Dantana's case - What am I missing?

Did he not claim the general also said they used sarin prior to the interview and that Maggie was present then ?

Also, there were more problem with the story than him doctoring that confession. The other star witness who had suffered a head trauma, the two different sources that turned out to be the same guy, etc.

The claim was that ACN as a whole failed to check their sources thoroughly before airing the story and only one person got the blame for it all.


When I'm gone I would like something to be named after me. A psychiatric disorder, for example.

I'm not sure if wrongful termination is the right wording for his lawsuit (I can't remember if they said it or not) but he's suing because he should not have been the only one fired.

By being the only one fired, he's being left out to dry, he's being painted as the one example of everything going wrong with Genoa, meaning he can't get another job, whereas everybody else gets off scot-free. He thinks the reason he made a mistake (doctored the raw footage) was because there was systematic failure throughout the network and couldn't live up to journalism ideals because nobody else was. (Though that last part might be my own interpretation).

Basically, I think his argument was, "If you're going to fire me, then you should have fired everybody. Because everybody made mistakes, not just me." Maybe that is a form of wrongful termination, but like you I'm not an expert in law.


My film reviews site: www.FilmGateReviews.com

He's saying the entire system was broken, and when the station was called on it, he was the one that was fired.

An example of when this kind of suit would be justified would be if Maggie was fired after mis-editing the 911 call:

- It took forever to download the footage, so she was rushed
- We've seen that the station doesn't have enough editors, so a glorified intern had to edit the audio herself
- Nobody double-checked the edit before airing
- The edits she made were in good faith

If she'd been fired because the station put her in a bad position, she would have a case for wrongful termination.

That's what Jerry is trying to say happened to him. Of course we see that he brought the story in, he forced it along the whole way, several attempts were made to drop the story but he wouldn't let go. In fact, at least twice he actually threw tantrums over their reluctance to air it. Then he willfully doctored the interview footage to get the story on the air.

While it's true that he has no case, we say that after seeing every detail of what happened. I'm sure when he explained it to his attorneys he was like poor Maggie Jordan - trying to do a good job, but the big mean news station made it impossible and then blamed him when it all fell apart.