While I am cognizant of the fact that Playgirl magazine isn’t exactly mainstream media, I believe the journalistic culture that exists there is pretty much in line with that of most mainstream journalism. I have been roundly assailed here on occasion for my statements regarding media bias toward Republicans and conservatives in general. Here is just a small example of the kind of thing that leads me to this belief. The last two sentences are particularly telling, in my opinion.
Nothing in her letter suggests there is evidence she was fired for being Republican.
I think I’ll just let that comment stand as its own condemnation.
And considering that several “moral values” Republican politicians nonetheless accept financing from porn vendors, it would be silly to argue that Republicans don’t belong in the porn industry.
I have no idea what the actual circumstances of this editor’s firing were, but it is clear from her letter that she can’t write for shit:
“Expressed their disinterest of”? Cheeses Rice! I think she meant to say “expressed their disinclination for” or something like that.
SA: I think I’ll just let that comment stand as its own condemnation.
Er, what exactly are you saying “condemns” it? The former editor alleges that she was let go because of a “liberal backlash” against her admission that she voted Republican. However, no actual evidence was offered to support that allegation. Why should anybody be expected to believe it without supporting evidence?
In other words: “Cite?”
Balderdash.
I work for what would be considered a liberal, left-wing publication, and no one here discusses each others’ political or religious views. If one of our editors was “outed” as Republican, no one would care, and if any “underlings” objected, said underling would be sent to HR for a severe warning.
Bullshit. Then point to the exact line wherein she proves her case. The two lines you think are so damning don’t say shit. The first is casual banter that doesn’t indicate if it took place before or after the firing, and the second is merely the author’s opinion.
The most telling line of this article is the last word, “Developing…”. Drudge has a long history of printing unverified reports.
Well, SA, have you noticed any changes in the content of the magazine over the past several years, or since her firing? That’s where I think it will be particularly telling.
If that’s the best someone who makes a living with words can write, I think I know why she was fired.
Munch, I have a feeling like my disagreement with you here could devolve into another debate on what the word ‘evidence’ means, but she clearly states her case.
Her underlings complained, shortly thereafter she was fired. Don’t you think there might be something to it? I also allow for the possibility that it’s just ridiculous grandstanding bullshit, and that the real reason she was fired was her overall attitude, but unless you’re going to discount her version of events entirely, I wouldn’t say there’s no evidence she was fired for being a Republican.
neuroman: Her underlings complained, shortly thereafter she was fired. Don’t you think there might be something to it? […] I wouldn’t say there’s no evidence she was fired for being a Republican.
Not the same thing. Even if one considers her allegations believable (and AFAICT they might be, although Eve disagrees), they do not constitute evidence. They’re just allegations.
Sorry neuroman, but I just can’t take this particular account seriously as of yet, when the editor says,
“Suspicion”? Doesn’t that completely contradict any claim to the presence of evidence in support of her allegation? If I had a strong case that I was fired for my political leanings, I’d make them. But I sure as hell wouldn’t use the word “suspicion” when doing so. As an editor, I think the one thing we can presume is that she knows what that word means.
Unless there has been a profound shift in your views, I take it you mean to suggest a bias in the tedia against Republicans and conservatives?
All right, suspicions are not evidence. Fair enough. Her underlings do appear to have complained about working under a Republican, though. What can be safely inferred from that is unclear.
I do believe the possibility that it’s grandstanding bullshit is rather high. It seems likely that she got fired not for merely being a Republican, but for publicly interjecting politics into the workplace and making waves. So in one sense she did get fired for being a Repub, but the real reason was probably because she chose to make an issue out of politics.
She wasn’t fired at all; she quit.
Post crock, ergo propter crock.
SA, how many times do we have to tell you? Don’t interrupt the adults when we’re talking. Run along now and go play with your toy soldiers. Didn’t we just buy you a Torture Me Saddam doll?
What is the matter with you people? (Never mind, the question is rhetorical. What’s wrong is obvious: denial.)
At any rate, she was told by an official with the magazine that she would never have been hired if he had known she was a Republican!
And kimstu, we’re not in a court of law here, you know. My contention is that the entire episode is indicative of the left-wing bias that is so pervasive throughout jounalism here in America.
You can split hairs over the meaning of ‘evidence" all you want; it changes nothing in regard to my assertion. There is more than ample “evidence” as I would define it at work throughout this woman’s entire experience since making it known she was a Republican, i.e., left-wing backlash (toward the right, luci 
); underlings’ complaints; an official stating she would never have been hired with the knowledge she was Republican; and her subsequent firing.
Looks like evidence to me.
leander, ? Do you have knowledge you aren’t sharing? Her letter clearly states she was “released from her duties.”
And neuroman, your post is well taken in regard to her possibly being fired for making waves, but to me it’s the liberal bias I’m speaking of that caused her admission to become troublesome and for the waves to be the result. In other words, the same statement at the Wall Street Journal would not have made waves…therefore it’s the response to her words, rather than the words themselves, that are causing trouble.
neuroman: *Her underlings do appear to have complained about working under a Republican, though. *
That may well be true, but at this point there’s no evidence for or against it, as far as we can tell from her link. It’s all just her own unsupported allegations.
neuroman: * It seems likely that she got fired not for merely being a Republican, but for publicly interjecting politics into the workplace and making waves.*
That may be true, but it’s sheer speculation on your point. There’s absolutely no evidence.
Well, quite. It’s a simple case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Who could possibly argue with that? Only a rabid partisan, to be sure. No need to hear anyone else’s side of the story, either - clearly a fired editor would have no motive for making her side of the story sound better. Yes, it’s good to see a conservative affirm the unimpeachable veracity of a pornographer’s word. Bravo, sez I.
Brilliant. Simply brilliant!
:rolleyes: