FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Smelodies on October 31, 2010, 07:00:20 PM
-
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
It wasn't a big shark but Jon Stewart jumped one just now with the "everybody on Thr cable is the same" naiveté
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@ @littleleaf2 when did I say I loved Jon?
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
Last comment then I'll drop this:Whatever the losses are Tuesday,will they be because Liberals were too LOUD or because they were too timid?
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@ @editorkvan don't you find it a little disingenuous to have a chorus singing "Go F Yourself" to Fox &then accuse others of going over-top?
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@ @anticjet and he preceded what he said at the end by saying it was serious and sincere. You can't have it both ways.
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@ @chuckb1999 but he doesn't distribute it equally. It's nonsensical to say so, or that each side deserves it equally -his claim today
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@ @doughtywench he did not hurt my feelings. I thought his message, on the eve of an election full of Tea Psychos, was terribly timed
*****
Matthews too:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/chris-matthews-snaps-at-arianna-huffington-for-suggesting-huffpo-is-better-than-everybody-else/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/chris-matthews-snaps-at-arianna-huffington-for-suggesting-huffpo-is-better-than-everybody-else/)
-
I'll take Stewart over Olbermann any day, but I have to agree with Glen Greenwald on this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart)
I have a fairly high wall separating my sense of humor from my politics, however.
-
I actually agree with Olbermann's tweet #2 (counting from the bottom up)--JS bent over way backward to say "both sides do it"--and sort of agree with #1--This weekend of all weekends, people's efforts probably could have been better spent getting out the vote. My answer to his #4 is "no," to #5, "too timid," and to #7, "Who cares, you're a big boy, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it."
Chris Matthews, on the other hand, is just plain nuts.
I hope my input has been helpful in resolving this matter.
-
I'll take Stewart over Olbermann any day, but I have to agree with Glen Greenwald on this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart)
I have a fairly high wall separating my sense of humor from my politics, however.
I see the article the Salon one links to says, "On the right, Stewart rejected those who question Obama's citizenship and patriotism and, on the left, he knocked those who called President George W. Bush a war criminal."
When did Stewart directly address "George Bush: war criminal"? Don't remember that at all.
-
I wouldn't say that both sides are equivalent, but I would say that all of the cable news channels are equivalent wastes of time. Rather than watching Olbermann, you could be posting on a messageboard, for instance.
-
I actually agree with Olbermann's tweet #2 (counting from the bottom up)--JS bent over way backward to say "both sides do it"--and sort of agree with #1--This weekend of all weekends, people's efforts probably could have been better spent getting out the vote. My answer to his #4 is "no," to #5, "too timid," and to #7, "Who cares, you're a big boy, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it."
I didn't include Keith's vast retweets on the subject. He definitely retweeted more virulent stuff about Sanity/Fear.
I'm still having difficulty with Twitter terminology.
Stephen Colbert has Twatted on the Today Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4EoN4nr5FQ#)
-
I wouldn't say that both sides are equivalent, but I would say that all of the cable news channels are equivalent wastes of time. Rather than watching Olbermann, you could be posting on a messageboard, for instance.
I rarely watch Olbermann, but I think there's a reason to Monday. ;)
-
Ah, here's where we differ, Grote.
I have a fairly low wall separating my sense of humor from my politics, however
-
I'll take Stewart over Olbermann any day, but I have to agree with Glen Greenwald on this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart)
I have a fairly high wall separating my sense of humor from my politics, however.
I see the article the Salon one links to says, "On the right, Stewart rejected those who question Obama's citizenship and patriotism and, on the left, he knocked those who called President George W. Bush a war criminal."
When did Stewart directly address "George Bush: war criminal"? Don't remember that at all.
Wouldn't be the first time Greenwald made shit up. That guy seems like the kind of guy who will flip out over a slight and start playing for the other team someday. But I agree with him on this one. Stewart should have been organizing people to defeat the Republicans instead of scolding everybody for not playing nice.
-
I think Olbermann is being a little vain here. Does he expect Stewart to say "cable news is horrible, except Maddow and Olbermann"? Kind of dilutes the message. Olbermann ought to be sure enough of himself to know if he's better than the other idiots or not.
