Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[GoofGoof]

Why? You hire a person whom you assume to have good upstanding moral character & have general business ethics. Their resume says what it say. It comes out that there's embellishment and its rather serious in some peoples opinion. Why wouldn't you have a problem with this?

The over all question I pose to the group: Why are you so willing to accept lying on a resume?

(The you is a general you, not picking on anyone there.)

Simple answer: I'm not hiring her. If I was hiring a writer and I got her resume I would probably ask her what she wrote for the New York Times. I'm sure she would explain that it's not the actual NY Times, but a local subsidiary of the NY Times Co. At that point I would decide whether to hire her or not. I guess if I was specifically looking to hire her just because she wrote for the NY Times it would probably mean I wouldn't hire her.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Thats the point. Especially when the prime tenant of the job is to uphold the truth and not to deceive anyone.

Ah, but the objective of miss Fickley-Baker's job is not to uphold the truth, but to fluff the truth.

Blondie is not relevant to us here, or to her current employer, as a correspondent. No, she is a pr spindoctor. And in this profession, the ability to fluff the truth is not a capital sin. Not at all.

In fact, it comes highly recommended and those incapable or unwilling to do so had better seek employment elsewhere.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

It's a matter, to me at least, of her intentionally misleading anyone who reads her LinkedIn.

The fact that link can be made from the Ledger to the NYTC company (until last year) isn't the point. Though it will be interesting to see how The Times feels about it. ( I have it on good authority that they have been made aware of the situation.)

The point is that she knew if she put that she writes occasionally for the Ledger, people wouldn't give it a second thought.
By putting that she is a correspondent for the NYTC, she is purposely doing so in order to mislead people and to misrepresent her role as one of much greater esteem and importance than was actually the case.
A casual observer would be quite impressed with a job with The Times. She knew that and used the corporate ownership link to "fudge" her curriculum vitae.

Equally important are the ethical questions raised by working for a paper and Disney. That should raise some eyebrows in Burbank at a time when the social media dept. is already under unusual scrutiny.

I think we can be fairly confident that Disney, too, read her resumé. And checked her credentials. And asked what her job as 'local correspondent, NYTC' entailed.

...and then promoted her from writer to social media manager. I don't think the (non)issue of misrepresentation exists for TWDC.

I also think TWDC is capable of reading LinkedIn and has always been perfectly aware that she worked for ten years as both a local writer for TWDC and as a free-lancer for a newspaper. And so will not suddenly put her under scrutiny over this (non-)conflict of interest because a fan forum years later gets its knickers in a twist over it.

 

[jt04]

Hmmm....it was meant as a lighthearted diversion (about Goof or ASJHLJSJJASHLA being the account of Bob Iger). However, upon re-reading, I may have sounded a bit agressive and personal. My apologies then!

No need. Besides this place has given me a thick skin.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Simple answer: I'm not hiring her.

I would hire her.

If I needed somebody to advetrise my goods on my blog, I too would do what Disney did: hire somebody who studied creative non-fiction and who understands how to present facts in a positive light.

 

[GoofGoof]

Of course, the issue is likely some of the most vocal 'defenders' of Blondie are either defending her because they lie in their own lives and see nothing wrong with her behavior. Or because they wish to try and knock me down a peg because they flat out don't like me or what I bring to MAGIC (in this example, honesty, integrity and some questions that need answering) and think by focusing on something tiny they think they've found a secret way into the Spirit Cave.

I can't speak for anyone else, but If I came across as defending her it wasn't for either of these reasons. I don't see this as a big lie or a big deal. I don't work in her industry, but I have to believe that anyone who does and would be hiring her would figure out the situation pretty fast. I don't see a technicality on a linkedin page as being grounds to fire someone. Maybe if she was a serious reporter for the actual NY Times it would be a bigger deal since it could call into question her journalistic integrity, but I don't think it takes away from her ability to write for the parks blog.

 

[Lee]

I think we can be fairly confident that Disney, too, read her resumé. And checked her credentials. And asked what her job as 'local correspondent, NYTC' entailed.

...and then promoted her from writer to social media manager. The (non)issue of misrepresentation does not exist for TWDC.

I also think TWDC is capable of reading LinkedIn and has always been perfectly aware that she worked for ten years as both a local writer for TWDC and as a free-lancer for a newspaper. And so will not suddenly put her under scrutiny over this (non-)conflict of interest because a fan forum years later gets its knickers in a twist over it.

