Reporter fired for reporting

[SoloFlyer]

A bit more info in a reply.



Nothing he's revealed is a fireable offense. OK, he disobeyed a superior. Suspend him for a week.

But he was still supposed to cover the event, presumably by following any TV coverage or live scoring and then calling coaches/athletic directors to arrange interviews. Given that, it's unlikely he was being kept back for another assignment. He was kept back for money.

Getting fired for this is absurd.

 

[SoloFlyer]

The fact that they'd sack one of their two sports people makes me think they felt pretty strongly about the need to fire him.

Also - isn't this the place where they had a sports person working a desk shift who keeled over and died at his desk between editions?

It's Lee. The only thing they feel strongly about is the money saved by having someone with experience come off the payroll.

 

[Sports Barf]

Have we ruled out the possibility he was drinking on the job and showed up loaded to the track meet?

 

[PaperClip529]

A bit more info in a reply.



Nothing he's revealed is a fireable offense. OK, he disobeyed a superior. Suspend him for a week.

But he was still supposed to cover the event, presumably by following any TV coverage or live scoring and then calling coaches/athletic directors to arrange interviews. Given that, it's unlikely he was being kept back for another assignment. He was kept back for money.

Getting fired for this is absurd.

Why is that absurd? He ignored multiple orders to not drive across the state for an event and he did so anyways. For whatever reasons, his bosses clearly didn't think that it was worth the cost to cover the first two days of the meet. That was their decision to make. The reporter was still allowed to cover the first two days virtually and attend the third day in person, and I really doubt that his readers would have noticed a difference between the three days of coverage if he's decent at his job.

What the reporter did was selfish and dumb. It doesn't matter that he was willing to pay for it out of his own pocket. If he wasn't fired and word got out that he had to pay his own way for the state track meet? That newspaper would still be getting riiiiiipped. I remember an on-air friend once getting a side job delivering pizzas and his bosses quickly forced him to quit when they found out because they didn't want the city knowing that they paid so little that their weekend anchor was also working at Dominos. Newsrooms are cheap but they don't love broadcasting how cheap they are.

And what's the end game if he doesn't get fired? Can the newspaper now justify never again paying to travel to the state meet if its reporters are just going to pick up the tab? I don't that the budget is going to magically get better in 2022. I'd be furious if I was this dude's co-worker because anytime that I was told no about traveling/covering an event, I'd get hit with a "Nick paid his own way for his beat…" by sources and readers interested in my beat.

I agree that a suspension may have been better. I don't think that the firing was absurd, though. I can't say that it would have played out any differently had I done the same thing in my newsroom.

 

[HackyMcHack]

UNIONIZE YOUR NEWSROOMS!

Management loves to say how unions can't guarantee you a raise. Maybe not. But, if this is as the OP states, with no other disciplinary history, a good union contract would have averted this outcome.

THIS.

The previous two non-guild papers I was at, one with five in sports at one point and the other with 16.5 FTEs at one point, both got rid of their entire sports departments within the past five years. The bigger one now has someone doing sports and a bunch of other things. The other now has a stringer.

The Guild paper that I'm at now, while not perfect, hasn't laid off any member newsroom employees in the three years I've been there. And while the scope of what's being covered has changed (a lot more preps, a lot less of the bigger stuff), it's still a solid section, thanks in large part to the Guild.

Moral of the story: Even if you are in a so-called right to work state, unionize. It might be the only defense you have against vulture capital.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

I agree is isn't absurd. From what he's said, he was told twice to cover it remotely, then decided to do what he wanted anyway, it's clear insubordination. And again, it's writing up the first 2 days of state track, not ignoring it, and sure as shirt isn't like he's being told to ignore a big pedophile sex ring story. As someone else has said, it's not the hill to die on.

I've worked for some great papers and bosses, and also for Gannett. And now work in corporate PR. If I'd have done what he did at any stop and under any boss, termination would have at least been in the conversation, if not automatic.

I'm curious what current editors and managers on here would do if in one of their people was given orders twice, and they just defied them.

Also, still not convinced we've heard the entire story. State track was a month ago, the paper ran his stories with the dateline attached, and it looks like he has had a bunch of bylines since then. Surely there have been discussions since then - given what we've seen so far from him, I can't imagine he has shown any remorse or regret. Playing the "poor oppressed journalist" when called on the carpet for this could easily escalate a suspension or reprimand to a termination.

 

[Equalizer]

If I'm in management there, for this offense alone I'm probably the manager from Major League: "Nice catch ... and don't ever forking do it again."
My guess is there's more to the story, especially if some manager thought this was the final straw after a lot of pushback from the department since it's been stripped, as someone else noted, to almost nothing.
I checked out its website — it looks like the department is two full-timers, and a correspondent whose work looks like something a high school kid would write.

 

[DanOregon]

The over-under on appreciative track parents who are subscribers who cancel their subscription over this is, I'm thinking about 3. (And I'd personally take the under).

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Why is that absurd? He ignored multiple orders to not drive across the state for an event and he did so anyways

"Orders" its a high school track meet not guarding the wall at gitmo

 

[PaperClip529]

"Orders" its a high school track meet not guarding the wall at gitmo

Weird thing to focus on from this entire conversation but you do you.

 

[Tarheel316]

I agree is isn't absurd. From what he's said, he was told twice to cover it remotely, then decided to do what he wanted anyway, it's clear insubordination. And again, it's writing up the first 2 days of state track, not ignoring it, and sure as shirt isn't like he's being told to ignore a big pedophile sex ring story. As someone else has said, it's not the hill to die on.

I've worked for some great papers and bosses, and also for Gannett. And now work in corporate PR. If I'd have done what he did at any stop and under any boss, termination would have at least been in the conversation, if not automatic.

I'm curious what current editors and managers on here would do if in one of their people was given orders twice, and they just defied them.

Also, still not convinced we've heard the entire story. State track was a month ago, the paper ran his stories with the dateline attached, and it looks like he has had a bunch of bylines since then. Surely there have been discussions since then - given what we've seen so far from him, I can't imagine he has shown any remorse or regret. Playing the "poor oppressed journalist" when called on the carpet for this could easily escalate a suspension or reprimand to a termination.

He clearly disobeyed instructions and then goes on Twitter like some kind of martyr. I have no sympathy for him. When faced with similar situations, I ask my regional SE for instructions. I get them and obey because that's my job. I may not always agree but I keep it to myself and do my job.

 

[sgreenwell]

Also, still not convinced we've heard the entire story. State track was a month ago, the paper ran his stories with the dateline attached, and it looks like he has had a bunch of bylines since then. Surely there have been discussions since then - given what we've seen so far from him, I can't imagine he has shown any remorse or regret. Playing the "poor oppressed journalist" when called on the carpet for this could easily escalate a suspension or reprimand to a termination.

I'm kind of curious about the time gap as well. Maybe he didn't tell his editors that he actually drove out to cover the track meet in person? He could have gotten his cover blown by a reader contacting the paper and praising him. I'm mostly with the consensus here though - you don't disobey a direct order like this from a boss, especially for something like the state track meet, which frankly can be one of the easier things to do by phone if you've networked well enough during the season.