Fired Gay TV Reporter and Justice

[tbieter]

"What started out as a joke ended up with a reporter being fired at KSTP-TV.

Mark Saxenmeyer wanted to do story about a gay Minneapolis couple who attended a White House Easter egg hunt but ended up handing it off to his co-worker Katherine Johnson. While she was in the process of writing the piece, Saxenmeyer added a few things to her script to make her laugh.

"They were based on a conversation she and I had prior about sensitivity issues," said Saxenmeyer, who is gay. "As a gay person, it's sometimes easier to use humor to help people feel more comfortable with gay people or just gay things. She and I were just having a conversation about questions she might ask when she did the story. It was just a casual conversation, and then we began joking about it."

All the jokes were deleted, except for one of Saxenmeyer's lines -- "big HOMO dads" -- which made it into the story that was posted on the station's website March 30.

Saxenmeyer said the piece was up for less than five minutes before the line was taken out, but by then, a reader had already questioned the inappropriate reference to the couple. This editor's note was added: "Earlier today comments were published erroneously regarding this story. KSTP does not condone the comments. Action is being taken to ensure that this does not happen again."

On Wednesday, April 3, Saxenmeyer was fired from KSTP.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... s-gay-joke

[The Voice of Time]

Sounds like a very trifle of a thing to be fired for. Not that it even was a very bad thing to say. "big homo dads", what was the context even?

[tbieter]

Sounds like a very trifle of a thing to be fired for. Not that it even was a very bad thing to say. "big homo dads", what was the context even?

"Saxenmeyer said he felt terrible about the mistake and letting down KSTP news director Lindsay Radford and assistant news director Anne Wittenborg. He said he understands why he was fired.

"I think they have to maintain the integrity of the product," he said. "And when the product is in any way jeopardized, they have to stand firm on that. And I understand that."

Radford said the editor's note was added to indicate the joke was "not a station mentality."

"We're disappointed it happened, but we're also disappointed it had to result in us losing a valuable employee," Radford said."
Was it just that Radford fired a "valuable employee" over some trivial words intended and expressed as humor?

[reasonvemotion]

Who's licking whose ass there?

[bobevenson]

The question of whether or not the reporter was justifiably fired is not a real question at all. The only thing that counts is what a private company thinks. An employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason at all, age, gender, sexual orientation, health, sense of humor or color of his hair. That's what free-market capitalism is all about, my friends.

[tbieter]

Who's licking whose ass there?

An unintelligent comment.

[The Voice of Time]

"We're disappointed it happened, but we're also disappointed it had to result in us losing a valuable employee," Radford said."
Was it just that Radford fired a "valuable employee" over some trivial words intended and expressed as humor?

A good question. I smell an intriguingly deeper root to this case, not that we'll ever know, though.

[The Voice of Time]

The only thing that counts is what a private company thinks.

Always so willing and eager to sacrifice anyone anytime eyh? Moctezuma would've loved a guy like you, all of the Moctezumas really. It's really sad though that you live in the wrong world at the wrong time in history... human mass-sacrificing for the enjoyment of the powerful isn't, unfortunately, on the agenda of anyone anymore.

[bobevenson]

The only thing that counts is what a private company thinks.

Always so willing and eager to sacrifice anyone anytime eyh? Moctezuma would've loved a guy like you, all of the Moctezumas really. It's really sad though that you live in the wrong world at the wrong time in history... human mass-sacrificing for the enjoyment of the powerful isn't, unfortunately, on the agenda of anyone anymore.

Let me try to pull the wool from over your eyes. It is the buyer who is entitled to make all purchasing decisions in a free society. For instance, if you refuse to hire a plumber because you don't like his looks, skin color or religion, that is your prerogative. If you run a news organization, the same rule applies, my friend.

[The Voice of Time]

For instance, if you refuse to hire a plumber because you don't like his looks, skin color or religion, that is your prerogative.

