Olbermann Suspended
Wow, if this doesn’t send a message, I don’t know what will. Keith Olbermann has been suspended by MSNBC indefinitely for the Democratic contributions scandal.
The New York Times’ Brian Stelter and Bill Carter’s writing seems to suggest that Olbermann’s MSNBC days are probably not done…
No one at NBC News, MSNBC’s parent, would speculate about what this might mean for Mr. Olbermann’s future, though two NBC executives privately suggested this was not a step toward firing him.
One executive said the network decided it was imperative to take this kind of strong action as a way of underscoring that MSNBC, while featuring prime-time shows that overly support Democratic policy, remains a channel that adheres to fundamental journalistic values.
Like on, um, election night? Can’t reconcile what happened on election night with that last sentence.
If this doesn’t finally force MSNBC to permanently ban its ideological talking heads from fronting political news scenarios whether it’s an election, a primary, inauguration, funeral, address to the nation…whatever you can think of…if it doesn’t finally put back that firewall it always talked about but rarely enforced then Olbermann’s suspension has no real meaning. Olbermann has now permanently made himself radioactive from anchoring any straight political news story ever again. And if MSNBC goes forward with Maddow, Schultz, or O’Donnell but leaves out Olbermann…or worse brings Olbermann back to the political anchor chair again, then it hasn’t learned anything.
Update: TVNewser’s Chris Ariens writes that insiders are saying Olbermann won’t be back. If that is the case I think it will be more because Olbermann doesn’t want to come back after being suspended than because MSNBC wouldn’t take him back. I think Phil Griffin would have a spine of steel if he ended Olbermann’s MSNBC career. It’s not impossible. I didn’t think Griffin would dump Shuster over what he dumped him over.
But It’s going to kill MSNBC to lose that 8pm lead in. I think we won’t be guessing on Olbermann’s status like we were with Shuster’s. They’ll have to move fast to preserve 8pm momentum. A bunch of fill ins will not do that job. If Olbermann is indeed done, I would expect to see Maddow slide forward an hour very quickly. I would also look to see whether Ed Schultz maybe moves to 9pm and/or Cenk Uygur gets hired full time.
MSNBC can ill afford to leave its lineup in disarray long term and than means one of two things: 1) bringing Olbermann back soon or 2) re-arranging the primetime lineup to avoid too much disruption.
November 5, 2010 at 2:06 pm
The exact same thing applies to Fox. Please direct me to a link to that post.
November 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm
*sigh* So, in truth, MSNBC should really invest some time in making the political and regular news anchors and reporters more well known and seen as top quality before we start seeing the 2012 primaries come around to make for stronger coverage, let alone for political coverage for these next two years?
November 5, 2010 at 2:14 pm
…if it doesn’t finally put back that firewall it always talked about but rarely enforced then Olbermann’s suspension has no real meaning.
They now have a big spotlight on them to prove it.
So will Fox as the left (see above) try to blur the issue which is, once again: Commentators being used as news anchors.
November 5, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Update: TVNewser’s Chris Ariens writes that insiders are saying Olbermann won’t be back. If that is the case I think it will be more because Olbermann doesn’t want to come back after being suspended
Told ya.
November 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm
@Joeremi Seriously. This just happened, and it may be a build up of some previous issues, but I can’t see MSNBC letting Keith just go. It’d be like Beck randomly leaving FOX, it just wouldn’t happen.
November 5, 2010 at 2:18 pm
^ It would take divine intervention for Keith to shut up and wait it out. His schtick is to blow up and bail. It’s what he does.
November 5, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I know Olbermann has two years left on his contract. Would this breach of NBC news policy enable them to let him go without paying the remaining millions?
It’s hard to see them letting him walk out of the building if they must continue to pay him the network’s fattest salary.
November 5, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Good question, JWE. I think they do have an out. In Shuster’s case, he didn’t break a written agreement, he just pissed them off. KO broke the rules, which I think constitutes that “bringing ill repute upon the company” clause we’ve talked about.
