Katy, you are wrong. There was no excuse for the way Jad was treated. It’s all about context. Comedy is its own context and public radio needs to get a grip - they’re claiming diversity & acting the opposite.
Katy, you are wrong. There was no excuse for the way Jad was treated. It’s all about context. Comedy is its own context and public radio needs to get a grip - they’re claiming diversity & acting the opposite.
NPR does a lot of favorable to neutral coverage of edgy artists - Sascha Baron Cohen for just one. It’s not the same as a job at a bank. And context counts. He wasn’t expressing personal opinions or acting as a reporter or journalist. It was comedy. Also, his boss and coworkers knew about it.
This is so true and something I didn't consider. Remember when the song WAP came out? NPR fell all over themselves to try and seem cool and edgy by interviewing the artists and talking about the song, and they do that all the time with controversial hip hop shit that pisses conservatives off.
That’s a really good point, Edward. I always lean toward defending the underdog, but I think you may have changed my mind on this one. I didn’t consider the years spent cultivating a reputation that a business depends on and that it can be undone instantly by an employee who doesn’t share the same risk. I enjoy reading these posts, they always give me a new perspective.
I get that but I don’t blame him for fighting back and being upset about it — his colleagues and higher-ups followed him on social media AND talked to him about his comedy, and they said it was fun and even asked for tickets. He was hit with this out of the blue.
I don’t blame him either. He’s fighting for survival. I would do the same. However, he did sign an agreement with the company, not with his supervisors or coworkers. Regardless of their enjoyment or appreciation of his humour, he was still bound by his contract. To quote Jesse “it’s complicated.”
As far as I know no one forced him to sign a contract saying he agreed not to put things on his socials that might affect the company. Fair doesn’t really come into it. If he didn’t want to agree to the terms, he needed to negotiate his contract better or find different employment.
This isn’t really a great argument when employees need to work to live though. NPR even has a strong union and yet they all have to sign these contracts - it’s not something that can be negotiated, we’ll maybe if you’re famous you could but not the avg employee
Great argument or not, it is a reality. That’s the thing about living in a litigious society, you have to honor your agreements. Do you think he should be able to put a company and all its employees at risk so he can do a comedy routine that is specifically designed offensive humor? And don’t bother tell me they’re too big. Anheuser-Busch lost $27 billion over trying to be edgy, and don’t believe for a minute that the higher ups are going to face a cut for it. The “avg employee” is going to take a pay cut or get dumped. The risk of offending and getting financially screwed is all too real.
Reality? NPR covers edgy stuff all the time, this was a comedy act - he wasn't acting as an NPR employee nor mentioning it onstage. His supervisor as a representative of the company knew about it and did not warn him, the judge in the courtroom sided with him in spite of the fact that he was acting as his own lawyer -- it's hard to buy the idea that he was putting his company and all its employees at risk. If he were working for a church, maybe. But a media company? A liberal one at that? That doesn't seem clear at all. I think your idea of the Overton window is shifted too far to the right. Of course, there's the spine test - on that perhaps NPR has shifted in the jello direction.
Your spine test analogy was exactly my point. Thank you. You made it far better than I did. Businesses are afraid to the point of having to fire employees for the most mundane of actions, and they have legal contracts to do so. I just saw a video on Instagram where the commenters were demanding to know who the subject of the video was so they could “destroy” the person. Companies see that and respond. The supervisor can approve of whatever they want, they are not the ones with liability, and they weren’t responsible for signing his contract. As for assuming I’m too far right, you clearly don’t know me at all, but the implied insult proves the point even further. Thanks for the insight.
I'm sorry, I wasn't implying you were too far to the right (not that I would be trying to insult you if I did). I was talking about the Overton window and your perception of it. I'm not sure how you think NPR would be legally liable for an employee's comedy act? That Instagram video response sounds terrible, but I wonder if giving in to people who threaten to "destroy" others doesn't threaten to crush fundamental freedoms?
I think you and I are on the same track, though coming from different directions. NPR wouldn’t be liable for his comedy act, but that wouldn’t prevent social media attention from it affecting their bottom line. That’s exactly why they had the contract, he agreed to, in the first place. Companies want to be able to manage the perception of their brand. Is it morally or ethically right to ask that of employees? I honestly don’t know. I’m just trying to understand what happened and why.
As to your comments about my perceptions, I always appreciate it when people stick to the arguments presented and don’t make assumptions about another person’s character or beliefs. You guessed what I think and tried to paint me with a particular brush. I’m fairly certain that’s exactly what NPR did with this situation. They would (rightly) assume people would hear certain words, get offended- not bothering to understand his routine, and cause problems for them. It’s simply not worth the risk for a corporation.
He DID in effect create "an anonymous persona" by CHANGING HIS NAME (even if ever so slightly.). And it seems almost EVERYBODY AT HIS JOB WAS AWARE OF HIS COMEDY ACT. So what's your point exactly?
Your points seem to contradict each other. He was hardly anonymous if everyone knew. And there’s no need to “YELL,” we’re just discussing different views of the situation. Isn’t that what this podcast is for?
