Brooking No Dissent, HRC Gets Reporter Fired for Addressing Inconvenient Truth About Organization (in a private e-mail)
In a private e-mail to the Human Rights Campaign, a tired reporter in the Pine Tree State responded to their assertion that those who supported Question 1 on the state’s ballot month were haters, echoing something we have said on this blog.
“They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” [Larry Grard, that aforementioned sleep-deprived journalist] said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’
He may have been weary, but he did have a point. A lot of the gay marriage activists have been doing a lot of hating.
Shortly after sending this e-mail, Grard, a “reporter for thirty-five years, the last eighteen of them at the Morning Sentinel in Waterville [Maine]” was summoned to the office of Bill Thompson, editor of the Sentinel:
He was told that Trevor Thomas, deputy communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, had Googled his name, discovered he was a reporter, and was demanding Grard be fired. According to Grard, Thompson said, “There’s no wiggle room.”
He was immediately dismissed.
Wow, just wow. HRC gets an intemperate e-mail and instead of asking for an apology demands the writer be fired. And heck, the reporter didn’t even cover “the marriage issue or other gay-rights controversies for the Sentinel.” But, to HRC, if you don’t have the politically correct mind-set, well, then you shouldn’t have a job in journalism. Maybe it’s because of tactics like theirs that mainstream reporters don’t cover the hateful rhetoric spewing from some segments the gay left.
Has any mainstream reporter ever covered the thuggish tactics of HRC?
Look, not all gay activists are haters, but there is a lot of hateful rhetoric on the gay left. We saw this last fall in the campaign against Prop 8 in the Golden State. And particularly in the aftermath of its passage.
Instead of firing journalists for mentioning this inconvenient truth in their private correspondence, maybe it’s time for editors to assign reporters to cover the hateful rhetoric of many (but fortunately not all) gay activists, their prejudiced attitudes toward conservatives and Christians and their reluctance to engage their opponents on the level of ideas rather than innuendo and insult.
(H/t: Newsbusters)
23 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
this is only one side of the story. and grard’s facts don’t quite add up to me. why, for example, is he talking to the media instead of a lawyer? i know, i know, he CLAIMS that he talked to a lawyer, but any lawyer worth his/her salt would be advising this guy to not make any public statements pending the arbitration.
i’m sure HRC gets a ton of hate mail every day. why would they single-out this one guy?
i’m going to reserve judgment until there’s more information.
Comment by Chad — December 9, 2009 @ 3:58 pm - December 9, 2009
No wiggle room on what? I don’t get it. Are reporters supposed to stop having political opinions and expressing them privately? Civil servants, I think yes. But reporters or other private employees? Since when?
Fair enough.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - December 9, 2009
Here’s a helpful link for you Dan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Ethics_and_standards_in_practice
The field of journalism has to rely on the appearance of objectivity, and as such, may have certain rules concerning the expression of personal opinion.
I agree with you on the motivation of the media concerning the left, but I can’t side with a situation where a person charged (by choice) to be an objective observer and reporter steps willingly steps out of the role and then gets mad when it comes to his boss’ attention.
Nobody has a gun held to their head to enter any form of journalism. If he made a commitment to represent himself objectively (in personal and professional life) and broke it, he doesn’t deserve to keep his job. Again, like public officials, there is a different standard and he broke it.
Comment by Tim — December 9, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - December 9, 2009
I have to disagree with you somewhat, Dan. I find nothing intemperate about Grard’s e-mail. It was unwise to send anything thinking it would be anonymous, yes. But there was nothing intemperate in his message. HRC falls into the category of leftists groups that labels all dissent from its views as hateful. It deserves to be called out on its own hateful behavior.
And as far as hateful behavior goes, can there be a more blatant example than demanding the firing of a man for send one e-mail that you don’t like? This is disgusting in the extreme.
Don’t count on that Chad. The court of public opinion counts in matters like these as well. Chad made this claim:
I’d say it’s fairly obvious the lawyer is right given the political biases of most of the press (and the fact that Grard’s paper editorialized in favor of SSM). Grard and his lawyer may want to generate as much sympathy as possible amongst the general public.
