He’s a professional, who’s been on CNN for years.
Always assume the camera is on and the mike is live. Always.
Just like you always assume a gun is loaded.
He was making sure it was unloaded.
I knew it was a mistake to use that analogy, but too late now for an edit.
I just realized there’s been no mention if he was wielding a pump shotgun or just a derringer.
Or merely a pea shooter…
Well, they’re all pee shooters, aren’t they?
OK, thanks for the comments (the serious ones, I mean). I asked for 'em, I got 'em, I read 'em. 
To be clear, I would never for a moment suggest that what he did was anything other than very, very stupid (or “stoopid”, if you prefer). Also gross and disturbing.
But I still have to wonder if the New Yorker lost more than it gained through what may arguably have been a disproportionate reaction. I think if I had been making the decision I would probably have suspended him as a disciplinary action and tangible symbol of disapproval, but then allowed him to return if he wanted to – which he may have not, out of sheer embarrassment, but at least would have had the option of redemption. Sometimes I can’t help but think that we as a society are in a kind of neo-Victorian resurgence. It irks me that Toobin was fired from the New Yorker while Brett Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court.
This. This. THIS.
So The New Yorker should be dragged down to the low moral standards of the United States Senate? Seems unfair.
I’ve never had to use zoom, but is it even possible to have two calls simultaneously use the camera as he claimed?
I have to imagine that market pressures played a much larger role than did ‘the right thing to do.’
The New Yorker’s reader demographics seem to skew about as far left as I might have guessed, and while they may not be AOC’s base, they’re likely plenty sensitive to this sort of thing (ie, Toobin’ … on a Sunday afternoon).
Then there’s the other side … who stand at the ready to scream “HYPOCRISY” at the top of their lungs if you don’t fire Toobin.
My guess is that the Powers That Be strongly considered giving him a public and formal flogging, but then letting him keep his job, but that the business pressures eventually demanded that he be fired.
Because money.
Yeah, there was really no up side to keeping JT on staff. People won’t abandon the New Yorker if he’s no longer a contributor. Neither will they abandon CNN if he is no longer commenting on legal matters. Nobody is irreplaceable. It’s best to part ways with him and let him sink into quiet obscurity. I’ve no doubt he’d like to be forgotten as much as anyone who was on that Zoom call.
I agree that, accident or not, Toobin applied horrendously, inexcusably bad judgment even thinking about wanking during a work-related call. At some point the thought “What if I’m really NOT disconnected from that first call” should have registered.
But I wish we could get away from the idea that one bad act or one embarrassing moment has to lead to the career equivalent of the death penalty. Unless he’s been caught engaging in offensive conduct in the past, he deserves a second chance, provided that he mitigates this incident by going to counseling or something along those lines. Maybe a 1-year suspension w/o pay and indefinite probation but the opportunity to redeem himself at some point. Firing’s just lazy, and I don’t believe that it’s justified simply as a business decision.
I know I’m just looking for it, but this story is just rife with opportunity for unintended puns.
Alas, sometimes a valuable employee has to lose their job, and the institution that fires them does lose more than it gains. I think that’s an inevitable result of having consistently-enforced rules and standards.
There comes a point where an employee’s personal life starts to interfere with how people view their work. I know I would have a tough time reading his stuff without having the image of his Zoom in the back of my head. Maybe given some time this will fade, but for now he’s lost a lot of respectability.
People are already going back to some of his earlier opinions on sex scandals - Lewinsky, Weiner, Spitzer (he authored a book on the Lewinsky scandal). He’d have a hard time covering any such scandal today while appearing to be objective.
He’s got some history which has come under notice, too. He also had his paternity case in 2009 where he tried to deny being the father of his mistress’ child and tried to avoid paying any child support until she took him to court and DNA proved he was the father. And right or wrong, he’s been rumored to be something of a predator for many years.
Oh, Jeffy… what have you been up to? You’ve been a scummy little fucker.
Ref @asahi’s various reasonable points.
Another issue is celebrity.
Let’s say there was some anonymous administrative functionary in the bowels of the New Yorker who did the same thing and got caught by co-workers the same way. Maybe even somebody far enough up the food chain to have a lot of direct and indirect subordinates.
The opportunity for the employer to take a broad view and place the offense in context with the employee’s history and value to the organization would be much greater. At least until the event becomes a media cause celebre.
Bottom lines:
-
Celebrities live in glass houses. It behooves them to bear that always in mind as things seen cannot be unseen.
-
The employer owes duties to the shareholders, the management, and the other employees first and foremost. Their duty to any given employee is peanuts by comparison. Doubly so in an area subject to actual legal regulation of behavior. One “aw shit!” really does offset a vast number of “attaboys”.
“But ye fuck one sheep…!”
On the other side of the ledger: the 45th President of the United States.
This might be a bad time to ask him about the meaning of happiness, especially if he likes the Beatles.