Sorry, MSNBC, You Still Have Some Explaining To Do en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:14:22 -0400 Henry Blodget phillygirl Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:27:25 -0500 Yes. phillygirl Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:26:42 -0500 You are so right! Perhaps the reason Fox has more viewers is because it's easier to be stupid, and there are more of them out there. phillygirl Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:25:29 -0500 Nice try, but the fact that the rule was inconsistently applied and Olbermann knew nothing about it shoots down your theory. phillygirl Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:23:08 -0500 I resent being referred to as 'almost no one!" I faithfully watch Olbermann and Maddow, they are the sanest, most intelligent people commentators out there. And no way do they give the democrats a pass when they do something stupid. Just because the "maddening crowds" flock to Fox for their inflammatory, misleading information, doesn't make them a better network. It proves how gullible and stupid are the viewers that buy into their propaganda. CBTeas Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:28:54 -0500 The writer seems to be missing a simple point. My money management firm had "approval rules" before anyone could buy a stock. I never prevented anyone from buying, but it was forced communication with management (me) so I can know what my team is doing with their own capital, when that investment was in our sector. In this way, we can avoid biases in research if we know someone owns a stock that we want to evaluate. Again, the "approval" was just to keep management informed. As it relates to MSNBC, I assume management also wants to know if a show host was going to do something more than donate money--for instance, they may not want an anchor to appear at a fund-raising event. No matter how you cut it, it seems that MSNBC's policy is better than the "anything goes" ways at Faux News. The writer is trying to make MSNBC's rules a freedom of speech issue. There is no evidence that MSNBC has stopped anyone from giving to any candidate, Dem or Repub. The author is making a mountain out of molehill. JustAnObserver Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:25:31 -0500 Hey Maury – Sorry to burst your bubble here…both networks distort the truth. This is a deliberate strategy to keep viewers engaged lest they fall asleep or worse, change the channel. If you are searching for less biased news I suggest watching the BBC network or reading the Economist. It’s a start anyway. sanguinesu Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:37:40 -0500 You really have a hard on for this "better" concept, don't you? Maddow never said "better" she said different. Fox is a political operation, maintaining talking points and engaging in fundraising. MSNBC is a news org, one that may lean left, but is a far cry from the movement manufacturing, fundraising machine that is Fox News. Fox is better at what they do - maintaining the GOP mouthpiece and establishment of party elite, than MSNBC. So there, Fox can be "better" at something too. GrrrlRomeo Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:24:14 -0500 This is either a poorly researched article or intentionally misleading. A cursory search would produce the text of the policy in question and prevented this purely speculative piece from existing on the Internet. Ha, right. Explosion Proof Light Sun, 07 Nov 2010 09:12:27 -0500 He's annoying as hell, and trying to pin the terrorist plot a couple months ago on "someone who opposes the healthcare bill" was pretty lame. He's an ok mayor, but NYC is still in a world of hurt despite what the average banker might think sitting in his or her 35th floor apartment. Matt Sun, 07 Nov 2010 08:56:12 -0500 @blodget "But, frankly, as viewers, we'd rather know explicitly that the hosts had made political donations--and what those donations were--than to wonder whether the hosts had made donations that happened to be "approved by management." Viewers do know who has given to whom regardless of policy. check out dbsmith Sun, 07 Nov 2010 08:47:06 -0500 "But we don't understand the logic behind the rules. MSNBC needs to explain them." Please excuse my ignorance Henry but why does MSNBC need to explain ANYTHING to you?! Leafar Sun, 07 Nov 2010 03:27:05 -0500 Well, intelligent folks that have monitored Fox News know full well that their bravado and stupidity are never allowed to interfere with their agenda – which is to create this network as a political machine for the GOP. CNGUy Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:12:39 -0500 Calling Fox news "right-wing" merely defines the center. Everyone will agree that CNN is more liberal than Fox and that MSNBC is more more liberal than CNN. The argument is over what the center is. The pundits on Fox News claim that the country is "center-right" and that its news is therefore reflective of the center. Fox News also seems comfortable with the claim that there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. ALL