2Viragos: Your objections are off base. Zack is not employed by health care companies. He does not have a conflict of interest, which a lobbyist who moonlights as a "journalist" clearly has.

ummmh, twovigaros:
the difference is that Wolffe is being paid to advocate a position, while trading on his reputation as a journalist, WITHOUT disclosing it!
If a high profile liberal journalist was now working for a lobbying firm, and was guest hosting O"Reilly, Limbaugh, etc, the GOP shouting would be heard around the world!

Zach isnt the owner of Josh's website, just an employee. What, MSNBC doesnt run advertising for health care or health insurance firms? Does that make Keith Olbermann biased? He doesnt own MSNBC....

Miker, I must agree with you. I own a PR agency and while an employee here could appear as a panelist or an expert source for a program on MSNBC or another network, it would be disclosed that they are representatives of a PR firm. Wolffe's role in the PR firm was not disclosed to viewers yet it was advertised by his own agency that he was on MSNBC, giving the clear impression that his appearances could benefit paying clients. This is a clearly not kosher.

There are two things at play here. First, have there been any actions which would indicate Wolfe has acted improperly. He seems to have comparmentalized quite well, and I can't point to anything.

The second is the appearance of conflict of interest. That certainly seems to exist. The question becomes how scrupulous should Wolfe, MSNBC and even we be in ridding ourselves of the suspicion of conflict of interest. I suspect some will say no foul, no penalty, while others will say we must maintain the highest standards to avoid even the question of impropriety.

You cannot work for a PR agency and represent corporate clients in the morning, and claim to be completely impartial and objective in the evening. I like Wolffe and think he did a good job, but he cannot host for MSNBC any more.

The fact that Wolff is corporate whore is a problem, however, the much bigger problem is that MSNBC is owned by GE. GE is a whore to government largess.

MSNBC is a joke and Olbermann is a mere corporate ladder climber/yes man/ brown noser/sickening self righteous insincere uncle tom/opportunist of the highest order.

I could guess at some pro-corporate bias: the lack of any criticism of corporations that he represents. Now, obviously, the odds of any given corporation having news in any given week isn't necessarily high. But the issue is that bias can manifest by omission as much as by commission.

twovigaros. the difference between paid advertisements (whether advocacy ads or otherwise) and what wolffe is doing is the matter of DISCLOSURE. TPM discloses what ads they run by putting them in clearly demarcated areas and presenting them as paid ads. Wolffe didn't disclose who his clients are - and when he does he should disclose who ALL of the firm's clients are and not just the one's he works on directly.

I didn't know he had a new job as a PR hack.

That should be disclosed when he appears on TV.

As I have commented before: I am so old that I can remember when we had an independent press.

Wolffe complains that we are "... not really in touch with what's going on...." and then says,
"You tell me where the line is between business and journalism".

Well, I am definitely in touch with what's going on, and it is a threat to my freedom. And the fact that he is so cavalier about the blur (to him) between business and journalism is just another testimony to the problem.

It was announced that Wolfe took the job a few months ago and even then I felt it was a conflict of interest. What I loathe is the lack of transparency that exists...this is not NBC/MSNBC's first time, look at all the "so-called "millitary experts" who were exposed in a 4 page spread in the Sunday New York Times.....not a word was said by NBC/MSNBC. These military "experts" are making millions with contracting fees with the Defense Dept.

What revolts me even more, is that Richard Wolfe would become the lowest type of whore for getting into "bed" with Dan Bartlett...why anyone would believe a word from Bartlett is beyond me. I wouldn't believe Bartlett if he told me water was wet.

What I find interesting is the TIMING that this story breaks.

Think about it.

Just last week ,MSNBC and FOX declare a truce over Olbermann and OReilly.

Olbermann goes MIA, with corporate shill Wolffe,hosting for the entire week.

I predict K.O. will leave MSNBC in short order.

Maybe I'm getting to be too jaded about the mainstream media, but I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this.

Wolffe is a weak performer so the good news for us is that - unless he's given testosterone shots and regular lessons on how to project his (invisible) masculinity - he has no future as a top man for MSNBC or any other audio/visual media outlet.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, does - with a little fine tuning and practice.

Wolffe is, at his best, a sidekick personality and a slight comic foil to an alpha-dog like Olbermann. It was painful to watch him (try to) take over his spot. I fully realized that his appearance was experimental, but really ... Wolffe has no potential to develop.

This is really over the top. Should Wolffe's day job have been disclosed? Sure, and so should that of every other guest. It's important for us to know where people get their paychecks from. But I think it's a huge stretch from that to demonizing someone who has shown no evidence of being anything but a straight-shooter. Has everyone already forgotten how Wolffe called out Sarah Palin for the shallow, ignorant, bomb-thrower she is when she was at the height of her popularity (the infamous "fruit fly" controversy)? And I thought the far right were the only ones who shoot their wounded.