Emily Gimmel's Dad Responds

[yngtrk]

Folks…

Let’s put to rest this nonsense about Emily’s dad using “his connections” to get her the reporter’s job at age 18.

Fact is, she was hired by Jim Ogle (ND) and Wayne Martin (GM) at WKYT. I had never met, spoken with, or even heard of either of these gentlemen before Em was hired in August 2002.

I did advise her on approach, presentation, and handling of rejection (of which she received her share, as have all of us).

I assume they hired her for her talent, her potential, and her two years part-time work in commercial broadcasting -- radio and TV -- while in high school.

Give her some credit, if you will, for tenacity, work ethic and spunk, which are at least as important as developed skill. In fact, given the choice of a skilled talent with none of the other characteristics vs. the opposite with undeveloped potential, I would always go for the latter. I think this is especially true at the mid-market level.

There are way too many slackers in this business who get by with looking good on camera. These are the on-air performers who come to work late and leave early to make up for it. Every newsroom as at least a couple of those, and every poster on this board can name at least one.

But nobody who’s ever worked with Emily would accuse her of being a slacker. If you take a look at her resume online you'll see she's done a hell of a lot more than just show up on camera.

Slight her for being blonde, too young, or whatever it is that rubs you the wrong way. But please don’t accuse her of not earning what she’s gotten by working for it.

Rich Gimmel

[drink the koolaid]

yawn.

It would be HORRIBLE if anyone ever did anything to help their child.

[Chief]

I can understand his wanting to set the record straight. His daughter has been unfairly maligned by anonymous people who have no idea how hard she works, just how good she looks.

He's obviously proud of his daughter and has every right to be.

[Roy Hobbs]

I always thought somebody else was the hardest working person in Show Business:

http://www.concertshots.com/Aug%2003%20Images/cs-JamesBrown4-Atlanta83103.JPG

[upandown]

I worked with Rich Gimmel in my first full-time reporting job. He was an excellent assignment editor...a guy who decided the news in the morning, and handed it to producers in the evening WITHOUT the beneift of group think morning meetings.

Her dad was a consummate pro. He had excellent curiositiy. If the Chinese acrobats came to town, he'd ask, "Who cooks for them? Find out." Nor did he try to oversell us when sending us to crap stories. He admitted it. "Get a bite from the YAP, and move on."

I learned quite a lot working for Rich...and that was all of ten months. Emily has had what? 22 years?

So, as far as E. Gimmel's style, I'd approach it diffently, but she comes from good journalistic stock, and that carries weight with me. Let it be.

Finally, ask youself: What job did you have in college? And were you willing to wake up early every morning to do it? So what---she got a better job than you. She started earlier, too...like, in the womb.

Thus, if Emily seems young and lucky to you, be gracious. Give her time to grow up. Trust the genes and take care of your own problems. It'll all work out in the end.

Good vibes bring better vibes.

[ November 28, 2006, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: upandown ]

[Roy Hobbs]

http://www.crimetips.org/OldsSite/WRTV%206.jpg

And coming up tomorrow morning...where do Chinese acrobats get their Whoopie Cushions?

http://tenasprenger.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/whoopie_3.jpg

We have team coverage!!!

[ November 27, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

[Another side]

Reading Dad's response, it just occurred to me: is this the same young lady we talked about a few years ago, when she was hired (while in high school) to do mornings in (I think) Louisville?

Either way, good for dad,good for her.

[imported_Mr. Vengeance]

...and bad for all the rest who spend months and years sending out tapes for jobs and getting rejected for one reason or another.

It's who you know.

[Too Much Time]

Like none of you would use any advantage you could find to get a good job?
It's called Networking.
Having friends in the business is the same as family.
You help me, I help you.
As simple as that.
Rich will be good to Emily, She will choose his rest home.

[justasking]

Originally posted by Mr. Vengeance:
...and bad for all the rest who spend months and years sending out tapes for jobs and getting rejected for one reason or another.

It's who you know.Or how bad you really are.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Mr. Vengeance:
...and bad for all the rest who spend months and years sending out tapes for jobs and getting rejected for one reason or another.

It's who you know.Maybe you should pay less attention to the "ways I get screwed" and more to being rejected "for one reason or the other."

[facts]

Rich,

I wouldn't worry too much about the opinions of some of these people.. you should see some of the crap they say.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by upandown:
So, as far as E. Gimmel's style, I do not agree with her brand of feature reporting, but she comes from good journalistic stock, and that carries weight with me. Let it be. Maybe the best comment so far on this topic.

[Mr. Rugen]

Wasn't Emily Gibbel the name of DJ's friend on Full House?

Either way, don't be jealous because someone may have had a slight edge on you. That's the way the world works. My dad was a machinist. I know lots about working with steel, welding and lathes. I could've gotten a job as a welder in college, but didn't want to be a welder so I had to start from scratch. Emily didn't have to start from scratch because she was learning how to do the job she wanted to do her whole life.

By the way, I've never heard of Emily Gibbel, Rich Gibbel or whatever station that is in Indianapolis where Emily is going to work. This is a case of the only people caring about a story being the ones involved.

[Kace]

If not for MediaLine, I wouldn't even know of these people's existence. So a couple of things...

1- Mr. Gimmel, your daughter appears to be doing something she's always wanted to do and for that I tip my cap to her. Not everyone does.

2- Your daughter's *****in' hot, man... You and the missus deserve a medal.

*scampers off*

[Mr. Rugen]

In Texas you'd get chased away with a shotgun, Kace.

All this talk about her looks and I still haven't seen a picture.

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by Another side:
Reading Dad's response, it just occurred to me: is this the same young lady we talked about a few years ago, when she was hired (while in high school) to do mornings in (I think) Louisville?

Either way, good for dad,good for her.Actually, I think she always has worked at this station as a student at UK. But Lousiville does ring a bell!

As I said in a past thread, I didn't give up my college life for a profession. THis girl did. Shew got up at 3 a.m. for the morning news. I think I was still at the Rendezvous Inn closing it down to Buttercup Baby.

Best of luck to her.

[Kace]

In Texas you'd get chased away with a shotgun, Kace.Unless I'm in Dallas and then they'll just try to run me off the highway.

[Mr. Rugen]

Originally posted by Kace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In Texas you'd get chased away with a shotgun, Kace.Unless I'm in Dallas and then they'll just try to run me off the highway.</font>[/QUOTE]With an H2.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Mr. Vengeance:
...and bad for all the rest who spend months and years sending out tapes for jobs and getting rejected for one reason or another.

It's who you know.It is who you know. How do you meet them? Do good work. Have a good tape. Be good to work with. This is a small business and word gets around.

Most people don't get rejected for one reason or another. They get rejected for one reason alone: They stink. They don't want to believe that so they blame the Emily Gimmels of the world for their own problems.

And, yes, she is the same girl that drew so much interest here several years ago when she landed a job at WKYT in Lexington as a college freshman.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Count Rugen But w/Christmas:
All this talk about her looks and I still haven't seen a picture.http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20061106&Category=COLUMNISTS18&ArtNo=611060301&Ref=AR&Profile=1062&MaxW=315&border=0

http://media.benedek.com/images/Emily_Gimmell_lg.jpg

[Omega Man]

So what's all the fuss about??

[Spike]

I think the problem a lot of people have with Emily isn't that she got a good break, or that she bypassed other people who "paid their dues." I think the problem is how she (or her dad) has promoted herself throughout her career. I remember when she first came to our attention, and she had that ridiculous website that looked more like an actress/model's portfolio than that of a serious journalist. The impression we get from Emily, through this somewhat shameless promotion, is that she's less serious about journalism than she is about being a teevee star.

That's not to say that she isn't talented, and she may even be a serious journalist. But she has gone about demonstrating it all wrong. What we see of her says that her work isn't about the story or her community, but "Me! Me! Look at me! Please look at me!" I have a difficult time reconciling that image with the "serious" journalism her family supposedly espouses.

So, as far as I can see, Rich and Emily have sort of brought this on themselves. Maybe that kind of self-promotion is what's necessary to be successful in television today. But from a journalist's point of view, it sends a horrible message and makes it difficult to take her seriously. She probably has worked really hard, but if she really does want to be taken seriously she has put herself in a position where she still has an image to overcome and something to prove.

We didn't do that to her, so I don't think she or her dad have any cause to complain.

[LMS]

I think that's exactly the problem people have with Ms. Gimmel, that they think she didn't pay her dues etc.

Those people are wrong.

There is one truth in this industry and it's that you can get from any market... to any market. If you're the kind of person that thinks you need to climb the ladder, make incremental jumps and in short, "pay your dues," than yes, Ms. Gimmel's rise from Lexington to Indianapolis after first being hired in high school will infuriate you.

But it's so easy, anyone can do it. Yes, even those of us who don't win what Douglas Coupland once called the Punnett square of good looks.

People are always shocked, shocked to find out that networking matters. That working long hours matters That doing stories that grow you a following matter. That (yes) looks matter. Right now, Ms. Gimmel is four for four. Not bad at 22.

