(02-23-2024 01:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 10:30 PM)fsquid Wrote:  work laptop I understand

Who told you that? CBS?

From the story above (from msn.com):

Quote:the network’s decision to hold on to her personal materials, along with her work laptop

I'm just saying holding the work laptop seems to be normal, the rest not so much

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

(02-23-2024 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 09:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 10:30 PM)fsquid Wrote:  work laptop I understand

Who told you that? CBS?

From the story above (from msn.com):

Quote:the network’s decision to hold on to her personal materials, along with her work laptop

I'd imagine CBS owns any intellectual property developed on their time. Not sure if "personal materials" means (a) written notes from research/interviews, (b) random personal stuff she saved to her C drive such as personal photos, resumes, Christmas receipts, etc., or © framed pictures of he family, awards, or other such things one tends to display in their office. What "personal materials" means is kind of important. If it is (a) or (b) the company owns it, though it would be a dickk move not to allow her to keep (b).

I also imagine CBS has a policy she signed stating that everything on her work computer is their property. If she put personal photos and files on there, that's on her.

Yeah, legally, you are correct. That said, when I had to let someone go last year, I sent all her personal stuff to her before having the computer scrubbed. Guess I was just trying to be a decent human being, but seemed like the right thing to do.

(02-23-2024 11:39 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Yeah, legally, you are correct. That said, when I had to let someone go last year, I sent all her personal stuff to her before having the computer scrubbed. Guess I was just trying to be a decent human being, but seemed like the right thing to do.

Trying to be a decent human being is not something that anybody at CBS does.

CBS Just Got Into More Trouble Over Catherine Herridge's Files, Now House Judiciary Wants Answers

Quote:Now, the House Judiciary Committee is demanding answers from CBS.

Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked who made the decision to terminate Herridge, why she was terminated, and why the files were seized, noting this was a chilling of a free press.

The Committee also requested all documents and communications relating to anyone who had access to her confidential materials or who reviewed, copied, or retained any of the materials or conducted any "forensic examination" of the materials. They want the information by March 1, not later than 5 p.m.

CBS seems to be quickly backpedaling in the face of the backlash. Now their spokesperson is claiming that “CBS News strongly denies any items were seized.”

As we previously reported, CBS claims that they "respected her request to not go through the files, and out of our concern for confidential sources, the office she occupied has remained secure since her departure.”

“We are prepared to pack up the rest of her files immediately on her behalf – with her representative present as she requested,” they said.

Sources had a slightly different take, as we noted.

The source said the network boxed up all her personal belongings except for Herridge’s notes and files and informed her that it would decide what — if anything — would be returned to her.

“They never seize documents [when you’re let go],” a second source close to the network said.

“They want to see what damaging documents she has.”

I don't think CBS thought they were going to get all this grief over their actions. But as I said, it was a bad move because now, not only are they going to have Congress coming after them, they may also have inserted themselves into Herridge's First Amendment fight since they now have her files.

Does the 1st amendment regarding freedom of the press apply to the individual journalist or just their corporate bosses?

Does the 1st amendment protect the individual journalist from their corporate bosses?

If she doesn't sue then she's not too bright. She can retire on what she'll get...or go work for a conservative site, if she can find one.

(02-25-2024 09:54 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does the 1st amendment regarding freedom of the press apply to the individual journalist or just their corporate bosses?

Does the 1st amendment protect the individual journalist from their corporate bosses?

Tell me you haven't read the 1st Amendment, without telling me you haven't read the 1st Amendment.

(02-25-2024 09:54 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does the 1st amendment regarding freedom of the press apply to the individual journalist or just their corporate bosses?

Does the 1st amendment protect the individual journalist from their corporate bosses?

It protects the individual from being imprisoned by the government. That is pretty much it. Nothing protects you from your employer firing you for anything you say.

(02-26-2024 08:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:54 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does the 1st amendment regarding freedom of the press apply to the individual journalist or just their corporate bosses?

Does the 1st amendment protect the individual journalist from their corporate bosses?

It protects the individual from being imprisoned by the government. That is pretty much it. Nothing protects you from your employer firing you for anything you say.

Does it protect the citizen from having her own work product, including sensitive political material, confiscated by her employer at the behest of the state?

CBS Returns Catherine Herridge's Files, but Sources Dish on More Questions

Quote:CBS created an uproar when they fired investigative journalist Catherine Herridge, who had been pursuing multiple stories pertaining to the Biden family, among others. Then, on top of that, the furor intensified when it came out that they'd seized her files, computers, and records.

Herridge's union, SAG-AFTRA, condemned CBS' actions. They demanded the return of the files, saying this was a dangerous precedent to set and was a threat to the First Amendment. Even the House Judiciary Committee Chair demanded to know who was behind the firing and all the documents related to her firing/the seizing of her files. They wanted answers by March 1.

I don't think CBS figured on the backlash that they were going to get. They released a statement disputing that they'd "seized" her files, claimed that her office had been secured, and that they had respected her wishes not to go through the files. Sources said that they had boxed up her personal belongings except for her files. As I noted, if that's true, that would seem someone did some review of her things, to be able to make that differentiation.

It looks like they were forced into thinking better of their actions and they've now turned over her files.

“Catherine Herridge’s union representative picked up her materials this morning,” a CBS News rep said on Monday.

They tried to cast it as a normal situation when no one looking at it perceived it as such.

“This was a standard HR conversation about materials in her office, which Catherine then referred to her union representative,” a spokesperson said. Yeah, I don't think so.

Indeed, according to reports, Herridge had faced "roadblocks from higher-ups" over her coverage of Hunter Biden and come up on the wrong side of CBS president Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews. So, was it about Biden material or about concerns that she might have some information related to wrongful termination? Sources had speculated as to both questions.

And those sources dished a bit more:

It is unclear who gave the order to seize Herridge’s files in the first place — whether it came from Ciprian-Matthews or her bosses, CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon or CBS CEO George Cheeks.

A high-ranking CBS source told The Post neither McMahon nor Cheeks were involved in the decision to hold on to Herridge’s files.

Sources close to the situation said the network was particularly rattled when SAG-AFTRA, the union representing CBS News employees, came out strongly in favor or Herridge.

So, if it wasn't McMahon or Cheeks, who could it be? Hmm...

CBS is desperately trying to fend off the backlash by giving her files back. But why did they keep them, to begin with? What were they trying to do?

Plus, how do we know that they didn't review any of the files? Herridge is likely going to have to make an assessment as to whether she got everything back.

If they don't provide the information requested by the Committee by March 1, they may next find themselves getting subpoenas to explain themselves further.