November 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm
I still can’t believe that he gets suspended & possibly fired over this after some of the things he’s said in the past. Most notably his insane rant about a moderate (Scott Brown), plus Malkin, telling the POTUS to shut the he!! up, etc.
There was a class in high school where I was a bit disruptive. I never really got in trouble so I kept getting more disruptive. The last week of school, my teacher pulls a referral out of her desk with about 10 pages attached to it listing all the stupid stuff I did all year. True story. Maybe this will be the same with Olby.
November 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I don’t think NBC can break the contract over this so it would probably have to be negotiated. The contract was 4 years $30 million starting in ’08′ (Wikipedia) and that’s a chunk of change even for NBC.
NBC would also have to deal with in house repercussions. Although KO has a lot of foes at MSNBC he is also the one who pushed for Maddow, Schultz & O’Donnell to be hired as hosts. They owe him a lot and I think they would not be happy to see him gone.
November 5, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Red Eye is going to KILL tonight.
November 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
I still can’t believe that he gets suspended & possibly fired over this after some of the things he’s said in the past
I agree. After all of his repeated violations of the precepts of journalism – balance, objectivity, fairness, accuracy – he gets hit for this? Hell, having the candidates on his show was worth more in free advertising (I didn’t see the segments but I’ll guess it wasn’t exactly hard hitting questions).
Suspending him for this is like placing a codpiece on a eunuch.
It’s covering up nothing.
November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm
You guys are missing the boat with “he got hit for THIS?” stuff. It was the final straw. Nobody likes him, he’s pushed his luck numerous times, and he’s not the only game in MSNBC Town anymore. After all the crap they’ve taken over Tuesday night’s fiasco, this was enough to blow it all up. Not only have they benched their supposed biggest star, they’ve called up Thomas Roberts for Countdown tonight. A JOURNALIST.
November 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm
If Olby’s contract is like most everyone else’s, they can fire him ‘for cause’. And a willful violation of his rules of employment would constitute cause. So yeah, they could can him. That doesn’t mean they will.
November 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm
You guys are missing the boat with “he got hit for THIS?” stuff.
No, the point is that his prior infractions were, in my view, more egregious and worse violations of professional journalism.
Cable news and professional journalism? There’s a setup line…..
November 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm
We’ve been watching him inch toward oblivion for years, and it made him seem indestructible. You expected that one moment, because that’s how it works in a dramatic narrative. Real life tends to be a bit more mundane.
He may be worth more to them as a sacrificial lamb, at this point. The ratings were pretty well topped-out.
November 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm
No, the point is that his prior infractions were, in my view, more egregious and worse violations of professional journalism.
Yeah, but they didn’t happen in a vacuum. Betwen a time when his ratings were climbing exponentially, and Glenn Beck was hunting for Communists on the walls of 30 Rock, there were a lot of mitigating factors that muddied the “cable news and professional journalism” – I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit – waters.
November 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm
…and Laura does an excellent job of sorta making the same point. “Ratings pretty well topped-out” is the kicker.
November 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm
With the many unbelievably egregious things Olbermann has said, the fact that he finally gets nailed with this reminds me of Al Capone getting it for tax evasion.
November 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm
^ Well played, Missy.
November 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Does Olby have a vault somewhere?
November 5, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I know Media Matters only posts lies but at least they are well researched lies.
http://www.mediamatters.org/research/201010270005
November 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Well if this is really it for KO then Madow better start warming up in the ballpin because she’ll be the big star for MSNBC now…..now I’m no fan but I’ll give her credit she can be funny and allows opposing views unlike KO…now if she can control her “Mean Girl” side that popped up election night she could make it.
As for KO any chance CNN would take a shot with him?..after all the bridges he’s burn they might be the only ones left.