Sure, I can see how mad anyone would be if their plan was to start at a small market, work there for a few years, move to a slightly large market, than a slightly larger one and so on, and see someone else supposedly sail to the top. All those wasted years.

But if you know how to tell good stories, and know how to present them, and know where to shop them ince they're done, you can go where you want. It happens every week in this business. I've seen people show up in Phoenix without a job and work their way in. Same thing in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. And they always work hard, but somehow they always make it look easy. It's not easy. But it can be done.

It's not that there are shortcuts to "the top." It's that there are many routes. Being bitter because you picked the longer route says more about your own rigidity than it does about someone else's open mind.

[ November 28, 2006, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: LMS ]

[Dedhed_AND]

Originally posted by Count Rugen But w/Christmas:
Wasn't Emily Gibbel the name of DJ's friend on Full House?I think it was Kimmy Gibbler.

And kudos to Emily for actually doing some work to get ahead in this business, and not just relying on her looks. You can't teach what she's already learned in a college classroom.

I've landed a couple of jobs for which I was refered by a "friend of a friend", but moreso for my qualifications and talent than my contact. So if Emily gets an interview because of her dad, so what. She still has to perform well in the job, and obviously she's done that.

For the naysayers, focus on your own shortcomings instead of someone else's success, and maybe you'll turn your career around.

[SportzGame]

My issue is: what's so special about Emily Gimmel? I know of at least a dozen people in the business that got their start while in college, working full time or close to it.

I am one of them. I worked full time at a t.v. station as a reporter during my final two years of school, after working part time the previous year. I don't have a father in the business, and neither do any of the other people I know that worked during college. I got an internship, worked hard, they hired me part time, and then full time. Hard work and being the right person, in the right place at the right time.

That was four years ago, and now I am an anchor/reporter in market 12.

Emily Gimmel seems to have gotten the extra exposure because her dad IS in the business, and surely that has helped. You don't hear about all of the other countless minions working hard in the newspaper. I wonder where the paper reporter got the story?

But in the end, she got the job and her new station saw something they liked. What will be interesting to see, is what happens when Emily Gimmel moves further than a few hundred miles away from home base and perhaps the influence of her benefactors.

My advice: Emily, really strike out on your own. Try a market that isn't driving distance to your hometown.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Count Rugen But w/Christmas:
Wasn't Emily Gibbel the name of DJ's friend on Full House?
That was Kimberly 'Kimmy' Louise Gibbler, played by Andrea Barber.

Ah, not that I watch Full House... My wife bought the kids a season of Full House DVD's and I have seen it a couple of times. But I don't laugh and I don't like it.

Yea, that's the ticket.

ps Becky Katsopolis is SMOKIN' HOT... from what I hear.

[Mr. Rugen]

http://www.muchatv.com/imgperson/loril1.jpg

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Count Rugen But w/Christmas:
http://www.muchatv.com/imgperson/loril1.jpg*Breathes hard and wipes sweat from brow*

Excuse me for a minute.. I have to step away from the computer.

[drink the koolaid]

didn't mike wallace get his son a job?

[TXPhotog]

I could see if she was on national tv but she is in Louisville so really, outside of Kentucky:

http://pics.schwippy.com/forums/images/who_cares-coleman.jpg

[Dick Shun]

Look at this thread and the one that prompted it.
Now imagine you're Emily.

No matter how good she is...
no matter how hard she works...
no matter how far she goes..
this is what she's up against.

[ November 28, 2006, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Dick Shun ]

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by LMS:
I think that's exactly the problem people have with Ms. Gimmel, that they think she didn't pay her dues etc.

Those people are wrong.

There is one truth in this industry and it's that you can get from any market... to any market. If you're the kind of person that thinks you need to climb the ladder, make incremental jumps and in short, "pay your dues," than yes, Ms. Gimmel's rise from Lexington to Indianapolis after first being hired in high school will infuriate you.

But it's so easy, anyone can do it. Yes, even those of us who don't win what Douglas Coupland once called the Punnett square of good looks.

People are always shocked, shocked to find out that networking matters. That working long hours matters That doing stories that grow you a following matter. That (yes) looks matter. Right now, Ms. Gimmel is four for four. Not bad at 22.

Sure, I can see how mad anyone would be if their plan was to start at a small market, work there for a few years, move to a slightly large market, than a slightly larger one and so on, and see someone else supposedly sail to the top. All those wasted years.

But if you know how to tell good stories, and know how to present them, and know where to shop them ince they're done, you can go where you want. It happens every week in this business. I've seen people show up in Phoenix without a job and work their way in. Same thing in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. And they always work hard, but somehow they always make it look easy. It's not easy. But it can be done.

It's not that there are shortcuts to "the top." It's that there are many routes. Being bitter because you picked the longer route says more about your own rigidity than it does about someone else's open mind.I think the rigidity of believing a myth about hard work, good storytelling and effective networking being all you need and anyone who doesn't luck out sucks, is head-in-the-sand, EEO CYA.

At best it's leftover thinking from the days when 22 year olds, 32 year olds, and yes, people who stunk on ice got a nice signed rejection letter from Steve Hinkle, Lee Giles, Larry Pond et. al. in Indy.

Let's take a look at a certain demographic...just for grins and giggles...and stretch it across two time periods in news.

1981..Mark Potter (the ABC correspondent sans hair) jumped from Evansville to Miami.

1982...Tom Koch jumps from Green Bay to Houston.

1982...Bruce Kopp jumps from Evansville to Indy.

Now fast forward to 2006 and the New Age of Upward Mobility.

Brad Harvey goes from Cleveland to Toledo to do split shifting, mornings and afternoons.

Tim Sullivan goes from Savannah to Peoria.

Pat McReynolds goes from Seattle to Norfolk.

It's a McTravesty.

And anybody who got a DUI, up until a few months ago when on-air apologies became fashionable, got a blurb on Newsblues.com and a quick trip to Casper, Wyoming, Alpena Michigan, or the JC Penney men's wear dept. in Davenport, Iowa hawking polyester ties and Stafford underwear.

And while we're at it, let's stop insulting the kids who busted their behinds taking every class they could, working every internship and radio-tv job they could, paid their own way through college (or more accurately will be paying until they are in their 30s)with part time jobs or service in the military, sweated through their Salvation Army clothes while one-man banding and then running back to the station to produce and/or anchor.

But they have the hope of false ads, deceptive NDs and silly myths like "you can get from any market to any market" that drain their enthusiasm and finances when they realize the truth that most tapes don't even get looked at...and more than one ad has been placed AFTER someone has been picked through an agent...no networkers or hard workers with talent need apply.

Hey Jason, Jacques and Tom...you did a great job.
Nothing like leaving a legacy for others to follow.

[insiderknowing]

People People People.

This is an example of a father sticking his neck out to have it summarily chopped off by the likes of me.

Mr. Gimmel--What about your daughter's DUI? WKYT yanked her off the air and demoted her to a line producer position after she was charged. Lexington cops found many liquor bottles in her car and when they asked her where she was driving, she replied "I don't know."
She violated the morals clause of her contract and should have been FIRED.

She is not a wonder child. She is an irresponsible person who thinks a cheesecake website and working through her daddy will get her places, despite her dangerous drunken driving.

The fact that Indy hired her is a travesty.

[LMS]

Sarcasm and anger noted, Roy. It's hard to believe this is the same person lauding upandown's story on another thread as an example of what we should be doing. The same upandown who defends Ms. Gimmel on this thread.

And while I don't know Ms. Gimmel personally, I guess I would wonder where the impression comes from that she's somehow slacking off. Classes? She took them. Internships? She did better than that. She was paid to put product on the air. Long hours? I guess if going to school, working a morning shift and holidays and also putting out product for a cable syndicate doesn't count as long hours, I don't know what does.

It seems that you're saying that it doesn't count as long hours and hard work unless every story is big J journalism. Features don't count. If your hair looks nice and you;re attractive and young, you automatically don't or can't do good work.

And I also can't help noticing that in the "glory days" of all these journalists making these phenomenal market jumps in the 1980's, there weren't any women on your list. What a wonderful time this must have been... for men. I wonder if there are any women on this board who might care to speak up about how easy it was o advance in this industry in the time of Mark Potter et al.

It seems to me Ms. Gimmel is playing the hand she's been dealt. An attractive young women in an industry that has always, and will always value attraction and youth. That she works, does freelance and goes to school at the same time speaks volumes. I think, Roy, in your lust to glamorize an era that never was, you do the woman a disservice.

[Roy Hobbs]

Women have advanced well in every decade since the mid-70s.

Not to start a gender war, but often hiring in the 80s was "Hey, I don't have any guys in my newsroom."

Now flash forward to present day and count heads and genders on station bio sites, especially the g.a. reporters.

But thanks for playing our game.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Kace:
2- Your daughter's *****in' hot, man... You and the missus deserve a medal.

*scampers off*That's the single most disrespectful response I've ever read on medialine. It's the young lady's father for chrisssakes.

And from such an unlikely source.

[ November 28, 2006, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[insiderknowing]

How is frying your roots platinum blonde with an 89-cent bottle of peroxide...."...smokin hot"?

[Dick Shun]

If every news reporter who ever drove after drinking got caught and then FIRED, we'd all be out of work.

DUI is dangerous, yes, but incredibly common. It's an offense committed regularly (but rarely discovered) by the most well-respected among us.

I'm not defending her DUI. But, let's be honest. Your problem is not with her driving drunk. Your problem is a young woman whizzing past you on the way to the bright lights of...
Indianapolis?

[Kace]

That's the single most disrespectful response I've ever read on medialine. One day I'll be perfect. 'Til then, expect lots of screw ups from me. :(

[Produce man]

Gee, a newsie who drinks? Who would have thought?

Seriously, I say more power to her.

Trust me, if she doesn't end up replacing Dayna Devon on Extra, she still has to deal with the "woman", blonde", "caucasion" hurdles.

[insiderknowing]

That's not my issue at all with her DUI.

the point is, there's a REASON station put a morals clause in standard contracts.
FOR JUST SUCH AN OCCASION.

yes--a lot of us newsies drink. But I'm not immature or stupid enough to party out all night and then drive like she did.

So my ISSUE is that the morals clause wasn't invoked...

[Produce man]

Insider, I would imagine the morals clause wasn't invoked because...
1.) She was what, 20, 21 at the time of the DUI?

2.) She may actually be good.

3.) She's hot.

Put those reasons in order you want, but I think you may be confused as to how a morals clause should work.
They are not there to stop me from going to tittie bar for my friend's batchelor party, or going out for drinks with my friends. They're a tool to be used if the talent in question engages in a habit of a morally questionable act(s).

[insiderknowing]

If she was.."....hot" as you say, they wouldn't have immediately yanked her off the air and thrown her into a demoted, off air associate producer position---which is exactly what they did.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Produce man:
They're a tool to be used if the talent in question engages in a habit of a morally questionable act(s).No, they're a tool to conveniently get rid of someone who publicly embarrasses the station. There are lots of reporters who have gotten in trouble and not been disciplined by their stations, simply because their indiscretion never became public knowledge.

[Produce man]

Well, I don't know her OR her ND, so I don't know why they did what they did. I was merely speculating.

I've seen people get fired for A DUI on their own time, and others do they same thing and suffer no punishment. This leads me to believe there could have been more than one reason she wasn't fired.

[insiderknowing]

Yes...that reason is....Her daddy.

[Kace]

Who probably thinks I'm a jerk now...

:(

[Produce man]

Originally posted by insiderknowing:
Yes...that reason is....Her daddy.So? It worked for Koppel and Wallace. Nobody's complaining about them.

Of course, they aren't 22 and "hot".

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Produce man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by insiderknowing:
Yes...that reason is....Her daddy.So? It worked for Koppel and Wallace. Nobody's complaining about them.

Of course, they aren't 22 and "hot".</font>[/QUOTE]and the day will come that she won't be either.

people who hate this girl, just remember: people who got their job for any other reason besides their ability almost never last.

[ November 28, 2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Produce man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by insiderknowing:
Yes...that reason is....Her daddy.So? It worked for Koppel and Wallace. Nobody's complaining about them.

Of course, they aren't 22 and "hot".</font>[/QUOTE]and the day will come that she won't be either.

people who hate this girl, just remember: people who got their job for any other reason besides their ability almost never last.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think folks "hate" this girl. I think she has become the poster child of what has become of tv news.

Don't blame Emily for trying to get ahead. She is doing the absolutely right thing. Blame the suits and the system that has literally changed the rules of "making it" in this highly competitive business.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Produce man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by insiderknowing:
Yes...that reason is....Her daddy.So? It worked for Koppel and Wallace. Nobody's complaining about them.

Of course, they aren't 22 and "hot".</font>[/QUOTE]and the day will come that she won't be either.

people who hate this girl, just remember: people who got their job for any other reason besides their ability almost never last.</font>[/QUOTE]Then how do you explain Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[notwatchingyourchannel]

Originally posted by insiderknowing:
People People People.

She is not a wonder child. She is an irresponsible person who thinks a cheesecake website and working through her daddy will get her places, despite her dangerous drunken driving.

The fact that Indy hired her is a travesty.Thank you insider! I am still wondering why her record was sealed before her trial date. The parties responsible have given her leave to do this again and perhaps maim or kill someone. She hasn't paid her dues, she has taken a joy ride along a PR paved roadway of fantasy. She would do well, at her new job, to learn from those who know what is going on; something she refused to do at her former job. She tried a few hard news stories and didn't do well because she didn't have the life experience to understand the impact of the incidents she was reporting. One of those was a DUI fatality.

I hold no animosity for this young lady; rather, I pity her because she has potential that will go untapped because she on a ride.

[Clever Login Name]

I think it all comes down to the difference between accept and respect. I accept that she's taken advantage of her connections and her looks and parlayed that into a remarkable jumping-off point in her career and her first move up-market. Most any of us would do the exact same thing were we given the same circumstances. I do not, however, have to respect that. The vapidity of her reel reeks of "TeeVee" star, not journalist. Nor should she ever pretend she is one.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Dick Shun:
Look at this thread and the one that prompted it.
Now imagine you're Emily.

No matter how good she is...
no matter how hard she works...
no matter how far she goes..
this is what she's up against.Holy crap, what a cross to bear. graemlins/eusa_shifty.gif

Maybe if the industry quits hiring vacuuous eye candy with no skills for reporting and anchoring jobs, the actual talent will get out from the shadow of that stigma.

[Poo(h)]

I come from the school of absolutism -- you engage in illegal behavior like that, and you get canned.

The only assumption that can be made is that somehow, Daddy's influence held sway, and little Emily wasn't terminated.

Yes, I mean to sound pejorative.

More than likely, some other TV station would have hired her at that point. But she would have at least suffered the same fate as many other people who "make a mistake" and "learn from it later." Which, I still argue, she really didn't do -- she KEPT a job.

At this point, I'm sure her father isn't even reading the thread anymore. So why I'm posting, well, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe it's just to vent about the preferential treatment some people manage to receive. He'll probably continue to use his influence in her career, and she'll benefit from it. Me? I made a top five market on my own. But I will not pull nepotism for my kid. Said kid is either good enough to do it on his or her own, or is not.

Then again, Walter Jacobsen in Chicago didn't get fired for his own DUI. But .. then again .. as I remember, he was found not guilty.

Food for thought.

[ November 30, 2006, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Santa Took A Poo ]

[Produce man]

Well, all that aside, I'd hit it. :D

[Northern Met]

Women get further, faster early in their career...that's life. Let them have their fun now, while they can, before they "fade to gray".

[Produce man]

True, women definitely have a short shelf life.

[Chief]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
I come from the school of absolutism -- you engage in illegal behavior like that, and you get canned.
The only assumption that can be made is that somehow, Daddy's influence held sway, and little Emily wasn't terminated.The only assumption? I assume that you don't have much life experience, or real world experience.

Some people do get fired for DUI, that's right.
Some people do not get fired for DUI.
And there are a lot of things taken into account before that decision is made. Things like value to the station, anchors usually get more slack. Admission that getting busted for DUI is a mistake not to be repeated again. Getting the management to understand that you'll seek help or counseling, if there is even a minor concern about a drinking problem.

And there are many, many other variables.

To say that it's an automatic dismissal anywhere in the industry goes to show how little you know about the industry.

A favor to her father? Please. If management thought for a second that viewers were going to distrust this young woman on the air and tune out, her father wouldn't help even if he tried. And there's nothing to suggest he tried. Only catty speculation from those less talented.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Chief:
Admission that getting busted for DUI is a mistake not to be repeated again.

is that really a tough "admission" to make?
what are they gonna say, "Yes, it might happen again!!"???

[CleanBreeze]

I've been hearing the debate about Emily Gimmel for years. I've never felt it was my business to comment. I'd rather cover news.

But the debate rages so I am jumping in... ONCE!

I've never met Emily, never seen her work. I've met Ogle and respect his news and talent judgment.

For the sake of discussion only, let's assume Emily used some background and influence from her father to get her WKYT gig. (Which, by the way, is NOT a felony in Kentucky.)

If she didn't have what it takes, Ogle would have fired her in a heartbeat. She worked hard, overcame a DUI conviction, and is moving to a larger market.

I congratulate her.

Are you jealous? Work harder. There are many OTHER stations and markets where Emily doesn't work.

Now quit yapping about Emily and go cover some news...

[Chief]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chief:
Admission that getting busted for DUI is a mistake not to be repeated again.

is that really a tough "admission" to make?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm talking about an unrepentant attitude, such as: "my private life is my business, not yours." Or: "It's only a DUI first, it's not a big deal, don't worry." Not necessarily in those words, but in attitude. And that's a problem with a lot of management teams. While those statements might be true for an off-camera employee, it simply is not true for someone on-camera.

If a reporter or anchor someone starts out with that "it's a minor arrest" or "it's personal," attitude then it's a problem because they're not accepting the fact that the station has a vested interest in not being embarrassed publicly.

How does management find out if the reporter/anchor is taking the problem seriously? By suggesting counciling. If the reporter/anchor balks, then it opens the discussion.

If there's not a contrite recognition that the arrest is as much of a professional problem as it is a personal problem, then it's much more likely than not that it will happen again.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by CleanBreeze:
..overcame a DUI conviction...How, exactly, does one "overcome" a DUI conviction?

Do you mean, "She was lucky not to be fired, as many other on-air TV news employees have been, for driving while drunk and getting caught?"

[Another side]

I was in the print and broadcast media for more than 30 years, and have spent two-plus years bonding people out of jail on a variety of charges -- most commonly, DUI, driving while suspended and domestic battery.

I don't ever recall anyone, in or out of the media, losing his/her job over a first DUI, with the exception of two truck drivers because a DUI cancels their commercial license

There's some terribly sanctimonious people posting on these threads.

[ December 03, 2006, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[David R. Busse]

Originally posted by CleanBreeze:
I've been hearing the debate about Emily Gimmel for years. I've never felt it was my business to comment. I'd rather cover news.

But the debate rages so I am jumping in... ONCE!

I've never met Emily, never seen her work. I've met Ogle and respect his news and talent judgment.

For the sake of discussion only, let's assume Emily used some background and influence from her father to get her WKYT gig. (Which, by the way, is NOT a felony in Kentucky.)

If she didn't have what it takes, Ogle would have fired her in a heartbeat. She worked hard, overcame a DUI conviction, and is moving to a larger market.

I congratulate her.

Are you jealous? Work harder. There are many OTHER stations and markets where Emily doesn't work.

Now quit yapping about Emily and go cover some news...I feel compelled to comment because I know Emily, and, like Upandown, have known her Mom and Dad for something like 28 years.

This poster believe's Emily's Dad pulled strings to get her hired at WKYT. Wrong. While Rich Gimmel was one hell of a reporter and one of the best assignment managers I have ever worked with, he's been out of the news business since Emily was a toddler, running a successful industrial machine business. He has few current contacts in Louisville TV and none in Lexington. When Emily got hired at WKYT, Rich even commented to me that he had never met, nor heard of the news director there. And I'll wager no current news director in Louisville or Lexington has ever heard of Rich Gimmel.

In fact, much of my communication with Dad over the years has been in the form of e-mails and phone calls saying, in essence "...I can't believe what my daughter says she wants to do..." He has encouraged her and tried to be realistic in his advice about the business in general. And many times, his advice has not been what she wanted to hear. So, like any father would do (I have two kids in college), Dad has told daughter to call other people and see what they have to say, and that's when I have been contacted by Emily. I've given her my take on things..so have a select few with other backgrounds who are actively employed in the news business.

Frankly, I've been critical of some of her work. That goes with the turf. I was raised believing that peer criticism belongs in everything we do, and that such review makes our product better and our generally thin skins much tougher.

The DUI? Dad and I both told Emily in separate conversations "...you're finished..." after it happened. My suggestion was to admit the mistake, take the punishment and move on. I fully expected that to mean the end of her employment at WKYT. Obviously, the news director had other ideas...and that's a matter that only he can explain.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a lesson here. Nobody's perfect. Admit guilt, prepare for the worst and you might get a break. Again, I do know in this situation that there was no "bailing out" by Mom and Dad. It was a lesson that Emily felt in both professional respect and the pocketbook. Where I live a DUI costs a person about $10k when it's all said and done, and I do know that figure really stings.

Now, about the petty jealousy that has been spewed forth on this board and elsewhere.

I've been in the news biz for 30 years at a local and network level. The fact is, I got hired in a network staff job at age 23, 24 months out of college...rare then and unheard of today. So I can relate to some of the back-biting that Emily (and others) feel after attaining early success, tho mine is not an on-air job.

If newsroom tenure made people better at their craft, then how do you explain the so-called "veterans" I have worked with behind the camera and in front whose professional skills can be called "lackluster" at best? On the other side of the coin, I work with people every day who seem at the top of their game and are a joy to work with and be around...one of those folks is about to turn 30, another one is pushing 75!

Successful news careers are a direct refelection of attitude, and it's best to remind folks of the credo at Southwest Airlines: "Hire for attitude, train for competence."

Good attitude is tough to find these days, in any business.

Say what you want about Emily Gimmel's on-air work. What you probably don't know is that she has a great attitude...enthusiastic, eager to get to work every day and eager to ask at the end of the day "what did I do right...what did I do wrong...?" You won't find a lot of newsroom badmouthing from Emily. No blaming of the desk for bad stories, calling the photog a "hack" or complaining about the 3am start time each day. Good attitudes take people far...some people figure that out very early in their careers and are rewarded for it...others never quite "get it" and spend their professional lives pounding sand, angry about the meteoric rise of folks they have never met.

30 years ago I was a lowly intern newswriter at a big-city radio station. We had a sports guy there who was upbeat, fun to be around, and one hell of a talent on the air. He was 25 years old. When he wasn't around, I heard the whispers in the hallway from a lot of grayhairs. "He never paid his dues..." they would say. "He's just a kid..." or "he never finished college..." or "he must have known someone in New York to get this job."

His name was Bob Costas, and I learned a lot that summer from him, as he ignored the backbiting and continued to "do his thing."

And I would agree with the previous poster. Quit worrying about the Emily Gimmels of the world and work on improving your own skills and your own attitude. You might even surprise yourself with the result.

[ December 03, 2006, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: David R. Busse ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by David R. Busse:
Quit worrying about the Emily Gimmels of the world and work on improving your own skills and your own attitude. You might even surprise yourself with the result.You have your opinion of this young lady and her work. Upanddown has his.

But no one with a critical opinion is allowed to have one?

Now that's sanctimonious.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Another side:
I don't ever recall anyone, in or out of the media, losing his/her job over a first DUI,I do. Sorry.

[The Mockingbird]

How many sweeps pieces do you geniuses have to watch?

Don't freaking drink and drive. At all. Two months ago, I got to go to the funeral of a guy who got killed because a college kid decided it was okay to get drunk and drive.

Of course, that particular driver is being charged with felony manslaughter.

You drink, you drive: die in a fire.

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
I don't ever recall anyone, in or out of the media, losing his/her job over a first DUI,I do. Sorry.</font>[/QUOTE]As do I. Sorry.

It's called a "morals clause;" perhaps stations in Kentucky don't believe in morals.

As for the ND at whatever station in Lexington she was at, well, maybe history will prove that his judgement really wasn't that good, after all.

When she gets another DUI and rams her car into a car full of children, we'll talk.

[David R. Busse]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David R. Busse:
Quit worrying about the Emily Gimmels of the world and work on improving your own skills and your own attitude. You might even surprise yourself with the result.You have your opinion of this young lady and her work. Upanddown has his.

But no one with a critical opinion is allowed to have one?

Now that's sanctimonious.</font>[/QUOTE]I am afraid some of the opinions here were based on false premises. Go ahead and say whatever you think. I wanted to set the record straight.

But you brand yourself as an utter coward unless you sign your name to your opinion.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by David R. Busse:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David R. Busse:
Quit worrying about the Emily Gimmels of the world and work on improving your own skills and your own attitude. You might even surprise yourself with the result.You have your opinion of this young lady and her work. Upanddown has his.

But no one with a critical opinion is allowed to have one?

Now that's sanctimonious.</font>[/QUOTE]I am afraid some of the opinions here were based on false premises. Go ahead and say whatever you think. I wanted to set the record straight.

But you brand yourself as an utter coward unless you sign your name to your opinion.</font>[/QUOTE]So you say. I disagree.

Upandown might also disagree. Unless that's his last name.

[ December 03, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[The Fedora]

Mr. Frog.

We ALL know who U&D is. He does not hide it and he puts hisopinions out there for us all to read, hell he even wrote them down for us.

Most people on here know who I am, I don't hide it either.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
Mr. Frog.

We ALL know who U&D is. He does not hide it and he puts hisopinions out there for us all to read, hell he even wrote them down for us.

Most people on here know who I am, I don't hide it either.Yes, we know.

And he has a log-in under his real name, too.

But he chose to use the pseudonym.

According to Mr. Busse, that makes him a coward.

Or we could just not paint everyone with the same brush.

[ December 03, 2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[product of communism]

Originally posted by Count Rugen But w/Christmas:
Wasn't Emily Gibbel the name of DJ's friend on Full House?
That was Kimmy Gibbler... she had smelly feat. TGIF!

[Another side]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
I come from the school of absolutism -- you engage in illegal behavior like that, and you get canned.

The only assumption that can be made is that somehow, Daddy's influence held sway, and little Emily wasn't terminated.

Yes, I mean to sound pejorative. The sad part is, this is coming from a man who wants to teach future journalists ... a man who not only defines what the only true assumption can be -- with nothing to base it on except his gut feeling -- but then goes on to treat it as the absolute truth, and argue in support of it --again, with no foundation on which to build the argument. Good opinions are based in facts -- and he has none other than she's pretty, she's young, and her dad had a sucessful career. That's it.

He shouldn't be permitted within 500 yards of any journalism student.

[ December 03, 2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[David R. Busse]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Fedora:
Mr. Frog.

We ALL know who U&D is. He does not hide it and he puts hisopinions out there for us all to read, hell he even wrote them down for us.

Most people on here know who I am, I don't hide it either.Yes, we know.

And he has a log-in under his real name, too.

But he chose to use the pseudonym.

According to Mr. Busse, that makes him a coward.

Or we could just not paint everyone with the same brush.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't recall u&d ever using this forum to accuse people of getting jobs through connections or other charges that, in this case, are absolutely false.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by David R. Busse:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Fedora:
Mr. Frog.

We ALL know who U&D is. He does not hide it and he puts hisopinions out there for us all to read, hell he even wrote them down for us.

Most people on here know who I am, I don't hide it either.Yes, we know.

And he has a log-in under his real name, too.

But he chose to use the pseudonym.

According to Mr. Busse, that makes him a coward.

Or we could just not paint everyone with the same brush.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't recall u&d ever using this forum to accuse people of getting jobs through connections or other charges that, in this case, are absolutely false.</font>[/QUOTE]That's true. I'd never malign him.

But you can't suggest that someone's a coward for failing to post under their real name only if you dislike the content of their post...and then not apply that same standard if you happen to agree with them.

[MichaelPS]

David, that was well said.

But I think it's a losing battle to try to convert some of the people here to a more charitable way of thinking (although they are in the minority). Internet message boards are the ultimate example of the old saying "don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." The problem here can be that it's hundreds of people with hundreds of barrels,

Opinions? Sure, everyone's got a right to their own. However, we are indeed journalists, and I forget who said it, but we are not all entitled to our own facts. One does just not get to say, for example, someone is lazy if the facts are they work three jos. One does not get to continue to speculate that strings were pulled if they were not.

I know Busse and trust him. Upandown too. If they say no strings were pulled, you can take it to the bank.

In the course of our careers, we all get this wonderful opportunity to choose which person we will be. Will we be the one sniping in the corner and resenting other people's successes? Or will be the professional who comes in, does his or her job and leaves the schadenfreude at the door? The former is certainly the easier way to go and if you want to find reasons to carp at those who manage to get ahead, there will never be a shortage of reasons to pick for your very own, but that's not necessarily the right path.

This puts me squarely on the sanctimonious side of the fence. So be it.

Michael Schwartz

[Mr. Rugen]

I'm not a journalist.

[SpxGrunt]

Folks, it's not 1975 anymore. Local TV News is not about journalism anymore. It's about making money. It's about getting people to watch. It's about hiring young (and yes, pretty) and cheap. Let's not fool ourselves.

[Roy Hobbs]

Mrs. Magruder's Irish Stew! That's depressing...

http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/5/5c/Ron.jpg

[Roy Hobbs]

I would have made it to Indy too...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v361/johnlennon/brian-fantana.jpg

...but the Ladies didn't appreciate my aftershave.

[mountain guru]

http://www.stuffwelove.co.uk/images/hai%20karate.jpg

[skewT]

Originally posted by insiderknowing:
How is frying your roots platinum blonde with an 89-cent bottle of peroxide...."...smokin hot"?Wow insider you are something. You are so brave to sit there and take stabs at someone hiding behind your sign on name. I too have been the victim of your brash sense of reality. People like you are why newsrooms are such wonderful places. Go put your jealousy away and go back to line producing job.

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
I come from the school of absolutism -- you engage in illegal behavior like that, and you get canned.

The only assumption that can be made is that somehow, Daddy's influence held sway, and little Emily wasn't terminated.

Yes, I mean to sound pejorative. The sad part is, this is coming from a man who wants to teach future journalists ... a man who not only defines what the only true assumption can be -- with nothing to base it on except his gut feeling -- but then goes on to treat it as the absolute truth, and argue in support of it --again, with no foundation on which to build the argument. Good opinions are based in facts -- and he has none other than she's pretty, she's young, and her dad had a sucessful career. That's it.

He shouldn't be permitted within 500 yards of any journalism student.</font>[/QUOTE]What's to debate?

1) She was convicted of DUI.
2) She did not get fired.
3) People in the news industry DO get fired for such transgressions.

Any questions?

[milemarker0]

Her dad was a consummate pro. He had excellent curiositiy. If the Chinese acrobats came to town, he'd ask, "Who cooks for them? Yeah...real hard hitting journalism...

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

Emily is not a "journalist," in the true sense of the word.

(neither are a lot of journalists today, by the way...)

Emily is a host. She's an "Extra"/"Access Hollywood" type, and she'll be a dynamo. But as far as journalism goes, she falls far short of the skills needed to cover and deliver important local news information with sensibility, integrity, and just plain smarts.

I think she's attractive, personable, and has a great familial background - those are three qualities that will get her a job most anywhere in news. But don't mistake her for a journalist. She's not.

There's nothing wrong with that, I just think she and everyone needs to remember that the next time you go arguing what she is and is not.

She'll go far, and she might get a job as a "reporter", but she'll never be a journalist. She should go with her strengths and make six-figures doing Hollywood coverage or reality TV.

...you know, I was going to end by saying "the world needs ditch-diggers, too", but thought it would be misconstrued.

[Fake Post]

Just for the record I can name 2 women off-hand who went from college to major market to network.

One is Jann Carl, who went from the University of Missouri's student station KOMU TV to the Chicago market.

The second is Deborah Norville who went from part time on air job in Atlanta then to Chicago and then to NBC News.

Emily is not breaking new ground. It has already been broken.

And our old pal Katherine Couric went from nobody producer at CNN to live shot reporter in Miami, then Washington D.C. then NBC Today Show.

Give the kid a break. She'll find out how hard it is with a jealousy bullseye on her head.

[LMS]

What I particularly enjoy about threads like these are the posters who extoll the virtues of an earlier age, an age that becomes patently harder to defend as worthy of our praise as time passes.

Apparently, enough time has passed that we can now look back with nostalgia to the glory days of... the 1980's. A time when big J journalism ruled the land and only the most qualified people worked in our industry.

Really?

I remember seeing Broadcast News the year I graduated high school. that was 1989. James Brooks actually wrote the script sometime around 1987 about the business as it existed then. Remember the domino scene? The fake tears? It was a movie based on the death of broadcast news in the 80's. That movie praised the quality of news and news reporters of an earlier era.

Well they couldn't have been talking about the 1970's. I've seen the 1970's lauded here as well.

Again, really?

The 1970's, marked by the birth of Eyewitness News and the consultant. The decade when the news "strategy" was to present the team as a family. Anchorman as Dad. Anchorwoman as Mom, and sports and weather as those crazy kids.

Perhaps they meant the 1950's and 60's and those fifteen minute newscasts and the Camel News Caravans. Or perhaps the 40's and March of Time newsreels.

Face it folks, if you're one of those people decrying the death of news, you're simply joining a long list of people who were already there before you with the sandwich board and the dire predictions of doom

Emily ain't bringing down the industry. She might not save it, either. She'll get paid, be on television and make her own mark. good or bad.

And twenty years from now, your own kids will be on this board, or something like it, talking about how it used to be so great in the glory days of the first decade of the century.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
I come from the school of absolutism -- you engage in illegal behavior like that, and you get canned.

The only assumption that can be made is that somehow, Daddy's influence held sway, and little Emily wasn't terminated.

Yes, I mean to sound pejorative. The sad part is, this is coming from a man who wants to teach future journalists ... a man who not only defines what the only true assumption can be -- with nothing to base it on except his gut feeling -- but then goes on to treat it as the absolute truth, and argue in support of it --again, with no foundation on which to build the argument. Good opinions are based in facts -- and he has none other than she's pretty, she's young, and her dad had a sucessful career. That's it.

He shouldn't be permitted within 500 yards of any journalism student.</font>[/QUOTE]What's to debate?

1) She was convicted of DUI.
2) She did not get fired.
3) People in the news industry DO get fired for such transgressions.

Any questions?</font>[/QUOTE]None. I rest my case.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by skewT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by insiderknowing:
How is frying your roots platinum blonde with an 89-cent bottle of peroxide...."...smokin hot"?Wow insider you are something. You are so brave to sit there and take stabs at someone hiding behind your sign on name. I too have been the victim of your brash sense of reality. People like you are why newsrooms are such wonderful places. Go put your jealousy away and go back to line producing job.</font>[/QUOTE]Hey now, leave the line producers alone.

[insiderknowing]

Another Side always seeks to defend the idiots of the world...I've noticed the pattern.

That virtuous but it doesn't help a discussion of a worrying trend in our industry and Emily is a prime example of that.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:


What's to debate?

1) She was convicted of DUI.
2) She did not get fired.
3) People in the news industry DO get fired for such transgressions.

Any questions?Yes. Where did you learn logic?

People do get fired for such transgressions but not always. It's far from automatic. If the offender has high value to his station, he often suffers less punishment from his station than the demotion Miss Gimmel got from WKYT.

In the market where I live a main anchor at one of the stations got stopped for DUI recently. It made the papers and the local blogs but no difference in his employment status with his station.

[SpxGrunt]

Originally posted by LMS:
What I particularly enjoy about threads like these are the posters who extoll the virtues of an earlier age, an age that becomes patently harder to defend as worthy of our praise as time passes.

Apparently, enough time has passed that we can now look back with nostalgia to the glory days of... the 1980's. A time when big J journalism ruled the land and only the most qualified people worked in our industry.

Really?

I remember seeing Broadcast News the year I graduated high school. that was 1989. James Brooks actually wrote the script sometime around 1987 about the business as it existed then. Remember the domino scene? The fake tears? It was a movie based on the death of broadcast news in the 80's. That movie praised the quality of news and news reporters of an earlier era.

Well they couldn't have been talking about the 1970's. I've seen the 1970's lauded here as well.

Again, really?

The 1970's, marked by the birth of Eyewitness News and the consultant. The decade when the news "strategy" was to present the team as a family. Anchorman as Dad. Anchorwoman as Mom, and sports and weather as those crazy kids.

Perhaps they meant the 1950's and 60's and those fifteen minute newscasts and the Camel News Caravans. Or perhaps the 40's and March of Time newsreels.

Face it folks, if you're one of those people decrying the death of news, you're simply joining a long list of people who were already there before you with the sandwich board and the dire predictions of doom

Emily ain't bringing down the industry. She might not save it, either. She'll get paid, be on television and make her own mark. good or bad.

And twenty years from now, your own kids will be on this board, or something like it, talking about how it used to be so great in the glory days of the first decade of the century.So, there never was a golden age of television journalism? Sure, branding in the 1970's was one thing, but at least the stations had something to brand. These days, our branding is "Breaking News" or "Amazing video from Thailand" or "Check out these puppies and kittens" and we call it news. We're branding air.

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:


What's to debate?

1) She was convicted of DUI.
2) She did not get fired.
3) People in the news industry DO get fired for such transgressions.

Any questions?Yes. Where did you learn logic?

People do get fired for such transgressions but not always. It's far from automatic. If the offender has high value to his station, he often suffers less punishment from his station than the demotion Miss Gimmel got from WKYT.

In the market where I live a main anchor at one of the stations got stopped for DUI recently. It made the papers and the local blogs but no difference in his employment status with his station.</font>[/QUOTE]Leads to a big question: was he convicted? Charged and convicted are two different things, or did you not learn that in journalism school?

Emily Gimmel was CONVICTED.

[SamG]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:


What's to debate?

1) She was convicted of DUI.
2) She did not get fired.
3) People in the news industry DO get fired for such transgressions.

Any questions?Yes. Where did you learn logic?

People do get fired for such transgressions but not always. It's far from automatic. If the offender has high value to his station, he often suffers less punishment from his station than the demotion Miss Gimmel got from WKYT.

In the market where I live a main anchor at one of the stations got stopped for DUI recently. It made the papers and the local blogs but no difference in his employment status with his station.</font>[/QUOTE]Leads to a big question: was he convicted? Charged and convicted are two different things, or did you not learn that in journalism school?

Emily Gimmel was CONVICTED.</font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't matter. That doesn't change your faulty logic. While you're correct that some people have been fired for similar offenses, I bet you others have NOT been fired for similar offenses. Therefore your logic is faulty.

Now if you're saying "anyone convicted of DUI should be fired", that's fine, but that's your OPINION, but not fact.

[insiderknowing]

You guys are missing the point. Here it is..in a nutshell.

The girl had a DUI. PERIOD. And now our industry is rewarding her with a promotion (apparently WRTV doesn't give a hoot about doing criminal background checks).

The POINT is that every other on-air talent who is aspiring to a larger market that lives a clean life, toes the line and doesn't violate THEIR morals clause in their contract, is getting screwed by osmosis because of Gimmel.

And that's sad. Live a clean life and toe the line---stay in market 65. Get a DUI and be so drunk that you tell a cop you don't even know where you're going? Get promoted.

Gosh--what a GREAT business.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

I'm guessing she got promoted because the bosses thought she was hot, or had special skills, or both.

the people stuck in market 65 are probably there because the bosses in bigger markets don't think they're anything special.

living or not living a clean life has nothing to do with getting promoted, IMO.
nor should it.

[ December 05, 2006, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:

Emily Gimmel was CONVICTED.As were many people who have kept their jobs after a DUI arrest. I don't know how the instance I cited turned out. The legal outcome rarely makes the paper. That makes it irrelevant to your argument because the embarrassment to the station comes from the publicity rather than the adjudication.

I second the idea that you not be allowed within 500 feet of any journalism student.

[insiderknowing]

what the hell are you talking about?

I wasn't the person they were referring to in the comment about journalism students....

That was someone else.

Sheesh.

The point is--karma will get Emily Gimmel eventually so all of you who work hard and are great storytellers and journalists out there---keep the faith! Your day will come and as they say, the turtle always beats the hare.

[SpxGrunt]

Fired or not Fired?
KC Reporter arrested (http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2006/12/steve-shaw-local-reporter-as-well-as.html)

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:

Emily Gimmel was CONVICTED.As were many people who have kept their jobs after a DUI arrest. I don't know how the instance I cited turned out. The legal outcome rarely makes the paper. That makes it irrelevant to your argument because the embarrassment to the station comes from the publicity rather than the adjudication.

I second the idea that you not be allowed within 500 feet of any journalism student.</font>[/QUOTE]And I'm voting you not be allowed within 500 feet of a newsroom.

It doesn't matter if the person is charged versus convicted?

Then, I'm rather scared on how you report the news.

Charged could easily mean, well, "not guilty." Convicted means -- "guilty."

Do they not pay attention to the more than theoretical difference in your newsroom?

That having been said, would I bar employment to someone convicted of a DUI?

Not necessarily, but I would demand to see counseling and recovery. Yup.

Someone charged but NOT convicted? That's the same as legally not being charged in the first place, especially with the provisions of double jeopardy.

Hey, maybe Emily is sober. A DUI conviction (stress the word "conviction") is a serious sign one has an alcohol problem.

And maybe she'll become a truly kick-a$$ reporter.

Somehow, I doubt that either is the case.

[Another side]

Originally posted by insiderknowing:
Another Side always seeks to defend the idiots of the world...I've noticed the pattern.

That virtuous but it doesn't help a discussion of a worrying trend in our industry and Emily is a prime example of that.And hopefully I've had some success with some people. Not you, of course, because your whole shtick is being "the victim."

I remember the crack about all the new hires in Chicago being minorities riding the affirmative action train and working for half the price, putting your alleged veteran-buddies out of work and sending you into public relations. It was their fault, not yours, that you couldn't cut it.

You don't really want to talk about a "worrying trend in our industry," and you know it. You just want to make Emily your latest scapegoat -- you "loathe" her remember? She's the reason you feel so unfulfilled ...that you're now in PR and not television ... it must be because they failed to do a background check, or notice her "peroxide" hair, or because of her allegedly well-connected father ... it couldn't possibly be because a news director liked her tape, thought she might improve his ratings, and hired her for what she might bring to the table. Because if that were true, well, hell, they'd have hired YOU first, because ...you know ... you're `all that.'

I don't know this Emily, or her dad, or the respected Medialine voices that have spoken in support of both of them.

But I have to wonder: If the shoes were on the other feet, would Emily come on Medialine and pick every little nit she could about "insiderknowing" -- publically ridicule him and call him names, attack him for his writing skills, hair color,on-air bearing, voice, family members, stupid driving mistakes-- even if he got a promotion she didn't think he deserved? Even if she "loathed" him?

No, probably not. But then, not many people would.

[Chief]

Originally posted by Another side:
If the shoes were on the other feet, would Emily come on Medialine and pick every little nit she could about "insiderknowing" -- publically ridicule him and call him names, attack him for his writing skills, hair color,on-air bearing, voice, family members, stupid driving mistakes-- even if he got a promotion she didn't think he deserved? Even if she "loathed" him?

No, probably not. But then, not many people would.Cheers. Another good post.

[insiderknowing]

I was perfectly able to "cut it"...I CHOSE to move to an allied field when I saw what was happening. And I'm very happy, thank you very much.

Those of us who have worked in Chicago know that I'm right. I can give you the names and numbers of LOTS of veterans that can't find work there...and they're VERY fine journalists. People who know that market inside and out, have a rolodex from heaven, amazing on-air presence and yet---they are on the beach or have left the market because they won't work for $30,000 a year. One reporter who per diem'd for 5 years gave up and left. Another who was doing the same was made a full-time staff offer with benefits--the salary was so low, she turned it down.

So don't pretend like you know..since you're probably in Alpena, Michigan or somewhere like that and have no perspective.

Local television news is NOT what it was 20 years ago. Do more with less, hire cheap, cut staff to the bone, pull bennies and hire per diems. THAT'S the reality. I know producers right now that used to produce ONE show? They're now producing THREE in the span of one shift. Re-racks are thrown into rundowns with no re-writes. There simply isn't time. And oh yeah--now they're cutting their own video on their desktop AND building their graphics. AND they have NO writers to help them. AND post everyting to the website after their show AND leave recuts for morning. Yeah man--that's QUALITY. And they're miserable. These are dear friends who call and vent and are looking for something else. I genuinely hope they find it and will help them as much as I can.

