Is this a fireable offense?

Based on someone's appearance? If he wants to go after performance, fine. But appearance was out of bounds.

Columnist strikes me as a prick who probably has a lot of interesting things to say about the women in his office when they're not around ...

 

Elliotte,

Obviously there's an element of defensiveness because she's a reporter, and perhaps an element of P.C. chivalry (is that an oxymoron?) because of what she's gone through lately.

But I think it would be a much bigger issue if a newspaper columnist had written this exact same entry about a public figure -- let's say a politician, or an actor -- who had changed genders. I think it'd be a nearly Imus-level scandal, in fact.

 

For some reason I don't think editors take what is written in a blog nearly as seriously as what appears in the paper. If this had run in the paper, I think the writer would be gone in a second.

I thought Adrian Dater was going to be fired for his ESPN tirade and he wasn't. For the record, I'm glad he wasn't.

This guy is a colossal dumbass, but I hope he keeps his job.

 

I said columnists write unflattering stuff about people all the time. Not necessarily appearance, though.

What if he said that Christine looked great but was a crummy writer? Would that be OK?

I don't like it. I think that when you start your blog with a disclaimer that no one may know or care who you are going to write about it's strike 2.

But I just think we are reacting like he wrote about our sister.

 

I'm reluctant to even comment because the column is so inane.

It's also beyond cruel and says a lot more about Paul than it does Christine.
I don't know if he should be fired but he definitely should be ashamed.

 

True.

 

I'm gonna go with gingerbread and leave it at that.

 

Your grandmother was Bruce Smith?

 

And to that I say, why shouldn't we?

Why should Christine Daniels be afforded any less defense?

 

I can see, after covering the Beckham non-news, nothing-burger, hurry-up-and-wait, he's-almost-ready-to-play, he-might-play-sometime-next-week-or-maybe-next-month, "news events" (har-dee-har har) for any length of time, you would be scratching for something, anything, to write about.

Commenting on the physical appearance, for better or worse, of a writer for another newspaper (in fact, a competing newspaper) would seem to be pretty far down on the list of potential subject matter.

On the other hand, Daniels has more or less invited such public discussion by making a public issue of his/her conversion, so my sympathy factor is quite definitely limited.

Firing offense? No. Stern-talking-to offense? Yes.

Ever do it, or anything similar, again, see ya later.