Blogcritics: Comments on Playgirl Editor Fired For Voting Republican?

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:32:55 EST

El Bicho, Outraged? No. Do I disagree with him being denied entrance because of his shirt? Yes. Especially if he was trying to enter in a calm manner and wanted to hear what the President had to say. Now, if he was carrying a sign or something I can see why they would deny him entrance. I have to admit, I read the article and was confused because, the article said a "staffer" approached the student and then took the ticket, but then the event staff denied taking tickets and so did the Secret Service. So, where did the tickets come from and who took them? Regardless, I think the student should have been allowed entry. Nuff said. David

Comment by El Bicho

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:42:05 EST

You must be just as outraged by the story of the Arizona student who was banned from attending President Bush's Social Security forum at the Tucson Convention Center yesterday because he had on a UA Young Democrats T-shirt. Can't wait to see your "fair and balanced" post in this matter. You won't even need to add a question mark to your tag line. http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/118/01_2.html

Comment by Tristan

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:37:48 EST

I wonder if they would have fired her if she posed naked in a Playboy pictorial......

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:29:14 EST

bhw, Very true. I've been told the exact same thing. Companies are very limited in what they can say and should limit what they say for a number of reasons. Ex-employees, however, can and do often say any number of things. Then, of course, reactionaries such as I get to fly off the handle and make all kinds of inflammatory statements. ;-) Thanks, David

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:40:15 EST

To go back to my original response to the follow-up posting, am I alone in thinking that this 'statement' doesn't actually say anything at all about why she was fired? Companies never specifically release the reason for someone's dismissal, unless it's for a crime or some such. They protect themselves from lawsuits that way. At one of my former companies, we were told that we were not allowed to give professional references for any of our former colleagues. Any requests for a professional reference had to be routed to the HR department, where all they would do was confirm the dates of employment and job title. Not one word about the person's performance, personality, etc.

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:25:14 EST

Dave, Good point. I didn't have time to comment earlier, but I did want to get their statement up quickly out of fairness. this is what I'm getting out of this statement:

Michele Zipp WAS fired - The statement confirms it beyond a doubt. The whole spiel regarding the magazine "taking a new direction editorially and creatively" is interesting, to say the least.
Even if this was just a normal decision related to a shift in "creative direction," they are going to be in spin control mode for a while. The timing is just horrible!
I realize that the magazine was originally founded for women, by women, but I don't think that's there only constituency. ;-) They should be more open about that.

Thanks, David

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:56:01 EST

To go back to my original response to the follow-up posting, am I alone in thinking that this 'statement' doesn't actually say anything at all about why she was fired? Dave

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:52:59 EST

BTW - Temple, thanks for merging the posts. I wasn't sure if I should do that and I was in a hurry and just put the other one up. This way is much better. Thanks, David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:51:57 EST

Yeah, sorry. I respond equally to Dave or David. :-) My bad! David

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:12:16 EST

Temp? There was a mention of my name? I missed it. I guess I should have responded sooner. Dave

Comment by Temple Stark

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:10:55 EST

aaaaaargh. Too many Dave / Davids. I had one post for each Dave, and David you responded to the wrong one and I would love it of DaveN didn't respond at all, but he is compelled, a sickness, an obsession. So we must suffer, too. :-(

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:06:26 EST

Or perhaps, Temple, I just enjoy the debate. Haven't you ever just started a debate because it's fun? Because, when you debate, win or lose, you learn something new? It's why I love blogging. Thanks, David

Comment by Temple Stark

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:06:23 EST

David, I merged that statement from Playgirl as an update to this post and deleted the other one. It made more sense. I'll get everyone's e-mail eventually and do his separately, alhough in this case others might wonder, as well.

Comment by Temple Stark

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:04:15 EST

Funny Dave - the same person who has to respnd to every mention of your name anywhere any time. You're ridiculous, though in reality i think you do a lot of it on purpose just to get a reaction.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:45:27 EST

Sheesh, who would have imagined this article could have raised up so much controversy. Some folks are truly defensive. Dave

Comment by bhw

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:18:41 EST

If you disagree, that's fine, but do you have proof that this is NOT what he meant? I have proof that it's NOT what he SAID. What he meant is up for interpretation, but the title of your post wasn't. You attributed a statement to him that he never made. He didn't even specifically mention the Internet.

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:04:27 EST

Spin spin spin spin spin... I'm getting dizzy here. which is mostly what I expected. David

Comment by Steve S

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:31:01 EST

well, no David. If it turns out to be true, it's a lotta hoopla over someone who got fired from a sex related job. (their job is to sell fantasy). Fantasy might be hard to sell if you picture Laura Ingalls Wilder at the helm.

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:52:34 EST

Steve, Except, of course, if this all turns out to be true... Right? :-) Thanks, David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:51:05 EST

Greg, You could also say that "hindsight is 20-20." And look, I didn't half to fall back on my old Latin lessons to make my point! Imagine! David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:47:21 EST

Victor, You're the one who admits to downloading music in violation of copyrite laws. And claiming that "more often than not" you pay for the music of artists you download is not an excuse that would fare well in a court of law. Before removing a splinter from my eye, get that big friggin beam out of your own. And thanks for your comments. David

Comment by Greg

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:09:09 EST

She posted an article claiming to be a Republican. She was fired. The former OBVIOUSLY caused the latter! And washing my car OBVIOUSLY causes it to rain! Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. QED

Comment by Steve S

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:01:31 EST

well, David, I'll have to differ from usual here and agree with you as to what sub-media may mean. The difference is the significance that I would give a comment like 'sub-media for entertainment (sensationalism)'. I would think that posts like the one above would tend to lend credence to Kerry's claim.

Comment by Victor Plenty

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:01:15 EST

So, you're willing to lie for convenience. Thanks. I'll remember that next time you make any factual claims.

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:56:31 EST

Your headline is misleading, inaccurate, and indefensible on any grounds of journalistic integrity. Victor, I am not a journalist. I'm a blogger with an opinion, which is why I call my site, Viewpointjournal.com. Even the tagline says, "You've entered a room with a view!" So, if I tilt towards the sensational headline every now and then, it's probably because I'm trying to imitate the success of some of our most famous rags, like the New York Times. But, ultimately, just remember that I'm simply a worthless pretender to the throne. A mere blogger. Not even a hack, but a sub-hack! Thanks, David