Bissinger Drops The Pimp Hand

Zeke12,

Because. How another person acts shouldn't dictate how you do.

If both of those guys publicly walked with the intent that their salary be used to save the jobs of others who might have been fired, maybe the Inquirer would pocket the money and laugh. But, again, I'm not sure you make charitable decisions in life based on what bad people might do. A lot of the tsunami money never got to the intended victims; it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been given.

 

My guess is you don't even conduct your own life this way. Have you never been charitable? Did you demand a blueprint outlining the how efficiently your charity would reach its intended destination? Do we give because it's a sure thing? Or do we give out of chariable spirit?

 

If that's your position, Alma, that's fine, if you're speaking of a charitable act. I'm speaking of ethics. The columnists in question are certainly under no obligation to perform charitable acts, correct? And Bissinger doesn't say in the column that they should leave as an act of charity, either.

But the obvious retort, then, to Bissinger, is to ask why he doesn't offer them his job?

 

I once worked at a hotel that was just opening up. As a lot of places do, they overhired to start with then needed to cut about a half-dozen people. I was young and living at home and my job wasn't cut. But some guy who worked in the kitchen with a wife and kids was axed.

I went to the manager and said, "Hey, if I quit can so-and-so keep his job?" They said, "Yes." So I quit.

 

I think the column assumes that management is going to lay people off. If that's a given, then SAS and Grogan have the opportunity to do something good for someone else. As opposed to whatever they're doing now ...

 

Which is great, and more power to you.

But what if they just fired him, too, and didn't hire someone to replace either?

 

Charity is outside the scope of ethics?

If Bissenger is getting a salary, yeah, I think he could manage without that job.

 

The point Buzz is trying to make is that both Stephen A and Marley man are well-paid, don't particularly need the job at the paper (and don't seem to be all that into it).

But they must have some leverage because their jobs weren't cut. So I have to assume if they went to the editor and said, "I know you are cutting jobs, if I go can we save some people from being axed?" that would have been possible.

 

Again - do you make decisions based on how others might twist your good intent?

 

I can't stand Screamin' A and, quite frankly, he no longer brings anything of value to the paper.

That said, he's under no moral or ethical responsibility to walk away.

 

Alma --

Go back and read Bissinger's note.

He claims that doing what he says would be doing the "right" thing, that it would be the moral thing to do.

I think to do something like that would be, as you say, an incredibly charitable thing to do. I do not think one would have to do it to feel they were living an ethical life.

And yes, it is your obligation to consider not only your intent, but the actual ramifications.

 

Of course I'm not against charity. If the two writers chose to give up their paychecks in order to save others' it would be a fine and noble thing. What I object to is the notion that they OUGHT to do it, as though it is their fault if some of their co-workers are laid off. I think it's completely unfair, not to mention illogical, for Bissinger to single them out.

And purely as a practical matter, it may seem as though someone like SAS doesn't need his newspaper job now, but will that always be the case? Television personalities lose their jobs all the time, much like David Aldridge did when SAS came along at ESPN. If that were to happen, should those workers whose jobs he saved start donating their checks back to him?