Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher Fired from National Catholic Register

[Monte_RCMS]

One day, I was at a Catholic gathering and in very casual conversation, I mentioned the name of a Catholic writer I had heard of and enjoyed.

The response was a slashing attack on ME! by a Famous Writer.

My response was “Well, I guess you can’t be brilliant all the time.”

[Could not believe the vitriol by a “competing” writer.]

WOW!

Seems like: It doesn’t take much to get slashed by a Famous Writer.]

[Famous Writers are not too much interested in educating and correcting. Seems like there is, as one person said, “only so much kindness to go around, and if someone else gets praised, then there is nothing left for me.”]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I was kept around because I could get things done and because I showed up on time and didn’t drink much.

One day, I got fired … again … for one of my suggestions … on how to get a thing done. [They DID, after all, ask for my opinion.]

Then a while later, I drove by and … shock of all shocks … they were actually doing what I suggested.

[They didn’t want to discuss it.]

 

[ToeInTheWater]

[Famous Writers are not too much interested in educating and correcting. Seems like there is, as one person said, “only so much kindness to go around, and if someone else gets praised, then there is nothing left for me.”]

I would generalize this to Famous TV and Radio personalities as well. It seems that it is very common for such people to start out discussing the issues, get famous, and start to get arrogant and uncharitable. I used to listen to Rush and Hannity but they have both turned into caricatures of what they used to be. Though with Rush he’s always used his “I’m just an entertainer” shtick to account for his more outrageous statements.

But I’ve followed Hannity from when he first appeared on FNC, and he’s managed to become less and less mature and reasonable as the years passed, reminscent of Benjamin Button. The last straw for me was his late night Twitter tantrum that was so ridiculous, people questioned if he was drunk. And while he hasn’t been fired, he WAS demoted when it comes to the time his show is aired on the channel.

Just because I agree with the substance of someone’s views does NOT mean I think they can do no wrong when it comes to how they express them.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I would generalize this to Famous TV and Radio personalities as well. It seems that it is very common for such people to start out discussing the issues, get famous, and start to get arrogant and uncharitable. I used to listen to Rush and Hannity but they have both turned into caricatures of what they used to be. Though with Rush he’s always used his “I’m just an entertainer” shtick to account for his more outrageous statements.

But I’ve followed Hannity from when he first appeared on FNC, and he’s managed to become less and less mature and reasonable as the years passed, reminscent of Benjamin Button. The last straw for me was his late night Twitter tantrum that was so ridiculous, people questioned if he was drunk. And while he hasn’t been fired, he WAS demoted when it comes to the time his show is aired on the channel.

Just because I agree with the substance of someone’s views does NOT mean I think they can do no wrong when it comes to how they express them.

Who is Benjamin Button?

I don’t watch Hannity.

The time slot only is determined by advertising revenues.

Does Hannity still have a radio program? He used to be on both radio and television. Seems pretty grueling.

He was supposed to move to Texas because of the high New York State taxes.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Who is Benjamin Button?

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a fantasy story, adapted into a movie about a man who ages in reverse. He somehow magically comes into being as an old man in a nursing home, and as time passes, his body gets younger and younger.

I don’t think Hannity was “demoted” as a punishment but the point is he did suffer consequences of waning popularity, and I think much of that is due to how the quality of his work has declined, leading to a decreased fan base, decreased attractiveness to advertisers, etc.

Anyway, I have never been the type to overly idolize any particular columnist, talk show host, etc. or think that “freedom of speech” to mean everyone who has a paid public platform for their opinions, deserves to keep that platform indefinitely. Whether that be a secular or religious one. Or even in a sports context - I can think of many cases of ESPN “suspending” hosts and writers for making controversial statements, and in the case of Curt Schilling he was outright fired over a tweet from his personal account.

It’s also interesting that NCR is now a part of EWTN, and EWTN is usually pretty quick to remove hosts from the airwaves due to controversy.

Although the only major host I recall being removed due to the fallout for something he said publicly, was Father Groeschel, and even that seemed to be due to his age and fraility as well.

The cases of Father Corapi and Father Stone were more about their personal sins, and I think Father Pavone left the air due to conflicts with his bishop, rather than with EWTN itself.

ETA: Anyway, my point about Hannity is that media outlet either firing commentators completely, or just deciding their marketability has declined and hence they will be moved to a less favorable time slot, etc., is not about punishing anyone, it’s part of the business. Some Shea and Fischer fans seem to be seeing their firing as punishment or even persecution, as opposed to a business decision. I’m just not convinced this is the case.

ETA again: Yes, Hannity does still have a radio show, though in the NY market he moved from WABC to WOR, as did Rush. As WABC seems to have morphed into a more general interest news/talk station, WOR seems to be the lone secular conservative radio outlet in that area now.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Having read Mark Shea for close to 2 years I do feel qualified to weigh in on this. NCR was TOTALLY justified in firing Mark Shea, however I am not so sure about Simcha Fisher.

