Keith Olbermann Suspended from MSNBC

Master Dan

Master Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
34
Location
NW Alaska
I am going back to Jerry Springer this is too much I love to watch the fights?
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,904
Reaction score
1,415
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Again-the so-called "liberal media" is as liberal as the usually conservative corporations that own them (in MSNBC's case, GE) allow them to be. No more, no less.

This was a personnel issue, and a conflict with the corporation's interest.
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
134
Again-the so-called "liberal media" is as liberal as the usually conservative corporations that own them (in MSNBC's case, GE) allow them to be. No more, no less.

This was a personnel issue, and a conflict with the corporation's interest.

I see why you italicized conservative. ;)

General Electric

2008 Democrats: $2.3 M
2008 Republicans: $1.2 M

2010 Democrats: $1.3 M
2010 Republicans: $ .8 M

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,904
Reaction score
1,415
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
I was listening to Rush today and I would have to agree with something he said. He believes they are getting ready to get rid of olberman and this is a convenient excuse. His ratings have been horrible and eventually poor ratings will get you fired.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Corporations for the most part are either neutral in their politics or they lean to the left. The reason for leaning to the left is that corporations like big government, especially when it comes to giving them tax dollars or destroying their enemies or giving them tax advantages. Look at Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ben and Jerry's, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and so many other really rich people. They are all lefties who support democrats and their causes. If you look at donations from corporations you will see as you did above with G.E. that they gave more to democrats. The notion of the democrat party being the party of the "little guy" or the "working man" is sadly outdated. Most of the wealthiest people in congress are democrats. If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,904
Reaction score
1,415
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Corporations for the most part are either neutral in their politics or they lean to the left. The reason for leaning to the left is that corporations like big government, especially when it comes to giving them tax dollars or destroying their enemies or giving them tax advantages. Look at Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ben and Jerry's, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey and so many other really rich people. They are all lefties who support democrats and their causes.

You're confusing individuals with corporations, which are for the most part, conservative-this is how we have the Bush generated TARP, deregulations through both his and Clinton's administrations that heloped corporate profits, etc., etc., etc.

If you look at donations from corporations you will see as you did above with G.E. that they gave more to democrats.

IF you look closely, corporations lend support to both parties, with the greater amount going to the party in power, and larger amounts going to the Republican party when they are in power.[/quote]

The notion of the democrat party being the party of the "little guy" or the "working man" is sadly outdated.

THe notion that the Democratic party is any different from the Republican party, and vice versa, arre what is outdated.

Most of the wealthiest people in congress are democrats. If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.

If you look here you can see that this is patently untrue.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
What part is patently untrue. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats and of the top 50, 28 are democrats and 22 are republicans.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,904
Reaction score
1,415
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
What part is patently untrue. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats and of the top 50, 28 are democrats and 22 are republicans.

Of those top ten, only three could be said to have family wealth or married into it-the rest made their own (in some cases rather large) fortunes. This trend actually continues through the rest-especially in the case of Republicans, though some of them also notably married into wealth.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Elder999, corporations love big government no matter who is in power. The three things you mentioned, Tarp, deregulation and profits all go to my point. Big government gives these corporations the hammer to make all of these things happen. For example, I was listening to an interview with Jonah Goldberg about his book Liberal Facsism. He made the point that big business uses big government to take out their up and coming competition. He sited the early american meat packing industry. When it came time to regulate the industry, the meat packing industry wrote all the regulations. Why would they regulate themselves? They knew that whatever regulations they came up with, they could withstand the financial cost, their smaller competitors couldn't and would go out of business. Tarp, helped big guys in the financial world, regulation and deregulation helps the big guys in business. For example, Chris Dodd and Barney frank and the democrats, as well as some republicans, stood in the way of President Bush when he tried 17 times to correct the mortgage industry. Why? The financial institutes paid for Frank and Dodd and the other politicians to keep the regulations from happening. Profit? Big business always uses big government, through big gov. contracts, tax breaks and other means to increase their profits. That is why big business loves big government.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Of the top 10 richest congressmen, 8 are democrats of those 8, two married wealth and the other two inherited it. The two republicans made their money in private enterprise.
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
134
And if you look back further, you'll see that they typically give more to the party that's perceived as being "in power." Both parties are "corporate owned," lock, stock, and barrel.

It's at the same link in the charts. The giving was fairly even each year, until 2008. The two most recent election cycles may be an anomaly.

Be careful about saying both parties being owned, you might get reamed for "not doing your homework".
 

WC_lun

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
82
Location
Kansas City MO
Billcihak, corporations don't give a damn about big government or small government. What they care about is profits. That means less regulation (less government) and control over legislation. If they happen to have government contracts, then more government spending is okay too.
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
134
Billcihak, corporations don't give a damn about big government or small government. What they care about is profits. That means less regulation (less government) and control over legislation. If they happen to have government contracts, then more government spending is okay too.

Actually, corporation often ask for more regulation and stricter rules because this helps create a barrier to entry to those markets by competitors. It still boils down to profits though.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Oh look! Unfounded allegations, and lions and tigers and slander, oh my...

