Helen Thomas forced to retire after 67 year career for criticizing Israel

[Magus]

Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/06/helen-thomas-under-fire-for-saying-jews-in-israel-should-go-back-to-germany-poland/?fbid=r3tQai1CIja)

Helen Thomas under fire for saying Jews in Israel should go back to Germany, Poland

Washington (CNN) – Lanny Davis joined Ari Fleischer Sunday in calling for Hearst Corporation to take quick action against legendary White House correspondent Helen Thomas for recently saying that Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine,” and that the Jewish people should go home to “Poland, Germany … and America and everywhere else.”

Thomas was also dropped by her agent Nine Speakers, Inc. Sunday, CNN has learned, and Craig Crawford, who coauthored “Listen Up, Mr. President” with Thomas, said in a blog post that he “will no longer be working with Helen on our book projects.”

Thomas has apologized for her comments that she made to Rabbilive.com about Israel.

Specifically, she was asked, “Any comments on Israel?”

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” she responded.

The interviewer then asked “Any better comments on Israel?” To which Thomas said, “Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not German’s. It’s not Poland’s.”

Thomas was then asked where the Jews in Israel should go and what they should do? Thomas responded, “They should go home” which the White House reporter identified as “Poland, Germany . . . and America and everywhere else.”

Thomas is considered the “dean” of the White House press corps after decades covering the presidency. The syndicated columnist for Hearst Corporation’s newspapers holds a privileged seat in the front row of the White House press briefing room where she regularly fires sharp questions on the major issues of the day at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

In the apology posted on her website Friday, Thomas said she “deeply” regretted her comments. “They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

But her apology was not enough for Davis, who served as special counsel to former President Bill Clinton.

“Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot,” said Davis. “This is not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.”

Davis added, “If she had asked all Blacks to go back to Africa, what would White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials - much less a privileged honorary seat?”

Previously Fleischer, who served as press secretary for former President George W. Bush, said Thomas should be fired because of her remarks. And in a statement provided to CNN Sunday he reiterated that demand.

“Helen's statement calling for the religious cleansing of Israel is reprehensible,” Fleischer said. “If this isn't bigotry, what is? What she said is as bad as someone saying all blacks should leave America and go back to Africa.

“Hearst Newspapers should do the right thing and let Helen go,” Fleischer added in the statement.

Update, 8:33 p.m.: The Anti-Defamation League has provided CNN with a written statement regarding Thomas' remark and apology. "Helen Thomas’s statement of regret does not go far enough. Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate," ADL national director Abraham H. Foxman said in the statement. Foxman added, "Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history. We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused."

Oh, yeah, because blacks forcefully occupied our country and took it over. :rolleyes:

What a bunch of bullshit. Somebody with such a distinguished career is basically fired for opposing Zionism? I may not agree with her entirely but blacklisting someone for taking a fairly common stance for a lot of people is ridiculous. It wasn't a racist comment at all and the people bringing her career to a close so suddenly should be ashamed (plus given some classes in basic logic, since they enjoy comparing apples to oranges so much).

Plus she apologized and changed her position to one of compromise. What a bunch of crap this is.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Hahaha, I think she's been reading my ramblings. Good shit.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

So wait. This person makes one remark regarding Israel and she is fired. Mean while the right winged "personalities" make all sorts of hateful remarks, yet they keep their jobs.

I don't get it. I don't understand the States.

[Mr.Bookworm]

So wait. This person makes one remark regarding Israel and she is fired. Mean while the right winged "personalities" make all sorts of hateful remarks, yet they keep their jobs.

I don't get it. I don't understand the States.

We have no fucking idea either man.

Seriously, this is a load of bullshit so large that I'm surprised Lanny Davis hasn't died of a ruptured intestine.

God, I can barely type straight, this is so fucking mind-boggingly stupid (I would say retarded, and that everyone involved in this is it, but that would be an insult to the fine mentally handicapped peoples of America, and quite honestly, probably an overestimate of their mental capabilities).

EDIT: If Davis is curious, a more apt analogy would have been her telling the whites to get the hell out of America, go back to Europe or whatever, and let the Indians have their fucking land back.

Rather then stupid bullshit trying to draw parallels between her and genuine racists.

[Magus]

Yeah, you can say whatever you want about blacks and hispanics and have about as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh has in his entire body (which is none), and nothing will happen, but say something about Israel and you're blacklisted, apparently.

I'd say something about pro-Israeli control of the media but I'd be blacklisted as a racist conspiracy theorist because "only Nazis say that the Elders of Zion control the media, you SS fuck, why don't you go worship your portrait of Hitler you love so much!", so I'll stay quiet.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I've been saying it for ages and I'm still good.

[Magus]

List of Hearst Corporation newspapers:

* The Advocate >>
* Albany Times Union >>
* Beaumont Enterprise >>
* Connecticut Post >>
* Edwardsville Intelligencer >>
* Greenwich Time >>
* Houston Chronicle >>
* Huron Daily Tribune >>
* Laredo Morning Times >>
* Midland Daily News >>
* Midland Reporter-Telegram >>
* The News-Times >>
* Plainview Daily Herald >>
* San Antonio Express-News >>
* San Francisco Chronicle >>
* seattlepi.com >>
*
* Hearst News Service >>
* Assoc. Publishing Company >>
* White Directory Publishers >>
* Metrix4Media >>

If you feel like canceling any subscriptions.

[krogothwolf]

It's not even that hateful of a thing to say, honestly, it's not like she Blamed the Jews for all the problems in the world.

[Krylo]

It's not what she said, guys. It's how she said it.

This isn't a hard concept to understand. You don't tell the Jews to go back to Poland, you don't tell the Blacks to go back to Africa, you don't tell the Asians to go back to China/Japan/Korea.

You can say that they're in the wrong, that they need to make concessions. Hell you can even say that Israel shouldn't have been created in the first place and not lose your job as a White House corespondent, but you can't tell an ethnic group to 'go back home'.

[BitVyper]

This isn't a hard concept to understand. You don't tell the Jews to go back to Poland, you don't tell the Blacks to go back to Africa, you don't tell the Asians to go back to China/Japan/Korea.

She didn't really say that though. She got cornered into saying something that was purposely interpretted that way. What she was actually saying was more along the lines that they're an occupying force, not legitimate residents.

Edit: Okay yeah on second look, she said "they should go home," but in context with everything else she said, it doesn't really mean the same thing.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

It's not what she said, guys. It's how she said it.

This isn't a hard concept to understand. You don't tell the Jews to go back to Poland, you don't tell the Blacks to go back to Africa, you don't tell the Asians to go back to China/Japan/Korea.

You can say that they're in the wrong, that they need to make concessions. Hell you can even say that Israel shouldn't have been created in the first place and not lose your job as a White House corespondent, but you can't tell an ethnic group to 'go back home'.

