RT Anchor Quits on Air

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by kavvrick (26 posts) -

RT Anchor Quits on Air.

RT anchor Liz Wahl said she could no longer be "part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin." and quits the RT news network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ9HdtxqyZ0

Meh, good for her. I don't like my job doesn't mean i will quit it unless i can find a better one. She probably got offers from other networks.

#2 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (831 posts) -

Can't disagree with her there. RT is a terrible network. I got nothing against state-sponsored news networks, but RT just flat out is not news.

#3 Posted by MrGeezer (56041 posts) -

"She probably got offers from other networks."

Eh, maybe, but I'd wager that that kind of unprofessionalism isn't really seen as an asset. She'll probably get a job somewhere, but if anything this kind of crap just limits peoples' options.

#4 Posted by Master_Live (14009 posts) -

Would hit. Good for her.

#5 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

RT makes Fox, MSNBC, and CNN look moderate and unbiased lol.

#6 Posted by XilePrincess (13116 posts) -

Good for her. She didn't like what was happening so she did something and quit.

#7 Edited by MrGeezer (56041 posts) -

@XilePrincess said:

Good for her. She didn't like what was happening so she did something and quit.

The problem is that she could have quit without making her and her employer the center of attention. Instead of dealing with this situation privately like a professional, she's making this story about her and dragging her employer through the mud. Not only does that detract from the REAL story, but it also makes her a liability for any future employer (if she did this shit at RT, why wouldn't she do it at any other network?)

#8 Posted by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

Yea...that was really genuine and not scripted at all. If those were her ideological and moral beliefs all along, why exactly did she join RT to begin with? She wasn't aware that RT is a Russian state-sponsored news network? She was only able to find that out after spending what I imagine to be a lengthy period of employment with RT? I find it really far fetched that she joined while under the impression that RT is a beacon of neutrality and journalistic integrity.

Personally I would have been able to bypass all of this and seriously consider the possibility that she really didn't know had she quit like anyone would quit a job for any personal reason. But no she needed to make a martyr of herself. And "my grandparents were refugees of the Hungarian war", that was definitely the cherry on the top.

#9 Posted by airshocker (28838 posts) -

Good for her.

Looks like she made GazaAli upset.

#10 Posted by airshocker (28838 posts) -

Good for her.

@MrGeezer said:

@XilePrincess said:

Good for her. She didn't like what was happening so she did something and quit.

The problem is that she could have quit without making her and her employer the center of attention. Instead of dealing with this situation privately like a professional, she's making this story about her and dragging her employer through the mud. Not only does that detract from the REAL story, but it also makes her a liability for any future employer (if she did this shit at RT, why wouldn't she do it at any other network?)

Psh, dude, she's going to write a book and never have to work for a news company ever again.

#11 Posted by XilePrincess (13116 posts) -
@MrGeezer said:

@XilePrincess said:

Good for her. She didn't like what was happening so she did something and quit.

The problem is that she could have quit without making her and her employer the center of attention. Instead of dealing with this situation privately like a professional, she's making this story about her and dragging her employer through the mud. Not only does that detract from the REAL story, but it also makes her a liability for any future employer (if she did this shit at RT, why wouldn't she do it at any other network?)

What does that have to do with anything? Why does she have to quit quietly? She has every right to speak out against something she feels is wrong. She could have done it after leaving, but that was her choice. If her employer is doing what it can to, as she said, 'whitewash' the situation, it's no secret. She's not alleging anything one couldn't see for themselves just by watching the network and comparing it to other reporting. If she's making false statements, it will also be easy to see.

She has the power of free speech to say anything she wants, and while yes it may make her a liability for another network, that's her problem now and hers alone. She could have quit without drawing attention to the situation, herself or her employer but she has the right and ability to say something if she wants to, and she did.

#12 Posted by thebest31406 (3319 posts) -
@MrGeezer said:

@XilePrincess said:

Good for her. She didn't like what was happening so she did something and quit.

