I think that was a wonderful send off to their viewers. It was professional, classy, and a touch of heart. I wish them the best.

Why would you say that. While obviously this was not expected by their bosses and was purposely done without their bosses knowledge so they could say what they wanted to say to their viewers, these are professionals who signed off in a wholly professional manner. They are leaving the station, not the industry. To do as you suggest would have likely made them persona non grata throughout the industry. They let people know that they were leaving because they were unhappy with what was going on at the station but did not air the station's dirty laundry in public during their sign off. I give them credit for keeping it classy and professional to the end.

JS is right. As much as they may or may not of wanted to do something like that they still wanted to have jobs elsewhere and I can imagine that wouldn't go over to well in interview.

At any rate yes, way to stay classy - hmmm I'm sure there is a Ron Burgundy quote to be had in all of this somewhere.....

"Ladies and gentlemen, can I please have your attention. I've just been handed an urgent and horrifying news story. I need all of you, to stop what you're doing and listen....Cannonball!"

It is time

A very classy send-off. I like how they hug each other just before the cut-out.

As far as the f-bombs go, keep in mind that profanity on FCC public access frequencies is a federal crime, so "letting it fly" might do a lot more damage than just to their future careers. It can also get them fined, or jailed.

Sometimes using restraint is the best way to say "shove it".

What a turkey .

It's good that they did it on the air and made their point. The usual exit is that they just disappear, and nobody else at the station ever mentions their names again.

If you have a decent vocabulary and are an adult, you don't need to toss out "f-bombs" to make a point.

Wow!

Shades of Howard Beale (Peter Finch) from "Network":

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

Without more details, hard to know if it's a blow for independence or two prima donnas.

Me, I'm hoping for the former over the latter!

Next to go will be the weathermen. "You wanna know what the weather's like? Look out your window."

Looking out the window is probably the most accurate!!

Sees Thru, I didn't think they allowed adolescents on this site. Your juvenile mind is showing. Why don't you come back after your 14th birthday?

This pair displayed the utmost in professionalism while publicly airing what was obviously a very difficult situation. Kudos to both of them. I'm sure they will have no trouble securing pick of the litter jobs in the future. Best wishes to them.

According to the article as I read it. The management was manipulating the factual news for political points.

Go figure? someone in the lame stream media with a conscience.

My hat goes off to the both. Wishing them good luck in their future endeavors.

Journalists are taught to quit an empoyer if they feel their ethics as journalists are being compromised. Some actually do.

Great job anchors! Good to see people standing up for decency. Your crazy right-wing nutjob boss can scramble to fill your long-serving shoes with nobodies while the ratings and his income take a major hit. LOVE IT!!!!

@BlackKnight2

You should look in the miror before you call somebody a moron. They stood up for their beliefs and ethics, and did it in a very classy way. The message they've sent out is that they CAN be trusted to do the right thing.

They'll have no problems finding work with ethical employers.

If they really wanted to leave on a good note, Johnny Paychecks- Take This Job And Shove It would have been the appropriate tune to play as they were closing out!! Nice and Loud!

Well, I'm available. Any job is better none, so if interested, email me at onlyjokingfukmanagement@ihatestupidbosses

Hahaha that was funny!

They really showed their bosses! They better get to Walmart early to get the Swanson frozen turkey dinner!

They both just blew off good jobs. Welcome to the new America!

When you start tossing the F-Bombs you have already lost your side of the argument and any opinion offered from that point is pointless.

They did indeed take the high road which will speak volumes for them in their next endeavors. That being said it will be interesting what "professionals" management will bring in next since management apparently felt Michaels and Consiglio weren't professional? Keep in mind, management is not always right and their mistakes are on a much grander scale and affect many more people. Let's hope this isn't a "I'm the boss and I said so" scenario.

they should replace the corporate sponsored news with this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXItUDliuo&feature=fvwrel..lol... SEE THRU THE GLOSS...

Some jobs are just not worth having Commonsense...and most of these stations are very progressive. One of the worst is right here in Denver, 9News. Lots of fluff and giggles, but no real news to speak of. Screen full useless scrawls and crawls and endless "Weather Alerts".

More power to these two, it shows integrity and courage.

Because one of their major arguments revolved around the recent political 'biased' opinions that were forced upon them, it could be that they no longer wanted to be associated with the faux news fiasco.

Amen, brother... Amen

getagrip, you need to get a grip (and not on any particular part of your anatomy). To the news anchors, well done.

Lol, I was expecting to hear the anchors say "Fudge you, fudge your dog, fudge your mother, fudge your ugly kids,we quit, go fudge yourself"...but they were a little more professional.

Black knight...

you are wrong, you can get unemployment if you quit, or get fired.. you jusr have to have good reason, or its not something adverse... If the workplace was unbearable, and things were happening behind the scene's you are able to get unemployment if we deem it is a good reason..

maybe you should research a little before calling someone a moron, read the handbook, thats why we send it to you.

(Once again you have to have a great reason or reasons.. otherwise yes, we dont approve it.)

That station sucks and will suck evem more without those two. I hope all the advertisers quit them over faux news reporting. and bad labor and management practices.

Professionals wouldn't last 10 minutes as a Laborer.

News anchors forced to lie to the public - what a shocker!

When I'd watch the local Fox news channel in Phoenix (even more slanted in Red States) - you could always tell when management had told them to ramp up their Right Wing bull...what a cheerful bunch.

Well, they have a luxury, alot of us don't have,even as a nurse.

BUT, I do envy them being able to say; TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT!

GOOD for them!

Rex; how can a news channel be progressive and a fluff production? You have never actually gone to a progressive news channel like LINKTV, have you.

Fluff news is the result of buget cuts - which party likes to cut everything they see?

Liberals don't like most of the media either - it just isn't in our manual to rant about it every day.

