Posted on 11/05/2010 2:59:12 PM PDT by lbryce
BS story.
They can’t suspend someone without pay.
Trying to gin up viewership
I've posted a total of 261 threads not one of them being a re-post as I am quite deliberate about not posting articles that have already appeared. I can only go by what I meticulously do before posting any article. That is to submit the title into the search field and respond accordingly, that is if an article search comes up without any results, I assume it has not appeared and proceed to posting it.
Why don't you try it yourself? Submit the title of this post and see how many posts it responds with. If you only get ONE result as in only the one you are moaning about, that is, this very post, then from now on you might have to consider taking a moment to gather your thoughts before expressing yourself. Thank you.
Sure he can be suspended without pay. It’s not like he’s a public sector union guy. There’s a contract. If the contract terms allow for disciplinary action based on ethics violations, then that’s what can happen. Wouldn’t know without seeing the contract.
That's what occurs to me too.
MSNBC makes a grand gesture to proclaim that they (including NBC) are ethical, and have high journalistic standards.
They either get rid of Olbermann — thus saving the cost of breaking a contract. Or, they turn him into a leftist martyr — thus increasing his audience share, after he's reinstated.
Either way, it doesn't seem like it's a clear victory.
“It’s a publicity stunt. Continue ignoring MSNBC.”
They must have figured it worked for Juan Whatshisname at NPR so they’re gonna try it, too.
Ignore those people. I’m glad you posted this or I would have missed the whole story.
“10th time this has been posted today”
Some topics are an exception :)
First time I have seen it.
You into searching FR for Olbermann or something? sicko. /s
Look, this just gives voice to CNN and others to scream bloody murder at FOX for Beck, Hannity, et.al.
One more "CORRUPT BASTARD" down, and more to come. First Dan Rather, now this one...
Matthews, you pant load, you're next. And then Perky Katie, Schlepper Smith, Whoraldo...the list goes on.
Then why in the heck did you click on it again? Maybe you could just ignore threads you're not interested in or have already read?
Or are you a wannabee admin moderator?
It’s ironic that he was suspended for spending a few thousand dollars confirming the bias that everybody knows he has, but has used millions of dollars worth of air time to campaign for Democrats without any repurcussions.
Kindly please see post #22. Thank you.
First, let me say I absolutely detest Keith Olbermann. I would rather watch a vomiting contest than him.
But, I think it is wrong for his employer to prohibit his political contributions.
Beyond voting, supporting candidates of your choice is a HUGE part of the political process & part of every citizens right of free speech.
Besides, Olbermann is NOT a journalist; he is a commentator. His political leanings are clearly Leftist. The idea that he can spend every weeknight pushing Leftist policies & supporting Leftist politicians, but cannot contribute money to support those policies/politicians is a bizarre contradiction.
Since MSNBC is a (so-called) news organization, shouldn't the same prohibition be applied to MSNBC? Isn't MSNBC’s overwhelming Leftist bent the equivalent of monetary support of candidates/policies? Hours of Leftist propaganda by MSNBC is worth millions of dollars to the Left.
So, the employer can contribute money, labor, & air time to the Leftist causes, yet its employees may not.
The idea that an employer can prohibit political free speech seems illegal to me. Certainly unfair.
Does this prohibition extend to wives, parents, children, significant others, & BFFs,? If not, it is as unenforceable as it is unfair.
The sentiments expressed in comment #22 go for you as well, that is, I should have included your user name along with FrankR when I posted it. Thank you.
Indeed, who are these people? What is it to them whether or not a news story has previously been posted? I really can't understand the mentality, attitude, of those who feel compelled to take a stand, make a point of it.
Oh! You see an article newly-posted reporting on the same news story that appeared an hour, a day, a week, ago. So, what? If it has previously been posted, why then do you care, why should you care, take the time, effort to link to an article you've already seen. Why? To what end? To have something to attach your name to? What drives them to be so compulsive about it??
If there is anything untoward, improper about any post, be it even a re-post, it all begins and ends with the thread moderator, as the only arbiter that matters.
Get a Life!
Check the breaking news, frontpage news and extended news. If the article was written today, and it isn't posted under those categories, then re-posts shouldn't bother anyone.
BTW, to make it easier to find stories, check for posts and pre-fill some fields, I put together this web site an fr helping news search. When you see an article you want to post to FR, click the FR icon. It searches for the title on FR, and it pre-fills some of the fields. I use it, and will work to improve it.
Someday, I might make a lefty version, but I have trouble tolerating their web sites.
Oh yeah, it also filters out (doens't show FR icon) banned websites so that you don't waist time setting up a post only to find, "Huffington Post" or some other 30 or 40 sites don't allow posting to FR. Occasionally, a new one pops up that I haven't built in, so FRmail me and I will add it.
“Indeed, who are these people? What is it to them whether or not a news story has previously been posted?”
Bored HOA types?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.