CT Progressive

A good catch from the Laurel:

Lost amidst the juicier stuff is a point raised three times in Shelly Sindland’s complaint against her employer, Fox61; her concern that “the respondent was committing ethical violations related to receiving payment for news stories.”

One of the interesting things in this kind of public fight is that there’s the nominal reason for the lawsuit (the discrimination case), and the reason that the company is going to settle without making a fuss.

From the complaint (provided by the CT Employment Law Blog here):

29. In approximately September 2008, I approached Rockstroh about my concerns that the respondent was committing ethical violations related to receiving payment for news stories. I was told by Rockstroh that “you are not going to win this one.”

37. In approximately February 2009,1 again approached Rockstroh regarding my concerns that the respondent was committing ethical violations related to receiving payment for news stories.

41. On or about April 13, 2009, I once again approached Rockstroh regarding my concerns that the respondent was committing ethical violations related to receiving payment for news stories.

52. In approximately mid-May 2009, I approached Patz regarding my concerns that the respondent was committing ethical violations related to receiving payment for news stories. Patz stated to me that if she looked into the allegations, it would “only make matters worse for [me]” and that she was “worried about my daughter and [me] and that [I] needed my job.”

With all due respect to the Laurel, this is the juicier stuff. “The respondent” is not one of these goofball editors that was giving her a hard time, but rather, “the Tribune Company (hereinafter “Tribune”) d/b/a Fox 61 News.” And, in the middle of the complaint, these points appear way out of context.

Sindland is, of course, the station’s political reporter. I don’t know what story could have been both of such interest that she might have picked a fight with management (which she was “not going to win”) over it, and was continuing from September 2008 to May 2009.

On a totally unrelated note, the only discriminatory action directly related to news coverage mentioned in the complaint?

54. On or about May 23, 2009, I was the only local Connecticut reporter invited to the White House Rose Garden to report on a bill signing regarding credit card reform act legislation sponsored by Senator Christopher Dodd. That reporting was never used in any type of promotional materials. I was never commended on or acknowledged in any way for this invitation or my coverage of the event.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.