My hat is off to these 2 newspeople for bowing out on their terms, in a dignified way with thanks and good wishes for their audience. It's just a guess, but for them to go this far, they already have other work/career plans solidly in place.

I am noticing a trend these days, people not just sitting back, taking "crap" from bosses, cashiers, store clerks, etc., and instead of letting bad behavior continue, they speak up. This is good!! People tend to do what they can get away with, and if no one tells them their behavior is bad and unacceptable they keep on keeping on.... Maybe it started with the Occupy Wallstreet, 99% movement, I don't know. But, I am very encouraged and these 2 TV folks deserve a good cocktail for not slugging along, going against what they think is correct newscasting, and heading out the door..... Bravo!

It is Time,

I'am kind of a big deal, people know me. I have books that smell like fine english leather.

You never, ever, ever should burn your bridges. You want to leave in a professional manner. Your the one that suffers if you don't. If the two reacted as you said the viewers would have thought "its a good thing they are gone. I didn't realize how unprofessional they are. I have no respect for them now."

I have heard of employees doing as you indicated and told off their boss (in private) once they had a new job. The boss contacted the new employer about the attitude and the job was immediately rescinded. Thus they ended up with no job.

True, unbiased, journalism is difficult today. Too often, the story is reported in such a manner to insinuate one position rather than stating the facts and letting the viewer construct an opinion.

jake2247, You're making quite the assumption that their boss was "a right-wing nutjob"! Considering that the station is an ABC affiliate, that's doubtful at best. Glad to see you left-wing nutjobs are still at it though.

What makes any of you leftists think this ABC affiliate was run by right wingers? The anchors--and I don't agree their move was classy either--said nothing about which political position the station slanted towards, and really didn't even make that slanting their major complaint.

J P, in particular your posts are ironic since in them you rant about a local news station, insinuating that because they are FOX owned they are conservative, or right of center like FNC or FBN, and then go on to claim you don't rant about the media. Too funny. Too predictable too.

Ken, I don't think it is hard to produce good news stories, but I think it is nearly impossible to produce unbiased news stories, and always has been. Limited time and reporting resources, not to mention individual reporters' biases, have always meant that stories were selected for particular reasons, facts were included or excluded for particular reasons, and the story would always remain incomplete. Benghazi is a simple and clear example of this.

Most of the media has given the story very short shrift, and in most of the reporting on the story the information has largely been deferential to the president. There are just a few contra indicators among the media. But now that it can be reported more as a sex scandal it will get more attention, though the focus will remain on the sex and not the attacks, the intelligence before and after the attacks, or even why the story told by the administration seems to self-serving.

So, give me the biased news, faintly or not. I can sift through the story and find the information I need to make conclusions about the facts presented. But what we have today is just too few facts being given to us. The story we are all commenting about is a perfect example. What bias? On what stories? Why? Who ordered it? The author of this piece wants us to focus on the on-air quitting, not on why it occurred. Basic journalism suffers because reporters like the sizzle but could care less about the steak.

The Bangor ABC and FOX affiliates are owned by the same management company. All the upper managers are the same for these two stations. The local ABC affiliate produces some of the news programs that are aired on the local FOX channel; in fact the morning news is simulcast on both channels. Michael Palmer, the general manager of television stations WVII and WFVX, ABC and Fox affiliates in Bangor, is on record that he told his joint staff of nine men and women that when “Bar Harbor is underwater, then we can do global warming stories. Until then, no more.” Sounds conservative leaning to me.

Apparently they were mad as Hell and just couldn't take it anymore.

Lapham: Those two employers/unemployers are "guilty" of collusion. They are lucky to still be alive.

Rich: Why would you ask to be delivered "biased" news when it really isn't difficult to get either unbiased journalism or both sides of the story during the same telecast. The issue isn't whether the few of us are able to "sift" through the slanted information and think that we have read between the lines. The issue is that corporations have taken over journalism, and are loathe to admit their influence over the way any story is reported. The "News" is supposed to be an obligation of mass media companies. It is not supposed to be a profit center nor a propaganda exercise.

Was hoping this was Brian Williams when I first saw the headline.

I'm sure that Mike Palmer has a long term plan to help Maine avoid global warming. Its not his fault if people in Maine are still living in shacks and getting water out of wells in the backyard, as well as using outhouses. But when these two stations can't get any more advertising for their news shows, I guess we will all know why.

obviously, some people are given too much latitude to make stuff up.

The were never asked to "lie" or manipulate the facts. The only thing it mentions, is that they were forbidden to report on News that management felt was outside the scope of interests.

Any journalist to goes into the field has to accept 3 things right off the bat... one, the editors and Producers design the layouts, not the reporters. They are the boss and it is not the place of those subordinates to question the decisions.

The fact is, they wished to express their personal views, instead of the views of their employers. The rest of the work world is much the same, if you go to work, and you dress, behave or work in a manner unbecoming of your position, you are likely to be terminated.

I do give them props. Leaving in a suedo-professional manner is a plus, but I have to wonder, how many other News Producers are now going to look down on the lack of notice. It might be professional to the viewer, but not seen the same way from a production company.

Nothing more than quitting without notice. For a job about appearances, it's the appearance that will stand out, and it appears they did a major no-no. Than to feed it to National News, and potential embarrassment to now former employer will likely carry more weight for them.

Sure hope they got the future arrangements in writing.

and news reporting is suppose to be unbiased at all times. Obviously, they have a partial biased, or they would not have felt the need to disagree.

More TV Anchors should have the nerve to do this. Many are just plain awful, and follow the drumbeat like the Mainstream Media. These 2 Anchors were honest, doing it with great concern for their viewers.

They did it in a personal way, cutting out the probably obnoxious, dictator style Executives who run the Station.

