The latest distraction has arrived

[Renew Deal]

Instead of focusing on getting as much passed in the lame duck session as possible, we're focused on Olberman's ethical challenges.

[tridim]

1. You don't think sacking one of our best progressive voices is serious?

And the lame duck session hasn't even started yet.

[HughMoran]

2. suspended

not sacked

[tridim]

Same effect, same thing.

[HughMoran]

32. He'll be back

Sacking - not back.

[Renew Deal]

5. It's a self inflicted wound.

To act like he was "taken out" as Paladino would say is a mistake. Olberman screwed up. We should all hope this is just a suspension, but he deserves whatever he gets.

[madmax]

13. That isn't settled yet.

Little pesky non-sense like Freedom of Speech and I don't care what his contract says. In view of recent court rulings that may be open to a challenge.

[tridim]

14. Olberman was participating in our Democracy.

It's his right as an American.

[Renew Deal]

18. He gave up that right when he joined MSNBC.

[tridim]

20. No he didn't.

Every American has that right. Period.

[Renew Deal]

22. Not when you willingly give up that right

Which Olberman did in his contract.

[tridim]

25. That's not how the Constitution works.

Are you a witch by chance?

[Renew Deal]

28. Yes it does.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Olbermans boss.

[Demstud]

30. But we don't have to like their policy

We're not employed by MSNBC, so we have a right to complain and tell them what we think of their decision. Just because they want to control who their employees give their personal money to, doesn't mean we have to just sit back and accept it when it takes someone we like off the air.

[Renew Deal]

34. It doesn't matter if you like it in re: Olberman.

He agreed to it.

But you should like the policy if you expect a news organization to be unbiased. :shrug:

To me, their policy is still wrong. There should be no donations allowed with or without permission.

[leveymg]

26. I think you accept the legitimacy of employer authority over these things. Too much.

Keith isn't an "objective" news reader. He's a commentator, who makes no effort to hide his biases.

Unlike most of the rest of the overpaid MSM talking heads. His boss, however, is a cynical SOB.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

39. dictatorships rely on selective rule enforcement to shut up dissenters.

No codes or rules are being enforced against pro-conservative journalists.

media has become a conservative dictatorship.

Applauding a huge oppression as appropriate punishment for rule-breakers is classic authoritarian behavior.

[GoCubsGo]

11. He wasn't sacked.

He was suspended.

[tridim]

16. What's the difference?

Either way he's still off the air.

[GoCubsGo]

24. Seriously? You really don't understand the difference???

You think they're going to keep Keith off the air permanently?

[Justitia]

46. Let's ask David Shuster......oh wait....nevermind. -eom

[HereSince1628]

3. We probably have less influence on the lame duck congress

than we do on MSNBC.

Activism attracts some and not others. Go figure.

[countingbluecars]

4. I think we can focus on more

than one issue at a time.

[polichick]

8. The more, the merrier - this is a message board after all! nt

[Renew Deal]

9. I agree

:bounce:

[madmax]

6. We need the voices of KO and the rest to inform

us of wtf they're up to in Washington - without the spin, rinse, repeat. We can multi-task. Well most of us, I'm getting older and a bit slower but, I'll try to keep up. ;)

edit: grammar lol

[Renew Deal]

10. "Without the spin"

That's what this entire thing is all about. If Olberman is making donations to candidates, you can't trust what he says.

[madmax]

17. Ok, now I'm convinced we're in the Twilight Zone and there

is no out - ever.

[dgibby]

41. Keith is a liberal commentator.

His viewpoint is well documented.

On the other hand, his corporate bosses can make anonymous, unlimited contributions to the candidate/candidates of their choice.

Personally, I trust Keith over the rest of them any day.

[monmouth]

7. Olbermann is far more important. Lame duck session back burner

until it begins.

[Renew Deal]

15. Now that's some bullshit

Laws that affect millions of people and sometimes the entire world are less important than some TV host with an ethical problem?

[monmouth]

43. It is to me. Sorry, the lame duck session isn't even meeting yet..n/t

[treestar]

12. Yeppers. An entertainer keeping his job is priority number one!

:rofl:

[tridim]

19. An entertainer?

OMFG.

Keep laughing idiot.

[madmax]

23. +1000

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. When they convene the Committee on Unamerican Activities

oh wait they don't have to.

And while there is this pesky contract law, it is the enforcement of such contract law, it is when convenient...

I think you really don't get it and that's ok... you really don't.

[Renew Deal]

27. Are you suggesting that Olbermans ethical problems are more important than pending legislation?

[leveymg]

31. The ethical problems are in the eye of the beholder, in this case.

Concerned, a little, aren't we?

What's the matter, can't keep focused on two things at the same time? Don't worry your head about that, the rest of us can.

[Renew Deal]

36. I disagree

The ethical problems are in the eyes of his boss.

[leveymg]

38. Whose framing and judgment of the issue you echo.

What does that make you? Phil Griffin's sock puppet?

Or, don't you realize that?

[leveymg]

40. I think the distraction has left the building. eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. And who do you expect to detail that upcoming legislation?

Buchannnan? Good luck with that.

[madmax]

29. Wonder who will chair this edition of CoUA?

I need as Advil.

[SargeUNN]

35. distraction for what for goodness sake?

what do you mean?

[Renew Deal]

37. This

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9486127

[SargeUNN]

42. so we are so tunnel visioned

that we can't defend one of our media voices in an era that we have a right wing media that is far more than we have, and a S.C. ruling that allows all kinds of corporate money and we are distracted for fighting to keep the media from getting more right wing? That is a distraction? COME ON!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Let me get this straight

you are happy that one of the few voices on TV that covers THOSE issues on the TV machine has been silenced?

you think everybody has the time to google these things?

Good grief!

If the news did it's job it would be a personnel issue... they don't... so each voice is precious.

Jesus, here is a gun. Shoot that foot.

[ShamelessHussy]

45. worse things are said when we focus on our leaders ethical challenges