Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
> the second affair alone would fell most CEOs because it was with an employee

I mean realistically, no it would not. They do not resign for that in general. It is tall order for them to resign or leave when there is credible or proven accusation of actual abuse or harassment, there is not even that in play.

No, they really do, even at big firms.

McDonald's, Intel, CNN, NBC, CBS, Astronomer, Best Buy, Nestlé, Kohl's, Comtech, BP, CBOE, Barclay's.

Not hard to find examples from the last ten years.

I checked CNN thing (picked randomly) and:

> At CNN, Mr Zucker faced criticism from those who believed the network gave too much coverage to the former president, especially during the Republican presidential primary. Mr Trump has also criticised what he saw as unfair coverage.

I will happily argue that affair was just an excuse for other reasons. His coverage was not pro-Trump enough.

> I will happily argue that affair was just an excuse for other reasons. His coverage was not pro-Trump enough.

Well you could, but considering:

1) Zucker's "too much coverage" that was internally complained about was him trying to be pro-Trump, not anti- (regardless of what the then-still-disgraced former President whined about)

2) his resignation came in 2022 while CNN was still largely free of the right-wing pressure campaign it has been under in the last 18 months pre-merger

3) … in the middle of an internal sex scandal investigation involving someone else, in the #MeToo era, when the company was trying to make it very clear that it would not tolerate such things

I think it would be quite a stretch to make your case.

Jeff Zucker was not even fired for the relationship, but for failing to tell the board about it as company rules said he must.

Again: top CEOs do indeed resign over this stuff. Because it is serious: it opens them up to blackmail and opens the company up to lawsuits.

I said "not pro-Trump enough". I did not said "anti Trump". Yes, it is long standing conservative tradition to call yourself victim when having pro-you bias.

2.) It was not free of that pressure, it was just not that super high yet.

My case is that sex alone wont make it. It is easy to make my case, you are kind making it for me by adding more reasons why it was not just afair on itself.

I'm supporting your argument by offering a straightforward, easily proved counter-argument to it? You're wrong, it's that easy.

> I said "not pro-Trump enough". I did not said "anti Trump".

He was not ousted from CNN for not being pro-Trump enough. If anyone at CNN ousted him for politics-related reasons, it would have been because he was too pro-Trump. Because he was, for example, helping Trump before the election debates, offering to have a weekly show with him etc. This pissed off a lot of his colleagues.

None of that is why he was fired (not least because it would have happened a lot sooner than 2022).

He was fired because he broke corporate rules in a way that embarrassed them when they were trying to boot out Chris Cuomo for being a genuine abusive boss.

That is the reason, end of story.