MSNBC "seems to have been caught completely off guard by the magnitude of the backlash" (Olbermann)

[Clio the Leo]

Olbermann will return, and gladness spreads across the land: The statement from MSNBC president Phil Griffin:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

The speed of MSNBC's reversal shows how tenuous their case against Olbermann was from the outset. What's particularly surprising is that the network seems to have been caught completely off guard by the magnitude of the backlash to the original suspension and the P.R. disaster that resulted -- another sign of the folly of its continuing equivocation about the liberal identity that's been responsible for much of its success.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_126.html

[Tatiana]

1. Seriously, WTF did they expect? Keith's ratings built their primetime.

Who did they think was watching the program? Idiotic morons not capable of rational thought?

Of course there would be an uproar. The uproar was so massive, even I was surprised (and so was Keith, apparently!).

[HopeHoops]

2. It was a pretty stupid way to handle it. Problem: flat tire. Solution: shoot engine.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. What problem?

They created the problem as an excuse to nail Olbermann.

[HopeHoops]

10. Okay, so change the problem to "ran out of gas". Either way, they shot the engine to solve it.

It probably boils down to the Comcast deal, but they royally fucked up in how they dealt with it.

[glinda]

33. Sign petition against Comcast merger here:

http://act2.freepress.net/letter/comcast/

[ThomCat]

12. There was never a problem.

They had an employee they wanted to target. KO. He worked at subsidiary company MSNBC.

He wasn't breaking any rule at MSNBC. So they dug up a rule at NBC. Rules at NBC don't apply to KO, because he doesn't work for NBC.

For a rules there to apply NBC would have needed to have a general policy about which rules from NBC apply at MSNBC. Just one? Really? Of all the rules at NBC, only this one suddenly applies to MSNBC staff? They should be able to provide an employee manual showing what rules apply. Nobody can find any such manual of NBC rules at MSNBC. So it's obvious they wanted this one rule to apply only this one time, only to KO.

Especially when it came out that Joe Scarborough made donations to republicans, and they said this rule didn't apply to him because he was somehow a different type of broadcaster. Not a journalist like KO. That showed definitively that this was intended to be an arbitrary rule that would apply only to KO.

It was a political hit job from the start. They just didn't think people would complain so loudly. They thought people would buy the lie that it was a simple employee dispute, so KO had to go and please mind our own business. But really, I wonder how any executive was dumb enough to think this would succeed. Didn't they run this by any of their lawyers first? Any lawyer should have been able to see how risky and full of holes this was.

When they try to make only one rule apply suddenly to only one person, without prior notice, from another company he doesn't even work for, you know it's a hit job. It couldn't possibly be anything else. He would have one hell of a breach of contract suit against MSNBC if they didn't reinstate him. What the hell were they thinking?

[Tatiana]

16. "They just didn't think people would complain so loudly..."

And, of course, they probably based their assumptions on their poor treatment of other employees like Ashleigh Banfield and David Shuster.

I don't think it ever occured to Griffin & co. that Keith had as many (intelligent, active, and motivated) supporters as he did.

[calimary]

32. And I love how it's being described in print now - in the Washington Post, too.

Telling phrases applied - including:

"The speed of MSNBC's reversal shows how tenuous their case against Olbermann was from the outset. What's particularly surprising is that the network seems to have been caught completely off guard by the magnitude of the backlash to the original suspension and the P.R. disaster that resulted..."

Get that?

-- "MSNBC's reversal" (word choice implies they had to back down)
-- "shows how tenuous their case against Olbermann was from the outset" (proves their case wasn't as rock solid as many assumed)
-- "seems to have been caught completely offguard" (they misread things HORRIBLY: MSNBC management = boy are they idiots! guess who winds up looking bad here? ALSO indicates - um ... gee .. well, I guess there really ARE large numbers of liberals/progressives we HAVE to pay attention to after all... um... election --- um... doesn't compute... what to do... besides fuck things up...)
-- "magnitude of the backlash" (liberals/progressives don't have a voice and don't deserve one and the election just proved it, so we can start fucking with them = WRONG WRONG WRONG, boy did management misread THAT one! The rumors of our iminent demise have been greatly exaggerated.)
And my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE:
-- "and the P.R. disaster that resulted" (WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! The good guys WON that particular PR war. VERY significant. PR is all it's about anymore. It's PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT. That's all it is, in politics and pop culture and everything else. It's not what you actually ARE. It's what people THINK you are. MSNBC management thought they had the situation, and us, sussed. They blew it. They blew it in public. They blew it for everyone everywhere to see and it blew up all over the internet and their phone lines and their email addresses which all had to be shut down or had been broken down. Wonder if any Dems in Congress bothered to take note? In this day and age, you win by winning the PR wars. And MSNBC management did everything BUT.)