I can understand what was said may have been wrong, but what I am having a hard time fathoming is why people single her out when there are others who have said similar things, but have kept there jobs.

[Krylo]

She didn't really say that though. She got cornered into saying something that was purposely interpretted that way. What she was actually saying was more along the lines that they're an occupying force, not legitimate residents.

She also started with this: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine”

Being a White House corespondent means you're expected to act professionally. You don't say "get the hell out" in any official propensity ever. You might go home and tell your husband or kids or friends or whatever that they need to get the hell out, but you don't say it in an official statement.

She acted unprofessionally.

She got canned.

OH WELLS.

EDIT AT MAC: Because Fox News doesn't expect their reporters to act professionally, and probably wouldn't have fired one for doing that.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

I am just, shocked at the casual racism that is rampant in the states. I mean, I can only guess that for the most part you guys are an okay bunch, it's just the crazies that get the air time.

I mean in my area, it can be considered fairly conservative, but I don't ever hear people make such disparaging remarks about natives. Aside from the seniors that is, but the group who do say that consists of 4 old white farmers.

[Magus]

Krylo, it wasn't exactly an official propensity for her personal opinion asked by someone from Rabbilive.com (http://rabbilive.com/RabbiLIVE/Home.html), which looks like a conservative super-pro-Israel group. Who knows what they said to her before the video starts? We don't even have the whole thing released yet:

PRESS

May email Rabbi Nesenoff for other contact info


ATTENTION!!!!!!

PART II OF THE HELEN THOMAS INTERVIEW TO COME SOON

SEE AND HEAR more of the infamous interview with

Ms. Thomas coming to this site.

You don’t want to miss it.


I find it hard to say that someone who's been in the business for almost 70 years and is considered by pretty much everyone as being one of the most prestigious people in journalism after covering every president since Eisenhower should be canned over one off-the-cuff remark which wasn't even racist. Your treatment of it as "OH WELLS" doesn't seem to grasp how important it is that someone this respected can be canned for saying one bad thing about Israel that is in line with what millions of other people think as well. What this says about freedom of opinion is stifling to people in journalism.

[Krylo]

Krylo, it wasn't exactly an official propensity for her personal opinion asked by someone from Rabbilive.com (http://rabbilive.com/RabbiLIVE/Home.html), which looks like a conservative super-pro-Israel group. Who knows what they said to her before the video starts? We don't even have the whole thing released yet:Doesn't matter.

She made a comment where it would be recorded, and she would be marked as the lead White House corespondent. If she couldn't maintain her professionalism in the setting she should have removed her self from it--or have retired by now. She's had the job for 67 years, and is 89 years old, after all.

Professionalism doesn't take a break, nor do consequences, just because someone got you riled up before turning on the camera. Nor because you've had the job for awhile.

Your treatment of it as "OH WELLS" doesn't seem to grasp how important it is that someone this respected can be canned for saying one bad thing about Israel that is in line with what millions of other people think as well. You should care more about how freedom of speech is protected in the U.S..And you should put less emphasis on the Israel.

She'd have likely been fired for making similar remarks about any country or group of people.

[Kim]

I'm agreeing with Krylo on this. When you have a position like that, and have had it for that long, people expect things of you, as well they should. You should be expected to act professionally in any public situation, because it will inevitably reflect on you and how you do your job. Furthermore, someone can be right about something and still say it in a terrible way. Even if you agree with her opinion, how she phrased it was pretty terrible.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I'm agreeing with Krylo on this. When you have a position like that, and have had it for that long, people expect things of you, as well they should. You should be expected to act professionally in any public situation, because it will inevitably reflect on you and how you do your job. Furthermore, someone can be right about something and still say it in a terrible way. Even if you agree with her opinion, how she phrased it was pretty terrible.

I agree that how she phrased it was terrible, but that doesn't mean that their reaction was ludicrously overblown and downright fucking stupid. They called her a racist and bigot for remarks that many would agree with and then fired her. She publicly apologized for those remarks, and that should have been enough, but someone was eating the Doucheflakes that morning.

Also, name to me one single journalist in the history of ever that has never ever blown their professionalism and I will commission a 100 ft. tall solid gold, diamond-studded statue of you to stand in my front yard.

[Kim]

I agree that how she phrased it was terrible, but that doesn't mean that their reaction was ludicrously overblown and downright fucking stupid. They called her a racist and bigot for remarks that many would agree with and then fired her. She publicly apologized for those remarks, and that should have been enough, but someone was eating the Doucheflakes that morning.

So public figures can say whatever they want and it'll be A-OK if they apologize? Awesome.

Also, name to me one single journalist in the history of ever that has never ever blown their professionalism and I will commission a 100 ft. tall solid gold, diamond-studded statue of you to stand in my front yard.

This reminds me of the arguments where someone says it's okay that one person did something because someone else got away with the same thing. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

To be honest if someone told the Iraqis to get the hell out of Kuwait or the Russians to get hell out of Checnya or the Chinese to get the hell out of tibet I can't see it causing a stir. It's different than saying the blacks should go back to Africa because that is racially motivated whereas this is politically motivated.

[Wigmund]

Agree with Krylo and Noncon, what she said was incredibly stupid and should have lead to the White House kindly asking her to step down as head correspondent.

However, what gets me riled about this is the Fox News-led "She's a horrible evil bigot who needs to be fired" parade that turned into "The horrible evil bigot got fired hurray!" party. That's a bit of bullshit on their part and Helen, after her long career, deserved better.

[Kim]

To be honest if someone told the Iraqis to get the hell out of Kuwait or the Russians to get hell out of Checnya or the Chinese to get the hell out of tibet I can't see it causing a stir.

That one instance of unprofessional behavior doesn't/wouldn't get called out doesn't excuse another instance of unprofessional behavior.

[Mr.Bookworm]

So public figures can say whatever they want and it'll be A-OK if they apologize? Awesome.

This reminds me of the arguments where someone says it's okay that one person did something because someone else got away with the same thing. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.

Thanks for saying something I didn't actually say.

People generally recognize that people are people (read: not infallible). Thus, unless the previously mentioned Doucheflakes are eaten, they don't tend to, say, call them a racist and pretty much ruin there career.

Even if they were justified in firing her (they weren't), that doesn't excuse the remarks they themselves made about her.

Partially my anger over this is that I agree completely with her views. Israel has pretty consistently been a bunch of raging hypocritical douchebags, and it's nice to see someone express that instead of the usual U.S. "Go Israel" bullshit that's happened for a long time.

EDIT: I don't understand why unprofessionalism is bad?

This too. Being unprofessional is bad in a professional context, but she wasn't exactly in the most professional of settings.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't understand why unprofessionalism is bad?

[Kim]

Thanks for saying something I didn't actually say.

