This is truly painful since I am neither a fan of Donald Trump or beauty pageants, but here it is: Is it possible that the actions taken against not just Donald Trump but his business associations are excessive? NBC has issued a statement that it will no longer air the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants and that Trump will no longer participate in “The Celebrity Apprentice.” (Univision previously banned the pageant as did Televise. Mexico swore not to send its contestant to the pageant). Now many people have long advocated a Dump the Trump position because they view him as an obnoxious self-caricature. However, NBC is now dropping its association with Trump because he said highly negative things about border illegal aliens at a political event. [Now Macy’s has joined the corporate Dump Trump movement]
One could understand dropping a personality from a show like “The Celebrity Apprentice” over public comments, but the network is shooting shows that are connected Trump’s business interests. It seems odd to pull the plug on the Miss USA and Miss Universe contestants solely because the events is connected financially to someone who has controversial political views. The Miss USA contestants expected to appear on NBC on July 12 from Baton Rouge. The network has aired the program for the last 11 years.
Trump created a firestorm in announcing his candidacy on June 16th for President in discussing illegal immigration. He said:
“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. … When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” said Trump. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I can certainly see the basis for the outcry in labeling the population of illegal immigrants as rapists and criminals (except for “some” who may be “good people”). The question is whether businesses should be punished for the political views of their CEOs or leadership. We have been discussing the increasing private sanctions for unpopular speech — the so-called “Little Brother” problem. It bears some resemblance to the Chick-Fil-A controversy after Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy made anti-gay comments. The question is why it is appropriate to punish an entire business — and its employees and customers — because you disagree with the political or religious views of an owner or executive. Where should be draw the line? I can see the basis for severing Trump as an on-air personality over public comments deemed offensive but is it appropriate to bar shows that happen to be financially supported by Trump?
It seems to me that, if NBC is going to bar shows due to the views of business executives, it should do so uniformly. Many CEOs hold views that can be criticized as offensive by one group or another. Is NBC going to impose a uniform speech code for businesses funding programs? The alternative is to separate the political views of business people from their products or programs, particularly when those products or programs do not in any way reflect the views.
What do you think?
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Shadow:
“Do you think the vet clinic should have kept the vet who loosed an arrow into a cat’s head? What do you think would have happened to the clinic’s business if it had not fired her?”
Yes, they were correct to fire a vet who tortured a pet cat to death. That wasn’t free speech; that was animal cruelty. The only reason the police have not filed charges yet is because she took the photo and comments down, so they don’t have proof yet. (This reasoning escapes me.) And, yes, I do believe ethics matter. I agree with DBQ’s assessment of when to fire an employee. As I said before, it would have been a business decision to fire Trump if the ratings plummeted because of viewer boycotts. But they pick and choose who to silence. They seemed to have no problem partnering with controversial Trump for many years.
I’ve often criticized unions for making their employees unifiable, even when they molest children. So I do think that an employer has the right to fire someone for cause . I also agree with Professor Turley that there is a very troubling erosion of free speech. You can be fired or have your business ruined for expressing religious views, for example. Many of us have made hotly contested remarks here on the blog. What if all of us lost our jobs or businesses because we offended someone?
Trump has been outspoken about controversial views for many years. He didn’t suddenly change. NBC had no problem partnering with him in any number of TV ventures.
All of a sudden, they cut ties with him, breaking their contract, for views he has expressed before.
Interesting . . .
Shadow
The clinic is absolutely correct in firing the Vet since she is obviously lacking in one of the main characteristics required to DO her job as a veterinarian, empathy with her patients. She may have the technical ability, but she has the soul of a serial killer and is unsuited to do her job as a veterinarian. Possibly she can get into animal clinical trials where empathy is a distinct detriment to that job. See……I’m compassionate. She can find work that suits her temperament.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOtMizMQ6oM
Her actions would most certainly lead to a big drop in clients. Who would want to take their precious pet to a woman who is so coldly callous. How would she be treating your precious fluffy? People will find another vet and the clinic will go down the tubes.
I meant Karen S both times. I will now not so gracefully exit.
DBQ,
Sorry. I meant Karen S.