May both of them, have bright futures. Americans are at the point where we want the truth about matters, current, Domestic, and Foreign, of which words most anchors are told to say, and become Liars at their jobs.

Good things are waiting for them.

One would think these two had done some serious thinking and planning before they quit their jobs. I doubt that they were going off half cocked and cutting off their own noses to spite their face. I'm sure that put alot of thought, effort and time into planning thier next steps before taking the final step out of this particular newsroom.

"There was a regular undoing of decisions made by me, the news director," Michaels told NBC News, citing that politically-charged stories were sometimes not treated with an unbiased approach.

Good for these two journalists! There are some out there with a journalistic conscience

Hey Paul,

Mostly, frankly, because it has always been impossible to be unbiased. It's a conceit to think that any one reporter, or story, can produce a "fair and complete" picture of its subject. Your own suggestion that the news can present both sides of a story without bias kind of proves the point--stories tend to never be black and white, and there are multiple "sides" to the issue. Much better to go with facts and facts alone, and then use your own common sense to gauge how biased the reporter you are reading or watching happens to be, then adjust the "narrative" in response.

I would love it if true neutrality existed, but it can't, and in fact never has existed. So why not just accept reality for what it is and then make the best of that situation? Which isn't to say that we should hope for more bias, just that when we see it we should not get our shorts in a knot. I can watch MSNBC, or Fox, and see the same story reported in starkly different ways. Each report can give me the same, or similar, facts, but with a very different spin to them. Are both reports useful? Sure. I didn't check my critical thinking skills at the door before I turned on the tube.

In reality though both reports will offer different facts, and for perhaps even honorable reasons. It becomes my job, as the consumer of the news, to decide what makes sense and what doesn't. Maybe what we need is less a demand for neutrality and more a demand for critical thinking skills of Americans in general? Neutrality, for instance, tells me that Israel and the Palestinians are moral equivalents in the struggle between the two. I think I know better, regardless of what MSNBC or NBC or ABC or The New York Times WANTS me to conclude about this, that both parties are not equal. There are countless other stories the MSM wants me to toe their line but I find myself unwilling to accept their position.

I saw Ted Koppel on "The Kalb Report" a couple of days ago. The segment was called "The Twilight of Network News". It was largely about the paradigm shift occurring in the news media. One of the milestones was when Fox turned a $1 1/2 billion in profit on it's news program by putting a couple of scripted, screaming actors on a cheap set. (My words. Koppel is much more eloquent.) MSNBC (?) apparently thought if FOX could make such profits with the right, that even if they could make half the profits with the left- it was still good money. At any rate, as I understood it, with profit as the driving force, aided by bean counters and algorithms (technology), news has shifted from journalists to sensationalists. A loss of reliability, accuracy and the coverage of vital, important issues is the result. He mentioned the virtual mass closings of foreign news agencies, left as post office boxes. Personally, I think fracturing of our nation is a result too. It's affects on politics has been debilitating. This was alluded to in the interview. Koppel thinks important issues are being ignored because they aren't "sexy". The two issues he mentioned were cyber security and problems with the contracting out of our military. I think the two anchors that quit were probably two true journalists. I hope they can still find work, but in this climate, I have my doubts.

Without knowing the details it's impossible to make a judgement about which side was right or wrong. The newscasters complaining the station was forcing them to distort the news could be a matter of opinion. Anyone on the right believes any story portraying anything Obama does in a positive light as biased while liberals would see any story bashing him as biased. No ones without bias.

Bravo!

It is refreshing to see two news anchors who refuse to be bullied by the ignorant Republican naysayers and flat-earthers.

Bravo!

It's always nice to see upper management take an interest in second guessing the news director.....NOT!

Does anyone outside of Bangor, Maine really care about this situation?

Sometimes quality of life and peace of mind are worth more than a job. I'm retiring at a very young 51 next week - and why? Well, it's what most would call a decent, secure, and good paying job. But I'm going into my third year without a cost of living raise, in 2011 I gave up 166 hours of furlough time for a total of approximately $7,000.00 and this year I took another 3% concession. So, since October 2010 I figure I've lost approximately 15%. And the three years before that I received a total of 14% in increases, so basically, I'm back to where I was 6 years ago. Some would say, oh well, everyone has been taking cuts. Yes, a lot have. But when you add on that management expects you to do even more because they've cut back - well, you start putting things into perspective.

So instead of management trying to treat people better, even if they can't do it with dollars, I'm taking my decent pension (which won't be taxed nearly as much as my current state of California does) and my lifetime medical and I'm moving to another state. There, I can work if I want, do things I enjoy, and not have to put up with the bullshi* anymore.

Peace of mind and quality of life should come first if you can afford to do it. Also, re-prioritizing can really help.

.

Take this job and shove it. I am so proud of them for standing tall on principle. Damn shame that more of us don't do the same when tasks come down from the top that go against our grain. Quitting our job deliberately versus hanging on by the skin of our teeth in false hopes of keeping our jobs takes real courage. You're gonna get the shaft regardless of leaving with your head held high or tucked between your legs in fear.

I know just how they feel. When I was younger I worked at a right wing republican radio station in my firmly right wing republican town during a time where there was national media coverage on our town regarding a high profile case against several poor and mentally disabled people from the area, you know, those who could least afford to defend themselves(many of who were exonerated later after being convicted). In our newsroom, anything that wasn't favorable to the prosecution or anything that was favorable towards the defense or any of the defendants was posted on the wall with "DO NOT REPORT" in big red marker. That was when I started to realize that what you hear in the media often depends on the viewpoints of a news organizations owners and upper management. In fact it interesting to note the the defenders of the station management omitting news they didn't agree with on this article all seem to be right wing Republicans.