-
I wouldn't say that both sides are equivalent, but I would say that all of the cable news channels are equivalent wastes of time.
THERE ya go.
-
I think Olbermann is being a little vain here. Does he expect Stewart to say "cable news is horrible, except Maddow and Olbermann"? Kind of dilutes the message. Olbermann ought to be sure enough of himself to know if he's better than the other idiots or not.
Good point. When Stewart took down Crossfire, he didn't just blast Tucker Carlson; Paul Begala was called a partisan hack as well. Keith should have seen this coming on Saturday. (Not to speak of the swipes months ago.)
-
I don't know if Stewart really thinks his fan base consists of a vast swarth of centrists and moderates rather than lefties, but if that were the case he might have made it as a network talk show host. He and Obama are similar in that they both seem to be willing to throw the groups that got them where they are under the bus to reach some toothless "consensus."
-
I think Olbermann is being a little vain here
-
I don't know if Stewart really thinks his fan base consists of a vast swarth of centrists and moderates rather than lefties, but if that were the case he might have made it as a network talk show host. He and Obama are similar in that they both seem to be willing to throw the groups that got them where they are under the bus to reach some toothless "consensus."
That's about what Olbermann said!
In any case, Maddow surely separated herself from Keith. She said, I have two things to say, a. I loved it and b. I loved it.
-
BTW, did anyone else go to this? I arrived at noon and ended up not being able to see anything and barely being able to hear (which was more a blessing during some of the musical performances). Neither the organizers nor the city were prepared for the size of the crowd. There were repeated chants of "LOUDER" and "TURN IT UP" in my section and the crowd eventually turned their attention to cheering people who were climbing trees. The Metro more than lived up to their reputation for uselesness by scheduling their usual weekend track work and staggered arrival times. I got on at Silver Spring and there was pretty much no more room for more than a few people at any red line station after that. The crowds that I saw behaved pretty well although there was at least one topless, heavily pierced chick who Andrew Breitbart and Megyn Kelly would have loved to make famous.
Overall, I would have been much happier just watching it online but on the other hand would have kicked myself for not showing up.
-
The crowds that I saw behaved pretty well although there was at least one topless, heavily pierced chick who Andrew Breitbart and Megyn Kelly would have loved to make famous.
Dude, that was my sister.
-
When did Stewart directly address "George Bush: war criminal"? Don't remember that at all.
Wouldn't be the first time Greenwald made shit up.
On September 16, 2010 when he announced the rally.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/rally-to-restore-sanity (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/rally-to-restore-sanity)
Sorry!
-
It seems that reasonable discourse has no place on broadcast television anymore. The airwaves have been polluted by bomb throwers on both the right and the left. In this respect, Olbermann and Ed Schultz deserve just as much blame as O'Reilly and Hannity do.
A pox on both their houses.
-
When did Stewart directly address "George Bush: war criminal"? Don't remember that at all.
Wouldn't be the first time Greenwald made shit up.
On September 16, 2010 when he announced the rally.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/rally-to-restore-sanity (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/rally-to-restore-sanity)
Sorry!
Never mentioned Bush being a war criminal allegation. Did say Obama and Bush were both called Hitler.
-
A pox on both their houses.
And, especially, on the 24/7 news cycle.
-
A pox on both their houses.
And, especially, on the 24/7 news cycle.
What would The Daily Show be without it?
-
I would happily sacrifice that baby if the filthy bathwater went with it.
-
BTW, did anyone else go to this? I arrived at noon and ended up not being able to see anything and barely being able to hear (which was more a blessing during some of the musical performances). Neither the organizers nor the city were prepared for the size of the crowd. There were repeated chants of "LOUDER" and "TURN IT UP" in my section and the crowd eventually turned their attention to cheering people who were climbing trees. The Metro more than lived up to their reputation for uselesness by scheduling their usual weekend track work and staggered arrival times. I got on at Silver Spring and there was pretty much no more room for more than a few people at any red line station after that. The crowds that I saw behaved pretty well although there was at least one topless, heavily pierced chick who Andrew Breitbart and Megyn Kelly would have loved to make famous.
