Sexual Harassment Kept Quiet
Several months ago, a sports broadcaster was immediately released by ESPN due to unknown reasons although it was long suspected that it was due to a sexual harassment claim. ESPN is the major sporting news channel in the country with monopolistic-like power on reporting all things sports. The broadcaster was let go just a few days after reporting on his daily show, Baseball Tonight, and was not heard of again. Although ESPN does a fine job on reporting major sporting scores and providing highlights for most major sporting events, they also report and discuss many news stories that have to do with anything sports. However, ESPN did not report why they had quickly fired the broadcaster and many were left wondering why they weren't seeing a usual face on such a widely-viewed television show. It was not until several weeks later that the broadcaster reported to the New York Post that he was indeed fired for alleged sexual harassment. Does ESPN have a greater responsibility to report that this major television character was dismissed for sexual harassment reasons? Were they right in not reporting anything at all to the public? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14026863
posted by jason veit at
8:41 PM
3 Comments:
First of all I may be biased because i loved Harold Reynolds on baseball tonight. But again i think it goes to show that that company took the side of the accuser right away. Mr. Reynolds barely got a chance to plead his case in which he said that a hug was just blown out of proportion. I do not believe ESPN should of disclosed this information at that time because they might had not had all the facts yet. I believe that was the case and if it was the case why did they release him right away without any further investigation? Why not suspend him until they have all the facts piled and can make a complete decision? That is where i think ESPN went wrong.
Jeremy: I've only read the MSNBC article to which Jason provided a link, but from that article, I can't agree (or disagree) that ESPN didn't investigate or that it took the word of the alleged victim or that Reynolds wasn't given a full opportunity to present his "side of the story." It is quite common for organizations like ESPN, even in high profile personnel actions like this, not to provide much detail in the public comments. ESPN is no doubt in part motivated to stay mum to avoid any defamation claims.
I am also biased in favor of Harold Reynolds. He was a reputable commentator for ESPN Baseball for several years. However, ESPN also has to consider their reputation in who they choose to represent them on the air. While the evidence is not conclusive in favor or against Harold Reynolds' sexual harrassment claim, ESPN must consider whether it the identity of employing someone that sexually harasses other employees is something they want to deal with. Although he may have been unfairly discharged, I feel ESPN made a smart decision in order to maintain their reputation.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home