Precisely because he is a reporter from a friendly newspaper. Reporters are presumed by leftists to be fellow travelers, and to have one who isn’t at a paper friendly to HRC’s cause was more than the org could bare.
No, ILC. Reporters are supposed to be good little leftists. Politically, culturally, and economically. Period. Grard wasn’t. So his career was to be attacked (and hopefully destroyed).
Of course it is true we only have Grard’s side of the story. But given that his union says he hasn’t had any previous disciplinary problems and claims his contract “requires that there be progressive discipline,” the matter sounds like typical leftist behavior to me.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 9, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - December 9, 2009
Tim, since Mr. Grard had a stellar reputation before this intemperate e-mail, then why such a draconian punishment. Why not just a reprimand. Not just that, as I noted above, Mr. Grard doesn’t even cover gay issues.
That said, I do hope you’re holding environmental reporters to a similar standard, you know, for the sake of consistency.
Tim, I pretty much agree with you here:
I might not go as far as you in saying it calls all dissent hateful, but like the president, they do have a bad habit of lashing out at those offering opposing views.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - December 9, 2009
Uh, Tim, please.
Reporters make their personal opinions clear all the time, and not just when editorializing or taking part in opinion programing. They make their biases very clear in their reporting all the time.
The main reason that the profession of journalism is said to be dying is because the left turned it into a propaganda machine.
Grard’s firing fits perfectly in line with this. He never, as you claim, “willingly [stepped] out of the role” of being “an objective observer and reporter.” He simply reacted privately to a message that had been sent to his e-mail account. That’s not observing and reporting. That’s just being a private individual.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 9, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - December 9, 2009
If anyone cares to read the *actual* email that Grard paraphrased above, here it is:
“who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!”"
So, you know, he “basically” said something, which he shared with people. What he, you know, “actually” said is above.
Tell me, BDB: do you think the above email shows objectivity and balance?
Comment by torrentprime — December 9, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - December 9, 2009
Oh, and this email was available from several sources. A few seconds on Google found me the info. It’s funny how you were willing to post on this without mentioning that we had never seen the original email and that this was all one side of the story. I guess that doesn’t matter when portraying how mean the left is.
Comment by torrentprime — December 9, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - December 9, 2009
And (I’ve found it easier to break this blog’s lies into chunks): HRC didn’t actually ask for the reporter to be fired. They informed his editor, who made the decision.
I’m sure that *some* part of your post is still true. Maybe a few clauses?
“A lot of the gay marriage activists have been doing a lot of hating.”
Can you find some examples of the No on 1 crowd to back this up? That is what they were emailing about, you know, not Prop 8. Or were you just going with your usual, “gay people who try to defend our rights suck” theme and guessing at the rest? And once again, no comment on the hate expressed by the right? Ever?
Comment by torrentprime — December 9, 2009 @ 7:20 pm - December 9, 2009
I am so NAIVE ……. I thought HRC was some Hillary kind of thing. So, Google edumacated me.
I hate anything involving anything that ties hate to political correctness. Excuse me, but if you gut a person because you hate him it does not change what you did or what happened to the poor soul one iota. All this “hate” crap results from libs who can forgive anything unless they are really irked.
To the point ……. the reporter called the HRC “haters” and so they took his scalp. Sounds like Neanderthal inflexible intolerance to me. Sort of like hate.
But, I can always be enlightened.
Comment by heliotrope — December 9, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - December 9, 2009
To what end? Were they hoping his editor would give him a medal?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - December 9, 2009
Who fired the guy?
How the ell do you blame HRC for the fact that the newspaper made a judgment that the journalist violated their standards? If you have a problem with him being fired, then trash the people who fired him.
Comment by Tano — December 9, 2009 @ 8:43 pm - December 9, 2009
torrent, from the article quoted above:
Despite the awkward passive construction of that phrase (well,I didn’t write) it does indicate that HRC was asking the paper fire the reporter.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - December 9, 2009
oh, and, just followed your link. Shows why I let my subscription to the Advocate lapse. They call the e-mail “anti-gay.” It was not. It was “anti-HRC.” Even though HRC may conflate the two, there is a difference.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - December 9, 2009
Tim,
I assume you don’t watch any of the MSM then?
