Did Olbermann violate NBC ethics code by contributing to Democrats?; Update: MSNBC suspends Olbermann “indefinitely without pay”

posted at 10:10 am on November 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Would it shock anyone to know that Keith Olbermann donated thousands of dollars to three Democrats in the midterms?  Two House incumbents from Arizona and Jack Conway, the Senatorial candidate fro Kentucky who lost after running the notorious “Aqua Buddha” attack ad, received the maximum donation from Olbermann in the final days of the general election season, a fact discovered by Politico when reviewing FEC filings.  The donations violate NBC’s stated ethics code for its journalists, and it may apply even more since one of the recipients appeared on Countdown at the same time Olbermann made the donation:

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election — a potential violation of NBC’s ethics policies.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 – the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show. Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was only declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on Countdown – one of several appearances he made on the show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions – considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

Three years ago, MSNBC stated categorically that the rule applies to both the traditional NBC network and its opinion cable network:

NBC and MSNBC TV require permission of the president of NBC News. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Microsoft.)

“Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions.  You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.”

The question then becomes whether Steve Capus approved of Olbermann’s contributions, or whether he was asked at all about it.  The rule does allow NBC to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to enforce the ethics code or not.  If Capus gave the green light, then one has to wonder whether he has ever been asked about donating to Republicans in House and Senate races and whether he allowed those contributions or not.  If waivers only come for Democrats, then that speaks to NBC’s approach to politics in general, and not just MSNBC.

However, let’s not pretend that this somehow proves Olbermann’s bias.  Despite NBC’s insistence on calling Olbermann a news anchor, he’s one of the most obvious opinionaters in the cable news industry.  The disastrous election coverage at MSNBC helmed by Olbermann proved that beyond doubt for those few who ever doubted it.  And to be fair, Olbermann himself doesn’t seem terribly concerned about pretenses of objectivity or fairness.

That doesn’t mean that Olbermann and his network haven’t been hypocritical on this issue, however:

Olbermann, who has become of the most prominent liberal commentators on cable television, has been a critic of the political donations made by Fox News’ parent company, News Corp., which contributed $1 million each to a pair of organizations trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin also tweaked rival network Fox over the contributions. “Show me an example of us fund-raising,” Griffin told The New York Times last month.

Well, putting Grijalva on while Olbermann makes contributions to his campaign may not quite be fundraising, but the failure to disclose it at the time does look questionable in terms of journalistic ethics.  On MSNBC, that’s hardly news, either.

Update: Just to make my point clearer — there seems to be some confusion about it in the comments — I don’t think that Olbermann’s contributions mean too much on their own.  We all know from watching his broadcasts that he dislikes Republicans and cheerleads for Democrats, so these contributions do nothing for his credibility in any direction.  The question here is whether NBC will hold MSNBC to its ethical standards, and the hypocrisy of shrieking about Fox’s contributions while donating his own.

Update II: Jonah Goldberg offers some wisdom:

So Olbermann gave money to some Democratic candidates. Ostensibly the rules against this are intended to prevent journalists from giving the appearance of bias. Whether or not such rules make sense for actual reporters, such rules are silly for someone like Olbermann. Does anybody, and I mean anybody, suddenly trust Olbermann’s opinion less because of this news? I’m waiting. Does anyone think he’s less biased? More biased? Un-biased?

Second, the larger problem with these kinds of rules is that they do little to prevent media bias and a great deal to hide an important form of evidence of it. Banning liberal journalists from giving money doesn’t prevent them from being liberal, it just gives them a bit more plausibility when they deny it. Now, I can see the argument that someone who makes a donation would be more interested in protecting their investment, as it were. So I don’t think the policy is completely misguided. But at a certain level banning donations is like NPR barring staff from attending the Jon Stewart rally. It doesn’t fool anyone, but gives the accused a lawyerly rebuttal to accurate accusations.

Wouldn’t it be better to check Open Secrets to see where the journalists put their money?  And frankly, wouldn’t that be utterly redundant in Olbermann’s case?

Update III: Looks like Olbermann didn’t get permission after all:

MSNBC president Phil Griffin released the following statement Friday following the news that Keith Olbermann had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle:

“I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

I’d be surprised if it lasts longer than the weekend, but it looks as though MSNBC felt it had to act.