Shea’s problems are that he calls himself an apologist but when you read his facebook page (important distinction) you don’t see that at all. What you see are threads from very questionable sources (Occupy, Daily Kos, Mother Jones) but of course Fox is evil.

I can’t take anything Mark says seriously about the pro-life movement when he demands that they take on gun culture in order to be morally consistent. E.g. his thread here:

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10152462476230218

Or when he says that a D.A. calling for the execution of gays is pro-life but when asked for it admits there is no proof of that.

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153059698040218

Or when he posts an article that quotes some woman who says women can’t be a leader and says she is Republican but offers no proof of that allegation.

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153106291980218

Or when he opposes Religious institutions who have Covenant contracts using this as a pathetic defense: “You are to understand that it is preferable to let a single mother keep her job than to put enormous pressure on her to abort.”

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153322954665218

Or when he wonders if pro-life Christians would worship the devil if he promised them that abortion would be abolished.

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153511456720218

Or when he thinks a SCOTUS nominee in Merrick Garland who has 100% NARAL record is a good choice for the Supreme Court.

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153820341625218

Or when he thinks its creepy for Ted Cruz to say something that he heard in a movie

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153861782480218

Or when he is pointed out the disgusting inaccuracies of how wages and prices have gone up:

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153920749145218

Or when he accuses those who are in favor of the Death Penalty as not being pro-life even though the Catechism does permit it in certain circumstances.

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153917868725218?pnref=story

Or when he posts about gun violence and accuses total strangers of the worst behaviour imaginable

facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10153996119370218

Since the firing CA founder Karl Keating had the following comments about Mark Shea that I think are instructive:

Thanks for posting this link.

Since I don’t often read Mark’s blog, I hadn’t seen the July 13 entry. I have no heart to parse it: there’s just so much skewed in it, both about others and about himself.

I more and more am concluding that the only solution is for Mark to give up blogging about politics entirely. Even in his exculpatory writings and apologies he commits further excesses.

An alcoholic can’t succeed if he tries only to cut back on his drinking; he has to give up drinking entirely. There is no other solution for him.

Mark can’t succeed if he persists in his years-long pattern of apologies alternatiing with outrages. His only way out is to give up political commentary entirely.

Some people can handle drinking; the alcoholic can’t. Some people can handle political controversy; Mark can’t.

It’s as simple–and as sad–as that.

facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/1274883422546640

Like I said, Shea had it coming.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a fantasy story, adapted into a movie about a man who ages in reverse. He somehow magically comes into being as an old man in a nursing home, and as time passes, his body gets younger and younger.

I don’t think Hannity was “demoted” as a punishment but the point is he did suffer consequences of waning popularity, and I think much of that is due to how the quality of his work has declined, leading to a decreased fan base, decreased attractiveness to advertisers, etc.

Anyway, I have never been the type to overly idolize any particular columnist, talk show host, etc. or think that “freedom of speech” to mean everyone who has a paid public platform for their opinions, deserves to keep that platform indefinitely. Whether that be a secular or religious one. Or even in a sports context - I can think of many cases of ESPN “suspending” hosts and writers for making controversial statements, and in the case of Curt Schilling he was outright fired over a tweet from his personal account.

It’s also interesting that NCR is now a part of EWTN, and EWTN is usually pretty quick to remove hosts from the airwaves due to controversy.

Although the only major host I recall being removed due to the fallout for something he said publicly, was Father Groeschel, and even that seemed to be due to his age and fraility as well.

The cases of Father Corapi and Father Stone were more about their personal sins, and I think Father Pavone left the air due to conflicts with his bishop, rather than with EWTN itself.

ETA: Anyway, my point about Hannity is that media outlet either firing commentators completely, or just deciding their marketability has declined and hence they will be moved to a less favorable time slot, etc., is not about punishing anyone, it’s part of the business. Some Shea and Fischer fans seem to be seeing their firing as punishment or even persecution, as opposed to a business decision. I’m just not convinced this is the case.

ETA again: Yes, Hannity does still have a radio show, though in the NY market he moved from WABC to WOR, as did Rush. As WABC seems to have morphed into a more general interest news/talk station, WOR seems to be the lone secular conservative radio outlet in that area now.

What does Benjamin Button lend to this discussion?

 

[PRmerger]

I feel bad for both. Probably worse for Simcha.

I follow both.

I totally can relate to Mark’s POV. I can understand his frustration in these times.

The vitriol I witnessed last night on Twitter and other blogs though was horrible. Catholics should not be calling Simcha names. Catholics should not be criticizing Simcha because she bought a steak on food stamps .

Terrible!!

I agree.

I love both Shea and Simcha. Follow/friends with both of them on Facebook.

I haven’t read anything “scatological” from Simcha except for the time she mentioned her butt cheek.

And it was a delightfully wry and funny commentary on political candidates with which I agreed completely.

