So, this local newswoman was fired...
 

Her name is Catherine Bosley, and she was on a local channel in my area. I couldn't find an article on the situation so I'll just describe the situation to all of you. From what I've read she went on vacation in Florida, and entered a wet T-shirt contest. She showed her tits and got naked. She also won the contest. I think it might have been $500 that she won. I may be wrong on that. Well, her employer found out what she did because the pics are on the internet, and they fired her. They didn't actually fire her, but they "forced" her to resign. Same thing.

Now I'm not one who thinks that it's your employers business to know what you do when you're not at work, and certainly not when your on vacation, but here's where she made a mistake. She was dumb enough to sign a morality clause in her contract. She gave her employer the right to judge her dumb ass when she wasn't at work. As far as I'm concerned she deserves to lose her job. When you have a high profile job you are expected to act like an adult, not an 18 year old drunken whore. I don't have a problem with her getting fired, and I'm glad she did.

I'm curious if other feel as though she should have been fired....

For all the pervs who want to see the pics... Here's a link.

CLICKY

Should she? No.
Will it hold up? Sure, since she was, as you said, dumb enough to sign the contract. News Anchors and reports are all about image...what she did changes the station's image and hence the clause. I don't agree with the image, as it's outdated, but they *can * do and they have. I honestly would like to see a male anchor do the same shit and see if he gets fired. Betcha he wouldn't. Old values are still in place that say women shouldn't be wanton, sexual, exhibitive, or generally have any fun involving nudity. Looks like she'll have to get another job, if she can.

I hate to say something as callous and sexist as I'm about to say, but...

...she should be fired just for showing those godawful fake tits! Ugh!

Seriously - you sign a contract, you're bound to abide by it. If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. I don't agree with their "morality clause" (obviously) but it's their company and their rules, and she agreed to them.

P.S. While we're on the subject of tits, man those are some NICE ones in your avatar, Holo!!! And the rest of her is pretty sweet, too :)

And that really is the point. it's their company, their rules. I think she simply thought no one would find out. Perhaps the internet is earasing the ability to hide from some activities.

I agree with lurkette, I'd hate to see the losers in the contest....

I concur

It would be a different story if she was a businesswoman or any other position that didn't place her as a physical representation of a program and network.

Absolutely. Do I think, generally speakin, she should be fired for what she did? No. Do I think, speaking specifically about this case, that she should be? Yes. She signed the contract, so she has to live by the words of it.

conduct unbecoming a news person?

come on...

the old morality of Bible belt philosophy - that thou shalt not expose thyself in public - but i bet her boss would gladly "inter - view" her in private(s)

seriously tho - up here we have a knock news lady on an nbc affiliate - saw her years ago at a local beach in a skimpy 2 piece and what a show!!! she still to this day has her job and is highly respected...

so what!!!

I'm in the profession and I think that yes, absolutely she should have been fired. Anchors, whether they like it or not, are the public face of the TV station. That's one reason they get paid much more than anyone else at the station. Reporters generally make 30-50k in a large market. Photographers, 17-35 or so. Anchors routinely make over 100k, and one (Paul Magers in California) makes 2.2 million.

You want the money, you accept the fact that the public is watching you whether you're on camera or not. The station wants a serious news reader, not some dumbass who'll shed her clothes the second she leaves the market. Hasn't she ever heard of the internet? Did she really think this wouldn't get back to her market?

What I find interesting is that a bunch of people on journalism websites are all up in arms that she was forced out. Anchors are routinely fired because their looks aren't perfect, their voice isn't perfect, or the viewers decide they don't like them, and no one bitches about it. In a business where you can be fired for such relatively trivial reasons, why in hell are people upset that a public figure can be fired for acting like an amateur porn star?

So, what can do but just look 'em in the eye and say..."oops".

I agree with lurkette.....those are just nasty

She is not that hot. If She signed a contract she has to accept the consequences.

BTW, they had an update to the story. She quit.

I saw the pictures. She must have been in an accident, her air bags deployed. FUGLY :D

Sure, she's high-profile, but losing her job because her employers have the (insane) right to snoop into her personal life- no. That's not cool. I feel that she can do as she wishes on her vacation, as long as she takes her job seriously and is there, responsible, and good at what she does while she's on the clock.

She made heer private life public, sdhe did sign the "so called morality clause" it is a moral turpitude clause in my contract. She broke she has to pay the consequeces. Live by'em, get fired by'em.

cant u draw a line between this and the lewinsky thing?

i dont think they should care what somebody did in their private lives unless u sign a morality clause or something like that.

WORD.

She's a cutie! Wouldn't have minded being there! Give her a face to face meeting with my bedsheets!

Right on.

She has to live with her own actions. She signed the contract, she broke the contract.

she signed it.. she should abide by it. PERIOD

Thank god you posted a link!

Anyway, big friggin deal.

I bet that same damn channel runs late nite ads for 1-900 numbers.

I hate hypocrites.

I don't care if she was screwing an 8 dicked walrus while sucking off a horse and spanking a transvestite, if she isn't doing it on company time, more power to her. You aren't going to tell me that that particular news program wouldn't experience a huge ratings boost everytime she's on camera, even if it is only for a little while. Now they are making her feel ashamed for showing off her body in her private time, when they should be the ones ashamed of their antiquated uberconservative attitudes. Hopefully she moves to Canada and gets a job at Naked News where she will be appreciated.

if you don't plan to follow regulations on a contract then do not sign it. I am very wary of contracts for such reasons.

it's sad she lost her job. it isn't sad and quite honestly infuriates me that she disregarded all common sense.

loser

Props to her for winning, but it is in the contract she knew the rules, she made the mistake. Fortunately, if she never authorized the use of those pics, and locate the people who put them on the internet, she can make a lot of money.

No, she should not have been fired. Morality clauses are stupid, as are any other stipulations in employment contracts that limit what someone can and cannot do outside of work (such as clauses that forbid employees from speaking to the press even about issues unrelated to the employer).

What it often comes down to, sign the contract and limit your personal freedoms or don't get the job. This is crap.

She must have realized that with all the cameras around, she would end up on the Net. Either that or she is really dumb.
Now days, everyone has to think about every move you make, or something like this can happen.

a little over 10 years ago (i think it's been that long now) a twin cities newscaster - won't mention his name, but he's in Chicago now if anyone wants to connect the dots - went to the hospital with a condom full of baby gerbils in his rectum. He was fired the next day. Justified? Hell yes. Not only was it a morally reprehensible act (cruelty to animals) but it cast a negative image on his station.

If you want to get paid to be in the public eye, then you're in the public eye, on and off camera. If you don't like it, don't be an anchor.


BTW, she can't sue anyone for anything. She did it in a public place and knew photos were being taken, and made no attempt to stop or to stop the photographers. Her tough shit.

All we have is our word. Your signature on a legal document means that you promise to abide by the stipulations of that document.

This is really simple. She broke a promise to her employer. Under their agreement, her employer now has certain rights he can exercise, including terminating her employment. In other words, the rest is just consequences.

Yeah, it's nasty, and YES she should have known better and YES it's hypocritical and it enforces One Man's Morals. But evidently her employer felt it was necessary, in a business sense, to include those terms in the contract. Otherwise they wouldn't have been there. They were included to protect the reputation of the news channel.

All that said, you'd think with the money anchors make she could have hired a better surgeon. Damn. Or were the tits another "just recovered from a deadly lung disease, now I wanna celebrate life" impulse buy, you think?

She was dumb to sign anything with a clause like that, but you know...apparently 10 Months went by and obviously it did not affect her work. She shouldn't be fired over that.

Those tits are horrible, but the rest of her is great! She has an awesome smile, a great ass and don't forget those hips. Sexxxay!

Tritium like!

It's not something that I'd consider worthy of being fired over...or even being forced to "resign"...

But, as others have pointed out...If she was dumb enough to sign a morality clause that holds her liable to actions outside the workplace, then she had it coming.

P.S. How many of you actually enjoyed looking at that? :hmm:

I did, I think they're funny.

im sure if people found out about the topless incident, it would surely boost ratings.. for a while at least

I'd pay to see that.

Damn! Was hoping it was maybe Darren Kagen or Kira Phillips. hehehe. Oh well. Like everyone else has said. She signed the contract so it her own fault for being stupid.

gerbils...

ew.

Contracts are binding, so stop bitching, and make a contract with someone else. Jesus...

Should she be fired? Yes
Frankly, contracts like that are set up to maintain integrity. Just picture it - everyone knows she did this, she automatically loses credibility and will be seen somewhat as a "gimmick" to lure viewers. I'm sure it's good for ratings, but I'm sure they want to be taken seriously, and stuff like this can't be tolerated.

Icky boobs!

This is like those employers that keep tabs on people financial situation, I don't think its any of thier damn business what I spend my money on as long as its not illegal and its money I earned legitimately.

She should not have lost her job... maybe just that contest ;)

See, she does regret those horrendous fake orbs.