REPORTING IS BIASED. For those of us who believe that the vast majority of news outlets from NYT to Wash Post, to LA Times to CBS are biased to the left, Fox News makes a reasonable counterbalance. Is is more right wing than these other new outlets? Absolutely. Thus, the problem is not with Fox News, which is open and honest about its opinions. It's the rest of the "mainstream" media which pretends it is "objective" and "unbiased" even though 90% of the journalists on the payroll are registered dems, The recent flap with NPR and the current flap with MSNBC are bringing these issues to the fore. As someone who runs a media website you should be aware of where you stand and what perspective you want to report. Please don't pretend that reporting can be unbiased. Mark Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:54:48 -0400 After reading the article and some of the comments, the problem as I see it is that NBC’s “code of conduct” for it’s employees is flawed. Keith’s behavior is not really the issue. The code should be changed to the following: 1. NBC shall be considered the journalist wing of the Democrat party. 2. All employees shall maintain Democrat registration and support party policies and talking points at all times, whether on-air or in their private life, regardless of contradictions. 3. Vague lip service shall be paid to the ideas of journalistic impartiality, non-bias, and integrity, while not actually being practiced, except when convenient or necessary for advancing a party meme. 4. Keith Olbermann may say or do anything except support Republican party views, candidates, or policies. 5. Each NBC employee shall support at least five Democratic candidates financially each year or election cycle to remain an employee in good standing. Maximum contributions are encouraged. 6. FOX news is right out!!! joeinmiami Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:44:05 -0400 Everything you said is true, except cajones. It's not cajones, it's cojones. Olberman is a creep and Rachel needs a little shot of estrogen to keep her beard from growing. I'm a registered Republican and I don't watch Fox, never seen a Beck show and don't listen to Rush. Attitude_Check Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:33:58 -0400 No more than if you watch MSNBC all the time. Two sides of vapidly stupid. Goldberg the lying shit Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:07:40 -0400 Funny to watch a guy in yellow and green plaid talk about fashion. SlamSlicks Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:04:10 -0400 Watching Faux all the time doesn't mean your dumb. Merely a creature of the GOP. However, given the thin gruel you offer here, I'd say you're probably as dumb as a bag of hammers. Faux news isn't biased. It's the GOP mouthpiece Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:02:49 -0400 Faux: 1) Employs virtually every GOP candidate for President in 2012. Direct payments to the GOP core 2) Faux's parent gave millions to GOP causes and only GOP causes. 3) Any "liberal" on Faux is merely center left and usually an apologist. And they're outnumbers 4:1 on any panel 4) Faux organized TeaBagger rallies and promoted them Faux does not even attempt to tell the whole truth. At best they present only the facts that fit their agenda. Even their polling operation was shown to be badly skewed to the GOP. Talk about flavor aide drinking. Check your own cup Lisa Merriam Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:56:43 -0400 This is emblematic of the general struggle with the NBC stable of brands: Worry about this Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:35:56 -0400 The episode of Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" program on the TruTV network that was broadcast Friday and featured GATA Chairman Bill Murphy has been posted in three parts at YouTube. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the Fed's most informed critic in Congress, also has a big part in the program. Adam Smith Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:28:26 -0400 Henry, do you really think it is a "fiction" that Brett Baier and Shepard Smith are journalists and are at least as objective as any journalist on say, ABC, NBC, PBS, CBS, and CNN ? Can you really say with a straight face that those two are more overtly partisan? If you think that is the case, then let's also drop the fiction that you and B.I. are not left-wing mouthpieces for Arianna Huffington and her group. Adam Smith Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:24:56 -0400 Why this concept should be so difficult for these socialist children is hard to understand. I think the Logic 101 professors call this the straw man argument: the guys at Fox have a different rule than we do, so what Keith did should be OK, but since we are better than Fox we have a better rule (even if nobody can make sense of the rule, as shown by Henry)...or something like that. A grownup would say just what you said. Olberidiot violated his employer's rules, and therefore he violated his contract. That's it. One