Olbermann, Matthews, and Maddow are just as bad as Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh - they just "analyze" things to conform to a different ideology. MSNBC and Fox should drop all pretense of being news organizations and admit that they are shills for their respective parties.
Gee, I sure hope not. Unless he comes back on Saturday Night Live, where he plays himself ad nauseum..........ha ha ha, he's never been anything but a laughable and freakish dolt, they must have been looking hard for a reason to fire him, as he surely was a growing embarrassment -- kind of like Joy Behar, can't wait until that crass and rude gal gets the boot, it is long, very long, overdue.
That would be priceless. Might consider that the last event at an MMA match. I would pay my hard earned money to watch that. I realize that the policy of MSNBC was to not let there quote unquote reporters not give to candidates, however this just seems wrong.
When I first saw the headline on this, I assumed it was because he was being a dork.
But then I found out it was because he had exercised his civil right to contribute to candidates of his choice. An employer should not be allowed to do that to someone. In the case of news/commentator personnel, the news organization can always just tack a disclosure blurb someplace.
I've never watched msnbc or fox new and would never trust a comentator that gets paid millions to push a certain agenda. Olbermann's suspension may seem harsh but he agreed to his company policy.
According to that article in the OP his show was geting 1.1 million viewers in October. I don't think he'll have a problem getting back in or finding a new position somewhere else. He's proven he can draw an audience, regardless of your politics.
By that standard Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews would all have to be fired. NBC has every right to fire Olbermann, and their viewers and advertisers have every right to object. It does seem silly to suspend him. After all, he's and avowed liberal Democrat, and he is a reporter, not a commentator. It might have been smarter for NBC to have a little talk with him about complying with the rule, unless of course, they are bent on backing off a bit on their evening lineup of Democrats in view of the election results. Larry O'Donnell was added recently. He's less strident than the others, and probably smarter.
Larry O'Donnell may be less strident but he's not less paranoid than any of those libturds on the show. It was incredibly hilarious that he built up a fear scenario around Rand Paul and how he singlehandedly would prevent the debt ceiling from being raised and "wreck havoc on the world financial market".
I heard that too Ralph. Apparently, Joe Scarborouhg gave money to a Republican, but he ASKED them about it first. Just a point of you have to follow the rules is all. At least they have these rules. It would be nice if Fox did. Instead of being so blatantly biased.
And MSNBC better no get rid of him! He's the ONLY one who speaks for me!
Agreed, Ron. As such, if Fox "commentators" are allowed to donate to candidates (not to mention the network itself EMPLOYING candidates) -- in all fairness, MSNBC should also allow its commentators to donate. At least set a non-journalism standard that's fair on both sides
If you owned 90% of all media, what would you do with it? What power do you think you could have? What trouble do you believe it would cause? How many people do you think you could influence?
If someone called your news station biased and deceitful, what proof would you have outside the media to back it up?
- several opinion blogs influenced by the same network? - several internet trolls who are paid to make sure that you have the opinion they need you to have? - radio stations that appeal to evangelic voters - churches who only listen to conservative radio and shows like 7th Heaven?
FX, who through their arrogance makes it well known they [fox] have more viewers then CNN and MSNBC combined who will tell their viewers on their shows to not let their children watch MSNBC because what they might see might scare them so that they never will watch it.
For what purpose would they do that if MSNBC has such distastefully low ratings?
And if you can find a resource outside the media, what source do you think the viewers of fx are using?
Which is worse? Hillary gaining millions from terrorists (they are supporting her candidacy with millions right now even) which has been proven or Obama giving billions to them? (Which has been proven and in cash at...