John A is back

[Goodgood]

I think none of this is our business. It is between an employer and an employee. If the employer thinks that the employee is not doing his job properly, then it is up to the employer to what is necessary to correct the problem.

I have no problem with John A appreciating whatever. But is he doing his job? The Currant didn't think so and that is the end of this.

 

[OldAlum]

Context is everything.

You may admire a pretty young girl. But in most workplaces you cant use their time and resources to publicly and repeatedly express your sexual longings.
Let's say you have a client who comes into the office with a gorgeous young woman as his trainee. You probably recognize that it would be inappropriate to make sexual comments to her or speak to her as you would when meeting in a bar. Especially when you are neglecting your client in favor of paying attention to her.
I would expect that you and your buddies would talk about her privately or over some drinks.
Would you expect to be able to post on your company website on company time about how "hot" this client was? Even if you used your own twitter account on which you identified yourself as a representative of your company, such public comments could easily get you fired - especially if the client saw them.

We don't know what happened between John A and the Courant higher-ups. But I think it is reasonable to suppose that they felt his comments were not well-received by the Courant's clients and that it was not the job he was assigned and reflected poorly on the paper.

I haven't heard anybody who thought it was a criminal act. I thought it was a lack of insight into his audience and his professional responsibilities. Some people found his comments "creepy" and reflect that on him as a person while others view it as human (male) nature.

 

[Wally East]

Old Alum--you nailed it---we men are wired and the Hormones flow wildly (as they were set up ions ago to do) at the sight of a lightly clad female body---it takes years of study for me to come to the conclusion -- men are fools when it comes to women
However--If it's wrong for John A to do as a Reporter it must be wrong for whatever he did to be wrong as a human being. What's the real difference?? Arrest him, sue him if it's that wrong--that's why we have laws that control peoples actions and why we have constitutional rights to free speech (as extended to the written word)- and we have libel/slander--Right is Right Wrong is Wrong--.

Oh my. No. There are things that are fine to do as a human being that are not fine to do as a reporter. Swearing, for instance -- not fine to do as a reporter.

Nor is this a First Amendment issue. The government is not constraining his speech. Free speech does not mean speech comes without consequences -- one of those consequences can be repercussions at your place of employment.

And, blaming biology, frankly, is laughably unacceptable. You are an adult living in a civilized society. You are expected to act in a responsible manner. That means treating people respectfully -- all the time. (I won't venture into whether John's tweets were respectful, it doesn't matter if I think so, the Courant did not.)

 

[Striper69]

post pics from your Twitter account so the rest of us can enjoy as well... btw they're most likely not "college students"

Ha ha...maybe go to a Suns game?

 

[Striper69]

As a woman, I don't find him offensive at all. Aren't you used to men turning into babbling fools over beautiful women by now?

If Kerith Burke hadn't felt it necessary to publicly humiliate John instead of just shooting him an email asking him to reconsider his tweet, none of these "righteously indignant" threads (thanks, Rocky) would ever have happened.

I watched the Texas/UCONN game and went "yawn" when I saw the cheerleaders. Like- what's all the fuss about?

But...I do appreciate a beautiful woman. I just don't rave about it at work.

 

[Kibitzer]

I think none of this is our business. It is between an employer and an employee. If the employer thinks that the employee is not doing his job properly, then it is up to the employer to what is necessary to correct the problem.

I have no problem with John A appreciating whatever. But is he doing his job? The Currant didn't think so and that is the end of this.

Spot-on comment. Now, permit a personal view.

I have six daughters (all now adults, most with families). I never allowed any of them to be cheerleaders. Why? My prception was that back in the (very early) days of sports at the college and even high school level, all the teams were strictly male. So some bright guy somewhere had the inspired idea to throw the girls a bone -- thus the birth of cheerleaders, with the inevitable bonus effect of adding a little sexiness to the otherwise masculine proceedings. And it must work as envisioned because just about every pro/college/HS has cheerleaders (as sexy as permissable locally). Are the Steelers still holding out?