It can't be slander if it's true. That aside, the reasoning behind the suspension is kinda strange. Are they really trying to fool anyone by playing the fair and balanced card? Olberman was hired specifically to be a partisan hack.

Was there anyone who thought the dude was unbiased and middle of the road before they found he'd made political donations?
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
540
Location
NH
Rather convenient that a hotly partisan talent is taken off the air quickly after election day, eh? ;)

This wasn't done because of Olbermann's politics, or MSNBC's dutifully following their own rules. It was done because he is losing the audience that brings in the biggest chunk of ad revenue.

From June 2010:

http://www.businessinsider.com/quar...pping-in-the-key-25-54-age-demographic-2010-6

Olbermann averaged 1,059,000 viewers in 2Q2010 (March 29-June 27), down slightly from 1,159,000 during the same period a year earlier, but up slightly from the first quarter of this year (1,000,7000).


His ratings in the advertiser-friendly 25-54 demographic, however, have been declining rather sharply every quarter since 1Q2009, when he averaged 452,000. He's now down to 263,000 in that demo



Emphasis theirs.

MSNBC started looking for a reason to replace him with a talent that will presumably bring in better ad revenue. They found it.
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
182
Location
Olathe, KS
Rather convenient that a hotly partisan talent is taken off the air quickly after election day, eh? ;)

This wasn't done because of Olbermann's politics, or MSNBC's dutifully following their own rules. It was done because he is losing the audience that brings in the biggest chunk of ad revenue.

From June 2010:

http://www.businessinsider.com/quar...pping-in-the-key-25-54-age-demographic-2010-6




Emphasis theirs.

MSNBC started looking for a reason to replace him with a talent that will presumably bring in better ad revenue. They found it.

Interesting analysis, Carol, thanks. I wonder if MSNBC is about to have an "I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords" moment.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
188
Location
Sanger CA
Interesting analysis, Carol, thanks. I wonder if MSNBC is about to have an "I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords" moment.
I believe you mean: I, for one, welcome our youthful new overlords...
 

Master Dan

Master Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
34
Location
NW Alaska
I am impressed for the most part with all of your imformed and studied opinions and giving them as such not gospel that i must accept or die. Oberman was therapy for me It lowerd my blood presure and soothed my stomach from ultra right stating made up stats as the only truth and anybody who does not agree is a low life, un American so and so!

Last night on yahoo comments were up to 10,000 with in 2 hours and I would have to say that close to 70% from the right were hateful, racist, ugly comments not just at Keith but at anyone who liked him.

Why is it that anyone who professes to care about all people and domestic issues has to be labled a Liberal like its a dirty word?

As a fan I think Keith started going off target with his book reading in the lether chair and having a violin play for him. Its pretty bad when the Wall Street Journal has to speak up yesterday to condem all the right wing propaganda over complete false reporting to the costs of Obama going to India. I think the bigger issue is going at all related to jobs? or snubbing Pakistan and the Cashmire problem wich will now increase extremist activity because Obama went to India only?

Why is the Right allowed to say or do anything but if the left is considered vial. I don't even like the terms in the east you eat with your right and wipe your *** with your left?

I am disapointed in Obama it seems the lesson in America is nice guys finish last and Democrats have no balls!! All the incumbant polititions need to go replaced with people who will serve and do what has to be done for the greater good.

I think Keiths Ego lead him to believe he had the right to violate his cotract over Murdock's support of the Chamber and he could not deal with Mudock having more power than him. He lost touch with reality and wrote ego checks his real world could not cash.

It will be interesting to see if he comes back, goes some place else and if he does has learned from this or spins off into space?

One thing is for sure money and power seems to have the same effect on all individuals left or right after awhile thier bank balance seems to convince them every thought or action by them is ok or they can get by with it.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,904
Reaction score
1,415
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Of the top 10 richest congressmen, 8 are democrats of those 8, two married wealth and the other two inherited it. The two republicans made their money in private enterprise.

Dianne Feinstein may have married a wealthy man in her third husband, but she already had consiederable assets of her own-and, while she inherited money from her father and second husband, and may well have received alimony from her first, it was hardly "wealth." She invested wisely, and her financial statements reflect this, as well as the clear delineation between her funds and those of Richard Blum. Kerry and Harman are the only ones who can clearly be said to have "married wealth "in that top ten, and Rockefeller is the only one who can be said to have "inherited it."

Which is a far cry from what you originally said:

billcihak said:
If you look at the top ten wealthiest people in congress you will see that they are democrats and that they either inherited their money or married it.

Which was patently untrue, as shown.

In any case, of the top 50 wealthiest congressmen, 28 are Democrats and 22 are Republicans-I'll let you bother with sorting out who "inherited," "married," or "earned," as I find the distinction offensive.


As to the rest of your "point"(?), corporations-no matter the leanings of the individuals who may be their public face, ala Bill Gates, tend to lean with the conservative, free market, limited regulation approach to politics-as the corporate entity stands the most to gain from this.
 
Top