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

[Ford]

Call me grumpy.

You're grumpy.


There's also the distinct possibility that the social media policy violation was an excuse to get rid of an executive that had fallen out of favor with the company. Severance packages and contract breaches can be expensive. Firing this lawyer could have been in the pipe for some time, but the company was looking for an "out."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Yeah, it was Fox News.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The context might have been more benign, however, it was a bridge too far for me. If that was her intent, there was a much better way to state it, such as, "I can only hope that these people start taking gun control seriously, now that they've been a victim of it."

This isn't like Ted Nugent was shot and killed, where there would be barrels of irony to go around. We are talking about a massacre.

 

[dismal]

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.

I understand what she is saying. That's why I also understand how fucked up it is.

When you see 50+ dead country music fans massacred in the street and that's what pops into your diseased mind you are a subhuman.

 

[dismal]

It's OK, they're country music fans!

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

In contrast, Mahr's comment about 9/11 didn't take a moral stance at all and said nothing about the sympathy the victims deserved. It was simply a factually correct observation, so it could only be "incorrect" in the sense of "politically incorrect" where facts are not allowed to be spoken because they run counter to some irrational ideological assumptions. He simply pointed out the fact that a person who deliberately gives their own life to serve a cause they believe is just is the opposite of the definition of a coward, which is objectively true no matter what one feels about their cause or the morality of the act. There is little relation between the cowardice and morality of actions.
The two comments would only be remotely similar if Mahr had said "I have no sympathy for the 9/11 victims, because they are part of a country whose foreign policy provoked the attack."

And even then, the situations would drastically differ, due to what the speaker's different roles were and different nature of the programs. Most network news employees would get fired for saying 90% of what Mahr or most political comedians say.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way. For example, when Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem, it's politically incorrect. The right-wing uses the term to refer to things that are offensive to most sensible people as well, "morally reprehensible" to the vast majority of the population such as using racist terms and saying racist things, like the guy talking about his dog having more value than a million black people. So, she did say something "politically incorrect" but don't get hung up on the semantics because they don't matter.

 

[dismal]

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.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way. For example, when Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem, it's politically incorrect. The right-wing uses the term to refer to things that are offensive to most sensible people as well, "morally reprehensible" to the vast majority of the population such as using racist terms and saying racist things, like the guy talking about his dog having more value than a million black people. So, she did say something "politically incorrect" but don't get hung up on the semantics because they don't matter.

Yeah, the semantics of "politically incorrect" is not where you're wildly off course.

It's the assertion her comment is only upsetting to "right wingers".

She herself has realized what a disgusting comment it was and backed off it pretty hard at this point.

“Earlier today I posted an indefensible post in a Facebook discussion thread concerning the tragic Las Vegas shooting, a statement I sincerely regret. I am deeply sorry for diminishing the significance of every life affected by Stephen Paddock’s terrorism last night and for the pain my words have inflicted on the loved ones of the victims. My shameful comments do not reflect the beliefs of my former employer, colleagues, family, and friends. Nor do they reflect my actual beliefs — this senseless violence warrants the deepest empathy. I understand and accept all consequences that my words have incurred.”

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way. For example, when Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem, it's politically incorrect. The right-wing uses the term to refer to things that are offensive to most sensible people as well, "morally reprehensible" to the vast majority of the population such as using racist terms and saying racist things, like the guy talking about his dog having more value than a million black people. So, she did say something "politically incorrect" but don't get hung up on the semantics because they don't matter.

Like ronburgundy notes, the statements are in different ballparks.

The right-wing uses invented the term Politically Incorrect to portray sensitivity in areas where it had been missing before as uber-liberal whackiness. Calling a person with Downs a "retard" would be PC... and it'd be totally unfair for a conservative to get into trouble doing so.

What the woman said indicated she was somewhat apathetic for the victims due to the Venn Diagram in her head regarding rabid 2nd Amendment lovers and country music fans.

What Maher said was that you can't be too cowardly to kill yourself for a cause.

While both statements would get the right-wing into a tizzy... what doesn't?... Maher was countering W Admin statements regarding the enemy, and Maher was trying not to underestimate the enemy. That'd be an assessment on the attackers, not the victims.

What the woman said was that her Venn Diagram didn't hold the empathy circle too close to the circles of country music and gun lovers. That would be how she feels about the victims, not the attacker.

 

[sharon45]

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.

Well, I don't think these guys seriously believed all that, but it died with them. Their obvious hatred for America was strong enough.

 

[sharon45]

In contrast, Mahr's comment about 9/11 didn't take a moral stance at all and said nothing about the sympathy the victims deserved. It was simply a factually correct observation, so it could only be "incorrect" in the sense of "politically incorrect" where facts are not allowed to be spoken because they run counter to some irrational ideological assumptions. He simply pointed out the fact that a person who deliberately gives their own life to serve a cause they believe is just is the opposite of the definition of a coward, which is objectively true no matter what one feels about their cause or the morality of the act. There is little relation between the cowardice and morality of actions.

One major part of this is that many people think attacking civilians is a cowardly act.

 

[Arctish]

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.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way. For example, when Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem, it's politically incorrect. The right-wing uses the term to refer to things that are offensive to most sensible people as well, "morally reprehensible" to the vast majority of the population such as using racist terms and saying racist things, like the guy talking about his dog having more value than a million black people. So, she did say something "politically incorrect" but don't get hung up on the semantics because they don't matter.