It is not really a socially acceptable reason. Though there are no laws for it as far as I know, there are indirect laws which defends people from being discriminated based upon their ethnicity, religion or race. Most people make their opinions based upon non-verbal criteria, and therefore we never get typically situations where such things happens that plumbers are sorted by that way as you mentioned, but if somebody were to openly verbally base their opinions solely on those criteria, they probably would've faced resistance and possible prosecution by law for racism or discrimination by religion and/or ethnicity.

I think that if you were to be the weaker part exploited in any such situation Bob, you would've had a less need to be so destructive towards people's need for social security founded in finances and law. You never deliver anything of value, Bob, you only ask for people to sacrifice, never do you actually give anybody anything that holds value in society, all you want is for the wolves to be allowed to eat the sheep if they are just powerful enough.

[reasonvemotion]

reasonvemotion wrote:

Who's licking whose ass there?

An unintelligent comment.

How about, get down and dirty? Quite suitable for the thread, especially when it applies to "justice".

[tbieter]

The question of whether or not the reporter was justifiably fired is not a real question at all. The only thing that counts is what a private company thinks. An employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason at all, age, gender, sexual orientation, health, sense of humor or color of his hair. That's what free-market capitalism is all about, my friends.

For over thirty years I practiced employment law in Minnesota. I sued employers on behalf of many fired employees in many contexts.

Minnesota is an "at will" employment contract state. Bob accurately expresses the the core idea of the "at will" employment contract. If the fired TV reporter was an "at will" employee, his firing was legal. And his firing could also be considered to be "legally just" because the firing was done within the limits of the law.

But I'm raising a different question. Was the firing just in the broader sense of justice as fairness or equity?

Proportionality is an important aspect of justice. Did the firing offend the principle of proportionality?

This firing has really upset me so I would like some considered discussion of the issues involved.

[Impenitent]

"I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger." - Thrasymachus

-Imp

[artisticsolution]

But I'm raising a different question. Was the firing just in the broader sense of justice as fairness or equity?

Proportionality is an important aspect of justice. Did the firing offend the principle of proportionality?

This firing has really upset me so I would like some considered discussion of the issues involved.

Why did the firing upset you? Personally, I think it is wrong because it is absurd. It would be one thing to follow Bob and the law's vision of justice if humans were more decent, logical, intelligent. It is quite another thing to follow laws like these when humans are not.

I think the problem stems from an unreasonable desire to expect people to maintain a professionalism that has not been adequately described or one that is impossible to achieve at all times. What ends up happening is two sets of rules...one for the workers they like and another for the workers they don't like.

The problem is that all people have a sense of justice. I think most people have an instinct when something is not right. Even if they disliked the person for whatever reason...I think they are still able to put themselves in the terminated employees position. And they know that clowning around on the job is something everyone does...and this person just was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is something that just doesn't sit well with most people to know that at any moment...given the right circumstances...you too could lose your job on the whim of a employer.

Maybe it's the scare tactic that I find absurd...or possibly the ruthlessness. Or maybe it's the unreasonable expectations of a world gone mad...catering to every person who feels the slightest amount of harm. Most of all...there is absurdity in the satisfaction that some get when another has been punished at their whim.

That rationale has always upset me...the fact that it is rare the person who can just let a person make a mistake without asking for their head on a platter.

But then...I guess...that is how the free market works and why it is so successful. It rewards this behavior. It criminalizes humanity.

To the victor goes the spoils (even if the victor is an immoral monster) and we call that justice.

I don't care what Bob says...he is wrong...and he knows he is wrong. Because if it happened to him...he would think it was wrong. There is just something absurd about not minding someone else getting canned but then coming unglued if you get canned for the same thing.

[Bernard]

I don't see why there should be laws stopping people from firing others on a whim, so long as there is no interference in such instances being reported - the company will earn a bad reputation and the business will not last.

This firing doesn't sound whimsical. Many people find homosexuality offensive and this may have been a result of offensive being received.