Maddow on Olbermann's Firing, Fox's Utter Lack of Journalistic Ethics

Maybe The Beginning (0.00 / 0)

Canning KO is possibly the beginning of the purge of "liberals" on MSNBC. If they are willing to lose the show that made them and continues to keep MSNBC successful then they are willing to dump the rest, except for the Scarbourogh show, which I do not know if anyone watches anyhow.

The question is which of CBS or ABC decides to create a network around KO, Maddow and the other "liberals"? CBS already has LOGO which would be a perfect fit for Maddow, but that is usually a super-premium level channel.  ABC has it's channels too.

Whichever one does pull him in knows they have at least 1 Million viewers for one program, probably more if they can put the program on one of the basic cable level channels.

I had cable TV just to watch MSNBC for KO and Maddow.  No need for cable anymore. Although I went years watching only those two programs, and the local weather forecast, I had just started watching TV again. The Office and 30 Rock are funny shows on NBC, but I can give up those and return to not watching TV again. I get a good weather forecast on my cell phone.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

---

by: blue bronc @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 13:21:21 PM UTC

For what it's worth.... (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand the point of this post. It's equivalent to saying that torture in Guantanamo Bay is justified because Iran stones women. FOX and NBC are run by different people, and the good thing is that NBC decided to use its set of ethics, even if its competitor did not.  

---

by: Venu @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 13:32:30 PM UTC

Of course you do not understand the point of this post. (4.00 / 2)

Do you ever agree w/ us here?  Perhaps, if you do not "break it down for us," then we are lost, or "don't make sense." The political world changed this election cycle. What you are missing is that, thanks to SCOTUS, corporations can give unlimited monies to whomever they wish.  Indeed GE, the parent company, gave 2 million dollars this time. Given the free hand corporations have, it's ludicrous to suggest that a known liberal talk show host privately giving $2400 to each of three candidates should be an issue.  So it's millions to Republicans and squat for Dems?  One whole network has been turned into a GOP fund raising machine.  And one man cannot give a private donation?  Where is the fairness or legitimacy?  I don't care what the corporate "rules" are.  Given the new SCOTUS ruling, GE's restriction is clearly unconstitutional.  If you think not, then you are a supporter of plutocracy.

Racist Xenophobe and NBC "consultant" Pat Buchanan has given money.  "No problem" for GE.  Scarborough gave $$.  No problem.  GE let him.  What is the probability they would have "let Keith" if he asked?  Zero?  GE should not have the right to decide if KO can make a donation.  What, he's supposed to let them decide how he should vote too?  Two fo the folks he donated to in AZ were under seige by liars, racists, and xenophobes.  Grijalva had been so badly threatened by extremists that he received multiple death threats.  Frankly, I am proud and thankful that Keith donated to them.  Were you that honorable?  Was I?  No!  For me.  Probably not for you.  I should have given to Grijalva, but didn't.  I wish I had.  

Thanks to SCOTUS, this is no longer an issue. If we get buried in corporate cash, it's absurd--and corporatist in the most coercive and abusive sense--to suggest individuals employed by corporations cannot give to whomever without restriction by their manipulative bosses. I am also betting you think it is OK for Fox to do whatever it wishes.  And that would be bunk.

I'll bet you think an Ohio McDonald's franchisee could try to threaten workers into voting his way--or not get raises, etc.

Amazingly, thanks to folks like Jon Stewart, everyone believes MSNBC is on the same plane as FAUX anyway.  It's not, but that is a future blog post in progress by yours truly.  (I am sure you won't be reading it.)

The media, almost without exception, use GOP talking points in headlines.  No matter how progressive the organization.  Even Huffington Post does it. FAUX is in a league of its own.  And MSNBC in daytime persists in carrying water for the GOP too.  Just yesterday Thomas Roberts and a guest were trashing Nancy Pelosi.  She's done nothing polarizing.  But she is a woman and happens to live in SF, so that's "terrible."  The GOP turns her into a "witch" from The Wizard of OZ via an nasty ad campaign--and like magic, she is "polarizing."  She's a competent, smart woman who does her job well.  Honestly, Virginians and the rest of the nation have some growing up to do about regional bigotry and misogyny.

It is time to drop the sham of impartial reporters.  They aren't/never have been.  Not even at MSNBC.  Yeh, we get a few shows while the entire remainder of the corporate media sells GOP talking points; war without end; the elimination of health care; Social Security; defunding education, and (oh, yeh) more tax cuts for corporations.  And most of them have pumped up the likes of the half-governor (with the husband who worked her office for her) Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle, who would not have gotten anywhere without media fascination/obsession.  And so the two are still making headlines, even while they are both incompetent. Ridiculous, how the media behaves when a competent woman leads the House for the very first time.

Now, you could say we should have publicly financed elections.  But, somehow, I am betting you do not agree with that either.  Money is "speech," but only for corporations, isn't it (snark).

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 14:50:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In the above comment, instead of this (0.00 / 0)

"franchisee could," I should have said this: franchisee  should.  

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 15:02:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: For what it's worth... (0.00 / 0)

Maddow did not justify Olbermann's breaking of the campaign donation rule, but justified the rule itself by pointing out that MSNBC holds its people to the same journalistic standard to which NBC News personnel are bound. Incidentally, NBC is bound by FCC rules for broadcast networks in exchange for using the public airways. Even though they don't have to, NBC holds its MSNBC personnel to those rules.

