Sean and Earline
Here is what happened.
Conservative radio talk show host Sean Hannity called the Affordable Care Act 800 “Hotline” to determine what information was being disseminated there. After all, the news media, without calling the line, was misinforming the public about what awaited them: CNN Headline News’s cheery morning host Robin Meade, for example, said, “They don’t have to use the website to enroll, right? Now they can do it over the phone?” Wrong.
He called, and this transpired, as described by Mediaite (you can also hear the call at the link):
“After President Obama gave out the phone number for the official Obamacare registration hotline Monday morning, radio host Sean Hannity called in to speak with a human representative… Eventually, he made his way to a help line with a female operator named “Earline Davis.” Hannity proceeded to ask Earline questions about the difficulties experienced on HealthCare.gov, prompting her to explain that many people have called to vent their frustrations and that all she can tell them is that the site will likely experience difficulties for the next 42 hours. The radio host also asked the woman the particulars of her job: When did she begin working on Obamacare calls, how long she trained for answering calls, and whether her bosses have told her what to say when asked about the “glitchy” website. Hannity even managed to convince the woman to read the “script” aloud on the radio:
“Thanks for your interest in the health insurance marketplace. We are having a lot of visitors trying to use our website right now. This is causing some glitches for some people trying to create an account or log in. Keep trying and thanks for your patience. You might have better success during off-peak hours like later at night or early in the morning. We’ll continue working to improve the site so you can get covered.”
“And that’s the whole thing? So you went through a whole week of training so you can do that?” Hannity asked before attempting to cut her off, perhaps sensing the sensitivities involved with such a question. He then asked her questions for which she clearly had no answers: “Did you know how much the government spent on that website?” “Isn’t that crazy?” “Did you know the president promised the average family was going to save $2,500 dollars, and the average increase is $7,500 a year?” Hannity complimented for the operator for being so polite and kind, but also asked her questions that could possibly put her job on the line: “Have you ever gotten anyone who really likes it yet?” he asked at another point. “Um, not really,” she admitted, sending the radio host into a fit of laughter.
The conversation later switched to small talk about her residence in Panama City, Fla. , the weather in Florida versus New York, her non-registered voting status, and her lack of knowledge about Fox News or any major right-wing talk radio hosts.”
She was fired.
Hannity then had Davis on his radio and Fox TV shows, where she said she was fired for talking to the news media, though she had never been told that she was prohibited from doings so. Hannity announced that he would pay her salary for the year and also help her find another job.
Now some ethics questions and answers about the incident:
Q: Was it ethical for Hannity to call the line?
A: Of course. It would have been journalistic malpractice if reporters didn’t call the line. I’m sure many did. The President gave out the number, and everyone had a right to know what the President of the United States considers “help” in the midst of the inexcusably incompetent roll out of his signature achievement. The “hot line” is a palliative, and little more. Hannity served his listeners by making the call, and he made the call ethically, making it clear who he was.
Q: Should the operator have talked to the radio host?
A: No. That isn’t her job, and Hannity was not seeking assistance with enrollment. He was theoretically tying up a line that genuine health insurance seekers were trying to reach. Of course, since the line doesn’t really accomplishe anything, this is an example of not letting a legitimate caller reach an operators who is going to waste their time anyway, but nonetheless: she wasn’t being paid to talk to Sean.
Q: Was it ethical for the ACA overseers to fire poor Earline?
A: Certainly not. They were certainly within their rights to fire her, but what a vindictive, cruel, mean-spirited and thuggish thing to do! This was the fault of her supervisors. She was not trained to deal with a suave, friendly pro like Hannity, and even if she was told not to speak with “the media,” she may not have seen his chit-chat as the media. Radio and TV personalities calling workplaces on the air has been a standard stunt since the Fifties, and if the call recipients don’t blatantly embarrass their employers—and Earline was polite and professional enough—they are seldom fired. What is gained by firing this poor, part-time worker, who was yanked into the ACA mess by random chance? The parties at fault are her supervisors. She should have been trained to deal with this kind of informational inquiry, if it was considered so potentially damaging.
Q: Was Hannity ethically obligated to mitigate the harm of Earline losing her job?
A: Absolutely. He had no legal obligation, but it was the right thing to do unlike, in contrast, Sen. McCain’s indefensible hiring of research fraud and serial liar Elizebeth O’Bagy after he helped bring her misrepresentations to light by quoting her analysis of the Syria situation. He didn’t get her fired; her lies did. Now her lies and his foolishness have won her a job on the Hill….another victory for cheating.