On a side note it's irony that in my town the local government has been in Republican party control for longer than I've been alive yet our "fiscally" responsible Republicans have twice suckered the voters into supporting the construction of entertainment centers that have ,both times, cost 2x what was quoted originally with the cry "if we don't spend more to finish it we will have wasted the first half of the money" with the money funneled into the pockets of local supporters(frankly I think they lied both times and knew that it would cost more than was disclosed) and then once completed neither facility brought in enough money to support the debt that was left, much less keep them open, so the town and surrounding areas, both times now, had to have a special sales tax enacted to pay off the debt that the facilities themselves couldn't pay. The voters here got hoodwinked twice the exact same way. The only difference was the second time the cost was way more money that the first, because our "fiscally" responsible Republican leaders knew they could pull the same scam twice and did so on a bigger scale. So here we sit with a special sales tax increase for the second time in less than a decade because of our "fiscally" responsible Republican majority. And as a consequence we can't afford as many city services such as the police, and fire department. At least the second facility has had some increasing business through 2nd rate or declining in popularity performers coming here. The first facility still does very little business and has to have a volunteer staff because they can only afford a directing manager and 1 assistant/box/office/concession worker (They sold supporters cheap brass plates with their names on them put on the back of the chairs for $500 a pop to raise money). Their biggest success was a chance ballet recital by a prominent ballet company that only came here because of a last minute cancellation in a major metropolitan city in our state. Not because they wanted to come here but because some money was better than none of the money they originally expected elsewhere. We live the Republican lie here.

I'll tell this wasn't about them reporting their news in a professional manner, if the money was there they would have stayed.

Most of these anchors and journalists don't get paid squat for their hard work, many area's I know of you cant afford to share an apartment and pay student loans.

Hats off to these two!! They did the same thing as me (tho I'm sure they had MUCH larger salaries). Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in and upper management should not bully or threaten you to change YOU in order to work for them, particularily when what you have always done gets good business!!! I sure hope that they don't get denied unemployment like I did just because I quit a hostile environment!! Sometimes quitting is better than waiting for them to fire you ... but the sacrfice is no UEC!!

@IMWatching - Now let's see if we can see that same "integrity" from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS (evening news)...need I go on. You wouldn't have even seen this story if it had been a reporter from one of the aforementioned stations. Because it was a conservative leaning station it was headlines. I'm sure some mainstream media station will hire them. But the problem is, if they are truly ethical, they won't last there either. Can you imagine Chris Matthews resigning because he no longer gets that thrill up his leg ?

You liberals who believe that this goes on at just "conservative" stations are either naive or completely brainwashed. I have been in jobs where you dare not say anything bad about unions or democrats or risk losing your job. Now tell me oh diverse and tolerant party mongers, is that fair??

Apparently all of you posters who think this TV station had a conservative bent know something not in the story above, or in the on-air resignation clip. Nothing is mentioned about the political leanings of management, and that complaint was barely made as an afterthought by Michaels when questioned later. Assuming it is even true (for which we have zero facts to assume with), we still don't know if it was a liberal or conservative bias that was objected to, or even if the bias was real, as opposed to just being a different view than the anchors held. Since many of you seem to know this ABC affiliate had a conservative bias could oyu do the rest of us a favor? Post your source or stop making the claim.

Hi Salvia,

I saw The Kalb Report too. I think you have overplayed Koppel's suggested genesis of the problem. True, his complaint was about profitability versus duty, but he noted profitability began in 1968 with "60 Minutes". And the screaming sensationalists you want to credit Fox with creating existed long before then. You could, if you were a more fair person, simply look to CNN and its "Crossfire" show which long predates Fox. Or you could even go back into the 70s when 60 minutes had "Point/Counterpoint" episodes on its weekly broadcasts.

Blaming Fox might be politically opportunistic, but it completely misses the point Koppel was making which, while unstated, was screaming at you with his every comment: You are to blame. Or me. Or anyone you know. Most people don't want to watch an hour long documentary about how the current administration deceived the American voting public over Benghazi if the programming on another channel includes an hour long "reality" show about the Kardashians.

Just the simple fact that your view of the decline of modern journalism begins with Fox, and not with those things Koppel mentioned, kind of proves Koppel's unstated thesis.

Also, not that my view matters more than Koppel's, but I think he is mostly wrong in his analysis. People with power--define that in all its myriad ways--never like to lose power. When the printing press was invented so that books could be made available for the masses the ruling classes, religious and otherwise, saw it as a bad sign for society. Radio was derided by print media. TV was derided by both radio and print media. It isn't a surprise to me that Ted Koppel, among many of the old guard in the broadcast media, see cable news or internet news as a threat, one possible of even destabilizing society.

Maybe society should be destabilized. I think it's largely true that traditional media, for completely understandable reasons too, lost track of their original mission and instead began to gather together ideologically speaking. There's safety in being in the larger group. Very few reporters take on major stories on their own. Rabinowitz, with the WSJ, is one exception. She went against the reporting grain to uncover many great injustices. But she's rare. Most reporters prefer to go along to get along.

It's also largely true that at the same time the media coalesced around a liberal ideology it also became very lazy and incurious. Hanging out with diplomats, or generals, or big shots in the government, was just too inviting to ignore. It takes a special person to reject the beguilement of fame in favor of the hard work required to report hard facts which might hurt those you were just seen with at a fashionable dinner party.

The left, generally, wants to blame conservatism for the reporting industry's failures, but this is similar to blaming the doctor for pointing out the cancer you have from smoking. Had the MSM done a better job they would not now be facing their "twilight". Just one example. There is a young guy with a camera that has posed as a pimp wondering about getting his underage hooker an abotion, or he posed as an activist wanting to get people to illegally vote for a democrat stalwart from Virginia. The left, rather than dig into these stories on their own and root out the obvious corruption that exists, instead blames the messenger and defends by their silence over the corruption the corruption itself. Had leftist reporters been doing their own hard work to ferret out these kinds of stories then the conservative activist/investigative reporter would have no story to report.

