An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Olbermann Double Standard
US News and World Report has a story worth reading.
Seems that Keith Olbermann took a big pay hike while GE (owner of MSNBC) was getting a big bailout. Since Olbermann has attacked executives for taking raises during bailouts, should he not keep to the same standard?
14 Responses to “Olbermann Double Standard”
Is he a senior executive, or whatever the term for the AIG bonuses were? If so, then YES.
Why should pay limitations apply only to senior executives? If GE accepts government bailout money they should be looking to cut costs.
This is the silliest, most childish and wing nuttiest article from Patrick to date. I can not believe he and I live within 70 miles of each other and all the while in totally different universes. But then I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer.
Yes, the woe's of GE… NBC… MSNBC… and oh that terrible Keith Olbermann! How dare he make $4,000,000.00 a year:
What a hypocrite that Keith Olbermann is… He up's his employers revenue by 10's of millions and wanted a reasonable recompense.
Hey Pat… How about a fair and balanced article about Bill O'Reilly's income? He's making over $9,000,000.00 a year and his ratings are tanking and his employer (ol' what's his name) lost more money than the net worth of all Red States combined.
Well actually I didn't write it, US News and World Report did.
But thanks for showing me you still care
GE Financial is a subsidiary of GE. This is a TARP problem giving money to a financial group who belongs to a health company. Is GE filing for Chapter 11?
If MSNBC earns money and sends it to their parent, then why shouldn't Keith be paid commensurately? Otherwise MSNBC would lose good talent, their ratings would go down and instead of contributing money in a positive way to the bottom line for GE, MSNBC would be a drag on GE, causing GE to request even more taxpayer money.
I thought the goal of business was to succeed.
Patrick said: “Well actually I didn't write it, US News and World Report did.”
Patrick, If memory serves you DID write “Seems that Keith took a big pay hike while GE (owner of MSNBC) was getting a big bailout. Since he’s attacked executives for taking raises during bailouts, should he not keep the same standard?”
AND you DID seem to think that Olbermann's alleged 'hypocrisy' was important enough to post this article, a link, and an opinion. Are you now trying to distance yourself from this or did I miss something in your reply?
Bill O'Reilly?
Stockboy, that's exactly the argument made about keeping good 'talent' at companies like AIG- many of the bonus recipients were not the same people who were responsible for the failure of solvency, yet people said they should still be hung out to dry.
There are degrees of difference, of course, as Rudi points out, but still, the fact that you clearly see the rationale for not limiting compensation in this case but not in the other is telling. Perhaps you can at least see why the defenders of the AIG bonuses felt this way, now that you're using that rationale to defend someone else. The point is, you're not going to fix a company and turn around its profitability unless there is the potential for great reward to those who do so.
LOL Cs That banking talent would have done the same with privatized Social Security money. I wonder what the janitor makes at the failed banks? At least he cleans up the mess made by the likes of Madoff.
Well Steve I think you somewhat misinterpreted my post. The presence of a question mark indicated I was offering a topic for dicussion. I like to see both sides to a debate and think the discussions can be fun.
As to the actual subject, I personally don't care if MSNBC or Fox or CNN or anybody else chooses to pay their people whatever they want. That's a matter for the stockholders of the various companies to take up. I actually felt the same way with some of the AIG payouts, since many of those were retention payments to middle managers, not bonuses to top executives.
However I do think it is reasonable for someone to question if those who say people should not get bonuses/raises/etc when their companies should be held to the same standard. I would think we could have an open debate where we all respect the differing views of each other.
With regard to Bill O'Reilly, I don't know if this will shatter your nice little world view but I don't watch O'Reilly, I think he's just as much of a blowhard as Olbermann. Same goes for Hannity. I don't really have any news network I consider totally reliable, I tend to go to whichever one is giving the best coverage of the particular story.
Patrick said: “I appreciate your input and am glad to have you post, even if you aren't my biggest fan.
“
Patrick, I admit that I seldom agree with your positions but I've never meant or intended my comments to be personal. If that's how I come across I apologize and will, in the future, try not to sound that way. Steve
I appreciate the kind words Steve.