You are making a couple of unsafe assumptions.
One is the assumption that Disney put her through an rigorous vetting process. I'm hearing that wasn't really the case. In the rush to establish a Social Media team, things are easily missed.
Two, you assume that she had that misleading statement on her resume at the time she was hired. It could well have been added after the fact.
Three, you assume that Disney knew about her other job and approved of it. Again, I'm hearing that wasn't exactly the case, at least not in Burbank.

The whole Social Media department is currently under scrutiny for other reasons. This certainly won't be helping her now that it has been exposed.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

You are making a couple of unsafe assumptions.
One is the assumption that Disney put her through an rigorous vetting process. I'm hearing that wasn't really the case. In the rush to establish a Social Media team, things are easily missed.
Two, you assume that she had that misleading statement on her resume at the time she was hired. It could well have been added after the fact.
Three, you assume that Disney knew about her other job and approved of it. Again, I'm hearing that wasn't exactly the case, at least not in Burbank.

The whole Social Media department is currently under scrutiny for other reasons. This certainly won't be helping her now that it has been exposed.

You know what? All of that is perfectly true, I won't deny!

Although I do presume every employer reads LinkedIn, or glances at a resumé. And hers is only four jobs long - of which two at Disney itself. There is literaly nothing else to talk about than her thirteen month student job, and her part-time job as a local correspondent.

 

[Darth Sidious]

You know what? All of that is perfectly true, I won't deny!

Although I do presume every employer reads LinkedIn, or glances at a resumé. And hers is only four jobs long.

Quality over quantity... Maybe that isn't applicable here but having a low turnover in your career could signal positives as well.

 

[Clever Name]

Quality over quantity... Maybe that isn't applicable here but having a low turnover in your career could signal positives as well.

Background investigations go much quicker!

 

[WDW1974]

I have to admit I'm both amused and sickened by the blowing up of this thread by folks who apparently feel that it is perfectly acceptable for people to lie and misrepresent themselves and then parse words to 'prove' that they're right and that THAT somehow is of more significance than the HUGE ethical missteps of a WDW publicity hack.

I just don't get what's in it for them. Proving they can play funky games with semantics so folks like myself feel compelled to set the record straight when it's more like a game to them.

It almost seems like some folks have a personal agenda in defending this woman no matter how much the facts show she is an unethical twit.

 

[WDW1974]

Oh dear god, you people like to split hairs. Some of you need remedial Sunday School for definitions of right and wrong....

While I think this applies to a few folks here, I believe @Bolna was actually backing up our PoV.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Ah, but the objective of miss Fickley-Baker's job is not to uphold the truth, but to fluff the truth.

Blondie is not relevant to us here, or to her current employer, as a correspondent. No, she is a pr spindoctor. And in this profession, the ability to fluff the truth is not a capital sin. Not at all.

In fact, it comes highly recommended and those incapable or unwilling to do so had better seek employment elsewhere.

Normally I would say, we agree to disagree......

But I just can't tolerate people that will defend people who misrepresent themselves. If you enjoy liars and cheats, go right ahead. Enjoy your time on Orange Blossom trail. Me? I'm pretty good with my ethical standing. I know the difference between right and wrong. And when she's done is wrong. End of discussion.

 

[WDW1974]

Remember when this thread was about Tony Baxter? How far we've fallen, thanks to @flynnibus

I'm pretty safe in saying she ain't Tony's type ... well, beyond the blonde hair anyway!

 

[PhotoDave219]

While I think this applies to a few folks here, I believe @Bolna was actually backing up our PoV.

My apologies then. I just suddenly grown sick of righteously indignant people feel the need to defend the liars and cheats.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have to admit I'm both amused and sickened by the blowing up of this thread by folks who apparently feel that it is perfectly acceptable for people to lie and misrepresent themselves and then parse words to 'prove' that they're right and that THAT somehow is of more significance than the HUGE ethical missteps of a WDW publicity hack.

I just don't get what's in it for them. Proving they can play funky games with semantics so folks like myself feel compelled to set the record straight when it's more like a game to them.

It almost seems like some folks have a personal agenda in defending this woman no matter how much the facts show she is an unethical twit.

Ah yes, the expected calling into question of the character of those not just accepting your thinking for them.

 

[englanddg]

I've only been loosly following @WDW1974 and @PhotoDave219 's frustration with this woman...