Maddow strengthened her argument by contrasting the standards of practice (or lack thereof) of Fox News with that of MSNBC. She used that apparent lack of journalistic standards to set MSNBC apart from Fox News in terms of cable news. Her editorial was in part, a response to those who were justifying Olbermann's actions by citing the lack of journalistic standards on Fox News.

---

by: FranDavey @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 14:50:14 PM UTC

Maddow becomes a company girl (0.00 / 0)

She excuses Scarborough by saying that his contributions were in 2006 "under previous management."

Pure lameness.

As posted on Kos (another Phil Griffin exile from MSNBC to placate the redneck from Floriduh), Scarborough made a contribution to a GOPer THIS APRIL and spoke at a fundraiser.

If Griffin approved it without disclosure, where the hell is Griffin ethics now!

Come on Rachel stop shilling for Griffin.

---

by: martinlomasney @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 17:27:14 PM UTC

Agree w/ you on this martin (0.00 / 0)

I tuned in to Keith's show yesterday only long enough to see who scabbed it.  (Ugh!)  Then, I waited till the end of Maddow to tune into Rachel to see her comment about Keith.  What a disappointment.  It could  have been much stronger.  The networks never had the real right to say whether their employees can quietly support a candidate (or not) or vote for same.  The employees "didn't" supposedly have such a right only due to courts biased against individual rights and their pro-corporations-as-persons perversion of the Constitution.  

There should be disclosure of donations on any media outlet's website.  But the pretense of non-partisanship by other outlets is a sham. Nearly all the talking heads make millions and soon enough, with few exceptions, each one doesn't want to pay their fair share, want to kill useful and effective government programs and stick it to everyone else. They all begin to sound alike.  And they all quote GOP claims against Dems as if they are true.  They set up the case that Dems would lose eighteen months before the election and rode it all the way to Nov 2nd.  It was self- fulfilling prophesy and media's allowing TeaBaggers to essentially ride the wave of media attention right down to this week.  Some lost, but significant damage was done.  There's far too little fact checking and not enough honesty in the manner such "fact-checking" is done/reported. Much has been said about Dems failure to message.  That is true, but the media had a duty to correct the blatantly false information out there in the extant press.  No reporting there.  They just act as stenographers for the GOP.

(I am torn about boycotting Rachel because then they will only drop her (which they might anyway if the apparent future owner of MSNBC is allowed to proceed with the takeover merger) It's a conundrum.

 

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 17:47:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Numbers (0.00 / 0)

It's a numbers game. One or two people not watching is nothing. One or two people contacting advertisers and then getting thousands more to contact the advertisers does make change.  

But, it is not just MSNBC. It is GE, NBC and Microsoft which need to learn their advertisers are upset and pulling out. Also if KO says "bye" the question becomes where is he going? That channel knows it will pick up One Million plus viewers when the camera lights on KO.  That will get attention.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

---

by: blue bronc @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 19:26:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She excuses Scarborough's donations because he played by the rules (0.00 / 1)

"You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you 'OK', that's what I understand happened with our morning show host's political donations in 2006 under previous management. But if you don't ask in advance for an exemption from the rule, you are bound by the rule." - from the video thingy at the top of the page that will play you exactly what Maddow said so that you can't pull a fragment out of context in the way that Sean Hannity would.

So I disagree with your presumptions and conclusions.

---

by: FranDavey @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 21:16:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no evidence that Scarborough got advanced approval from Griffin for the 2010 donaton and speech (1.00 / 1)

Rachel didn't say so; neither has MSNBC and neither has Scarborough.

Comparing me with Hannity is obscene. For that you get a troll rating.

---

by: martinlomasney @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 22:13:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just quoted her from the video (0.00 / 0)

Rachel DID say so at minute 4:38:

"You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you 'OK', that's what I understand happened with our morning show host's political donations in 2006 under previous management."

Sorry if the Hannity reference got your back up. Reading it now, it does look really hostile. I meant it as "we're better than him" and I should have chosen my words a little better. I'm not a troll. I'm a fellow Virginian and a progressive liberal.

---

by: FranDavey @ Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 00:45:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry I thought you meant the 2006 thing (0.00 / 0)

NBC excused the 2006 contributions because he played by the rules. She doesn't mention the 2010 thing because perhaps it was never in question.  

---

by: FranDavey @ Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 00:55:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read Markos' article about Olbermann (0.00 / 0)

I can't find where Kos proves that the other MSNBC people he mentions did not follow the NBC rules regarding obtaining permission to make donations. His hyperlink prior to the Gaines quote doesn't lead to the source of the Gaines quote. So I am left to wonder who questioned NBC about Scarborough.

If Rachel says that it is her understanding that Scarborough obtained permission to make his donations in 2006, then I believe her. If corporate lied to her, then it is hardly her fault. If they didn't lie to her, then I would wonder why, if he played by the rules in 2006, he wouldn't do so in 2010.

Is anyone questioning if Ed Shultz (I'm a fan) got permission to participate in the Jobs Rally in DC? Or in the town halls he conducts? My point on this is that there is a system in place that allows for people to participate and contribute.

---

by: FranDavey @ Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 01:57:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]