You pretty much said, "Well she said soooooorrrrrrryyyyyyyy." And that that was enough. No. It isn't. If you are a public figure that people expect to behave respectably, you can't say stupid shit and brush it off with an apology. You're siding with her purely because you agree with her views, when if, say, a Fox News correspondent were in a similar situation you'd be right along with everyone else calling for the person to be fired.

I don't understand why unprofessionalism is bad?

Yeah. I doubt you would.

[Mr.Bookworm]

You pretty much said, "Well she said soooooorrrrrrryyyyyyyy." And that that was enough. No. It isn't. If you are a public figure that people expect to behave respectably, you can't say stupid shit and brush it off with an apology. You're siding with her purely because you agree with her views, when if, say, a Fox News correspondent were in a similar situation you'd right along with everyone else.

Because she's a respected figure who made one single remark that was phrased poorly, wasn't really that stupid, and then apologized for it? In this case specifically, an apology should have been plenty.

If the Fox News correspondent was a highly-respected newsperson of 67 years, that made a single screw-up in a fairly unprofessional setting, expressing a view that's not the height of stupidity, then yes, I would support them, especially if their superiors engaged in defamation of character.

Also, no need to make personal attacks against Smarty, man.

EDIT: Also, please don't assume things about my views. I don't assume you disagree with me purely because you disagree with her views, and you don't assume I agree with her because I agree with her views, okay?

[Archbio]

That one instance of unprofessional behavior doesn't/wouldn't get called out doesn't excuse another instance of unprofessional behavior.

I don't think it's a question of excusing anything at all.

You justify the reaction to Helen Thomas' comment by referring to a supposed standard of professionalism, other people go "well, the standard wouldn't be applied this or that time" which kind of basically puts the existence of an actual standard in question.

[Kim]

Because she's a respected figure who made one single remark that was phrased poorly, wasn't really that stupid, and then apologized for it? In this case specifically, an apology should have been plenty.

The higher your position, the higher a standard you are both held to and ought to be held to. Are people blowing it out of proportion? Yes. Is it fair? No. Does that mean "Oh no these guys are such jerks for firing her she said she was SORRY~"? Not remotely.

Also, no need to make personal attacks against Smarty, man.

The alternate response was to pretend I actually had any respect for that viewpoint, wherein Smarty derails this into "Why professionalism is bad" and I'm just not in the mood to walk down that incredibly stupid road.

EDIT: Also, please don't assume things about my views.

I'm not assuming anything. You said you agreed with her.

I don't assume you disagree with me purely because you disagree with her views

I don't disagree with her views. I just expect White House correspondents to act like professional adults even when they really don't want to.

You justify the reaction to Helen Thomas' comment by referring to a supposed standard of professionalism, other people go "well, the standard wouldn't be applied this or that time" which kind of basically puts the existence of an actual standard in question.

*Finds example of someone being racist when they wouldn't get called out on being racist.* Whelp, guess there's no standard for racism. *moonwalks the fuck out*

[Archbio]

*Finds example of someone being racist when they wouldn't get called out on being racist.* Whelp, guess there's no standard for racism. *moonwalks the fuck out*

"Standard for racism" as something remotely comparable to the notion of "standard of professionalism" used in this thread? What would that even fucking mean?

Actually, I can imagine a situation that would be equivalent to this, regarding racism.

People holding some hypothetical position in some hypothetical organization go "nigger, nigger, nigger" all day and every day. Then, the new guy in the post says "cracker" and BAM, fired. Someone says: it's alright, because people in that position have to fulfill a certain standard of anti-racism.

In that situation, that justification is virtually bullshit. That's what you're doing. Your agreement with the reaction, based in some notion of professionalism, is orthogonal to the mechanism of the reaction itself.

"Standard for racism," you've got to be kidding me.

[Osterbaum]

I can't really agree with the way she said it, but even so suddenly labelling this woman an anti-semite is clearly bullshit.

[Geminex]

Ok, I won't join the big discussion. I'd just like to say how messed up it is to call "Germany and Poland" the jewish "home".
I mean, seriously? You're saying that the countries where the nazis systematically murdered millions upon milions of jews, you're saying that those are their home? That's where they should go back to? That's where they belong?

[Mr.Bookworm]

The higher your position, the higher a standard you are both held to and ought to be held to. Are people blowing it out of proportion? Yes. Is it fair? No. Does that mean "Oh no these guys are such jerks for firing her she said she was SORRY~"? Not remotely.

It was in what appears to be a informal interview, with a website that doesn't really appear to be professional itself (http://rabbilive.com/). She shouldn't be held to the same standard as she is at a White House Press Conference.

The alternate response was to pretend I actually had any respect for that viewpoint, wherein Smarty derails this into "Why professionalism is bad" and I'm just not in the mood to walk down that incredibly stupid road.

Or you could not insult Smarty, and just ignore his comment?

I'm not assuming anything. You said you agreed with her.

And you assumed that the entire total sum reason of my support was that I agreed with her, which is not the case.

I don't disagree with her views.

I didn't say you did, I said that if you won't not assume about me, I won't assume about you.

I just expect White House correspondents to act like professional adults even when they really don't want to.

Except context is pretty much the most important part. If she expressed these views in her bathroom at three in the morning, you're not expecting her to act like a professional, and if she's in a much more relaxed setting, she can't be really held to the standard that she should be held to in a much more official setting.

*Finds example of someone being racist when they wouldn't get called out on being racist.* Whelp, guess there's no standard for racism. *moonwalks the fuck out*

Except her viewpoints weren't fucking racist. Do you seriously believe that bullshit?

[Krylo]

I can't really agree with the way she said it, but even so suddenly labelling this woman an anti-semite is clearly bullshit.

Pretty much agree 100% with this.

The reaction is totally overblown, yes, but so is the reaction to the reaction.

Should she be labeled an anti-semite? Nah. Should people be darting away from her as quick as possible? Probably not.

Should she still be fired for going on camera and saying anyone should get the hell out of anywhere? Yes. Yes, she should.It was in what appears to be a informal interview, with a website that [url=http://rabbilive.com/]doesn't really appear to be professional itself. She shouldn't be held to the same standard as she is at a White House Press Conference.
Well, to respond in the same manner as you seem to enjoy given your last line there:
'Except she is still the fucking lead White House Corespondent and it doesn't matter if it is goddamn Bill the Retard Hick from Retard Town Interviewing her for the tatoo on his Donger, she STILL NEEDS TO MAINTAIN AN AIR OF PROFESSIONALISM. Do you seriously not get that?

[Mr.Bookworm]

Alright, done here.

If I keep arguing, I'm going to get even more pissed off than I already am and say something stupid.

Bye!

[Magus]

"This is a big fucking deal." --Biden

"Go fuck yourself." --Cheney

WE MUST MAINTAIN THESE HIGH STANDARDS OF DECORUM! SOCIETY WILL COLLAPSE IF WE SAY "HELL!"