I persist in my curmudgeon opinion that cheerleading is merely glorified public exhibitionism and an exploitation of attractive young ladies.

A few years ago Red Auerbach swore that the Boston Celtics would never have a dance team perform during time outs, etc. The Celtics opened their season (new management) on a Thursday. Red died the preceding Monday.

 

[CL82]

Context is everything.

You may admire a pretty young girl. But in most workplaces you cant use their time and resources to publicly and repeatedly express your sexual longings.
Let's say you have a client who comes into the office with a gorgeous young woman as his trainee. You probably recognize that it would be inappropriate to make sexual comments to her or speak to her as you would when meeting in a bar. Especially when you are neglecting your client in favor of paying attention to her.
I would expect that you and your buddies would talk about her privately or over some drinks.
Would you expect to be able to post on your company website on company time about how "hot" this client was? Even if you used your own twitter account on which you identified yourself as a representative of your company, such public comments could easily get you fired - especially if the client saw them.

We don't know what happened between John A and the Courant higher-ups. But I think it is reasonable to suppose that they felt his comments were not well-received by the Courant's clients and that it was not the job he was assigned and reflected poorly on the paper.

I haven't heard anybody who thought it was a criminal act. I thought it was a lack of insight into his audience and his professional responsibilities. Some people found his comments "creepy" and reflect that on him as a person while others view it as human (male) nature.

Reread your post and ask yourself it you feel it is an accurate characterization of John A's Tweet.
I sure didn't see any repeat expressions of sexual longings but perhaps you did. Do you think a 120 character post that cheerleaders are (and even this requires me to infer a bit, but I think reasonably so) attractive in a medium that is pretty much your thoughts of moment, is the same as speaking to a co worker about 'sexual longings'?

If you find you have dramatically alter the circumstances of an event in order to make it offensive, perhaps the actual event itself wasn't all that bad. Just a thought.

 

[OldAlum]

Reread your post and ask yourself it you feel it is an accurate characterization of John A's Tweet.
I sure didn't see any repeat expressions of sexual longings but perhaps you did. Do you think a 120 character post that cheerleaders are (and even this requires me to infer a bit, but I think reasonably so) attractive in a medium that is pretty much your thoughts of moment, is the same as speaking to a co worker about 'sexual longings'?

If you find you have dramatically alter the circumstances of an event in order to make it offensive, perhaps the actual event itself wasn't all that bad. Just a thought.

Yes. I feel it was accurate. The repeated postings about cheerleaders had sexual overtones to me - maybe not to you. Not I don't equate it to speaking to a co-worker, it was much more public and on his employer's platform.
Others may disagree. I have said enough about this stupid incident and I done and am going to return to yard work!

 

[lanieer]

As a woman, I don't find him offensive at all. Aren't you used to men turning into babbling fools over beautiful women by now?

If Kerith Burke hadn't felt it necessary to publicly humiliate John instead of just shooting him an email asking him to reconsider his tweet, none of these "righteously indignant" threads (thanks, Rocky) would ever have happened.

Well it might have not bothered you as a women , but it obviously bothered more tha a few. I think the Courant was just responding to several complaints. We need to respect those that had issues with his sexist comments. There are things that I don't find offensive but if it bothers others than I respect it. I respect your opinion but I don't feel Kerith publicly humiliated him . He has to learn to tone down his tweets a bit and comment positively on the game.

 

[Waquoit]

Yes. I feel it was accurate. The repeated postings about cheerleaders had sexual overtones to me - maybe not to you. Not I don't equate it to speaking to a co-worker, it was much more public and on his employer's platform.

The outfits in question were all about sexual overtones. They were fetish costumes. Commenting on that aspect is fair game, IMO.

 

[UcMiami]

Spot-on comment. Now, permit a personal view.

