
Journalists Are Reporting Their Colleagues to HR for Political Opinions - jseliger
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/journalists-are-reporting-their-colleagues
======
zelon88
I don't like this piece. It's so vague there's really no story here.

"Employee A had a disagreement with Employee B who filed a complaint with HR.
HR investigated and took no action."

Oh the persecution!

> The mere involvement of local ‘authorities,’ whether school administrators
> or HR or whoever else, in adjudicating mainstream political disagreement can
> of course have a chilling effect on people’s expression of their political
> beliefs.

That's their job. They go out and verify the claims and take action where
neccesary. Since no action was taken one can assume no action was neccesary.
That doesn't mean we revoke Employee A's right to complain to HR next time
they have a problem.

And it's important to note that if 90% of your workplace has a problem with
your personal opinion, maybe your expression of political beliefs needs to be
chilled. That doesn't mean don't believe what you feel and don't vote how you
believe. That just means that if you have a pointed stance on race that flies
in the face of civil discourse society is going to step in and make sure you
hear the echo's of society. It's the same feedback loop that ensures KKK
members know, without a doubt, that they're doing something wrong. That's a
good thing. It doesn't mean they can't drink the Kool-Aid, but it means they
should probably think twice before selling it at the supermarket.

~~~
lr4444lr
All true. There still should be repercussions for weaponizing HR to make
someone's life miserable when your only evidence is "accusing his column ...
of making them ‘unsafe’" or feeling “shaken up” after a conversation with a
colleague. The right response from HR, in absentia of any further evidence
from the complainant, is either to recommend to the supervisor to deal with it
tactfully or refer the complainant to the mental health resources he needs.

~~~
stcredzero
_There still should be repercussions for weaponizing HR to make someone 's
life miserable when your only evidence is "accusing his column ... of making
them ‘unsafe’" or feeling “shaken up” after a conversation with a colleague._

Somewhere on an emotional level, I feel like there should be. However, if
that's the extent of it, and HR decides nothing is needed, then there isn't
anything really there. However, if there's civil conspiracy and defamation
involved, the repercussions can take the form of lawsuits. My read on Vic
Migogna and the #KickVic debacle (which includes already falsified faked
accusations on social media) is that it's a weaponized use of HR to get rid of
a rival whose politics others disapproved of.

~~~
luckylion
> However, if that's the extent of it, and HR decides nothing is needed, then
> there isn't anything really there.

True, but then again, it will probably go into the permanent file and if more
complaints come in later, it adds up. Similarly to how you're supposed to
report even small things to the police if you expect more to come. Even if
they can't do anything now, it starts a paper trail and will be taken into
account if anything else happens.

------
jawns
These are flimsy examples of journalists being punished for not falling in
line with groupthink -- and I say this as someone who has worked in several
newsrooms with relatively uniform ideological views that did not match my own.

The first case describes a columnist who wrote a piece that his colleagues
disliked so much that they complained to HR about him. But it doesn't quite
add up, and I'll tell you why in a minute.

The second case describes what sounds like a case where an intern and a
staffer were discussing a political issue and got into a heated argument, and
the intern complained about it. But it doesn't sound like he got in trouble
with HR for his opinion; he got in trouble for the way he expressed his
opinion.

So I don't think these two examples are really strong cases of journalists
being punished by their employers for not holding a certain ideological view.

And I think people need to understand that just because a journalist is
reprimanded for expressing their personal views, it doesn't mean their
employer has done something wrong. In some cases, keeping your personal views
to yourself is part of the job requirement.

For instance, if you're a news reporter covering politics, you _shouldn't_ be
going around telling people your personal opinions about politics. In fact,
doing so can get you quickly kicked off the beat, because you're (ostensibly)
supposed to be objective and unbiased.

On the other hand, if you're a columnist or writing an op-ed, the whole point
is to share your opinion, and I think most writers and editors understand that
there are going to be columnists with whom they strongly disagree.

And that's why the first story seems so strange to me.

If a newsroom staffer were to feel so incensed by a particular colleague's
column that they think it shouldn't have been published, I would expect them
to go to the section editor who signed off on it, or the managing editor, or
the editor in chief, and urge them to take it down or retract it ... not to
complain to HR that they feel unsafe.

