Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Mags wrote:

When I saw the first report of the story was in the guardian, my first thought was "How the hell are they going to spin this one?"  I don't know why I didn't anticipate the usual line.  O.K.  Here's what one of the guys we approve of has been outed for.  Let's acknowledge but don't bother to elaborate on his candor or lack thereof.  Now let's roll out 750 words about how much worse the other side is.

Mags, Olbermann gave a total of less than $10K to three candidates. It's wrong, it's unethical, and I'll never look at Olbermann the same way again. But it pales in comparison to what the folks whose slogan is "fair and balanced" have contributed.
This is like a homeowner bitching about a cobweb in the corner of an eave while the termites he doesn't see are making sawdust out of his house.

I'm not about to try and defend the Fox News claim to "fair and balanced" and I don't care for their programing on any of their networks.  They have a couple of people that I like, for very different reasons, but I don't watch them any more than I watch CNBC or Bloomberg.  In fact, much less.  I like Brian Sullivan, on the Fox Business channel, and did when he was with Bloomberg.  And, after many years of thinking I wouldn't like him, I gave Brit Hume a chance several years ago and enjoyed his some of his evening news program enough to watch it every now and then.  But I don't even know if he's alive now.

And frankly, I applaud MSNBC for enforcing its standards in Olbermann's case.  I don't know anything about the other guy that TK mentioned except that I used to see adds for his program in the days when I was watching CNBC about 10 hours a day and I got the impression that he was an ex-Congressman with a fairly simplistic Republican bias. 

It really irritates me when an organization or a profession, like every bar association I can think of, holds itself out to the public as having certain standards and then completely ignores those standards.  I haven't thought about it very much but I'm not sure that I agree with the rule that MSNBC has adopted.  I'd rather see them let their employees make whatever political contributions they wish, but provide some sort of disclosure to the public.

In Murdoch's case, I think his main interest is in making lots of money and building a media empire.  To do that, he's willing to pander to the lowest sort tastes and it apparently works.  He's living proof of H.L. Mencken's quip that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.  My quarrel with Mencken is his use of the adjective "American."  I don't think American people have any lower tastes than other people.  We might even be above the average.  But that's a pretty low standard.

What fascinates me is the way so many corporate big shots, like Jack Welch, can change their political direction on a dime when they think there's an opportunity they want to snap up.

I think we're looking at this issue from two different perspectives. Someone who renders his opinion can talk all he wants, but actually contributing to a candidate's campaign puts you in an entirely different realm. There's a saying about being either in the stands or on the field. You can't be both.
What I was addressing earlier was the inevitable howling about Olbermann contributing to Democrats when Murdoch has been forking over 1000 times as much money to Republicans for who knows how long.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Although Rupert Murdoch contributed $2m (£1.23m) to the Republicans and commentators from his Fox News network also made donations ..."

Damn liberal media.

When I saw the first report of the story was in the guardian, my first thought was "How the hell are they going to spin this one?"  I don't know why I didn't anticipate the usual line.  O.K.  Here's what one of the guys we approve of has been outed for.  Let's acknowledge but don't bother to elaborate on his candor or lack thereof.  Now let's roll out 750 words about how much worse the other side is.

Mags, Olbermann gave a total of less than $10K to three candidates. It's wrong, it's unethical, and I'll never look at Olbermann the same way again. But it pales in comparison to what the folks whose slogan is "fair and balanced" have contributed.
This is like a homeowner bitching about a cobweb in the corner of an eave while the termites he doesn't see are making sawdust out of his house.

I'm not about to try and defend the Fox News claim to "fair and balanced" and I don't care for their programing on any of their networks.  They have a couple of people that I like, for very different reasons, but I don't watch them any more than I watch CNBC or Bloomberg.  In fact, much less.  I like Brian Sullivan, on the Fox Business channel, and did when he was with Bloomberg.  And, after many years of thinking I wouldn't like him, I gave Brit Hume a chance several years ago and enjoyed his some of his evening news program enough to watch it every now and then.  But I don't even know if he's alive now.

And frankly, I applaud MSNBC for enforcing its standards in Olbermann's case.  I don't know anything about the other guy that TK mentioned except that I used to see adds for his program in the days when I was watching CNBC about 10 hours a day and I got the impression that he was an ex-Congressman with a fairly simplistic Republican bias. 

It really irritates me when an organization or a profession, like every bar association I can think of, holds itself out to the public as having certain standards and then completely ignores those standards.  I haven't thought about it very much but I'm not sure that I agree with the rule that MSNBC has adopted.  I'd rather see them let their employees make whatever political contributions they wish, but provide some sort of disclosure to the public.

In Murdoch's case, I think his main interest is in making lots of money and building a media empire.  To do that, he's willing to pander to the lowest sort tastes and it apparently works.  He's living proof of H.L. Mencken's quip that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.  My quarrel with Mencken is his use of the adjective "American."  I don't think American people have any lower tastes than other people.  We might even be above the average.  But that's a pretty low standard.

What fascinates me is the way so many corporate big shots, like Jack Welch, can change their political direction on a dime when they think there's an opportunity they want to snap up.

Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Although Rupert Murdoch contributed $2m (£1.23m) to the Republicans and commentators from his Fox News network also made donations ..."

Damn liberal media.

When I saw the first report of the story was in the guardian, my first thought was "How the hell are they going to spin this one?"  I don't know why I didn't anticipate the usual line.  O.K.  Here's what one of the guys we approve of has been outed for.  Let's acknowledge but don't bother to elaborate on his candor or lack thereof.  Now let's roll out 750 words about how much worse the other side is.

Mags, Olbermann gave a total of less than $10K to three candidates. It's wrong, it's unethical, and I'll never look at Olbermann the same way again. But it pales in comparison to what the folks whose slogan is "fair and balanced" have contributed.
This is like a homeowner bitching about a cobweb in the corner of an eave while the termites he doesn't see are making sawdust out of his house.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Although Rupert Murdoch contributed $2m (£1.23m) to the Republicans and commentators from his Fox News network also made donations ..."

Damn liberal media.

When I saw the first report of the story was in the guardian, my first thought was "How the hell are they going to spin this one?"  I don't know why I didn't anticipate the usual line.  O.K.  Here's what one of the guys we approve of has been outed for.  Let's acknowledge but don't bother to elaborate on his candor or lack thereof.  Now let's roll out 750 words about how much worse the other side is.

If Olberman knew NBC's rules and disregarded them, then shame on him, but it isn't like MSNBC really tries to put on an unbiased face.  I'd put that under the category of "right result, bad rule."

Rules, what rules?  No one got hurt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/05/nbc-anchorman-suspended-donating-democrats

It's shame that we'll be temporarily deprived of the services of such an insightful commentator.