The editing of the Zimmerman tape.
DBQ,
Do you think the vet clinic should have kept the vet who loosed an arrow into a cat’s head? What do you think would have happened to the clinic’s business if it had not fired her? Or do you think this was a work safety issue? Certainly things other than safety, like reputation, association, ethics, have to matter. I wonder how that clinic is doing even though it did fire her? Had to hurt business. Guilt by association?
@ Shadow
I didn’t specify a network regarding Olberman. Do you have a point?
The think is I would have thought NBC would have had have parted ways with Trump once he announced anyway. So now they get brownie points.
From a business perspective, I disagree with firing employees for their speech, except if it presents a safety issue. That said, if they kept him on and viewers abandoned his shows, then they would be canceled for low ratings, a business decision.
At to JT’s point. I think it entirely within the rights of NBC to remove Trump from his on air shows for the reasons that I posted above (he could be considered to be harming their brand) and also because to continue to give him face time would fall under the Equal Time Rule. With so many other candidates it would be a nightmare for NBC. So Trump goes.
However, it does seem supremely unfair to punish the women in the beauty pageants, merely because Trump is financially associated with the event. Some of these women have spent a great deal of time and effort to obtain their status to be in the pageant. This may be, for some, their only chance to be nationally televised. What a mean disappointment for them, their friends and family.
DBQ,
That was NBC not MSNBC. But I do feel your pain.
Would those who applaud the firing of Trump here on this thread be just as enthusiastic if their bosses fired them for comments they have made on this blog?
Since we’re talking about how news media “lean”, let’s compare the interview styles of Fox and pretty much any Liberal media source.
When Megyn Kelly, of whom I am a fan, interviews anyone, he or she is in the hot seat. She plays devil’s advocate on pretty much any issue. She grilled Huckabee on immigration, Bush on Common Core and amnesty, Dr Carson on his lack of political experience, and she asked Trump if he was crazy to run. She’d probably grill her own family to the point of sweating bullets to avoid being labeled soft.
I have never seen a Liberal news anchor ever give a tough interview to a Democrat.
Although Fox is one of the only conservative news organizations, their straight anchors are not lapdogs like the Liberal news anchors are.
If you wanted to find out the facts about Ferguson or the Texas pool party, you had to go to Fox. Flipping through the other channels, I only saw the typical “Who Needs Facts?” approach for ratings. MSNBC even went so far as to edit the 911 tape of George Zimmerman to drastically change the conversation to suit themselves.
Law of agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency
Ken, you didn’t ask me but I will answer.
The employer has the right to protect his assets, his company, his own reputation from harm by his own employees. IF…that is a big IF….the actions of the employee can be shown to directly harm the employer (and also other employees) damage the company then the company, just like a person the company can protect itself.
If the employee’s actions are NOT reflective back onto the company, perhaps a firing would be considered wrongful termination. In general, the higher the standing of the employee the more likely it is that the employee will be considered acting as an agent of the company or acting with the express permission of the company. In other words a CEO or officer’s actions carry more weight than a lowly dock worker. As a former insurance agent/financial professional/broker, I was constrained by the laws of agency. I had to sign a contract with my broker/dealer with all the things I was prohibited from doing. One of which was that I was forbidden to post or participate in financial blogs where it might be considered that I was dispensing financial advice over the internet, promoting stocks etc. That was a terminable offense.
As to Olbermann, I would assume he had a contract that had similarly specified prohibited actions and other things that he voluntarily limited his own rights or of free speech.
If the employee is terminated and feels that his/her actions were not contractually prohibited or that the actions were NOT a detriment to the employer, then they can prove their case and sue for wrongful termination.
When you are operating ON company time, you and your actions literally belong to the company which is paying you to do a job. Sending scathing emails from your company account or speaking on the company’s air time or using company resources, lends an air of agency. That you are acting on the behalf of the company.
Again. A lowly peon acting like a d!ck to a clerk in a fast food store about a political event isn’t all that. The CFO or other official of the company….is a big deal. It is a matter of scale and perspective.
