Best Guess: Keith did it on purpose

[TygrBright]

It's entirely possible this was a calculated move on Keith's part to expose the Constitutional hypocrisy that enables corporations--INCLUDING MEDIA CORPORATIONS--to funnel limitless boatloads of cash to support any party or cause they want.

But an individual commentator (not even a news anchor or pseudo-objective 'analyst') can be prevented by a corporate policy from supporting what they believe in and make no secret of believing in.

If so, I think we are going to see this play out in a VERY interesting way. MSNBC may be running a playbook from the Corporate Oligarchs, but I suspect there are some key people at MSNBC who may be complicit with Keith in this.

speculatively,
Bright

[EFerrari]

1. I don't know, Bright.

Entertainment industry has big flaps all the time over not much.

[Warpy]

2. I just said nearly the same thing on another thread

Honestly, we've got to quit meeting like this, people will talk.

This has all the makings of a free speech issue and a delineation of where corporate interest begins and ends.

After all, he didn't violate the illusion of impartiality by shilling for these people on air, requesting viewers also make donations. This would seem to be the only thing that would violate MSNBC's interests in the matter.

[madmax]

3. lol ... quit meeting like this ppl will talk. nt

[TygrBright]

10. Pre-cisely. And KO is just the guy to blow the lid off.

Didja hear who's leading the Martinez transition team?

"Skanky Zombie Cow's Revenge..."

philosophically,
Bright

[Parker CA]

4. Interesting point. Depending on how this plays out it could be a very creative move. nt.

[moondust]

5. Maybe.

Could highlight the ludicrousness of the Chamber of Commerce funneling money from China and India into election campaigns without penalty while some individual Americans can't even contribute without penalty.

:shrug:

[Tikki]

6. I totally agree, Keith is super smart and he..

could handle donations other ways...
This will play out very interestingly.


Tikki

[kestrel91316]

7. You may be right. I can't believe this is just an "oops" on his part.

[Meatball]

8. i think you might be right..

...keith could have easily made these donations anonymously or had a family member make them. He's not stupid, he knows the policy, he wanted to have his name on them. For one, this action sheds light on the differences in ethics between fox and nbc which IMO is a good thing. It also could have been in protest of the rules NBC has put in place which, considering the way things are today, should be changed in all fairness.

[lamp_shade]

9. I also think you're right. It was my first thought.

[gkhouston]

11. a DUer pointed out the other day that every single candidate who supports Net Neutrality lost.

Every single one.

I'm guessing it took a lot of anonymous money to make that happen. Wonder who put up that cash?

[Hannah Bell]

14. hmm. that's interesting.

[Odin2005]

15. WHAAAAAT!?! Holy Fuck!

:wow: :grr:

[gkhouston]

16. I haven't checked the assertion myself. Let me find the thread.

Hang on, I'll search and come back with a link.

on edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9474677

As you can see, they cite CNN, so it's likely to be an accurate tally. Wonder what Rachel would make of this?

[Odin2005]

17. Thanks!

[Reader Rabbit]

12. I was thinking *MSNBC* did it on purpose, and not for political reasons.

When I heard the news, my first thought was "publicity stunt".


Right now, Keith and MSNBC are getting bazillions of dollars with of free advertising.

[Lugnut]

13. That actually wouldn't surprise me.

In the meantime, I won't be watching whatever is in his time slot.

[Tatiana]

18. I swear, I was thinking the same thing. Keith can't be that stupid.

I suspect he had a purpose in donating when he did, knowing full well his donation woul dbe disclosed to the public.

[gkhouston]

19. Keith is being vewwy vewwy quiet. Either there are legal issues involved

or he's up to something.

[TygrBright]

20. Exactly. n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

21. I have another possible...

In any job, we are all in a position of being fired at a moments notice. Read the employee's handbook and you will eventually see that "breathing on company time" is reason for immediate dismissal. IOWs, you work at the pleasure of your employer.

So here is my take. If the elections were reversed on Nov 2, this would have never happened. Why? Because the media powers-that-be would be thinking, America is progressive and KO is progressive. That is what makes good ratings.
But the elections did not speak well of the progressives and KO was seen on the wrong side of the tidal movement. Therefore, they used the first reason to dump him. If he had not given a few dollars, they would have got him on the, "you wore the wrong color tie on Thursday" clause that every contract has. IOWs, they needed a reason to dump him and drummed one up.

I think Tweety smelled the coffee a little quicker for he has thrown Obama under the bus. Business is business and it is all about the ratings.

That is my story and I'm sticking to it....