On Monday afternoon, ESPN announced that they had suspended Jemele Hill from her position as a host for two weeks. Her suspension followed her tweets regarding Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s statement that if any of his players “disrespect” the flag, they will not be allowed to play. Hill stated in her tweets that those who disagree with Jones should target his advertisers rather than his players, clarifying that she was not advocating an NFL boycott. ESPN stated that her tweets were the “second violation of [their] social media guidelines” she had made. The next day President Trump put in his two cents, tweeting “With Jemele Hill at the mike, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have ‘tanked,’ in fact, tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry!”
Hill’s position as a host on ESPN is to commentate on sports and the industry surrounding them. While many argue that it is up to ESPN to use their discretion in what they punish as unacceptable employee conduct, others see Hill’s comments as a mere statement of facts. She did not advocate for a boycott of the NFL but rather correctly stated that pressuring advertisers would be the most effective way to challenge Jones.
Were ESPN’s actions justified? Were Hill’s?
2 comments:
I think both Hill and ESPN were justified in their actions. Hill, on the one hand, did not make any outrageous comments, and simply commented that she felt Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones's actions were unfair to players, and that if people wanted to affect his stance, it would have to come from advertisers. ESPN, for themselves, has their own company policies and are free to administer however they seem fit, and if they feel Hill's comments interfere with their business working, then they are within their full rights to suspend her. In situations like these, I feel both sides handled themselves well and professionally, and regrettably the only real unprofessionalism comes from the president, whose tweets are childish and inflammatory (in my opinion). Ultimately, while this may be covered, I don't think this will serve as a source of real controversy in the NFL "scandal".
I also believe that both ESPN and Hill were justified in their actions. On one side, ESPN is a large business and has the right to set policies for their employees to follow. If they feel that Hill violated their rules, then they have the right to suspend her. On the other side, Hill was solely trying to give her honest opinion on the issue and wasn't trying to attack anyone for their actions. Based on the first amendment, she is constitutionally justified to say what she believes in and give her opinion on these types of issues. I, however, believe Trump's response to the situation was very immature and rude, blatantly attacking both the ESPN network and Hill without justified reason.
Post a Comment