Michael Scott gives his side of the story of his firing.

The war of words at a local TV station
Friday, June 13, 2008
By David Person, Huntsville Times
    On May 22, Michael Scott anchored WAAY Channel 31's 10 p.m. newscast. Less than a week later, he became the news.
    Newsblues.com reported that Scott was fired for calling then-WAAY News Producer Jabaree Prewitt a "nigger" that night.
    Other Web sites and columns picked up the story, sometimes using the more politically correct term "n-word" or "n-bomb." Because Scott and Prewitt are black, the story seemed like a verbal black-on-black conflict. Except Scott says he didn't do what he's accused of.
    WAAY management has repeatedly declined to comment. It did so again this week. Prewitt, who has since taken a job elsewhere, has also declined to talk about what happened.
    So now, three weeks later, Scott is talking. What we have is his side. At the moment, we have no other.
    "I'm being trashed," he told me on Tuesday. "The stuff on BET made it sound like I hate my own race."
     Scott was talking about a blog on BET.com, which picked up the story and then published reader comments - 59 of them as of Thursday - some of which harshly criticized him.
    The truth, Scott said, is that he never called Prewitt that name. He said he called him a "Negro" while trying to quell what he described as a profanity-laced tirade by Prewitt. Specifically, Scott said that his response to the tirade was "Negro, please."
    Prewitt was offended by the word "Negro," according to Scott. Still angry, Prewitt stormed out off the news set where the exchange took place.
    Puzzled, Scott said he turned to co-anchor Karen Adams and said: "Does he think that I called him a nigger?"      
    The management at WAAYmay have thought that. Scott said he got a call the next morning from acting News Director Keith Lowhorne, telling him not to report to work until Tuesday for a meeting. He was being suspended with pay for making an inappropriate comment to a co-worker, Scott said he was told.
    At the Tuesday meeting, Scott said, he was fired. "My feeling is that the company (WAAY) just blew this up," he said. There was no due process, Scott said. He's now looking for another job.
    I know nothing about personnel issues, but I do know something about the two n-words in question having been black all my life. Admittedly, I've used both at times. So has Scott, he told me.
    And this is where it gets sticky. If a white person had called Prewitt or Scott by the name at issue, he or she would have been fired - probably on the spot - and rightly so. The historical wounds have yet to heal from the days when that n-word was used to do everything from keeping African slaves in their place on the plantation to blocking the right of free blacks to vote.
    So when did it become OK for black people to co-opt it for their own purposes? Most say Dick Gregory and Richard Pryor had a lot to do with that, using their brilliant comedy and social commentary to defang and neuter the word.
    I can see that. But I can also see that using it carelessly can reinforce old stereotypes and stir old resentments that ultimately divide us all. Which is why I don't refer to anyone with that anymore.
    And what about the other n-word, "Negro?" It's always been a short-hand description of a person of African descent, not a slur or pejorative. It's true, though, that for some it may recall the days before black militancy when some older blacks were viewed by young ones as accommodationists.
    Post-civil rights, black folks wanted to be called black, not "Negroes." I get that, too. But does that make "Negro" a slur, as offensive a term as "nigger"?
   Should being called a "Negro" - Spanish for "black" - be considered a personal affront in an age where young blacks drop n-bombs and f-bombs routinely? 
     Huh? Negro, please.