The question becomes whether it’s right. The Olbermann incident highlights the murky line between what daytime cable is and what prime time cable has become; and, for NBC, what a network news channel is, and what its cable sister is becoming. Looking at that landscape, it seems that news conglomerates may need to address the differences between their parts, and reassess their policies on conflict-of-interest and bias issues like political donations for staffers who are paid to offer their opinions, not subsume them. (According to this Gawker article, they have been doing just that, with an “insider” saying that MSNBC does not fall under the same strict guidelines as NBC and has “no ethical standards.”)
While it makes sense for NBC to have a blanket rule banning political donations for its straight news reporters—we don’t want Brian Williams cutting checks anytime soon—and to punish those who violate, the line is blurrier at MSNBC, where the prime time personalities have hewn success out of a strong ideological point of view. It’s why no one was surprised to read the Politico story today. Nighttime MSNBC has become a kind of evil twin, a different entity from the straight-laced NBC, where an Olbermann would never be tolerated in the first place. It’s also a different entity from daytime MSNBC.
For the sake of viewer trust, broadcast integrity, and employee discipline, we understand the implementation of the no donations rule across all of those entities. But as the media is transitioning, so are its standards. We expect with the fallout that’s about to come, and the mix of praise and ire heading their way, there is going to be some soul-searching about the ways in which NBC and MSNBC are self-regulated. And there may be questions whether their rulebooks should remain identical.
Already, those questions are continuing to bite. After announcing The Nation’s Chris Hayes would be filling in for Olbermann tonight, MSNBC changed course after it was pointed out that Hayes had donated to Democratic political campaigns in the past.
NBC created a kind of Frankenstein’s monster over there at 30 Rock; dealing with it will likely force hard calls like the one Griffin made today.
" nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level,” Olbermann said."
What? Thius guy NEVER donated to any political campaign before? Does he mean in his whole life? He's so political on TV, but he's never actually supported a candidate or cause before???
As far as should MSNBC do things differently than NBC, I don't see any harm in Olbermann donating to politicians of his choice, if the donations are a surprise to no one, then there's not much of a difference between him making the donation or not making the donation, in terms of journalistic integrity, etc.
But I do think its REALLY odd that he'd give the maximum contribution to someone that was booked on his show, if anything the problem there is a 'pay to play' sort of issue, no? It doesn't really matter that it happened right after the interview.
#1 Posted by Schenck, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 04:50 PM
NBC applied its code selectively. Why did Olbermann catch heat from the man, but Republicans Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, who also gave political contributions get a pass? Because republicans are not held to any standards. If they were, there'd be no republicans.
#2 Posted by Bill Oetjen, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 05:44 PM
NBC applied its code selectively. Why did Olbermann catch heat from the man, but Republicans Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, who also gave political contributions get a pass? Because republicans are not held to any standards. If they were, there'd be no republicans.
#3 Posted by Bill Oetjen, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 05:46 PM
Are you sure NBC has such a rule? Or perhaps there is a rule against donating to DEMOCRATS?
And what about the corp itself,—GE I mean?
IOKYAR
#4 Posted by ladybird, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 05:52 PM
I understand the rule as long as it's enforced fairly. But the comment above (BO) has merit. AND has anyone seen softball political interviews on the major networks? The avoidance of followup questions when a politician is obviously lying. Isn't that a form of contribution? I think it is. Should that be prohibited? It should along with only asking those with "mainstream" credentials to appear, like those that always support the corporate line. There are many ways to make a "contribution".
Integrity, it seems, is only practiced selectively by the media.
#5 Posted by Atypical, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 06:08 PM
11/5/10
Dear MSNBC~
Phil Griffin acts w/o analysis. He's the oaf who hired Chris Hayes to sub for Rachel...a more arrogant, know-nothing, can't-stop-blabbing moron we haven't heard in 30 yrs...& he injects his family [gr'pa?] into Rachel's newscast [whatta narcissist]. David Corn is so much more insightful, clever, fun & fabulous to look at.
Oh, yeah Gene Robinson is more idiotic [knows about blk life & just bleats & bleats it. That's all he knows--his life of quiet desperation]. He flaps his hands, grunts [ya wanna scream!], mouths "yeah," "yes," "right" when others are talking [who cares if he agrees? Tell him to Shut Up! & allow others to talk], has Worst "Laff" in the World & honks at inappropriate times [when most news isn't funny--he pretends he's in the "in crowd"--when eveyrone but Griffin knows he's uneducated. Can't you find a better token, Phil? Tamron Hall is the best interviewer...she hosted "Ctdown" only once.] & for a visual medium, you picked a freak that scares children. Ya can't find more homely/repugnant. [Ugly people act ugly, fat people know they're fat, &c.] His election coverage--like his columns--are sooo pedestrian. No one's impressed by a Pulitzer when there are no newspapers. Vomitville. He wears out my "Mute" button.
The most irritating is Buchanan who dug dirt as opposition researcher & INTERN speechwriter for Nixon...at age 31, no one read his scribbles or used them. [Nixon had tons of "advisers" & speechwriters.] Yet, Pat can't open his mouth w/o pretending he was "an insider." Further, no one cares about some nasty, racist Prez from 40 yrs ago. Just shut up, you 72-yr-old geezer. And stop interrupting guests & quit your tomahawk hands...sometimes you use both which looks like you're jacking off.
