Shortly After Major Bush Donor Takes Over MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules To Suspend Olbermann
Earlier today, MSNBC declared that it would be suspending progressive host Keith Olbermann because he violated NBC’s ethics rules by donating to three Democratic candidates for Congress. As many bloggers have noted, conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has donated to Republican candidates for Congress while promoting the same candidate on air, but has never been disciplined. Moreover, Gawker notes that MSNBC has been exempt from the formal NBC ethics rules for years. It is still a mystery why MSNBC selectively applied NBC’s ethics rules to Olbermann. However, it important to realize that MSNBC has undergone a fundamental change in leadership in the last two months.
Late last year, Comcast — the nation’s largest cable provider and second largest Internet service provider — inked a deal taking over NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC. Comcast moved swiftly to reshuffle MSNBC’s top staff. On September 26th of this year, Comcast announced perhaps the most dramatic shift, replacing longtime MSNBC chief Jeff Zucker with Comcast executive Steve Burke. Burke has given generous amounts to both parties — providing cash to outgoing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) as well as to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and other top Republicans. But as Public Citizen has noted, Burke has deep ties to the Republican Party. Public Citizen’s report reveals that Burke served as a key fundraiser to President George Bush, and even served on Bush’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology:
Comcast – the country’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband Internet services – has increased its political giving along with its mergers and acquisitions. CEO Brian Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the 2000 Republican Convention. Comcast Cable President Stephen Burke has raised at least $ 200,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign. [...] Comcast’s political giving has increased along with its mergers and acquisitions. The company was a “platinum sponsor” at the 2000 GOP convention, and Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the Philadelphia event. Burke was appointed to the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology in 2002.
Why would Comcast be interested in silencing progressive voices? Historically, Comcast has boosted its profits by buying up various telecommunication and media content companies — instead of providing faster Internet or better services (overall, American broadband services are far slower than in many industrialized nations). Many of these mergers, as Public Citizen and Free Press have reported, have been allowed by regulators because of Comcast’s considerable political muscle. Comcast’s latest regulatory battle has been to oppose Net Neutrality — a rule allowing a free and open Internet — because the company would prefer to have customers pay for preferred online content.
Olbermann has been a strong voice in favor of a free and open Internet. Republicans, on the other hand, have supported the telecommunication industry’s push to radically change the Internet so corporate content producers have the upper hand over start-ups like blogs, independent media, small businesses, etc. As Reuters has reported, the incoming Republican Congress has signaled that it will vigorously side with companies like Comcast against an open Internet.
It is not clear why MSNBC has selectively suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay — but the move showcases the limits of the corporate media. While modern technology has created a seeming multitude of entertainment and television choices, the reality of corporate media consolidation has resulted in fewer investigative news options and less voices in the media with a critical perspective on powerful business interests. Olbermann has stood out as a voice for working people in a media universe dominated by “reality television” and business lobbyists posing as political pundits. It is unfortunate that Comcast and MSNBC have chosen to suspend him.
“… this only applies to big business …”
By Walter Olson
The union- and trial-lawyer-backed Paycheck Fairness Act, which would greatly expand the scope of lawsuits against private employers alleging gender pay inequality, has run into considerable resistance in Congress. The Bangor Daily News, for example, notes that middle-of-the-road Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, known for their willingness to support some Democratic initiatives, have criticized the PFA as “broad,” “unprecedented,” and costly to employers (Snowe) and as likely to “impose excessive litigation on the small-business community” (Collins).
Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), on the other hand, is impatient with all such objections:
“If there is litigation in the future, that is minor compared to making sure that people get fair pay for the work that they do,” Pingree said. “It is also important to say that this only applies to big business, this does not apply to the sandwich shop around the corner.”
What do you think she means by “only applies to big business” and not “the sandwich shop around the corner”? Keith Smith at ShopFloor checked out the language of the bill, which by its own terms would affect employers subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Does the FLSA apply “only … to big business”? No; according to the U.S. Department of Labor, it covers “almost every employee working in the United States.” To begin with, the law covers all employers that have two or more employees and do at least $ 500,000 a year in business. But that’s just the start, as Smith explains:
Even if a business meets these thresholds, the only employees who would not be covered by the FLSA would be the ones who do not produce goods for interstate commerce, or closely-related process or occupation directly essential to such production, who are not involved in domestic service and are not engaged in interstate commerce. So that means if an employee makes a phone call to another state, sends mail to another state, travels to other states or even processes credit card transaction [he or she] is engaged in “interstate commerce”.
It sounds as if Rep. Pingree has a distinctive, not to say eccentric, understanding of what constitutes “only … big business”.
“… this only applies to big business …” is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog
Krauthammer applies the Buckley rule
Scott
It would be a shame to leave our discussion of the Republican Senate primary contest between Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell without noting Charles Krauthammer’s column applying the Buckley rule to it. The Buckley rule supplied the lodestone of our analysis, as it does Krauthammer’s. Krauthammer’s application of it to the Delaware primary is somewhat more vehement than ours, but he concludes on a note similar to ours: “I would be happy to be proved wrong about O’Donnell’s electability — I want Republicans to win that 51st seat.” He urges O’Donnell’s Tea Party supporters to “[s]tay in Delaware and show us you were right. The beaches are said to be lovely in the fall.”
Via RealClearPolitics.
Koch Industries Applies For Federal Funds From Health Care Law It Opposes
Fred Koch
Today, the Department of Health and Human Services announced the “first round of applicants accepted into the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program,” a $ 5 billion program established by the new health care law to help employers and states “maintain coverage for early retirees age 55 and older who are not yet eligible for Medicare.” According to the agency, “nearly 2,000 employers, representing large and small businesses, State and local governments, educational institutions, non-profits, and unions” applied and have been accepted into the program and “will begin to receive reimbursements for employee claims this fall.” Ironically, one of those employers is the oil, chemicals, and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, which as Lee Fang has reported, has also spent millions of dollars opposing reform:
The contradictory practice of opposing the health care law while applying for its funding has been common among states. As the Wonk Room points out, 19 of the 22 states that are suing the federal government over health care reform have applied for the law’s rate review grants and at least 7 of those states also applied for the reinsurance dollars.
Koch Industries Applies For Federal Funds From Health Care Law It Opposes
Fred Koch
Today, the Department of Health and Human Services announced the “first round of applicants accepted into the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program,” a $ 5 billion program established by the new health care law to help employers and states “maintain coverage for early retirees age 55 and older who are not yet eligible for Medicare.” According to the agency, “nearly 2,000 employers, representing large and small businesses, State and local governments, educational institutions, non-profits, and unions” applied and have been accepted into the program and “will begin to receive reimbursements for employee claims this fall.”
Ironically, one of those employers is the oil, chemicals, and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, which as Lee Fang has reported, has also spent millions of dollars opposing reform:
The contradictory practice of opposing the health care law while applying for its funding has been a common practice among states. For instance, at least 19 of the 22 states that are suing the federal government over health care reform have applied for the law’s rate review grants and some — like Utah — are actively working with HHS to ensure that the law meets their needs. Still, Koch’s efforts to cash in from a law they’re so vehemently opposing may be the most stark example thus far.
