General discussion

Unfair and Unbalanced

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Unfair and Unbalanced
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Unfair and Unbalanced
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Do you think he should be allowed to contribute

to a political party without losing his job?

- Collapse -
Not if

it's against company policy, which he knew it was, Why? Do you think he should be allowed special privileges??

- Collapse -
Do you think he should be allowed special privileges??

It should not be a special privilege, it should be a fact of life.

In my opinion...the employer should not have the right/ability to put a clause in a condition of employment that an employee cannot contribute to a political party.

What do you think about that?

- Collapse -
you are apparently wrong

as they did just that. Why didn't he read his contract when he was hired?

- Collapse -
I guess that it conflicts with Mr. Olbermann's interests

and I think you have a valid argument. But would you also allow that a pharmacist should not be fired for refusing to dispense drugs that conflict with his moral interests? Would that also be a valid argument?

- Collapse -
Nope If a pharmacist

works for a company that sells them then he has the option of doing his job or not, then it is the compnaies option to fire him. I never liked working on Sunday, but every restaurant I ever worked at was open on Sunday, I worked what I was scheduled.

- Collapse -
Well, maybe my example isn't the best

As the issue with pharmacist not wanting to dispense certain drugs happens when these drugs come out after the person has already been employed when new and more controversial drugs became available. Yes, the store owner gets to make the rules for the employees but I think a valid argument could be made that the the pharmacist had no moral conflicts in the beginning but the new drugs changed the game. In the case of Mr. Olbermann, if he was fully aware of the rule and violated it anyway, he's subject to whatever action is the employer's known policy. It does, to me, sound like a silly rule that could be argued depending on when that rule was first instituted.

- Collapse -
It's a good rule, if they want the trust of the viewers..

even though everyone knows they are extremely biased. How can any of his political reporting be believed now? I know liberals for whom his word is golden (really!!!)

I'm loving it. He has often criticized Fox's "Fair and Balanced" slogan... now his hypocrisy is on display for all to see.

- Collapse -
(NT) agreed :)
- Collapse -
He is supposedly a "journalist"...

albeit a really crappy one. It's a conflict of interests for him to be supporting candidates monetarily on whom he may be reporting. I am sure that's why MSNBC has that policy, so they can maintain some illusion of fairness.

By doing this he hurts the entire company. Not only should they fire him, they should sue him for damages as well.

- Collapse -
Fire up the wayback machine

Is 2 weeks a long time?

NPR was very stupid

It's not okay to donate...but open your mouth and support a party is OK?

Never mind a supporter of "free speech" thinking someone shuold be fired for saying something.

I thought a fence could only have 2 sides.

- Collapse -
That is not a comparable situation ...

If memory serves, Mr. Williams was not fired because of support for a party, but because he admitted to some politically incorrect fears about flying.

That is hardly an analogous situation.

And, FWIW, it is perfectly legitimate for a news organization to expect its reporters to remain officially neutral vis-a-vis candidates for office. News organizations should be doing more, not less, to avoid bias in reporting.

- Collapse -
Can a person donate to a political party

and report a story/ interview a politician without expressing a political opinion?

I could.

Just ask questions the viewer would ask if they were doing the interview.

You don't consider donating to a political party a form of free speech?

Freedom of speech?...donating to a political party

- Collapse -
Frame it however you like it ...

Contributing to a political part gives at least an appearance of favoritism, and it is reason enough for a viewer/listener to conclude that the reporter is biased.

Is that a 'free speech' issue? Not from a Constitutional perspective. Employers are permitted to interfere with 'personal freedoms' in many situations. All the Bill of Rights guarantees is that GOVERNMENT cannot interfere with those freedoms.

And no, I do not believe that it is possible for a reporter to conduct a fair/unbiased interview if the reporter himself/herself is partisan. That is one of the problems with several of our news agencies right now.

And no, I do not believe you could conduct an unbiased interview either. I'm not sure you are capable of making an unbiased post in this forum, much less conducting an unbiased interview.

- Collapse -
I think many have their perception

of which party most tv interviewers/stations/networks favour.

Even if they have never been convicted of donating to a political party.

- Collapse -
re: fair/unbiased... if the reporter is partisan.

I raised the issue in August, about Rupert Murdoch, the de facto editorial director of a world wide media/news empire donating millions of dollars to the GOP.

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Sun and the Times in the UK, Fox and the Wall Street Journal in the States, has given $1m to help Republicans in this year's mid-term elections.

While I don't particularly care for Olberman, my opinion is that his conduct in supporting a particular partisan point of view by contributing money has become business as usual for the cable news industry. In light of Murdoch's political contributions, I have to wonder if Fox News has expectations that their reporters do not make similar monetary contributions? If they don't have any prohibitions against partisan contributions... then maybe Olberman might have a future with Fox News ?


- Collapse -
He should be fired.

It's long overdue.

- Collapse -
looks like someone started a duplicate thread

One's been found and locked, maybe the other will be found and locked too.

- Collapse -
so you are convinced that Hannity, and Olberman's actions...

...are the same thing? Thus the two discussions are duplicate threads? The two men's behavior is duplicate too? The two men equally show an unprofessional bias?

- Collapse -
I can't say I see them copying each other

However discussing their employer policies and how they relate to it, since both work for news broadcasters seems fair.

- Collapse -
You and others will be devasted to know
- Collapse -
maybe he learned

a lesson?

- Collapse -
(NT) Maybe THEY learned a lesson?

CNET Forums

Forum Info