PREACH IT, SISTER!! lol

Yeah. Her dumb ass signed the morality clause, she was stupid to do something which violated her contract, nothing more.

Don't do anything in public that you won't want the world to see.

And, yes, she should sue... her plastic surgeon!

Unfortunatly, a person in the public eye has to live to diffrent standerds than the average goof ball on the beach. Unless, of course, you're a professional athelete. And, there was her contract.

The ironic thing is, her looks were probably part of what got her hired in the first place, however sexist the practice is.

What she should do is get a good agent and use the publicity as a springboard to bigger things.

If you sign a contract, you should live up to the contract, as long as the other party to the contract is living up to their end.

(Unless you are a professional athelete, of course, then you should feel free to hold out in order to force your team to renegotiate/trade/whatever you want.)

-Smarm

Somebody add NSFW next to the picture link...

My company can fire me for drunk driving. If I lost my license, I can't drive a company car legally which is sometimes required for the job, etc. The point is that they do have a right to do this. I agreed to it when I started my job. If I do something stupid while on the company dime (i.e. pulling a Mike Price), I deserve to be fired. If I do something on my own time that doesn't effect the company, they would have no right to do something about it. She was just dumb to do something like this. If she really feels the need to go naked, there are lots of places that cater to this where it would be perfectly fine to do.

With all this publicity, FOX will probably hire her by the end of the week.

Can't say I like the attitude by the station. Then again, if she wanted the job, I expect she had to sign the clause. Whether the contract would hold up in court would be interesting, as it's not between equals and IIRC such contracts may not be legal.

I would be surprised if she got a job at a news station again....

That is one of the worst boob jobs I have ever seen. Station is probably better off...

Yet another classic case of alcohol induced intelligence. I bet she remembered her morals clause most of the time, it's a part of the biz, but once the old brain gets lubed up it doesn't operate well.

You have to consider these things when you decide how you are going to live your life. Being sorry and regretful doesn't do much. She should have thought of this when the partying started.

The boobs? Well, we all make mistakes. I bet they were a big part of her job aquisition, sexist or not, we all know that's still how it works a lot of the time. Ya wrap em up and get a good looking front end and you're in.

Just as an aside, how many of you actually know what your job contract states? Did you just sign it, happy to be employed? I know what mine states and act accordingly.

Just my 2 cents.

You all are brutal...I love it!!!!
Yes, she should have been fired for breach of contract. However, if there was no contract in place, I feel she should have a right to do whatever she wants with her body. I think the U.S. has so many hangups about the nekkid human body still. If this happened in Australia, Brazil, or any other country that has gotten over the fact that a beautiful human body should be shown, and not hidden, then there wouldn't even be an issue.

Granted, if I was standing in front or her nekkid bod, I wouldn't know whether I should fondle and suck on her boobies, or strap on the 12 ounce gloves and slap around them bags of overinflated leather.

Some of the worst fake boobies evar!

Well at least it looks like she had a good time.

You're mistaken. Integrity is not a virtue that can be developed in someone by an external force. Integrity must come from within, it cannot come about as the result of a contract. Contracts like that are set up for two reasons. The first is control. The employer wants to control the actions of the employee and to force the employer's morality upon the employee. The second is to provide the employer with a fast and easy means around wrongful termination laws should the employee become bothersome to the employer.

she may have had a good time but it cost her a job.

Lurkette, I am so disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought you were cooler than that.

Very few women out there have perfect bodies and I admire her for her courage to rejoice a bit in being a sexy woman. (Sexy women come in all shapes and sizes.) While i agree they aren't the most attractive boobs going, they aren't the worst either.

Her getting fired really sucks too in my eyes.

She was doing this on her own time and it's no-one's business. I don't see how showing off what god gave her should be a crime punishable by being fired. That's just wrong on general principle.

Would she have been fired for doing a cover story for "Guns and Ammo" magazine (if such a rag exists)??? I doubt it, and to me glorifying guns is more morally reprehensible than showing off your body.

Tell her to apply for a job at City TV in Toronto. We will take her and she won't have to sign any such stupid morality clause. We pride ourselves on being a live and let live city as long as you don't hurt anybody.

http://toronto.citytv.com/

GREAT ASS

NICE BODD

LOOKS LIKE A PRETY GOOD BOOB JOB

YEA... SHE IS A PUBLIC FIGURE--AND RESPONSIBILITY GOES WITH IT..sorry babe..

She shouldn't have signed that clause. Work should never be allowed to control everything.

Even if she didn't sign a contract I would have fired her ass. It made her look bad on behalf of the company. If that is the lifesyle you want, don't be in the public eye.
EDIT: Yeah, horribly fake tits. 100% correct Lurkette...

