SAY WHAT YOU WILL (Requiem for a TV News Career) Chez Pazienza <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>.... For 20 months after starting DXM, I continued to work as a producer on American Morning, one of many charged with putting together the show. During that time, I received consistently favorable reviews (while in Atlanta I was told that I was well on my way to becoming an executive producer) and, more importantly, neither my credibility nor objectivity was ever called into question. Like anyone who considers him or herself a respectable news professional, whatever my personal opinions were, they were checked at the door when I walked into work. Having grown up in a household in which the highest ideals of journalism were never more than a conversation away -- my father was an old-school investigative reporter -- I knew full well that you couldn't avoid having opinions and viewpoints, but you never let them get in the way of your journalistic responsibility As far as CNN knew, I was a valued employee, albeit one with almost no say in the day-to-day editorial decisions on American Morning. This held true even as I began contributing columns to the Huffington Post, giving my writing more exposure than ever before. Then, last Monday afternoon, I got a call from my boss, Ed Litvak. Ed, seeming to channel Bill Lumburgh from Office Space, informed me of that which I was already very well aware: that my name was "attached to some, uh, 'opinionated' blog posts" circulating around the internet. I casually admitted as much and was then informed of something I didn't know: that I could be fired outright for this offense. 24 hours later, I was. During my final conversation with Ed Litvak and a representative from HR, they hammered home a single line in the CNN employee handbook which states that any writing done for a "non-CNN outlet" must be run through the network's standards and practices department. They asked if I had seen this decree. As a matter of fact I had, but only about a month previously, when I stumbled across a copy of that handbook on someone's desk and thumbed through it. I let them know exactly what I had thought when I read the rule, namely that it was staggeringly vague and couldn't possibly apply to something as innocuous as a blog. (I didn't realize until later that CNN had canned a 29-year-old intern for having the temerity to write about her work experiences -- her positive work experiences -- in a password-protected online journal a year earlier.) I told both my boss and HR representative that a network which prides itself on being so internet savvy -- or promotes itself as such, ad nauseam -- should probably specify blogging and online networking restrictions in its handbook. I said that they can't possibly expect CNN employees, en masse, to not engage in something as popular and timely as blogging if they don't make themselves perfectly clear. My HR rep's response: "Well, as far as we know, you're the only CNN employee who's blogging under his own name." It took self-control I didn't know I had to keep from laughing, considering that I could name five people off the top of my head who blogged without hiding their identities. Uh-huh, as far as you know. When I asked, just out of curiosity, who came across my blog and/or the columns in the Huffington Post, the woman from HR answered, "We have people within the company whose job is specifically to research this kind of thing in regard to employees." Jesus, we have a Gestapo? A few minutes later, I was off the phone and out of a job. No severance. No warning (which would've been a much smarter proposition for CNN as it would've put the ball effectively in my court and forced me to decide between my job or the blog). No nothing. Just, go away. ....</div> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienz...ie_b_87282.html While I have no love for CNN, and probably disagree categorically with the author on virtually everything, the entire article is well worth reading - not least as a cautionary tale.
Sounds like he's about to slit his wrists. He should have been more careful, people are very sensitive these days.
Ah, but do they really have a right to fire him for daring to post his personal opinion on non-CNN websites? That bothers me considerably.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 26 2008, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ah, but do they really have a right to fire him for daring to post his personal opinion on non-CNN websites? That bothers me considerably.</div> I actually think they do have that right. People make a big deal out of certain words or phrases, and sometimes "silly" comments are deemed racist or extremely inappropriate. CNN can almost do what they want. If I worked for CNN I would try to keep a low profile or be very PC.
The lack of a warning over such an ambiguous rule is pretty ridiculous. Other than that, I think they have the right to enforce their own particular code of conduct. Even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
As far as I'm concerned, if it was in his contract, then it's an entirely different matter. (He's not too specific about the express terms in the document) But in terms of personal activity, I will always have a problem with employers deciding that they have a right to terminate on the basis of non-work-related activity. Obviously, if comments provoke a major outcry where the interests of the employer are directly adversely affected then they have a right to protect their interests. Absent that level of danger/damage, however, private activities like this do not give rise to such a right.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Feb 26 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The lack of a warning over such an ambiguous rule is pretty ridiculous. Other than that, I think they have the right to enforce their own particular code of conduct. Even if I don't necessarily agree with it.</div> This reminds me of Kelly Tilghman who was suspended for using the word "lynch". People almost wanted her head taken off, I don't necessarily think that it was obvious to her or all Caucasians that that word was so dangerous to use, even facetiously. Although the outcry isn't as big in this case, I still don't believe that a specific warning is ever necessary.
While I believe that there was considerable overreaction in that case, she did say it within the course of her employment, which makes all the differnece to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 26 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While I believe that there was considerable overreaction in that case, she did say it within the course of her employment, which makes all the differnece to me.</div> Sure it did seem more egregious in her situation. However, I'm sure CNN's code of conduct/whatever probably has them covered.
Probably. I'm probably just extra-cranky about it because in the legal profession there are even more restrictions...