But, had the leftist reporters done this, do you honestly think they would still be invited to Georgetown parties, or Manhattan galas? So maybe the genesis is not Fox, as you implied, but rather is hubris and laziness and ideological group safety?

Seriously, the libtards don't understand that their kind run most of the media the only exception is Faux News but you can't trust media left or right PERIOD. Global warming is a scam, carbon credits are a scam for banks to make more money and it is for power mad freaks who want control over every facet of our lives. It has nothing to do with science and they know it. Even Faux News is trotting out the global warming bull, hell even Rupert Murdoch pushes it (I suspect he has investments in carbon credits). Bottom line is all of the media are scum, these self righteous libtard a** wipes on this board are squealing with glee because the one line they read that popped out in their propaganda controlled minds was "they quit because the station manager didn't believe in global warming". They didn't pick up on the whole management interfering with decisions already made, no they just picked up on the trigger words. Read a little closer next time or is that too hard for you? Did those public schools you champion do a number on your poor heads?

So let me get this straight.. A guy who claims to have invented the internet produces a "documentary" (I use the term loosley) to promote his own "carbon credits" scheme to make money, and the executives in charge of an affiliate of a traditionally liberal network tell the news director that they shouldn't jump on the "global warming" bandwagon because not only is it based on unproven science, but more importantly it has shifted to a political topic from one of scientific speculation. Furthermore by reporting on it, which is NOT local news as it has no direct affect in the last 24 hours or even the last few weeks on the area, they are merely generating fear where none should exist in an attempt to gain viewership and create panic amongst the population so they will shift their views to the liberal end of the spectrum...

It sounds to me like the executive is looking for his station to produce unbiased news.. But God forbid THAT would happen on a liberal station.. So these yahoos quit, with NO notice, in a "respectful manner", and you all are praising them? I can't even imagine the kind of executive who would hire someone who has shown, publicly, to walk away from a job when they don't like what the executive has decided to do.. If this guy finds work again in this field, I would be greatly surprised. It would have been better if they had been fired.. At least then there would be a reason they can't use any of their former employers as references for their next job.. At least the woman is going to do something that is more or less self employed..

"Classy" is shutting the heck up about your grievances, putting in your notice, doing your job until the last day of employment (as you are paid to do), and in your next interview, if you are asked why you left your last job, you simply say because you did not like the direction the company was headed and wanted to work for a business more in line with your personal ideals. Classy is NOT quitting with no notice in a very public way, then telling reporters why you did it.. Burning bridges is NEVER classy.. It is childish.

It isn't whether you are conservative or liberal. It's whether you are allowed to report facts and events that matters. Telling people to not report ANYTHING about global warming unless the place is underwater doesn't show a bias on the manager's part? How about you report what happens and let the public judge what is true or not? But nope, if you don't happen to believe that global warming should be at least covered in the news you can just forbid anyone there from reporting stories about it?

I think his comments about it pretty much say his leanings, and I don't care what his politics are, but telling people not to report on factual (if the sea level rises or flooding increases, storms increase, or a professional weather person or scientist discusses it then it is news) stories around it isn't okay. I wish them the best.

Okay, I'll bite. Where in the article or in the video clip does anyone--those who quit or those who manage the station--make the claim that these two anchors, or anyone they "supervised", were told to not report on climate change issues? Just because someone above posted this without any source for it at all that can be verified doesn't make it true. The claim CLEARLY wasn't part of the main beef the anchors had since it, at least in this article above, comes across as an after-thought. So give me any source for this claim so I can see what it is you seem to be so sure of.

"Just one of those holiday wishes :-)"

From another Butthurt b@gger !!

Lol cry more

Keep posting those nasty comments about Obama. The angrier you get, the happier I become!

The sweet sound of republican irrelevancy!

Well, what else do you expect? You always gotta have those trolls. Can't actually say anything meaningful, or relevant to the article at hand.

I hate to even entertain their delusions or their hijacking of the comment page, but I really wish people would get smart enough to realize that the man cannot just go and steal all the money and fire the country all by himself while living in all the houses, eating all the food and killing whitey, after eating all the unborn baby hearts.

getagrip1, Get a Grip, we won.

Oh, the majority of folks on foodstamps, who you would call 'Obamasites", are white and live in rural America. Yup, they're republicans and did not vote for Obama. Your stereotype is tired and innacurate. America has rejected your worldview (again).

Oh, keep_it_cool! How I love your droll wit and acute insightfulness. My laugh of the day. Thanks!

getagrip or better yet...get a life....what a complete loser...you are as sorry as the GOP idiots that 'set out to make Obama a one term pres'....haha

Beach sail,

There is actually no numbers what so ever that back up what you just said. Please provide something or keep reading the huffington post and motherjones. Real good journalism there.

How about Factcheck then?

• 47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
• 8 percent were age 60 or older.
• 41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”
• The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
• 36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic (Table A.21).

updated:

Wait a second..just slow down..CUT CUT..sorry its still live..Oh chit..I wanted to be able to fired them first..they can't quit like this.

Now all news networks will have one of those 15 second delays of live broadcast.. in case of foul words by mistake or workers quitting live on the air!

janelle.. something is wrong with your post....please break it down further

First of all I found 2012 statistics, and I dont think I couldve said it any better than safteychuck2 his post is as follows...