~~~
luckylion
> I would expect them to go to the section editor who signed off on it, or the
> managing editor, or the editor in chief, and urge them to take it down or
> retract it ... not to complain to HR that they feel unsafe.

And nobody would expect people abusing the "report content" feature on
Twitter, YouTube, FB etc to silence people they disagree with, yet here we
are. HR will probably give less push back than an editor.

------
anongraddebt
The current American socio-political environment is a vortex of escalation
right now. Moreover, we seem to be moving from rabid polarization to a
calculus of hatred. I'm not sure there is a controlled transition from this
state, except for a sudden (and potentially violent) 'release valve'.

\----

I hope my claim is false. I have zero desire to witness/observe the types of
historical events that fall under the above category.

~~~
rapsey
People say it was worse in the past. I disagree. In the past there was Vietnam
which was just a big thorn. The current situation seems to just be a descent
into insanity.

~~~
abfan1127
Would you agree that in the past was worse, but we handled it better? Its
better now, but we handle it worse?

~~~
chmod775
In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately,
sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior.

Now the pendulum has swung and even the most eloquent, tame, and well thought-
out argument is at risk of being labeled as intolerant of something.

Add to that that echo-chambers have gone from what used to be small groups of
people to the massive ones that exist on the internet today, and we are at a
point where many people aren't used to having their opinions challenged.
Reactions of people suddenly confronted with an opinion outside their comfort
zone vary from responding with fallacies, seeking protection by an authority
figure (HR, police, etc.) to losing their composure.

~~~
nerdponx
I wasn't alive during the 60s and 70s, but from everything I've read and
watched of that era, I don't think this has ever been true.

~~~
chmod775
I'm not sure if "60s and 70s" is supposed to be some kind of strawman, because
I specified no such thing (I was really thinking of a time period slightly
later than that), but the Zeitgeist in that period was influenced by what
happened earlier, so I'll humor you.

Here's the sentence I assume you're referring to again:

> In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and
> immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior.

The end of segregation fits well into the time period you specified, so let's
use that as an example.

\- 1955-1968. Martin Luther King Jr becomes spokesperson and leader in the
civil rights movement.

\- 1956. Montgomery bus boycott.

\- 1961. Freedom Riders.

\- 1965. Beatles refuse to play in front of a segregated audience.

\- 1965. Showdown in Selma.

\- 1968. De jure segregation is fully outlawed in the United States.

You can imagine that all of these topics were publicly debated back then.
Labeling someone a racist or intolerant would've been met with "Yes, I am. So
what?" by some people, so that didn't even work as an "argument" by itself.

For even more perspective, have a look at these surveys[0] conducted in the
period 1960-1970, featuring such questions as:

\- "Do you think most Negroes believe in nonviolent action or do you think
most Negroes would like to use violence in their demonstrations?".

\- "I'd like to ask you if you were in the same position as Negroes, if you
think it would be justified or not to march and protest in demonstrations?"

Imagine having that kind of discussion today. Yeah I can't either. People
would be outraged and try to get someone fired. Maybe rightfully so.

It took three decades for half of the opinions that were expressed back then
to become "taboo", and another two decades for us to arrive where we are
today, where pretty much anything that isn't a mainstream opinion on the
matter is now a dangerous topic. Hence the pendulum metaphor.

The predominant viewpoints have become entrenched and are being defended
against any opinion that doesn't smell the same. Anything that just might
threaten them, even if there is no obvious conflict, is labeled "racist",
"intolerant", "left", "right", etc and shot down on sight.

Debates back then weren't less heated, but there were more "real debates" and
there were significantly less taboo topics and opinions.

Edit: I rambled on for a long time, so to get back to the issue at hand,
please imagine "Story 1" or "Story 2" from the article were set in 1960. They
just wouldn't be plausible anymore. Nobody could feel "unsafe" or "shaken up"
over these opinions - they are tame compared to the opinions publicly
expressed back then.

[0]: [https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-
opinion.pdf](https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf)

The PDF contains public opinion polls about some of the events I listed above,
I recommend having a look at it.

------
samfriedman
Usually when I read a headline like "X are reporting...", "Y is becoming...",
etc. I expect to see some data that shows a trend, with analysis from the
author to convince me that the trend is significant.

This article is two anecdotes, one of which has since been "credibly
contested". It reads to me like an author looking for anything to support a
story they already knew they wanted to write, rather than a story that evolves
from the facts and data available.

------
tyingq
Secondary to the main point, but complaining to HR for any reason is tricky.
Their number one priority is to protect the company. Even if you feel that
aligns okay with your complaint, they may not. They are also free to change
their minds at any time.

------
mc32
Aka the weaponization of HR for political reasons. Obviously this is a tactic
to fend off non-mainstream thinking in the guise of political correctness
(feeling safe/not safe). HR is loath to be in the crosshairs, so they’ll
probably tend to try and hire milquetoast staff.