CStanley, “the fact that you clearly see the rationale for not limiting compensation in this case but not in the other is telling. Perhaps you can at least see why the defenders of the AIG bonuses felt this way, now that you're using that rationale to defend someone else.”
Well…. AIG, unlike MSNBC, would have gone bankrupt without $170 billion in government money to stay afloat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18cu…
Well first of all the $165 million in bonuses that AIG announced in March went to the employees of the Financial Products unit, which brought down the company.
Second of all, as the linked article says, some people who received retention bonuses are no longer at AIG….
Third of all, if the talent IS truly irreplaceable then AIG can explain it to the bankruptcy judge or to the government (in this case, but it would be a bankruptcy judge had the government not interfered) and request that bonuses be paid to the irreplaceable talent who contribute positively to the bottom line…. which in this case means the irreplaceable talent that bought AIG down.
Fourth of all, it's my tax dollars that are going to pay the losers at AIG their multimillion dollar bonuses. Olbermann is not taking tax dollars for his salary.
Olbermann (whether you agree with him or not) is literally a one-man show and it is he who makes (or breaks) that show and a significant amount of money for MSNBC. No one at AIG is irreplaceable. I don't think that anyone in AIG Financial Products trading floor would be considered irreplaceable. In fact since they did cause massive losses at AIG I would hope that they would be shown the door.
So yes, I see the need to pay bonuses to retain good talent (and particularly talent that can not be replaced). Each situation is different and I don't think ANY employee in the unit which caused the need for $170 billion or more in bailout money should receive a bonus, particularly when it is my tax dollars paying losers. My tax dollars paying winners is a different matter.
I still think the Bush government should have let AIG fail. I get tired of Republicans talking about personal responsibility and free markets, and then insisting that taxpayers pay to keep losing companies from going under, while ignoring the plight of the poor and downtrodden in this country. And refusing federal money which would help the unemployeed. I guess if the federal money were to go to the rich then the governors of those states refusing federal funds would accept it, whatever strings might be attached. After all the rich and powerful have connections in DC (and state capitals) to make sure their interests are looked after, as we can see with this AIG incident.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/indust…
Third of all, if the talent IS truly irreplaceable then AIG can explain it to the bankruptcy judge or to the government (in this case, but it would be a bankruptcy judge had the government not interfered) and request that bonuses be paid to the irreplaceable talent who contribute positively to the bottom line…. which in this case means the irreplaceable talent that bought AIG down.
You do realize that this is exactly what happened, and that's why Obama's Treasury Department put pressure on Chris Dodd to insert the exemption into the wording of the rider he authored on the stimulus bill about employee bonuses? If Treasury was convinced that certain individuals needed to be offered these retention bonuses, then do you agree that maybe they were in a better place to judge whether or not that talent was important enough?
From what I understand about these contracts, most of the individuals were brought into top management AFTER the bailout occurred, some from other divisions (remember the guy who wrote the letter, saying he was quitting and he'd donate the entire bonus to charity because he was fed up that he was being demonized after he'd come on to try fo fix the mess?) And the people who were no longer there, I don't know details- but it's quite possible that they signed on for a six month deal where they were taking no salary but had a contractual bonus at the end of the term.
Anyway, my point wasn't to rehash the details, and I never thought ANY of the bailouts or the TARP program should have been done anyway. But since their was so much outrage over the bonuses, I don't see nearly the level of difference that you do- particularly since many of the individuals were from other divisions but brought on to remediate the failed division. And as I mentioned, GE gets to spread out their risk by owning a variety of corporations so when one fails and needs government bailout, I see no reason that the people who work for other companies within their ownership umbrella shouldn't be faced with cutbacks.
And the general principle is even more obvious- why is it that liberals tend to complain about CEOs of companies like AIG but not the hugely out of scale salaries in the entertainment and sports industries? The only thing I can think of is that they understand the concept of 'talent' and unique qualities of the individuals who bring in the money in those fields, but they're apparently ignorant of what CEOs actually do and believe that those people are just lucky white guys who were in the right place at the right time.