I have six daughters (all now adults, most with families). I never allowed any of them to be cheerleaders. Why? My prception was that back in the (very early) days of sports at the college and even high school level, all the teams were strictly male. So some bright guy somewhere had the inspired idea to throw the girls a bone -- thus the birth of cheerleaders, with the inevitable bonus effect of adding a little sexiness to the otherwise masculine proceedings. And it must work as envisioned because just about every pro/college/HS has cheerleaders (as sexy as permissable locally). Are the Steelers still holding out?

I persist in my curmudgeon opinion that cheerleading is merely glorified public exhibitionism and an exploitation of attractive young ladies.

A few years ago Red Auerbach swore that the Boston Celtics would never have a dance team perform during time outs, etc. The Celtics opened their season (new management) on a Thursday. Red died the preceding Monday.

There is another reason why professional sports have gone crazy for cheerleaders - studies were done in crowd control and it was found that the presence of beautiful and scantily clad women performing in front of high testosterone males had a calming effect on the male behavior - fewer arguments broke out and fewer of the arguments that did break out escalated to fights, and fewer of the fights that still broke out led to all out brawls. So to some degree, they are actually part of the crowd control plan in professional sports. Not sure if any of that thinking bled back to the college ranks.

Speaking of college - the original cheerleaders (and their function was actually to lead cheers hence the megaphones of old) were males - often because the schools were all male - and from simply leading cheers, male gymnasts were added to do gymnastic routines as well as cheers. Adding women to the squads came later, and initially they too were primarily gymnasts. It is really relatively recently - my lifetime - that most of the men have disappeared from the squads, the costumes have become more and more suggestive, and the cheering aspect has all but disappeared as well as a lot of the gymnastic skills. Modern cheerleaders have more in common with the Rockettes or cage dancers at night clubs than with the original college cheerleaders.

 

[I'maUConnFan]

I can only speak to the one tweet I saw, but I didn't think it was worthy of a suspension. My worry now is who they will get to replace him. The last time they took John off the beat, they replaced him with a guy who very obviously didn't give two cents about women's basketball. The coverage that year was pathetic. John does like women's basketball, and in my opinion, he covers it well. If he really is being taken off the Huskies beat, I hope his replacement is at least as interested and knowledgeable about the sport as John is. (Though I feel compelled to add that I hope he spellchecks better!)

 

[Magy Cannon]

Oh please indeed. I was at the game, Texas sends those girls to look like that on purpose, no matter how you slice it. Every guy around me(I was in the third row).and I mean every guy was talking about those girls the same way, as was every woman for the most part, because they were jealous.

Why disparage women? I can assure you most of the women and girls at the game weren't jealous of the cheerleaders. We're just happy people who enjoy cheering have the opportunity.

 

[schmendrick]

Spot-on comment. Now, permit a personal view.

I have six daughters (all now adults, most with families). I never allowed any of them to be cheerleaders. Why? My prception was that back in the (very early) days of sports at the college and even high school level, all the teams were strictly male. So some bright guy somewhere had the inspired idea to throw the girls a bone -- thus the birth of cheerleaders, with the inevitable bonus effect of adding a little sexiness to the otherwise masculine proceedings. And it must work as envisioned because just about every pro/college/HS has cheerleaders (as sexy as permissable locally). Are the Steelers still holding out?

I persist in my curmudgeon opinion that cheerleading is merely glorified public exhibitionism and an exploitation of attractive young ladies.

A few years ago Red Auerbach swore that the Boston Celtics would never have a dance team perform during time outs, etc. The Celtics opened their season (new management) on a Thursday. Red died the preceding Monday.

Actually, the high school cheerleaders in my area on the shoreline take their sport quite seriously. They train long and hard, first as acrobats and gymnasts, second, to coordinate their moves, develop a strong bond of trust--significant in their lifts--and often welcome special-needs kids into their squads which, you could say, lifts the confidence of those kids sky-high.

I'm not saying at the pro level there isn't an element of exhibitionism. Just be wary of painting broad strokes.

 

[Kibitzer]

Actually, the high school cheerleaders in my area on the shoreline take their sport quite seriously. They train long and hard, first as acrobats and gymnasts, second, to coordinate their moves, develop a strong bond of trust--significant in their lifts--and often welcome special-needs kids into their squads which, you could say, lifts the confidence of those kids sky-high.

I'm not saying at the pro level there isn't an element of exhibitionism. Just be wary of painting broad strokes.

Point well taken. I admire their dedication as gymnasts. But it's not cheerleading. What Danny K does (fully clothed + bb wig) is cheerleading.

 

[HuskyNan]

I can only speak to the one tweet I saw, but I didn't think it was worthy of a suspension. My worry now is who they will get to replace him. The last time they took John off the beat, they replaced him with a guy who very obviously didn't give two cents about women's basketball. The coverage that year was pathetic. John does like women's basketball, and in my opinion, he covers it well. If he really is being taken off the Huskies beat, I hope his replacement is at least as interested and knowledgeable about the sport as John is. (Though I feel compelled to add that I hope he spellchecks better!)

John remains the UConn beat writer. He screwed up, the Courant addressed it, and now both are moving on.

FWIW, I know John and he's a good guy. He's human, like the rest of us, and had a lapse of judgement. His big problem is that he did it on the Internet where everyone and his brother can read it. I think it's fair to say - lesson learned.

 

[schmendrick]

Point well taken. I admire their dedication as gymnasts. But it's not cheerleading. What Danny K does (fully clothed + bb wig) is cheerleading.

Go to a practice at Branford High School and tell them that.

 

[Striper69]

I like having the cheerleaders at college games. Kind of cool hearing them doing the chants during the games. The players on the bench do the same thing.

At Delaware games this season the coach was trying to get the audience into it and start making some noise but they weren't into it. The cheerleaders did a cool cheer during timeouts along with the band. It was a nice touch I looked foward to hearing each game!

 

[lanieer]

Well I'm surprised that John wanted the UConn beat job back. He seemed so bored last year. All I ask as a fan is that he doesn't mimic the women's game constantly by joking about blowouts and how he is bored. I'm glad that he wasn't banished but all I want is a little enthusiasm. I stopped following him 3/4 of the season because of his negativity. Just remember John you are reporting on young women. We'll see if he truly does get to do UConn women in November .

 

[schmendrick]

Maybe he's a good guy, and that's nice but, even aside from his purportedly inappropriate comments about the cheerleaders, he's a sloppy journalist. Lori Riley on the Courant would be my choice.

 

[meyers7]

Maybe he's a good guy, and that's nice but, even aside from his purportedly inappropriate comments about the cheerleaders, he's a sloppy journalist. Lori Riley on the Courant would be my choice.

Oh yea, I really liked her when she was on the beat years ago. Thought I saw her in Albany.

 

[lanieer]

Lori Riley is awesome. Now that's someone worth fighting for . She is a terrific journalist that really appears to love her job.

 

[ChicagoGG]

Oh yea, I really liked her when she was on the beat years ago. Thought I saw her in Albany.

Yes, you did. She was batting cleanup for John (post-tweet) in Albany, and also went to Tampa with Paul Doyle for the FF and Championship game. I like her, too. These days she seems to mostly do running/track news and HS sports. A good writer.

 

[Kibitzer]

John remains the UConn beat writer. He screwed up, the Courant addressed it, and now both are moving on. I know John and he's a good guy. He's human, like the rest of us, and had a lapse of judgement.

ahem.

First, JS, now you. Once and for all, judgment.

 

[ChicagoGG]

ahem.

First, JS, now you. Once and for all, judgment.

Welcome back, Kib!! One of the many things I missed while you were recuperating (and I tried to be grammatically correct while you were away, too....)