~~~
justin66
> HR is loath to be in the crosshairs, so they’ll probably tend to try and
> hire milquetoast staff.

What?

The traditional solution is for people to not talk about politics about work.
In corporate America breaching that line is often regarded as much more
serious than any of the particulars of the politics being discussed. Not
because anyone is "milquetoast" (seriously??) but because people are paid to
get work done.

------
duxup
Not sure I buy into this blog's description as there is so little detail.

I certainly have concerns about the scale of some opinions being quashed by
corporate of collegiate oversight.

But at the same time I see folks with strong opinions very very quickly go to
"this is only happening because I have X opinions" and in reality they're just
jerks about those opinions and the consequences are related to being a jerk,
not their opinions.

------
dbt00
Example A could be the author himself. And example B is already discredited.
So that’s not super inspirational...

------
gumby
Seems unlikely. I'd think that if either of these situations happened the
affected person would publicise it for maximum value.

------
781
A laywer was fired from a Harvard position at student pressure because he
defended Harvey Weinstein:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/ronald-sullivan-
harvar...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/ronald-sullivan-harvard.html)

We are on the road to the Soviet Union, where your lawyer turns and testifies
against you because only a criminal would defend a guilty person.

------
major505
This is the main problem when you consider free speech as "hate speech". I had
to hear a sermon from my young brother who is 15, that something I said was
"hate speech" (basically an opnion on abortion if I`m not mistaken), something
he learned in school.

I had to explain to him to no avail that theres not such a thing. There is
only speech, and or is totally free, or is not free at all.

~~~
LostJourneyman
Free speech means that you won't be prosecuted/persecuted by the government,
not that you're free from social or societal ramifications. Hate speech is one
of the exclusions (see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision, ca. 1942) of Free
Speech, but again: no legal action is being taken here so this is irrelevant.

------
stcredzero
Artists in niche media, like Magic the Gathering are being targeted:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CC2Zy76zfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CC2Zy76zfM)

YouTuber who got his start in tabletop games commentary was assaulted at
GenCon, and recently settled his lawsuit:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASc2EPZBIoA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASc2EPZBIoA)

Comics artist Ethan Van Sciver was targeted for his political views, once
involving vandalism of a shop.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmrAnkKCoFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmrAnkKCoFU)

He went indy again, and ended up with one of the most lucrative comics
Indiegogos: (> $800k)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSODv4yD3Lg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSODv4yD3Lg)

~~~
JaimeThompson
Oh TheQuartering I really enjoy how he pretends that only the "left" as he
calls it wants censorship. His deletion of comments that provide examples of
censorship from the "right" "center" "others" appears to show he cares more
about views and outrage than actually presenting facts.

But he should not have been assaulted.

~~~
stcredzero
_Oh TheQuartering I really enjoy how he pretends that only the "left" as he
calls it wants censorship._

I spent a lot of railing against censorship from the right. In recent years,
there's a combination of many factors: Activists on the left who want to
silence views they don't like, who also know people in tech and social media
who have the power to enact it. So now most of the danger is from the left.

The media power of networked viral distribution, plus monetization is so
great, it's a game changer. It's in the same class of innovations as the
printing press. (Both in the potential to democratize free thought and to
control ideas.) In 2019, there should be a "right of discovery" in the same
way our society acknowledges "freedom of the press."

In 2019, the failure to acknowledge this new reality would mean that the
public is ceding their ability to discover new information to gatekeepers
enabled by mega-corporations. Indirectly through those mega corporations, the
public is then ceding such power, to governments. (As is happening in China
now.) It would be a kind of meta-censorship. It's not technically censorship,
however it's actually more powerful.

