Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
And yet, you still haven't come up with any explanation as to why MSNBC would need to contractually categorize Olbermann's show as a "news show" and attach restrictions on his ability to involve himself in politics.
I don't need to. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
So you just blindly accept that MSNBC put a "no donating to political campaigns" clause in Olbermann's contract and aren't even the least bit curious as to why? Seriously?
Quote:
Because it deals with daily current news events (five of them a night, even)?
In which he clearly expresses opinion on each one, but apparently in his contract he's not allowed to "speak" politically in the form of campaign donations. Strange at the least, right?
Quote:
Because Olbermann was originally hired for a more straight news purpose (according to lolwiki, he originally returned to MSNBC as a news anchor)?
Uh huh. And he's clearly not been doing that, has he? So at some point they just threw up their hands and gave up on the "he's just reporting the news", but maintained a clause in his contract restricting his ability to involve himself in politics? That's strange, isn't it? And I'm sorry if this is just my spidey sense tingling, but it sure looks to me like the kind of thing one would do so they could show "on paper" that they have X hours of news reporting, when they actually have less news and more commentary.
Quote:
Because they only have two classifications and flipped a coin? Who cares?
Well I do. If you don't, then by all means stop posting. I do think it's strange that they'd do this. I do think it's kinda relevant for news stations to accurately label and classify the shows they air. I do think that if we're going to bother with them in the first place that they have some sort of meaning. And guess what? I do think that when a station clearly labels a show as one thing, when it's clearly something else entirely that this monumentally suspicious.
Quote:
Seriously, there isn't even reason to believe that Olbermann's contract with NBC is even reflected in any of their legal dealings outside of NBC itself.
No reason to assume otherwise either though, is there? You are remarkably partisan with your acceptance of speculation here Joph. Unlike the people proclaiming the wikileaks data to be some kind of proof of illegality, war crimes, and whatnot despite there being nothing more than the possibility of such, I have not made any claims about MSNBC breaking the law, violating some kind of FCC regulations, or some other sort of legally binding shenanigans.
I am merely pointing out that the oddities in this contract and the obvious nature of the show itself indicate the possibility of such things and perhaps more attention ought to be paid to it. So I'm not allowed to even speculate here? Isn't there a double standard going on?
Quote:
Again, they could have him classified as an anteater and it wouldn't matter.
Unless they gained in some legal or monetary way by classifying him in that way, of course. But your blinders are on so tight you attack anyone who even suggests that this
could be the case.
Quote:
You're just so hard up to find something to whine about that you're trying to weave some wrongdoing out of nothing. A little pathological.
Lol! Just pointing out the constant double standard is all. I'll note that you didn't respond to allegations that Fox News "news shows" do the same thing with any negatives at all. Heck, you didn't even respond. So it's wrong to point out that a show that has been revealed to have been classified by the network as a "news show" contains a host with obvious and continual bias and who mostly just comments rather than reports, but it's perfectly ok to just assume without a shred of evidence that Fox News does the same thing.
Massive double standard there. Made all the more amusing in that you seem utterly unable to even see it. It's like there's a huge blind spot in your mind or something.