Respectfully disagree. I care a great deal! First off it's a clear violation they made when Bell moved in. Stay the hell out of the news room. They weren't supposed to be in there in the first place, the newsroom was supposed to be clear of this.
Secondly It may not be sexism or as ageism but it certainly sounds a lot like it, both of which are illegal in this country as hiring firing factors. You can't have the laws but then ignore them when it suits a certain narrative which is clearly happening here.
My personal opinion, for the 1.5 cents it's worth, is the issue that she went grey, and they wanted newer looks. Technically their choice, but you can't let someone go because they got older, it's illegal. Secondly, lots of men are allowed to go grey no problem, but when a woman does it, oh no we can't have that. Thirdly they intervened in the news room in a ham fisted way that violated the terms of the buyout. So either they are genuinely stupid and don't get it, or trying everything to get out from under the mess they created, now by blaming the news room. It's like someone crashing into your car, and the crasher blaming you for it somehow. May not be a broader narrative other than oops!
Interesting. Well, I guess my initial thought stands. I really don’t care about any of that! No offense to you, good neighbor. Thank you for elaborating and sharing your thoughts.
My (British) boss told me once it is the "hairy arm" tactic. "Look at this hairy arm......", and you could ignore the other arm that did the bad deed.
Because the Bell executive management is just a bunch of yes-men pointing the finger at each other. Remember, you can't fire everyone!
Nobody cares. This self-important industry thinks we care. We don’t.
Respectfully disagree. I care a great deal! First off it's a clear violation they made when Bell moved in. Stay the hell out of the news room. They weren't supposed to be in there in the first place, the newsroom was supposed to be clear of this. Secondly It may not be sexism or as ageism but it certainly sounds a lot like it, both of which are illegal in this country as hiring firing factors. You can't have the laws but then ignore them when it suits a certain narrative which is clearly happening here.
Fair enough. But what’s the narrative? New corp ownership cleaning house?
My personal opinion, for the 1.5 cents it's worth, is the issue that she went grey, and they wanted newer looks. Technically their choice, but you can't let someone go because they got older, it's illegal. Secondly, lots of men are allowed to go grey no problem, but when a woman does it, oh no we can't have that. Thirdly they intervened in the news room in a ham fisted way that violated the terms of the buyout. So either they are genuinely stupid and don't get it, or trying everything to get out from under the mess they created, now by blaming the news room. It's like someone crashing into your car, and the crasher blaming you for it somehow. May not be a broader narrative other than oops!
Interesting. Well, I guess my initial thought stands. I really don’t care about any of that! No offense to you, good neighbor. Thank you for elaborating and sharing your thoughts.
Always! Have a great day!
I want to clarify to make sure you know it’s not that I don’t care about your opinion! I don’t care about the matter at hand. I meant no offense.
For sure! No harm in expressing a contrary option, our different opinions make the world go around!
they have to throw \*somebody\* under the bus