Jemele Hill & ESPN

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 08:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not calling on her to be fired.

The White House spokesperson saying publicly they think something is a fireable offense? Yeah, that that can count in court as an official statement from the White House that what the person did should result in being fired. On its face it seems a very simple "whatever, they're just stating an opinion" situation. But put it through the legal machine with the language and context and you have a person who officially speaks for the White House saying that it is a fireable offense. Not that is could be, should, may be, might be. That official spokesperson said it "is a fireable offense."

Language in that situation matters, and if Hill were to be fired, dollars to donuts she could win that court case.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-19-2017, 11:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The White House spokesperson saying publicly they think something is a fireable offense? Yeah, that that can count in court as an official statement from the White House that what the person did should result in being fired. On its face it seems a very simple "whatever, they're just stating an opinion" situation. But put it through the legal machine with the language and context and you have a person who officially speaks for the White House saying that it is a fireable offense. Not that is could be, should, may be, might be. That official spokesperson said it "is a fireable offense."

Language in that situation matters, and if Hill were to be fired, dollars to donuts she could win that court case.

Language is important, and at no time did she call on her to be fired.  She is commenting on the gravity of the statement.

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 11:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Language is important, and at no time did she call on her to be fired.  She is commenting on the gravity of the statement.

But that's not the place of the White House. This is a private citizen making a critical statement of a public official. If their employer, in the private sector, deems it appropriate to reprimand them, that is their decision. What does the White House know of ESPN's policies in that regard to the point to say it is a fireable offense? The White House can't speak for ESPN on that, but an official statement from the White House saying it "is a fireable offense" could very easily be taken as a directive to ESPN to fire Hill for her comments. Like I said, if it came down to a civil suit I have zero doubt that preponderance would go in favor of Hill.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-19-2017, 11:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But that's not the place of the White House. This is a private citizen making a critical statement of a public official. If their employer, in the private sector, deems it appropriate to reprimand them, that is their decision. What does the White House know of ESPN's policies in that regard to the point to say it is a fireable offense? The White House can't speak for ESPN on that, but an official statement from the White House saying it "is a fireable offense" could very easily be taken as a directive to ESPN to fire Hill for her comments. Like I said, if it came down to a civil suit I have zero doubt that preponderance would go in favor of Hill.

I agree with your first part, but saying it can be seen as a directive is quite the stretch.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2017, 11:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Language is important, and at no time did she call on her to be fired.  She is commenting on the gravity of the statement.

She also used the pronoun I. usually that means you are speaking for yourself and not someone you are representing.

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She also used the pronoun I. usually that means you are speaking for yourself and not someone you are representing.

When you're the White House spox and behind that podium, I carries more weight than just referring to yourself. The position is one where you speak for the White House, behalf of the administration. Opinions at the podium, on the record, are not considered to be your own.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2017, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When you're the White House spox and behind that podium, I carries more weight than just referring to yourself. The position is one where you speak for the White House, behalf of the administration. Opinions at the podium, on the record, are not considered to be your own.

Okey Doke. We'll just disagree on what I means; regardless where you say it. 

When asked about the comment she said It was a comment she made and when asked should Hill be fired she said that was not her job to tell a private company who to fire.



 

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. We'll just disagree on what I means; regardless where you say it. 

When asked about the comment she said It was a comment she made and when asked should Hill be fired she said that was not her job to tell a private company who to fire.

I agree, it's not her job. Which is why she should never have made the comment.

[*bfine32*]

(09-20-2017, 10:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree, it's not her job. Which is why she should never have made the comment.

When you say "I agree" are you just speaking for you?

...and she never said she should be fired.

Is she or is she not allowed to voice her own opinion?

[*michaelsean*]

If words mean something like we are saying, then you have to take them at face value, and not try to derive some sort of intent that isn't there.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2017, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When you're the White House spox and behind that podium, I carries more weight than just referring to yourself. The position is one where you speak for the White House, behalf of the administration. Opinions at the podium, on the record, are not considered to be your own.

I don't usually watch White House briefings, but I've seen some clips from when Sean Spicer was the Press Secretary. He quite often purposefully made a distinction between his own opinions and those from the President or the White House. Now, if the current Secretary does the same, then, no, there IS a difference between "I" and other pronouns.

[*bfine32*]

(09-20-2017, 03:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't usually watch White House briefings, but I've seen some clips from when Sean Spicer was the Press Secretary. He quite often purposefully made a distinction between his own opinions and those from the President or the White House. Now, if the current Secretary does the same, then, no, there IS a difference between "I" and other pronouns.

Seems strange that some think she cannot voice her opinion of world matters.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-20-2017, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems strange that some think she cannot voice her opinion of world matters.

It's not that, it's that whatever her opinion is that's supposedly also the opinion of Donald Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(09-20-2017, 04:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's not that, it's that whatever her opinion is that's supposedly also the opinion of Donald Trump.

That was the point. Many think she cannot have an opinion; anything she says on any matter equals POTUS saying it.

We had a public figure call the POTUS a white supremacist and we get bent out of shape when the Press Sec. says she thinks that's a fireable offense given the employer's track record.  

[*PhilHos*]

(09-20-2017, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That was the point. Many think she cannot have an opinion; anything she says on any matter equals POTUS saying it.

We had a public figure call the POTUS a white supremacist and we get bent out of shape when the Press Sec. says she thinks that's a fireable offense given the employer's track record.  

If you think about it, you could argue that Jemele Hill's opinions represent ESPN's. 

How many times have you seen before an infomercial or a show that deals with often controversial subjects have the disclaimer beforehand saying that the views presented aren't necessarily the views of the channel? I'm pretty sure you don't hear that disclaimer before or after Hill's (or anyone else's) show. 

Just sayin'.

[GMDino]

(09-21-2017, 11:54 AM)PhilHos Wrote: If you think about it, you could argue that Jemele Hill's opinions represent ESPN's. 

How many times have you seen before an infomercial or a show that deals with often controversial subjects have the disclaimer beforehand saying that the views presented aren't necessarily the views of the channel? I'm pretty sure you don't hear that disclaimer before or after Hill's (or anyone else's) show. 

Just sayin'.

But didn't she specifically say that about her tweet?  Also, isn't she paid for her opinion?

She's not a "news" person.

ESPN's opinion would come from someone who is paid to give their opinion...like Sanders is paid to give the opinion of the POTUS.

Also:  Presidential spokesperson versus sports network host no one knew.