From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Racism at the New Republic (long) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:47:44 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:33 PM Subject: Re: Racism at the New Republic (long)
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But, having said that, I'm not at all surprised that > > he was fired by ESPN. > > He publicly called out the CEO of the corporation > > with which he was doing > > business. I'm a small independent contractor, and > > I'd expect to lose a > > contract if I did that. It isn't fair, but its > > business. > > > > > > Dan M. > > In general, I would agree with you. In this > particular case, however, ESPN at least pretends to be > a journalistic enterprise. Journalistic businesses > are _not_ supposed to fire people in this situation, > or they are not independent of their financial side - > which they are supposed to be. If ESPN wants to be a > real news organization, then it can't allow Michael > Eisner to fire Easterbrook for what he said. If it > doesn't, then it should say so publicly instead of > pretending otherwise.
I agree with your comments on journalism, but I never thought of ESPN as real journalism. Maybe we should take this as Disney acknowledging that ESPN is in the entertainment, not the journalism business. :-)
ESPN considers itself a news source. It's reasonable to expect that a news organization would act when a journalist who represents them in some capacity voices opinions that are offensive to their audience or administration. He works for them in a news, not an entertainment capacity.
However, this case has some unique twists: (already mentioned here....)
a) they have not issued a formal statement regarding his dismissal (extremely unusual)
b) they have removed every bit of Easterbrook content from their site (a troubling precedent, although it may have been done due to contractual considerations)
c) he didn't say these things on air or in an ESPN-hosted column.
I think what he said was appalling. But in my opinion they shouldn't have fired him. He wasn't representing ESPN when he wrote those things... and they weren't even on a sports topic. They also shouldn't be trying to brush him under the rug. He's served them well until now and doesn't deserve this treatment. They've handled this very very poorly.
I did think his apology was sincere, and respect him for handling the situation as best he can.
Has there been any proof other than 'net rumor that Michael Eisner is behind his dismissal? I doubt Eisner had anything to do with it. He must have more important things to do than micromanage his empire.
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