November 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Media Matters may not print lies all the time but they certainly print half-truths. Their list conveniently ignores people at CNN and MSNBC who have done the same thing. And it’s heavy on contributors and short on anchors.
In any case, it’s a tu quoque fallacy that is intended to distract from Olbermann’s woes, which MM steadfastly avoided mentioning until they could find enough Fox examples, no matter now unanalagous, to throw against the wall. Logically it’s all irrelevant, but that’s MM’s stock in trade.
November 5, 2010 at 4:49 pm
As long as Jim Walton runs everything CNN, there’s no chance Olbermann winds up there.
November 5, 2010 at 5:13 pm
As long as Jim Walton runs everything CNN, there’s no chance Olbermann winds up there
Which means he’ll be back at MSNBC.
Where else can he go? The networks can’t take him. He’s too radioactive. A return to ESPN is impossible.
Talk radio may have been an option before the collapse of “Air America.” Would Dan Patrick share his radio show with him? Would KO accept it? Nah.
He doesn’t have many options since he’s burned – no make that nukked – too many bridges.
November 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“Where else can he go? The networks can’t take him. He’s too radioactive. A return to ESPN is impossible.”
I hear there’s a cable access show up in Vermont looking for a co-host.
November 5, 2010 at 5:17 pm
– cable access show in Vermont –
You been watching Newhart lately?
November 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Johnny: The list was of FNC’ers, I’ll check News Busters for the list of those from MSNBC. I assume CNN is pretty clean.
It is impressive though and of course it’s irrelevant and intended to distract from KO’s problems. You should recognize the trick, it’s what you guys do all the time.
I love ‘tu quoque fallacy’ had to look it up; sounds like something Al would say (that’s a compliment BTW).
November 5, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Wow, a Newhart reference. Who’d of thunk Newhart would find his way into this thread?
I can’t believe no one has brought this up but what has it been, a day or two since Olby changed the close of his show to “Mr. Boehner, where are all the jobs” (or something like that). Haha, what can you say, the guy has the ability to see the future.
November 5, 2010 at 5:26 pm
CNN is not pretty clean. Begala, Brazile, and many others have been out endorsing candidates, raising money etc. I did a post avwhile back on all the CNN and msbnc people that media matters never mentioned. It’s pretty easy to make one channel look bad when you just never tell what the others are doing.
November 5, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“The list was of FNC’ers, I’ll check News Busters for the list of those from MSNBC. I assume CNN is pretty clean.”
Well, since the list from MM was mostly pundits, I’ll assume Carville, Begala, Brazille & whatever righties they have over there have donated to politicians.
November 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm
oops, didn’t mean to step on your toes there, JD.
November 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Y’all gonna go nuts if you start dragging in everyone who’s ever appeared on cable. The problem, IMO, is with people with a regular job hosting a show on something with the word “news” in it contributing to politicians. Huckabee shouldn’t. It’s fine for Palin.
November 5, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Jeez, Howard Dean has been doing fundraising for Democrats through this entire cycle. And he’s a contributor on both CNBC and MSNBC. For that matter, Joe Trippi on Fox has been working for Jerry Brown and other Dems. My point is this whole business about contributors is a red herring. We’re talking about someone who is put forth as a news anchor here.
November 5, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Oh snap! Rachel lead with Keith, and is going to talk about “double standards and false equivalencies” later. He’s not walking.
November 5, 2010 at 6:07 pm
– “double standards and false equivalencies” –
Yippee. Are we going to believe them or our own lying eyes?
November 5, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Check this out. If he walks and she gets the slot, it’s after she fought for him, potentially against her own bosses. That, my dears, is good PR work.
November 5, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Rachel…who cares…she’s basically media matters on TV in that she presents what’s beneficial to her side. It’s easy to expose “double standards and false equivalencies” when you’re only looking at something from one angle. It’s easy to make somebody out to be just about anything if you only look at one set of “facts”.
