesn't sue for the twenty grand a day he got dinged. It doesn't pass the smell test.
My good friend Sammie the Fish says smart money is laying 1-3 that this was a publicity stunt. And also that MSNBC is sending you a nice fruit basket for giving them the free PR, John.
George S| 11.8.10 @ 11:55AM
I would guess that all police departments have a policy against offices wearing a swastika armband over their uniform. Is this a violation of an officer's first amendment right to express himself? By the letter of the first amendment, yes. By public policy, no. Yet, that officer would certainly have the right to place a mourning band over is badge or an American flag pin on his collar. Policies are applied with the integrity of the profession in mind, not censorship... if MSNBC has a policy that's designed to protect their *cough* credibility, it's certainly within the law to allow them to ban reporters from mixing it up with politicians.
ALERT ALERT FAUX POSTERS CARE| 11.9.10 @ 6:29AM
Foe all you that say you don't watch the show or care about the guy - you sure waste a lot of time posting comments about it. Looks like Kieth touched a little nerve in you faux junkies, HA! How do I know you are faux junkies? Because the article written was too hard for you to understand. Now, why don't you run back to faux's posting headquarters and call it a night. You all must be so tired from posting how you don't care because he gets no attention anyway.
ALERT ALERT FAUX POSTERS CARE| 11.9.10 @ 6:33AM
Especially YOU Booger....Looks like you were really committed by that LOOOONG post. I mean who would waste their time making a post like that over a person that no one watches...lol
Sam| 11.18.10 @ 3:37AM
The wording of the policy isn't murky, but whom it applies to has been. For example, it still doesn't apply to reporters at CNBC, and for a long time MSNBC was likewise exempted. Then in 2007 the network decided to put it into effect at MSNBC -- so if you had been working there during the years when it wasn't, you might still think it wasn't. I suspect the news dept had to surrender this time because they neglected to take the necessary step to alert everyone -- old and new employees alike -- of the 2007 policy change. That failure on their part would have been significant in a lawsuit. The question is, have they taken the lesson to heart-- or will we someday hear of someone at CNBC being suspended because they decided to put the rule in effect over there, and once again left it to employees to discover the fact by accident?