All of this ignoring the fact that she wasn't fired for saying "hell", she was fired for her opinion. You don't think she would've have been railroaded if she hadn't swore?

Missing the goddamn fucking point by a mile, Jesus H. Christ!

[krogothwolf]

Krylo's right about professionalism on this, she really can't be like that. Granted a lot of people are lacking in that, but she's in a position were professionalism matters.

She's a public figure in a sense. It'd be like Obama getting plastered at a baseball game. Yeah, normal people do that, but he's no longer just a "normal" person.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

"This is a big fucking deal." --Biden

"Go fuck yourself." --Cheney

WE MUST MAINTAIN THESE HIGH STANDARDS OF DECORUM! SOCIETY WILL COLLAPSE IF WE SAY "HELL!"


...I don't think she got fired for saying hell.
It was probably more every other goddamn thing wrong with her sentence.

[Aerozord]

well it doesn't sound that racist. I mean yes it might have had that intent. but she was saying, stop fighting over a patch of desert. Seemed less to do with the fact they are jews, and more to do with the millenia long wars

[Magus]

Oh, good, someone who wants to talk about her opinion.

Obviously expecting all the Israelis in Palestine to "go home" is a ridiculous statement, I'm not sure where she was going with that. It's unrealistic. The best to expect would be the partition that was originally recommended where they each get half the country/Jerusalem to be enforced, although just giving them at least the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would probably placate most of the Palestinians. But are there lots of people who think they should abandon the whole idea of having an Israel? Yes.

And don't get me wrong, Hearst Publications firing her, or whatever, that's their business. They're a private business. The White House getting involved (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/robert-gibbs-helen-thomas_n_602866.html), like Gibbs did, is bullshit. Wouldn't want a member of the White House press corp challenging the people they cover, would we? It should all be rosey pink coverage that never criticizes their positions, ever.

I'd like to see the "second half of the interview" that has yet to be posted by this Rabbi Live fellow.

[Osterbaum]

I mean, seriously? You're saying that the countries where the nazis systematically murdered millions upon milions of jews, you're saying that those are their home?
So I suppose the country where they themselves are murdering people is clearly the better option. Actually, what I really wanted to say was; when did we go back in time? Germany isn't exactly ruled by the National Socialists anymore.

I'd just like to say how messed up it is to call "Germany and Poland" the jewish "home".
I agree with this to the extent that you can't really point out a single country/few countries as the 'home' of all jewish people.

[Kim]

It was in what appears to be a informal interview, with a website that doesn't really appear to be professional itself (http://rabbilive.com/). She shouldn't be held to the same standard as she is at a White House Press Conference.

Yes, she should, because how she acts at the former affects how people view her in the latter.

Or you could not insult Smarty, and just ignore his comment?

Probably, but I'm tired of watching the *someone says something perfectly reasonable* *Smarty disagrees because Smarty likes being contrary* *thread derails into a stupid argument about whatever Smarty is being contrary about* game.

Except context is pretty much the most important part. If she expressed these views in her bathroom at three in the morning, you're not expecting her to act like a professional, and if she's in a much more relaxed setting, she can't be really held to the standard that she should be held to in a much more official setting.

As far as I know, her bathroom at three in the morning is not a public place. If it is, there are bigger concerns than what she said about Israel. (Not really) When you are a public figure, people judge you by what you do in public. She willingly participated in a public show where she said something that would reflect poorly upon her as she performed her job. People judge people by their actions. Shocker, I know, but they do. You can't pretend they don't, and you can't slap a "Doesn't count!" sticker on situations like this.

Except her viewpoints weren't fucking racist. Do you seriously believe that bullshit?

I never really said they were. Archie argued that if a standard isn't enforced in every situation, then no standard exists. I offered a counter-example. Simple as that.

[Magus]

She seemed to implying it was anywhere but Palestine, which doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's her opinion and she's entitled to it.

Anyway, I'm not surprised the White House went along with railroading her after seeing this video from June 1st where she criticizes the administration for not condemning the flotilla massacre:

Helen Thomas mocks Gibb over White House's Lack of Condemnation Over Israel's Act of War (http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/video/helen-thomas-mocks-gibbs-over-white-house-s-lack-of/)

Are you guys seriously going to keep arguing over the concept of "professionalism" when nobody at the top gives a fuck about that and it has nothing to do with why she has been blacklisted?

[Archbio]

Archie argued that if a standard isn't enforced in every situation, then no standard exists. I offered a counter-example. Simple as that.

Actually, no. Not "simple as that."

If a "standard" is applied, in practice, sometimes and arbitrarily, then it becomes likely that what is actually being applied isn't a standard; the image of a standard it's a simple pretext for those times where it's applied. That's a pretty far cry from "no standard exists," from "there shouldn't be a standard," or from even "in theory no standard is supposed to be applied."

If there's no standard that's actually enforced (and this is just justified after the fact by a supposed standard) then saying that this was justified because of the standard isn't correct. It just so happens that you think her being forced to retire would be approrpiate anyway, incidentally, because she was being unprofessional. Conflating the reason why it happened with the reason you thought it's good it happened is what's irking me.

And I'd hardly call just saying "racism" a counter-anything.

Edit: I really should have stepped out after the "racism" bit, so I'll do that now. Ciao.

[Magus]

All I can say that is if Helen Thomas had said, "I would respectfully like to say that Israel should get out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's not their land. It's not Germany's. It's not Poland's...They should go home...Germany, Poland...and America and everywhere else" and would not have been lambasted by people who disagree with her opinion then society is either incredibly super ideal about their standards for professionalism or incredibly dumb after seeing what happened.

I'm leaning towards incredibly dumb. Occam's Razor and all that. If we only we could see the alternate time streams where Republicans don't call for Thomas to be fired and blacklisted for all eternity because she didn't say "hell"...

[Kim]

There are two kinds of standards, in my experience. There's what something is normally held to, and what something should be held to. I was talking about the latter. There is a standard that public figures should be held to. Even if they aren't as often as they should be, that doesn't change that they should be. When someone actually is held to that standard, even if it's unfair singling out, that others aren't being held to it doesn't exempt that person.

[Magus]

There are two kinds of standards, in my experience. There's what something is normally held to, and what something should be held to. I was talking about the latter. There is a standard that public figures should be held to. Even if they aren't as often as they should be [Never?], that doesn't change that they should be. When someone actually is held to that standard, even if it's unfair singling out, that others aren't being held to it doesn't exempt that person.

Brackets, emphasis added.

Well that makes no sense but okay then. Join us in reality when you are done worrying about your absolute standards, the rest of us will stick with our relative societal standards and actually talk about how she is being unfairly railroaded for speaking her opinion.

[Kim]

This very argument has been made for why it's not okay for Fox News guys to be racist even though some other guys that were liberal got away with making racist remarks and didn't end up called out on it. Everyone was okeedokee A-OK with it then. Not that I'm siding with Fox News, because FUCK Fox News, but your relative standards aren't very consistent. This is why I was of the opinion you were siding with her just because you agree with her and no other reason.