Obama’s mom is white & from Kansas. He attended a radical church for 20 years. He drops bombs from drones on muslims like he’s playing Call of Duty. Therefore, he’s neo-con. That’s basically what Rachel does. Easy-peasy, Japaneesy.
November 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Therefore, he’s neo-con.</I.
Ok, I'm giving you credit for the subversive sense of humor now. That's effing hysterical.
November 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Effing HTML!
November 5, 2010 at 7:06 pm
- Rachel -
That was…interesting. She repeated all the stuff we’ve been yakking about, about FNC’s open policy about campaign contributions and fundraising, and how it differs from MSNBC’s, while (we knew this would happen) ignoring the “commentators as anchors” conflict. But here’s the weird thing: She actually used that conflict – which she described as “because we’re a news organization, not a political one” – to differentiate MSNBC from Fox..and threw KO under the bus!
In essence: “We have tighter rules here than Fox because we’re doing real news, and KO broke those rules.” She defended MSNBC. She defended “her friend and colleague” Keith Olbermann, NOT AT ALL.
November 5, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Knife. Back. Ouch. ”How’s that feel, old man? A little lower..?”
November 5, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Joe; There is no defense for KO He broke the rules he should be disciplined. If he was convicted for DUI should she say it wasn’t his fault. She defended NBC and made the legitimate point that they play by a set of rules; that actions have consequences no matter who you are. She was spot on.
The stuff about FNC was a red-herring and had no real relevance as they don’t have rules and can do whatever they want.. It’s up to them and their viewers to deal with that fact. NBC has rules and they enforce them.
November 5, 2010 at 7:16 pm
2 things:
1. How could she possibly say the “real news” line with a straight face. I mean, does ANYONE buy that?
2. If she threw him under the bus as you stated, I would imagine there’s zero chance of him coming back. Oh, & in case she hasn’t noticed, Keith doesn’t take criticism well & he tends to hold grudges…and that’s referring to people whose careers he doesn’t take credit for starting. If I were her, I wouldn’t be opening my own fedex packages anytime soon.
November 5, 2010 at 7:18 pm
“The stuff about FNC was a red-herring and had no real relevance as they don’t have rules and can do whatever they want.. It’s up to them and their viewers to deal with that fact. NBC has rules and they enforce them.”
Well except for that crazy little rule about not bringing in Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Beck & Hannity to anchor election coverage.
November 5, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Fritz, I’m not criticizing..I’m analyzing a fascinating moment in cable news. Rachel Maddow..who owes not a little bit to Mr. Olbermann for her career..clearly took offense to KO “acting like those guys”, and clearly got permission to complain about it on air. I’m…stunned.
November 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“Well except for that crazy little rule about not bringing in Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Beck & Hannity to anchor election coverage.”
Actually I don’t think that’s a rule at FNC. Who hosts election coverage is up to Roger Ailes and his minions. They could get Steve Doocy to host if Ailes said thats who he wanted. They chose Kelly & Baier because that’s who Ailes & all wanted for whatever reason.
At MSNBC I assume its Steve Capus & Phil Griffin who decide.
I don’t think the hosts get a vote at either MSNBC or FNC.
November 5, 2010 at 7:33 pm
joe, What in the world could she otherwise say? It was percise, focused and sharp. I would rather have Rachel say this than any other MSNBC anchor. Had to be done.
November 5, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Olby shouldn’t be canned. MSNBC management should get the boot for effing this up so badly. Yes, Olby is hated by a lot of people in 30 Rock. Using a baseball analogy, in honor of Olbermann, you don’t drop your best player, the one with the .350 batting average and the golden glove.
Just as MSNBC has its prime time perfected (somewhat) the management screws it up. I’m not excusing Olby’s actions but management’s handling of the situation is pathetic. Although I’m guessing the brass has some sort of contingency plan for if/when Olbermann went off the rails (they should, based on his history).
November 5, 2010 at 7:38 pm
“They chose Kelly & Baier because that’s who Ailes & all wanted for whatever reason.”
