The Ringer had an interesting pod about Jemele and the situation on Channel 33. One of the writers wrote a feature on her and then the twitter stuff happened basically at the same time.
ESPN Is Pathetic
- Thread starter Lose Remerswaal
- Start date
ESPN afraid of a strong African American woman? Good for Michael Smith not bowing down to these clowns. She wasn't wrong about the majority of the things she said. She violated the social media rules and that should probably result in some discipline. But thank you Michael for being strong enough to take a knee in support.
The last two pages of this thread are something else.
I guess my only comment on this is that ESPN made their bed when they decided to promote a no-talent hack like Hill precisely because they thought her brand of "insight" was what the audience wanted. Watching them spin in circles of panic not knowing how to handle her when she veered into more controversial territory is deeply satisfying. (From at least one perspective.)
Turning my attention to the details of the incident, I'm astonished that more people have not commented on the statement put out by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Sanders is the White House Press Secretary. For her to explicitly call for the removal of a media commentator purely on the basis of criticizing the President is a textbook definition of censorship. Nothing should be more concerning to us than this, and yet I've not really seen this aspect emphasized in this thread.
Interesting times we live in.
I guess my only comment on this is that ESPN made their bed when they decided to promote a no-talent hack like Hill precisely because they thought her brand of "insight" was what the audience wanted. Watching them spin in circles of panic not knowing how to handle her when she veered into more controversial territory is deeply satisfying. (From at least one perspective.)
Turning my attention to the details of the incident, I'm astonished that more people have not commented on the statement put out by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Sanders is the White House Press Secretary. For her to explicitly call for the removal of a media commentator purely on the basis of criticizing the President is a textbook definition of censorship. Nothing should be more concerning to us than this, and yet I've not really seen this aspect emphasized in this thread.
Interesting times we live in.
Trump to SHS, hold my beer...
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
ESPN is paying a really big price for its politics (and bad programming). People are dumping it in RECORD numbers. Apologize for untruth!
Stunning to hear this from a sitting President. However, when you realize all the big ticket items he's failed to deliver on, pushing around someone because you can is very on brand for Trump. A big reason why this is currently a big deal is that she is an easy target (especially demographically) for the right's base to criticize.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
ESPN is paying a really big price for its politics (and bad programming). People are dumping it in RECORD numbers. Apologize for untruth!
Stunning to hear this from a sitting President. However, when you realize all the big ticket items he's failed to deliver on, pushing around someone because you can is very on brand for Trump. A big reason why this is currently a big deal is that she is an easy target (especially demographically) for the right's base to criticize.
Dont read Hill or any ESPN, so I cant opine on her work, but calling someone a bigot (Hill) is not the same as acting like one (Schilling). Nor is it "worse."
Yes. This would actually be closer to a Fist Amendment issue than the usual carping when someone gets reprimanded by a private company for their speech. (Obviously the FedGov can't actually fire her, but still . . . .)
I mean, ESPN gave him the option to broadcast or switch out to a different game and he chose to switch out to a different game. ESPN could have just told him not to worry and do it but that'd probably invite criticism too. I don't really know how ESPN could have handled this in a better way: they deferred to their employee's preference.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/
@Chad Finn with a nice piece on this: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2017/09/14/from-left-and-right-espn-takes-beating-again/gxVAzN7BGjmDq8dyn0wP7H/story.html
I would add: a big part of the challenge is that we now live in an environment where all the lines are blurred -- personal and professional, politics and sports, etc. In a lot of ways, ESPN isn't really doing anything particularly wrong here (to those who disagree, I would simply ask how they suggest the WWL should have handled this) -- they apparently hired Hill for her brand of opinion but now are upset that it has drifted into political views that antagonize a portion of their audience.
How do you encourage an employee to be opinionated and "authentic" but also safe and politically correct? You can't.
I would add: a big part of the challenge is that we now live in an environment where all the lines are blurred -- personal and professional, politics and sports, etc. In a lot of ways, ESPN isn't really doing anything particularly wrong here (to those who disagree, I would simply ask how they suggest the WWL should have handled this) -- they apparently hired Hill for her brand of opinion but now are upset that it has drifted into political views that antagonize a portion of their audience.
