GOOD! Thats what I like to hear, hopefully being Republican can be the new Leprosy. Dump them on some barren island with Anne Coulter covered in honey and tax papers.

Anne Coulter covered in honey? I'm there!

Thanks,

David

where in your post or in the link provided does it say why she was fired?

Her quote to Drudge, while talking about an inappropriate comment from some 'official' (obviously not the one who fired her), says nothing about who fired her or for what reason. So what am I supposed to get worked up about? Your speculation?

Oh, now I see, it's an attempt to compare the firing of a playgirl editor with Congress's attempt to overstep their powers and undermine our judicial system. hmmm, I never would have made that connection myself.

Oh, for god's sake.

IT WAS A LIGHT-HEARTED COMMENT.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to try and stop my eyes rolling in the back of my head.

Is it all that unusual to fire people for their political sympathies, left or right, particularly when it comes to magazines with a decided bias one way or the other? I doubt the National Review or The American Spectator would allow extensive Bush-bashing or support for the Kennedys, and I can't say it surprises me that a magazine like Playgirl doesn't want a conservative on their staff. Why did she want to work there in the first place?

I agree 100% with Mike Saton (comment #1) on this! Where is RJ on this? He is our token arch-conservative.

Okay, I'm going to stick to my guns here (sorry if my use of the word "guns" offends you) and ask the question, what if this woman were a liberal Democrat who was fired because of her political affiliation? Would you be working quite so hard to defend the organization and/or corporation that fired her?

Again, it's the liberal principle of "selective diversity." A conservative woman in a position of power who voted for Senator Kerry in the last election would have been called a hero. A liberal woman in a position of power is seen as empowered and a valid voice (a statement that I would wholeheartedly agree with), but a conservative woman in power who expresses her viewpoint in a valid way on the job and is fired for it is seen as a threat.

So much for "speaking truth to power."

David

See my previous post, David.

Would you be working quite so hard to defend the organization and/or corporation that fired her?

quite so hard as what? Are there BlogCritics here 'toiling' away at defending playgirl?

is fired for it

still asking for proof.

So much for "speaking truth

apparently.

David Flanagan: I now know the truth about most liberals in the media.

So up to now you've been writing about them without knowing the truth?

Makes me wonder why I should believe you this time.

I lay the blame for this on the Neocons. Traditionally the Republicans have been freespeech supporting, porn-enjoying civil libertarians who would fit right in running Playgirl. But now the Neocons have tainted the party so that people think Republicans stand for some sort of puritanical moral values, while it's still not true of most Republicans and probably not of this poor woman.

Dave

That's true, Dave. I'd agree with that. They made your party one of puritanism and your party allowed them in the door, remember?

It certainly makes it easy to trump the 'hypocrisy banner' every time a Jack Ryan or Rush Limbaugh has a Fall From Grace®.

I'm tired of these shitty - lying headlines.

Get a ........ clue. We are considered a NEWS source now and this headline is simply not backed by the facts.

Period.

I doubt the National Review or The American Spectator would allow extensive Bush-bashing or support for the Kennedys, and I can't say it surprises me that a magazine like Playgirl doesn't want a conservative on their staff.

Rodney,

Michele never bashed any political candidates. She just wrote an article talking about how she voted "red state" and how difficult it was to say such a thing in the middle of a "blue state" stronghold. MANY Democrats voted Republican in this last election, and I'm sure quite a few Republicans voted Democrat. Should we convene a panel to track these offenders down and make sure they are in a job that "properly reflects their political affiliation?"

Thanks,

David

Temple,

Are you trying to argue that a story about a woman in a prominent position with a famous entertainment magazine who claims she's been fired for outing herself as a Republican is not news? What was your stance on the supposed termination of John Kefelas?

David

I think that what Temple is arguing is that apart from her own email to Drudge, you've failed to supply any proof that she was fired for her political affiliation.

You know it's about the headline. How do you know? Cause that's what I ...!@$%...... typed.

