Posted on 02/23/2024 4:52:40 AM PST by Red Badger
As we reported, Catherine Herridge was fired from CBS during a bloodbath of them cutting hundreds of employees.
Her firing got the most attention because of her excellence in reporting and the suggestion that it was more than just a layoff when it came to her being let go, just after she'd been reporting on the Hur Report. That suspicion grew louder when it was learned that CBS had also seized Herridge's files, computers, and records, which included her "privileged sources."
According to George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley:
"The timing of Herridge’s termination immediately raised suspicions in Washington. She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur reporton Joe Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews."
This concerned many that this could "chill" reporting and sources providing information to reporters. Some like Turley and journalist Brit Hume said they had never heard of anything like this before.
Catherine Herridge has now posted an important update from SAG-Aftra, which covers broadcast journalists as well as actors. They posted a statement ripping CBS' actions and coming to her defense, demanding that CBS return her files and records to her. They indicated there was progress because of outreach from CBS and they hoped to resolve the question soon.
SAG-AFTRA strongly condemns CBS News' decision to seize Catherine Herridge's reporter notes and research from her office, including confidential source information. This action is deeply concerning to the union because it sets a dangerous precedent for all media professionals and threatens the very foundation of the First Amendment.
It is completely inappropriate for an employer to lay off a reporter and take the very unusual step of retaining and searching the reporter's files, inclusive of confidential source identification and information. From a First Amendment standpoint, a media corporation with a commitment to journalism calling a reporter’s research and confidential source reporting "proprietary information" is both shocking and absurd.
The retention of a media professional's reporting materials by their former employer is a serious break with traditional practices which supports the immediate return of reporting materials. We urge CBS to return this material to Catherine in support of the most basic of First Amendment principles. We are encouraged by recent outreach by CBS News to SAG-AFTRA on this matter, and we are hopeful that it will be resolved shortly.
Hopefully, she gets her files back, and good for SAG-Aftra for standing up for her.
Unfortunately, the horse may be outside the barn already. If the point was to root through the files to find out information, they have already had that opportunity. And would Herridge get all of it back or would some stuff be missing? Even if she gets it back, every journalist out there has to be concerned now about such actions.
People blasted CBS' actions and offered Herridge their support, praising her work.
It depends on her contract.
Exactly what I was talking about.
With AI, and it will only get more powerful, a small ‘crew’ can do the work of hundreds.
Once it gets to the point of sci-fi Star Trek level talk to the ‘computer’, tell it what you want and presto! there it is on your screen, the ‘studio’ will be just one guy.................
Now it’s on to Peter Doocy, so “decorum” and “civility” can be restored to the press briefings.
In one way it’s bad for artists and craftsmen; OTOH, as studio footprints begin to shrink, so too could their political influence.
State politicians lust after the money and prestige that Hollywood productions bring to their areas.
Keeping the operations close to home will bring help the studio bottom lines, initially. But it may cause their (former?) political allies to start ignoring their calls when favors are needed.
This could become a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It’s all another coverup for President Retard by Fake News.
You are correct... especially if the terms of the employment contract state as such... even more so if a W2 pay check transacted.
When the left/deep-state go after someone, they don’t hold back.
Yes. Absolutely what they wanted.
I told them NO, I cannot sign that. And have never regretted it a moment.
and a deadman switch
accompanied by a letter that they are not suicidal
not connected to the internet
see Sharon Atkinson
In a perfect world, CBS management and journalists would be on the same side.
But media management have been sell-outs for years because so many media enterprises are money pits.
So whoever has the money controls the media now.
Many know that as an employee, anything you produce or investigate, such as intellectual property, belongs to your employer, and a NDA stays in effect after your departure, subject to court action if you fail to hold to your agreement. While I personally would be curious to her findings, only newly written discovered findings could be reported. Nothing, covering experiences while employed by CBS.
The reason she left Fox was because CBS gave her an amazing lucrative contract to get her off the air and under their control
As soon as she hit CBS her profile stepped way down
the horse may be outside the barn already. If the point was to root through the files to find out information, they have already had that opportunity.
It is completely inappropriate for an employer to lay off a reporter and take the very unusual step of retaining and searching the reporter’s files, inclusive of confidential source identification and information. From a First Amendment standpoint, a media corporation with a commitment to journalism calling a reporter’s research and confidential source reporting “proprietary information” is both shocking and absurd.
If this is part of her usual vocation and not unique to her current/past employer, then they both have a right to her work product
the N.O.C. list is in play
(Mission Impossible reference)
“The reason she left Fox was because CBS gave her an amazing lucrative contract to get her off the air and under their control
As soon as she hit CBS her profile stepped way down”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No doubt. She was probably getting too close to something, and they bought her off. Probably fooled her into thinking she would have a voice and a platform for her findings, too.
Hopefully she can find that voice and platform somewhere supportive and meaningful.
“It is completely inappropriate for an employer to lay off a reporter and take the very unusual step of retaining and searching the reporter’s files, inclusive of confidential source identification and information.”
####################
Yes it is, but we can’t expect the Cabal to play by the rules.
Hopefully she was smart enough to see this kind of thing coming and to have backups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.