So what have we learned from this?
1. Sean Hannity did nothing wrong.
2. Earline was wrong, but a victim of circumstance.
3. She shouldn’t have been fired.
4. Sometimes Sean Hannity is as nice a guy as he pretends to be.
5. The Obama Administration employs some ruthless and nasty people.
(But we already knew that.)
______________________________________
Sources: Mediaite, Politico 1, 2
Ethics Alarms 
Not only is he giving her a year’s salary, but also actively seeking to help her get a new job in addition to the money he gives her.
I don’t care much for his shows, but he doesn’t seem to be all that bad of a guy.
Now, if to wanted to be more provocative, I would have left in my original #5: we now know that lying to Congress, letting illegal weapons loose in Mexico, and spying on the press while lying about it (Holder) isn’t a firing offense; that botching the planning for Obamacare (Sibelius) isn’t; that lying to the public about Benghazi (Rice) isn’t a firing offense (but one that get a promotion!); that overseeing an incompetent TSA is acceptable (Napolitano); that stonewalling the death of an American ambassador has no consequences (Clinton), that using the tax-collecting authority in violation of the Constitution and lying about it (the IRS and Treasury) won’t get anyone fired, that lying to the press and the public regularly isn’t cause for dismissal ( Carney)—but a minimum wage operator has to be sacked because she inadvertently exposed the pathetic failure of the Obamacare roll-out.”
Nah.
Saying mean things about Valerie Jarrett and talking out of school will get you fired too…
I wouldn’t have fired her. I think this firing was probably unethical and wrong, because it was probably about embarrassment, not about job competence.
But from what is described in your post, her firing is justifiable on the “is this employee performing her job competently?” level.
I did phone work for years in my 20s, working for several different firms (and going through the mind-numbingly tedious training at every firm). In every training, we were clearly ordered not to participate in long off topic conversations. If the person you’re talking to insists on bringing the conversation to other matters, you’re supposed to either politely end the conversation, or transfer the call to a supervisor.
By chatting about politics, and then about the weather in Florida, with a caller for an extended period of time, she’s almost certainly disobeying explicit job instructions, and not competently performing the job she’s being paid to do.
Don’t get me wrong, *I* wouldn’t fire her for that, unless this was the second or third incident – but as you know, from previous discussions we’ve had, I’m firmly in the “don’t fire someone for a first offense” camp.
But if you believe that firing someone for a first offense of flagrantly failing to perform her work duties is justifiable, then this case seems to qualify.
I agree completely–she could be fired for cause. She probably could be fired at will. The firing is justified, but also unfair. That’s unusual.
” her firing is justifiable on the “is this employee performing her job competently?” level.”
I disagree. I have yet to see anything about what her job requirements were in reference to this kind of contact. You are assuming a fact not [yet] in evidence.
She read her “script” and said in answer to a question that that was what she was trained to do. Until there is honest revelation of the total of her training, including “dos and don’ts”, we do not know know if she violated policy or not.
Although I don’t think Hannity’s behavior in calling her is unethical, it bothers me a little.
I used to do a small amount of volunteer community reporting, and one of my personal rules was to be gentle with people who aren’t media sophisticates. If I called someone on the city council or the county board, it was game on from the moment I identified myself as a reporter doing a story. But when talking to ordinary folks who weren’t part of a story, if they said something that was technically on the record that I guessed they didn’t really want me to publish, I’d make sure I understood their intentions. Playing “gotcha” with people who aren’t used dealing with the media just struck me as a bad way to get a story.
Hannity doesn’t quite do that, but it still feels a little funny.
Well it just shows you that Obama and his minions will throw anybody to the wolves who doesn’t follow the script. I congratulate this lady in being a sort of whistleblower. Hannity might have been a little out of line in telephoning the 800 line and fishing for answers from this lady but he did the right thing in paying her after the firing and I have no doubt she wind up with a better job.
Sean Hannity is a self-righteous scum bag. And everyone in this country should know that by know.. Unfortunately for that woman, she lacked the common sense to identify this predator.
Let’s see:
By self-righteous, I gather you mean he has opinions. That is his job, as a political talk show host. “Self-righteous” is a word that is hardly ever justified, and on this blog, it is usually used by those who think that to challenge anyone’s conduct as unethical is presumptuous—the “my ethics are mine and yours are yours” crowd…you know. Morons.