David, I am concerned that we don't have enough information here to justify such a specific title to this story, which is presented s a statemetn of fact. Do we know she was fired, do we know specifically why she was fired, and do we have any sources for any of this other than her email to Drudge?

I've calmed down a bit. Sorry. I just really don't like these asserting headlines that are not fact-based just to get people riled up or to push an without-basis political point. That's sub-tabloid because, presumably we think the site is better than tabloid.

I know I do.

Sorry David.

If the woman was fired for being Republican that's illegal and so we are in a sense accusing Playgirl management of an illegal act. You'll notice even Drudge's headline: "'PLAYGIRL' EDITOR FIRED AFTER OUTING SELF AS REPUBLICAN..." states nothing of such cause-and-effect fact, though the implication hangs there heavily.

Why not put "claims she was" in there before "fired"?

The post is pretty sub-standard stereotypical tripe, too, now that I read it more closely. But that's just a subjective thing.

the post is fine as opinion,, which is certainly allowed, but I think bhw's remedy is right for the title

to me, it's not just the headline but the content of the whole post. The whole concept is about her being fired because of political belief and it's not presented as a hypothetical but as fact. Yet no proof is given. Should only headlines represent the truth?

To me, a question like this:
do you approve of the firing of Ms. Zipp for voting Republican?
is just as erroneous as the title. At least for now, without proof.

Basing articles on events that never happened, like the unsupported claim "Kerry calls blogs the sub-media," for example?

Hmm, is there anything these two articles have in common, in addition to their complete absence of verifiable facts that might come anywhere near justifying their headlines?

how about we add a question mark to the title?

Okay. I understand the concern over the title of the article. Please note that the title has been changed. I had planned on changing it in the same manner (adding the question mark), but someone beat me to it. Which tells me that I likely won't have to change it again.

Thanks for all your comments.

David

I'd disapprove of firing her for her political affiliation, and I think most reasonable people would. But this is a non-issue, because I doubt she was fired for "being Republican. " Look at this press release:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050308/nytu139_1.html

First off, she seems to be insane: She made the magazine's press release about herself, and then went on to imply that liberal women's mates were "pansy-assed" and less good in bed. She also went on to say that Republicans are motivated by "power and greed" which is "sexy." I don't think many of my Republican friends would care to hear themselves described in that way.

So I don't think we'd ought to take her email to Drudge as the gospel truth. But seeing as you're taking a questionable story at Playgirl magazine as a key to how "most liberals in the media" are hypocrites, I'd wonder whether you're looking for reasonable opinions in the first place.

Victor,

Regarding Kerry calling blogs the sub-media, I gave you the direct quote. What else do you need? Did he refer to blogs directly? No, however, he did refer specifically to the "mainstream media," so this is a very safe assumption on my part. In the article, I also assumed that he meant talk radio and other conservative news sources, so I covered all my bases.

Thanks,

David

I don't expect anybody to rewrite a post, but I would just want to go on record saying it should have been written from the perspective of 'WHAT IF she was fired for being Republican?', rather than the complaints about the lack of an outcry from the Left over some weak piece of info that just showed up on Drudge.

As far as the 'truth' of it from a news standpoint, doesn't BC have a disclaimer somewhere that the views expressed within are not necessarily those of BC, etc. like those disclaimers on DVD's, right before the actor commentaries.

views are one thing, facts are another, though, if this isn't clearly labeled as opinion but put forth as news, it should be rewritten.

Political affiliation is not a protected status. A company can fire anyone for their politics, particularly if it affects their job. You can also be hired or not based on your politics. Best to keep your politics to yourself at work, I'd say.

Plus, we can very easily turn David's whine about false diversity on the part of Democrats into one about false corporate freedom from Republicans -- if he was a real Republican, he would respect the employer's right to hire the the people he wants to hire.

Steve,

We're not all News per se here at BC. We're opinion here, but there can be legal consequences for presenting opinion as fact.