P.S. Phil G--"Morning Joe"'s the Worst Show on TV. A patronizing, condescending, revolting host, a plagiazer, a grotesque nepotist [who already has a show], a midget know-it-all from advtg--always peddling...a group of white-male assholes always bitching. Ms. bleached blonde adds nothing interesting & usually gets interrupted or shouted down. Nora should have that time slot.
Wake up, Phil Griffin. Keith is all you've got. Ed's energy is catching & O'D is ok--as is Rachel [who spends most newscasts blabbing about gay rights when everyone's sick of it. We all got sick of civil-rights protesters & women's-rights fighters. Just work to get laws passed & stop using your broadcast for your only platform]. There is other news, ya know.
We're all pissed Keith took Worst Persons off the air...the best part of his show which cheered everyone up--'cause someone was finally calling out the liars & hypocrites. He should do whatever he wants with his $ unless Griffin can prove Keith influenced anyone. Otherwise, "conflict-of-interest" is empty. & Griffin jumped the gun before he analyzed the situation...depriving many viewers of the best newscast on ANY air.
Goodbye MSNBC, za
#6 Posted by z. alexi, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 06:37 PM
"Frankenstein's monster" instead of "Frankenstein." A rare (and correct) distinction.
Thank you.
#7 Posted by CEP, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 06:43 PM
Griffin better make his peace with Keith at once. "Morning Joe" ain't Countdown, especially Scarborough.
#8 Posted by Hartley Lord, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 07:00 PM
What a waste of time this whole brouhaha is! What a person believes smacks of Orwellian ideas. What Mr. Olbermann does on his own time with his own money is nobody's business but his own. The assumption here is that Mr. Olbermann cannot keep his job and his personal politics separate. That is what we call in the business as "a crock of shit". That NBC would have such a policy to begin with is nonsense. It's like saying, "If you want to work for us, you have to give up your Constitutional right to free speech".
#9 Posted by Stanley D. Potopa, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 08:38 PM
Umm msnbc has no ethical standards, lol lol he he he he lol lol but hey I watch msnbs and I know this already.
#10 Posted by bob, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 07:29 AM
Ethically…
Olbermann was worse.
Joe Scarborough worser. (Your wife gave the donation. Please.)
George Will, who helped Ronald Reagan prepare for his 1980 debate against Jimmy Carter, still worst.
Corporate news executives— MSNBC/NBC included—who can’t seem to draft or consistently enforce well-known ethical journalism standards calling for the public disclosure of even the appearance of conflict of interests. THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD!!!
#11 Posted by Arthur S. Hayes, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 09:23 AM
The deems get butchered in the midterms AND Olberman gets shitcanned! Could this be the best week ever?
#12 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 03:40 PM
Yea, I agree the common taters shouldn't be providing funds to political campaigns - but I'm sure Olberman isn't the only television personality to do this. It's sad really - that employers can control what you do when you aren't working. That said...I sure will miss him reading James Thurber on Friday nights. And no, Im an independant - not Democrat, Republican or tea bagger. Hang in there Keith.
#13 Posted by AJCW, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 05:21 PM
Remember, MSNBC is part of NBC News. The two outfits share staff. Fox is a stand-alone. MSNBC uses its pundits for news coverage, as it did on Election NIght. It's probably not a stretch to surmise that some people at NBC are not comfortable with this blurring of the line between opinion and reporting.
Fox is certainly right-wing, as MSNBC is its left-wing opponent. But NBC itself is supposedly non-partisan. Fox's critics have always shot back that the mainstream networks, such as NBC, have their biases, too - the difference being that the latter prefer the Democrats and liberal causes.
Juan Williams was just sacked by NPR for much less than what Olbermann did in the way of compromising his employer.
I have to laugh at the reader who reaches back to George Will helping Reagan with a speech in 1980. Will knew, and so did the Washington establishment, that reporters and politicians were much closer prior to his 'offense' - Jack Nelson, who was the actual bureau chief of the L.A. Times, was an informal advisor to Jimmy Carter, too, and Nelson was not a pundit but a news editor. Joe Scarborough donated to a Republican, a valid complaint, but Scarborough is an ex-GOP Congressman, and in any case is not nearly in Olbermann's class when it comes to using his program as a vehicle for his own views. I have no opinion on whether Olbermann should have been disciplined. Let a thousand voices be heard. But NBC News as a whole has to have finally realized that the use of that network as a foil by which Fox News answers its critics puts its reporters and producers in an uncomfortable position.
#14 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 06:54 PM
Sorry, should have said 'Fox's fans have always shot back . . . ' above.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 06:56 PM
Why is it some one working for me have the right to free speech in my company's behalf but not in his/her behalf. Thats to say. That is to say; you are a commy while on your own, a "Republican" if you are to get paid. Its daylight hypocritical. If the US constitution does not allow Olberman the freedom to sue and win then the American Constitution lost. Have I lost my right to ejaculate when I got married?
#16 Posted by Davy de Verteuil, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 07:02 PM
---Olbermann has been totally silent
on matters such as the VAST RED China
genocidal legacy cover-up --the engineered
END of our borders and the dollar --the
YOU-genocidal CHEM-trails that are filling
our skies --those 2 BILLION 'accidentally'
infected by Bill Gates style 'stealth'
vaccines
--------------------SO who needs him?
#17 Posted by tiger tim, CJR on Sun 7 Nov 2010 at 06:14 AM