They don't give a crap about her personal integrity. They only care about the station's integrity, which is damaged by her actions if they keep her on.

After all, which is more likely to impress the average viewer: "Channel 6 news: With regional Emmy award winning anchor Jane Doe" or "Channel 6 news: With barroom wet t-shirt contest winning anchor Jane Doe"

If you have a problem with employers telling you not to run around naked in public, don't get a job that's in the public eye.

Oh and btw, in this industry there is rarely a successful wrongful termination suit, especially with anchors. Anchors can and are fired for anything. Viewers don't like the way they dress, the way they talk, the way they look. News directors decide they want fresh faces on camera. Media consultants convince station management that newer, edgier anchors are needed, so the current ones are canned. All of this is legal and there's nothing an anchor can do about it. There is no WAY this anchor could ever win a wrongful termination suit over this incident, even if she had never signed a morality clause.

No.

Besides I think this is just a lot of bullshit about nothing. There's almost always someone with a camera to take a picture of you if you do anything that the stiffshits don't like. Besides, I might actually bother with watching the local news if I knew the anchor had her tits all over the net. But then that's just the ol' immoral me.

her boobies may be nasty but she has a nice butt

Yea I too lived in the viewing Area of Cathrine Bosley. Perhaps Sixates in the mirror are closer than they appear eh? Always read the fine print people..always read thje fine print. And never sign something you don't fully agree too

Yeah, I tend to agree that if she signed the contract then she should have been aware that her employer would be likely to enforce it in the case of her turning up nude on the internet... I mean, if you're gunna appear nude in public these days then its gunna turn up on the net... and if you have signed a morality clause then its your own stupid fault for not thinking things through before you take your clothes off... not that I think public nudity should be cause for termination of her contract, of course, but if she signed the clause, then well, that's the way it is...

I agree :)

I think she should have been fired, she tarnished the image of the local channel, and the network in general.

Not only that, but the contract is prolly pretty rock solid!

I find it very hypocritical for a news station that hires people based on their sex appeal to fire someone based on their sex appeal.

In fact, I find it surprising that a company that hires people for high-paying jobs based mostly on their appearance would even presume to judge others on their morals.

Having said that, I think she could likely win a lawsuit, but it would probably be in her best interest to keep a low profile and pursue a career elsewhere. In two months, nobody will remember her.

To flash or not to flash...
 

As someone said previously, anchors and reporters are the public face of a television station. Youngstown is a medium market and therefore a stepping stone to larger markets. If she worked there for 10 years (first of all she can't be that great or she would have moved on to a larger market ;) ) she has probably put in a great deal of community involvement time: fundraising, socializing, etc. These things are done to bolster her name, but also to bolster her station's ratings and likely part of her contract. She gets paid more as a result than others who are probably harder-working and consequently, she is expected to do these things. Soooo, going out and showing her boobs, well, everyone has agreed was not good community service :) nor was it appropriate for someone who is compensated for making sure people associate a certain station with them. This is not the publicity a station signs up for when they have their anchors sign contracts. And BTW, CEO's and other high-profile professionals sign the same indemnity clauses so it's not exclusive to media environments.

Bottom line - fair's fair - can't have it both ways. Can't be the wholesome "friendly neighbor" face to the community and flash your boobs.

Same thing as wondering why, with all those piercings on your face, etc., despite your outstanding performance, Giant Corporation Blah Blah Blah won't promote you and won't ever move you from that cubicle in the back of the back of the room in the basement. May not be fair, may not reflect your abilities, but life ain't fair.

Gotta choose - do you sign the dotted line, allowing yourself to be judged for the want of money and respect, or do you want to flash your ugly boobs? :confused::D :rolleyes:

Sucks to be her. But she is pretty cute

actually, she wasn't fired. I read this article before, and it was stated that she resigned.

I totally agree!
I cringed when I seen those, fucking gross.

Well, in *my* country... (yes, here he goes again!)

...a contract like that would be worth exactly jack shit. If it contains a clause that is against the law, which this one would be, a judge would nullify it. You see, we have a thing called "privacy" here...

OTOH, over here, she might have been forced to resign too. It happened to a local official the other day, after press reports about his visits to prostitutes, and his surfing for porn on a government-provided computer. None of it was illegal, but his actions, and the resulting loss of authority, made his resignation inevitable. (interestingly enough, over 60% of people polled thought he should have stayed on!) --- it's not the end of the story, by the way, as he'll be sueing the paper for slander and invasion of privacy, a case he should easily win.