Olbermann: You rock, progressives

In his just-released statement to viewers, Keith Olbermann takes a swipe at his MSNBC colleague, Joe Scarborough, who gave campaign funds to several friends but apparently tried to hide one of them under his wife's name. He also attended a Republican fund-raiser, um, retirement party. Or something.

You should also know that I did not attempt to keep any of these political contributions secret; I knew they would be known to you and the rest of the public. I did not make them through a relative, friend, corporation, PAC, or any other intermediary, and I did not blame them on some kind of convenient "mistake" by their recipients.

In the letter, Olberman explains that he wasn't aware of NBC's prohibition against political donations and assumed when he made his three donations they would become public at some point.

He acknowledges the power of the progressive community in coming together, separately yet in unison, "to correct injustices great and small."  From Twitter to Facebook to the liberal blogosphere, progressives made enough noise apparently to catch the attention of NBC executives and spur them to reinstate Olbermann quicker than many expected.
,
When Olbermann's donations became public, Scarborough's own contributions came to light, causing his sidekick and chief enabler, Mika Brzezinski, to try to deflect the heat.  She defended Joe's $5,000 donation to his friend, John Merrill, who was running for a seat in the state legislature in Alabama, saying, yeah, Joe made the donation, biiiitches, but it should have been in his wife's name. Subtle, Mika. About as subtle as a triple espresso mocha soy latte -- with a caramel swirl -- sashayed to the set by a Chippendale's dancer.

According to Politico:

That contribution should have been in the name of Scarborough’s wife, Susan Scarborough, according to Scarborough’s co-host on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski, as well as John R. McGregor III, a representative from the Scarboroughs' Pensacola, Fla., bank. POLITICO was provided a copy of the bank transfer, which was dated April 9 and signed by Susan Scarborough.

“The Scarboroughs expect John Merrill will amend his campaign report to accurately reflect that reality,” said Brzezinski. “If he does not, I will recommend they file an ethics complaint against him.”

Brzezinski also challenged Merrill’s recollection of having brought Scarborough to Tuscaloosa for an August 2009 fundraiser for the county Republican Party, which Merrill said “was unbelievably successful. We raised a ton of money that we used to help local candidates.”

That event was “was billed as a tribute to Gov. Bob Riley on his retirement from politics,” said Brzezinski, noting that Riley and Scarborough served together in Congress and asserting, “Any suggestion that Joe Scarborough went to the University event to raise money for a political party is false. Sadly, many politicians try to elevate their standing by exaggerating their connection to Joe. This is one of those cases.” 

Friday evening, Merrill issued a chastened statement to POLITICO asserting that the $5,000 donation — his biggest individual donation of the campaign — was “from Susan Scarborough ... I am very appreciative of her support.”

 So sad. Even Joe's friends have become mini-Mikas to him, willing to do anything just to shine in his halo. As for Mika herself, she's just Alan Colmes in a skirt -- spineless "liberal," insipid suck-up artist. She looks a little like him, too.

Welcome back, Keith.

UPDATE:  Jon Stewart had a funny line Monday night that sums up the whole silly affair:  "It was a stupid rule, but at least it was enforced poorly."

NBC's rules don't rule

Josh Marshall makes an interesting point about MSNBC's Olbermann fiasco.  If NBC has a policy against hosts giving to political candidates, why grant permission on a case-by-case basis?

...MSNBC's policy forbids employees from making donations to political candidates, unless they ask for permission to do so, in which (case) it seems usually to be granted. That seems to me to undercut the principle behind the policy. 

...Olbermann's job at MSNBC is to be an extremely opinionated commentator on politics. And he's the centerpiece (along with Maddow and more equivocally, Matthews) behind the business strategy of making MSNBC the liberal cable news/chat network. (How they square that with simultaneously having a more traditional and by the books NBC News is something they clearly have yet to work out.) But when you take that all into account, seeing him now all but canned over a handful of individual political contributions because he's compromised the objectivity he's supposed to bring to the job sounds like a bit of a joke.

This doesn't mean I don't see the point of rules barring people in the news business from giving money to politicians. I do. I think they usually make sense. And whatever the rules, organizations have the right to their rules and if you want to work there you need to follow them. But against the canvass of the media and political world we're living in and everything that's happening in it, the scale of MSNBC's response this seems bizarre, arbitrary and excessive. 

A reader amplified Marshall's point that a waiver undermines the original rule:

 "The strangest thing about MSNBC policy is the asking for permission part. Either you can give or you can't. Requiring permission implies that certain candidates or parties are acceptable and certain candidates or parties are unacceptable to management. Isn't it illegal for employers to go down that road?"

As the reader suggested, this exposes NBC executives to the charge that it may favor one kind of donation over another.  Either have a rule, or don't, or at least differentiate between employees, i.e., news and opinion anchors or contributors.  This way it's open and shut, not equivocal.

As in most things, I tend to be fairly liberal on this.  Let opinion journalists contribute, but require that they disclose it, particularly when interviewing that candidate. Open advocacy for a candidate may be less acceptable, but, in general, it's not unreasonable to assume that a liberal appearing on Maddow or Olbermann has at least their tacit support, so overt support is just a little further along the spectrum. Straight news reporters perhaps should be able to contribute as well, following the same guidelines about disclosure and, obviously, advocacy.  We "let" them vote, and we assume that, if they're doing their jobs, it won't get in the way of their reporting.  Why not let them contribute as well? Disclosure would make this transparent.  Of course, this is less clear-cut than allowing opinion hosts to contribute, but a case can be made for it.  Media companies have the right to determine these policies, but they should be clear, coherent and fair.