 

[PRmerger]

Since the firing CA founder Karl Keating had the following comments about Mark Shea that I think are instructive:

Thanks for posting this link.

Since I don’t often read Mark’s blog, I hadn’t seen the July 13 entry. I have no heart to parse it: there’s just so much skewed in it, both about others and about himself.

I more and more am concluding that the only solution is for Mark to give up blogging about politics entirely. Even in his exculpatory writings and apologies he commits further excesses.

An alcoholic can’t succeed if he tries only to cut back on his drinking; he has to give up drinking entirely. There is no other solution for him.

Mark can’t succeed if he persists in his years-long pattern of apologies alternatiing with outrages. His only way out is to give up political commentary entirely.

Some people can handle drinking; the alcoholic can’t. Some people can handle political controversy; Mark can’t.

It’s as simple–and as sad–as that.

facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/1274883422546640

I’m confused–are the above comments from Keating or from Dave Armstrong?

 

[Usige]

I’m confused–are the above comments from Keating or from Dave Armstrong?

The are from Mr Keating. You can find them in the comments in the linked FB posting.

 

[PRmerger]

The are from Mr Keating. You can find them in the comments in the linked FB posting.

Ah. I see.

Because I find Dave Armstrong to be the description that Keating limned, ironically.

 

[PRmerger]

Shea’s problems are that he calls himself an apologist but when you read his facebook page (important distinction) you don’t see that at all.

While it’s true that Shea is at his best when he is wearing his Catholic apologist hat, he is under no obligation whatsoever to wear this hat when he is on Facebook.

 

[zab]

Ok, I have not been an avid reader of Mark Shea’s writings but he was a guest at our parish on a couple of occasions over the years and I thought that he was fine. I also listened to his conversion story. Some people have posted links to some of Mark’s writings that I didn’t find anything wrong with. So posting endless links to what Mark said or what someone else said about Mark does nothing for me. It just clutters this thread. People have to do their own research and hopefully they will listen to his story. I have only recently became a facebook follower and so I am just beginning to see some concern. But I am not ready to stone him. I just think that Mark Shea needs some love and prayers. And I wish that we could end this thread with that.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

While it’s true that Shea is at his best when he is wearing his Catholic apologist hat, he is under no obligation whatsoever to wear this hat when he is on Facebook.

Yes he does have an obligation to wear his apologist hat on Facebook esp. when he refers to himself as an apologist on Facebook and Facebook is not a reason to leave your Catholic identity.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Ok, I have not been an avid reader of Mark Shea’s writings but he was a guest at our parish on a couple of occasions over the years and I thought that he was fine. I also listened to his conversion story. Some people have posted links to some of Mark’s writings that I didn’t find anything wrong with. So posting endless links to what Mark said or what someone else said about Mark does nothing for me. It just clutters this thread. People have to do their own research and hopefully they will listen to his story. I have only recently became a facebook follower and so I am just beginning to see some concern. But I am not ready to stone him. I just think that Mark Shea needs some love and prayers. And I wish that we could end this thread with that.

Providing links that give clear reasons why NCR was very wise to fire him do not in any way clutter this thread except to his followers who are very much responsible for his present situation.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes he does have an obligation to wear his apologist hat on Facebook

Sorry. But this is ridiculous. NO ONE has an obligation to be anything on Facebook except to be truthful, and to be charitable.

esp. when he refers to himself as an apologist on Facebook

I don’t think he has referred to himself as an apologist, at least not on his profile.

and Facebook is not a reason to leave your Catholic identity.

You are correct.

Of course, he has never left his Catholic identity so the above is irrelevant.

 

[zab]

Providing links that give clear reasons why NCR was very wise to fire him do not in any way clutter this thread except to his followers who are very much responsible for his present situation.

Not all the links provided clear reason, just saying.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Sorry. But this is ridiculous. NO ONE has an obligation to be anything on Facebook except to be truthful, and to be charitable.

I don’t think he has referred to himself as an apologist, at least not on his profile.

You are correct.

Of course, he has never left his Catholic identity so the above is irrelevant.

Reviewing his profile you are correct that he has not referred himself as an apologist but his charity was sorely lacking towards those who he disagreed with as evidenced with my multiple links.

 

[PRmerger]

Reviewing his profile you are correct that he has not referred himself as an apologist

Yep.

So I think that we’ve cleared up this misconception you posted here.

Shea’s problems are that he calls himself an apologist but when you read his facebook page (important distinction) you don’t see that at all.

We are agreed that he doesn’t have to post a single Catholic apologia on his Facebook page.

 

[bitterhope]

I don’t really know much about either of these two writers but if they were fired over social media it’s not surprising. Many people are let go of jobs based on what they post on Facebook and other places. There are soldiers, police, fire fighters, EMTs, CEOs, teachers, and even factory and fast food workers fired over what they put on Facebook. Why would well known Catholic writers be any exception? Apparently most people know who these people are paid by, and if what they post causes a negative reaction, their employer has every right to terminate them.