Update IV: The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it gets.  MSNBC offers the most ridiculously biased televion coverage of politics possible, crowning it with Election Night coverage that had people wondering if NBC needed to hire grief and anger counseling for the entire on-air staff.  And now, because Olbermann contributed to three Democrats last month, suddenly Griffin suspends him because “these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest”?

For this, Griffin gets the Captain Louis Renault Award for his shock, shock! at finding that Olbermann may have jeopardized his standing as an impartial journalist:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Resist We Much on May 21, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Sounds like “Superman” is going to put Lois under the bus.

The ‘Rats are starting to distance themselves.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Looking, but I found this:

Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner’s husband’s law firm has strong Obama connections

Resist We Much on May 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM

It’s not what you think, baby.

arnold ziffel on May 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Is this?

Washington Post: Lois Lerner is a registered Democrat, records show

Resist We Much on May 21, 2013 at 6:33 PM

I can’t wipe the smile off my face; with every new revelation we are one step closer to destroying the Obama myth and driving a stake into the heart of liberalism. Yes, they will try to avoid and deceive, however the truth will come out and they are done.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM

IRS worker used government credit card for years-long AMAZON shopping spree…Drudge Report

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/21/here-we-go-irs-official-lois-lerner-to-plead-the-fifth-at-congressional-hearing-tomorrow/

Zcat on May 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Sorry about the wrong link in earlier post/

IRS worker used government credit card for years-long AMAZON shopping spree…Drudge Report

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/irs-employee-amazon-shopping-spree-678435

Zcat on May 21, 2013 at 6:35 PM

“have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”

good, roast her all day, assasinate her character

burserker on May 21, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Is there any coherent explanation for that apart from deliberately shielding him, even at the expense of keeping him in the dark about key developments in his own administration?

elgeneralisimo has seen this play all ready…

In a letter to Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, an attorney for Patrick Cunningham, chief of the Phoenix office’s criminal division within the U.S. Attorney’s office in Arizona, said he was planning to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid acting as a witness against himself.

Then, poof…

“To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the [Justice] Department with respect to the congressional investigation,” Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, said in a tersely-worded seven page letter to Mr. Obama.

“The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case,” he said.

And finally some red shirts get the axe…

Heads are beginning to roll nearly two years after the Fast and Furious gunwalker scandal first came to light.

elgeneralisimo on May 21, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Something must up with the liberal press meeting at the WH, there are almost no stories over at HP on any of this.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 6:38 PM

She is not protecting herself alone by taking the Fifth.

I suspect there is a little collection being taken for her attorney’s fees as we speak. Maybe a nice annuity, too.

novaculus on May 21, 2013 at 6:38 PM

good, roast her all day, assasinate her character

burserker on May 21, 2013 at 6:36 PM

My view is that she is committing ‘character suicide’ with this, to coin a phrase.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 6:41 PM

If only those pursued by the IRS could do the same.

SouthernGent on May 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

cnn and msdnc won’t show it though, they have their squirrel called OK…..dang it…

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I can’t wipe the smile off my face; with every new revelation we are one step closer to destroying the Obama myth…

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Sorry Spud, don’t think it’s gonna happen. Your irrational optimism is heartening to a crusty old fart like me, but Barky is just too well defended.

I’ll settle for a zillion paper cuts that run out the clock.

Bruno Strozek on May 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Couldn’t the Congressmen simply ask her questions that wouldn’t require the 5th? Example: Was there ever a policy within the IRS to look closer at certain groups? Who set that policy?

Neither are a question of illegality on her behalf, therefore any taking of the 5th would put her in contempt of Congress.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

So, essentially, everyone in this administration knows nothing about anything.

GarandFan on May 21, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Bruno Strozek on May 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Bruno, I understand your feelings, what I’m referring to is that little by little (a zillion paper cuts) the myth that Obama tried to build around is being destroyed and in doing so it is slowly but surely waking up people to whether they should trust their government.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Make her do it in public! NO DEALS!

It is important that the nation sees this. A great constitutional lesson on many levels.

Whitewolf7070 on May 21, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Dusty on May 21, 2013 at 5:32 PM

An employee of the People (a federal government employee) who refuses to answer questions under oath asked by elected Representatives of the People, about what how she did her job — a job paid for by the People — and about her role in the mistreatment of US citizens (the People) should not have a right to keep her job.

