He only got the same treatment after the fuss with Olbermann. Scarborough had made earlier donations and had not had the same issues over them as this. And please stop with the trash talking, try to have some respect.
So...lets see if I understand your perspective. MSNBC is actually a CONSERVATIVE leaning program with conservative leadership that only punished Scarborough to even the score. They actually ARENT a program loaded head to toe with liberals and liberal programming (and the occasional pinkie toe like Scarborough). And they dont DAILY broadcast liberal rhetoric. They 'attacked' Olbermann...then threw mornin Joe under the bus as a sacrificial offering. Because after all...they CARE about presenting news in an unbiased manner...
Can someone please tell these people to stop saying FauxNews? Anyone who says it looks like a damned degenerate.
Seeing as no one knew how long the suspension was going to be, or whether it would lead to a firing, I would say that is was less important initially.
That and teabagger. It says a lot more about the people who use these childish expressions than the people they're trying to slam.
Good for NBC...
Joe Scarborough suspended over political donations - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com
much different reaction from the conservative, than the liberal, huh.
More proof Olbermann is a big freakin weenie.
It must be fun to put words into people's mouths. But I do ask that you stop it- it's rather obnoxious. I haven't commented a single word about the lean of MSNBC, so you're just making stuff up. I don't know how they lean other than hearsay. I haven't had cable television in 5 years, and I don't really pay attention. I really don't care. You are definately reaching for facts not in evidence if you somehow get the idea otherwise. All I know is that, according to the facts, Olbermann was given an indefinite suspension, and only reinstated him after much noise was made. For the same sin, Scarborough was later given 2 days suspension. Do you see any factual errors here?
At least Joe Scarborough took it like a man, and not a weasel like Olbercrybaby.
j-mac
Unlike FauxNews that doesn't even attempt to hide their bias...(except they call themselves..."fair and balanced"...ROTFLMFAO!!!!)
... Did you just use a triple negative? I'm not exactly sure what you were trying say, as your sentence was so convoluted. I ask again: do you disagree with my presentation of the facts?Oh...I dont know...perhaps if you werent so obvious in YOUR biased lean it wouldnt be so easy to make the obvious connections.
Hey...heres a thought. Unless there is something we dont know (an entirely likely possibility), the network had the first unfortunate opportunity to have to suspend someone when the Olbermann discovery came about, then after policy was established (because be honest...'indefinite' didnt last very long...did it) they gave a set number to Scarboroughs infraction. Of course...MAYBE the difference was Scarborough went to THEM, admotted his infraction and accepted full on responsibility for it, while Olbermann was his typical asshole self in his response. Maybe THAT had something to do with it. Nah......
That and teabagger. It says a lot more about the people who use these childish expressions than the people they're trying to slam.
I think it's more of an issue of NBC trying to repair its long tarnished reputation as a liberal mouthpiece incapable of serious journalist integrity (us old timers remember there actually used to be such a thing). Of course they went about it without much thought and went after their biggest star first. No doubt that was done in attempt to get a little press for their new and improved position on bias (more likely the appearance of a new position). I think they learned from the Olbermann example that the suspensions need only last a short amount of time in order to cause less inconvenience at the network and the most PR. It could also be that in an attempt to appear unbiased, they go harder on the liberal. Make no mistake, though. NBC is attempting to jiggle the toilet handle of reputation, and we're all being a little manipulated here.
... Did you just use a triple negative? I'm not exactly sure what you were trying say, as your sentence was so convoluted. I ask again: do you disagree with my presentation of the facts?
I'm not sure the point of what you posted, except "waa, I don't like Olbermann". What is your thesis here?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?