Yeah, I know I’m a day late and a dollar short on this story — but hey, this week has sucked for me… and, it’s only Wednesday.
Last week, MSNBC discovered that Keith Olbermann had made political contributions to three Democratic candidates running in the mid-terms. Each contribution was the maximum allowed personal donation — $2400 — and was made to Arizona’s Congressional incumbents Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, and to Rand Paul’s Senatorial opponent in Kentucky.
Sadly, this contribution is against the rules over at MSNBC — employees are free to make political contributions, so long as they are pre-approved by the network. Supposedly, this rule is based on wanting to avoid the appearance of journalistic bias (which, incidentally, if MSNBC is trying to avoid, they should perhaps not dedicate their primetime lineup to a litany of left-wing pundits).
MSNBC’s rule is misguided, and certainly seems patently absurd in the post-Citizens United era. Further, if political contributions introduce an appearance of journalistic bias, than what does pre-approval do to assuage those concerns?
But, I also fully support MSNBC’s “indefinite” (re: two day) suspension of Keith Olbermann for his actions. The point here isn’t whether or not journalists should be allowed to make political contributions. The point here is, as it was with Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez, that journalists, like any employee, are not free to violate the terms of their contract and expect to avoid consequences for their actions. Olbermann claimed (when he returned to the air last night) that he wasn’t aware of the political contribution rule in his contract, but that is no surprise considering this is an internal MSNBC policy, not a specific term of Olbermann’s contract. I might think that my employer’s rule requiring me to wear a suit and tie to work is dumb, but that doesn’t give me license to show up to the office in my skivvies.
Yet, just a month ago, liberals were up-in-arms, calling for blood from Juan Williams for making anti-Muslim statements on-air and Rick Sanchez for making statements against Jon Stewart and his bosses at CNN. Both of these “journalists” were fired by their respective employers not just for their inflammatory statements, but, more specifically, because they violated the terms of their employment.
Olbermann, too, violated the terms of his employment. But, because he did not make racist, bigoted remarks on-air that embarassed those who sign his paycheques, he wasn’t fired, but he certainly deserves retribution for his violation.
Lt. Dan Choi, the outspoken opponent of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was among the most visible of Olbermann’s supporters in the last week, participating in a boycott of MSNBC until Olbermann is reinstated. This was big news, considering that Choi’s crusade against DADT started when he outed himself on Rachel Maddow. I’ve long been a supporter of Choi, but on this issue, he is wrong. He is wrong to want special treatment for Olbermann, who committed the same general infraction as Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez. He is wrong because his stance cannot be interpreted as anything except hypocritical: To support Olbermann in this issue is to say that right-wing pundits who expose their political biases should be fired; but, when left-wing pundits expose their political biases, they shouldn’t even receive a slap on the wrist.
Public figures shouldn’t be exempt from the rules just because we like them — even if they are Keith Olbermann.
As much as we might support Olbermann’s political leanings, and the candidates he gave his money to, the issue isn’t about who he donated to so much as it is about his flagrant disregard for internal network policy. And, if we support Williams and Sanchez being fired for their actions, we simply must support Olbermann being suspended for his.
I think this was a big mistake for Choi, because the illogic in the MSNBC boycott is obvious to even the most casual observer. Further, in this, Choi appears less like an activist in this context, and more like he is trying to elevate his own public profile, particularly since this incident occurs just weeks after Choi used a misogynistic slur to describe Democrats in a recent interview. Polarizing political figures like Choi, who depend upon a positive, sympathetic personal narrative to further their political struggles, can’t afford look like idiots or gloryhounds, yet this is exactly the danger with Choi’s latest political choices.
Frankly, boycotts, in general, are campaigns that cannot be undertaken lightly, and they often have a way of backfiring. Representative Raul Grijalva, coincidentally one of the three recipients of Olbermann’s campaign donations, narrowly eked out a victory here in Southern Arizona against his Tea Partier challenger; the difficult of his race was due in large part to the fact that, much like Lt. Choi, Grijalva jumped upon a boycott bandwagon without fully thinking through the consequences of his actions, even though the boycott directly targeted the economic outlook for his very constituents. The voters of Southern Arizona saw through this and punished Grijalva at the polls severely for his lack of political foresight in this matter.
With as important a fight as the repeal of DADT is, I don’t think Lt. Choi can afford to “Grijalva” himself with incidents like this. Choi’s personal story is compelling, but he loses that mass appeal when he stops presenting himself as a person we can relate to, and starts acting more like the worst kind of professional activist ,who speaks out just for the sake of seeing his name in press. I don’t think that Choi is that kind of an egotistical opportunist, but if he’s not careful, he can easily be painted as such — and that will only hurt his real political causes in the long run.
Besides, Olbermann’s back on the air after only two days of suspension. Was a boycott really even necessary here? I don’t think anyone ever really believed that MSNBC would fire the host of one of their highest-rated primetime shows.
