There’s blood in the water of the MSNBC snark tank. Friday it was announced that Keith Olbermann had been suspended—indefinitely. He apparently violated a corporate policy that forbids newsies making contributions to political campaigns without prior approval. As of now, it’s unclear whether that is spelled out in his contract or not.
While I won’t pretend to be a fan, don’t look for any schadenfruede here. Based on what’s been disclosed thus far, there’s no reason for the man to lose his job.
Why shouldn’t Mr. Olbermann be free to spend his mammon stripping shellac where he chooses? If that be on the slippery deck of an ideological Titanic, so what? Besides, what jury would indict, let alone, convict him on charges of being an actual news reporter? Last I heard, you still need evidence for that sort of thing.
What are his superiors up to then? Is this a gesture to the next Congress, a bold first step into a belle-epoque of civility, an invitation to tea? Or is it perhaps a portent of what’s in store once Comcast takes over at NBC-Universal? Who knows, maybe it’s part of some dark pact that will oblige Rupert Murdoch to sacrifice one of his own.
Whatever the case, for Misters Schultz, O’Donnell, and Matthews, as well as for Ms. Maddow, the road ahead looks suddenly uncertain. Until this gets sorted, all I can say is, what a difference a (Tues)day makes.
November 7th, 2010 | 9:52 am
Whether the policy is specifically set forth in Olbermann’s contract is legally irrelevant. Most employment contracts contain a clause requiring the employee to abide by the employer’s policies. It is also legally irrelevant whether Olbermann actually knew about the policy. It is standard practice for employers to provide each of their employees with an employee handbook, and presumably MSNBC followed that practice in this case, and Olbermann had a duty to be familiar with the policies in his employer’s handbook, just like the rest of us. In addition, I would be very surprised if MSNBC did not send around a memo this election cycle reminding its employees of this policy.
Add this up: MSNBC has the right to condition employment on compliance with its policies. Olbermann knew or should have known about this policy. He violated the policy (deliberately or negligently, it does not matter). MSNBC disciplined him for violating the policy.
What is wrong with what MSNBC did? Nothing as far as I can see.
November 7th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Based on what’s been disclosed thus far, there’s no reason for the man to lose his job.
This isn’t technically true. The reason is that they had a policy, and he broke it. That the policy is dumb does not make him less bound by it.
I suspect, though, that Olbermann’s breaking of his employer’s policy isn’t so much the reason he was suspended, as the excuse to do so.
November 7th, 2010 | 3:32 pm
I couldn’t agree more with Tim and Barry. From day one, MSNBC has said Olbermann clearly violated his legal contract. Personally, I hope he doesn’t get his job back. It seems shady to have a political candidate on your national viewed television show TWICE not ever a week before the election after you’ve secretly contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns (Conway).
November 7th, 2010 | 10:10 pm
In any case, he won’t be missed. Neither will MSNBC!
November 7th, 2010 | 11:04 pm
In conformity with the rule, MSNBC needed to suspend Olbermann in order to uphold their standards.
It’s just that it’s insane to have a standard whereby MSNBC is effectively making an inkind contribution worth millions to progressive politicians in the form of a regular infomercial every night of the week via Olbermann’s show, but the “policy” forbids Olbermann from kicking in a few K of his own in the course of a year. And what’s with trying to maintain some kind of illusion of journalist objectivity with Olbermann when it comes to checks written to campaigns, when absolutely no effort is made to uphold or even represent Olbermann as “objective” in any other respect? What is the point of that?
November 8th, 2010 | 4:33 pm
I think Olberman should get his job back now that questions conerning his objectivity can now be firmly laid to rest.
November 9th, 2010 | 10:27 pm
Rich –
I don’t understand. If the contributions were secret, how did MSNBC find out about them? Oh, right, because they were disclosed as required by law…
November 9th, 2010 | 10:31 pm
I know, if only they worked for Fox! :)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact