AP quotes the union and ignores management

**freckles** · 19th November 2009 01:17 PM

[quote name='nickcuse' date='19 November 2009 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1258648658' post='63121']

and if you think this is similar, you're crazy. this is just bad reporting as they didn't confirm the story with verizon before running it. not to mention, okay, so they're not layoffs, they're "voluntary buyouts with layoffs to follow". pretty weak as far as mistakes go.

also, its lacking the "advantage to the story" that the fox stories had. unless this was some special report on how telecom companies or laying off people like hotcakes, and the ap fudged the truth to help their story, this isn't the same thing as the fox stories.

[/quote]

So basically they ran a tabloid piece?

**boontito** · 19th November 2009 01:20 PM

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='19 November 2009 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1258649522' post='63148']A layoff is where you let somebody go. A buyout is also known in the business as a "golden parachute." One is involuntary. The other is negotiated.

[/quote]

Wrong.

Golden parachutes are the big ticket buyouts.

A company can offer a "buyout" that is equal to a month's salary or more and then also state "layoffs could happen in the future" as a way of enticing workers to voluntarily leave with something before being pushed out with nothing. This is done for a number of reasons, one of which is so that the company's "layoff" numbers appear to be smaller than they are.

**kmiller1610** · 19th November 2009 03:37 PM

[quote name='boontito' date='19 November 2009 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1258658423' post='63258']

Wrong.

Golden parachutes are the big ticket buyouts.

A company can offer a "buyout" that is equal to a month's salary or more and then also state "layoffs could happen in the future" as a way of enticing workers to voluntarily leave with something before being pushed out with nothing. This is done for a number of reasons, one of which is so that the company's "layoff" numbers appear to be smaller than they are.

[/quote]

Correction noted. I regret the error.

A journalist would get both sides of the story. A propagandist goes with the folks who agree with his propaganda. In either case, it's far worse than what Fox did.

What are the two sides to either of the Fox videos? Is the other side of the story that the crowds were smaller? You do realize that when a news director wants to make a crowd seem larger, he sticks with tight shots. So because the news director wants to make it seem like NOW represents women and only interviews NOW and doesn't ask ANY conservative to comment on a Women's issue, that is somehow different than what Fox did? The effect is even worse. With the Fox videos, it's simply exaggeration, which is certainly not right, but there is no damage. There is no unrepresented point of view. It is a journalistic violation, without doubt, but no point of view is denied.