Overall, I would have been much happier just watching it online but on the other hand would have kicked myself for not showing up.
I rode my bike over, and was not able to see/hear a thing. I left in about a half hour. There were some signs. I can now say I've been to a rally.
I really wish I had gone to the tea party rally. I drove through some of the tea party-related traffic that day, driving up to Baltimore. Also, I continue to be upset that the "Don't Tread on Me" flags have been appropriated by the tea party, to the extent that I saw several parodies of them at the Stewart rally. I've had that flag hanging in my room since before there even was an Obama.
-
I think Keith Olbermann feels he is some modern version of Edward R Murrow. Perhaps if he really was, he would prove JS wrong by just doing his job. Lead by example. I watched the Rally on C-Span the following day, loved it(too bad it was just one camera the whole time, oh C-Span). The peace/crazy train battle between Cat Stevens and Ozzy was kinda fun to watch.
-
I think Olbermann should bring back his early-90's Sports Center mustache.
-
I'll take Stewart over Olbermann any day, but I have to agree with Glen Greenwald on this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart)
I have a fairly high wall separating my sense of humor from my politics, however.
I see the article the Salon one links to says, "On the right, Stewart rejected those who question Obama's citizenship and patriotism and, on the left, he knocked those who called President George W. Bush a war criminal."
When did Stewart directly address "George Bush: war criminal"? Don't remember that at all.
Wouldn't be the first time Greenwald made shit up. That guy seems like the kind of guy who will flip out over a slight and start playing for the other team someday. But I agree with him on this one. Stewart should have been organizing people to defeat the Republicans instead of scolding everybody for not playing nice.
I couldn't disagree with this more. The minute he actively campaigns, his perch gets jerked out from under him.
-
@NTC: what has Greenwald made up? Do you have any evidence of this?
-
I think Media Matters does a much better, funnier job of countering Fox than MSNBC.
But running clips of Fox, Limbaugh etc. all day wouldn't make for a cable channel, I guess.
-
@NTC: what has Greenwald made up? Do you have any evidence of this?
Greenwald's deal is that he imagines that anybody who disagrees with him (even people more liberal than he is) is a phony and sell-out. He acts like he's the only honest person in the world and everybody is just lying.
Everything he wrote about health care reform (and the public option especially) was bullshit. According to him Obama only did HCR because he's in the pocket of insurance companies. That's making shit up.
-
Keith wasn't especially catty, showed disappointment in Jon by shaking his head a few times, said MSNBC and Fox are not equivalent, and he's going to discontinue "Worst Persons."
-
This board leans a little left.
-
I don't even know what that means any more. Left by contemporary American standards? Tea Party standards? Left by the American standards of, say, the 70s, when substantial numbers of Republicans supported a guaranteed income, the ERA, and federally subsidized child care? Left by the Republican standards of the 90s, when Republicans supported a health care plan that mandated universal compliance as their alternative to Hillarycare? Left by the standards of the world's industrialized nations? Or just left by the standards set up by the corporate media after 45 years of browbeating by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of the superrich?
I don't know what "leaning left" means in contemporary America, but I'm pretty sure that taking exception to the current direction of the Republican party doesn't require much ideological fervor.
-
The American 'Left' would still be considered Moderate-Right anywhere else in the world.
-
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6531/foxfriendsguestlist.jpg)
-
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6531/foxfriendsguestlist.jpg)
I am still terrified by Skeletor.
-
I don't even know what that means any more. Left by contemporary American standards? Tea Party standards? Left by the American standards of, say, the 70s, when substantial numbers of Republicans supported a guaranteed income, the ERA, and federally subsidized child care? Left by the Republican standards of the 90s, when Republicans supported a health care plan that mandated universal compliance as their alternative to Hillarycare? Left by the standards of the world's industrialized nations? Or just left by the standards set up by the corporate media after 45 years of browbeating by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of the superrich?
