Marty, sorry not doing the DD on an issue your pushing. Your determining to go with the reporters version and calling it "fired" is a prime example of the media's ability to maniputlate the public. You are too easily willing to accept what they say as truth, with out being willing to find the facts that verify it. That is exactly what the media wants to do. They lead the public in their opinions like hogs being lead to slaughter.
Lets look at the situation the reporter is in. They got a hot story. Their "by" line is going to be attached to it!! They are thinking about themselves.....what makes them as the author of the article get noticed. What will help their personal job review. What will the public take note of.
What words sensationalize the story best.....
hmmm let me think.....should I say.....laid off, or FIRED??
Which has more impact with the reader?? not such a tough question, your response to the use and manipulation of words proves it. To use the word Fired, has far greater response value than does laid off or permanantly laid off.
Here's my suggestion, most reporters these days list their email at the end of their column's. Why don't you email the author of the article and simply ask what their reasons for using the word "fired" vs "laid off" were. Maybe they have the answers you need.
Now in the mean time, I have some prime oceanside real estate I need to sell, can I interst you?? Trust me...my words as good as any reporters.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
