Thursday thoughts
Jemele Hill is a sports journalist who was recently promoted to be one of the two hosts of ESPN's flagship program, SportsCenter.
On 9/11 she sent out a Tweet that read as follows:
"Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists."
In response, White House Press Secretary made a statement:
The Reverend Al Sharpton says that he will organize and lead a boycott of ESPN if they fire Ms Hill. Colin Kaepernick has Tweeted out his support as well. Essence Magazine published a piece on their website commending Ms Hill for the stance she took and saying she had the right to post her Tweet. Here's an excerpt:
"Hill has the right to speak through her personal Twitter account because 1) It's per safe space and 2) She's on a sports show about sports - not politics or race relations."
For their part, ESPN issued a statement:
“The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the President do not represent the position of ESPN. We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate.”
* * *
The thing is, ESPN has every right to fire its on-air (and behind the scenes) employees for their words, written/spoken/tweeted. They fired Curt Schilling, whose views are conservative and controversial all at once. While Hillary Clinton was still a presidential candidate, Schilling said she should be "...buried under a jail somewhere."
So why isn't the fact that ESPN fired Schilling for his inappropriate comments and isn't firing Hill for her inappropriate comments; proof of ESPN's liberal bias? That's what Fox News and others who have their own conservative bias are claiming. Do they have a point?
Only at the top of their dunce caps. The difference between Curt Schilling and Jemele Hill is that Schilling was warned several times about his words, while this is the first time that Hill has violated the social media policies of ESPN.
Further, Hill made it clear that she was speaking as a private person and not as the face of ESPN when she made those comments, in a later Tweet.
"My comments on Twitter represented my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfavorable light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional."
I think it is just fine that ESPN made the choice to give Ms Hill a second chance. Mr. Schilling got several second chances and just refused to understand that freedom of expression is not freedom of consequence for that expression.
At the same time, Essence Magazine should realize that a person's personal Twitter is only a safe space when it comes to consequences from the government. Only government entities are proscribed from imposing consequences on speech. Businesses, publicly held and privately owned, can impose consequences for what their employees say.
On 9/11 she sent out a Tweet that read as follows:
"Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists."
In response, White House Press Secretary made a statement:
The Reverend Al Sharpton says that he will organize and lead a boycott of ESPN if they fire Ms Hill. Colin Kaepernick has Tweeted out his support as well. Essence Magazine published a piece on their website commending Ms Hill for the stance she took and saying she had the right to post her Tweet. Here's an excerpt:
"Hill has the right to speak through her personal Twitter account because 1) It's per safe space and 2) She's on a sports show about sports - not politics or race relations."
For their part, ESPN issued a statement:
“The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the President do not represent the position of ESPN. We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate.”
* * *
The thing is, ESPN has every right to fire its on-air (and behind the scenes) employees for their words, written/spoken/tweeted. They fired Curt Schilling, whose views are conservative and controversial all at once. While Hillary Clinton was still a presidential candidate, Schilling said she should be "...buried under a jail somewhere."
So why isn't the fact that ESPN fired Schilling for his inappropriate comments and isn't firing Hill for her inappropriate comments; proof of ESPN's liberal bias? That's what Fox News and others who have their own conservative bias are claiming. Do they have a point?
Only at the top of their dunce caps. The difference between Curt Schilling and Jemele Hill is that Schilling was warned several times about his words, while this is the first time that Hill has violated the social media policies of ESPN.
Further, Hill made it clear that she was speaking as a private person and not as the face of ESPN when she made those comments, in a later Tweet.
"My comments on Twitter represented my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfavorable light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional."
I think it is just fine that ESPN made the choice to give Ms Hill a second chance. Mr. Schilling got several second chances and just refused to understand that freedom of expression is not freedom of consequence for that expression.
At the same time, Essence Magazine should realize that a person's personal Twitter is only a safe space when it comes to consequences from the government. Only government entities are proscribed from imposing consequences on speech. Businesses, publicly held and privately owned, can impose consequences for what their employees say.
posted by me at 6:04 AM
<< Home