I call bull@!$%#. Anyone who has taken a statistics class knows that it isn't easy, and that statistics can be manipulated. The numbers we see here are the breakdown of recipients by race, nothing more. Yet we are led to believe that Caucasians receive more food stamps than African-Americans, when in reality that is not the case at all. In 2010 there were 65 million recipients of food stamps, and the US population was about 308 million. If you look at recipients broken down by race and compare th More..em to the total population broken down by race, it looks like this:

Caucasian: 26,650,000 or 13% of the Caucasian population
African-American: 23,400,000 or 62% of the African-American population
Hispanic: 11,700,000 or 23% of the Hispanic population
Asian: 1,950,000 or 13% of the Asian population
Native American: 1,300,000 or 57% of the Native American population

Now you know the truth.

Uh, toastee... You and your "buddy", safetychuck2-- have NOT posted the source(s) or site(s) of your info. WHY? Possibly from some right-wing website-- espousing BS dogma?? You two haven't posted the truth.

Janelle... is seriously winning this argument, so far! No doubt!!

As noted, statistics can be manipulated to present a certain point of view. When broken down by race the percentage of the African-American and Native American populations receiving food stamps is shockingly, heart-breakingly large. However, the population being considered is those that are on food stamps, not the entire population of the U.S. There are more Caucasians receiving food stamps than any other group, period. The representation of a group within the overall population is irrelevant, the representation within the specified population, in this case those that are receiving food stamps, is.

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling you're contention is that non-Caucasians don't represent a large percentage of those on food stamps. Of the individual group populations as a percentage of the total U.S. population that is true, but that is certainly not an accurate reflection of the population that is on food stamps.

My bad, that should have been Caucasians, not non-Caucasians.

toastee

Anyone who has taken a statistics class knows that it isn't easy, and that statistics can be manipulated.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." ---Mark Twain

"Statistically speaking, the average American has one testicle and one ovary." ---Denver Bill

The people are sovereign. Remember before cable? Remember when there were only three channels? Broadcasters had to apply for the priviledge of being assigned a station. Now the corporate oligarchs own the stations. The corporate oligarchs determine the programming. The corporate oligarchs program you. The corporate oligarchs believe that they own you. Do they? Are we that afraid of that which bleeds and dies just like the rest of us. Forget the suits. The people are sovereign.

Thanks to Reagan, and his repeal of the "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" in mass media journalism, corporate interests can now choose a Partisan position on the "news" and insist that their on air "talent" tow the corporate line. If a cointerpoint were still required to be offered on the same newscast, the corporations wouldn't be able to hope to skew the information and misinformation to favor their own political and their sponsors' economic ventures. They would be called out for it, and made to look shady, by their own employees, who should have freedom of expression in any real journalistic enterprise. Journalism is different from working in any other profession, it is Constitutionally protected.

Yes, if you are so astute as to know what others will say, why did you even click on the link?

Morbid curiosity, kinda like looking at a car wreck when you know you shouldn't.

That's why I clicked.

when will us americans wake up and see that its not a dem or repub thing they are both working to turn the U.S.A. into a third world country and let the united nations dictate the world. they give our taxes to other countries when we need it here but no one is upset about that. they are opening trade with smaller countries that have nothing we need except cheap labor but just keep complaining about who is better the dems or the repubs and don't notice what is actually happening

... Then by all means, jvtech.. DO find another forum to troll.

@okie58..

Neither wants to turn this country into a third world.. Only it's population. There's no way they would want to live in such an environment but they'd 'nut' to be it's ruler. With propaganda directed at the naive (which we all are as we live in trust) they have taught us (at one time to the next) to hate the Japanese, then the Russians and now Muslims.. The only way to break this chain of events is education.. that THEY control. We know whats going on, unfortunately there's just not enough of us to actually do anything about it as our voices aren't loud enough to over ride the vulture elites.

Hey Saul T okie 58 is 100% correct in his statement. Ididn't vote for Romney/Ryan because they were the worst thing that could have happened to this country. That said, Obama is just as bad in some respects, I can only hope and pray that he succeeds in bringing jobs back to this country.

What are these d!ckweeds talking about in here? This story was about two a$$holes who quit their jobs. That's it.

They quit because the corporate executives were rewriting their news reports, and insisting that issues be covered from only one political perspective. The quitters were arguing that if the corporation wants to write the "story" the corporate heads should be the people on camera being seen by the public manipulating the facts and the truth. They wanted no part of being the puppets of the corporation.

That was "freelance writing", which will probably be even more lucrative than the job she was doing. But that's okay, Meredith, most of the rest of us were paying attention.

Listen to the video again, Steel Toed Boot. Meredith is correct.

Read the very last paragraph of the story, Parent. In fact, you need to listen to the video a little closer also...she's going to "pursue a career in freelance writing". She is also going to relax and "do some painting". One's a hobby, the other is a career.

I love when people try to tell me that pursuing art is not a career, and yet I'm employed... fancy that.

Relaxing and doing painting doesn't mean you aren't going to sell paintings. She will be fine.

In case none of you understand, the bottom line is what pays your salary. Without management making decisions that will insure a positive bottom line you all are out of work. Just because the government runs a deficit and gets away with it doesn't make it so in the real world.

@ Tom: Having a healthy bottom line and having management that will afford some dignity to employees are not mutually exclusive ideas. Making employees feel valued for their work generally helps the bottom line, in fact. Employees are willing to do more and sometimes even for less because they know they are seen as more than just a commodity and that their work has value.

Yeah right two more people unemployed and I bet they are replaced in less than a week. They probably has pretty good pay checks. I was laid off in 2008 frankly I think these two were stupid and arrogant. I hope they remain unemployed for a while and then some day they will be thankful if they have any job and can avoid living in a car so they can keep a seventeen year old cat. BOO HOO to them

So... you haven't been able to land a job in 4 years? Or are you just still bitter about being laid off? Get over it, happens to most everyone once.

Stupid and arrogant? I work in HR, that is not stupid and arrogant. I could literally write the book on stupid and arrogant employees.

