Why was Keith Olberman fired?

I am not sure but I know KO making those donations to three Democratic candidates for Congress last October and one Grijalva, had appeared on Olbermann’s show immediately before Olbermann mailed the donations didn’t sit well with network execs as it violated company policy and who knows….maybe there is Republican pressure to can his ass. Follow the money to find out the truth.

I believe he violated his contract by donating the money.

His loss is a great one, but I am positive that he will turn up on TV again when his contract allows (some say fall).

Jeff Zucker was Olbermann’s protector. When Zucker left earlier this week, Olbermann’s days were numbered.

If you violate your contract knowingly, you’re likely to get fired. That’s just how it works.

Most reports I’ve read have this as a mutual thing, he no longer enjoyed working there and they no longer felt he was worth the trouble. They bought him out and he can’t go to a competing network for a while but is free to take his talents wherever he’d like after that.

When both sides want out of a contract, it usually gets done.

@aprilsimnel Great point, and both those departures lead to the evil empire, Comcast.

@klutzaroo The political donation thing was already over with. I doubt that was the issue. Of copurse, it didn’t violate any contracts, but Fox and Murdoch donated around 2 million dollars to Republicans. As a private citizen, Olberman would be limited to $2200 per candidate.

@ETpro I’m hardly the only person who mentioned his contractual violation. When your contract specifies no political donations and you make political donations… 1+1=2, no matter what your bosses or the other guy’s bosses are doing.

I would think also that if your contract specifies no donations to politicians, you are not entitled to any even as “a private citizen.”

The way I understand it, Olbermann was fired because Com-cast bought NBC. It is disappointing but not surprising. Another progressive voice lost and Limbaugh, Beck, and other right wing screamers are out there.

I suspect that by the next election in 2012, there will be no commercial news channels remaining that broadcast real news. FSTV and BBC come pretty close to telling the truth about American Politics and almost nobody watches them

@klutzaroo & @jca I believe that the prohibition of political donations was not in Olbermann’s contract with MSNBC, but a rule for all news personnel set by its parent company, NBC. Nonetheless, I don’t know whether Olberman was aware of it and thought he could get away with it, or was unaware. Whicever the case, his punishment for that transgression had been handed down and served. Something had to change last week, and that something clearly was not a political donation that had long since been dealt with.

@ETpro Ever heard of a “contributing factor?”

@klutzaroo I have. I have also heard of spin. I think claiming that the firing had to do with past political contributions when that matter had already been dealt with is spin. It is trying to claim that there was no motivation on the part of the new bosses to silence a very effective voice against the very corporatist power grab that the Comcast/NBC Universal merger represents. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Why is it easier to believe a conspiracy rather than the possibility that a guy who didn’t like his bosses decided to ask out of his contract?

And then his bosses, who didn’t get along with a very public figure, decided he wasn’t worth the trouble and just paid him off before it got ugly in public.

Networks don’t shut up media figures by buying them out, they just give their headaches away to other networks, hoping in the end it’s worth it. He’ll be back on TV shortly after the quiet period ends with another network if that’s what he wants. For examples please see Letterman, Dave… O’Brien, Conan… and Stern, Howard

Maybe he got tired of representing something on the network, maybe he doesn’t want to be the people’s champion, maybe he just wants to get back to what he enjoys, maybe he’d like to spend time with his family. All seem more likely than some overlords deciding to simply fire their leading man because he speaks out against corporate power.

The simplest explanation is not a conspiracy.

@ETpro You keep saying “had already been dealt with.” As if you know for a fact that this was completely over and had nothing to do with anything that followed after. You’ve based your whole argument on your idea that this “had already been dealt with.” You think it had. Other people don’t think this is the case. You can keep telling us that what you believe to be true is the case, but that doesn’t make it the truth. Unless you call up Keith Olberman and sad “So what’s the real deal with your job and did it have anything to do with the public embarrassment just a little while ago?” and hear that it didn’t, your argument that it didn’t is based on just as much as our argument that it did. Opinion.

Yesterday on the CBS Sunday Morning Show they had a statement from Comcast that they currently have no operational control of MSNBC. I just looked at an article online that said that tensions were high since Olbermann made the political contributions in November (for which he got a two day suspension).

@funkdaddy, @klutzaroo & @jca Perhaps. We may never know any more than we do right now. It’s likely the agreement for the buyout specified that parts of it be kept confidential. But if you listen to the very first part of his announcement, Olbermann clearly says he was told it was to be his last day. That doesn’t sound anything like what Larry King told his listeners when he announced his retirement.

@ETpro Exactly. He was most likely fired. The reasons, however, are open to speculation. Meaning that you don’t have any more definitive information than anyone else.

@klutzaroo That’s true, I don’t. But I do have critical thought available to me, and with that I can deem whether a proposed reason is highly likely to be true, somewhat likely, or unlikely. I find it interesting that after arguing that a event from the past that had been set aside was the likely cause, you now claim I can’t know what the cause was. Yes, it’s possible that the political contributions were a contributing factor, but something made this happen precipitously, and that was not likely to be it. Something also made Jeff Zucker leave, and that was even less likely to be a factor there.

@ETpro Oh my God. NONE OF US CAN KNOW FOR SURE. My guess (which I happen to share with a number of other people) is as good as your guess. That’s all I’m saying. Once again. If you bothered to read it, you might see that. I still think that your premise that that “event from the past that had been set aside” is not a factor is absurd and that your scolding us for believing that it wasn’t “dealt with” and completely over is ridiculous. In your mind, what I’m saying doesn’t make logical sense. However, that’s you and your opinion, one that a number of us don’t share with you. Instead of scolding us and telling us we’re wrong all the time, why can’t you admit that it might be a factor as much as anything else is? Instead of accusing us of not being capable of critical thought (unnecessary and… you can guess the rest), why not admit that you know just as much as all the rest of us and are speculating just as we are with the same limited information? My critical thinking, as well as my experience and knowledge, leads me to believe that anything that can be used against a person will be at a time when it is most advantageous to the people in charge to do so. Even if its “been dealt with.”

None of us can know for sure. This is a matter of opinion. Yours is not more “right” than mine just because its yours.

You don’t know what made Zucker leave any more than what made Olberman get fired. You can speculate all you want, but you’re still just speculating without knowledge or facts to back it up.

By the way, @ETpro, if you know all the answers, why bother asking a question?