If you're not man or woman enough to face what's going on, reduced advertising dollars, reduced budgets and slimmer viewership numbers, that's your problem. So go ahead. Stick your head in the sand. Be my guest and enjoy. Be happy. Peace out.

[Roy Hobbs]

A dear friend pointed out to me that this business isn't what it was ONE year ago. And she's right.

Go find the first posts on OMB jobs creeping into major markets...now take a look at all the OMB jobs now advertised, small, medium and large. Just like the 80s...NOT.

Here and there you even see ads for part-time anchors.

Bye-bye co-anchors.

Bye-bye dedicated photographers.

Bye-bye dedicated reporters.

Bye-bye travel.

Bye-bye packages.

Crank up the vo/sot amounts and cue the morning "reporter" schtick...put a Burger King crown on the imperious 20-something producers declaring themselves sovereign.

The bean counters have destroyed this industry like all others with an assist from viewers that don't see themselves on air anymore. Or people they respect.

Last person out the door turn out the lights.

It's dead,
Jim.

[Meow Meow]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
I'm guessing she got promoted because the bosses thought she was hot, or had special skills, or both.

the people stuck in market 65 are probably there because the bosses in bigger markets don't think they're anything special.

living or not living a clean life has nothing to do with getting promoted, IMO.
nor should it.Finally! A post that cuts through the bs. I totally agree.

[SamG]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
That having been said, would I bar employment to someone convicted of a DUI?

Not necessarily, but I would demand to see counseling and recovery. Yup.
So in your earlier post you insinuate that anyone convicted of DUI should be fired, but in this post you say that's not necessarily the case. Which is it?

And insider, now that faulty logic is affecting you...
Live a clean life and toe the line---stay in market 65. Get a DUI and be so drunk that you tell a cop you don't even know where you're going? Get promoted. A "clean life" and "toeing the line" is no guarantee of getting promoted, just like getting a DUI is no guarantee of getting promoted. It's the WORK you do (and how you look if you're talent) that will get you promoted.

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by SamG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
That having been said, would I bar employment to someone convicted of a DUI?

Not necessarily, but I would demand to see counseling and recovery. Yup.
So in your earlier post you insinuate that anyone convicted of DUI should be fired, but in this post you say that's not necessarily the case. Which is it?

And insider, now that faulty logic is affecting you...
Live a clean life and toe the line---stay in market 65. Get a DUI and be so drunk that you tell a cop you don't even know where you're going? Get promoted. A "clean life" and "toeing the line" is no guarantee of getting promoted, just like getting a DUI is no guarantee of getting promoted. It's the WORK you do (and how you look if you're talent) that will get you promoted.</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely not. I said "would I bar employment?"

Answer is no.

Would I fire someone convicted?

Answer is yes.

For alleged journalists, you people seem to have problems with words and their meaning.

But, then again, I should quit expecting journalists on this board.

Insider is right. This is all part of a nationwide sh*tty trend -- hire cheap, hire cute. Then, when said cheap and cute is family connected, or has name that invokes some past of TV news history, forgive DUI.

I made my six figures when it still took talent to make six figures. And when one still could. A few markets lower, I still command high five figures.

I'm lucky. Others won't be.

Like I said, maybe Emily got sober, got skills, stayed sober, and is something other than a purported cheerleader "with a great attitude" in the newsroom now, since it takes a lot more than attitude to be a success at this. Or at least it should. And more than attitude and t*ts, too.

But I doubt it.

Let's hope she doesn't cream a car full of kids in Indy while loaded. But if it happens, I'll refrain from the "I told you so," because that's just too tragic to comprehend.

But, hey! She showed the behavior once. It's only one step to recidivism.

[SamG]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
I said "would I bar employment?"

Answer is no.

Would I fire someone convicted?

Answer is yes.
So you wouldn't keep someone from getting a job if they have a DUI conviction, but you'd fire that same person? Why the difference?


Insider is right. This is all part of a nationwide sh*tty trend -- hire cheap, hire cute. Then, when said cheap and cute is family connected, or has name that invokes some past of TV news history, forgive DUI.You forgot something... if management is happy with the job they do. THAT'S the key. We've had photogs who got DUI, had licenses suspended (can't drive to stories), but didn't lose their jobs. Now, don't you think if management didn't think these guys were worth keeping they'd be out on their behinds?


I made my six figures when it still took talent to make six figures. And when one still could. A few markets lower, I still command high five figures.
Good for you. Don't know what that has to do with anything.


Like I said, maybe Emily got sober, got skills, stayed sober, and is something other than a purported cheerleader "with a great attitude" in the newsroom now, since it takes a lot more than attitude to be a success at this. Or at least it should. And more than attitude and t*ts, too.
She obviously fills a role that at least TWO stations feel needs filling. Why are you holding that against her or the stations? If the stations are wrong, viewers will prove it with dropping ratings.


Let's hope she doesn't cream a car full of kids in Indy while loaded. But if it happens, I'll refrain from the "I told you so," because that's just too tragic to comprehend.

Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? I hope you don't cream a car full of kids speeding down the highway. Yes, I know a DUI is more serious than a speeding ticket. But according to you...

But, hey! She showed the behavior once. It's only one step to recidivism.So showing behavior once means it will happen again? So anyone convicted of DUI shouldn't work ANYWHERE? What about someone convicted of assault?

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
A dear friend pointed out to me that this business isn't what it was ONE year ago. And she's right.

Go find the first posts on OMB jobs creeping into major markets...now take a look at all the OMB jobs now advertised, small, medium and large. Just like the 80s...NOT.

Here and there you even see ads for part-time anchors.

Bye-bye co-anchors.

Bye-bye dedicated photographers.

Bye-bye dedicated reporters.

Bye-bye travel.

Bye-bye packages.

Crank up the vo/sot amounts and cue the morning "reporter" schtick...put a Burger King crown on the imperious 20-something producers declaring themselves sovereign.

The bean counters have destroyed this industry like all others with an assist from viewers that don't see themselves on air anymore. Or people they respect.

Last person out the door turn out the lights.

It's dead,
Jim.Then why are you trying to get back in?

Most of us that have made our escape from the industry to jobs that actually pay cash are loving every minute of it.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:


It doesn't matter if the person is charged versus convicted?

Then, I'm rather scared on how you report the news.
Charged vs. convicted matters when you report the news. I'm not reporting the news here. I'm reporting that your claim that if a DUI does not automatically equal job termination then the offender must have benefitted from special treatment is incorrect.

Charged vs. convicted also usually matters not in a station's decision to fire someone for the arrest. Right or wrong, it's the public embarrassment more than the crime that causes the problem in the station's view.

If you want to factor in the DUI when considering a hire, fine. But that's a wholly different argument than the one you were making earlier.

Nice to see you begin to grip reality.

But I'm still sorry to hear that you teach college students.

[SpxGrunt]

Originally posted by Mockingbird with cranberry sauce:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
A dear friend pointed out to me that this business isn't what it was ONE year ago. And she's right.

Go find the first posts on OMB jobs creeping into major markets...now take a look at all the OMB jobs now advertised, small, medium and large. Just like the 80s...NOT.

Here and there you even see ads for part-time anchors.

Bye-bye co-anchors.

Bye-bye dedicated photographers.

Bye-bye dedicated reporters.

Bye-bye travel.

Bye-bye packages.

Crank up the vo/sot amounts and cue the morning "reporter" schtick...put a Burger King crown on the imperious 20-something producers declaring themselves sovereign.

The bean counters have destroyed this industry like all others with an assist from viewers that don't see themselves on air anymore. Or people they respect.

Last person out the door turn out the lights.

It's dead,
Jim.Then why are you trying to get back in?

Most of us that have made our escape from the industry to jobs that actually pay cash are loving every minute of it.</font>[/QUOTE]Then why is your location "Newsroom"? :confused:

[insiderknowing]

"Charged vs. convicted also usually matters not in a station's decision to fire someone for the arrest. Right or wrong, it's the public embarrassment more than the crime that causes the problem in the station's view."

EXACTLY!!!!! Ms. Gimmel's DUI was VERY high profile and highly embarrassing for the station. It was in the Lexington Herald-Leader and in the Louisville Courier. Ms. Gimmel's PR machine and all the fluff articles about herself that were done and she had posted on her website assured that her profile was higher--there was a public awareness of her and so the DUI certainly wasn't something that came and went quietly.

So I agree with Santa--It was a high profile embarrassing DUI with an on-air person? So why did she keep her job?

HER DAD. And that's just not right.

[SamG]

Originally posted by insiderknowing:
went quietly.

So I agree with Santa--It was a high profile embarrassing DUI with an on-air person? So why did she keep her job?

HER DAD. And that's just not right.Got anything to back that up? You're spouting "journalism ethics", how about a source to go along with the story you're selling?

Here's a possibility... the station thought it was worth keeping her, maybe she did such an outstanding job the company didn't want to fire her. Maybe the ND/GM decided it wasn't worth the hassle of firing Emily and hiring a new reporter.

