While this is sad, what alternative do you suggest? Should newspapers not be able to fire their staff? I mean, sure, the newspaper is kowtowing to Big Ag, and you have every right to criticize the ethics of that. But surely they have the right to fire their own staff?

You sort of sound like you cannot fathom why journalism exists Cyrus.

If he had been fired for a politically charged commentary about how military spending is destroying our deficit and worked for FoxNews wouldnt you be clamoring for his head about now?

The US government has previously enacted limits on employers being able to fire their workers, without banning all cases. I don't know that legislation is a useful or necessary response to this case, but the idea that we have to ignore this or ban firing is an incredibly low-resolution view of the issue.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Businesses hire journalists to benefit them, not hurt them as this journalist did. Are they supposed to just continue paying him while he churns out negative pieces against their partners. If he wants to get away from big money, he should become an independent journalist.

I'm not saying there is or isn't anything wrong with this, or that the state should intervene. I am merely recognising that a corporation has influence over what criticism
is levied.

Whether you think that is a problem, or the same problem that states realised needed to be curbed when it came to freedom of speech from state repression - that is separate.

ie the question of whether you want to do anything about it. It is still true that a lot of power now resides in corporations, when in the past it feels like it was more in the hands of the state. (absolute power in the hands of a monarch or oligarchy, is not a thing, whereas corporations now have laws giving them immunity from some government actions which in the past could have obliterated them...There are still places where the state may unilaterally seize a corporations assets - but not in the 'western' world, in our culture legal protections prevent this from happening.)

So to me this is just a small part of a greater trend. Again, whether you find this problematic or not, or worth doing something or not, that is a different question. (i explicitly didn't make claims about what should be.... Just pointing out that you can ask the question)

"If he had been fired for a politically charged commentary about how military spending is destroying our deficit and worked for FoxNews wouldnt you be clamoring for his head about now?"

Um, no? Are you trying to argue that if an employee has a fundamental disagreement with their employer and, in this case, write/draw material that goes against the interests of their employer, that the employer cannot fire them? Look, I'm not saying the cartoonist did anything wrong, nor was he wrong in his content. All I'm saying is, the company that pays him sees it as a direct attack on their interests, so they fired him. Is it really that hard for you to understand that?

If only there was some kind of medium on which journalists could publish their articles without great cost or outside influence, that would be free for the public to access from across the globe. Imagine living in such a world...

With the freedom of speech comes freedom of private reprehension of speech. I would go on about that, but I think leon sums up my thoughts pretty well.

I've seen workers at McDonalds HQ building fired on the spot for bringing in Wendy's (or Burger King or whatever) for lunch. Same idea.

Or NBC firing Trump from Celebrity Apprentice for his statements on the campaign trail while they want to keep up their image.

"If only there was some kind of medium on which journalists could publish their articles without great cost or outside influence, that would be free for the public to access from across the globe. Imagine living in such a world..."

Disingenuous

"If only there was some kind of medium on which journalists could publish their articles without great cost or outside influence, that would be free for the public to access from across the globe. Imagine living in such a world..."
Unfortunately, even if people post to the internet all day, they would still need to make a living somehow.

While that business had every legal right to fire that employee, that doesn't necessarily make it morally right. This is just one exemplification of the underlying issue of wielding power. Personally, I think large corps wield too much influence in our world today. Every time I see a case such as this, it reminds me that every time in history, the people have limited the influence wielded by the powerful. This is just the next issue along that old pattern that we need to face in our current society.

" Unfortunately, even if people post to the internet all day, they would still need to make a living somehow."

So this is less about freedom of speech and more about the right to get paid for speaking freely? Such a right does not exist, nor should it.

The simple fact is that this person worked for a business whose customers included this farming group, and he insulted them. This does not make him a martyr for free speech, but a bit of an idiot. If you don't approve of what a company does or who they work for, don't join it.

Actually, Octavious, it makes his editor a bit of an idiot for not censoring him before the advertiser threatened to pull their ads.

But that doesn't really change who holds the power, now does it?

Editors being idiots goes without saying. It's pretty much part of the job description.

In terms of power, if the journalist simply wants to publish a story his power to do so is pretty much absolute. If he wants to get paid for it, he has to please his customers. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any system until it becomes twisted to serve those it was never meant to.

Octavious seems to want us to think that he doesn't realize there is a link between actual freedom of expression and political economy. Cute.

Thucy seems to want us to think that he doesn't realize employees serve as a legal and symbolic extension of their employers in their work and actions. Cute.

@TrPrado, weird, i never would have thought of employees like that.

But i guess that many german 'employees' of the sate justified their part in the holocaust by saying 'i was just following orders'... hmm.

@ ora

A holocaust comparison? Really?

It doesn't even work as a Holocaust comparison. Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment showed that the Nazis did those things because of authority over them, which has a great impact on behavior. Meanwhile the actions of a single employee here represent the entire company through corporate accountability. They're completely unrelated concepts.

Someone gets sacked for eating a Wendy's in a Big Mac. Someone else keeps his job because some authority figure told him the right thing to do was drop Zyclon B into a room. I don't see the comparison or how either of those link to a journalist and the obviously poor relationships he has at work.