UPDATED: We have been notified that Comcast has not yet officially taken over MSNBC/NBC Universal. Although Comcast has tentatively finalized a deal to purchase a majority stake in NBC, Comcast awaits final approval of the takeover from the Justice Department and from the Federal Communications Commission. A statement from Comcast reads: “The joint venture between Comcast and GE has not yet received regulatory approval. Comcast is not in any way involved with decisions made currently by NBC News.” However, once Comcast gains final approval from federal regulators to move forward, Comcast COO Steve Burke, a Bush fundraiser, will be placed at the helm of MSNBC and other NBC companies. Our original post inaccurately asserted that Comcast’s Burke was involved in the decision to fire Olbermann. We apologize for the error.

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 [Updated: The shift from Zucker to Burke has not taken place yet -- Burke will preside over MSNBC once the Comcast merger is complete. We have been informed that no Comcast officials are currently involved in the decisions of NBC or MSNBC.]. 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. [Update: Comcast has no formal control over MSNBC yet, but will once the merger is complete in the coming months.]

Today, Politico reported that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made political contributions to three Democratic candidates — Kentucky senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona House members Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. Following the story, MSNBC President Phil Griffin released a statement this afternoon stating that Olbermann has been suspended without pay:

I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.

MSNBC’s policies governing its employees states:

Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.

It’s unclear what harm Griffin determined resulted from Olbermann’s contributions. Politico noted that Olbermann donated to Grijalva on the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on his show. In his defense Olbermann said, “I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level.”

Atrios reports that Pat Buchanan, a very frequent guest on MSNBC and an official contributor, has also made a number of donations to Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, Steve Benen observes that, while Olbermann made his donations in a personal capacity, News Corp. — Fox News’ parent company — “made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.”

Yesterday, Think Progress reported that hate radio host Neal Boortz used his Twitter account to ridiculously claim that Congress’s health care legislation will end up killing more people than a terrorist attack.

Last night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann responded to Boortz, referring to him as part of the “lunatic fringe” that is intent on portraying health care reform as lethal, despite the fact that it’s a lack of proper health care coverage that kills 45,000 Americans every year:

OLBERMANN: Each day it seems the lunatic fringe finds a new way to permit its adherents to view the rest of us as a little less than human – we don’t count as much as they do, ordinary Americans don’t matter. Newest example, hate-radio-host Neal Boortz yesterday: ‘Obamacare will do more damage’ he said, ‘ than a successful terrorist bombing of an airliner and kill more people as well.’ So, rather than count how many things are wrong with that statement, or how many times Neal Boortz must have been abused for him to wind up so dehumanized for him to say such a thing, let us answer it on his terms. What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people each year in this country?

Watch it:

Today, Boortz responded to Olbermann by vulgarly calling the MSNBC host a “prepuce” and then challenging him to a direct debate on whether Congress’s health care legislation will kill more people than a terrorist attack:

Boortz is presumably anxious to have a larger forum to disseminate his hateful rants. He has previously referred to New Orleans residents as “parasites,” has labeled welfare recipients as “human parasitic garbage,” and has suggested that lower-income Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Last month on his Fox News show, torture enthusiast Sean Hannity claimed he would agree to be waterboarded “for charity…for the troops’s families.” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann immediately took up Hannity’s pledge, offering $1,000 to charity for every second Hannity withstood waterboarding.

Over the next 30 days, Hannity went completely silent on his pledge, opting not to go anywhere near the subject of waterboarding again. Olbermann repeatedly reminded Hannity of his pledge to donate to charity in his name, but to no avail.

Last night on Countdown, Olbermann announced that he was rescinding the offer to Hannity, and instead giving $10,000 to charity following radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller’s waterboarding attempt. Olbermann promised to donate to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South, who administered the waterboarding to Muller. Olbermann revealed that Mancow’s publicist had contacted Olbermann’s show yesterday to see whether Olbermann would make a similar offer to Mancow as he did for Hannity:

OLBERMANN: Mancow Muller had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.

So the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.

And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did –

You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, Veterans Of Valor. [...]

As to Hannity, you are now unnecessary.

Watch it:

Olbermann also announced that Mancow will appear on his show next week.

Transcript: Read more

Brendan Nyhan links to some Daily Howler critiques of Rachel Maddow and argues that the “inescapable conclusion of reading Somerby is that the problem with cable news is structural, not ideological . . . I’m sure liberals tell themselves that she’s still better than Hannity, O’Reilly, et al. but that’s a pretty low bar.”

I’d make a few points about this. One is that “better than Hannity, O’Reilly, et. al.” may be a low bar, but it’s also the relevant bar. You make progress but doing things better than the people who’ve previously been doing similar things do them. Cable news isn’t really my cup of tea, but Keith Olbermann’s show was a good deal better than anything that was on prime time cable previously, and Maddow’s show is even better. By contrast, Glenn Beck’s show is incredibly terrible, much worse than anything Hannity or O’Reilly ever used to do.

Second, I would caution against drawing “inescapable” conclusions based on the relatively limited cable news market. If there were a thousand cable news channels all competing ferociously, we could draw a lot of “inescapable” conclusions about their behavior. Instead, we have just a few. For a while, MSNBC thought that the way to compete with Fox was to put more conservatives on the air and one might have reached the “inescapable” conclusion that only conservatives can succeed on cable. Now that seems wrong.

Last, we should be clear about what the structural issue is here, and I think it’s the fact that the appeal of these shows to the suits is that they have basically no budget. TV news at its best is like a series of mini-documentaries that can add a level of depth that words alone don’t capture. And it can bring original research and reporting to bear. And it’s not that there’s no audience for that sort of thing. But the cable executives don’t believe, perhaps rightly, that the increase in audience you could obtain by doing more value-added work (and note that you almost certainly could gain audience, prime time cable news shows are all very low rated compared to more in-depth offerings like 60 Minutes and various PBS ventures) would be proportional to the additional expense you would incur.

Note that part of the nature of capitalism is that for a venture to get funded by a publicly traded firm in a competitive market, you need to be able to make the case that not only is it profitable but it’s actually profit-maximizing. Even an expensive show that attracted enough viewers and ad dollars to cover its costs couldn’t get on the air. The old tradition of a heavily regulated three-network oligopoly meant that ABC, CBS, and NBC really only need news divisions to generate enough revenue to more-or-less pay for themselves and offer some prestige. In the future, perhaps non-commercial video production and distribution of various kinds will be more viable and we’ll get more rich TV or TV-esque content. Arguably the BBC, which has never been a commercial enterprise and has tons of reporters, is extremely well-positioned to take advantage of the rapid deterioration of the market status of news-gathering in the United States.