Friday, November 26, 2010

MSNBC Phil Griffin… a paragon of ethics?

It’s like de ja vu all over again. MSNBC President Phil Griffin is again chastising his network’s television hosts by meting out suspensions. The latest victim, according to a Bloomberg News article by Ronald Grover that appeared in the November 20, 2010 edition of The News & Observer is Joe Scarborough. He was placed on a two-day time out for making scintilla-sized donations of $500 to his brother and three of his longtime friends who were involved in local political races. The article did not mention whether or not Scarborough would be docked pay for the two day suspension.

Now, it appears that what Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Keith Olbermann, who underwent a similar suspension just weeks earlier, did was to violate the MSNBC policy which requires that political contributions be cleared in advance by the network. Scarborough and Olbermann did not consult the network before doling out their miniscule campaign contributions. It is obvious that the reason for the MSNBC policy requiring that contributions be cleared is so that the network can control which politicians receive campaign contributions. If, for example, Joe Scarborough wanted to contribute to a politician whose views were not to the liking of the MSNBC bigwigs, his request would be denied. Or, if Keith Olbermann wanted to make a donation to a politician whose goals were similar and/or favorable to those of MSNBC, then he would receive the go-ahead. So, the MSNBC policy requiring that contributions be cleared in advance, is, itself, unethical and sleazy.

A contrite Mr. Scarborough was quick to accept responsibility for his misstep, which was the right thing to do… especially if he wanted to remain employed at the network. This is the kind of bullying that keeps MSNBC employees “in their place.” That is why Mr. Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow won’t comment about MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan’s libelous online statement about former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Let’s face it, if I were in their shoes, I probably wouldn’t either, especially if I had a family to support, a mortgage to pay, and wanted to live a luxurious lifestyle. It is never wise to bite the hand that feeds you. So, I do not fault them for choosing to look the other way when it comes to Ms. Filan’s misdeeds.

For those unfamiliar with Ms. Filan’s June 17, 2007 article in which she stated that Mike Nifong asked his son to attend his hearing before the North Carolina State Bar, and then trashed him for doing so and suggested that he used his son to gain sympathy and pity, a full Investigative Report is available on our website: www.justice4nifong.com. The problem with the June 17th article by Ms. Filan is that she fabricated the part about Mr. Nifong asking his son to attend his hearing. She just made it up out of thin air. No one gave her such information and she never viewed a recording in which Mr. Nifong made the statement. Fact of the matter is, after I spoke with Mrs. Nifong, who is privy to private Nifong household conversations, told me that Mr. Nifong specifically asked his son not to attend, but that his son insisted on doing so to show support for his embattled father. This illustrates that although it was Ms. Filan who accused Mr. Nifong of using his son for his personal gain, it was Ms. Filan who used Mr. Nifong’s son to her benefit… and her objective was to carry out a Jedi Mind-trick on the public. Her actions were sanctioned, no doubt, by the head honchos at MSNBC who were in cahoots with others in the media, the state of North Carolina, the North Carolina State Bar, the triumvirate of barristers representing the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players, and others conspirators to destroy Mike Nifong.

Because the media closely adheres to the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda against Nifong, it goes out of its way not to broadcast or publish articles about events which shine a positive light on Mr. Nifong, or events which cast a negative shadow on his detractors. Such is what happened at Duke University on April 14, 2010, when I attended an event on the Duke campus which was advertised as open to the public. At the conclusion of the informal interview of guest Justice Stephen Breyer, I was approached by security and asked to leave the campus. I was targeted not for anything I said or anything I did. I was kicked off campus because of my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs about Mike Nifong. In other words, I was discriminated against because I was an openly known supporter of Mike Nifong. The security guard, who was sent to oust me in this premeditated and malicious incident, had no idea why I was being evicted, and as he stated repeatedly, he was “only doing my job.” And, I believe him, but, just because I tried to ascertain from him the reason for my being escorted off campus, he repeatedly threatened me with arrest. The majority of my conversation with the security guard is on audio record along with a transcript now available on the Investigative Report section of our website.

The media has no problem covering other instances of discrimination, such as that at Raleigh’s Cameron Village Shopping Center recently, during which a security guard asked two lesbians who were showing a little public affection to leave the property. Coverage was intensive and extensive… including the incident, the apology, the meeting between the aggrieved and the employer of the security guard, and the rally which celebrated the concessions won to protect rights of gays and lesbians on Cameron Village grounds. Even CNN gave the incident heavy news air time, and an appearance on the Joy Behar show. However, I am told by a media-type that Duke’s discrimination against me (based solely upon what was contained within my cranium) is not newsworthy. It is obvious that the definition of “newsworthy” is applied by a separate set of standards when it comes to Mike Nifong… and that is not surprising, because everything having to do with Mr. Nifong (his disbarment, persecution, and denied rights) is singular.