How do you encourage an employee to be opinionated and "authentic" but also safe and politically correct? You can't.
This fucking imposter. I will never refer to him by that title. NEVER. Racist sexist pig. I'll side with ESPN over this fascist and all of his supporters any day of the week. Seeing that last name on his buildings makes me angry. I just want to rip those letters down and ban that 5 letter word from the language forever.
Between this and assuming that the London terrorist is Muslim he needs to be stopped from giving this country a further black eye. Just resign already and take your bigoted VP with you.
Last edited:
No, and I respect their loyalty to their colleagues. I was making fun of ESPN, not them.
Yeah, that's often the thing about lines. Its hard to know where they are until someone says you've crossed one.
Fred (of Toucher & Rich, the TSH morning program) has been all over this aspect. And they normally do NO politics but Fred has said, several times, "that if you're in this industry, I don't know how you can't be totally freaked out that the government is saying someone employed by a private company should be fired for what they said on Twitter." He then follows this up with a note about he's said things to trolls on the Twitter that could get him in trouble, "every one has!"
Some caller response has been to say SHS was "giving her opinion" and that if Hill has a right to her opinion, why doesn't SHS get to say hers? And boy... that's the troubling part to me. (There's also a not insignificant number of people suggesting Trump sue Hill for libel, which is just... hilarious. But I digress.)
Hill, given her job, should probably stick to sports when she's using her ESPN branded twitter account. She won't get a third chance, as Schilling did. That she created this issue at at like 10 PM, during a MNF game, by engaging with an egg that has 70 followers should be a big flashing sign to others required to be on twitter for their job - everything is liable to be blown out of proportion. By all means, speak your mind if you so choose, but you better do it from your personal account.
Hill isn'y my cup of tea, and I sort of feel sorry for her in the way that I feel sorry for almost all sports journalism professionals these days. Twitter, one of the worst things ever invented, is an absolute requirement. They have to walk a very fine line between doing their job for the corporate overlords and "mixing it up" to build their personal brand / make "hit" quotas. That SHS is calling for Hill to be fired for something Hill said on Twitter is appalling. I'd have no problem with ESPN firing her but President Thin Skin and his minions should butt the fuck out.
Shut your mouth. (couldn't resist)
That's pecisely why I mentioned it.
People complain about attacks on free speech all the damn time and, almost without exception, the incident in question has nothing to do with our first amendment rights.
Here's a case where the President and his minions are advocating for the firing of a media commentator based 100% on her criticism of the President. The fact that the President cannot reach out and fire her himself does not mean that this isn't a frontal attack on freedom of the press.
Whether Jemele Hill is a quality journalist or a hack is irrelevant. She enjoys the very same protections that we all do and ESPN needs to step up and defend her rights with vigor. They also need to be extremely careful in discussing the fact that any punishment they hand out is in spite of, rather than because of, the President's comments.
ESPN can fire any employee any time, for any thing. Had they chosen to fire Hill for this I'd be more bothered by their inconsistent corporate policy on social media than I would be that they'd exercised their at will employment agreement. (I should note, the ratings on Hill's TV show wouldn't preclude her termination on that basis.)
But I have a real problem with the government telling a private company what to do about their employee. The government should never be in the business of opining on (free) speech. SHS, in her official capacity, suggested ESPN fire their employee for saying mean things about the President. Not because Hill is terrible at her job. But because Hill trash talked SHS's boss on Twitter.
SHS and her thin skinned boss should go do literally anything else - that would be doing their job.
I'll let sf121 speak for himself, but the ability of journalists to attack the President or any politician is the bedrock of the first amendment.
By inserting himself into the debate, Trump has placed ESPN in a position where no matter how justified they may be, they really can't fire her now unless they are prepared to back up an incredibly large truck full of money and dump it on her lawn. Because that's a wrongful termination suit that even a hack lawyer could win. (How would ESPN prove that they were planning to fire her before the President spoke?)
That's a long way of saying that Trump may be responsible for the lifetime employment of Jemele Hill at ESPN. Another reason that he is a monster.
What's the wrongful part (why do they have to prove they were going to fire her before the President spoke?)?
If they weren't prepared to fire her after her tweet - and they clearly weren't - they can't change their mind and fire her only after the President exerts pressure. Because that places the government in the position of effectively censoring Hill.