[Magus]

Well, I'm glad you know what the absolute standard of professionalism is, and what the absolute standard for racism is. Please share them with us, we who are bound only to our quite imperfect human opinions, and my opinion is that everybody and their mother are blacklisting her because of her opinion, not because she broke their standards of professionalism, which are relative and hypocritical anyway. You see, the average person isn't like you, in possession of the absolute standard of professionalism. They're a bunch of petty creeps who call for people to be fired because they disagree with their opinion on something.

This is why I was of the opinion you were siding with her just because you agree with her and no other reason.

Well, now we're getting somewhere!

I don't agree with her opinion, I believe she is entitled to her opinion. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and in the absence of it even being a racist opinion I can't go along with her being blacklisted. These are entirely separate matters. I've given my criticism of her opinion above.

[Kim]

everybody and their mother are blacklisting her because of her opinion

I guess that makes me nobody? Since I actually agree with her opinion but think she still deserved to be fired?

[POS Industries]

The alternate response was to pretend I actually had any respect for that viewpoint, wherein Smarty derails this into "Why professionalism is bad" and I'm just not in the mood to walk down that incredibly stupid road.
You can't insult Smarty no matter how stupid he's being. That's my job.

[Magus]

I guess that makes me nobody? Since I actually agree with her opinion but think she still deserved to be fired?

I wish I could understand your argument. Does it go like this?:

1. There is an absolute standard of professionalism.
2. Society doesn't often follow this absolute standard of professionalism and many people in this society break it all the time without being called out on it, including elected officials.
3. Helen Thomas, a 67-year career journalist, broke this absolute standard of professionalism by saying the word "hell" on camera.
4. Helen Thomas happened to be called out on something entirely unrelated to her professionalism and was fired and blacklisted for it unfairly, but cosmically, she still deserved to be fired because she broke the absolute standard of professionalism.

Did I get it right or wrong? If I got it right, can we agree and move on to whether or not it was fair to fire her for her opinion? Pretty please?

[Kim]

1. There is an absolute standard of professionalism.
2. Society doesn't often follow this absolute standard of professionalism and many people in this society break it all the time without being called out on it, including elected officials.
3. Helen Thomas, a 67-year career journalist, broke this absolute standard of professionalism.

To this point, this is correct. I'd say minimum standard instead of absolute standard, but whatever. What followed in your post is incorrect, in my opinion. Unless I misread some part of the OP article, her unprofessional behavior could have easily and reasonably been misinterpreted as a bigoted sentiment. I don't believe it was such a sentiment, but that it was interpreted as such isn't that far-fetched, given how she behaved. Had she expressed her opinion in a much more professional manner, I honestly don't think we'd be dealing with the same situation. If she had conducted herself better, and still ended up in this situation, I would agree with you that her being fired and the like was bullshit.

[Magus]

I think we would be dealing with the same situation, honestly, since she used an incredibly minor invective in a statement of opinion which was blown out of all proportion by people who disagreed with her opinion. I'm also not sure why you are siding with the idea that people should let statements be interpreted as bigoted that just because a statement is delivered forcefully with an invective, since it shows a clear lack of judgment on those people's parts.

Logically, let me introduce another hypothetical scenario (you can't get anything out of hypothetical scenarios but they're fun anyway):

"I think the white supremacists should get the hell out of Arizona!"

"You racist! You hate all white people! You should be fired from your job for this statement!"

"Oh, shit, I got fired for my opinion which a bunch of other people hold and it isn't even racist."

NonCon: "You deserve to get fired. You delivered your statement unprofessionally and it was only deserved that people say you are a racist and blacklist you for something entirely unrelated to professionalism because they are stupid, it doesn't matter how many years you've been a professional journalist who probably wrote the book on relative journalistic professionalism, you broke this cosmic absolute standard of professionalism this one time. It also doesn't matter that no one else has gotten fired for saying hell, either. In fact they say fuck and stuff. Nope, doesn't matter. This will not have a stifling effect on speaking out against white supremacy. Have a nice day."

[Kim]

Actually, it was the combination of "Get the hell out" followed by "Go home", and her apparent version of home was "anywhere but Palestine." The first was her carrying herself unprofessionally, which led to her making the following statements in such a way that it was incredibly easy to interpret them as bigoted and racist.

If, in a conversation about the problems in Arizona, I said "All the white people should get the hell out of Arizona" (as so far as I can tell she didn't specify just the evil oppressive Israelis and just refered to Israelis in general), and then followed that with "They should all go back to Europe or South America or anywhere that isn't Arizona", and someone said "Hey! You're racist!" Even if I'm not racist, it's my fault that they think I am.

[Nikose Tyris]

Outside viewpoint:

Working in a game lab, speaking so casually to another company (usually your employer or a subcontractor) would get you fired. Not because of how I said it, but because It wasn't approved by the people I work for.

"I represent X people." In X's place, put "The White House", or "BP Oil". Or "Exxon." Hell, put "McDonalds."

"Man, I love it when women wear thongs in the summertime!"

"PETA is a collection of animal murdering idiots."

"You're fat because you eat so much. God damn, stop eating so much, you fat people."

Is it a true statement? Yep, sometimes! Is it something you want the person representing your company saying? Fuck no!

That's just my thoughts. I'm pretty sure I'd fire anyone representing me to other people who came out with something so controversial- even if I agreed with the sentiment.

[Magus]

Actually I was going to alter the hypothetical situation to that, actually! You beat me!

Alright, a lot of native Hispanic people think exactly that. I think it's unrealistic, but I don't think it's a racist statement.

Alright, so it this hypothetical situation goes:

"I think all the white people should get the hell out of Arizona! It's not Europe's! They should go home to Britain and France...and Germany and everywhere else!"

"You racist! You hate all white people! That's like saying all black people should go back to Africa! You should be fired from your job for this statement!"

"Oh, shit, I got fired for my opinion which a bunch of other people hold and it isn't even racist."

So, okay, in this scenario it's your fault if stupid people think you are racist because you say "hell", then? Really? You really think this is how society should work? Really? You think that is the absolute standard of professionalism? Making sure that stupid people don't think you're racist because you use a swear word?

'Cause, just, well forget it then. I give up. There's no arguing with you on this, then, and we can't discuss it. So never mind. I'll have to remember this if I don't murder someone but am accused of it because I said I didn't like the guy. Obviously it's my fault I am going to the electric chair.

[Nikose Tyris]

So, okay, in this scenario it's your fault if stupid people think you are racist because you say "hell", then? Really? You really think this is how society should work? Really? You think that is the absolute standard of professionalism? Making sure that stupid people don't think you're racist because you use a swear word?

