The most bizarre aspect is that this is what NBC worried most about: getting scooped. Especially if their nemesis Fox News reported - accurately - the story.
It's an odd standard of proof or action as well. Is publicity alone - even negative publicity - a reason to sack their highly paid ratings bell cow? Is a late-shift review of a single complaint the proper venue and process? Does NBC have an employee handbook that applies to everyone? If so, isn't there a prescribed process for dealing with such complaints that would almost certainly take a number of days at least?
Mind you, I'm not defending Lauer or NBC but even when they do the right thing they do it in an incorrect way ie arbitrarily, based on emotion and one's man decision.
One can't help but suspect that many of their news decisions and opinions are also the product of whim.
Apparently the Washington Post has been working on the Matt Lauer story & will be published soon.
I suspect they’ve known of his predatory behavior for years, but with other media investigating—NY Slimes—they decided to get in front of it. I don’t think they would fire him over one allegation unless they were confident it was true.
Again, that’s supposition on my part.
To us outsiders it does seem precipitous.
OTOH we don't really know what the decision is based on.
There may be witnesses, evidence (a "blue dress") a confession or something else held in confidence.
I suspect there might be something to back up the allegation and they are concerned that their competition may have it or know of it.
Just my 2¢.
“bell cow”
Now there’s a term you don’t often hear/read!
And a very appropriate description.
Well done!