dagblog - Comments for "How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job"

Totally agree about the MSM's

acanuck — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:28:10 +0000

In reply to Frankly I thought what she

Totally agree about the MSM's failings, and not only in covering the Occupy movement. It's just not a reason for our side to stoop to their hack level.

Don't sound so shocked; I'm

acanuck — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:24:47 +0000

In reply to Are you agreeing with me?

Don't sound so shocked; I'm sure at times you've secretly agreed with me.

Even from her telling of the story -- and it is just one side -- she was fired for poor journalistic judgment, not for simply protesting. Peracles may be right that her boss's sensitivity to right-wing accusations of partisanship affected the severity of the punishment, but the principle is correct.

The web-producer-vs-reporter distinction is irrelevant. The internet has all but erased the line between professional journalist and guy or gal in his/her underwear. That doesn't invalidate existing journalistic ethics, it means that a lot more people need to learn, internalize and apply them.

Frankly I thought what she

Donal — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:41:38 +0000

In reply to How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job

Frankly I thought what she did was more honest and more interesting than what I saw at Occupy Baltimore - Day One. The MSM just pointed their cameras at the strangest-looking people, then wrote the story they already had in mind.

This couple challenged the protestors with CF's quote—much like that fellow (Whitehouse?) challenging Tea Party protestors about what they believed to be truth.

Are you agreeing with me?

EmmaZahn — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:30:17 +0000

In reply to She didn't get fired because

Are you agreeing with me?

Well, her professional role

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:45:58 +0000

In reply to She didn't get fired because

Well, her professional role was "Web Producer", not "journalist", and

In an age where faux journalists pretend their pimps to bring down organizations, all she did was hold up an opinion sign and jotted people's responses. More than Geraldo Riveira would do? Or Nick Krystof and his cloying pieces exploring prostitution in Cambodia?

The issue why this couldn't be used is simply it's an over-the-top opinion statement for a non-profit non-partisan broadcaster.

Why this resulted in a firing, I don't know - the tweets don't seem tied to the show either. So it should have been a "sorry, can't use this, too partisan, too involved".

Of course the guy at the Atlantic wrote the words, so could he hold up the sign? Probably, and the girl could have likely done the same if she worked for the Atlantic - different standards, different funding, and not in the cross-hairs of the right.

She didn't get fired because

acanuck — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:25:30 +0000

In reply to Apparently the 'freelance'

She didn't get fired because her boss spotted a pic of her carrying a sign at a protest. That's totally protected free expression. She got fired because she tried to blur the line between her private political activity and her professional role. You cover an event or you participate in it; you can't do both. Pick a hat. Just one at a time.

I was once photographed carrying a protest sign. The photo appeared in a newspaper other than the one I worked for. Nobody in authority said a word. On the other hand, I didn't try to milk a freelance story out of it.

Apparently the 'freelance'

EmmaZahn — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:33:39 +0000

In reply to How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job

Apparently the 'freelance' reporter has never given much thought to the idea of 'conflict of interest'.

Even if she did not manufacture the story, the impression that she may have is certainly within reason. Had the story been produced then challenged, her employer's integrity as well as her own could and would be questioned.

The OWS mob has a lot in

Beetlejuice — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:46:47 +0000

In reply to How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job

The OWS mob has a lot in common with surfers ... they're waiting for the big one to ride in on. What is the big one you ask ?!?!? It's the 23rd of November ... (18 days after the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605). That's when we get to see the efforts taken by the GOPer's in the Super Congress exercising extreme frivolity as the rule of law rather than simply raising the debt ceiling because an Afro-American is sitting in the White House. They're also holding jobs, wall street reform, medicare, medicaid and social security as hostages without bail or a jury by their peers ... they want a summary execution carried out as soon as possible and are doing whatever they can to make sure the President and the Democrats are seen as the ultimate executioners of their plan.

Remember the 23rd of November ... that's when the real rebellion will start. That's when the public will loose all faith in their government. That's when there will be too many people to ignore. Today is just a dress rehearsal for what's to come.