7 Ethics Observations On The Incredibly Unethical Charlo Greene

KTVA (Alaska) reporter Charlo Greene reported on the Alaska Cannabis Club, medical marijuana business, during Sunday night’s broadcast without telling the station of the viewers that she owned it. As soon as the segment was over, she announced that she was the owner, and said,

“Now everything you’ve heard is why I, the actual owner of the Alaska Cannabis Club, will be dedicating all of my energy toward fighting for freedom and fairness, which begins with legalizing marijuana here in Alaska. And as for this job, well, not that I have a choice but, fuck it, I quit.”

Then she walked off the set.

How unethical is Charlo Greene? Let me count the ways:

1. She reported on a story in which she had a direct interest, an outrageous conflict of interest and breach of journalism ethics.

2. She hijacked the broadcast for her own political views, hoping to influence and upcoming state referendum.

3. She stole airtime for what amounted to an ad for her business as well as a political ad for her side of the referendum.

4. Like the narcissist she is, Greene quit on the air, intentionally drawing attention to herself and making herself a star for the requisite 15 minutes, to the detriment of her employer, colleagues, and audience.

5. In doing so, she betrayed the trust her employers placed in her for her own selfish ends.

6. She used gratuitous vulgarity, further polluting public discourse and civility, and…

7. She placed the station’s news anchor in the embarrassing position of having to apologize for Greene’s filthy mouth and lack of professionalism.

No employer should ever trust her, and should the pot legalization effort fail or her business go under, anyone who hires Greene is both a fool and an enabler of future stunts. I would love to see legislation that permanently bans anyone who intentionally cripples their future employability with impulsive conduct like this from ever receiving food stamps, welfare, or unemployment benefits. You can grandstand if you like, but nobody else should pay for the consequences.

And no, you morons on the various web threads, Greene did not “go out with style,” or do anything deserving the brainless praise you are heaping on her. Like this guy, who you similarly praised, she was wrong in every way. Learning to quit a job (or accept a firing) with grace and civility is a vital professional skill, and by cheering such irresponsible and rude conduct, you are just encouraging the young and naive to similarly handicap their own careers.

____________________________

Sources: Hot Air, Alaska Dispatch News

 

 

 

 

18 thoughts on “7 Ethics Observations On The Incredibly Unethical Charlo Greene

  1. I thought you were joking, we are doomed. It is rampant immaturity, all the hard lessons that served as catalysts for the young to grow up now must all fall into one the unfair, insensitive or bullying categories and are prohibited.

  2. Is it a silver lining to think things like “At least she wasn’t so far gone as to think she should keep her job”? This is disgusting, don’t get me wrong, but it’s almost refreshing to see someone who has actually considered the consequences of her actions.

  3. Noting number 6, so if she’s a pollutant for one gratuitous f-bomb, are guys like Dan Savage and Ozzie Osborne toxic dumps? And is Eddie Murphy in his heyday radioactive?

    That aside, this woman is a clear example of what early life encouragement of kids to always say what they think and praising them no matter what, coupled with popular culture celebration of misbehavior, transgression, and showboating results in.

      • Can Greene and/or the station be fined for the on-air obscenity? If the station is fined, can it sue to recover damages from Greene? Could the video be used as evidence of ANYTHING that might lead to Greene’s utter ruin as a public figure?

        Is Greene perhaps culpable under some existing state law or federal statute for abetting certain crimes?

        Are we to interpret Greene’s behavior as typical of the ends-justifies-the-means non-ethics of advocates for de-criminalizing marijuana?

        Off and on, now and then, over recent months I have been pondering and jotting notes, attempting to develop one more unethical rationalization for your list. I am still stuck on the working title, “The Change Advocate’s Bullying Pass.” But it’s kept me pondering, puzzling, considering that maybe bullying is a term that suggests no accountability (or a certain presumed helplessness) among the “victims” of the “bullying” – and, maybe “pass” is not the precise term for the (non-)responses (or for the impotence or self-defeating quality of the responses) to the “bullying,” but only a term to describe the effect, or consequences, of “letting the bullies have their way with whatever change they are insistent on.”

        The way change advocates have been behaving in recent years, they have succeeded in making a very rigid Maoist out of me, i.e., “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” If that’s how they want to play, then I’ll play by their “rules,” too, and proceed on my merry way with changing things, including changing them BACK, to the way *I* want them. “Fuck it.”

        • I think I know where you’re going there, luckyestman. I think that type of rationalization is close to the ends justify the means or “It’s for a good cause!”. But frequent usage of that excuse to rationalize bullying behavior on behalf of advocates might warrant a corollary.

        • Most progressives in general have been okay with bullying to enact their agenda.

          Look at the harassment dished out to opponents of same-sex marriage.

    • She’s a newscaster, not an entertainer, and that’s where I think the difference lies. These past 10-15 years though, the line between news and entertainment has continued to blur…in 2001 or 2 I was back in the US for the first time in 4 years or so and felt really discombobulated seeing the ‘Top News’ of the morning was who got eliminated on the previous night’s Survivor, and it’s only gotten worse.

    • Well, the delusion that its a more productive activity to help adults and kids get stoned and stupid than to do something that makes society better, like practicing competent and ethical journalism, is definitely a side effect. Don’t get me started, I have a headache.

  4. Something tells me there is more to this story than we know.

    Perhaps she wasn’t being reviewed well by her supervisors…perhaps some personality conflicts that weren’t being resolved in her favor…maybe an argument or two with the boss. This just doesn’t make sense to me without some sort of revenge factored in…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.