Comment by The_Livewire — December 9, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - December 9, 2009
oh and one more thing, torrent, please point out my “lies.” When i wrote the piece I was going on the article quoted above. And it indicated HRC asked for the guy to be fired. So, am I lying,if I going on the best information available to me–what my research shows to be true.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 9, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - December 9, 2009
H, just wanted to block this, so maybe a few of the lefties will actually read it.
Comment by Leah — December 9, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - December 9, 2009
Tell me, BDB: do you think the above email shows objectivity and balance?
Did you read it?
“who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones?”
That’s what HRC said about anyone who disagrees with gay-sex marriage.
Therein lies the problem, Talkingpointsprime; you and your fellow bigots called everyone who disagrees with you haters and venom-spewers. You aren’t objective; you’re a hatemongering bigot, and someone turned that rhetoric back on you. As is typical for you liberal puppets, you can’t handle what you dish out.
Classic example of your hypocrisy and cluelessness:
Can you find some examples of the No on 1 crowd to back this up?
Easy.
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
So more white powder mailing, more church vandalism, and more examples of what the gay-sex marriage thugs are willing to do.
Why do you support that, Talkingpointsprime? Why do you support vandalism and hate against people who vote differently than you do? Is it because, as a gay-sex liberal, you must make excuses for every gay person’s bad behavior because they’re gay, just like you do for your pedophile supporters like Kevin Jennings and NAMBLA?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2009 @ 2:43 am - December 10, 2009
From the Edge Boston:
http://tinyurl.com/ye5v9jj
As far as we know, Grard sent the e-mail from his private account. Therefore, how can Thomas say the e-mail came from “a news organization”? This sounds to me like a CYA on Thomas’ part.
And why was Grard’s wife fired too?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2009 @ 4:58 am - December 10, 2009
I’m not going to challenge anybody on the fact that the media is liberal, or that a leftist reporter in the same situation would have kept his job. I am challenging anybody on the notion that a reporter should not be punished for revealing or injecting his personal opinion in the public sphere.
If anything, the guy in question KNOWS that he works in a field where he is the minority and should be MORE careful. We all know the low level thuggish tactics of the American Left, and therefore with that knowledge should never give them any cause, let alone basic journalistic acknowledgment that as a reporter you are held to a different standard, to get rid of us.
I don’t hold a steak in front of a rabid dog and then have a girl fit when it bites my hand. If you’re to go jump in the lion den to play, don’t bitch when you break the rules and get bit. I don’t go stand in the middle of any college campuses asking where all the Republicans are and cry when I can’t find any…
Comment by Tim — December 10, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - December 10, 2009
Again Tim,
So you don’t watch any of the MSM? Oh wait, you cited Rachel Maddow here
Let me hit some of her greatest hits not wanting the truth to get in the way of the democrats power.
More Maddow opinion journalism here.
Or how about ehr deciding what counts as news?
Or how about her allergy to the facts?
Of course all these come from her being on the air. If you think a reporter shouldn’t have the right to an opinion in his private life, surely such bias on the air is so much worse?
Oh, I forget, in Tim’s world, you can’t have an opinion unless you agree with him.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - December 10, 2009
So you go with the most asinine angle? Good job.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - December 10, 2009
I’m not going to challenge anybody on the fact that the media is liberal, or that a leftist reporter in the same situation would have kept his job.
Wise choice.
But then:
I am challenging anybody on the notion that a reporter should not be punished for revealing or injecting his personal opinion in the public sphere.
Rachel Maddow isn’t. Chris Matthews isn’t. Keif Olbermann isn’t. Anderson Cooper isn’t.
Furthermore, what makes your argument ludicrous is that you are acknowledging that the media is not objective, but that people in it with whom you disagree should be thrown out of it on the basis of objectivity.
Finally, this was a sweet one.
We all know the low level thuggish tactics of the American Left, and therefore with that knowledge should never give them any cause, let alone basic journalistic acknowledgment that as a reporter you are held to a different standard, to get rid of us.
Or, put differently, because there are criminals about, we shouldn’t enforce the laws and rules against them because they might get upset.
That probably explains why Tim, who’s in law enforcement, needs laws that guarantee him a job based on his sexual orientation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2009 @ 12:35 am - December 11, 2009