Maybe the Indy station figured "no one in town knows/cares she had a DUI."

Why do you have such blinders on?

[ December 06, 2006, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: SamG ]

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by SamG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by insiderknowing:
went quietly.

So I agree with Santa--It was a high profile embarrassing DUI with an on-air person? So why did she keep her job?

HER DAD. And that's just not right.Got anything to back that up? You're spouting "journalism ethics", how about a source to go along with the story you're selling?

Here's a possibility... the station thought it was worth keeping her, maybe she did such an outstanding job the company didn't want to fire her. Maybe the ND/GM decided it wasn't worth the hassle of firing Emily and hiring a new reporter.

Maybe the Indy station figured "no one in town knows/cares she had a DUI."

Why do you and insider have such blinders on?</font>[/QUOTE]As I've said before, if a job applicant proves sobriety after a DUI conviction, I'll hire (so long as I think said applicant has some veracity, and has DOCUMENTED treatment to prove it).

But I will ALSO fire if a person holding a job has a DUI conviction, and gets it on my watch.

I don't consider drunk driving a "mistake." Nor speeding. Nor any one of those seemingly "lesser" violations.

I consider them intentional acts. It was your intent to drive home while *****ed up.

On most intake interviews for DUI counseling, the counselee receives this question: "has your job been adversely affected by your DUI?" ... along with scores of other questions.

In most cases, the answer is yes. And that .. indicates an alcohol problem.

Drunk driving is not just a silly mistake. It is a symptom of, at the very least, a problem with alcohol. At worst, it is a symptom of chemical dependency.

Such things can, and should, be treated. But the initial illegal behavior and conscious choice to drive drunk should not be even tacitly endorsed by a media organization by letting the convicted offender keep his or her job.

I have no idea as to the reasons why any manager would let a convicted drunk driver keep his or her job, or any job within that organization. Because, personally, I can't see the rationale in doing so. Not a main anchor, not a photog, not a reporter.

No one.

No one is so good they can not be replaced, whether or not the reason they're being replaced falls into "just cause for termination."

No one.

[ December 06, 2006, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Santa Took A Poo ]

[SamG]

Santa, THAT was a valid post. You stated your OPINION (you would fire anyone with a DUI). That's within your rights. But it's well within the station's rights to keep her on.

There are statements the only reason she was kept on was because of "Daddy's" connections, with NOTHING to back that up.

I am curious... you say you wouldn't hire someone with a DUI unless they could prove their sobriety? How exactly do you prove that? Say the DUI was 5 years ago, with no other arrests, much less convictions, are you going to ask "have you had a drink of alcohol?"

[Produce man]

Originally posted by Santa Took A Poo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SamG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by insiderknowing:
went quietly.

So I agree with Santa--It was a high profile embarrassing DUI with an on-air person? So why did she keep her job?

HER DAD. And that's just not right.Got anything to back that up? You're spouting "journalism ethics", how about a source to go along with the story you're selling?

Here's a possibility... the station thought it was worth keeping her, maybe she did such an outstanding job the company didn't want to fire her. Maybe the ND/GM decided it wasn't worth the hassle of firing Emily and hiring a new reporter.

Maybe the Indy station figured "no one in town knows/cares she had a DUI."

Why do you and insider have such blinders on?</font>[/QUOTE]As I've said before, if a job applicant proves sobriety after a DUI conviction, I'll hire (so long as I think said applicant has some veracity, and has DOCUMENTED treatment to prove it).

But I will ALSO fire if a person holding a job has a DUI conviction, and gets it on my watch.

I don't consider drunk driving a "mistake." Nor speeding. Nor any one of those seemingly "lesser" violations.

I consider them intentional acts. It was your intent to drive home while *****ed up.

On most intake interviews for DUI counseling, the counselee receives this question: "has your job been adversely affected by your DUI?" ... along with scores of other questions.

In most cases, the answer is yes. And that .. indicates an alcohol problem.

Drunk driving is not just a silly mistake. It is a symptom of, at the very least, a problem with alcohol. At worst, it is a symptom of chemical dependency.

Such things can, and should, be treated. But the initial illegal behavior and conscious choice to drive drunk should not be even tacitly endorsed by a media organization by letting the convicted offender keep his or her job.

I have no idea as to the reasons why any manager would let a convicted drunk driver keep his or her job, or any job within that organization. Because, personally, I can't see the rationale in doing so. Not a main anchor, not a photog, not a reporter.

No one.

No one is so good they can not be replaced, whether or not the reason they're being replaced falls into "just cause for termination."

No one.</font>[/QUOTE]Then what will happen to all the NDs?

[ December 06, 2006, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Produce man ]

[Poo(h)]

Originally posted by SamG:
Santa, THAT was a valid post. You stated your OPINION (you would fire anyone with a DUI). That's within your rights. But it's well within the station's rights to keep her on.

There are statements the only reason she was kept on was because of "Daddy's" connections, with NOTHING to back that up.

I am curious... you say you wouldn't hire someone with a DUI unless they could prove their sobriety? How exactly do you prove that? Say the DUI was 5 years ago, with no other arrests, much less convictions, are you going to ask "have you had a drink of alcohol?"The state of Illinois, for example, requires revoked drivers to prove treatment and sobriety before their licenses are returned.

It's a long, grueling process, complete with several formal quasi-judicial hearings.

Along the way, DUI offenders are classified according to recidivist threat and treatment level needed.

I would do much the same thing.

The ADA may protect "alcoholics," which it does, but it does NOT protect "drunk drivers." Big distinction.

Let's look at Emily Gimmel's case, shall we?

If memory serves me correctly, she blew close to "double numbers," or twice the legal limit. Again, this is memory from press coverage of years back.

That, IN AND OF ITSELF, INDICATES A PROBLEM DRINKER. Any disease model will tell you that.

Gimmel, in fact, blew a .195 in her own case. In the old days of .10, she would not quite have blown double numbers. In the era of .08, she exceeded it.

Again, That, IN AND OF ITSELF, INDICATES A PROBLEM DRINKER. Any disease model will tell you that. If she is so much as drinking at ALL at this point, she's close to the working medical definition of alcoholism. Next little tipsy drive she takes could kill someone. This is SERIOUS SH*T, people.

And how would I know this personally?

I think you can figure it out from the subtext I've given you.

My BAC, fifteen years ago.

It was lower than hers. And I was in a full raging blackout.

Thank you. And, yes, I got fired. Best thing anyone could have done to me.

[ December 06, 2006, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Santa Took A Poo ]

[Roy Hobbs]

I got to the (then)39th market from Kentucky at age 22...and I generally prefer Shirley Temples.

7-Up and Grenadine...I invented Code Red Mountain Dew about the same time Al Gore invented the Internet.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh:
Emily is not a "journalist," in the true sense of the word.

(neither are a lot of journalists today, by the way...)

Emily is a host. She's an "Extra"/"Access Hollywood" type, and she'll be a dynamo. But as far as journalism goes, she falls far short of the skills needed to cover and deliver important local news information with sensibility, integrity, and just plain smarts.

I think she's attractive, personable, and has a great familial background - those are three qualities that will get her a job most anywhere in news. But don't mistake her for a journalist. She's not.

There's nothing wrong with that, I just think she and everyone needs to remember that the next time you go arguing what she is and is not.

She'll go far, and she might get a job as a "reporter", but she'll never be a journalist. She should go with her strengths and make six-figures doing Hollywood coverage or reality TV.

...you know, I was going to end by saying "the world needs ditch-diggers, too", but thought it would be misconstrued.I should think not. After all, Dan Rather's dad, "Rags" Rather was a Texas ditch digger, and he used to shout "Dammit, put on some NEWS!" when the family radio was playing music.

[been around a while]

just to toss this into the mix. Thanks to the fine folks at MADD et. al. the legal level of intoxication is .8 (or .08 at my age I forget decimal places). For most grown ups, that's about 2 drinks. Would you say you're impaired in the least after that? I wouldn't be yet you say someone should be fired for 2 drinks...and yes I know Emily was over that level, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument with the extreme.

[shitferbrains]

That chick you're all talking about needs a makeover. Her hair is way too blond and she looks like a floozy. Which is probably how and why she got to this point.

[insiderknowing]

I saw a streaming clip of her on their station website and her hair looked ratty and like she'd just rolled out of bed..
and she was wearing a low cut clubwear blouse =-=not professional at all!

[Shot A Load]

She's better than today's talent. No experience and wants to become Anchor/Host.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by been around a while:
just to toss this into the mix. Thanks to the fine folks at MADD et. al. the legal level of intoxication is .8 (or .08 at my age I forget decimal places). For most grown ups, that's about 2 drinks. Would you say you're impaired in the least after that? I wouldn't be yet you say someone should be fired for 2 drinks...and yes I know Emily was over that level, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument with the extreme.Yes, you are.

Look, it's not hard. If you want to drink, set it up so you don't have to drive. The last time I got rip-roaring drunk, about 15 friends from the office rented 2 limos and went down to the 9-30 club.

Granted, it felt like a big gay prom, but still, much fun was had.