'Cause, just, well forget it then. I give up. There's no arguing with you on this, then, and we can't discuss it. So never mind. I'll have to remember this if I don't murder someone but am accused of it because I said I didn't like the guy. Obviously it's my fault I am going to the electric chair.

You seem to be suffering from a severe case of 'not making a lot of sense'. Can you re-read that to me for a second?

Because from my viewpoint,
"I said X and got fired," just balanced out to "I publically said I dislike you, therefore I am guilty of your murder and am now dead."

Is that what you said? because that looks like what you said.


Also, yes, if you come out and people know "Man, I really HATE Krylo." And then Krylo dies, who gets questioned first? Yes, you do. That's something that ACTUALLY happens, so making a scenario out of that was brilliant.

And then people look and say "Okay, you were here and you have this alibi, so you did not do it." And that's pretty much the end of it.

Which is rather different from

"Man I feel this way." "Why did you say that?" "because that's how I feel." "Okay so you definitely said that, we have that on tape." "Yep." "Okay you're fired."

[Magus]

Actually it stopped right before we got to this


And then people look and say "Okay, you were here and you have this alibi, so you did not do it." And that's pretty much the end of it.

Or maybe it went more like this:

A: "Man I feel this way."

Media: "Jesus Christ what a racist."

Government: "Jesus Christ what a racist."

Boss: "Why did you say that? The Media and Government say it's racist. I don't care that a lot of people have opinions and a lot of people have your opinion and this is a country built on opinions and you're a well-respected journalist for the last 70 years and such, this is bad press for us."

"I said it because that's how I feel."

Boss: "Okay so you definitely said that, we have that on tape."

"Yep."

Boss: "This is being shown on Fox News and they say it's racist and even the White House has said it's racist! Opinions which go contrary to a lot of powerful people in this country are bad for business, plus they said it's racist, even though it's not really...Okay you're fired."

Little more accurate.

My comparison of it to someone getting sent to death for publicly disliking someone was for effect, through making a mountain into a mole hill. If you're saying the comparison doesn't match up then tell me how it doesn't? The only difference is there is no justice in the court of public opinion and perception.

[Nikose Tyris]

Making a mountain out of a molehill is demeaning to the people you're debating with in general. It also puts you on shaky ground for being taken seriously when your post has a strong feeling of parody to it.

Is the situation overblown? Yes.
Is her position something that she has a right to have? yes.
Should she have said it while in a professional position? No.
Should she have been fired? Yes.
Should people still be making a fuss? No. It's over.
Will people continue to make a fuss? Yes. Fox News is the biggest collection of bullshit you could ask for.

I really don't see the debate here, because I think we agree on the core issues here.

If you somehow disagree that she should be fired, that's your opinion to have. (And I would fire you for it, if you worked for me, since it's not an opinion I've authorized you to have.)


Edit: Actually that last line at you was a little uncalled for. Outside of work atmosphere, you should be free to say anything you want. But when working as a representative of Organization X, you speak for them. If your views don't match up, they replace you with someone else. Outside of the job, do what you want, say what you want.


Edit2: Making an edit to reply to your edit, one second.

Your comparison doesn't match up because It's so VASTLY different. (I'm changing what she said in this example because it's how "FAUX NEWS" is playing it up anyway, and we've long since strayed from looking at precision when you brought up killing someone for saying something.)

"I hate this person." "This person is now dead, did you do it?" "No."
"I hate x group." "You said something bad. You're fired." "Okay."

Those don't really match up at all. If I said "I hate you" at work, I'd get diciplined/fired for it too, but then they'd call in someone professional that I don't shoot up the place. (That's an entirely different arguement, though. Workplaces can be pretty extreme...)

I just can't see how "You should die for saying something" and "You should be fired for saying something" match up at all to you. If you're going from "Every sin is equal", well, um, then I can maybe see it. But in the court of public opinion... you know I can't match up "Society acceptance" with "Actual fucking law." Those two just don't work at all.

[Magus]

Okay, so the government should step into this and help you get fired because you oppose their position...when?

Also I'm not even sure we can agree with "you can't say hell while in a professional position" since people do it all the time and worse, nor should this mean you get fired in lieu of pretty much any lesser penalty you could think of if it is a bad thing.

I'm not even sure if the company fired her because they don't hold that position, they just didn't want the problem of dealing with the situation. I already said they can do that, it's a private business. But I have no idea where the White House gets off on getting into this. No other journalists will oppose the White House's position on this because there is now the chance they will weigh in on it and help get you fired. It almost amounts to a little thing called...censorship.

[Nikose Tyris]

I'm definitely not giving two flying fucks about someone saying Hell. let's just remove that entire bit right there. I'll say fuck and hell anytime I want at work, so I'll ignore that and we can agree that bit is kind of nonesense. (Some stricter workplaces might care but mine doesn't, and the whitehouse has a collection of old racists in there anyway in unremovable positions anyway.)

White house was her 'boss'. White house had someone say something that met with public disapproval. Whether they agree or disagree is irelevant. It's why they give the "No comment" or "That's classified" answers. Because they're NEUTRAL. You can be frustrated with Neutrality and lack of information, but you get offended when you get actual answers.

Edit: No, Censorship is saying "Nobody can say that." This is saying "You can't say that while representing us."

[Magus]

I'm definitely not giving two flying fucks about someone saying Hell. let's just remove that entire bit right there. I'll say fuck and hell anytime I want at work, so I'll ignore that and we can agree that bit is kind of nonesense. (Some stricter workplaces might care but mine doesn't, and the whitehouse has a collection of old racists in there anyway in unremovable positions anyway.)

White house was her 'boss'. White house had someone say something that met with public disapproval. Whether they agree or disagree is irelevant. It's why they give the "No comment" or "That's classified" answers. Because they're NEUTRAL. You can be frustrated with Neutrality and lack of information, but you get offended when you get actual answers.

No no no no no no. She worked at the white house for a private newspaper corporation as a correspondent. She did not work for the President or Gibbs or anyone. She does not get paid by the White House. White House Press Correspondents are the journalists assigned by newspapers to ask questions to the White House press secretary during press conferences. She is not employed by the White House.

The White House weighed in on a situation unrelated to them, against someone who opposes their position, helping them to get fired. Oh, yeah, I see nothing wrong with this...

[Nikose Tyris]

I'm going to go re-read and double check that information before I post again.


Edit: Okay, re-read. While you are technically correct, her very job title had her in the white house. Having them say "Yeah you're not welcome here anymore" isn't censorship, but I can see how it can come across that way. She was still speaking on behalf of the White House entity- I believe my arguement still stands, with the exclusion of who her employer was. Rather, she had a job that existed BECAUSE of the White House, which I think is tantamount to the same thing. (Similarly, getting banned from EA if I was in charge of EA's projects for a third company would probably make me rather... firable as well, in an example.)