Even with your edit, pretty sure you're wrong. A censorship or first amendment case would be brought against the government, not the private employer. (And would be a loser or groundbreaking.)
Show me one. Show me one. One single court ruling that says a private employer firing someone based on something a government official said is wrongful termination.
The edit was because I was a bit sloppy/imprecise and wanted to make sure I was clear.
If a private employer was shown to have fired an employee at the behest of the government, they can absolutely be sued for wrongful termination.
Again, show me a single citation for that idea. I think you might not know what you're talking about. Do you work in HR? Employment lawyer? Lawyer?
The circumstances of this incident are fairly unique. (Honestly, I cannot think of an instance in my lifetime where a President or a representative of a President has asked a private employer to fire an employee explicitly because of a statement that was critical of the President.)
However, the totality of rulings over literally centuries makes it clear that the guiding factor here is government involvement or sanction.
What makes this case clear to me is that ESPN was not prepared to fire her before Trump spoke out. And Trump's motive is to punish her for what she published.
I think she would win a wrongful termination suit with ease.
I am not a lawyer. I've had a lot of experience in employment law at the various companies I've worked for. I have more than a passing familiarity with the first amendment.
Edit: removed the snark. Not going to derail the thread any more. If you want to discuss, take it to PMs.
I understand what you're getting at, namely that Hill should be fired for her work on the channel. And that the White House should not be in the business of telling companies which employees they should fire -- especially if it's a media company like ESPN.
But prior to this incident, do you think that ESPN should have pulled the plug on Hill? If so, why? If it's for political reasons, they didn't shit-can Schilling until he was publicly warned three times not to talk politics on his feed (and two things: a. we don't know how many times privately he was told to cut the shit and b. I would argue that what Schilling shared is far worse than what Hill wrote). You say that she shouldn't be fired for her ratings, so why should she be canned?
And I'm honestly not trying to play "GOTCHA" here, I'm trying to figure out how/why Jemele Hill should be fired. I also don't think that we differ too much in our thoughts on this issue. I rarely watch ESPN and the only time I was ever exposed to Hill was on "The Sports Reporters". I thought that she was usually the weakest one on the panel, TBH. Aside from the last week, I haven't thought of Jemele Hill in months.
My main thought is that we have President * in the White House who has a shit fit any time that someone says anything about him (and in this case, what Hill says is entirely accurate). Presidents from Obama to Bush II to Clinton to George Washington have had to deal with people shit talking them and they've all taken it. But this asshole can't hack a tweet from a show that practically no one watches. It's completely insane to me.
Wrongful termination liability is very limited. There is almost no reason to believe absent some sort of contractual provision explicitly describing it, why she would win (or even not get dismissed) in such a suit here. If she wanted to try to bring against Trump for interference or something, okay, I guess. But ESPN could fire here right now without repercussion. Employers do so on the basis of government statements all the time. Usually in the form of announcement of an indictment or arrest, but same concept. There is no constitutional guarantee that a private employer should distance itself from the government.
ESPN could have; the ratings are not good. But I don't think they would have, and they definitely will not now (for reasons AR stated above).
I also think that had ESPN terminated her, or suspended her, they'd have been wrong to do so. They told her to be on Twitter and to "mix it up." That she expressed a personal opinion, as opposed to a hot sports take, was bound to happen. I concur with most everything you say, including their (apparently) shifting standards on social media usage. Regardless of content, ESPN was justified in terminating Schilling because he'd been warned several times. To the best of my knowledge, Hill did not have the same number of instances.
But even if think ESPN would have been wrong, I'd still recognize that as a private company they can fire any one, for any thing.
Had ESPN decided that Hill's comments justified termination, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it because who knows what her HR file says - are there multiple written warnings for similar incidents? I don't know. To be clear, had they not fired her, then issued a statement, and then fired her after SHS's podium performance, I'd have a HUGE problem with that. But had ESPN decided five minutes after Hill tweeted that Hill had crossed their internally decided line, then c'est la vie. She was set up to fail and then her bosses punished her for failing. That happens all the time.
And yeah, that this thin skinned ninny has his mouthpiece threatening the employee of a private corporation for trash talking him is completely insane.