Uh, because they’re a NEWS organization. If they wanted to be the right-wing version of MSNBC, they’d have had Hannity, Beck, etc. hosting.
Off topic, but the box thingy at the bottom of the screen tonight while Beck was on O’Reilly said “DVR Glenn Beck at 5 pm est”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a DVR reference.
November 5, 2010 at 7:45 pm
“Fritz, I’m not criticizing..I’m analyzing a fascinating moment in cable news. Rachel Maddow..who owes not a little bit to Mr. Olbermann for her career..clearly took offense to KO “acting like those guys”, and clearly got permission to complain about it on air. I’m…stunned.”
I’ll have to look again at the segment as I didn’t get that vibe at all.
CNN did a panel on AC360 with Paul Begala, Joan Walsh & a tea party pundit whose name I didn’t catch. Begala was perplexed by all the coverage. His line ‘ It wasn’t man bites dog it was dog barks’ was quite funny.
The tea party lady also thought much ado about nothing as KO was a known liberal.
Walsh was more circumspect. and expressed confusion as to what the policy at NBC/MSNBC really was, who was covered and were NBC CNBC & MSNBC treated differently. She also wondered what was in Olbermann’s contract and whether he had what he thought was an exception to the rule. Interesting thought that.
November 5, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“because they’re a NEWS organization.”
They are the propaganda wing of the Republican party that does some news as a cover.
November 5, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Their plan should be to grow up. I’d watch some of those shows if they weren’t so childish and hateful. I gave Maddow a chance when she first started because I would catch clips of her on other shows. She seemed somewhat fair & respectful but now she’s just a giggling loon. I like listening to/watching debate shows or shows anchored by grown-up lefties. I used to watch Hardball everyday until he became so angry. You can only watch people call you a racist or a moron for so long.
November 5, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“I’d watch some of those shows if they weren’t so childish and hateful.”
I say that all the time about FOX.
November 5, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Something else I noticed, but it’s taken awhile to sink in. She termed today one of “two interminably long days here this week”. At first I took it as a reference to a long Election Day shift, but here’s the thing: Election Day is Christmas for Rachel, and as someone who feels exactly the same way, I would never deem an Election Day with the negative connotation “interminable”. An Election Day can’t get long enough for someone like me (and her).
My daughter asked me that night why “Rachel was yelling at that guy (Matthews)”. I think Maddow was unhappy about the no-neutral-anchor setup, too. What I think she’s trying to do, with her “fake facts” segment yesterday, and her defense of MSNBC as a news organization at the expense of KO tonight, is establish boundaries there.
You can disagree with her all you want; I’m just pointing out what I see her doing from her POV. I don’t think she’s happy with what happened Tuesday night; I don’t think she’s happy with KO’s BS; and I think she plans to get loud about it.
November 5, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Joe: You may be channeling how you feel about the situation unto Rachael. She didn’t seem PO’ed at her colleagues on Tuesday. I think she enjoys a good political fight with someone she respects. Her set-to with LOD was great TV; at least for me.
She may be upset with KO but I doubt she will ‘get loud about it’.We haven’t heard from either Olbermann or Griffin yet. There may be more to this than we know yet.
It will be interesting to see how JS deals with this story on Monday morning. I can’t imagine he won’t have something to say. If anyone is going to ‘get loud’ it will be Joe Scarborough.
November 5, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Joe – You may be right, but I don’t see Maddow as fed up with Olbermann’s BS. Keep in mind that they are good friends, ideologically in tune and, from what I could gather, she credits him with her landing the 9pm slot. I would like to think that she wasn’t comfortable with Olbermann anchoring the election night coverage (Chris Jansing, Norah O’Donnell, etc. should have) and maybe wasn’t too keen on the petty cheap shots taken that night, but it’s tough to tell. I am a big fan of Maddow, but she can get pretty smug and take cheap shots at times.
