Journalists Are Reporting Their Colleagues to HR for Political Opinions
jessesingal.substack.com
jessesingal.substack.com
"Employee A had a disagreement with Employee B who filed a complaint with HR. HR investigated and took no action."
Oh the persecution!
> The mere involvement of local ‘authorities,’ whether school administrators or HR or whoever else, in adjudicating mainstream political disagreement can of course have a chilling effect on people’s expression of their political beliefs.
That's their job. They go out and verify the claims and take action where neccesary. Since no action was taken one can assume no action was neccesary. That doesn't mean we revoke Employee A's right to complain to HR next time they have a problem.
And it's important to note that if 90% of your workplace has a problem with your personal opinion, maybe your expression of political beliefs needs to be chilled. That doesn't mean don't believe what you feel and don't vote how you believe. That just means that if you have a pointed stance on race that flies in the face of civil discourse society is going to step in and make sure you hear the echo's of society. It's the same feedback loop that ensures KKK members know, without a doubt, that they're doing something wrong. That's a good thing. It doesn't mean they can't drink the Kool-Aid, but it means they should probably think twice before selling it at the supermarket.
- the actual memo published by Damore, with full citations
- his description of the sequence of events that lead to his termination, which has not (to my knowledge) been publicly contradicted.
- Sundar Pichai's own statement regarding the termination, which reflects a false characterization of Damore's memo.
- leaked internal discussions from Google, which show rather abusive behavior towards Damore and others on political grounds.
What other evidence would you like?
It's not surprising that, once he filed suit, no public comment has been made as to his claims. But the NLRB turned him down and, FWIW, its chair was appointed by the current president.
As for the broader claim IMHO the “victimhood” narrative is currently a tool of the right (whether it’s the unfair press, or “Christianity under attack” and the like. But I know some people draw the opposite conclusion from the same data so I was trying not to address that.
In her case, she was reprimanded for sharing a topically relevant clip of a mainstream news show. There is a question as to whether a complaint was actually made, but the claim was made that a complaint had been filed when she was reprimanded.
Somewhere on an emotional level, I feel like there should be. However, if that's the extent of it, and HR decides nothing is needed, then there isn't anything really there. However, if there's civil conspiracy and defamation involved, the repercussions can take the form of lawsuits. My read on Vic Migogna and the #KickVic debacle (which includes already falsified faked accusations on social media) is that it's a weaponized use of HR to get rid of a rival whose politics others disapproved of.
True, but then again, it will probably go into the permanent file and if more complaints come in later, it adds up. Similarly to how you're supposed to report even small things to the police if you expect more to come. Even if they can't do anything now, it starts a paper trail and will be taken into account if anything else happens.
> Update, 12:35 pm: An editor from this publication has contested Ted’s account in ways I find credible. I’m reaching out to a couple people and will have a full update and potential correction as soon as possible.
I'll wait for actual journalists to report on any newsroom biases or cultural changes, which is where I'd expect accurate reports to come from.
(Real journalists are sharp and wise observers, they of course have special vantages for newsroom internal goings-on, and their professional experience is in investigating and communicating truth. Even though they might not be able to report on their own outlet, they talk with real journalists elsewhere.)
The first case describes a columnist who wrote a piece that his colleagues disliked so much that they complained to HR about him. But it doesn't quite add up, and I'll tell you why in a minute.
The second case describes what sounds like a case where an intern and a staffer were discussing a political issue and got into a heated argument, and the intern complained about it. But it doesn't sound like he got in trouble with HR for his opinion; he got in trouble for the way he expressed his opinion.
So I don't think these two examples are really strong cases of journalists being punished by their employers for not holding a certain ideological view.
And I think people need to understand that just because a journalist is reprimanded for expressing their personal views, it doesn't mean their employer has done something wrong. In some cases, keeping your personal views to yourself is part of the job requirement.
For instance, if you're a news reporter covering politics, you _shouldn't_ be going around telling people your personal opinions about politics. In fact, doing so can get you quickly kicked off the beat, because you're (ostensibly) supposed to be objective and unbiased.
On the other hand, if you're a columnist or writing an op-ed, the whole point is to share your opinion, and I think most writers and editors understand that there are going to be columnists with whom they strongly disagree.
And that's why the first story seems so strange to me.
If a newsroom staffer were to feel so incensed by a particular colleague's column that they think it shouldn't have been published, I would expect them to go to the section editor who signed off on it, or the managing editor, or the editor in chief, and urge them to take it down or retract it ... not to complain to HR that they feel unsafe.
And nobody would expect people abusing the "report content" feature on Twitter, YouTube, FB etc to silence people they disagree with, yet here we are. HR will probably give less push back than an editor.
Nobody is objective and unbiased.
If your goal is to report the truth, pretending you're unbiased just makes it more difficult to separate facts from ideology.
It's better to acknowledge beliefs and biases, and critically examine how they affect what is reported.
So I'd argue that fairness and accuracy in journalism is improved when people talk about their beliefs, not when they hide them.
This is crazy. I am not saying you are crazy, or anything negative, let us be clear.
First, TYT as example. They are unabashedly progressive and they make that extremely clear. Secondly, they do a great job of producing high clarity material with fact and opinion well differentiated.
Many similar entities claim low or no bias, objectivity, fairness, and so forth.
However, none of this things are actually true!
There is always bias. And objective material takes a number of us working over a sustained amount of time to produce.
That does not happen on a cable news cycle.
As a kid, we received education on these things. Bias, what it is, how to identify it and whether it was honestly and clearly made known.
Compare and contrast news written from a labor point of view (very hard to find these days in the US), vs big business POV. Same goes for religion, establishment vs reformers, you get the idea.