Her comments bought her time. Whether she needed it or not, I don't know. If she did, let that sink in.
The play here is obvious. Barring another s-storm, they won't fire her. They'll simply cancel the show and reformulate it with other people.
The play here is obvious. Barring another s-storm, they won't fire her. They'll simply cancel the show and reformulate it with other people.
Honestly they aren't going to do anything, as in nothing. The only reason the show will be canceled is because ratings are terrible and were before this incident.
Many (most?) states have so-called public policy exceptions to the common-law default of at-will employment. I haven't canvassed all 50 states, but it would not shock me if a state court found that firing someone for "criticizing the President" might be a case that could go to a jury. Quick and dirty, but in Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance, the 3rd Circuit, applying Pennsylvania law to a private employee who wouldn't lobby politically for his employer, said:
I am sure a competent lawyer could distinguish Hill from this case, but to your larger point of:
The answer might be "maybe."
Last edited:
But that case had to do with the Pennsylvania Constitution, not the First Amendment. And it seems to have not to have been adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Shovelin v. Central N.M Elec. Coop Inc., 850 P.2d 996, (N.M. 1993).
George v. Lab Corp. of America Holdings, 522 F.Supp.2d 761 (D. W.Va. 2007).
Someone might be able to argue that in a small minority of jurisdictions the case could survive a motion to dismiss, but the claim that it's "a wrongful termination suit that even a hack lawyer could win" is ridiculous.
I agree. My point was this dustup may have extended her period of service. She is untouchable in the near future for reasons stated above.
You do realize the huge difference between Hill and all of the examples you cite, right?
Could put this in "The Ringer" thread but it fits here well.
good read about Hill and Smith and SC6
https://www.theringer.com/2017/9/13/16299136/jemele-hill-espn-michael-smith-sportscenter-the-six
What strikes me is why the network is so hell bent on the sportscenter brand at 6:00. Hill and Smith talk about being in their own heads about "is this ok for the sportscenter brand?". Why don't they just scrap the 6:00 "sportscenter" and call this show something different?
good read about Hill and Smith and SC6
https://www.theringer.com/2017/9/13/16299136/jemele-hill-espn-michael-smith-sportscenter-the-six
What strikes me is why the network is so hell bent on the sportscenter brand at 6:00. Hill and Smith talk about being in their own heads about "is this ok for the sportscenter brand?". Why don't they just scrap the 6:00 "sportscenter" and call this show something different?
Yup, which is why I didn't mention the reporters that reported those stories. You can see that, right?
I think we are in agreement here. At least in part because no competent lawyer ever says something is a slam dunk.
Not sure why they keep giving this guy airtime. If anything he's proving how terrible his "position" is:
Media MattersVerified account @mmfa 7m7 minutes ago
Brooke Baldwin cut off a segment that a Fox Sports regular said he only cares about the First Amendment and boobs http://mm4a.org/ZUN
Media MattersVerified account @mmfa 7m7 minutes ago
Brooke Baldwin cut off a segment that a Fox Sports regular said he only cares about the First Amendment and boobs http://mm4a.org/ZUN
Clay Travis is a complete tool but I'm not sure ESPN can take any blame for CNN giving the FS1 guy airtime.
ESPN's ombudsman, er, public editor didn't cover himself in glory last night.
http://deadspin.com/your-head-a-splode-1817176880
http://deadspin.com/your-head-a-splode-1817176880
FWIW, Huckabee Sanders clarified her statement from Thursday when answering questions about her Hill comments yesterday:
In all of this, regardless of the merits of the Hill or Cohn or Schilling cases, the baseline truth is that John Skipper is a moron(to use Jemele Hill's word) who should be fired.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.rawstory.com/2017/09/watch-reporters-go-for-the-jugular-after-sarah-huckabee-sanders-doubles-down-on-jemele-hill-attack/amp/
So SHS is saying the WH never called for Hill to be fired, she just said, "well what about Curt Schilling?"
In all of this, regardless of the merits of the Hill or Cohn or Schilling cases, the baseline truth is that John Skipper is a moron(to use Jemele Hill's word) who should be fired.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.rawstory.com/2017/09/watch-reporters-go-for-the-jugular-after-sarah-huckabee-sanders-doubles-down-on-jemele-hill-attack/amp/