other point -nobody in his/her right mind would confuse the news and anchor people at Fox News Channel with the commentators and opinion people. Brett Baier and Shepard Smith do the news, O'Reilly and Hannity do the opinion pieces. At MSNBC, they make the mistake of trying to convince their 20 or 30 viewers that Olberidiot and Matthews are journalists; why else did they have those two sour fools plus Maddow doing the results on Election Night. MSNBC management should put themselves on indefinite pay suspension along with Olberjerk. Cheyenne Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:45:45 -0400 You raise an excellent point, MoW. But that's not what Maddow said. If MSNBC policy is what you suggest--that the line is crossed when you air guests to whom you've contributed without disclosing as much either to management or viewers--then it's a good one. But MSNBC hasn't done that. Mr. Blodget's question stands: which political donations are okay with MSNBC management? UVR Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:45:14 -0400 I'd have to say that this post certainly disproves the writer's poorly thought through opinion Reality Check Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:22:42 -0400 Whether he donates or not & to which candidates would be his (Olbermanns) own perogative, but when there is no disclosure of such and he has one of these candidates on-air the very same day he made the maximum contribution is most bothersome. MSNBC brass -- had they been approached with Keiths intentions -- might have balked or at the very least demanded he make FULL on-air disclosure of his personal monetary backing of an interview guest/political candidate....they weren't & this is the consequence...quite certain he's out permanently now. This is quite simple and I have no idea, Henry, why you choose to defend Olbermann in this instance....the choice he made lacked integrity and amounts to a lie of omission to the viewership, ex post. Ehwi Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:49:01 -0400 Not sure which thumb to click. See if I give you a thumbs up, does that mean I want it to mean? So let me just make it clear: If you watch Fox all the time, yes, I think you are dumb. They actually sued for the right to misrepresent the news. John Anthony Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:32:15 -0400 At last, the streets will be safe, sobriety on CNBC, and the world a better place. K. Ob. belongs in the unemployment line where he can reap the benefits he fought so hard for. Mark out West Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:30:34 -0400 You're all missing the point. Two of Olbermann's recipients appeared on his show. Quid-pro-quo? Possibly. It's a business decision, guys, and a smart one. It keeps the paperwork down and allows NBC *broadcast* News the flexibility of scheduling interviews of pols without having to worry if somebody inside their MSNBC cable division gave them a check recently. The one screaming the loudest in this battle is probably Brian Williams and the show's producers. Corporate donors GE and News Corp. can claim arms-length relationships with their news organzations after filing the required FEC paperwork. Captain Obvious Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:20:26 -0400 So, you would agree that the same should apply to Fox as well, right? Johnny Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:16:56 -0400 LOL on implying CNN is the LEAST partisan network. From Glenn Beck to Lou Dobbs, they consistenly force out anyone that doesn't toe their center-left, PC bs positions. They aren't in the center at all they are just another shill voice for lefty-multiculturalism, the Democrats, and all the politically correct garbage we still are forced to read or listen to day in and day out. Gimme a break....I bet 90% of the reporters and newscasters at CNN are hardline Dems, at a minimum, from Reverend Wright's favorite Soledad O'Brien to all the others. Captain Obvious Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:16:26 -0400 So Olbermann had an accident in the past. What is the excuse of the Fox crew? Did they all have an accident, too, or were they just born stupid? Captain Obvious Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:12:24 -0400 "I watch FOX all the time. Does that mean I'm dumb?" Yes! Cheyenne Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:09:02 -0400 Nice piece, Mr. Blodget. Has anyone joined you in holding MSNBC's feet to the fire? (I'm assuming you're the first, it's early Saturday, after all.) I think Olbermann is a complete nozzle, believing, as he so fatuously does, that the bailout was necessary or did jack shit for that matter--other than make a bunch of total losers absurdly rich. However, for MSNBC to use its political donations policy--whatever that might comprise--as both a sword and a shield isn't gonna work. They owe a man better than that. pushbuttonchimp Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:58:33 -0400 finally something we can agree on. TrailerParkRedneck Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:56:18 -0400 Keith Olbermann is literally brain damaged. Bad accident many years ago. Doesn't drive as a result. Look it up. Olbermann's brain damage explains a lot about his erratic, angry behavior and on-air hate speech. Sad. pushbuttonchimp Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:53:35 -0400 probably the best analysis I've read. this past election, combined with the presidential election proves that a majority of americans are just dumb as stumps, as you say, giving equivalency to points that are not always equal. If fox pushes out the sky is falling, cnn doesnt challenge their claim, they accept it as a conservative news story, despite there being no facts behind the story. And it is scary to see posts here that push fox as something other than a propaganda machine. It's the culmination of the past 20 years of the dumbing down of americans. Just a bunch of stupid, fat lazy dumbshits that use religion as their basis of intellectual foundation. the minority of real thinkers in this country have to spend more time working around the dumbshits. i think the real story is the democrats, and why they are so spineless. they couldnt even give Obama a full party vote, a bunch of cowards. as geez pointed out, the less education you have the more likely you are to watch fox news. Sam Shicks Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:49:25 -0400 I watch FOX all the time. Does that mean I'm dumb? Sam Shicks Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:46:06 -0400 They actually fired him for his rant. If he didn't do the rant, he would still be there. Now all FOX can pay him 2 or 3 million. Wouldn't that be a hoot? throbbingmember Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:41:55 -0400 After this disclosure of Olbermann's campaign contributions, I am shocked to learn that Keith is political partisan. HA! He is the biggest, lefty, political hack on TV. And he is a dickhead as well. Big Bear Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:40:19 -0400 I think this is nothing more than a media stunt. Keith Olbermann will be back on the air shortly. Pizza Whisperer Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:35:58 -0400 Fox News - We decide; and then report. lrh Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:22:55 -0400 Could this be a cool publicity stunt by MSNBC brass and Keith? Make frowny faces at each other and cue up the Fox "hypocrisy" melody and the media sings along in a resounding chorus. Thus they give a show that's plateaued a ton of fresh market awareness. It would be brilliant... a thousand times better than the terrible ad campaign. Gordon Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:18:31 -0400 this is great - Bernie Goldberg had a lot more on his plate tonight for his regular “Weekdays with Bernie” segment on the O’Reilly Factor with the variety and scope of mainstream media election coverage, but he limited his analysis to two major targets: Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, and the MSNBC Election Day crew– or, as Goldberg put it, “five liberal commentators being snarky [and] giggling like schoolgirls.” Henry Blodget Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:11:40 -0400 What name calling? Can we drop the fiction that FOX isn't right-wing, please? Appearing neutral is not important to the network's success. Henry Blodget Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:09:56 -0400 All of my "shenanigans" were fully approved and disclosed. The analyst's role in the IPO process wasn't even an "open secret" in those days. It was OPEN (and fully understood and approved by the SEC.) I'm not saying that's necessarily good, but it was a well-known fact. Maurice Bretzfield Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:08:03 -0400 Partisan bias is not the issue. MSNBC tells the truth, Fox lies and obfuscates (look it up). Ralph Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:06:42 -0400 Cnn is the least partisan network? Pass the bong again, please. Also, Geez, once you devolve to flat out name calling, you look as stupid as those you try to demonize. Why not lose the name calling and try and evolve towards specific arguments for making your case? I see partisans under the hood of each major news source, it is a fact of life and something a consumer of news needs to be aware of and factor into their analysis. chrisl Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:06:30 -0400 Keep drinking the kool aid geez. Fox News put over a dozen democrat/left leaning analysts on the air to give their opinion on the election night. How many right wing/Conservatives appeared on MSNBC(crickets chirping)? The only time MSNBC talks about facts is when they're taken out of context. Fox presented the facts, and then got opinions from BOTH the right and the left. Why is it when we give the Conservatives a chance to be heard IN ADDITION TO the Liberals, all of a sudden you're a mouth piece for the right? What is it you liberals are afraid of? Your ideas won't stand up against others? Savonarola Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:06:27 -0400 Rachel Maddow, your mutated lib gene is really making you look more stupid than usual. Keith violated his employer's rules. Pure and simple. What FOX does is neither here, nor there. Keith doesn't work for FOX . What a childish den of idiots MSNBC has become. JohnQ Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:02:25 -0400 you are an incredibly clueless person original insider Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:00:49 -0400 Bless you, Henry, and thank you. Now if only you could find more people to hire like yourself. JohnQ Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:00:46 -0400 Regardless of her protestations, companies have different rules for their employees, and Olbermann violated NBC's. As such, mounting a defense for her friend by pointing out that folks did the same thing at a rival network with a different employee code of conduct was irrelevant. That a Rhodes scholar with a Ph.D. from Oxford doesn't understand this would normally be quite shocking. However, what folks that have followed Maddow's career know full well is that her intellect and education are never allowed to interfere with her agenda. Neither is logic. Gordon Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:59:50 -0400 "approved by management" is mandatory for 2 reasons - 1. to determine if there is/was some conflict of interest. 2. to ensure a full disclosure/disclaimer by a third party. in other words, Henry, it prevents the shenanigans that you almost went to the clink for. geez Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:53:56 -0400 the dumber you are, the greater the odds that you get your news from fox. the less education you have, the greater the odds that you get your news from fox. we have a movement "the conservative right" that holds idiocy and ignorance as standards of excellence. geez Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:51:24 -0400 not only is fox more partisan, it is dramatically more partisan, funds and organizes political rallies and donations on air for candidates, and has a problem with any fact they don't agree with. fox is like cartoon news. MSNBC is biased, but they still talk about actual facts. much of the channel seems to be dedicated to debunking the bullshit on fox. oh well Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:49:08 -0400 cnn is doing badly not because it isn't partisan, but because so much of it is retread - showing the same "news" on repeat every hour, too much exposure for too few people (anderson cooper, that means you). When their "stars" are on screen all day long, they can't become EXPERTS at anything, and really know their topic. so they all end up being stupid. Also, they invite a partisan from each side to a conversation, but they don't play legitimate referee. when someone says something completely untrue, CNN doesn't have the cajones to say "no, i'm sorry, that statement is false, and we can prove it." And to verify when someone quotes a fact that they can verify. so if anyone can go on CNN and spout lies on the right, and lies on the left, and no one tries to do the analysis to show what's true, then why should we watch? so, if someone on one side says "obama is racist" they don't call them on it, or "republicans cut budget deficits" they don't call them on it. . if someone on the other side says that republicans are all tea party idiots no one calls them on it. But CNN also fosters a false equivalency. if one person voices a disagreement on purely policy grounds, and the other person responds by calling them names or saying that obama hates america, CNN just treats that as two equally ridiculous partisan arguments. come on. be a real ref, and people might respect your show. don't lend credence to the idiots and the fringe. sanguinesu Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:47:03 -0400 I don't believe she ever said the policy was "better". She just illustrated the difference. The better may have been implied, or read as implied, but her statement was that there is a DIFFERENCE in the way the two networks conduct business and when evaluating the message, those operational differences should be kept in mind. Olbermann has been punished, bring him back and put this to bed. America has more important things to discuss. {^_^} Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:42:26 -0400 fox is more partisan than msnbc? please pass the bong Racist,Sexist,Bigoted, Homophobe Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:31:17 -0400 Larry King, Rick Sanchez, Juan Williams, Keith Olbermoron? Its obvious, the vast leftwing media is losing relevance. Their diminishing audience generates less ad revenue, time to RIGHTsize. TOM PARR Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:28:03 -0400 THE FIRING OF THE LOUD MOUTH WAS A LONG TIME COMING. THE LIBERALS ALWAYS FEEL THAT THEY ARE ABOVE IT ALL AND CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE, IT'S ABOUT ABIDING BY RULES AND REGULATION Mac Heath Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:14:24 -0400 Great point.