By “scum bag,” I assume you mean he is conservative, a political view which you unfairly attach to bad character. Hannity, to the contrary, appears to be a sincere and pretty decent guy. I don’t see how he qualifies as a “predator.” I have criticized him in the past for letting uneducated liberals and especially blacks make fools of themselves on the air, which I think is unkind and unfair, but it hardly qualifies him as a predator, and he has the valid defense that it’s part of the genre.
I’m not a fan of Hannity because he is too predictable, knee-jerk in his views, closed of mind, a fan of too many horrible characters like Donald Trump, Bill Cunningham, and Michele Bachmann, kind of smarmy, and just not too bright, but your criticism is unmoored to anything other than anti-right bias, as far as I can see. I’d be surprised it you have actually listened to him for more than 5 minutes. The most vociferous critics of conservative talk show hosts are those who literally never listen to them.
Jack, I am with your on your post but I think you give Hannity to much of an ethical pass. I agree his response for what his actions resulted in were ethical but his questions in regards to overall policy and implementation were made as an attack on the administration and used her a prop, that was unethical. I think making the call was unethical as well. He very well may be a nice guy, I just don’t think his typical programming is very ethical.
Your reply above I reads like your downplaying his unethical past.
I have criticized him in the past for letting uneducated liberals and especially blacks make fools of themselves on the air, which I think is unkind and unfair, but it hardly qualifies him as a predator, and he has the valid defense that it’s part of the genre.
I would change it to Unkind, unfair and unethical. As for valid defense I don’t agree, although he is an opinion guy his typical MO is to find mental incompetents with opposing views to feed his viewers confirmation bias. That is unethical regardless if everybody does it.
Where were you last time I scored Sean for this? Almost nobody agreed with me, but in those cases, I was talking about repeat callers to his show who had previously shown themselves to be ridiculous. That doesn’t apply here.
He didn’t humiliate Earline or try to. She did fine. Earline didn’t embarrass herself at all. How is the media supposed to expose the lie that the hotline is an alternative to the website without calling it and exposing the results? Earline isn’t a private person, she was the public voice of Obamacare. She may not have been prepared for that or properly trained, but that should not be Hannity’s concern. Is job is to get at the truth. The call is definitely not unethical, and in this case, neither was Hannity’s call.
Are you really suggesting that the majority of low-information voters, less-than-bright and inarticulate Americans should be protected from the results of their own inadequacies when the voluntarily call up a radio talk show host?
Where were you last time I scored Sean for this? Almost nobody agreed with me, but in those cases, I was talking about repeat callers to his show who had previously shown themselves to be ridiculous. That doesn’t apply here.
I was talking about his overall ethics history, not those who demonstrate to the world their ignorance by calling into a show.
He didn’t humiliate Earline or try to. She did fine. Earline didn’t embarrass herself at all. How is the media supposed to expose the lie that the hotline is an alternative to the website without calling it and exposing the results? Earline isn’t a private person, she was the public voice of Obamacare. She may not have been prepared for that or properly trained, but that should not be Hannity’s concern. Is job is to get at the truth. The call is definitely not unethical, and in this case, neither was Hannity’s call.
My only issue was that hitting her with questions about the law, enactment or implementation really aren’t fair questions for her.
Are you really suggesting that the majority of low-information voters, less-than-bright and inarticulate Americans should be protected from the results of their own inadequacies when the voluntarily call up a radio talk show host?
I never said such a thing; I didn’t realize she called up Hannity….
That last question was based on my assumption that you were referring to his other calls with unsophisticated individuals, who in most cases DID call him up.
What other ethics history are you referring to? Hannity is just a down the line, hard right, God fearing conservative, relatively civil, and seemingly sincere. What have I missed?
You can indeed enroll over the phone by calling 1-800-315-2596.
And they use the same website, jan.
All it does is add a new bottleneck to limit unique users at any given time – it doesn’t actually fix anything.
No you can’t, at least no always, and not without a lot of trouble. You can set up an account, if you are lucky. That’s not the same as getting insurance. Are there no honest progressives who will accept that this is an inexcusable botch?
No.
Oh. Well, thanks for clearing that up for me.
The “this” is a little vague. But if you mean the healthcare.gov website, yes, many have been saying that it’s an inexcusible disaster. Ezra Klein, for instance, has been writing things like “The magnitude of this failure is stunning” and “They deserve all the criticism they’re getting and more.” and “So far, the Affordable Care Act’s launch has been a failure. Not ‘troubled.’ Not ‘glitchy.’ A failure.”
Klein is hardly alone. The large majority of progressive bloggers I read agree that Healthcare.gov has been a disaster. (As do I.) So does Andrew Suillivan, who is as pro-Obama as they come. I can’t think of a sngle major health care blogger who doesn’t say healthcare.gov has been a disaster.