I don't know what "leaning left" means in contemporary America, but I'm pretty sure that taking exception to the current direction of the Republican party doesn't require much ideological fervor.
I'm with you, Nudie.
I've never liked the simplistic notion of a straight horizontal line as a way of representing different political views. I imagine a circle with conservative/libertarians and liberal/anarchists meeting at the top and oppressive state control Fascist/Totalitarian communism meeting at the bottom.
The straight line doesn't allow for any connections to be made between the two sides.
I also recall a graph divided into quadrants that seemed more realistically representing the people I've gotten to know. I first saw this graph in Reason magazine a long time ago.
-
Left of center.
-
I don't even know what that means any more. Left by contemporary American standards? Tea Party standards? Left by the American standards of, say, the 70s, when substantial numbers of Republicans supported a guaranteed income, the ERA, and federally subsidized child care? Left by the Republican standards of the 90s, when Republicans supported a health care plan that mandated universal compliance as their alternative to Hillarycare? Left by the standards of the world's industrialized nations? Or just left by the standards set up by the corporate media after 45 years of browbeating by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of the superrich?
I don't know what "leaning left" means in contemporary America, but I'm pretty sure that taking exception to the current direction of the Republican party doesn't require much ideological fervor.
I'm with you, Nudie.
I've never liked the simplistic notion of a straight horizontal line as a way representing different political views. I imagine a circle with conservative/libertarians and liberal/anarchists meeting at the top and oppressive state control Fascist/Totalitarian communism meeting at the bottom.
The straight line doesn't allow for any connections to be made between the two sides.
I also recall a graph divided into quadrants that seemed more realistically representing the people I've gotten to know. I first saw this graph in Reason magazine a long time ago.
Right on, Fredericks. I teach a college history class and I always use a horseshoe-shaped graphic to represent political ideologies. Fascism and communism in theory are quite different and would fit as polar opposites on a straight line but in reality, the means used to exert fascist and communist control are very similar (though never completely meet).
I also agree with the idea of political labels as moving targets. I'm not sure how I would be characterized today and that is why I end up with a messy ballot.
-
I remember that graph. I scored lower lefthand corner.
-
@NTC: what has Greenwald made up? Do you have any evidence of this?
Greenwald's deal is that he imagines that anybody who disagrees with him (even people more liberal than he is) is a phony and sell-out. He acts like he's the only honest person in the world and everybody is just lying.
Everything he wrote about health care reform (and the public option especially) was bullshit. According to him Obama only did HCR because he's in the pocket of insurance companies. That's making shit up.
Yeah, except that it isn't. I find Greenwald insufferable at times, often for the reasons you mention, but he's never lied as far as I can tell. You could say that Obama was seeking a compromise with powerful corporations. Greenwald could say that he's in the pocket of the insurance industry. I would say (as has been borne out by my current experience trying to get health care for my family) that it's the Democrats' usual total fucking cluelessness and/or indifference as to how their policy changes actually affect people on the ground. All three of these interpretations are probably true to some degree or other. None of them involve making shit up.
-
Not all wingnuts are celebrating today. (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011030008)
-
"The Editors" at Esquire.com pinpointed pretty well where Stewart went wrong. I think:
The problem is not that we don't play nice enough with each other. The problem is that one side plays by its own rules in a universe of its own devising, with its own physical laws, its unique economics, and its own history and theology, and that universe is now devouring the real one.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/state-of-the-union-essay-110210 (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/state-of-the-union-essay-110210)
-
The unedited interview he had with Chris Wallace last night is really strong. He elaborates on his MSNBC dig, and he gets Wallace to concede Fox's double standard:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-3-2010/exclusive---chris-wallace-extended-interview (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-3-2010/exclusive---chris-wallace-extended-interview)
-
Yeah, he handled Wallace pretty well, but as is often the case when JS interviews a right-winger, I want to beat the smug fuck around the head and shoulders a lot harder than Stewart will allow himself to do. I understand he has to walk a fine line, it's just frustrating.
-
I want to beat the smug fuck around the head and shoulders a lot harder than Stewart will allow himself to do.
it's just frustrating.
