Now we all know people can contribute secretly to efforts to denigrate candidates without disclosing their contribution to such an effort. Suppose Keith Olbermann contributed to such an effort to denigrate Rand Paul as opposed to contributing to Jack Conway's campaign. Would MSNBC ever know? If MSNBC learned of such a contribution would they have suspended Keith Olbermann? Would a suspension be required under their rules?
Explain to me the difference between making a campaign contribution as opposed to making a contribution to an effort to denigrate a candidate. Is there any difference? Seems to me the effort to denigrate a candidate is much worse than a campaign contribution. Yet short of learning how one spends one money there is no way of determining whether or not one made a contribution to an effort to denigrate a candidate.
So where does this leave us? To me this leaves us at the point where no campaign contributions should be disclosed and campaign contributions should be private matters between the campaign and the contributor.
Now much has been made about the "news" aspect of how can a reporter be trusted to do accurate reporting if the reporter makes a campaign contribution. The same question can be asked if a reporter votes. Should a reporter be forced not to vote on the basis of their reporting? Should a reporter be forced to reveal for whom they voted when reporting? These questions would never be asked. So what is the difference?
MSNBC needs to explain their rules in light of these issues. Did Keith Olbermann violate the rules of his employment with MSNBC? It appears so. Should the rules exist? NO!!
Comments are closed on this story.