It's a good day for the good guys! Now we should focus on making as much hay out of this as possible - both against MSNBC management (reminding them who's REALLY boss - it's the viewers THEY SERVE!!!) and with our reps.

This is and can be - and SHOULD BE progressives' and liberals' "you woke the sleeping giant" moment.

[Kalyke]

23. Do you really wonder how any executive was dumb enough to think this would work?

Look at:

* Faux News slaves: recent studies have suggested that many people continue to hold onto - and further back up - their beliefs even when they're soundly proven wrong.
* TeaBaggers: They really thought they were grassroots when it's so easily proven that they're Dick Armey's astroturf.
* The Obama Administration: Let's not even try the left-handed approach and continue to move right - even when we see that the people don't want it and the Republicans won't vote for it. After all, it's conventional wisdom that we should move right.

These executives have been easily manipulating an entire portion of the populace for years. What they didn't count on is that there are still HORDES of us out here who think, who reason, who are NOT to the right of Stalin and who will protest when one of our few voices is threatened.

[sufrommich]

24. Even Rachel Maddow said he broke the contract. MSNBC

has their own code of conduct seperate from NBC.


Here's Rachels quote:
As you may have heard today, Keith Olbermann has been temporarily suspended from his job hosting Countdown on this network, because he made three personal political donations to candidates in this last election cycle. The reason for Keith's suspension is that here at MSNBC, there is an explicit employee rule against hosts making contributions like that.

You can do it if you ask in advance and management tells you it's OK. That's what I understand happened with our morning-show host's political donations in 2006, under previous management.

But if you don't ask in advance for an exemption from the rule, you're bound by the rule. (For the record: the rule applies to us here at MSNBC and to NBC News staff. CNBC isn't under NBC News, so they're not bound by the rule.)

I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it. I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown.


"

[sabrina 1]

28. Not his contract, a rule that was murky at best.

I don't think anyone said he violated his contract.

Here's the part of the rule he supposedly violated:

"If a contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a candidate or group with a political or social agenda could create the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the employee’s responsibilities at MSNBC.com, the contribution must receive the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief.

Even Conservatives, who I'm sure would love to see the end of progressive TV, believed it was ludicrous to think that Keith donating to Democrats was 'would create the appearance of a conflict of interest'.

I disagree with Rachel on this, unless there is some other rule that is not public.

[sufrommich]

29. He violated the contract by not getting prior approval.

And the right has a vested interest in pushing this as a "conflict in interest" non issue.

[laughingliberal]

60. Wasn't in his contract. nt

[sabrina 1]

30. Not his contract, a rule that was murky at best.

I don't think anyone said he violated his contract.

Here's the part of the rule he supposedly violated:

"If a contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a candidate or group with a political or social agenda could create the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the employee’s responsibilities at MSNBC.com, the contribution must receive the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief.

Even Conservatives, who I'm sure would love to see the end of progressive TV, believed it was ludicrous to think that Keith donating to Democrats 'would create the appearance of a conflict of interest'.

I disagree with Rachel on this, unless there is some other rule that is not public.

[geckosfeet]

53. Yes. He should have donated through front organizations who could lanuder

his money and conceal his identity.

That is more ethical and benefits all concerned.

[glinda]

35. Did they write that for her? Maybe she should have not had a martini before work.

Or was she disparate to get him back and just repeated what she thought was true?

[sufrommich]

37. lol, are you serious? Do you really think Rachel Maddow

would read a corporate statement on the air? Or be drunk on the air? Or desperate about anything? Sorry, I give her more credit than that, she's the epitome of fairness in my book.

