Can we, maybe, put the "KO and Maddow Didn't Talk About It" talk in some perspective?

[Stinky The Clown]

Stewart was completely righteous in his skewering of CNBC over the last few days. See .... that's what he did. He skewered CNBC. Cramer and all the rest were much more the embodiments of that as opposed to specific targets. Except for that Santelli, maybe.

Now ... we all pretty much agree Stewart was a hero to have done that.

On the flip side, KO and Maddow work for the company that owns CNBC. They're pretty much obliged to get with the drill when the company circles the wagons.

I'd rather they could talk about it.

I understand why they can't.

[fulllib]

1. Good points

After all, it wasn't their fight to get into, anyway.

[peacetalksforall]

3. You may say it is not their fight - but talking about it for both of them was a perfect fit.

So I was just checking in to see what happened - I guess the answer is NO - they were muffled?

The best story all week - the most uplifting.

[notadmblnd]

2. So people should only speak truth to power only if it won't effect their livliehood

is that what your saying?

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Maybe if one is a diehard activist

...... if one is a hired teevee host .... not so much.

[pacalo]

8. I would not expect Keith & Rachel to pile onto such a negative story against their employer.

This story has received enough publicity, so it doesn't bother me that Keith & Rachel choose not to bite the hand that feeds them.

[Medusa]

11. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Enough of the excuses and psuedo-apologies for Olbermann's not having the balls to call out his own. Let's call them out too when they screw up and tonight, he did. Big time.

[havocmom]

13. There is wisdom to picking one's battles

To lose Olbermman or Maddow over the likes of a beady eyed weasel like Cramer would do more damage than them sitting this one out. They could not do more that Stewart did and they would be a real loss to the cause of taking the country back from the traitors by going down for this not so important issue.

[pacalo]

5. I wholeheartedly agree.

[B o d i]

6. You've heard the phrase "the silence was deafening" ?

NBC not saying anything about it really says quite a lot.

[EFerrari]

7. Yes. And in that silence, someone lost his job. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Who lost a job?

Not being snarky. I haven't heard anything about someone losing a job.

[EFerrari]

14. DU is really slow for me tonight, sorry Here's the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3782003

[Bonobo]

10. A reasonable perspective IF you're okay with journalists being gagged by Corp. interests. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

12. The story, in the scheme of things, was a sideshow

You're making more of it than it really is.

No, I do not condone muzzling journalists.

[Oilwellian]

17. What a crock of bullshit

Are you fucking kidding me?

[EFerrari]

16. Imho, it's more a matter of picking your fights.

Jon did an outstanding job. Other venues have gone over it, Rachel did. At some point, heaping on may not be worth a fight with management for Keith when the story is being covered. It must be a big balancing act for someone in his position.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Did I watch another show? Rachel did mention it in passing

but given the news of the day... this is minor news, as satisfying as it was to watch

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Yes. I heard her talking about it too.

[Berry Cool]

18. You know, KO has criticized Cramer more than he's criticized anyone else at NBC.

Everyone else, he's studiously avoided with kid gloves, no doubt because he's burned enough bridges with employers in his past and doesn't want to cut off his nose to spite his face or fall on his sword for a principle again unless he absolutely has to. In short, he has learned to pick his battles.

Cramer, he's already criticized twice, on earlier shows, both times in connection with the Rick Santelli video. It struck me because it was the first time he EVER dared to criticize anyone at NBC, and even when he did, he did it "with apologies to our sister network" or some such thing.

Tonight, he doesn't say anything about the Daily Show appearance--perhaps because his producers were told not to feature the story, under pain of being fired--and people call for his head?

Hell. More than likely, he just didn't want his producers to lose their jobs by doing what he would have liked to do, and probably could have gotten away with because of who he is, but which went directly against the orders they received from high above.

Sad.

[lamp_shade]

20. You're absolutely correct. It's so easy to understand.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. Rachel covered it!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29686187