Olly,
“Regarding Brian Williams, do you want your journalist of choice to be sharing “fish tales” on the Nightly News or do you want him to use that time slot for real news and save his anecdotes for the annual correspondents dinner?”
Oh, I don’t know. Connecticut voters elected Richard Blumenthal, and his tall tale made Williams’ look like the truth. So, yeah, maybe people do.
Olly
1, June 30, 2015 at 2:14 pm
“Why is it when the defense of a natural right happens to be attached to a specific individual or group it’s perceived as an endorsement of the individual or group and not simply the right?”
I certainly agree that speaking one’s mind is a natural right, and that some people (not all) often(not always) commit the error to which you refer, but what about the right of an employer to discharge an employee who it perceives is damaging the employer’s business?
Were you bothered to the same extent (or at all) by the firing of the Adam Smith Vante CFO for posting a video of himself browbeating one of Chik-Filet’s employees about its anti-gay posture, or by MSNBC’s cashiering of Keith Olbermann?
“did more harm to the causes of democracy, free speech and incorruptible politics/elections than we will ever know.”
jr conklin,
If the harm you claim is past tense then why don’t we already know how much harm has been done?
Regarding Brian Williams, do you want your journalist of choice to be sharing “fish tales” on the Nightly News or do you want him to use that time slot for real news and save his anecdotes for the annual correspondents dinner?
hskiprob:
“You have the right to live and if you are forced to leave one country and go to another how can that be a criminal action. Because fascists that rule the various governments say so?”
You bring up a very good point. Many people wonder why we have immigration laws, at all. Why can’t anyone who wants to live here just come over? Many people think it is racist or just plain unfair to even call illegal aliens “illegal.”
Let me explain what the problem is:
The vast majority of people in the developing world would like to live here. Now. Right now. If the entire population of Mexico arrived as fast as they could get here, out country would go bankrupt. Our health system would collapse. There would not be enough jobs. Most of those people would be poor and require public assistance. Social services would collapse. We already have high taxes and yet we have potholed roads and lots of other projects that we would like to spend money on. We already have an affordable housing crisis, and human encroachment is taking over open space. Where would we put them? Would we have to get rid of all of our national parks and wildlife preserves we became a region instead of a country, and had open borders for the entire globe? How would we feed them? Where would we get the water? CA is already in a severe drought with mandatory water conservation of up to 40%. What are millions more people going to drink? What about the lack of health screening? Antibiotic resistant TB is already a problem among illegal aliens. And since anyone who wants to should be allowed to come here, no criminal background checks, so pedophiles and rapists are OK to come, too. And that is just a fraction of the people who would be interested in coming over. If millions of people arrived over the next few weeks, we literally could not take them all. The Tonton Macoute of Haiti’s Voo Doo dictator terrorized the people. One of their methods was to decapitate the men in a village and march the mothers down the street, holding the heads of their dead sons. Since illegal aliens do not undergo a background check, and fascist governments say that not everyone can get in, shall we let in the Tonton Macoute? Al Qaeda? Boko Haram? ISIS? What about the resources of food, housing, government services, and most importantly, jobs? If we have 26% unemployment among young black men, shall we throw open our gates so that the entire world can come compete for entry level jobs with them?
Hopefully, this explains why it’s not fascist at all to require a maximum level, as well as minimum requirements, for those applying to immigrate.
Every single country in the world has immigration laws. Otherwise they are a region, not a country. The countries with the strongest social services, such as the Netherlands, have extremely strict laws. You have to prove that you will be needed in your job, and self supporting, in order to immigrate. Are the Netherlands fascist? Mexico will throw you in prison if you attempt to immigrate there illegally, and yet its government howls at our immigration laws in a shameless hypocritical display.
You would think a guy who says he’s as rich as he is and as brilliant a business man as he says he is could buy better hair. Everyday is a bad hair day. Do you want someone with hair like that in your living room every evening? Ego? What ego? I didn’t notice any ego. But that might be because I can’t get past the hair, and besides, he’s very rich you know.
On the other hand, I might enjoy watching the WH turn into a reality show for a couple of years. Think of the State dinners and who would attend. Might be fun.
We need a court jester.
Has he filed with the FEC yet?