Yeah, the semantics of "politically incorrect" is not where you're wildly off course.

It's the assertion her comment is only upsetting to "right wingers".

Who asserted that?

She herself has realized what a disgusting comment it was and backed off it pretty hard at this point.

“Earlier today I posted an indefensible post in a Facebook discussion thread concerning the tragic Las Vegas shooting, a statement I sincerely regret. I am deeply sorry for diminishing the significance of every life affected by Stephen Paddock’s terrorism last night and for the pain my words have inflicted on the loved ones of the victims. My shameful comments do not reflect the beliefs of my former employer, colleagues, family, and friends. Nor do they reflect my actual beliefs — this senseless violence warrants the deepest empathy. I understand and accept all consequences that my words have incurred.”

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

She has apologized for violating social norms by failing to consider the individuality and inherent value of the lives lost, and for causing emotional distress to others. Good enough.

Are you going to apologize for calling her subhuman? Because really, your emotional reaction was as ill considered as hers.

 

[dismal]

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.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way. For example, when Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem, it's politically incorrect. The right-wing uses the term to refer to things that are offensive to most sensible people as well, "morally reprehensible" to the vast majority of the population such as using racist terms and saying racist things, like the guy talking about his dog having more value than a million black people. So, she did say something "politically incorrect" but don't get hung up on the semantics because they don't matter.

Yeah, the semantics of "politically incorrect" is not where you're wildly off course.

It's the assertion her comment is only upsetting to "right wingers".

Who asserted that?

Don.

She herself has realized what a disgusting comment it was and backed off it pretty hard at this point.

“Earlier today I posted an indefensible post in a Facebook discussion thread concerning the tragic Las Vegas shooting, a statement I sincerely regret. I am deeply sorry for diminishing the significance of every life affected by Stephen Paddock’s terrorism last night and for the pain my words have inflicted on the loved ones of the victims. My shameful comments do not reflect the beliefs of my former employer, colleagues, family, and friends. Nor do they reflect my actual beliefs — this senseless violence warrants the deepest empathy. I understand and accept all consequences that my words have incurred.”

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

She has apologized for violating social norms by failing to consider the individuality and inherent value of the lives lost, and for causing emotional distress to others. Good enough.

Are you going to apologize for calling her subhuman? Because really, your emotional reaction was as ill considered as hers.

No. And no.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I never said it was ONLY upsetting to the Reich wing, though I did mention the right-wing.

Do I have opinions on whether there is a difference between how the left may feel about this than the right? Sure, but I don't think I wrote about that before. Here's what I think: The right-wing reaction to this is different from the left, though I imagine most of either group may get upset (overlapping similarity). So some on the left might not be upset by the woman's comment at all. Frankly, I am pretty jaded myself about having sympathy for shooting victims, especially if they are the kinds of people who talked about conspiracy theories over Sandy Hook which is 15 minutes from my house and I heard about parents who were targeted and heard rude things from those conspiracy wingers. In any case, while I suspect the numbers of people who are jaded over this to be more prevalent among the left than the right, there is another difference, too. Take a look at right-wing reactions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3591676/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3591243/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3591285/posts

Many right-wingers are using this to make hasty generalizations about liberals which is what she did about the victims while she was in an emotional state over the tragedy.

Finally, I will add that I would bet that most of the people who would call in to complain to CBS about the post author would be Republicans since the post was about Republicans. I expect them to be more personally offended by her statement, especially those who are actually "gun toters" and/or have anything to do with victims of the tragedy.

 

[dismal]

I never said it was ONLY upsetting to the Reich wing, though I did mention the right-wing.

We can read what you said.

If you thought the problem was her comment would upset anyone with a trace of humanity it seems like you had words available to you to say something more like that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I never said it was ONLY upsetting to the Reich wing, though I did mention the right-wing.

We can read what you said.

You can also respond to what I wrote.

If you thought the problem was her comment would upset anyone with a trace of humanity it seems like you had words available to you to say something more like that.

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

 

[dismal]

We can read what you said.

You can also respond to what I wrote.

I did.

 

[ZiprHead]

You can also respond to what I wrote.

I did.

Poorly.

 

[funinspace]

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.

Well, I don't think these guys seriously believed all that, but it died with them. Their obvious hatred for America was strong enough.

Yep. But even if they did believe in this version of Heaven/rewards, it still is hardly cowardly to engage in a suicide attack plan. It may not be the ultimate in courage, but I'd say it is more a sliding scale than a binary definition between cowardly and courageousness.

Cowards (chickenshit armchair warriors), work hard to avoid a draft, and then later in life send other people's children off to war.

 

[dismal]

I did.

Poorly.

Huh? I think "I can read what you said" is a pretty thorough response to someone who is trying to deny what they wrote.

Here's a tip for those who lack basic English communication skills: If you're trying to communicate "OMG, look at this horrible thing this woman said" don't do it by saying "OMG, right wingers have their panties in a bunch about what this woman said". The latter suggests your problem is with right wingers reaction, not the statement. If your problem is with the statement itself, there is no need to introduce right wingers into your communication at all, let alone derogatory statements like "panties in a bunch" directed at right wingers, who supposedly are not your problem.