Thing is, they did what most people WISH they could do. Hell, I wish I could do it all the time! Fact is, the more that employers keep acting like they are just giving you money out of the goodness of their heart and forget that it is a business RELATIONSHIP the more problems we're going to have with wages, working conditions, harassment, discrimination, etc, etc. It's not like the employers are getting NOTHING for paying their employees. They get a product of some sort.

I resent the fact that at any time they can cut you loose, make you jump through stupid non-work related hoops, tell you what you can and cannot do on your OWN time, including say, reproduction activities or favoring a competition's product and then get all @!$%#ing bitchy about paying someone a reasonable salary, while having no issue with padding their own pockets at the expense of the workers and customers.

They PROBABLY weren't in a situation where there will be a need to live on 4 wheels. If that was your situation.. well I would advise that you work on a safety net for life's unexpected tragedies. No unemployment? Well, why wouldn't you get unemployment if you were just laid off or is there more to it.. like being terminated for cause? C'mon now, let's be honest.

Oh and just so you know, wishing that sort of ill on people might open you up to some bad karma. Just sayin...

@ Elizabeth Brooks, why is it arrogance to quit a job where there is no respect? Yes, the job economy sucks but that does not give employers the right to treat their employees badly. I am very grateful for my job...and even luckier I don't have to put up with such crap. But in the past I had to walk away from a job I was miserable in. It took awhile to find another but I have no regrets. It is unfortunate, you are unemployed and I can understand your resentment but we should not allow employers to act arrogant because they feel employees should be "grateful" for a job. Gratitude and respect goes both ways.

100% agree, cool, on everything you said.

I worked for a high tech company from '89 to '94. We (employees) were very good at what we did, very proud, very loyal, high morale, always looking to improve the business. But we had a$$holes in management. To give you an idea, they kept three sets of books, one with the truth for them, one they showed customers, and the worst...one they showed corporate (on the west coast, we were east coast). One day ('91 or '92 I think, when you couldn't buy a job) the production manager (the REAL a$$hole of them all) forced all the supervisors to hold department meetings where we were told "this is what we're gonna do, this is the way it's gonna be, and anybody who doesn't like it, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!" I looked around the room, and could tell by the faces of my coworkers that management had just destroyed all pride, morale and loyalty. We just didn't care anymore. In '94, I got a job with their competitor directly across the street and left, and 2 weeks later, the old company went under (not because I left, but I WISH it had been). Right after that, before I knew they were closing, I walked into the men's room at my new company, and who did I run into but that production manager. I asked some superiors if they knew who he was, and found out he was looking for a position. Although I was new, I told the hiring people that if they hired this a$$hole, they would lose all employee morale and we would go under too. They listened to me, and others who knew him, and didn't hire him. The same thing happened at every company in the industry that he applied at. Last I heard of him, he'd had a nervous breakdown and sold his Corvette collection and his house and moved away. Couldn't happen to a more deserving a$$hole!

As to your points to elizabeth brooks, later at my new company ('98 -'99) the boom years, our company just couldn't find warm bodies to hire. God, some of the dregs they had to hire!! As soon as the economy started to sputter, they could attract better people, and get rid of the dregs. I was involved in hiring, and we'd had no choice but to hire people who I knew would never have had a job if we weren't desperate for bodies. I'm sure that most (not all) of those are the ones who were dumped as soon as possible, and have been unable to find a job in the past four years. For comparison, my 2 daughters have not been without a job at all, and my son lost his job with Circuit City when they went under in 2008-9, and has gone through five other employers, but has not been without a job for more than three weeks at a time, and now has two part time jobs, one of which is going full time soon. The other unemployed, of course, are mostly older people that companies just will not hire because they don't need to in this economic climate. (In fact, they're replacing them with younger, cheaper people) What goes around comes around though. Right now, companies are blaming the government and the economy, some crying poverty when they're really making obscene profits, cutting and not hiring, forcing the remaining employees to do the work of 2 or 3 people for less money, cutting benefits, all while their upper management are getting huge bonuses out of the extra profit they're making. Then when times change and we remember how they were today, they'll cry and moan and not understand why we treat THEM the way they've treated us these past 4 years. It's unfortunate, but you're right...there IS no business relationship any more.

Just an added thought that goes along with this story. I was reading another board concerning the Hostess strike and closing. Some idiots slammed the bakers, saying now, because they didn't roll over and take it up the ***, they're out of a job. Hostess wanted to cut their pay by 8% and their benefits by 30%, but no cuts for the upper management making $100,000+++.

Since most of us plebs are living paycheck to paycheck what with this inflation, let me ask you, what would YOU give up. Your car payment so it would be repossessed...your mortgage so it would be foreclosed...your electric bill, water bill so they'd turn it off...heating fuel so you'd go without heat? Think about it before you say something asinine like you'd just roll over and take it up the ***.

If you are smarter than the people in command you should start your own company. Just bitching about your boss does not make you right, just a bellyacher.

@elizabeth brooks, I've quit without notice twice, both times without having anything else lined up. I guess I'm stupid and arrogant too. Both times I just started my own business and was perfectly fine, though I burned through most of my savings in the first year each time.

But I suppose you don't have the skills to run a business, since you're still waiting for someone to offer you a magical job. It also doesn't sound like you had adequate savings when you got laid off, since you ended up living in your car.

So tell me again how I'm the stupid one? Arrogant, maybe, but stupid? ;)

yes, on your knees now, slave! be smart. obey obey obey! like good little american profit-bots.

@dapper1..

But they DID quit with class.. what do you call class? Relaying you're grievances in a most respectable way only to be fired for insubordination where even if you wanted to you couldn't receive unemployment because you would have no proof that biasness got you fired.. They've not only left the way most of us would like to leave (at times) but now the employer will have to prove they're grievances are false. I say, they quit with class.

