What these journalists lack is the most important thing for a journalist to have: integrity.
They could stand up for what they believe and ring the warning gong about the issue - BUT, they might get a fine, and they probably will lose the job, and journalists are a dime a dozen... blah blah blah. We 'journalists' just can't take any chances with money! We don't want to go job hunting! So never mind about integrity, you see.
It is always the right time to do the right thing.
If money is your excuse for not doing the right thing you are a very pathetic human indeed.
Non-compete clauses are not generally enforceable in Washington. In fact, many of the other contract clauses are likely not enforceable, either. They should 1) unionize; 2) speak to good employment law attorneys as a group; 3) protest; 4) sabotage the broadcast with their own statement.
Cue those hipsters who will indeed defend money over doing the right thing...
Would it still be a breach of contract if the read the script word for word, but in a really ridiculous, sarcastic, robotic, or goofy voice? Or maybe with a silly accent?
Not you @2.
@4) That's what I would have done. Like a tortured prisoner sending out an SOS via eye-blinks, twitches and hand gestures.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
@2...umm, who told you non-competes are "generally unenforceable" in Washington? Did you read that on the Interwebs? You should probably talk to someone in tech or even the media about the reality -- if they aren't outrageous in terms of time/scope of industry/geographic scope, the courts here are more than happy to uphold them.
@8 I did speak to two lawyers that looked over my draconian non-compete clauses. They basically told me not to worry be the only way they can pull that off is to pay me for the 2yrs I would lose if I couldn't take a job.
@2) The verbiage of a non-compete agreement will determine its validity. A court can find that certain stipulations are not legal and thus the agreement invalid.

However, there is just that one way to find out.
Why aren’t we advocating for the re-regulation of the broadcast industry? You know, bringing back the laws that were de-regulated in a bipartisan bill known as the Telecommunications Act Of 1996?
@11: because Republicans exist and control all 3 branches of the Federal Government?
@12 Regardless of who’s in power, you have to keep advocating the message. I’ve been advocating regulation since 2008-2010. Normalize the message. Make it ring loud and true.

Also, “Republicans are in power” is a sorry ass excuse for not advocating for something. Do you hear those Parkland teenagers saying “We can’t advocate for gun control because the Republicans won’t let us”? No, you don’t.

I know it’s hard for die hard Democrats, but try to grow a fucking spine.
@13: ok, more specifically, then.

"Repeal the Telecommunications Act of 1996" is a fairly arcane rallying cry that won't garner as much attention, support and passion as "Stop Shooting Children". it's tough to understand complicated issues. that's why "we" aren't.

I'd be genuinely curious to know what Sen. Murray & Cantwell have to say about it, though.

What the fuck you gonna do,

not watch the news?
@14 First, it was because of Republicans. Now it’s because “break up the corporations” isn’t a catchy enough slogan for you.

As an FYI, Senator Murray voted in support of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Maybe she’s evolved since then...
First one to fuck this shit up live on air gets a viral GoFundMe to cover legal expenses and unemployment!

Actually, I would chip in $5 to have an employment lawyer assess these scary-sounding contracts.

You could just film it with the teleprompter in frame, and from an off angle so the speaker isn't looking into the camera. No need for histrionics.

It would get the point across very, very effectively for an audience that's grown accustomed to the conventions of broadcast news, but is largely unfamiliar with the longstanding film-school critique of those conventions.
@16: Blaming republicans for everything is how democrats cope with the fact that their party is ineffectual and unable or unwilling to get anything done, and are too scared to advocate for their own policies.

It isn't really even about ideology, but results.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.