The single most important aspect in all of this is clarity. Being able to discern facts and opinion is what will inform us as well as speak to bias so we know to get a more inclusive set of sources to draw on in our own thinking.
Today, most media is a mess on these fronts, and it can be boiled down thus:
1) Low clarity.
2) Bias not clearly stated, and things like disclosure not part of strong norms.
3) "Always two sides to every story" (no, there are facts, and what people think they mean) here, we see nuts paired with scientists, "to be objective" and it is laughable, if it were not so common and damaging.
4) objectivity conflated with neutrality (major contributor to low clarity and bias ID problems)
A reporter covering politics will have political opinions and they should be known and well differentiated from the facts so reported.
This idea of a neutral/objective press, coupled with chronic low clarity seen today, is laughable! And it does us all great harm too.
As for going to HR... that should be reserved for the how of discussion, not the what of it.
In 2019, it's not uncommon to see shops expressing a political opinion, and refusing to order books for customers on that basis.
----
I hope my claim is false. I have zero desire to witness/observe the types of historical events that fall under the above category.
Now the pendulum has swung and even the most eloquent, tame, and well thought-out argument is at risk of being labeled as intolerant of something.
Add to that that echo-chambers have gone from what used to be small groups of people to the massive ones that exist on the internet today, and we are at a point where many people aren't used to having their opinions challenged. Reactions of people suddenly confronted with an opinion outside their comfort zone vary from responding with fallacies, seeking protection by an authority figure (HR, police, etc.) to losing their composure.
Here's the sentence I assume you're referring to again:
> In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior.
The end of segregation fits well into the time period you specified, so let's use that as an example.
- 1955-1968. Martin Luther King Jr becomes spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement.
- 1956. Montgomery bus boycott.
- 1961. Freedom Riders.
- 1965. Beatles refuse to play in front of a segregated audience.
- 1965. Showdown in Selma.
- 1968. De jure segregation is fully outlawed in the United States.
You can imagine that all of these topics were publicly debated back then. Labeling someone a racist or intolerant would've been met with "Yes, I am. So what?" by some people, so that didn't even work as an "argument" by itself.
For even more perspective, have a look at these surveys[0] conducted in the period 1960-1970, featuring such questions as:
- "Do you think most Negroes believe in nonviolent action or do you think most Negroes would like to use violence in their demonstrations?".
- "I'd like to ask you if you were in the same position as Negroes, if you think it would be justified or not to march and protest in demonstrations?"
Imagine having that kind of discussion today. Yeah I can't either. People would be outraged and try to get someone fired. Maybe rightfully so.
It took three decades for half of the opinions that were expressed back then to become "taboo", and another two decades for us to arrive where we are today, where pretty much anything that isn't a mainstream opinion on the matter is now a dangerous topic. Hence the pendulum metaphor.
The predominant viewpoints have become entrenched and are being defended against any opinion that doesn't smell the same. Anything that just might threaten them, even if there is no obvious conflict, is labeled "racist", "intolerant", "left", "right", etc and shot down on sight.
Debates back then weren't less heated, but there were more "real debates" and there were significantly less taboo topics and opinions.
Edit: I rambled on for a long time, so to get back to the issue at hand, please imagine "Story 1" or "Story 2" from the article were set in 1960. They just wouldn't be plausible anymore. Nobody could feel "unsafe" or "shaken up" over these opinions - they are tame compared to the opinions publicly expressed back then.
[0]: https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf
The PDF contains public opinion polls about some of the events I listed above, I recommend having a look at it.
Things could get interesting.
This article is two anecdotes, one of which has since been "credibly contested". It reads to me like an author looking for anything to support a story they already knew they wanted to write, rather than a story that evolves from the facts and data available.
What?
The traditional solution is for people to not talk about politics about work. In corporate America breaching that line is often regarded as much more serious than any of the particulars of the politics being discussed. Not because anyone is "milquetoast" (seriously??) but because people are paid to get work done.
I certainly have concerns about the scale of some opinions being quashed by corporate of collegiate oversight.
But at the same time I see folks with strong opinions very very quickly go to "this is only happening because I have X opinions" and in reality they're just jerks about those opinions and the consequences are related to being a jerk, not their opinions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/ronald-sullivan-harvar...
We are on the road to the Soviet Union, where your lawyer turns and testifies against you because only a criminal would defend a guilty person.
I had to explain to him to no avail that theres not such a thing. There is only speech, and or is totally free, or is not free at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CC2Zy76zfM
YouTuber who got his start in tabletop games commentary was assaulted at GenCon, and recently settled his lawsuit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASc2EPZBIoA
Comics artist Ethan Van Sciver was targeted for his political views, once involving vandalism of a shop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmrAnkKCoFU
He went indy again, and ended up with one of the most lucrative comics Indiegogos: (> $800k)
But he should not have been assaulted.
I spent a lot of railing against censorship from the right. In recent years, there's a combination of many factors: Activists on the left who want to silence views they don't like, who also know people in tech and social media who have the power to enact it. So now most of the danger is from the left.
The media power of networked viral distribution, plus monetization is so great, it's a game changer. It's in the same class of innovations as the printing press. (Both in the potential to democratize free thought and to control ideas.) In 2019, there should be a "right of discovery" in the same way our society acknowledges "freedom of the press."
In 2019, the failure to acknowledge this new reality would mean that the public is ceding their ability to discover new information to gatekeepers enabled by mega-corporations. Indirectly through those mega corporations, the public is then ceding such power, to governments. (As is happening in China now.) It would be a kind of meta-censorship. It's not technically censorship, however it's actually more powerful.