Also, let's go with an example I've nicknamed the "outside affiliate." Someone associated with an organistion, but not REALLY associated with it. Like, let's say Cheney's daughter. (I don't know if he has one.)

Let's say Cheney's daughter comes out and says on 5 second clip on "Viewer Speak" For a local TV station "Jews should go back to having no homeland, boo jews!" How does the public respond? Would the white house weigh in?

Let's say I do the exact same thing. Response is probably going to be "Wow, that guy's racist as fuck." and people will change the channel or forget I exist. White House would probably never even hear of it.

It's the power of notoriety holding someone to higher standards, you could say. Or the power of one person's words reflecting badly on people inside of a company.

In a related example that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, Arizona Iced Tea released a press statement saying they have nothing to do with Arizona, right after Arizona came out with all their wonderfully racist laws. Protecting oneself from something only "outside affiliated".


Edit like 4: YOU EDIT THINGS TOO MUCH MAGUS ARGHHHH IT MAKES IT HARD TO REPLY AND STAY CURRENT WITH YOUR LATEST STATEMENTS HERE HALF A BRISK ICED TEA THEY ARE ABOSLUTELY DELICIOUS AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HAVE ONE.

[Ryanderman]

I don't see how the White House had a choice but to repudiate her. She's known as an Obama favorite, and Robet Gibbs was asked point bank for the administration's opinion. If they'd stayed neutral, that'd have been seen as tacit support for her statement, which the administration politically could not do. It's harsh, but it's politics.

[Kim]

I'm out of this conversation, because there's a whole lot of Magus intentionally misconstruing every goddamn thing I say, and I'm really not in the mood to quote every post you made while I was gone just so I can say "This is not what I said. You know it's not what I said. Knock it the hell off." Plus, there are a lot of posts I'm not in the mood to read.

Lady said something stupid that could easily be seen as racist because she couldn't maintain a professional facade. Part of her job is to keep in mind how people will see what she says, and make statements with that in mind. For what ever reason she did a shitty job at that. She got fired because of it. Tough luck.

[Magus]

He could've just said that it wasn't in line with the White House's position, which is pretty damn obvious. However, he also said her remarks were "offensive and reprehensible". Hell, what's really funny is he actually said that without even knowing what the President had to say about it!

"I have not spoken with [the president] directly on that," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Monday. "I think those remarks were offensive and reprehensible. She should and has apologized because obviously those remarks do not reflect certainly the opinion of most of the people in here and certainly of the administration."

Gibbs should get fired for using the power of the White House to get someone fired because he doesn't like their opinion, but I guess he was professional in his delivery of what he said...

Re-link to Huffington Post article (I linked it on the first page):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/robert-gibbs-helen-thomas_n_602866.html

Part of her job is to keep in mind how people will see what she says, and make statements with that in mind.

I don't think anyone with intelligence could see it as a racist statement, so I'm not sure she should be fired because of what a bunch of stupid people say about it. It's not part of journalist's jobs to educate people on looking at the logic in opinions, actually, instead of misconstruing them as something else that they aren't.

By the way, I didn't intentionally misconstrue anything you said. I asked you for clarification on your philosophy and I pointed out where it's flawed (it seems like it leaves a lot of room for people being punished for things they didn't do because people think they did). Feel free to argue back but don't act like I'm being unfair.

[Ryanderman]

Hm...

Personally, I think what she said or at least how she said it was stupid, and I very much disagree with her opinion. And her employer was definitly justified in firing her.

But I think some other paper should offer her a job. And she should be back in her front row center seat next week. Not gonna happen, but it'd be nifty.

[Nikose Tyris]

Gibbs also harbors some supposed anti-muslim personal beliefs that he lets seep into office but it's okay because "They're the bad guys." [/HEAVYSARCASMTAG]

Gibbs is the person that saw Helen the most on her job. This would be like, in the previous example, Cheney coming out and saying "My daughter's actions were totally her own and I disagree with them entirely."

AKA Covering your own ass. "I don't agree with what was said, and I don't think anyone else does either!" He's the "Voice" of the white house, so to speak. It's his job to come out and make the actual statements. Gibbs has only been on the job a year and a bit now, she's been on the job for how long? I suspect "She should have known better" also plays into this.


edit: "Gibbs adopted a policy of rapid response to claims by conservative news outlets that questioned Obama's religious upbringing. In response to the "Obama is a Muslim" meme suggested by these claims, Gibbs disseminated information to other news networks that Obama is not nor has ever been Muslim. At the time, Gibbs said, "These malicious, irresponsible charges are precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of." Was the 'possible anti-muslim beliefs' I was refering to. He came across as very heavy handed against muslims in general, insomuch that the president being "Muslim" would have somehow been a bad thing if it were true?


Edit again: It's 1 AM here. I'm going to bed. I normally don't get into "News" or "Discussion" discussions because of precisely this, I get drawn into the conversation and stay up too late, haha. I'll probably not return to the thread.

[Krylo]

If she had worked for the White House her being fired would be contrary to the First Amendment.

Private organizations can fire people for saying things that other people don't like, but federal institutions can't.

That said, this'll be my last post here.

ON HER GETTING FIRED: Yeah, ok, she's had the job for 67 years. Maybe she should have a little bit of professional courtesy given to her, and be allowed to apologize, explain the situation and any mitigating circumstances (like if she was actually harassed for any length of time before saying these things), and maybe given some breadth.

Yes, I'm willing to concede that her getting fired was not the right thing, or a good thing, or whatever else.

I'm even willing to concede that she was fired not because she was unprofessional in her wording--not REALLY--but because of what she said.

However, we will never know if she would have still been fired for saying, "The tensions along the Gaza Strip are a result of Muslim families being removed from their homes and forced away so that Jewish families could have their own country, and such tensions are unlikely to evaporate between the two people so long as a Jewish state remains in control of previously Muslim land and continues to act against the Muslim state nearby," because she didn't say that. What she said was that the Jews need to "Get the hell out of of Israel" and "Go back home" to "Poland."

What this basically did was give people who WANTED to see her fired and blacklisted for having anti-Israelite comments--right or wrong--an excuse to do so.

Her being fired was politics at the end of the day, and no it wasn't a right or good thing that it happened.

Why I'm not outraged is two fold:

Firstly, because she's been in the business for 67 years. She knows how it works. She knows how spin works. She wasn't some fresh faced kid who got turned into a martyr. She should have known how this kind of thing went down and avoided the situation in the first place. That might be a little cold, but there you go.

Secondly, because this is how Corporate America works. Much like I can't really get outraged over, say, O'Reilly still getting good ratings because people listening to him is a horror I've already gotten used to and moved on from, I can't get outraged over someone being fired in Corporate America over making an unpopular statement in an unprofessional way. (EDIT: Totally used to get outraged over this like, 5 years ago and earlier, though)

I mostly have trouble with other people getting outraged over this particular case of someone in the lime light being fucked by Corporate America when it is standard operating procedure. I guess if I saw similar outrage over every time someone's life is destroyed by this kind of thing, it might be different.

ON THE BLACKLISTING: This is total bullshit. Plain and simple. However:
To be honest if someone told the Iraqis to get the hell out of Kuwait or the Russians to get hell out of Checnya or the Chinese to get the hell out of tibet I can't see it causing a stir.
It would if we had a large population of people in power who had ties to the Iraqis in Kuwait, or the Russians in Chechnya or the Chinese in Tibet.

Just because there's no one around to raise a fuss over something doesn't mean that doing it is totally A-OK or good for your career.

THAT SAID: There really needs to be less "OH GOD HELEN THOMAS GOT FIRED," and more "We really need to evaluate a system wherein there are people looking for excuses to fire people who disagree with our handling of the Israeli situation."

And one last thing, on Freedom of Speech, because it was brought up and is kind of an issue here, I guess: Hearst is a private corporation. This is why it's, legally, OK for them to fire her, and not a threat to Freedom of Speech. Journalists aren't protected by it unless they work directly for the Federal Government (which, if they did would just bring up all kinds of other issues).

However, I'm not entirely sure that's right or good, and I'd be totally ok with protecting journalists from being fired with First Amendment rights. This is, however, unfortunately, not how things currently work, and even journalists--whose very existence depends upon the First Amendment--can be fired for their speech without being a threat to said article.

And that's it, I'm pretty much done here.

[Nikose Tyris]

@Krylo: Last post I swear then I need to go to bed. D: I agree. There was a shitload of politicking. It's not a good system, and while I think that yeah, I'd fire her for it if I was her boss, I would be doing it for political reasons. So, I guess I... agree with you? I'm not sure. You don't like that she'd been fired but you can see why, and I don't like that she's been fired but I see why too, but from a different viewpoint I think? Is that a good way to say it?

[Magus]

Sorry about the editing, I usually see like three things wrong with what I wrote and I change it but then someone else has already posted...I don't do it on purpose to make anyone look bad or hurt their positions. The PETA edit up there is hilarious, though!

She was still speaking on behalf of the White House entity- I believe my arguement still stands, with the exclusion of who her employer was.

She wasn't speaking on behalf of all the journalists in the White House Press Corps., she was speaking on behalf of Helen Thomas. Just because Sarah Palin says it doesn't make it so. (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2010/06/05/helen-thomas-watch-the-denial-of-denial/) All the other journalists were free to express their own opinion on the subject and agree or disagree with Thomas. Every journalist in the world is free to do this.

Let's say Cheney's daughter comes out and says on 5 second clip on "Viewer Speak" For a local TV station "Jews should go back to having no homeland, boo jews!" How does the public respond? Would the white house weigh in?

Man, it's a pretty thin hypothetical, since you're talking about someone related by blood to someone in the White House. But okay--if the White House weighing in gets Cheney's daughter fired from her job, then yes, it was wrong of them. I'm not saying they aren't trying to protect their own ass, I just think society should be able to separate the opinions of different entities from one another. Will they? Well, probably not. It's not like getting Thomas fired made Fox News let up on saying that they support her, so basically they just helped get Thomas fired and put free speech into jeopardy (imo) for nothing.

In a related example that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, Arizona Iced Tea released a press statement saying they have nothing to do with Arizona, right after Arizona came out with all their wonderfully racist laws. Protecting oneself from something only "outside affiliated".

It's unfair that they had to do that. I only wanted to debate like two things here. Not if it was legal for her private employer to fire her because of her (non-racist) opinion, but if it is FAIR. And if there is any danger in the government getting involved in a free speech matter in such a way to the future of journalism, as that is the implication I see.

EDIT: Dammit, I have to edit this now!

Well, yeah, anyway, I agree with Krylo (after all that arguing we all did, I think he was the first one that disagreed and now I agree with him)...It is getting late here too, so g'night to anybody hitting the bed.

[Nikose Tyris]

Oh, on the grounds of fair, nothing is fair. This is life. Life isn't fair. That's why I couldn't see where you were coming from, because 'fair' never really factors in for me. :/ I understand you better now and I can see where you're coming from. Take fair out of your equation and you'll see mine.

I'm not being sarcastic here, that's literally how I just figured things out. xD Okay goodnight.

[Magus]

Yeah, I was basing this on how the system should work, not how it actually works, like Krylo said.

Later!

EDIT:

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/helen-thomas-retiring-eff_n_603026.html)

The WHCA statement added that the incident "does revive the issue of whether it is appropriate for an opinion columnist to have a front row seat in the WH briefing room."

Apparently not!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Probably my last post cause I'm going away but heres my point:
"Professionalism" is meaninglesss, it's an arbitrary standard to hold people to because it has sseductive appearances of efficiency and control. If people can do a better job while acting like a crazy fuck (which is probably more likely to happen) why don't we let them do it?
You could argue that in this case her jew-baiting is directly impairing of her job performance as a correspondant but to say it is unprofessional- who cares. It is unprofessional to show up to work not in a suit and tie. It is unprofessional to maximise productivity over maximising waste- I honestly don't understand why "unprofessionalism" is something that can get fired.

Maybe I am stupid, I not going to deny it but to me I don't really see the need for such standards.

[Magus]

Eh, they exist to help you keep your job. My job requires I maintain a certain amount of "professionalism" (actually for a teacher it is a buttload in comparison to a lot of other jobs, and as a profession it is quite easily paid the least in comparison to professors (who swear a buttload) or doctors or lawyers, but held to a standard way above those in some aspects), but like a lot of people I only do it to keep the job, not because I think it's important to society or something...like Krylo said, Thomas probably should have "known better", which maybe means she spoke her mind without care for the consequences because she knows she's 89 and rich and can retire whenever she wants. She probably does such things on purpose all the time, it's one of her things, just finally they found one thing she says that can get her nailed.

[Death by Stabbing]

I think this whole thing is wrong. The woman is a legend. Could she have phrased her ideas differently? Yes. Should she have lost her job over this? Not at all. She was asked for her opinion and she gave it. I applaud her honesty even if I don't completely agree with what she says.

[Jagos]

Death, she was canned by the wording, which is unprofessional.

It's like me working for the government of Texas. Why should I say something that will come back and tarnish their reputation?

Why would I say "Get those immigrants out of the country?" when that's not the political line and tantamount to career suicide?

Maybe she thought that was off the record and should have recanted afterwards but saying so much about Israel in such a forceful manner isn't the best way to endear yourself to others.

[Magus]

"Get those immigrants out of the country" isn't the political line in Texas? :D

She wasn't really canned for her wording, she was canned for her position, though I guess the wording was the excuse given and a lot of people seem to see it that way. It doesn't change that it's an excuse and cover-up the actual political reason.

She did recant afterwards. She probably shouldn't have, but she did.