It should be grounds for immediate dismissal.

That said, if she is a government union member she may be protected.

farsighted on May 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Give her immunity and she’ll spill her guts.

Akzed on May 21, 2013 at 7:00 PM

If they feel the need to do this, they are afraid.

If they feel the need to also do this, they are very afraid.

Naturally Curly on May 21, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Courtesy of ChampionCapua over at Twitchy:

There once was hack, Lois Lerner
Who targeted those who would spurn her
With the soul of a Sith, she pleaded the 5th
If that chair was a stake, we could burn her

Anti-Control on May 21, 2013 at 7:13 PM

So we have at least one person taking the 5th at a Congressional hearing. We also have an assertion of executive privilege. What’s the over/under on Oval Office tapes? Deja vu all over again…

jclittlep on May 21, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Sorry Spud, don’t think it’s gonna happen. Your irrational optimism is heartening to a crusty old fart like me, but Barky is just too well defended.

I’ll settle for a zillion paper cuts that run out the clock.

Bruno Strozek on May 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

I find it’s your pessimism which is irrational here – 0dumba’s House of Cards is collapsing at all corners, and even he knows he inevitable.

Anti-Control on May 21, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I’m still bugged by the fact that the IRS themselves are the ones who confessed to this issue in the first place. The timing of it was at the crescendo of the Benghazi investigation. I’m inclined to believe there is more damning information to come forth from Benghazi than from IRSGate. We’ll see.

Egfrow on May 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Someone here, on one of these threads, had suggested Issa at least consult with Mark Levin over all of this, since he’s been directly involved for a decade or two.

Well, Mark’s had a substitute on his radio show this week, and that got me thinking. Is this any Jewish holiday that I’m unaware of ?? That’s about the only reason I know of that Mark gets any subs.
Oooo, he’s not in OK, is he ? I just don’t know, for sure, but would LOVE it if the committee is consulting with him.

pambi on May 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Okay, I’m poking back in for a sec.

While making the spaghetti gravy and meatballs, it occurred to me how much longer will law-abiding Americans put up with it all. I’m not talking about revolution in the terms of Ayers and Dorn.

After all, those protests by the t p looked pretty damned mild today.

When will the tax payers simply not comply? When the ‘congress’ passes yet another amnesty? When the ‘congress’ doesn’t hold yet another agency responsible for being ‘beyond political, beyond partisianship?’ When the ‘congress’ gives a pass to the State dept. because, “well, we’re just idiots?”

Nevermind all of that “going after all the waste, fraud and abuse,” nevermind all of that–all a bunch of political hogwash. I’m wondering when the average citizen says “nope, not gonna file.”

jersey taxpayer on May 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM

[farsighted on May 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM]

Yup, which is why I said she should be discharged for violating her oath of office.

Dusty on May 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Cool, but the US is NOT a democracy.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Now I know how a grizzly bear feels when they wander into a salmon pool!

The posts keep getting better and better each day here. All it will take today to break HotGas is throw in a Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin thread.

It just might tip over.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Well it’s not Cruz,Paul or Palin news but…Texas is sayin’ FU to Atheists…

“It’s Christmas in May in the Texas Legislature.

The Texas Senate on Friday approved a bipartisan bill that aims to remove legal risks of saying “Merry Christmas” in Texas public schools. Traditional holiday symbols, such as a menorah or nativity scene, would also win a nod of state support so long as more than one religion and a secular symbol are also reflected.

Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, says teachers have been reluctant to say “Merry Christmas” under fear of facing what he calls “frivolous” lawsuits.

“Merry Christmas to you all,” Nichols said when the bill passed.

The bill now goes to Gov. Rick Perry for his consideration.”

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/21/texas-senate-approves-merry-christmas-bill/

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Sad day nonetheless when that is needed. I bet our resident Harvard Law Grad could write up a pithy response to atheists, something like:

WHEREAS, Christmas Day is an official Federal holiday of the government of the United States of America, and

WHEREAS, Christmas Day is an official State holiday of the government of the State of Texas, and

WHEREAS, all public schools are government-supported schools

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, any employee of any government-supported school may speak the words “Merry Christmas” at any time they so wish.

