Regressive Corporate CBS Fires Employee for Politically Incorrect comment on private Facebook account

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.

“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families,” a CBS spokeswoman told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...athy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html

Full context of statement:

 

[Derec]

Right-wing CBS? Maybe in a parallel universe that is an enantiomer of our own ...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Right-wing CBS? Maybe in a parallel universe that is an enantiomer of our own ...

I am pretty sure that CBS is controlled by pro-corporate capitalists, Derec. They are not left-wing communists.

I notice you don't have much of any substance to add, though.

Care to try to address the op? I mean, you can't say stuff like that in your private life among friends that goes against politically correct doctrine about the military, Republicans, or the national anthem without getting the boot. This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

 

[prideandfall]

Right-wing CBS? Maybe in a parallel universe that is an enantiomer of our own ...

i like how despite your numerous attempts to equivocate, when it comes to immediate reactions you don't even question an automatic and underlying link between "regressive" and "right wing"

you do that sort of thing often enough it's almost kind of adorable.

 

[dismal]

Right-wing CBS? Maybe in a parallel universe that is an enantiomer of our own ...

I am pretty sure that CBS is controlled by pro-corporate capitalists, Derec. They are not left-wing communists.

I notice you don't have much of any substance to add, though.

Care to try to address the op? I mean, you can't say stuff like that in your private life among friends that goes against politically correct doctrine about the military, Republicans, or the national anthem without getting the boot. This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

What exactly is your problem here?

We just had a big thread about how your free speech rights do not prevent your employer from firing you.

 

[Ford]

I'm kind of surprised that a company lawyer did this. They're usually the ones explaining the "social media policy" to employees, not breaking it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am pretty sure that CBS is controlled by pro-corporate capitalists, Derec. They are not left-wing communists.

I notice you don't have much of any substance to add, though.

Care to try to address the op? I mean, you can't say stuff like that in your private life among friends that goes against politically correct doctrine about the military, Republicans, or the national anthem without getting the boot. This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

What exactly is your problem here?

I don't have a problem.

We just had a big thread about how your free speech rights do not prevent your employer from firing you.

I am happy for you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm kind of surprised that a company lawyer did this. They're usually the ones explaining the "social media policy" to employees, not breaking it.

I speculate the issue is that she doesn't display her posts to the public. One of her facebook friends was so shocked/offended by her statement that she ratted her out. So, she thought she had little risk but she was wrong.

 

[blastula]

Someone is about to be unfriended.

 

[ronburgundy]

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Before I waste my time explicating the extreme ways this is different than Maher getting fired for jokingly referring to himself as a "House Nigger", I just wan't to be clear that you are saying there is no meaningful difference between the two and that anyone okay with one should have no problem with the other.

 

[sharon45]

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Before I waste my time explicating the extreme ways this is different than Maher getting fired for jokingly referring to himself as a "House Nigger", I just wan't to be clear that you are saying there is no meaningful difference between the two and that anyone okay with one should have no problem with the other.

What are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He said something politically incorrect that got the right-wing in a tizzy. This lady said something politically incorrect that could have gotten the right-wing in a tizzy had they known ahead of time, but now they are getting their panties in a wad afterward.

 

[sharon45]

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He said something politically incorrect that got the right-wing in a tizzy. This lady said something politically incorrect that could have gotten the right-wing in a tizzy had they known ahead of time, but now they are getting their panties in a wad afterward.

Yet Maher is paid well to largely speak his mind, hence his show's title. Now, I have not said that this lawyer ought to be fired, just that she is employed for very different reasons.

 

[dismal]

Before I waste my time explicating the extreme ways this is different than Maher getting fired for jokingly referring to himself as a "House Nigger", I just wan't to be clear that you are saying there is no meaningful difference between the two and that anyone okay with one should have no problem with the other.

What are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He said something politically incorrect that got the right-wing in a tizzy. This lady said something politically incorrect that could have gotten the right-wing in a tizzy had they known ahead of time, but now they are getting their panties in a wad afterward.

If you think only "right wingers" would be upset by the idea you're not supposed to have sympathy for kids massacred at a concert because they are country music fans, You may want to check if the batteries on your humanity module need changing.

 

[Arctish]

What are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He said something politically incorrect that got the right-wing in a tizzy. This lady said something politically incorrect that could have gotten the right-wing in a tizzy had they known ahead of time, but now they are getting their panties in a wad afterward.

If you think only "right wingers" would be upset by the idea you're not supposed to have sympathy for kids massacred at a concert because they are country music fans, You may want to check if the batteries on your humanity module need changing.

I don't think that's what she was saying.

“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

I think she was expressing frustration at the lack of reasonable limits on the firepower available to random people. She says she has no sympathy because country music fans are often Republican gun toters, i.e. the same people who blocked gun control legislation after the mass killing of children at Sandy Hook. It's offensive, and certainly a broad brush accusation, but I think she was basically saying "You goddamned idiots, that's what you get for deciding it's better to let kooks have arsenals than to restrict a person's 'right' to buy assault weapons!."

I don't think what she said was anything but a heat-of-the-moment expression of frustration and anger that so many people are killed in these mass shootings, and so little is done about it.

 

[repoman]

Hmm, the degree not sentiment or even statistical correlations of her post is how she screwed up.

The "no sympathy" was too much. No sympathy for a severely stubbed toe for a guy trying to kick a dog makes sense. But mass murder?

 

[Arctish]

Hmm, the degree not sentiment or even statistical correlations of her post is how she screwed up.

The "no sympathy" was too much. No sympathy for a severely stubbed toe for a guy trying to kick a dog makes sense. But mass murder?

I agree that what she wrote was pretty damn harsh. But I don't like how it was spun in the OP article. The writer clipped off "gun toters" but left the modifier "Republican", giving readers the wrong impression. It's basically a quote mine and very dishonest.