[jeff47]

39. You're a little off

There is a policy at NBC.

Long ago, NBC stopped trying to enforce their ethics policies at MSNBC. The policy remained technically in effect, but NBC's ethics department told MSNBC they were not going to enforce any ethics rules on MSNBC.

Enter KO. Suddenly the policies are being enforced again. However, one can not suddenly start enforcing policies on their employees without creating labor law problems. Hence MSNBC's big problem.

HOWEVER, the KO situation is also an announcement that the policies are now going to be enforced on MSNBC. Meaning Rachel's comments were true when she made them. They were _NOT_ true if she had made them the day before.

[Janice325]

41. What do you expect her to say?

Who knows what information she was given about Keith from The Powers That Be.

[laughingliberal]

59. Love Rachel but she missed it on that one. nt

[calimary]

31. Lot of people DID buy the lie, including people who had no business doing so.

My Facebook page had startling comments on it from people I respect, who should know better and who should look into the details a little more before they spout off (as they usually DO). If we'd followed that lead, it would have been another case of "oh, okay... I guess that's true. I guess that's how it had to be... he broke their rule, that's that, and I'll just take THEIR word for it."

NOT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:grr: :mad: :grr: :mad: :grr:

[Poboy]

55. You are correct. Just another case of 'our side' willing to buy into the lies. 'Oh okay" -yep. -nt

[glinda]

34. They also didn't like all the exposure on facts of their giving /associations coming out.

[patricia92243]

58. My republican husband says it is all a publicity stunt - sigh :( n/t

[rocktivity]

15. DING DING DING! HopeHoops, you're our grand prize winner!

Problem: flat tire. Solution: shoot engine.

According to MSNBC's actual policy, employees can make political contributions IF they inform management. Keith says he knew nothing of the policy. The punishment of indefinite suspension without pay did not fit the crime.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[ThomCat]

17. Um, reports said that was an NBC policy. Not MSNBC.

KO didn't know about it because he didn't work for NBC, so he wouldn't. They have yet to be able to produce any MSNBC employee manual that shows this rule.

[rocktivity]

19. Good! That makes Griffin look that much dumber

And that being the case, I hope Keith asked for his lost pay as well as an apology.

:bounce:
rocktivity

[DainBramaged]

22. HAHAHAHAHA

:yourock: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You made me spit my tea out.

[SemperEadem]

52. exellent analogy of this event

that's about the size of griffin's ability to reason.

[Clio the Leo]

8. But, on the flip side....

... MSNBC now looks LESS like a "liberal network" ... something Fox cant claim. Who knows? Maybe a few Fox viewers have switched to MSNBC because they now seem to have more "integrity." We can hope, right?

[me b zola]

21. I believe they felt that Keith had been weakened

by the false equivalencies that some noted Liberal minded people have been making between Keith and the rw noise machine. I think that msnbc believed that Liberal voices would not be supportive of Keith, so he would just go quietly away w/o fighting back.

They thought wrong

[laughingliberal]

62. Yes. It shocks them to find there's still some real liberals despite the campaign against them all..

these years. They mistakenly think their viewers are as wish wash as some of our leaders.

[Kablooie]

43. If they had a problem the appropriate action would be to sit down and have a private talk with him.

Work out the situation between them.

But it seems they thought they could impress their new Comcast overlords by trying to slaughter him publicly.

I hope this means that Comcast won't be able to get their conservative hooks into MSNBC for a long time to come.

[City Lights]

3. The corporate masters at msnbc are still clueless after all these years. nt

[Kalyke]

4. In other words - there are slews and slews of people

who don't want right-wing spun news.

In fact, most of us don't want left-wing spun news, but, until Fox is KO'ed (pun intended), then we have to have left-leaning commentators in prime-time spots, as well.

[LeFleur1]

5. Now Follow Through

and turn MSNBC off. Or maybe you already have.

[Kalyke]

11. I won't turn off MSNBC until Fox is destroyed and replaced

with straight news.

[glinda]

36. Sign the petition here:

http://act2.freepress.net/letter/comcast/

[True_Blue]

49. Signed. Thanks for the link!

[AC_Mem]

44. I haven't watched MSNBC

since they did this to KO.

I will turn it back on tomorrow when he is back on the air.

I wonder if MSNBC will see our actions in their ratings.

[CrispyQ]

6. Who knew that there are liberals in America who want to hear something other than the standard MSM

right wing bullshit? :eyes:

[asjr]

9. I wonder now if Mr Griffin will hold on to

his job. If Comcast takes the reins he will have to do as they say. We are the losers--the citizens who would like to be told the truth. But we are well on our way to being taken over by corporations. Frankly, I have no idea to combat that as an individual.

[Skidmore]

13. Maybe we need to invest in Comcast and have a vote at those meetings.

[Major Hogwash]

14. "Both sides do it" my ass!! Then why is it Glen Beck can only get 1 freaking corporate sponsor?

They aren't the same.
Seriously.

I can't wait to see "pyscho talk" today on Ed's show and to see what Keith has to say tomorrow.

"I'm as happy as a little girl" ~ Dieter

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. What a conundrum for Comcast.

Their financial success now depends on stirring up the Left AND the Right.

[Scurrilous]

20. K & R

:thumbsup:

[edbermac]

25. MSNBC "caught completely off guard by the amount of shit they'll have to eat"

Eat it, Phil!

[Joe Fields]

26. Another possibility is.....

That this was a calculated move by MSNBC to keep Keith's ego in check. Earlier this week I predicted that Keith would privately apologize to Phil Griffin and that he would be back on the air within two weeks. Griffin is smart enough to realize that Keith is an 800 lb. Gorilla, and it would not serve the company well to fire him. Griffin, in his remarks printed today said, "After several days of deliberation and discussion...", which to me means that he has had a private

I am not discounting the probability that Griffin underestimated the size of the public backlash. So, I believe it was a combination of the two.talk with Keith and in that discussion Keith apologized.

[laughingliberal]

63. If their purpose was to keep KO's ego in check, that backfired-300,000 people demanding his return:

:rofl:

I love the smell of roasted right wings in the morning!

[calimary]

27. Something else may be at play here, too. It's about the money (Keith's salary)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9512767

[otohara]

38. Another Incompetent Grossly Overpaid CEO

who needs to fired.

Phil Griffin does not have his finger on the pulse of MSNBC viewers in the least.

[avaistheone1]

40. Good I am glad we made our point.

k&r

[Raine]

42. They better start remembering to keep "dancing"

with the ones who brung them (liberals) and enjoy it! We're giving them their high ratings and getting them ad dollars and they better keep that in mind when they try to dump our guys!!! That is unless they rather be like CNN ... tanking.

[SoCalDem]

45. more from Phil Griffin:

and if he's naughty again, I'll spank him and send him to his room without dessert..

that is all...carry on..and get daddy another martini..

[Guilded Lilly]

46. They've been watching FOX too much! SNORK

[awoke_in_2003]

47. KO is the closest thing...

to Edward R. Murrow we will have in our lifetime. KO is a polarizing figure, as was Murrow. The poles are- being right and being wrong. KO opponents are wrong.

[SnakeEyes]

48. You know MSNBC misjudged things when

Even writers at The Corner @ National Review, American Spectator, and Weekly Standard defended Keith.

[mmonk]

54. That is because being in Keith's position in a way,

they understand the implications. In that sense, it's not a right or left issue.

[zehnkatzen]

50. If only we cared this much about things that weren't TV shows.

That said, I'm happy Keith is coming back with such a shout. It was a shameful double-standard, typically applied, that conservatives can do anything and get away with it, but someone seen as a liberal always has to be on thier best behavior.

[PuffedMica]

51. K&R

[southernyankeebelle]

56. Why shouldn't the show have a lean forward slant. You watch when this new group

come in they will destroy the leaning forward shows. They don't about the bottom line when it comes to liberals. I hope Bernie Sanders can stop this marriage.

[madrchsod]

57. never underestimate the fury of the advertisers having to pay full rate

[livetohike]

61. Now how can we get them to stop talking about Sarah Palin?

That would be an excellent campaign, imo.