The problem is that she could have quit without making her and her employer the center of attention. Instead of dealing with this situation privately like a professional, she's making this story about her and dragging her employer through the mud. Not only does that detract from the REAL story, but it also makes her a liability for any future employer (if she did this shit at RT, why wouldn't she do it at any other network?)

Well, RT is just one rival network that one can afford to disparage on air. I mean, what are repercussions? RT and the US media are engaged in a kind of 'media cold war' and diminishing RT doesn't carry the same consequences as diminishing Fox or CNN.

On another note, what was her beef exactly? She had issues with Russia's current activities. Okay, so far so good. Then she goes off on this tangent about her immigrant relatives and her spouse who's in the service and how much she loves America...and I'm like "HUH?! What the hell are you even talking about?" Then she lies about RT censoring Ron Paul during her interview; an allegation that he himself says is untrue

#13 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -

Can't disagree with her there. RT is a terrible network. I got nothing against state-sponsored news networks, but RT just flat out is not news.

Depends on the subject; when it comes to Russian-matters than yes, RT is not much more than a microphone for the Kremlin. When it comes to American/Western-topics RT features a refreshingly diverse spectrum of views and perspectives that are typically ignored by western media.

#14 Edited by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

On the topic of RT as a news network, I only occasionally watch it so I'm not equipped with the necessary experience and insight to fully judge it. However, from what I've seen so far, its actually not as bad as people would make you believe. On several occasions they had something worthwhile to say and they do have a rather refreshingly unique perspective on things.

I think the latter statement that I made speaks more of the stagnant and stale status quo of western mainstream media. I mean American mainstream media is quite pathetic and mind numbing, which is really inexcusable given the volume of both the resources and technical expertise it possesses. I spent sometime with Euronews. I wouldn't say its the official EU news channel but it does seem to have strong connections with the European Commission. While it was at times refreshing as a TV channel, its political persona was well within the expected.

#15 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23432 posts) -

this reminds me of what i did recently.

they stopped stocking cheetos in the vending machines and i just had to take a stand for what is right.

#16 Posted by MrGeezer (56041 posts) -

What does that have to do with anything? Why does she have to quit quietly? She has every right to speak out against something she feels is wrong. She could have done it after leaving, but that was her choice. If her employer is doing what it can to, as she said, 'whitewash' the situation, it's no secret. She's not alleging anything one couldn't see for themselves just by watching the network and comparing it to other reporting. If she's making false statements, it will also be easy to see.

She has the power of free speech to say anything she wants, and while yes it may make her a liability for another network, that's her problem now and hers alone. She could have quit without drawing attention to the situation, herself or her employer but she has the right and ability to say something if she wants to, and she did.

You do realize that this sort of removes the need to actually quit the way that she did, right? If it's not a secret, if anyone could see for themselves how biased the network is just by watching it, then she didn't actually reveal anything substantial. She's trying to blow the lid off of how the network is biased, when by your own statements it's painfully obvious to anyone who watched it. So...viewers didn't gain any enlightening information due to this. All she did was distract from the important story in order to make everyone talk about HER. It's Geraldo Rivera level attention whoring, and nothing more.

And I never said that she didn't have the RIGHT to do this, I'm just saying that it's a shame that people are actually saying "good for her." My neighbor has the right to be a Klansman, but I don't say "good for him" just because he's exercising his rights.

#17 Posted by MrGeezer (56041 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

The problem is that she could have quit without making her and her employer the center of attention. Instead of dealing with this situation privately like a professional, she's making this story about her and dragging her employer through the mud. Not only does that detract from the REAL story, but it also makes her a liability for any future employer (if she did this shit at RT, why wouldn't she do it at any other network?)

Well, RT is just one rival network that one can afford to disparage on air. I mean, what are repercussions? RT and the US media are engaged in a kind of 'media cold war' and diminishing RT doesn't carry the same consequences as diminishing Fox or CNN.