So the ethical Mr. Griffin, who probably made political contributions which he cleared with himself, will most likely continue to do his part to keep the masses ignorant of the egregious and blatantly false writings of MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan, as well and the inexcusable lapses of judgment on the part of Duke University in its discriminatory actions against me. That, unfortunately, is the reality of today’s media, a place wherein there is no room for ethics.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Moronic.

Anonymous said...

Mike Nifong in re: his son attending the ethics trial:
"I am very proud of my son. I wanted him to be proud of me. And I felt that it was important for him to see this."

Sid would have you believe that although Nifong felt it was important for his son to see the ethics trial, Nifong would not ASK his son to attend the ethics trial.

Sid would also have you believe that there should be no repercussions to violating a rule (whether it be about political donations OR public solicitation) as long as you can claim ignorance of it.

Anonymous said...

As usual, Sid gets it wrong. Scarborough donated a total of $4000.00 (or {b} 8 times {/b} the amount Sid states in the blog, for you mathematically challenged). http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/11/19/msnbc-suspends-morning-joe-host-scarborough-for-political-donations/

Anonymous said...

Hmmm.

Mike Nifong:"I am very proud of my son. I wanted him to be proud of me. And I felt that it was important for him to see this."


Mrs. Nifong (according to Sid): " Mr. Nifong specifically asked his son not to attend, but that his son insisted on doing so to show support for his embattled father."

One of these things is NOT like the other....

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid, how about offering something new in one of your posts? You keep rehashing the same old crap, and it's starting to sound like a lot of whining.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Mike Nifong in re: his son attending the ethics trial:
'I am very proud of my son. I wanted him to be proud of me. And I felt that it was important for him to see this.'

Sid would have you believe that although Nifong felt it was important for his son to see the ethics trial, Nifong would not ASK his son to attend the ethics trial.

Sid would also have you believe that there should be no repercussions to violating a rule (whether it be about political donations OR public solicitation) as long as you can claim ignorance of it."

The fact of the matter is that no where in the article that you refer to did Mr. Nifong say that he asked his son to attend his hearing. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Nifong, who is more privy to private Nifong family conversations than is Ms. Filan, explicitly stated that Mike Nifong asked his son NOT to attend. I believe Mrs. Nifong, and not the vaguely loose extrapolation that you try to come up with from a statement that the biased media attributed to Mr. Nifong. (I doubt the accuracy of anything the media says, and with cause... especially when it comes to Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case.)

Regarding MSNBC's policy, I find it unethical to begin with. Instead of making a blanket statement that no political contributions can be made period, its policy is that no political contributions can be made without first getting authorization by the bigwigs. Let me analyze this for you so that your mind can ingest what I'm trying to say. The bigwigs have a policy in place where they can approve a contribution if it is made for a candidate which they favor... and conversely, they can deny a contribution to be given to a candidate whose positions are at odds with theirs. MSNBC's policy is the problem... not a few measley contributions to a couple of politicians.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Hey Sid, how about offering something new in one of your posts? You keep rehashing the same old crap, and it's starting to sound like a lot of whining."

Have I got the blog for you. Pay close attention to the blog to be posted tomorrow or Monday. It will be the first in a series of blogs about a case that is so flabbergasting that you won't believe it. It will later be featured as the third Investigative Report on our website.

The reason I wrote about Phil Griffin is that he again acted on another situation regarding campaign contributions while ignoring the egregious and unethical actions of MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan. If Phil Griffin suspends another host of a program for a campaign donation (without first getting authorization) expect another blog on the topic.

Finally, Susan Filan's actions are severe, and until they are appropriately addressed by the biased executives at MSNBC, I will continue to bring them to the public's attention. I will also continue to bring to the public's attention the discrimination against me at Duke University for being a supporter of Mike Nifong.

If Duke University had acted like York Properties when confronted by their guard who discrimated against a lesbian couple for showing affection publicly at Cameron Village Shopping Mall, then my attention to Duke's discrimination would die down just as quickly. But the media wants to keep the public ignorant of Duke's discrimination against me, and that is why it has not gone away... nor will it apparently go away any time soon.

Anonymous said...

Sid, it sure seems that you love playing the victim.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, it sure seems that you love playing the victim."

I play the hand I'm dealt. Unfortunately, Duke University discriminated against me because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. Duke believes that it is too big to accept responsibility for its misdeeds and take appropriate steps towards restorative justice. That is truly a shame. The fact of the matter is that I tried to resolve the situation quickly and amicably, but Duke does not feel that it must abide by standards of decency and fairness. The entire case is available on our website on the Investigative Reports section.


The blog I am about to post exemplifies the state's adherence to the tenet of selective justice based on Class and Color. It is a real tragedy. Let me know your feelings on this one.

Kathy Johnson said...

I can't believe that anyone is a Nifong supporter. I understand that people make mistakes, but he had a duty to the people to do the right thing according to the law. He did't do that, he is a disgrace to the seat that he held. Shame on you to those who pity that man, maybe you need to reexamine your own ethics, if you have any.