What you’re probably not going to find is progressives, except for the ones holding out for single-payer, saying that the whole thing should be scrapped and thrown away, rather than fixed.
The question was hyperbole, as I think you suspected. The failure of the website would be an idiotic reason, by itself, to junk the program. I think it is ominous, and I think it supports the fears of those who oppose the program, but it’s still just one feature, and a technical one.
Now…if it turns out that the no-bid contract for the site was awarded because Michelle was cronying up to her classmate who was a high official in the company…that would be grounds to halt the whole things as already hopelessly corrupt, but even then it shouldn’t be junked. Yet.
Not true. You can fill out a paper application and mail it in. Cumbersome, to be sure, but it might be the best solution for some until the website is fixed.
Would be faster to just go apply for Medicare – that’s where it looks like over 70 of all applicants are ending up anyways…
And trust me, that isn’t good for the ACAs long-term viability.
I believe you mean Medicaid, but I get you point. Actually, it makes sense that the Medicaid applicants would be the first to complete their applications, as they do not have to make a payment to complete enrollment. It is logical that those who need insurance but won’t get it until January 1st would not be jumping in and making a payment on something that won’t take effect for two months (a initial premium payment is required to complete enrollment). I think we will have to wait until the middle to the end of November to see true figures.
And I would like to say that I appreciate a discussion with you that does not include the word “fuck.”
That won’t work Jan. It’s a multistage process—apply for WHAT??
Here’s an update: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-glitches-paper-phone-applications-98872.html#ixzz2inH8CZt9
I stand corrected. Like Ampersand, I hope the new timetable of up and running by the end of November holds. What’s striking about this is that in 2003 when the rollout of Medicare Part D was described by John Boehner as “horrendous,” no one called for its delay or repeal. In fact, Democrats helped improve the law, which now is very popular.
What’s getting lost in all this is that it was a good faith effort to provide health insurance to millions of people. The ACA was based on a conservative proposal and modeled after the Massachusetts plan, which has been very successful. Some progressives consider it a sellout, as single payer was never even on the table–which accounts for a percentage of its unpopularity. If more states had set up their own websites, many of these problems could have been avoided.
I have been disappointed in Obama on many levels, but this is one accomplishment I want to succeed–and everyone should want it to succeed. Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me that that is not possible. One hypothetical is just contradicted by another hypothetical. Until the website is up and running, no one can know.
In a word, “AAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHH!” Talking points, rationalizations and spin.
1) The individual mandate was similar to a suggestion in a Heritage Foundation position paper—that doesn’t mean the Republicans or conservatives can be blamed for it or estopped from criticizing the party that implements it. That was and remains one of the most pathetic and illogical rebuttals to GOP opposition.
2) a. What makes sense for a state does not necessarily make sense for a nation. b. The issue is scale and expense. Mass.could try a system and disengage from it if it failed—and it might yet. c. Obamacare is not Romneycare. d. Someone who wants to get away from Romneycare can move. They have a choice. e. I’m from Massachusetts. The voters there wanted this. It was passed with bi-partisan support, openly, without false promises.
3) Good intentions count for exactly nothing. If it doesn’t work, it’s a bad law.
4) It already doesn’t work as promised, and won’t. People are losing their health care plans that the President kept swearing they could keep.
5) Nobody should be rooting for a fiasco. Obviously, the best thing for the country would be if it worked beautifully, saved money, lowered costs, protected the uninsured. But virtually everything this administration has attempted has been botched, there is no accountability, and few promises have been kept. The leadership is weak, and the administration does not tell the truth. One can hope, but the record of the last 5 years suggests that hope is naive.
Allow me to respectfully dissent.
If the only way to prove to the far left, the progressives, and the statists, that their idea of “government can fix it” is utterly wrong is for this to fail in the most spectacular and astonishing way possible, then let it be so.
If the only way to force fiscal responsibility on Washington DC is for our entire economy to truly collapse (and I submit at this point that it is), then go for it. Give the Left everything it wants.
Taxes? Raise ’em as high as you want.
Entitlements? SURE! YOU get an entitlement, and YOU get and entitlement, EVERYBODY GETS AN ENTITLEMENT!!!
Cut defense? TO THE BONE, I SAY!!!!
