ESPN Reporter shows her true inner beauty

She did issue an apology. Might not of said everything one would wanted to say, but she did apologize

She has already said that her behavior was indefensible. What more is there to say?

I see now that the towing company has issued a statement to say that it doesn't have"any interest in seeing Britt McHenry suspended or terminated as a result of her comments." Oh. Too late for that.

j_r said:

She has already said that her behavior was indefensible. What more is there to say?

I see now that the towing company has issued a statement to say that it doesn't have"any interest in seeing Britt McHenry suspended or terminated as a result of her comments." Oh. Too late for that.

This kind of "Gotcha!" video fails to present events as they happened, and if we can't think critically about where it came from, or who edited it and why, I think we run the risk of being manipulated.

 You are right that the video did not present the full story.  Nevertheless, her behavior is inexcusable - berating somebody with less education and fewer natural gifts (i.e. she isn't a 5'10 blonde hottie) who has a job where everybody hates what you do.

And, if I spoke to somebody like that where I work, HR would drag me to the street by the ear and kick me into the gutter.  Do not look back.  Do not collect your personal things.  Just go.

I could see why someone might flip out and say something about the towing company trying to steal their money, or soul, or being a vulture, calling in the media, or something else directly related to the frustration of the interaction at the time. It's the decision to make it a personal attack on the education and attractiveness of another person that makes it seem so twisted.

Unless it was the cashier that started turning this into a game of the Dozens, I can't see what justification the 'other side' of the story could possibly present. 

sprout said:

Unless it was the cashier that started turning this into a game of the Dozens, I can't see what justification the 'other side' of the story could possibly present. 

 Far from justifying it, j_r is nonetheless making a strong case for looking at it in a different light, IMHO.

DaveSchmidt said:

sprout said:

Unless it was the cashier that started turning this into a game of the Dozens, I can't see what justification the 'other side' of the story could possibly present. 

 Far from justifying it, j_r is nonetheless making a strong case for looking at it in a different light, IMHO.

 I am not seeing the different light in which rudeness justifies rudeness.  I suppose provoked rudeness is more exposed than unprovoked rudeness.

sprout said:

I could see why someone might flip out and say something about the towing company trying to steal their money, or soul, or being a vulture, calling in the media, or something else directly related to the frustration of the interaction at the time. It's the decision to make it a personal attack on the education and attractiveness of another person that makes it seem so twisted.

Unless it was the cashier that started turning this into a game of the Dozens, I can't see what justification the 'other side' of the story could possibly present. 

Given that they so carefully edited out the other side we won't know, will we?  That it gives some license to decry the only public side in this aeems odd to me.  This doesn't justify or excuse her behavior, but unless we're holding her to a different standard than a parking lot attendant (and thus providing a de facto excuse based upon class or standing no less demeaning than the tirade), it's all a bit much ado IMO.

jeffl -- (Thread drift)  Can I assume from your avatar that you live in STL like me, or do you just follow the "Fredbird"?

To me, it seems like a public humiliation of her performing a private humiliation, is likely an appropriate level of repercussion.

ctrzaska said:

sprout said:

I could see why someone might flip out and say something about the towing company trying to steal their money, or soul, or being a vulture, calling in the media, or something else directly related to the frustration of the interaction at the time. It's the decision to make it a personal attack on the education and attractiveness of another person that makes it seem so twisted.

Unless it was the cashier that started turning this into a game of the Dozens, I can't see what justification the 'other side' of the story could possibly present. 

Given that they so carefully edited out the other side we won't know, will we?  That it gives some license to decry the only public side in this aeems odd to me.  This doesn't justify or excuse her behavior, but unless we're holding her to a different standard than a parking lot attendant (and thus providing a de facto excuse based upon class or standing no less demeaning than the tirade), it's all a bit much ado IMO.

j_r said:

Ranty comment invoking Title IX  and Mike Krzyzewski redacted.

For what it's worth, I thought that post raised a good point, too. (Notwithstanding the reference to He Who Must Not Be Named.)

Second thoughts.

DaveSchmidt said:

.

chopin said:

jeffl -- (Thread drift)  Can I assume from your avatar that you live in STL like me, or do you just follow the "Fredbird"?

 Nope.  I live in Maplewood but went to grad school at Wash U for 6 years.  I became a Cardinals addict while I was the and haven't been able to kick it.  I lived in U City.  And you?