Text 27363, 67 rader
Skriven 2009-02-10 01:35:51 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Phelps Smokes a Bong
============================
Hello Ross,

On Monday February 09 2009 09:25, you wrote to me:

 RC>>> I bet the TV News Anchors at your local TV station have
 RC>>> contracts that enable the station to dismiss them or reassign
 RC>>> them, should said anchor get into trouble?

 MV>> I don't know for sure, the conract are not on public record, but
 MV>> I severely doubt it. I have never heard about "morality clauses"
 MV>> in such contracts. Nobody ever tried to slip something like that
 MV>> on me, and I have had some resticting contracts tried on me....

 RC> I bet they do exist..

It's your money....

 RC> The marketting and media industries are very cut throat and image is
 RC> everything. A news anchor isnt going to gain an audience, keep one or
 RC> be trusted by one if they are known to have committed an act that
 RC> society would consider illegal or immoral.

You forget that in this part of the world we take a different look at those
things. Regarding the moral part anyway. Morals aren't absolute and what the
one considers immoral is perfectly ok for someone else. Also we tend to keep
our private lives seperate from our public life.

News readers are public figures, but their littke is known about their private
lives and they are seldo the target of the tabloids.

 RC> Dan Rather was forced off his position at CBS when he used
 RC> questionable information that was not the truth.

I can think of no equivalent of that here. news readers do not make the news,
they just read it...

 RC> I dont think you quite get it, a contract protects both parties, it
 RC> spells out what the employer will do if the employee does what s/he
 RC> must do. Once signed, either can sue the other if the contract is
 RC> breached.

If it is an individual against a big company, it is usually the individual that
gets the short stick.

 RC>>> If you headed a company that made super duper widgets and you
 RC>>> hired a National Celebrity to endorse your product, what would
 RC>>> you do if that celebrity while out on his own time raped 3 woman
 RC>>> and admitted to it? Would you want a rapist endorsing your
 RC>>> widgets?

 MV>> In that case the problem would solve itself. When he gets
 MV>> convicted, he goes to jail and can no longer fulfil his part of
 MV>> the deal. And *that* is ground for dismissal.

 RC> Not much different from a morals clause, which would prevent someone
 RC> from fulfilling their end of the deal. A well known celebrity is a
 RC> markettable product for as long as the public see's them that way. If
 RC> a endorser injures their marketability then they cannot uphold their
 RC> end of the deal.

I still say moral clauses are immoral.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)