I'm still curious where you find that 47% of the people in the US are being spoon fed by the government? I'm guessing you're also saying the elderly and disabled who can't work should be made to work. Are there some who take advantage of that situation? Absolutely, but please don't assume everyone is.

When I decided to quit my part-time DJ job, I planned on playing Harry Nillson's " You're Breakin' My Heart", ( look it up if you've never heard it ), even brought my original " Son Of Schmillson " album in my briefcase. That would have been more than just burning my bridges... more like blowing them up!

I turned in my 2-week notice.

Oh they BOTH will find other anchor jobs. That management team should be unemployed VERY soon.

I'm sorry, but your talking about 2 different things. That healthcare act and this businesses response. The business is trying to find a way not to force their employees to pay extra for health insurance. I wish people could actually see "Whats" really going on, before they spout off. This healthcare bill will means a large burden is put on people over 25 and people with middle to low incomes...the people I wish our president cared about...the other half of his countries population :)

indeed revolt is in the air. it's a slow process, but eventually there is no blood to be gained from a stone.

most of us have been squeezed dry, and whether or not we like it, we'll have to fight to survive this war from the rich.

they have no right to rule except what you give them. time to do something else and do things differently. none of us were born slaves.

"I wish people could actually see "Whats" really going on, before they spout off."

Humorous, considering that your next sentences show that you rather decidedly don't know "what's going on."

It's kind of like when someone begins a screed with "wake up people!" and then proceeds to rant about things that show very little understanding about how things really work.

You need to be specific about how LinLakeville's comments are wrong. Tell us how the the Middle Class won't be adversely impacted instead of just implying they won't be.

Okay here is a BIG part of the Affordable Healthcare act from the website:

The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.

How is that bad for us? Instead of Insurance companies pocketing our premiums they are made to use them for the reason we're paying them, and here's the site:

www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/value-for-premium/index.html

Uh... I think it's pretty clear what notice they gave.. or did you not notice the entire premise of the article? So if a potential employer is "left wondering if they gave reasonable notice" they might not be very smart.

Times are changing man, times are changing.

David, stop knowtowing to the corporations. Do you lick their boots also or just the a-hole?

Times are a changing man.....:) People are fed up and this is just the beginning. Look at Hostess. Hang on for the ride, laddie.

I think it was great how they did it. This way no-one in management can say anything different. I am sure both be hired elsewhere. I hope the advertisers on that station and their sister stations pay attention. No business of any kind should be affiliated that station. I see it going off the air VERY soon.

David points out a practical problem they will have in the future and Godsmack4 interprets that as "kowtowing to the corporations" with a real demonstration of how classy he is. There's little doubt that, unless they establish and operate their own businesses, future management will wonder if the same good happen to them. I have a feeling that that the Bakers Union at Hostess has members that don't agree with the outcome presented to them, but they were at the mercy of their Union leadership. Reminds me of the Air Traffic Controllers Union after Reagan fired all the controllers -- one Union official ended up pumping gas. Other Hostess unions werre able to reach agreement, but not the Bakers!!

It's merely a myth that not giving notice makes any difference whatsoever in your future. I even directly asked the HR rep about that when she was trying to talk me into giving notice when I quit my last job. When questioned, she immediately admitted it won't make a bit of difference unless I ever applied for a job with that same company (and she and I both laughed at that!). It's a federal offense for them to share that information outside HR anyway. According to her, all they're allowed to tell a caller checking your references is date of employment/date employment ended. They can't even tell the caller if you quit or were fired.

Admittedly, this particular case was very public, but the sad truth is, nobody cares about local news anchors anyway. They're like actors; if one quits, there are several people already working in the same room who'd sell their firstborn for an audition. It isn't like a regular job, where they'd have to emergency hire a temp or something. The 11pm anchors move to the more prestigious 6pm slot, and some attractive, eager, existing employee gets a try at 11.

Obviously that changes when you get to the top-shelf jobs like network anchors, but in Bangor, Maine, this is likely more an opportunity than a problem.

A federal offense for a former employer to tell another employer how much notice you gave before you quit,Keith?

Please tell us which federal law.Thank you.

Grade A employers will NOT hold quitting without notice against prospective employees with good work records, who left their last job because working relationships with unreasonable managers weren't possible.

Employers who are all about controlling their employees 24/7 and treating them as inanimate objects that exist for their use,on the other hand WILL have a conniption fit when they find out these reporters thought for themselves and publicly disobeyed TWO of their masters' directives.IF these two were interested in continuing to work for others they would be able to tell immediately which employers treat employees with respect and value them showing intelligence and initiative.

Speaking of thinking for oneself:David,Buddy,you're old enough to start doing so.

In the first place blindly following a corporation and only saying and thinking what they tell you to is,frankly Sir,real dumb.If you spend every day in a den of rattlesnakes what do you THINK is bound to happen sooner or later when they need a scapegoat or need to eliminate a few jobs to create more revenue for themselves? What do you think will happen to you the next day if they find out you've got a serious medical issue that they don't want on the company plan?

The corporate propaganda that you're repeating is NOT sound logic,for the reason given in the first paragraph of my post,and also because, believe it or not if corporate managers decide to blacklist an employee the world does NOT revolve around corporate managers' whims,thus you need to get over yourself.

Smart,courageous,independent-thinking employees ARE sometimes blacklisted by unscrupulous employers,but in many cases they don't care because they have better options. They're the type most likely to succeed on their own, and are most sought after by intelligent,secure,and ethical managers who encourage independent thinking.Stop dangling working for you and your kind out in front of workers,as though employment under you is a carrot that every worker HAS to chase.No,they don't.Many don't want to.