Indeed!
-
So I've been following Keith Olbermann since I started this thread. Man, that dude's tweets are as ponderous, snarky, and self-attentive as you'd imagine. Can't believe he used to be that funny guy on SportsCenter.
Still, I prefer him to his enemies.
-
Still, I prefer him to his enemies.
That's the thing!
-
Still, I prefer him to his enemies.
That's the thing!
He may be a fool, but he's our fool
-
He's not a fool, just a bit full of himself.
-
He's a carnie, right?
-
A geek, I believe.
-
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6531/foxfriendsguestlist.jpg)
I am still terrified by Skeletor.
Would that be Ghouliani or Fiorina?
Personally I've always been more terrified by the resemblance between Mike Chertoff and Sam the Eagle from "The Muppet Show"...
-
Olbermann suspended indefinitely by MSBNC -
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-donated-to-three-dems-in-apparent-violation-of-nbc-policy/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-donated-to-three-dems-in-apparent-violation-of-nbc-policy/)
-
We would never have had a clue where Olbermann's sympathies lie if news of these scandalous donations had not come to light.
-
1) The network's policy sounds stupid.
2) If Olbermann knew about the policy, it sounds like he did something really stupid. Actually, even if he didn't--he should have found out.
3) Why is everybody so stupid?
-
I'm not sure why any network should have the right to limit personal political donations made by any employee of a news show ... whether that employee is ostensibly "neutral" or not.
In the case of Olbermann, MSNBC is paying him to be a very opinionated and very biased loudmouth. That's pretty much his job description. So this suspension seems particularly absurd in his case.
-
And evidently Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan donated to Republicans without any punishment. I'm not really an Olbermann fan, but the corporate media fucking sucks.
-
Really? Then how very ridiculous this is.
-
NBC is free to have its dumb little policies.
-
You have a right to donate to whomever (Sarah, correct usage?) you'd like, but that doesn't mean that MSNBC has to employ you. The Scarborough and Buchanan thing would only matter if they worked for MSNBC and had the same language in their contracts. Even then it may be up to the discretion of the employer if they enforced it? I could be completely wrong, but I think this is how it would be.
-
You have a right to donate to whomever (Sarah, correct usage?)
Yep.
It appears that Scarborough made his donations before the policy went into effect. And Buchanan could be exempt because he's a pundit-for-hire, not an employee. Still, considering the network got where it is today by having a particular political slant, it seems fairly silly to enjoin employees from making personal donations to candidates for fear that it will make them seem unobjective. In any case, once Politico reported on Olbermann's contributions, I would imagine MSNBC felt obliged to do something, since Fox would be baying for blood if nothing happened. That's not to say there might not be more nefarious motives behind the suspension, of course, but there need not be.
-
Saved me the trouble of unfollowing Keith. He "shut the hell up."
-
Sure, NBC can do whatever it wants. But the airwaves are public property, and still they're completely dominated by corporations that basically churn out their own agendas with minimal regulation. Same as the Wall Street bailout -- the banking system felt entitled to millions of taxpayer dollars (and for good reason, as there would have been another great depression if not for the bailout) but howled at the suggestion of any kind of new regulation, even if it would have been in their own long-term best interest. It's the usual thing -- all big companies believe in socialism for themselves, libertarianism for everyone else (or for themselves, when it's convenient). The same thing happened with health care, or with the various attempts to introduce public high-speed internet, as if profit was a god-given fucking right. And really, I wouldn't mind giving true libertarianism a try -- go ahead and let corporations do whatever they want, but pull the plug on all the subsidies and legal favoritism they get -- except that isn't possible, at least not in the US. This wouldn't bother me so much if, say, the broadcast media was more like internet, and you could tune in Democracy Now or Al-Jazeera alongside CNN, Fox, or the BBC.
Anyway, this is my problem with the argument that we have the right to free speech, but not the right to employment. Everyone needs a job, so this pretty much means that the only people with the right to free speech in actual practice are the independently wealthy and a few tenured professors. I don't give a shit about Olbermann personally, he'll be fine, but this pretty clearly sends a message about the acceptable range of discourse, whether it was intended to or not (from what I've read it had as much to do with office politics as any other kind of politics).
