Skip to comments.
Chicago Writer Quits For Sex Conduct
AP ^
| 9-15-02
Posted on 09/15/2002 8:54:15 AM PDT by Cynderbean
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: NYCVirago
Most media companies, papers, radio, television, etc, have a moral clause in their employment contract.
You only have to be accused not convicted.
Iam sure this is what the Tribune used to get Greene's resignation.
41
posted on
09/15/2002 1:05:55 PM PDT
by
Don Munn
To: Cynderbean
Never a good thing to be in your teens and be late.
42
posted on
09/15/2002 1:10:24 PM PDT
by
Crawdad
To: Don Munn
Most media companies, papers, radio, television, etc, have a moral clause in their employment contract. You only have to be accused not convicted. Iam sure this is what the Tribune used to get Greene's resignation. I dunno. Look at Opie and Anthony -- WNEW has to pay them for the remainder of their multimillion-dollar contract, even though they broadcast a couple having sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral. And I strongly doubt newspapers simply fire people for having affairs, especially not somebody as powerful as Greene. Either there are some sordid details about this that the story is lacking, or Greene got rooked.
To: Cynderbean
"It started as an innocent correspondence from a reader", explained a friend.
"She always signed her letters 'ClassyGreenEyedBlonde' in multi-color."
To: Cynderbean
Saturday, January 6, 2001
In todays news cycle, nothing sticks
By Bob Greene
On the weekend after Election Day and it feels like it was a million years ago, although it was only two months I was in Sarasota, on the west coast of Florida, and I had to get up to St. Petersburg.
David Gergen, who was a White House adviser to four presidents (Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton), had to get to the same place, so we shared a ride. Id never met Gergen before, and Im unaccustomed to spending much time with people who have played at his elevated level of the national political firmament, but I found him to be a very pleasant and easygoing guy. He was sick as could be that day, coughing every few minutes, and at one point we stopped at a drugstore so he could try to buy some over-the-counter medication that might help him.
During the moments he was able to suppress his coughing fits we talked about the election crisis Im quite certain neither of us guessed that it would still be Topic One well into December and we each came to the conclusion that George W. Bush and Al Gore would be doing the country an enormous favor if they would make a joint statement ideally a joint appearance before the nation to emphasize that regardless of which way the voting turned out, they wanted to reassure all of us that they understood all Americans were in this together, including (and especially) the two of them. That joint appearance, of course or any direct communication between the two men would not come until Bush finally was officially the president-elect.
At one point I asked Gergen who had been in the White House during moments of the highest national drama if he thought there would arrive a day when the events of Election 2000 would loom larger in the history books than Watergate.
He barely hesitated. No, he said. I cant imagine that. I think that Watergate will always be bigger than this.
I agree with him but for a different reason.
Watergate or so I believe Gergen was saying will forever be the bigger story because it concerned the resignation from office of a sitting president, some would say the driving from office of that president. Gergens point was that no presidential election, no matter how close, can compare with that for historic weight.
My feeling is that, even with the riveting events of Election 2000, this story will never surpass Watergate not because of the relative heft of the events, but because of a societal change that has transformed our country in the years since 1973 and 1974.
Put most basically, it is this: Nothing sticks.
The frenzy over the Bush-Gore contest seems, today, like the most indelible scenario that could ever confront a democracy, and certainly it has been portrayed that way.
We as a nation have never encountered anything quite like this, and the 24-hour news networks drummed every development into our consciousness so relentlessly (and so efficiently) that it has seemed no news story could conceivably feel more urgent.
The problem is, this same sort of thing happened relatively recently during the impeachment drive against President Clinton.
Then, like now, we were regularly reminded that we had entered uncharted territory. Then, like now, each fillip in the story was delivered to the populace with the kind of symbolic trumpet blares that once were the exclusive domain of eight-column, triple-bank, all-caps banner headlines. And the details the accusations about the president of the United States that were on a daily basis being publicly printed and broadcast were of such an explicit nature that many people had trouble comprehending that these allegations were a steady part of the civic conversation. There truly had been nothing like it before in Americas discourse and all of this made it all the way to the United States Senate.
Now? Its all but forgotten. Oh, the country knows that it took place but everyone, including the president, has moved on (as has everyone in the previously ubiquitous story of the celebrated ex-football player accused of murdering his former wife). Nixons leavetaking of the White House feels, a quarter-century later, considerably more vivid than what happened with Clinton just a few years ago. Why?
Because nothing sticks.
That is the main thing that has changed in this country. With the nonstop barrage of information and entertainment from all directions every minute, with the new need to ceaselessly feed our paradoxically passive hunger, everything for a moment carries the weight of those old-time screaming banner headlines. But when the moment passes, it is as if the specific event that seemed so important has vaporized, evaporated. Its not that the event is over. Its that the event seems, vaguely, never to have really happened. It leaves only a vacuum that insatiable hunger for more.
The seemingly endless run of Election 2000 made perfect sense. Not necessarily legal sense, but sense in the context of our new sensibility. This story wasnt supposed to be over it was getting great ratings. Shows dont get canceled when the ratings are still high.
And when this finally does pass into history? Something else will soon come along. Nothing sticks except for the bottomless hunger.
Chicago Tribune
http://www.reporternews.com/2001/opinion/cycle0106.html
To: NYCVirago
It depends on the contract. The radio guys contract could say if the FCC nails your license but it was not outside their employment and that's the key. But here in Chicago that's the second Tribune staffer to get bounced for sex.
A sports broadcaster got caught in a minor internet sting.
46
posted on
09/15/2002 1:45:01 PM PDT
by
Don Munn
To: Glenn
I just read him once in the last several months. It was the 9/11/02 column. He talked about all kinds of emotions "Americans" are feeling about that day - but never once mentioned "anger". He has always struck me as a useless soft liberal who tried to sound like a normal person.
Maybe now he can move to Harlem and ghost-write for his role model, Billy.
47
posted on
09/15/2002 1:45:14 PM PDT
by
Bernard
To: Glenn
His columns on what some children have suffered at the hands of their parents would have you in tears. No one has done more good for abused children - we're talking physical torture here if you aren't familiar with his journalistic crusades to protect children and hold the feet of criminally incompetent judges to the fire.
Check the archives of his articles at the CGO Tribune site.
To: thucydides
I believe when they first met, and the first thong was snapped, she was under 20. I remember reading something about how the White House was at pains to try to emphasize an older age for her. In any case, the conduct was reprehensible. I remember that also. The look on the Clitonista's collective face was as if they had dodged a bullet and were looking to see if anyone noticed. Of course, no Republican made an issue out of it.
49
posted on
09/15/2002 1:59:25 PM PDT
by
Slyfox
To: Cynderbean
FUTURE HEADLINE NEWS.com: BECKEL & GREENE SIGN A CONTRACT WITH CNN TO DO THE DnC FAMILY HOUR NEWS!
Could something like this really happen? Stay tuned. -from The-Not-Real-Or-Credible News Channel and the-no-such-thing-as-FutureHeadlineNews.com
50
posted on
09/15/2002 1:59:39 PM PDT
by
Cindy
To: Slyfox
I have since found that Monica was born in July 1973. So it may be the issue was over whether she had reached 21 or not.
To: JCG
The 17-year-old, whom I know personally, told me to my face
that when she was in a bar with Greene he propositioned her, back in 1982 or 1983. If you can't handle the truth about what Greene is, that's your problem, not mine. If anyone needs Lysol, it's Greene.
To: Trickyguy
The 17-year-old, whom I know personally, told me to my face that when she was in a bar with Greene he propositioned her, back in 1982 or 1983. Back around 1982-3, Greene would have been 35. The fact that the girl was in a bar would lead to the conclusion that she was trying to pass herself off as 18+
A 35 yo guy with a girl he could assume was 18-20 would not be terribly out of line.
To: Trickyguy
A seventeen year old in a bar gets propositioned by a thirty something year old. Maybe laws are different where I am, but either she looked 21 or had fake ID (probably a few other scenarios none sweet and inocent).
If she can't say what year it was but remembers her age at the time, she was scamming.
This is looking weirder and weirder.
DK
To: strela
A kiddie diddler gets what was coming to him. Nothing to see here.Nineteen is no 'kiddie'.
To: AppyPappy
That's what separates the men from the boys. Men can resist temptation.Agreed, but do we know Green is married?
To: Lazamataz
Agreed, but do we know Green is married? I don't see the relevance.
To: AppyPappy
I don't see the relevance.The relevance is, if a older man wishes to date a younger woman, and he is not married, not only is it okay, it is none of our honking business.
When I was 24, I was dating a 42 year old.
May/December romances are not morally objectionable, unless you are one of these busybody types who's got a freakin' opinion about EVERYthing someone else does.
To: Trickyguy
The 17-year-old, whom I know personally, told me to my face that when she was in a bar with Greene he propositioned her, back in 1982 or 1983.Right. That was just after she bought him that 8th tequila shot.
If you can't handle the truth about what Greene is, that's your problem, not mine. If anyone needs Lysol, it's Greene.
I'm supposed to get the truth from someone who goes by Trickyguy?
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
59
posted on
09/15/2002 3:36:59 PM PDT
by
JCG
To: AppyPappy
PS: That was the 'royal you' above, I am not accusing you of being one of those busybody types.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson