I was fired from my journalism job ten days into new administration
medium.com
medium.com
> I have had a very successful career and done a lot of interesting work
> I have reported daily stories for the Marketplace Morning Report, often writing two different stories before 9 a.m. which air to millions of people. I am known for being meticulous, accurate, and always on deadline.
> I also thought, falsely as it turned out, that the prominence of my job at Marketplace would prevent me from becoming a target
I get the impression this person thinks very highly of themselves and I personally can't shake a feeling of entitlement for the job as the recurring theme here.
> The VP said she believed I’d shown what kind of journalism I want to do — I think the assumption was that I want to do advocacy journalism
It's possible the article did in fact make the managers uncomfortable which represented a culture clash that they are trying to avoid, apolitic or whatever. It's possible someone complained. It'd be good to hear both sides.
But either way it sounds like a bad place to work if they would fire you for writing done on personal time. The fact the content was about the job you were doing there might add some relevancy but I agree they should have approached the person first and handled it more carefully.
Finding a better place to work that fits their personal views seems like the solution here. I don't really see this as a martyring for the political cause the author happened to write about in their blog post they got fired for. I don't fault any company for being selective with the work culture they are creating.
I didn't get past the first paragraph of their article before finding what I would consider highly objectionable content, that Trump's government "thrives on the lie of white racial superiority."
That is just way over the top inflammatory rhetoric and not befitting of a journalist, even on a blog that is supposed to represent an opinion. IMHO.
While I am aware of a ton of racially-oriented concerns about Trump the sentence seems to reflect a very polemical ad-hominem view that isn't even attempted to be backed up by the author despite being in the thesis sentence.
It displays a careless disregard for facts, evidence, and/or the meaning of words, ironically the very thing the author is complaining about.
You should at least treat Trump fairly--he's putting the people of the United States first and foremost, a concept that hasn't happened in decades. I'm not sure why that has been labeled 'racist' since it is quite clear there is racial inclusion going on. But the left just can't stop with its idiotic "literally Hitler" bs long enough to see that, or they don't want to see that because it flies in the face of statism, collectivism, and a bunch of other stupid 'isms' that are long past the point of needing to evaporate.
This is perhaps true for ~60 million voters. Extrapolating that to the "people of the United States" is a stretch. It's like saying Obama put the people first because insuring 16M people promotes general well-being of society --some truth, but discounting perspectives of a large portion of "the people." It's more true that we haven't seen a president hold true to his base in decades (e.g. Obama didn't close Guantanamo).
> quite clear there is racial inclusion going on
As a person of color, I know several people of color who support Trump but I have not seen statements or policies that read or sound inclusive to me. Citations?
I agree, stand-by to be down-voted into oblivion. Besides journalists should report the news instead of being the news or creating non-issues as in a lot of cases. I call it the oprahfication of the commons.