And when the world drops the dollar and we print our way out of debt and you can then pay off your mortgage for the cost of a nice hat (“Wouldn’t you like to own a $4,000 suit, and smoke a $75 cigar, drive a $600,000 car? I know I would!”), and no one will lend us anything and federal spending ends over night, the pain and deprivation that ensues from those who live off the largess of government will bring. Me. Joy. They will cry out for my help and I will tell them no.
Because I will have warned them and warned them, and I can only give a fuck for so long.
Granted, it wasn’t a terribly long time, but that isn’t the point.
The individual mandate was a conservative idea, no denying it. Can’t get any more conservative than the Heritage Foundation. Republicans can try to distance themselves, but it’s all about personal responsibility.
There’s no question that the states that set up their own Marketplaces are having much more success enrolling people. Disagreement with a law is no excuse for obstruction and misinformation, which is what is going on here in the state of Missouri where state employees are, by law, forbidden from assisting with the Marketplace or educating people about the law.
I’m glad you can pick up and move if you’re unhappy with your insurance or lack thereof. Most people can’t.
Good intentions count for a lot. So do bad intentions. Like not working to improve the law instead of obstructing its implementation. Your view that the law is a bad one is certainly not a universal one. I think what is universally accepted is that it can be improved, not scrapped or delayed any more than it already has been.
The enrollment process is not working. There is no hard evidence that the law does not work. Your “talking points” about people getting dropped and rates going up refer to trends that were ongoing before the ACA took effect. I do agree that Obama should not have promised people could keep their policies. They’re getting more comprehensive ones with the ACA, and they may cost more.
Your blanket statement that “everything this administration has attempted has been botched” is straight out of Fox News, it’s just not true, and he actually has a pretty good record of promises kept.
I think I lost 20 IQ points just from reading that…
I… I…
Jan’s trolling, right? Performance art?
She can’t actually be this mindfuckingly stupid…
“The individual mandate was a conservative idea, no denying it. Can’t get any more conservative than the Heritage Foundation. Republicans can try to distance themselves, but it’s all about personal responsibility.”
Addressed here, item 3:
“More misinforming spin. What Obama and the Left pushed through with Obamacare only barely has the appearance of an idea the heritage foundation proposed in the early 90′s. To be clear on this: the heritage foundation was asked to propose ideas to reform Medicaid (a Leftist intrusion into the health-care market). Among several ideas it brainstormed (you see, think-tanks do this) was an individual mandate idea (because it was asked for an option that included this). As far as I can read, their notion used language to try and move the system more to a free-market friendly system, not what Obama created. The fact that it came from a conservative think-tank does not make it a necessarily conservative idea since it came in a package of ideas. Several Republicans did indeed support the notion in a bill (along with several democrats, so not quite a Republican idea) ONLY SO FAR as it was a closer to right-wing option, but not on the right-side of the spectrum, than what several other politicians and think-tanks had been advancing. No, individual mandate is not a “Right wing” idea. It is certainly Left wing as it falls under government intrusion into economics. Nor was it wildly popular among conservatives at the time, further proof that it was not a conservative idea.
No, back then, as now, it was a Left-leaning idea, strangely enough entertained by several people who are generally conservative about everything else. But they crafted the idea only because it was something a little less Left-wing than what was being crafted by others at the time, in order to counter that proposal. The justification being- if it seems like a major push for a government incursion into the market it inevitable, try to make it as market friendly as possible.”
“Your blanket statement that “everything this administration has attempted has been botched” is straight out of Fox News, it’s just not true, and he actually has a pretty good record of promises kept.”
That’s a shifting of the premises. “Promises kept” does not mean “not botched attempts”. Jack listed an entire litany of botches on important stuff above. You can’t deny those. Promises Obama kept? Insignificant save one: this colossal liberty-killing megislation. And it’s off to a very botch-looking start.
“Your blanket statement that “everything this administration has attempted has been botched” is straight out of Fox News, it’s just not true, and he actually has a pretty good record of promises kept.”
Even so, this is fantasy, unless you match trivial promises with the ones people cared about most. I recall this administration was supposed to be race blind, and not divisive. I believe Obama promised to close Guantanamo; and to make transparency a hallmark of his administration. Then he was going to cut the deficit in half. He was going to improve US standing and respect abroad, and reject the civil rights and privacy abuses of the Bush administration. He promised that if we liked our health insurance, nothing in Obamacare would result in us having to change it. He promised competence and accountability. He promised that Syria using chemical weapons against its people would be a “red line,” I believe. Hell, he couldn’t even keep his promise to get a rescue dog!
Most of all, by running for President, he implicitly promised that he was capable of the job.
Agree Completely.