Unless you're Ms. Davis, who's "All Facts and Opinions.' :-)

cause whe you search for "playgirl editor fired" in google News, we're at the top of the list. so far without that question mark?

See how that works?

Regarding Kerry calling blogs the sub-media, I gave you the direct quote. What else do you need? Did he refer to blogs directly? No, however, he did refer specifically to the "mainstream media," so this is a very safe assumption on my part.

David, are you saying that you don't have a direct quote from Kerry calling blogs sub-media, and that it's okay for you to infer that that's what he meant, claiming it to be fact?

Isn't that the DEFINITION of bias?

I know Temple. And reading the post, I knew that it was David's opinion, because I know David.

there can be legal consequences for presenting opinion as fact.

I know, and I don't think we need to panic here, and pull the post or rewrite or anything, I just want to point that this post reads to me as opinion presented as fact. Not all of it though.

Steve,

Thanks for your comments. Regarding my assertion on "a lack of response from liberals" to this claim, I do think I have some ground to stand on.

The mainstream media has chosen to ignore MANY stories that we have chosen to highlight. In that sense, it's not the MSM that authenticates something for us, or validates it. Rather, we get to choose what we think is worthy of conversation and write about it.

Now, if Blogcritics asks for a change, or an edit to any of my posts, they have the right to do that. I'm okay with that, especially since I've been known, on occasion, to step over the line.

Thanks, :-)

David

cause whe you search for "playgirl editor fired" in google News, we're at the top of the list. so far without that question mark?

Hmmm... Being number one on a Google Search. Is that a bad thing?

David

Here is the quote for you to see bhw:

"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

The burden of proof is on the accuser, David; you, in this case.

You readily admit you cannot prove what Senator Kerry really meant, so you are in effect admitting that your headline for that article was misleading and inaccurate.

I should clarify my comments then as well. To me, it is obvious and implied firing someone for political bias is mean and illegal and counters the whole concept of Democracy.

However, I don't like the values of the GOP. Also, the goals and missions of the GOP clearly and obviously run counter to the gay culture which I would presume reads said magazine.

food for thought: what if Planned Parenthood fired someone for being Republican. It is a gray issue, but again the platform of the GOP is stated to be completely against a woman's right to choose.

Oh, and the play on reality is delightful. One would not be remotely surprised to see a headline with the worlds 'gay Republican fired for being outed'.

... ok, you all may go ahead and freak out on me now.

Will this improve the magazine?

Victor,

How can my headline be misleading when I have a quote that shows Kerry identifying the "mainstream" media and then the other types of media he feels to be invalid and labels as a "sub-media" and "sub-culture"? No one has even tried to answer my question, but perhaps you can... Just whom is Kerry referring to?

Thanks for your help on this.

David

If Kerry is calling the "mainstream media" a "discerning" voice and then points out that there is a "sub-media" which keeps things going for "entertainment purposes," I think you could make some reasonable assumptions.

My assumptions wouldn't have been blogs, but talk radio and fox news.

A headline putting words in a person's mouth is misleading.

I don't have to speculate on what Kerry might have meant, and your demand that someone "answer your question" is just another effort to distract people from the damning facts of your case.

The facts clearly show he never used the word "blog," yet your headline claims he made a specific reference to blogs. Your headline is misleading, inaccurate, and indefensible on any grounds of journalistic integrity.

Much like this one.

Steve,

Thanks for taking a guess. I would say it's a very reasonable guess based on what Kerry said during his talk. Here is my official guess, as stated in my post:

Really, which makes more sense to you, that the "sub-media" aka, blogs, talk radio, the Internet, and conservative media in general, are out-performing the mainstream media, or that the mainstream media right now is performing poorly?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Steve,

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

Thanks,

David

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.

Spin spin spin spin spin...

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

David

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.

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

Dave

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.

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.

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

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.

:-(

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

Dave

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

David

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

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

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:

1. 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.


2. 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!


3. 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.

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.

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

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

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

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