 

[Ford]

I don't think that's what she was saying.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter precisely what she was saying.

She was fired as a matter of company policy, not because of her particular political opinion. I've sat through some meetings on the subject of company social media policy. Had some direction from company lawyers. Fact is, if you work for a media company, your "private" social media is anything but. Here's how this works...

Let's say you're a very well known sports broadcaster by the name of Dan Patrick. Associated with ESPN. You've got your "Dan Patrick" social media accounts associated with your public persona, and you manage them appropriately. You stick to sports and uncontroversial stuff on these platforms. But on your private social media accounts - under your real name (which is 2/3 Dan Patrick) you go off on a certain ethnic minority with a vengeance. The thing is, anyone with a modicum of google-fu can figure out that "Dan Patrick" and Dan Patrick (fill in the blank) are the same guy.

So at that moment Dan's opinions about that ethnic minority are out there, and he's tanking the ESPN brand. An offense that would possibly lead to termination.

But if you're working in the HR department at ESPN, you have to have a social media policy that applies equally to "Dan Patrick" (the personality), Dan Patrick (the employee) and some low-level schmuck who just happens to be named Dan Patrick Flanagan. So you wind up with a policy that states that an employee of the company can't talk politics on their personal pages because at any moment someone will lock onto what Dan Patrick (any iteration) said on social media and took that to be the official position of ESPN.

Is that unfair? Sure. But that's the policy that the company has implemented, and the lowest-level Dan Patrick has been through the corporate social media policy training, has signed off on the policy as part of their contract, and if the HR director finds out - by whatever means - that they've violated the policy, Dan's job is in jeopardy.

This lawyer who was fired by CBS...I don't even know where to start. I'm an employee of a big media company with one of these social media policies. A couple months ago we had a routine meeting where our lawyer laid out (among other things) our policy and how - even if we weren't an on-air personality - our private social media accounts could be used against us. That's fucked up, but I took the lawyer's words to heart. The idea that the lawyer who explained this policy would be the one fired as a result of violating it is kinda mind-boggling.

 

[Derec]

I am pretty sure that CBS is controlled by pro-corporate capitalists, Derec. They are not left-wing communists.

Their editorial slant is very much left.
And CBS even owns some black power radio stations like Atlanta's WAOK where the hosts are so racist, they invent their own slurs for white people.

I notice you don't have much of any substance to add, though.

What's there to add? Companies firing employees for social media posts has been going on for a while. Nothing new here. Except, lately it has been mostly conservatives fired for things like anti-BLM statements. I do not recall you complaining about those firings.

Care to try to address the op? I mean, you can't say stuff like that in your private life among friends that goes against politically correct doctrine about the military, Republicans, or the national anthem without getting the boot. This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Again, it's been going on for a while. Why your outrage now?

- - - Updated - - -

i like how despite your numerous attempts to equivocate, when it comes to immediate reactions you don't even question an automatic and underlying link between "regressive" and "right wing"

It's not an automatic link, I simply knew whom I was replying to.

you do that sort of thing often enough it's almost kind of adorable.

What? Me being aware of the poster's ideological bend?

- - - Updated - - -

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He was wrong about that.
Doesn't take too much courage to fly some planes into buildings when you firmly believe that you will go straight to Heaven and collect 72 virgins.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think that's what she was saying.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter precisely what she was saying.

She was fired as a matter of company policy, not because of her particular political opinion. I've sat through some meetings on the subject of company social media policy. Had some direction from company lawyers. Fact is, if you work for a media company, your "private" social media is anything but. Here's how this works...

Let's say you're a very well known sports broadcaster by the name of Dan Patrick. Associated with ESPN. You've got your "Dan Patrick" social media accounts associated with your public persona, and you manage them appropriately. You stick to sports and uncontroversial stuff on these platforms. But on your private social media accounts - under your real name (which is 2/3 Dan Patrick) you go off on a certain ethnic minority with a vengeance. The thing is, anyone with a modicum of google-fu can figure out that "Dan Patrick" and Dan Patrick (fill in the blank) are the same guy.

So at that moment Dan's opinions about that ethnic minority are out there, and he's tanking the ESPN brand. An offense that would possibly lead to termination.

But if you're working in the HR department at ESPN, you have to have a social media policy that applies equally to "Dan Patrick" (the personality), Dan Patrick (the employee) and some low-level schmuck who just happens to be named Dan Patrick Flanagan. So you wind up with a policy that states that an employee of the company can't talk politics on their personal pages because at any moment someone will lock onto what Dan Patrick (any iteration) said on social media and took that to be the official position of ESPN.

Is that unfair? Sure. But that's the policy that the company has implemented, and the lowest-level Dan Patrick has been through the corporate social media policy training, has signed off on the policy as part of their contract, and if the HR director finds out - by whatever means - that they've violated the policy, Dan's job is in jeopardy.

This lawyer who was fired by CBS...I don't even know where to start. I'm an employee of a big media company with one of these social media policies. A couple months ago we had a routine meeting where our lawyer laid out (among other things) our policy and how - even if we weren't an on-air personality - our private social media accounts could be used against us. That's fucked up, but I took the lawyer's words to heart. The idea that the lawyer who explained this policy would be the one fired as a result of violating it is kinda mind-boggling.

I understand that that's how it works. And while I don't agree that everything a person says in private should reflect on their employer, I know that it does, and the higher ranked the person is in an organization, the greater the consequences for showing it in a bad light.

I dislike mined quotes that fail to convey the gist of what a person said or wrote. I absolutely detest mined quotes that deliberately give readers a false impression. That little snippets at the top of the story appears to have been tailored to be click bait rather than an accurate account of events. Call me grumpy but it bothers me when news organizations do that.