As far as Olbermann goes, the only way he won’t be back if he decides not to return. His is the highest-rated show on the network so MSNBC is not going to shoot themselves in the foot over what amounts to be a fairly petty infraction (the wall between journalism and opinion/advocacy aside). Unless CNN would start to reach out and are already looking to bail on Parker-Spitzer, I don’t see him giving up that show. The $$ aside, I think he cherishes the role of taking on Fox and seeing MSNBC as the counter-programming to Fox.
November 5, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Well fritz, I think we can all agree that the Olby controversy was ginned up by NBC to take heat off of the arse whoopin put on liberalism and Obama last Tuesday.
Joe: I think what you wrote sounded reasonable but you’ll have to excuse me as I just got done reading the longest Dr. Seuss book ever written (cuz, that’s how I roll) and going from that to real sentences and paragraphs is a lot harder than it sounds. Next time, if you could just rhyme ever 4th word…KTHNX
November 5, 2010 at 8:37 pm
I think the decision to KO KO came from way higher up than Griffin and the announcement of his firing is being delayed until after the lawyers have carefully looked over the contract. MSNBC hasn’t been living up to journalistic standards for some time now, and the bad press given toward the network over this election coverage made NBC News look bad… and the combined Fox networks’ coverage even beat NBC’s this year.
Changes are coming to the NBC networks, just happening faster than I thought.
November 5, 2010 at 8:39 pm
She didn’t seem PO’ed at her colleagues on Tuesday.
I’m going by “interminable”. Rachel announces every chance she gets how much she LOVES Election Day. But she grouped this one under the same umbrella as The Day KO Was A Complete Douchebag And Got Suspended. I’m tellin ya, I would have Election Day every day if I could and be in Joe Remi Heaven. I would never call it “interminable”, and would never relate it to a negative event. Not even my party getting SHELLACKED. She was unhappy about something that happened Tusday.
November 5, 2010 at 8:39 pm
LS, I tried the 4th word trick. My head hurts..
November 5, 2010 at 8:42 pm
^ Can’t argue with that LS. We liberals got our asses handed to us on Tuesday. If the KO story is a NBC plot to hide the defeat it sure worked well.
November 5, 2010 at 8:43 pm
I think KO was already hired to replace Rick Sanchez, and this was a plot to introduce him to CNN viewers.
November 5, 2010 at 9:02 pm
-Shellacked-
I’ve heard or read that word at least two dozen times today. Is there a rule somewhere that says one out of every three pundits must utter “the word of the year” during interviews regardless of network? Maybe that’s one of the journalistic standards?
In two years a new word with enough gravitas will emerge to give a thumpin’ to shellacked.
November 5, 2010 at 9:04 pm
- Shellacked -
The Prez used it. It was a good word.
November 5, 2010 at 9:23 pm
They got their asses shellacked and in two years, if they’re lucky, they’ll be unvarnished. I need a hobby..
November 5, 2010 at 10:21 pm
They got their asses shellacked and in two years, if they’re lucky, they’ll be unvarnished. I need a hobby..
Snort. “There’s rot in that thar wood..”
November 5, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard (& Fox News Contributor) thinks KO got a bum rap:
Link from ChickaBoomer:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/keep-keith_514980.html
November 5, 2010 at 10:44 pm
You know I can’t believe I’m saying this…..but the more I think about the more I believe MSNBC is screwing KO over this…their really giving him the boot for being biased really?..this is the straw that broke the camels back?…really?
I think this is the brass throwing a tantrum for the poor showing on election night when they put all their liberal pundits on air on an election night where the GOP/Tea party were going to win big..clearly it was not going to be a happy night for them and it showed..MSNBC has been panned by everyone including the Left….so I think they wanted to make an example and suspending their biggest star was a way to send a message.
I’m not sure where MSNBC is going with this but if their going to give the boot to KO then what about Mad Ed and the others who openly campaigned for the Dems this year?