It almost brings a tear to the eye to see a media giant take a stand for the values of loyalty, civility, and respect, even when it means slapping down one of its stars. That’s what cable sports network ESPN has done in response to Tony Kornheiser using his radio show to insult the dress and appearance of Espy colleague Hannah Storm for cheap laughs. The network suspended its co-star of the popular “Pardon This Inturruption” for two weeks, saying,
“Tony Kornheiser’s comments about Hannah Storm were entirely inappropriate. Hurtful and personal comments such as these are not acceptable and have significant consequences. Tony has been suspended from PTI for two weeks. Hannah is a respected colleague who has been an integral part of the success of our morning SportsCenter.”
Bravo. Sports Clown Kornheiser’s stock in trade is the sarcastic barb and the snarky jibe, but attacking your own team is treachery, no more no less, and it doesn’t matter how many laughs it gets. ESPN has an obligation to protect its own, and though the popularity of Kornheiser’s show (with Michael Wilbon) might have tempted it to let Tony off easy with an in-house reprimand and an apology to Storm (of whom Kornheiser said “She looks like she has sausage casing wrapping around her upper body.”), it decided to lower the boom to make sure the messages were received loud and clear. The messages were: Be respectful to colleagues. Don’t use our loyal employees as joke-fodder. Remember who pays your salary.
To his credit, Kornheiser delivered an abject apology, saying, “I apologize, unequivocally. I’m a sarcastic, subversive guy…I’m a troll, look at me. I have no right to insult what anybody looks like or what anybody wears. That, I think, should go without saying.”
As L.A. Times blogger Diane Pucin correctly pointed out, this wasn’t a matter of freedom of speech, or political correctness. The issues are workplace manners and organizational loyalty. Go ahead: try publicly ridiculing a member of your own organization and see where it gets you. Even in the entertainment business, workplace ethics matters. ESPN has done its duty to make sure it stays that way.
Ethics Alarms 
Tony’s whole job is to give his opinion. So if it doesn’t sit right he should be quiet? Not in America. In the days of “everyone should get trophies so other feelings don’t get hurt”, this is typical. Sad, but typical. Let freedom ring. I have also posted a blog about this topic.
Sorry; that’s completely wrong-headed and ethically obtuse. Nobody says Tony doesn’t have the right to say whatever jack-ass thing he wants, and ESPN has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect their employees when he attacks them. The station would have been well within its rights to fire Kornheiser for this, and he knoews it. You should to. He doesn’t have to be quiet—he has to accept the consequences of his expressed opinion, just like you, just like me. THis has nothing, zilch, nada, about giving out feel=good trophies—what kind of a silly argument is that, anyway? Gratuitous insults just to fill time is just rude unless it is funny, gratuitous insults of people you work with is organizational disloyalty. Freedom is not incompatible with stupidity, but staff relations are.
“Let freedom ring.” Three little words which, in your context, embodies the totality of ethics failures everywhere.
While I can agree that political correctness is a corrosive and damaging tendency in American discourse, this wasn’t such a case. This was a failure of Kornheiser to support his employer and organization, not to its detriment or the detriment of others, but rather in the simple matter of observing good manners.
There is plenty of target fodder out there for Kornheiser’s sarcastic wit, but attacking a co-worker’s appearance in a rude and classless way is absolutely unethical and utterly indefensible. I wonder why Kornheiser didn’t attack the CEO of ESPN with his nasty barbs — Oh, wait, I think I know, don’t you?
Freedom without the constraints of ethical consideration is called “license,” and just because we can make a logical argument for allowing crude, rude, and socially unacceptable commentary does not mean that society should discard their ethical values and embrace that license, which seems to be your argument.
I agree the comments weren’t nice. But what jokes are? If jokes were nice we wouldn’t have any. If it wasn’t a coworker would it have been OK? You are right, if he attacked the boss it would not have been a smart career move. But he didn’t do that. He made a comment about a women wearing something too skimpy. I personally think she looks great. But thats his opinion. If he left out the sausage legs part of the comment no one would have said boo. Maybe he took it a little too far. But why suspend him on the Tv show? He said it on the radio show. I do believe there should have been some consequences, but how about suspending him on the radio show and not the TV? Plus two weeks seems a little too much punishment. I’m also glad you think political correctness is on its way out.
Ethics has nothing to do with this issue. He was not playing the part of Howard Stern and trying to be mean or rude. He was joking around. They make fun of Scott Van Pelt being bald all the time on ESPN. Is that ethically right to do that? He works there. I’m sure his feelings got hurt. Would your if a coworker commented on your baldness? Would you want that person fired? I think this stems from being a man commenting on a woman. If a woman said the same thing about another woman it would be no big deal. It is time for everyone to lighten up. Political correctness needs to die
If you really think ethics has nothing to do with civility, organizational loyalty, consideration, fairness, respect to colleagues, accountability, responsibility, prudence, judgment, kindness and the Golden Rule, then you don’t understand the issue, and you don’t know what ethics is. And if you think the issue has anything to do with either political correctness or free speech, you don’t understand these either. Other than that, you’re right on target.
Ethics is morals. Right & wrong. But thankfully the world is not black & white. If you could take your head out of the sand for a minute to see the side you are arguing against you would see there is more than just your point and thats it. You may think its wrong and I may think its right. Thats what makes America great. 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine & the truth.
You prove my point. Ethics is NOT morals, as anyone vaguely familiar with either concept knows. Read a book, for heaven’s sake. Get a dictionary. Educate yourself. You don’t know what you are talking about, and are shouting ignorant opinions anyway. Not that this is especially unusual, but it is annoying and unproductive. You are welcome to express an informed or even semi-informed opinion here any time, but arguing that free speech requires employers to tolerate boorish conduct from employees, that stopping ones employees from making cruel personal comments about a female colleague is “political correctness”, that civility isn’t ethics and that “ethics is morals” just trumpets your ignorance, and possibly spreads it. Such conduct degrades the discussion, and is not welcome. Either learn something, or shut up and go away.
Thanks for the heads up. Here is the dictionary meaning.
eth·ics /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certainactions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
morals comes up several times. I will get you a dictionary for xmas. Have fun spitting nonsense
I recommend you read here:
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html
This will explain the difference between morals and ethics. Morals are what your parents, church, school, and society teaches you are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.
Ethics is a process for applying those principles. They are two very different things, and if you read the definitions you provided closely instead of trying to make faux arguments out of the dictionary, you would realize this. Notice that the use of the word “morals” is always modified by words like “system” and context that describes the application, rather than the simple holding, of moral principles.
Not merely being ignorant, but reveling in it!!! How impressive! Admit it—you’re just trying to get me to violate my own standards and call you an idiot. You clever devil you!
According to your link different people have differents ethics, no? So if one doctor’s ethics tell him not to perform an abortion and another’s does, who is ethically wrong? Neither one is wrong. Ethics is based on perspective, morals, experience and opinion. You can call me an idiot if it makes you feel better, but that seems like bad ethics.
I’ll let Glenn reply since he seems to have the patience for it, but there has to be a junior ethics website somewhere for you to work this out. Ethics are subject to debate and argument, because there are many theories of how to define right and wrong. Morals are “settled” principles that are not subject to such interpretation—like laws, you either follow them or you don’t, and if you don’t, you’re “immoral.” The two doctors can have different and equally valid ethical arguments, but under a moral code, one is wrong and the other is right.
Oh, never mind.
Pingback: The Dishonest or Cowardly Joke Excuse « Ethics Alarms