Netflix comms boss sacked for using very bad word

[dowie]

I read these headlines about the story initially thinking Communications director, he really should know better, what a numpty, just don't use *that* word FFS!

But then the details of the story seem to paint a different picture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44585072

https://deadline.com/2018/06/jonath...ef-following-insensitive-comments-1202415977/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...han-Friedland-fired-using-N-word-meeting.html

While I wouldn't expect there to be many reasons why someone in a regular office job should utter the word actually the fact that he was a head of communications and the meeting was a PR meeting where the topic of discussion was sensitive words... well I guess given they are a company that puts out content where that word might be used then it isn't quite so far fetched that someone might use it in a descriptive sense in such a meeting. He's not referring to any person, he's not repeating some rap lyrics, he's not trying to use it in some misguided humorous way - he's the head of communications trying to have an adult conversation about sensitive words and he's used it in a descriptive context. But people got triggered...

He's then apparently apologised to the people in the meeting later he's seemingly had to meet with two (the articles makes a note of the fact that they're black) HR personnel about the incident and seems to have uttered the word a second time there - almost certainly in a descriptive sense again. Presumably, though he knows not to use it in a big meeting given the flake he received, he perhaps thought that he could have a candid/factual discussion with HR? Seemingly not, they were apparently triggered too and apparently he hadn't learned his lesson...

So now some random exec who probably wasn't a racist and was presumably otherwise quite decent at his job gets sacked because, well that is expected these days... he's of course issued a grovelling apology on twitter. It just seems bizarre, I don't think it would be quite as controversial in the UK, it isn't unheard of to see for example white people use the word in a purely descriptive sense on UK TV shows (Frankie Boyle, Stuart Lee etc...) but we do seem to follow the US in this sense and it does seem that as a society we're getting a bit oversensitive to the point where things get a bit silly.

 

[dowie]

"In a descriptive context"?

What does that actually mean? Why couldn't he say black person or use the term 'n-word'?

Because he's referring to a specific word - I think you're missing the point if you're asking why he can't say "black person" in its place in this context, he could perhaps have said "n-word" and then perhaps provided further clarification about whether he's referring to the version ending in "a" or "er". Though really you'd have assumed that in an internal meeting among adult professionals then you'd be able to have a more sensible conversation.

I don't know where you work but where I work the directors are very well spoken and have excellent communication skills that have very clearly been honed and of course trained, for some.

Like I said, if they got fired for saying something else they shouldn't have said then this wouldn't be a story.

N-word, f-word, c-word... you name it, I would not expect a director to utter those words, f word perhaps if something hit the fan but that'd most likely be behind closed doors. Especially from a comms director lol.

I'm not triggered at all, I'll happily call people names but I do have the capacity to realise what situation I'm in.

Well it was an internal meeting and in the second instance a meeting by himself with HR - that is about as behind closed doors as you can get in a professional context. I'm not sure how relevant your personal workplace experience is though tbh...is the place where you work somewhere that would produce content containing those words? If not then I don't see the relevance here - I wouldn't expect there to be many reasons why someone in say a software firm or accountancy firm would have any need to use those words.

We also don't know the exact situation. If he was reading it off a list then it's most likely a case of unfair dismissal.

Unlikely since it is the US, employment is generally "at will".

 

[dowie]

QUOTE="Hotwired, post: 31906309, member: 86236"]Still, have a think about how badly he must have pitched it if in a theoretically suitable context it managed to be unsuitable.[/quote]

The context we have is that it was used in a descriptive sense in a professional meeting and again in a private meeting with HR. The issue seems to be simply that he said the word regardless of context.

How could I not mention it.

Here we are in a theoretically suitable context and we're not saying THE WORD. Everyone from the thread starter onwards.

Why are we not saying THE WORD in a descriptive context here? Are you slaves to correctness?

Already playing by the same rules you think you're mocking.

Not really, there are clear rules for this forum. People also avoid swearing on here.

 

[dowie]

Anyway, I'm out. Remember to think more about what you're reading, folks... rather than just taking it at face value.

You didn't even answer the question about your statements about your workplace and their relevance to the thread. Bit rich to be telling others not to take things at face value when you seem to make some rather dubious posts without much thought early on in the thread - firstly you asked "Why couldn't he say black person?" then you mentioned, without any context, that directors at your work wouldn't use language like that... well they probably wouldn't in most work places but think about the context here.

As for your quote, you've not added anything there - the mere utterance of this word is sufficient for some to deem it "inappropriate and hurtful" regardless of context and that is a problem, especially if it costs people their jobs.

 

[dowie]

I think the most crucial part of the context has already been given - that it was used simply in a descriptive manner.