No worries. I personally like the guy and really hope that he can launch a successful comedy career and leave this business behind him. I’m just noodling around with the legalities of the situation. It seems like the lawyer did a pretty poor job representing the company, but that could’ve been a creative editing choice for the podcast.
This is kinda my position with the caveat I liked the jokes and found the guy funny and wish him the best. And also fighting the unemployment claim was overzealous.
Your employer might now own you, but he or she owns your job. And in the US, capital owners have a lot of rights. We have at will employment which means you can be fired for any or no reason. So it's not about them needing to pay you 24/7, it's about you needing to find a new job.
Reminds me of the twitter debate and free speech which so many get so wrong. Legally, Twitter is the owner of the platform and THEY have free speech and the government can't make them publish things they don't want to. Twitter is not the government, so individuals do not have protected speech rights on the platform. Here, the employer is the owner of the job and has really full rights to hire and fire as they see fit, except if a union is involved and thus Jad will probably get his job back, it seems.
the employer owns the job and twitter own free speech, that sums up american capitalism which is just a step away from fascism. fascism with lots of celebreties
His discretion was part of what they were paying him for, it was in his contract. I’m not disputing whether it was right or ideal or what “should be.” I’m simply stating that he agreed to a code of conduct and that was cause for dismissal. We saw Bud Light lose billions for putting a picture on a few cans and a single employee of the company calling their key demographic names. There’s money and other people’s livelihoods at stake now more than ever.
I don't think Katie is in any way morally justifying management's reaction -- but that's not to say their reaction is unexpected, and if we're going to make use of this story moving forward people should be anticipating corporate blowback. Katie literally summarises her view at the end that it's not right, it simply is the way things are.
I got the impression that she was talking about the chilling effect on your speech that you inherently have as a worker in public radio. Seems pretty straightforward to me: if you're in a v liberal institution and have recordings of you making edgy jokes, it only takes one person with a grudge to make that a problem for you so you should probably tread carefully.
Honestly I think it would have been reasonable for the station to be like 'You gotta be more anonymous online' or something like that. When you're government and public funded you gotta be super careful to avoid negative press that could jeopardise it. The problem wasn't the station having a problem with it, the problem was the way over-the-top reaction.
Katy, you are wrong. There was no excuse for the way Jad was treated. It’s all about context. Comedy is its own context and public radio needs to get a grip - they’re claiming diversity & acting the opposite.
Where I work we have a strict policy regulating what we can post on social media on our personal accounts.
It's intended to prevent the loss of legitimacy in the institution.
If I want to try my hand at raw dog comedy, I'd either have to create an anonymous persona on the side or turn in my badge.
And I certainly would never expect to get away with putting clips of my act on the internet with my identity visible.
NPR does a lot of favorable to neutral coverage of edgy artists - Sascha Baron Cohen for just one. It’s not the same as a job at a bank. And context counts. He wasn’t expressing personal opinions or acting as a reporter or journalist. It was comedy. Also, his boss and coworkers knew about it.
This is so true and something I didn't consider. Remember when the song WAP came out? NPR fell all over themselves to try and seem cool and edgy by interviewing the artists and talking about the song, and they do that all the time with controversial hip hop shit that pisses conservatives off.
That’s a really good point, Edward. I always lean toward defending the underdog, but I think you may have changed my mind on this one. I didn’t consider the years spent cultivating a reputation that a business depends on and that it can be undone instantly by an employee who doesn’t share the same risk. I enjoy reading these posts, they always give me a new perspective.
I get that but I don’t blame him for fighting back and being upset about it — his colleagues and higher-ups followed him on social media AND talked to him about his comedy, and they said it was fun and even asked for tickets. He was hit with this out of the blue.
I don’t blame him either. He’s fighting for survival. I would do the same. However, he did sign an agreement with the company, not with his supervisors or coworkers. Regardless of their enjoyment or appreciation of his humour, he was still bound by his contract. To quote Jesse “it’s complicated.”
Seems like it was way more than "tacit approval", if you ask me.
As far as I know no one forced him to sign a contract saying he agreed not to put things on his socials that might affect the company. Fair doesn’t really come into it. If he didn’t want to agree to the terms, he needed to negotiate his contract better or find different employment.
This isn’t really a great argument when employees need to work to live though. NPR even has a strong union and yet they all have to sign these contracts - it’s not something that can be negotiated, we’ll maybe if you’re famous you could but not the avg employee
Great argument or not, it is a reality. That’s the thing about living in a litigious society, you have to honor your agreements. Do you think he should be able to put a company and all its employees at risk so he can do a comedy routine that is specifically designed offensive humor? And don’t bother tell me they’re too big. Anheuser-Busch lost $27 billion over trying to be edgy, and don’t believe for a minute that the higher ups are going to face a cut for it. The “avg employee” is going to take a pay cut or get dumped. The risk of offending and getting financially screwed is all too real.
