Female Conservative Suspended, Loses Gig at St. Louis Paper After Pro-NRA Column

[mugsy]

A few more details emerge: she was also a vocal advocate for the NRA, and failed to disclose that in her article. She was suspended for failing to disclose the conflict of interest. Absent some strong evidence showing that reason was merely pretextual, she probably doesn't have a serious case for discrimination.

So being an advocate for something is a de-facto conflict of interest? She has made no attempt to hide that she is conservative so I am not sure what conflict is here. By that reasoning no journalist who votes or has any party affiliation could write about politics in America. Unless she has hidden being in the pay of the NRA, or having some close link - like a close relative or friend being an NRA officer, for example - there is no apparent conflict of interest.

 

[Dave70968]

So being an advocate for something is a de-facto conflict of interest? She has made no attempt to hide that she is conservative so I am not sure what conflict is here. By that reasoning no journalist who votes or has any party affiliation could write about politics in America. Unless she has hidden being in the pay of the NRA, or having some close link - like a close relative or friend being an NRA officer, for example - there is no apparent conflict of interest.

That's entirely dependent upon what the newspaper's policy is on conflicts. Their newspaper, their rules, especially in an at-will state.

 

[dennishoddy]

That's entirely dependent upon what the newspaper's policy is on conflicts. Their newspaper, their rules, especially in an at-will state.

At will states like Oklahoma does allow protection from firing by membership or promoting unions, discrimination, and a couple of other reason's I don't remember.
Probably doesn't matter in this thread, but the "at will" is different for each state, as general info.

 

[Dave70968]

I'm fairly certain those are federal protections, not just state; in any event, I meant "their rules" to apply in the context of "their rules on conflict of interest." I can see where I might've been clearer, though.

 

[POKE1911]

She should look for an article, similar to hers, but written by a white male reporter that supports a left wing agenda or organization and is still employed by that news rag. I am sure you wouldn't have to look very hard. Then build a case of discrimination or wrongful termination based on race or sex. Even if it doesn't stand up in court, it may in the court of public opinion. Newspapers are struggling from down subscribers and ads. The last thing they need is to piss off a conservative subscribers or business owners that support their paper.

 

[mugsy]

That's entirely dependent upon what the newspaper's policy is on conflicts. Their newspaper, their rules, especially in an at-will state.

You are confusing the paper's legal right to fire her with the discussion of what actually constitutes a conflict of interest. I was not discussing the legality only the logic.

 

[sanjuro893]

She should look for an article, similar to hers, but written by a white male reporter that supports a left wing agenda or organization and is still employed by that news rag. I am sure you wouldn't have to look very hard. Then build a case of discrimination or wrongful termination based on race or sex. Even if it doesn't stand up in court, it may in the court of public opinion. Newspapers are struggling from down subscribers and ads. The last thing they need is to piss off a conservative subscribers or business owners that support their paper.

That's what I was thinking. The paper probably does have a conflict of interest/disclosure policy but I'm sure it's only enforced when it doesn't meet the paper's agenda. I would dig a bit if I were her.

 

[MadDogs]

If she just got terminated she got off without a beating from the intolerant left.

 

[Frederick]

The left is losing the argument, so they've resorted to less savory tactics. They do it because they're afraid.
They hide the truth because they're afraid of it. If they were right, they wouldn't feel the need to censor conservative viewpoints.