On the Olberman Suspension

I find it odd that in the last few weeks that so many conservatives have defended liberals who have been fired by liberal organizations, but I suspect that will happen with the recent events concerning Keith Olberman as well.

  Personally I think it’s ridiculous that they would fire him over donating to Democrats as if this somehow tarnishes his journalistic integrity; obviously Olberman is extremely partisan. I think most would be surprised to find out he wasn’t actually in the pay of the DNC, much less that he had donated money to Democrats.

Unlike many on the Left, I believe in free speech – partisan, non-partisan, corporate, anonymous or otherwise and it is a travesty to silence this man for this reason however reprehensible his views. MSNBC is wrong to do this, and they should bring him back as soon as possible. I will never watch his show, but I would gladly defend his right to have one.


14 Responses to On the Olberman Suspension

  1. Nate says:

    This isn’t really a free speech issue. Apparently this is a contractual issue.

    You can debate whether or not they should put such restrictions in their contracts but in the end it amounts to him freely having given up the privilege of making campaign contributions.

    Personally I think they did the right thing in suspending him. He violated his contracts and they are taking action against that violation. When I do that I’m not considering the nature of the violation but simply that he violated it. Its up to (MS)NBC.

  2. Bettawrekonize says:

    When it comes to bias censorship and brainwashing the MSM has long been broken. It’s sad that the govt privileges these people into a position that they abuse.

  3. Bettawrekonize says:

    BTW, why don’t you have a submit a story section. As a Friday funfess I propose the charlie chaplin video of someone talking on a cell phone in 1928 🙂

  4. jackhudson says:

    I saw that video, though you have to see the whole thing to realize how much evidence there is for time travel:

  5. jackhudson says:

    @ Nate:

    I agree Olberman had a contractual obligation, though I question the validity of such a contractual stipulation. Presumably journalists are limited in such a way as to prevent the appearance of bias toward a particular party – obviously Olberman was overtly biased toward the Democrats, and that was in fact his role at MSNBC – so I think it’s a bit of the ‘spirit’ of the law vs the letter of the law issue, in that the purpose of stipulation didn’t seem to me to apply to Olberman’s case.

    I would also question the validity of such a stipulation all together insomuch as political donations are a pretty fundamental right, akin to voting itself. I wonder how such a stipulation would hold up in court if challenged.

  6. Nate says:

    I have the right to express myself in pretty much any manner that I want.

    Sorry I lied. I don’t have that right. Why don’t I? Because I signed it away when I joined the Army.

    There’s a whole bunch more rights that military members and other signers of contracts give up everyday. Presumably this is legal unless you sign the contract under duress.

    I think it would do just fine in court, not that he would sue, who would take him?

  7. jackhudson says:

    But Olberman was already a spokesman for Democrats – I mean it would be as if the army had you lobbying congress for weapons systems, and then discharged you for voting for congress people who were advocates of those same weapons systems. It’s inconsistent.

  8. Nate says:

    It would be more akin to me making political contributions to those in congress receptive to my lobbying but my point was simply that it is reasonable for employers to make pretty much whatever demands they want in a contract.

    If the potential employee doesn’t agree they are always free to reject the contract or attempt to have changes made. Olbermann clearly accepted these restrictions, presumably he weighed what he was giving up against financial gain and to do something he would enjoy. He didn’t have to but he did. He should have stuck to his contract and now he is paying the penalty.

  9. jackhudson says:

    I agree a contract entered into freely obligates the parties to honor the terms of the contract; I just think that the purpose of the particular stipulation (to maintain the appearance of impartiality of newscasters) was abrogated by the very nature of Olberman’s program in the first place.

    To fire him now for this would appear to be a techinicality which would seem to contradict the very reason that they hired him to begin with. Like I said it is a ‘spirit of the law vs the letter of the law’ sort of question. But it is proabably too fine a point for me to be adamant about.

  10. Nate says:

    You’re perfectly right. If they do fire him it will be to replace him with someone more rabid. Maybe Alan Greyson will be available after January!

  11. Justin says:

    I think they’re upset about their extremely low ratings and used this as an excuse to make some form of a statement.

  12. Nate says:

    No such thing as bad publicity.

  13. Justin says:

    Unless you’re a conservative.

  14. Nate says:

    Or Alan Greyson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: