• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

How long is "indefinitely" anyway?

  • Thread starter VERITAS DE VOCE
  • Start date

V

VERITAS DE VOCE

Guest
Two months and counting. Oh, for the record, cameraman - slap on the wrist; managing editor - taken out to lunch; Rebecca Aguilar - gone! But it's still a "suspension"?!

Huh?

Yes, she asked the questions that needed to be asked... in a really, crappy way. But, this long without a paycheck. Pretty soon and she is selling her story to the highest bidder, IJS ;D
 
NO, those questions did NOT need to be asked! Did you see the tape? She harrassed that man and suggested, not even subtly, that HE did something wrong and that he was trigger happy.
Can you imagine a person going through a traumatic event like that and then having to be accused by some reporter of being "trigger happy" and taking some pleasure in killing two people (who by the way were trying to commit a CRIME against HIM)!

Yes, he was buying another gun - because the cops HAD his other weapons as evidence. There is nothing illegal about owning a gun. He proved on two occasions he certainly NEEDED the weapons for self defense.

That reporter should have simply been fired, and regardless her credibility in this market is Z E R O.
 
VERITAS DE VOCE said:
Yes, she asked the questions that needed to be asked... in a really, crappy way. But, this long without a paycheck. Pretty soon and she is selling her story to the highest bidder, IJS ;D
Click to expand...

No, I believe she said in the Ed Bark interview that she's still getting paid. I think I read where they signed her to a new contract shortly before this mess started. One wonders if the "indefinite" suspension will last for a couple of years until that contract ends? It's probably easier to pay her for doing nothing than to buy her out and risk a lawsuit over dismissing her early.
 
I am not sure what an indefinite suspension means in the Television news world.

In the world of Civil Service Fire & Police it means your employer wants you gone, but you have the right to appeal to the Commission, Independent Arbitrator or even a District Judge to get your job back.

Aguliar may have a contract that gives her the right to appeal to an Independent Arbitrator if in fact her Indefinite Suspension means they intend to fire her.


Most likely there are meters running on several attorneys, trying to figure out the answer to the question.
 
I have a serious feeling they're burning out her contract and currently are drawing up a backend resolution. Heres the thing: She, in her quick dash to put together a story, failed to take the proper stance when it came to reporting and became no better than an ambulance chaser, in turn she became a liability to the station.
 
I wonder how many other sets of eyes saw that story before it aired. Editors and producers who might've been involved should also be suspended or fired for letting that go on the air the way it did. Rebecca deserves the lion's share of the blame for asking the questions like she did but there are others whose heads should roll along with hers in my opinion.
 
tubetop1 said:
Rebecca needs that old guy to shoot someone else. Then she'll be vindicated.
Click to expand...

Hopefully he will not faced with someone breaking into his home again. Most of us have not been faced with waking up and finding that somone has forced their way into our secured property.
 
I have been reading this thread with a hint of humor. In other parts of the country, there would never have been so much controversy over Rebecca's report. Only in TEXAS! ;D
 
I think you make a good point, in Texas we pride ourselves on our self-reliance, respect for our elders and independent nature. One of the reasons this story has rubbed so may the wrong way is the way that the package was presented in the first place. When you go after a 70-something year old man whos been through the ringer with taking out a couple of scumbags, then getting hassled by the cops due to "Process", all the while getting hounded by a smart-mouth beat reporter who more than likely has an anti-gun agenda.
 
Just curious if you have a horse in this race Tube, are your a Fox employee? Because is seems everyones playing a huge game of CYA in this whole deal and circling the wagons when it comes to backing her up, I think everyone involved should be sent packing, not just her..


That being said, I believe that a reporter/anchor should be free of agenda(be it left, right or upside down) when reporting a story. It appears to quite a few(including myself, a non-bubba w/ college education and a supporter of the 2nd amendment) that said reporter whos name we shall not mention seems to have an agenda when it came to her report. Why follow an old man who decided to buy another shotgun for his protection then makes it the crux of the report, smells like personal bias to me.
 
Slambang said:
Just curious if you have a horse in this race Tube, are your a Fox employee? Because is seems everyones playing a huge game of CYA in this whole deal and circling the wagons when it comes to backing her up, I think everyone involved should be sent packing, not just her..
Click to expand...

No, not a Fox employee and I don't have a horse in this race. Good argument. I ask you to back up your claim that the reporter seems to be anti-gun and you shoot back with "are your a Fox employee?".


That being said, I believe that a reporter/anchor should be free of agenda(be it left, right or upside down) when reporting a story. It appears to quite a few(including myself, a non-bubba w/ college education and a supporter of the 2nd amendment) that said reporter whos name we shall not mention seems to have an agenda when it came to her report. Why follow an old man who decided to buy another shotgun for his protection then makes it the crux of the report, smells like personal bias to me.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm asking you to back up. Apart from this story (which I've already said could have been solid had she not used the questions) can you support your claim? Can you name other stories in which she appears biased against guns? Can you prove her questioning of the old guy was any less abrasive than her questioning of anyone else? Or is her audacity in questioning the guy rubbing you the wrong way because you are so pro-gun (see above statement: "and a supporter of the 2nd amendment.")?

BTW--before we reach that next juvenile argument....yeah I own guns and grew up working at a gun club.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom