I generally agree with your post. But my quoted response was in a conversation about how us Penn Staters are reacting to the story... not how his employer reacted.
Local weatherman fired over on-air racial slur ...
- Thread starter RochLion
- Start date
I generally agree with your post. But my quoted response was in a conversation about how us Penn Staters are reacting to the story... not how his employer reacted.
For the record, I actually do like Art (don't tell him that).
I just disagree with the notion that it's ok for a company/organization to always do what is best for their bottom line. I think in this case that there were other options than a knee-jerk firing.
If my reactions unreasonably caused harm to others, I would certainly look to change. But I won't be apathetic to unjustified outrage causing harm to someone. So my problem remains (and I'm aware there is no actual solution).
Freudian slip. That was my first reaction, too. Well, actually, my first reaction was to guffaw for about thirty seconds. I feel bad for the guy, but he provided a really good example of how to commit a major phuck up.
No way you're gonna convince me that "coon" sounds like "King" or is easily confused with "King." The word "coon" was probably floating around somewhere in his brain and, inadvertently or not, it came out. Seems very harsh that it should end his broadcasting career. At the same time, he works in a business that cannot afford to offend any significant segment of the viewing public. I don't think his employer had much choice.
As soon as white people have been oppressed for generations based on their skin color, maybe that comparison will have some logical connection.
Except there are a thousand tongue-twisters we're all familiar with that cause you to blend words together. Not that Martin Luther King Junior is a tongue twister, but the word in front of and after King both have a hard U sound, so it's pretty reasonable to see how someone would blend that sound into the middle word as well.
You've never heard of a situation where someone said something that they thought was in jest but the subject of the comment thought otherwise?
Intent isn't at issue here. Neither of us know what the intended. We just know that he put his employer in a difficult position. We also don't know what his work history is.
Foolish or not, the viewing public pays the freight. Broadcasters that don't understand that and behave accordingly aren't broadcasters for long.
Well, in fact, the phrase "Martin Luther Coon," was WIDELY used by racists all over the US back in the day, perhaps in his Kentucky boyhood. I know I heard it in NW PA where I grew up.
Uh... it's in the article. He's been a meteorologist for 20 years. He likely has never had an issue like this happen before, or else we would have heard about his "history of slurs".
Can you provide an example of when a broadcaster kept an anchor who made a similar innocent mistake and then soon wasn't a broadcaster? Like when Mike Greenberg did the exact same thing 9 years ago for ESPN... a broadcaster that still broadcasts.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Fair enough. But race issues are THAT divisive. They’re truly a third rail, even if stepped on by accident. There’s no way of knowing what’s in the guy’s heart but his words and actions are the best indicators. In this case, just the word (even if a slip up) was too much. People are entitled to feel that way until they stop feeling that way.
I get your point about penn staters. But this is only partly a let the facts come out situation. The other part is just how folks feel. That's why it’s a third rail. He’ll have an opportunity to share what’s in his heart. But whether he meant to or not, he hurt a lot of people.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
whether I agree with him Is irrelevant to whether I like or ever will like him. I don’t intend to ever know him.
I think he can be caustic. I also value his posts.
I was told when I went to Navy instructor school that if I dropped the F-bomb it's an automatic fail.. I say fvck in daily conversation about 10 times more than anyone I know. I'm thinking this was unintentionall. Something else to fire people up because.. . people like being pissed off these days.
Regarding your first point, "work history" is broader than slurs e.g. tardiness, absenteeism, insubordination, etc. You would not hear any of that because of confidentiality rules. Sop this may have been a final straw.
With regard to the Greenberg case, different employer, different on-air personality, nine years apart, different reality. If you can demonstrate that all elements of both cases are identical , then you have a case. Otherwise the only thing in common is the utterance.
Or it may have been the first mark on a perfect record.
I didn't ask you to critique the Greenburg case. I asked you "Can you provide an example of when a broadcaster kept an anchor who made a similar innocent mistake and then soon wasn't a broadcaster?" To back up your claim that "Broadcasters that don't understand that and behave accordingly aren't broadcasters for long."
That statement was rhetorical as in "businesses that don't pay attention to customers aren't in business for long." No, I don't think I'll bother proving it.
The attention this story will get in the national media will do much more damage to race relations than if it had just been ignored, like it should have been.
But I for one had never heard of the the Martin Luther C*** Jr. slur. Now I, and thousands more people, have had that slur brought up in our consciousness. If that word isn't brought up as a result of this inane story, it probably totally falls out of use in a few years. Instead, it is brought up again and again in this story and I expect that a lot of young people have to hear it used in that way for the first time. And for what?
But I for one had never heard of the the Martin Luther C*** Jr. slur. Now I, and thousands more people, have had that slur brought up in our consciousness. If that word isn't brought up as a result of this inane story, it probably totally falls out of use in a few years. Instead, it is brought up again and again in this story and I expect that a lot of young people have to hear it used in that way for the first time. And for what?
Don't know the guy or what's in his heart, but what he said doesn't even make any sense. Seems pretty obvious to be a flub of words. I
It's an odd tactic, to add specificity to a generic statement to prove a point, then not bother defending that point. I do commend you for quitting before you dig yourself deeper. I might just consider everything you post from here on out as rhetorical, and thus not need to be commented on.
Art can answer for himself but for me the point is not that it's okay to bottom-line everything. The point is that bottom-line is going to win, like it or not. The guy's poison now, for all practical purposes. What are you going to do?
Occam's Razor: it was just an accident. If it's an accident, that's one hell of a kick in the nuts. If it's an accident, I've done a lot worse. I'm sure that we all have put on his shoes in our own minds and have used our own history to compare. At some point in my life I grew up. I've been very, very lucky, a lot of breaks went my way. And this guy, finished just like that? It's not an easy thought.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I agree intent is important. But in this case, it’s not determinative. Didn’t hurt ESPN, or didn’t hurt enough. Not the same here. Different consumers. Small market. Different expectations. Different responses.
The guy wasn’t fired right away. Two days after non-termination, the story had a life of its own.
Wow. Well, you learn something new every day, I guess. Had never heard that before.
I WILL tell you that when I first read the epithet, I could not help but guffaw. It is so wildly inappropriate and over the top that it immediately reminded me, as someone here already noted, of the "Go phuck yourself, San Diego" line from Anchorman.
So you've got THAT goin' for you. Which is nice.
Loved your post, by the way. Seriously.
Apparently it would have been better if he laughed at prisoners being tortured on a national channel.
Sounds pretty similar to how Paterno went down. He became poison and the BOT quickly cut ties for self preservation. Perhaps I should just accept the idiocy of the world and move on.
Fixed it for you.
That aside, I thought carefully about your comparison and 100% don't buy it. The TV guy, he said something he shouldn't have. Maybe it was a honest flub, I personally think that to be the most logical explanation. However and whyever it happened, it happened. The guy actually said what he said, and it makes perfect sense that his bosses would react in the way they did. Like it, not like it, wrong call or whatever, we can't say that we're surprised at how this this played out.
On the other hand, Joe was straight out railroaded by the BOT. Big difference.
