Tv reporter's blog gets her fired. Right or Wrong?

[Evil_Captor]

@Dangerosa

She was also arrested during her tenure and apparently suspended for three days for saying fuck on air.

Any ONE of those three things for an on air personality would be enough to get shown the door.

I think it was probably the AP Reporter of the Year in the Southeast award that really did it.

[Evil_Captor]

@DigitalC

I fail to see how morality plays into it at all. She admitted to a serious crime, she insulted a large segment of people who watch the news and everything else she said made her look ignorant and unprofessional. The TV station was more than legally able to fire her, it was justifiable and absolutely right in doing so.

Morality says a person should have freedom of speech when not on the job. Clearly, you disagree.

[KneadToKnow]

@Evil_Captor

Morality says a person should have freedom of speech when not on the job. Clearly, you disagree.

As I understand it, “freedom of speech” is a concept granted to US citizens by the first amendment to the Constitution* and it deals with the freedom to dissent against the government and not be jailed or executed for it. It does not force an employer to let an employee say whatever they feel like and continue to draw a paycheck. It’s got fuck-all to do with morality.
*And doubtless lots of other peoples by their respective governments.

[Chronos]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if her contract included a clause against blogging: The station probably wants to control any information flow that can be associated with them. If that’s the case, then just having the blog at all, regardless of the contents, could be cause for firing.

[Telemark]

@Evil_Captor

Morality says a person should have freedom of speech when not on the job. Clearly, you disagree.

Clearly you don’t understand the concept of freedom of speech.

[miss_elizabeth]

@Evil_Captor

Morality says a person should have freedom of speech when not on the job. Clearly, you disagree.

I know it’s like, in your contract somewhere to blindly defend any woman who talks about her breasts, but she also admitted to a pretty extreme prejudice and a felony, which takes this past “freedom of speech”* territory. Public entities don’t like to be associated with admitted felons, or people who mock their main consumer base. She could have taken it down and been fine, but she chose not to. This was stupid. There are already enough stupid prejudiced felons on the news. Kudos to the station for having some fucking standards.
*not real freedom of speech, as outlined in the Constitution, but the pretend kind found on the internet. As with most internet concepts, you’ll notice it abandons any concept of responsibility.

[leftfield6]

@Chronos

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if her contract included a clause against blogging: The station probably wants to control any information flow that can be associated with them. If that’s the case, then just having the blog at all, regardless of the contents, could be cause for firing.

Yep, this. I work for a telecommunications company, and it’s in my employee handbook that I am not to post (in a way that is easily identifiable as me) anything that is detrimental to the image of my company. I’m betting that a television station has social media covered in their employee contracts.

[VinylTurnip]

@Evil_Captor

We will be reminded endlessly that the TV station was legally able to fire her, by people who have substituted morality for the law, however.

Probably. That usually follows your showing up to panegyrize the poor, sooty-faced workers suffering under the cruel yoke of their cigar-chomping Snidely Whiplash employers who sleep on a bed of ill-gotten gold coins and use orphans as dartboards.

[Evil_Captor]

@KneadToKnow

As I understand it, “freedom of speech” is a concept granted to US citizens by the first amendment to the Constitution* and it deals with the freedom to dissent against the government and not be jailed or executed for it. It does not force an employer to let an employee say whatever they feel like and continue to draw a paycheck. It’s got fuck-all to do with morality.
*And doubtless lots of other peoples by their respective governments.

Speaking the truth, for whatever your value of “truth” may be, is ALL about morality, sir. But I see you take the corporate line.

[Evil_Captor]

@VinylTurnip

Probably. That usually follows your showing up to panegyrize the poor, sooty-faced workers suffering under the cruel yoke of their cigar-chomping Snidely Whiplash employers who sleep on a bed of ill-gotten gold coins and use orphans as dartboards.

Thanks, a perfect design for a straw man! Rest assured I shall use it where appropriate.

[KneadToKnow]

@Evil_Captor

But I see you take the corporate line.

Wow, that is the funniest thing I’ve heard all frakking day.

[Evil_Captor]

@Chronos

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if her contract included a clause against blogging: The station probably wants to control any information flow that can be associated with them. If that’s the case, then just having the blog at all, regardless of the contents, could be cause for firing.

All cogs must bow to the media machine or be discarded, instances of humanity will be terminated with extreme prejudice … I THINK that’s what you just said …

[Evil_Captor]

@KneadToKnow

Wow, that is the funniest thing I’ve heard all frakking day.

A frakker are you? That explains a lot!

[Evil_Captor]

@Telemark

Clearly you don’t understand the concept of freedom of speech.

I do understand it, and I have morality down cold as well.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Evil_Captor

All cogs must bow to the media machine or be discarded, instances of humanity will be terminated with extreme prejudice … I THINK that’s what you just said …

I can’t believe this is how you actually. It reads more like a parody of “evul libruls” than someone’s actual thought process.

[GrandWino]

Local news’ #1 demographic is so-called “old people.” That one alone would be enough to get her canned.

[Bricker]

So far as I can discern, Evil Captor’s analysis begins and ends with this question:

Was an employee fired?

If the answer is yes, then the firing was unjustified.

[madsircool]

@Evil_Captor

Speaking the truth, for whatever your value of “truth” may be, is ALL about morality, sir. But I see you take the corporate line.

Now go do your moral duty and tell that person who had their face burned off how really ugly they are. Its your moral duty!!

[Rick]

@Evil_Captor

OMG! The TV station hired someone who wasn’t content to be just a cog in their machine! Off with her head!

We will be reminded endlessly that the TV station was legally able to fire her, by people who have substituted morality for the law, however.

I hire and fire people all the time at a car dealership.
I would not hire a guy to wash cars if they admitted to a Federal crime.
But hey maybe I’m just an asshole.

[BigT]

If freedom of speech is a moral thing (and I agree it is not), then the company has the freedom of speech to fire her.

And did anyone read the other article? This wasn’t the first time they’d had trouble with her. And she’d been stealing people’s mail on the job, and apparently just confessed to that. She’s admitted sleeping on the job and was arrested just a few months into the job

And WTF is with people having public personal blogs under their real name? That’s just stupid. A blog with your real name is for showing your public persona. It’s not for bearing your soul or making confessions. If you want a blog to be your personal journal that you share with others, keep yourself anonymous, so it won’t come back to bite you.

This idea that you should be able to say whatever you want without consequences is absolutely asinine. Freedom of speech (the moral concept) means others are free to respond. What you are really saying is that people have a right to a particular job.