Cimarron29414

Personally, I don't care whether a news organization does or doesn't have this rule. Having donated to those campaigns doesn't say anything about Olbermann's ability to be "objective" (which is probably why the rule was created), since Olbermann is paid to be subjective. He's an opinion host. I mean, would it upset you to find out that Beck gave $2400 to O'Donnell's campaign? Not me, because he too is an opinion guy.

It doesn't even matter if I found out that one of their teleprompter news readers gave to a campaign. Frankly, I want everyone engaged in the political process and I wouldn't want my company to inhibit me - as long as I performed my other job duties as they expect me to.

So, I don't understand the indignation that "Fox, of course, does not have this rule." But, I might be missing something...

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

Of course they don't have this rule, since they aren't a news channel. they're a well funded Republican propaganda machine. Their most popular hosts (Beck, Hannity, Palin, Huckabee) are out on the campaign trail, raising money and backing GOP candidates.

Say what you will about NPR or MSNBC, but they at least TRY to stay objective news sources and aren't making a mockery of "Fair and Balanced" by outright championing every candidate and talking point coming from one party

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

The implication is that "fair and balanced" is only possible if one is a conservative or a libertarian. Liberals and progressives are tainted by the disease of socialism or something. How can one be fair and balanced if they want to take the hard-earned money from honest Americans and give it as handouts to lazy good-for-nothings?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

loquitur

The suspension confuses cause and effect. Giving to candidates doesn't cause partiality; partiality causes someone to give to a candidate. I can't imagine anyone is shocked that Olbermann donated to Democrats. Sheesh, it's like being shocked that officeholders generally want to be re-elected. Olbermann wasn't being paid to be impartial; I don't think he ever did straight reporting in his life. What story did he ever break? What great investigative piece did he ever do? I can't think of one. All he ever did was mouth off about his opinions. So who the heck cares that he donated money to candidates?

MSNBC behaved like jerks on this one.

aceventura3

I think the point with the Oberman situation is that if he knew the rule and if he knowingly violated the rule, he should be prepared to live with the consequences. If his action was one of protest of what I think is a bad rule, more power to him.

Also, perhaps we can get passed the thought that people in the media can leave all of their personal views at the door and be objective. We all have views and biases, I appreciate when people are open about them. My problem with Oberman is his obsession with others who do what he does - like Beck, Rush and O'Reily. They all do the same thing., for him to pretend that his "thing" is different suggests that he thinks his audience is made up of fools.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."