Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Things must be really bad there. There is nothing worse than being miserable in your job, especially when you have to put on a happy face and try to act like everything is is fine. Anybody know any more than what is in this story?
Sounds like a courageous decision on their part. I wish them the best.
Sounds like it until you read the article. According to management they were about to get canned anyway.
Quote:
"Sometimes people leave before they're officially told to leave," said Mike Palmer, station vice president and general manager. He declined to discuss issues that may have caused disagreements but said, "There are things that they know."
And the reward for this courage?
Quote:
Asked about reaction from viewers in the small market served by WVII, Palmer said, "I have not heard from a single viewer."
Interesting - although it will even more interesting if it comes out - unlikely, I know - that the reason is because the management was blocking good news stories, or was slanting the election coverage.
i think its good they were able to say goodbye to the viewers before they left. being in the public eye....it is nice to say goodbye when you have the chance and not when dictated by someone else.
I can't help but think the manager's claim that the anchors were being fired anyway was an attempt to save face, the sort of claim an arrogant boss will make when he didn't get the chance to have the final word. The whole "I haven't heard any complaints from viewers" thing is especially questionable, since local anchors (especially ones in their jobs as long as those two) are often treated as local celebrities and part of the fabric of locals' lives. How could he not have heard any complaints? I've seen this story on at least four different internet sites, so the story has gone viral. If he hasn't seen negative feedback, then he's actively avoiding any sort of criticism/feedback--which seems to be what the anchors were fed up about, anyway.
None of us know what the actual inside facts were, yet we have several here who instantly side with the newscasters, something of a "If they are mangement, then they must be greedy corporate SOBs" dynamic.
Why is that any more valid than assuming that the news anchors are good looking airheads who decided that their popularity meant that they got to dictate to their bosses?
Things must be really bad there. There is nothing worse than being miserable in your job, especially when you have to put on a happy face and try to act like everything is is fine. Anybody know any more than what is in this story?
I'd suggest going to the Maine forum here, no. They may be talking about it or start a thread there and maybe they'll talk about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