For the record, I don't think people should be fired or blacklisted for saying stupid racist things either.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/?p=128695 (http://thinkprogress.org/?p=128695)
This was done to appease to soon to be owners of NBC, Comcast. Headed by major fundraisers for Bush and the GOP, CEO Brian Roberts tacitly acknowledged that he would be open to interfering with the editorial content of MSNBC shows and with hosts like Keith Olbermann:
Comcast is in line to acquire control of NBC Universal, once regulators sign off on the $30 billion deal. Mr. Chernin asked Mr. Roberts how he planned to handle daily editorial control of such an immense news operation. “Are you saying that you’ll never interfere?” he asked. Mr. Roberts blanched slightly at the question, which included a hypothetical situation that had Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC host, attacking a couple of Republican congressmen just as the approvals were being finished. “Let’s have that conversation in six months or 12 months,” Mr. Roberts said.
-
Sign the petition to NBC
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?source=typ-fb&referring_akid=2628.214023.OTNSi- (http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?source=typ-fb&referring_akid=2628.214023.OTNSi-)
-
I agree that broadcasters should be help to a different standard than other private companies, given the billions of dollars of free spectrum that they get to use for free, that could be put to other use. They don't really value their over-the-air viewers, but wastefully beaming signals into cities gives them particular statutory rights, and the network system is a means for powerful local affiliates to get a piece of the pie, even if "NBC" would make more sense as a cable network at this point. I am also involved with trying to stop the merger or get serious conditions put on it. I think there are serious competition issues.
AND I think this is a dumb policy, for the reasons Sarah stated.
BUT I still don't see how a stated "our news guys can't make political donations" policy is outrageously bad. Stupid and ham-handed, sure. Especially given that *GE/NBC itself* already makes contributions.
If they fired one of their secretaries or editors, that would be a different matter, and that's where I start to agree more with Grote. But it's at least arguable that NBC has a valid interest in pretending to be "impartial" in its news coverage, however quaint that sounds today. They would have gotten serious shit if they had failed to enforce their already-existing policy.
-
This is funny:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-a-memorial-tri (http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-a-memorial-tri)
-
Olbermann to return Tuesday
November 07, 2010 10:23 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
MSNBC President Phil Griffin made the announcement tonight:
After several days of deliberation and discussion, 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.
MSNBC pulled Olbermann off the air on Friday after Politico reported the cable news host had donated $2,400 apiece to three Democrats and noted that "NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns."
The suspension though, drew bipartisan scorn.
-
Good.
-
A victory for Elder Menn everywhere.
-
Olbermann to return Tuesday
November 07, 2010 10:23 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
MSNBC President Phil Griffin made the announcement tonight:
After several days of deliberation and discussion, 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.
MSNBC pulled Olbermann off the air on Friday after Politico reported the cable news host had donated $2,400 apiece to three Democrats and noted that "NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns."
The suspension though, drew bipartisan scorn.
That is the best news I've read since Tom's return. Yaaay! The people have spoken. Now that I think of it, how awesome would it be having Tom hosting Countdown?
-
Tuesday is sure to be Keith's biggest ratings. One has to wonder...
-
Maybe the repeat episodes after the live Best Show.
-
Olbermann was never in any danger of being terminated, or even facing a long suspension. Ratings supersede all else. And, in that regard, Keith is MSNBC's breadwinner.
Personally, I don't have a problem with what he did. Olbermann is a political commentator, not a journalist. He isn't paid by MSNBC to disseminate facts. He's there to provide his own personal interpretation of current events. I expect Olbermann to be biased. As such, I don't believe that he should be held to the same standard that an actual journalist is expected to uphold.
-
Stewart's response last night to Olbermann's and Maher's rally criticism:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-8-2010/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-8-2010/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann)
-
Stewart's response last night to Olbermann's and Maher's rally criticism:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-8-2010/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-8-2010/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann)
Really weak. He might as well have just said "Point Maher."