On another note, what was her beef exactly? She had issues with Russia's current activities. Okay, so far so good. Then she goes off on this tangent about her immigrant relatives and her spouse who's in the service and how much she loves America...and I'm like "HUH?! What the hell are you even talking about?" Then she lies about RT censoring Ron Paul during her interview; an allegation that he himself says is untrue

Well...she had a beef with her employer's bias/agenda, and instead of dealing with it the way anyone else does, she quit on the air. She not only walked out without notice, she made a deliberate point of slamming her employer publicly. And by your statement, the claims that she made were at least in part lies.

So, if you're running a news network and see an applicant who just did that shit to her previous employer, are you going to think of that person as an asset? The only way that would work is if you had already agreed to hire that person, and had suggested to them in advance the idea of raking the rival network through the mud on her way out. THAT would speak loyalty, because that would mean she was so on board with working for you that she'd destroy her chances of working with anyone else. But otherwise, if this wasn't suggested or known by a rival network in advance, then all it says is that this is an employee who is a liability. If this was done completely on her own, then the clear risk of hiring her is that she'll do the exact same thing to whoever hires her after this.

#18 Posted by Master_Live (14009 posts) -

this reminds me of what i did recently.

they stopped stocking cheetos in the vending machines and i just had to take a stand for what is right.

What did you do?

#19 Edited by SOedipus (6777 posts) -

Never even heard of RT.... :$

#20 Posted by playmynutz (5980 posts) -

Finally the angelic auditors have came, now debits and credits are being balanced. If the anchor isn't happy with RT he did the right thing, even though I respect RT as a news agency.

#21 Edited by thebest31406 (3319 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@thebest31406 said:
@MrGeezer said:

The problem is that she could have quit without making her and her employer the center of attention. Instead of dealing with this situation privately like a professional, she's making this story about her and dragging her employer through the mud. Not only does that detract from the REAL story, but it also makes her a liability for any future employer (if she did this shit at RT, why wouldn't she do it at any other network?)

Well, RT is just one rival network that one can afford to disparage on air. I mean, what are repercussions? RT and the US media are engaged in a kind of 'media cold war' and diminishing RT doesn't carry the same consequences as diminishing Fox or CNN.

On another note, what was her beef exactly? She had issues with Russia's current activities. Okay, so far so good. Then she goes off on this tangent about her immigrant relatives and her spouse who's in the service and how much she loves America...and I'm like "HUH?! What the hell are you even talking about?" Then she lies about RT censoring Ron Paul during her interview; an allegation that he himself says is untrue

Well...she had a beef with her employer's bias/agenda, and instead of dealing with it the way anyone else does, she quit on the air. She not only walked out without notice, she made a deliberate point of slamming her employer publicly. And by your statement, the claims that she made were at least in part lies.

So, if you're running a news network and see an applicant who just did that shit to her previous employer, are you going to think of that person as an asset? The only way that would work is if you had already agreed to hire that person, and had suggested to them in advance the idea of raking the rival network through the mud on her way out. THAT would speak loyalty, because that would mean she was so on board with working for you that she'd destroy her chances of working with anyone else. But otherwise, if this wasn't suggested or known by a rival network in advance, then all it says is that this is an employee who is a liability. If this was done completely on her own, then the clear risk of hiring her is that she'll do the exact same thing to whoever hires her after this.

I guess that's true. Even if a station like Fox News have their "journalists" uttering pro-American rhetoric doesn't necessarily suggest that they would approve of her actions; even if it was done from a rival news station. It's like you said; they couldn't guarantee that she wouldn't do the same thing on their station. Maybe she was picked up by some other news organization prior to her speech.

#22 Posted by kavvrick (26 posts) -

this reminds me of what i did recently.

they stopped stocking cheetos in the vending machines and i just had to take a stand for what is right.

lol. She is just a drama queen, its not like anyone forced her to join the network, don't like it ? go tell your boss and quit it. No need to tell the whole world about it...pff what people do for 15 minutes of fame