Re: Petah Ahnett

[Tony Abruzzese <abruzzese@biochem.bumc.bu.edu>]

Mark Laurence wrote:

>I think Arnett deserves to be fired for making outspoken opinions to an 
>outside organization which concern the story he is covering.  The nature 
>of the opinions should not be the issue.
>
>But home-team cheerleaders should be fired also.  What if, for example, 
>a US reporter gave an opinionated, pro-war, pro-administration analysis 
>and interview to a British news organization?  He would be 
>compromising his objectivity.  His future reporting should be just as 
>suspect, and he should also be fired.
>  
>
AND On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Larry Weil wrote:

>> So, someone in his position has to give up his rights to voice an 
>> opinion based on real, front-line observations?  So, let's just get 
>> to hear the opinions of all the armchair warriors and pundits safely 
>  
>
We have discussed a similar issue on-list before regarding "appropriate 
behavior" (morality/
professional standards) clauses in contracts.

The questions outstanding would seem to be:
     Is the Interview within the scope of this person's job (as defined 
in the contract)?
and
     Does this person's behavior reflect the "standards of 
professionalism" set by his/her employer.

In the case of Arnett, NBC stated last evening that the interview was 
provided by Arnett "as a
courtesy". I infer from that, that NBC reserved the right to decide 
whether or not he was acting
outside of the normal scope of his duties and in a manner that would 
reflect poorly on the network.
In other words, we (NBC) let him do it and he promised to behave. In 
someone's judgement, he behaved
in a way which violated some part of his contract, which was grounds for 
firing.

It would however be a different situation if a US reporter gave an 
interview to the BBC, either way...
The UK is an ally inthis action, not an adversary.

All of the above notwithstanding, an interseting question from both 
constitutional and philosophical
standpoints is:  Can someone who makes a living in front of a camera, or 
from behind a microphone,
ever be considered a "private citizen" when appearing in front of any 
camera while expressing a
"personal opinion"?

Tony