gee dan, could you set the bar a little higher? the only reason you made that challenge is because you know i can’t provide that email, if it even exists. but it doesn’t even matter, because even if i could produce that email, it doesn’t make your impulsive, ill-informed and kneejerk reaction any more palatable. a more even-keeled person might have surveyed the facts and cautioned against judgment, but you have already decided that hrc is culpable, even though you acknowledge that you are missing a critical piece of information.

Then this gentleman needs to find a more traditionalist-minded employer who will overlook something like this just like the liberals you mention have chosen employment for bosses who share their particular worldview.

Or, perhaps people who are in the business of reporting the news should stop being left-wing thought-nazis.

23: Then this gentleman needs to find a more traditionalist-minded employer who will overlook something like this just like the liberals you mention have chosen employment for bosses who share their particular worldview.

Mind you, I say all of this assuming that no Federal, State or local laws were violated in the termination or even contractual obligations. If any were, this gentleman should pursue his rights in the appropriate venue.

If he sent this email during working hours and/or on a company computer, I have no sympathy for him.

I think a little sympathy would be in order under those circumstances.

I assure you, left-wing reporters give conservatives pieces of their minds all the time without being fired (or even reprimanded) all the time.

The guy is a journalist, and broke professional ethics and standards in inserting his personal opinion directly in the face of a group he would need to maintain object contact with. … This guy made himself damaged goods by not exercising self restraint, and was punished appropriately for it.

Tim, oh, Tim. Why are you such an ass? I mean really.

I try not to be intemperate (there’s that word again!) and impolite in my comments, but the people like you so try my patience with your foolishness.

On the original thread on this story, Dan asked you:

Tim, since Mr. Grard had a stellar reputation before this intemperate e-mail, then why such a draconian punishment. Why not just a reprimand.

You didn’t reply.

On that same thread, I told you:

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.

You didn’t respond to that either. But here’s your second chance!

Tell us, did you think that woman on CNN who got into the TEA Party protestor’s face during her live reporter deserved to be fired for inserting her personal biases into her coverage?

Would you take such umbrage every time a reporter has words with a conservative group? (We know this happens because such groups have complained about it. I don’t recall anyone being fired, though.)

Why don’t you just admit you’re a nasty little leftist who enjoys seeing a conservative lose his job? The truth is freeing, after all.

how fucking tin-eared must a professional writer be to not realize that you people… can sound pretty hostile, and particularly when addressed to members of a minority demographic?

Oh, spare us. The freaking Ross Perot controversy all over again!

Any minority bothered by Grard’s “you hateful people” needs professional help in getting over his militant hypersensitivity.

Intemperate and childish it was…

You continue to call Grard’s note to HRC intemperate, and I still fail to see much of anything intemperate in it.

You have already established that the HRC is intemperate and childish for calling Doug Hoffman an anti-gay extremist “for holding the same position on gay marriage as the incumbent Democratic President of the United States.” Calling them out on their ‘everyone who disagrees with us is evil’ attitude hardly seems intemperate. Perhaps the “good riddance” was a little over the top, but still…

First, they say this:

Newspapers rely on their guys being objective observers and keeping their horse out of the race so they can appear objective and sell newspapers.

But previously, they were saying this:

If they know one of their media contacts is going to be unhelpful in getting their message across, I think they acted appropriately in their own self interest.

So Tim demands newspapers be objective…..but that they slant their stories in favor of “getting (HRC’s) message across”.

HRC would not have cared if this guy sent them a favorable email. But when he didn’t, they got all upset about “objectivity”.

They simply aren’t capable of being criticized. And given that they themselves fund and support people who support amendments against gay marriage, they’re a bunch of lying, pathetic hypocrites.

Do you think before you defend, Tim? Or are you just of the mind that everything another gay person does is right?

Second, why did they give a crap about his particular e-mail to spend so much time on it?

Third, I’m guessing the e-mail to the editor was carefully worded as a CYA on HRC’s part so they have deniability. That gives douchenozzles like Tim and ghillie to rant about how the HRC assholes are totally blameless.

Let’s not forget the apparent and typical hostility of the e-mail from the high priced whores at HRC.

But, even if new facts come to light, that doesn’t change the point of this particular post.

Newspapers rely on their guys being objective observers and keeping their horse out of the race so they can appear objective

Objective?!?  Like The New York Times?  Or the Washington Post? Maybe CBS? NBC? ABC?

Look, we all have that urge now and again: “so-and-so acted crappy to me and now I’m going to make him pay!”  The point is that we act like adults and don’t act on those impulses.  Well, maybe HRC does…

Best wishes,
-MFS

but my comment was a good-faith attempt to engage you on a substantive issue. i think you rushed to judgment regarding HRC’s role in grard’s firing, based solely on his self-serving account of the incident. in this post, you give a very charitable reading to grard’s email, which in my opinion, provides more evidence of your anti-hrc bias.