Reality? NPR covers edgy stuff all the time, this was a comedy act - he wasn't acting as an NPR employee nor mentioning it onstage. His supervisor as a representative of the company knew about it and did not warn him, the judge in the courtroom sided with him in spite of the fact that he was acting as his own lawyer -- it's hard to buy the idea that he was putting his company and all its employees at risk. If he were working for a church, maybe. But a media company? A liberal one at that? That doesn't seem clear at all. I think your idea of the Overton window is shifted too far to the right. Of course, there's the spine test - on that perhaps NPR has shifted in the jello direction.
Your spine test analogy was exactly my point. Thank you. You made it far better than I did. Businesses are afraid to the point of having to fire employees for the most mundane of actions, and they have legal contracts to do so. I just saw a video on Instagram where the commenters were demanding to know who the subject of the video was so they could “destroy” the person. Companies see that and respond. The supervisor can approve of whatever they want, they are not the ones with liability, and they weren’t responsible for signing his contract. As for assuming I’m too far right, you clearly don’t know me at all, but the implied insult proves the point even further. Thanks for the insight.
I'm sorry, I wasn't implying you were too far to the right (not that I would be trying to insult you if I did). I was talking about the Overton window and your perception of it. I'm not sure how you think NPR would be legally liable for an employee's comedy act? That Instagram video response sounds terrible, but I wonder if giving in to people who threaten to "destroy" others doesn't threaten to crush fundamental freedoms?
I think you and I are on the same track, though coming from different directions. NPR wouldn’t be liable for his comedy act, but that wouldn’t prevent social media attention from it affecting their bottom line. That’s exactly why they had the contract, he agreed to, in the first place. Companies want to be able to manage the perception of their brand. Is it morally or ethically right to ask that of employees? I honestly don’t know. I’m just trying to understand what happened and why.
As to your comments about my perceptions, I always appreciate it when people stick to the arguments presented and don’t make assumptions about another person’s character or beliefs. You guessed what I think and tried to paint me with a particular brush. I’m fairly certain that’s exactly what NPR did with this situation. They would (rightly) assume people would hear certain words, get offended- not bothering to understand his routine, and cause problems for them. It’s simply not worth the risk for a corporation.
He DID in effect create "an anonymous persona" by CHANGING HIS NAME (even if ever so slightly.). And it seems almost EVERYBODY AT HIS JOB WAS AWARE OF HIS COMEDY ACT. So what's your point exactly?
Your points seem to contradict each other. He was hardly anonymous if everyone knew. And there’s no need to “YELL,” we’re just discussing different views of the situation. Isn’t that what this podcast is for?
Yes, sorry for the yelling - My bad.
No worries. I personally like the guy and really hope that he can launch a successful comedy career and leave this business behind him. I’m just noodling around with the legalities of the situation. It seems like the lawyer did a pretty poor job representing the company, but that could’ve been a creative editing choice for the podcast.
Thank you!
This is kinda my position with the caveat I liked the jokes and found the guy funny and wish him the best. And also fighting the unemployment claim was overzealous.
Your employer might now own you, but he or she owns your job. And in the US, capital owners have a lot of rights. We have at will employment which means you can be fired for any or no reason. So it's not about them needing to pay you 24/7, it's about you needing to find a new job.
Reminds me of the twitter debate and free speech which so many get so wrong. Legally, Twitter is the owner of the platform and THEY have free speech and the government can't make them publish things they don't want to. Twitter is not the government, so individuals do not have protected speech rights on the platform. Here, the employer is the owner of the job and has really full rights to hire and fire as they see fit, except if a union is involved and thus Jad will probably get his job back, it seems.
the employer owns the job and twitter own free speech, that sums up american capitalism which is just a step away from fascism. fascism with lots of celebreties
His discretion was part of what they were paying him for, it was in his contract. I’m not disputing whether it was right or ideal or what “should be.” I’m simply stating that he agreed to a code of conduct and that was cause for dismissal. We saw Bud Light lose billions for putting a picture on a few cans and a single employee of the company calling their key demographic names. There’s money and other people’s livelihoods at stake now more than ever.
If he worked for me and I found it I would do lots of coughing advising him how to hide it but I do think your hand gets forced in these situations.
I don’t think this is a healthy culture at all.
I don't think Katie is in any way morally justifying management's reaction -- but that's not to say their reaction is unexpected, and if we're going to make use of this story moving forward people should be anticipating corporate blowback. Katie literally summarises her view at the end that it's not right, it simply is the way things are.
I'm so confused, I didn't hear anybody being pissy, lmao. Are you reading BARPOD fanfiction or something
This. Just because public radio is uptight by default doesn't make it right.
I got the impression that she was talking about the chilling effect on your speech that you inherently have as a worker in public radio. Seems pretty straightforward to me: if you're in a v liberal institution and have recordings of you making edgy jokes, it only takes one person with a grudge to make that a problem for you so you should probably tread carefully.
Honestly I think it would have been reasonable for the station to be like 'You gotta be more anonymous online' or something like that. When you're government and public funded you gotta be super careful to avoid negative press that could jeopardise it. The problem wasn't the station having a problem with it, the problem was the way over-the-top reaction.
Sure, but she is also self-employed. It's pretty obvious she agrees he was treated unfairly of the episode would likely not exist.