CNN contributor Roland Martin was tweeting during the Super Bowl, and ended up making some controversial comments that were interpreted by some people as homophobic and disrespectful. Martin,at first, defended himself against groups like GLAAD who worked tirelessly to get him fired. Eventually Roland Martin apologized for his remarks, however, CNN ended up suspending him indefinitely. On a show titled Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz and his entire panel argued about whether this as the right or fair decision for CNN to make. Some issues raised were the fact that other commentators have gotten away with more risqué comments, and CNN may have been a bit too harsh. Others argue that Twitter is supposed to be a person's private life and as citizens of the United States are afforded the freedom of speech and/or expression.
Me personally, I feel as if the decision CNN made was a sound decision. It should never be acceptable for anyone to make a comment that is disrespectful for any given group of people or person, and it's time that these commentators take responsibility for some of the hurtful things that are said about other people. Especially when you are representing a company such as CNN and other large news stations. People need to understand that the words of workers can potentially cost the company large sums of money, and whether you are on the air or not, if you say something in a situation that can be heard or read by millions of people, if it's negative you ought to be able to pay the consequences of your actions. CNN did the right thing. Maybe this will set the standard for some of the other anchors on what they should or should not post on social networks.
I want to hear from you? What side of the argument do you stand on. Leave your comments below.