I am glad @WDW1974 dropped her name so I could check out her completely worthless blog.

It holds even less content and actual value than the Disney Parks channel and the annoying lady who keeps telling me that Animal Kingdom is amazing (and has for the last couple years, I forget her name, but she came up in another thread recently)...

Nothing she's written (at least from what a google search shows) is anything close to real journalism, and is nothing more than propaganda and marketing / shilling for the parks. Which I'm fine with. Most Mommy bloggers are like that.

What I don't get is the sheer ire. People lie or "embellish" their CV all the time. Who cares, unless you are reporting something of import as an authority? Her posts are silly and stupid.

I don't care that she upsets them so much...I just don't get why it's such a big deal.

 

[WDW1974]

So since we are raising the bar on honesty might I suggest that the most moral spirits amongst us consider actually compensating WDWMagic for the bandwidth used and become a premium member. Especially those who have determined it is their personal soap box.

Or am I being too frank.

I would never pay to be a contributor to a fan site's message boards. ... But since my threads tend to drive a lot of clicks/traffic here, I think I more than earn my keep. No offense, Frank, but I don't think people come here to see you gushing over Iger and the redevelopment of a mall.

This thread has had about 10,000 views in the last 24 hours. I'd say there's quite a bit of value there. You know any other Disney poster here who can drive those numbers and isn't compensated and doesn't seek compensation?

I've actually thought of making an offer to buy WDWMAGIC from Steve (or 75% of it) and the valuation of the site I've come up with is quite impressive. I don't really want to be in the Disney fan site business, but ... if I do ... I'd rather own a known commodity and one that gets real numbers, not the made up kind that most of the social media whores use to get Disney freebies.

But I do know my value here ... JT ... and I'm fairly certain that you do too.

Go ask my pal Doobie how his message boards are doing ... oh, and ask what happened to Tales From The LP and my pal Lee MacDonald (who I do miss) while you're at it.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Normally I would say, we agree to disagree......

But I just can't tolerate people that will defend people who misrepresent themselves. If you enjoy liars and cheats, go right ahead. Enjoy your time on Orange Blossom trail. Me? I'm pretty good with my ethical standing. I know the difference between right and wrong. And when she's done is wrong. End of discussion.

Liars and cheats? For what is the perfectly common practise* of trying to present yourself in the best possible light, like everybody else applying for your job?

Do you think employers too don't present their companies in the best possible light? When's the last time a job ad read 'company currently getting hammered by the competition seeks talented people for ty work environment'? Let's not confuse standard practise with an impossibly idealised perfect world here.

Every applicant, everybody on LinkedIn with asperations of managerial positions has a fluffed up profile. Kinda like how on Facebook people show pictures of themselves in scuba gear in exotic places, when in reality their lives are better described as 'cubicle monkeys'. It's not cheating, no, it's something everybody simply understands and expects.

I don't think there is anybody in HR who does not understand how ms. Fickley-Baker's profile works. I don't think there is any job interview with a serious company that wouldn't ask her 'what, and where, exactly, is the job you did as a local correspondent?'




* “Hire Right” recently released some interesting statistics that show how rampant resume fraud is in the United States. The company’s numbers show that 80 percent of all resumes are misleading, 20 percent state fraudulent degrees, 30 percent show altered employment dates, 40 percent have inflated salary claims, 30 percent have inaccurate job descriptions, 25 percent list companies that no longer exist, and 27 percent give falsified references.
http://www.1888articles.com/lying-o...ng-you-could-do-for-your-career-085tf94p.html
To which I would add: the first thing that strikes me about ms. Fickley-Baker's profile is how down to earth it is compared to the usual sheer fiction that seems the standard on LinkedIn.

 

[WDW1974]

Ah yes, the expected calling into question of the character of those not just accepting your thinking for them.

Bull----. You have an agenda here. It likely is simply to disrupt my comments because you don't like my opinions/conclusions and even, maybe, the eyeballs I bring here.

To you, the only thing that matters in this whole freaking subject is that you focus on some tiny point that may have some validity but only serves to distract and change the discussion. You are not stupid. You are just playing.

Even your BS line about me thinking for others. I don't want that. I want people to use their brains. But I am a media pro as is Dave and when we try and explain why this is so off, you just insist on acting like you know better, you're smarter and let's play semantics ... it is tiresome.

And frankly repeating the same BS ad nauseum doesn't change a thing. It just makes you seem trollish.