Nutstuyu on May 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM

So she is basically using the fifth amendment hide the reasons why she infringed on the 1st amendment.

Irony

The Notorious G.O.P on May 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Cool, but the US is NOT a democracy.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM

And…it’s not a constitutional republic anymore either.

Nutstuyu on May 21, 2013 at 7:30 PM

So let me get this straight:

Amendment I – only when you say something I like

Amendment II – oh the horror, we’re not smelly colonists or something

Amendment III – eww, those icky soldiers; make love not war!

Amendment IV – yeah, I’ve got new rubber gloves and spiffy new blue uniform that says otherwise

Amendment V – OMG this one’s for me! You’ll never get me to squeal!!!

Nutstuyu on May 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Listen up Wingnutz, this is all laughably foolish, no one cares please move your racist selves on down the street; NO laws were broken and everyone agrees the leaks had to be sealed. The POTUS didn’t know until he read about this stuff in the paper and he was asleep thru much of the Benghazi “Crisis.”

I might add that Bush appointed pretty everyone in the current Federal Government so this is his or Cheney’s fault…

The POTUS is going focus, like a laser, on J-O-B-S…Gun Control and Immigration Reform and doing the People’s Work as he was so overwhelmingly re-elected to do.

This is nothing more than a hi-tech lynching and an extra-Constitutional means of overturning a duly constituted election….If you had ANY shame in your supposedly Christian(ist) souls you’d fall on your knees and ask for Obama and Michelle’s forgiveness….

Should some of you do that whilst on-line or on the phone, we’ll know and send a Christmas card….

JFKY on May 21, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Nothing will happen. Various weasels will take the 5th, various low to mid level bureaucrats will “retire” (e.g. go to work for Left wing / Dem think tanks or lobbying groups), various Dem politicians will express “sadness”, “sorrow”, and state that we all “need to get to the bottom of this”. MSNBC will report none of it, and most of the other networks will mostly ignore it. The low info voters don’t read so whatever the papers, blogs, or websites post will never be seen by them anyway.
Impact on 2014 elections…minimal. Impact on 2016 elections…zero.

SunSword on May 21, 2013 at 7:52 PM

SunSword on May 21, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Thank you little bright ray of sunshine…we’ll all just toddle off and be grumpy…

Again glad you weren’t around in 1777, or 1863 or 1942…Man what an advisor you would have made to MLK, “No one’s gonna care what happens on that March to Selma.” “No one’s gonna care about the Bus Boycott.”

Have you got your little bunker all prepared for the INEVITABLE collapse of the Republic?

JFKY on May 21, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Give her immunity and she’ll spill her guts.
Akzed on May 21, 2013 at 7:00 PM

I’m not so sure. Right now she’s got a pretty sweet gig enforcing Obamacare for her hero. If she takes the plea, she potentially gets Obama impeached, destroys her career, reputation and the Democrat party for the next 10-20 years and becomes a pariah to leftists everywhere. She’d have to assume she’d eventually get caught anyway to accept that deal, and I’m not sure she’s all that worried about that right now.

crrr6 on May 21, 2013 at 7:58 PM

First question:

“What is the content of your prayers?”

“On the advice of my attorney, I respectfully invoke my 5th amendment rights as the answer may incriminate me”

Illegal prayers. The end is nigh.

BobMbx on May 21, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Right now she’s got a pretty sweet gig enforcing Obamacare for her hero. If she takes the plea, she potentially gets Obama impeached, destroys her career, reputation and the Democrat party for the next 10-20 years and becomes a pariah to leftists everywhere. She’d have to assume she’d eventually get caught anyway to accept that deal, and I’m not sure she’s all that worried about that right now.

crrr6 on May 21, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Lay money she AIN’T gonna be “in charge of ObamaCare” too much longer…ask Jeremiah Wright about what happens to the inconvenient people…

And that’s why digging and patience are so useful…it’s a MARATHON people, if we can dig and find evidence of HER wrongdoing it doesn’t change her RIGHT to “invoke the Fifth” but it changes her odds of doing so. Once she sees the career is OVER and that now she’s looking 2-5 and NO pension, she might be more forthcoming.

JFKY on May 21, 2013 at 8:04 PM

The most transparent corrupt administration in history.

Chris of Rights on May 21, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3