Washington Post fires reporter Felicia Somnez who objected to misogynistic tweets

[Anonymous]

In her Thursday thread, Sonmez argued that the colleagues of hers who publicly defended The Post this week are white and among the most highly paid in the newsroom.
"It is a great workplace *for them*," she wrote.
Sonmez questioned in the thread whether The Post's institutional framework was working for "everyone else."

[Anonymous]

She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, she was given several warnings to stop her behavior. She had a choice, but continued—sounds like a loose cannon.

+1 although I think she sounds like my 2 year old when he's having a temper tantrum. At this point whatever point she is trying to make is lost because of her poor behavior.

It is hard to see how she could ever be trusted as a reporter in the future and expect people to want to read what she has written because she has gone so far overboard. I know I would skip her article whenever I saw her byline simply because of her clear vitriolic and hyperbolic writings. She had a point, but when she was challenged her response vis a vis the personal attacks and clear animus made her distasteful and now her writing is irrelevant because of the clear bias.

She deserved to be fired because of her behavior and I wouldn't be surprised if she is completely unable to find employment with any legitimate news agency. She might be better off migrating over the New York Post. They are right up her alley.

The only post employee who attacked a colleague was Del Real. He attacked Somnez and she retweeted his attacks. Most of her tweets were retweeting language by the post. Del Real was not punished, Weigel suspended, and she was fired for speaking out. Stay silent ladies!

I don’t work at the Post but the optics of what they did looks terrible. Old boys club indeed.

Oh, get real. It was Somnez who was flipping out. I read the chain in the Post. The more she posted the more hysterical and vitriolic she got. She was a loose cannon. They're better off without her.

So much gender bias in the way some posters are talking about Somnez. “Hysterical” “flipping out”, “loose cannon.” None of these things seem to be apples to the man who started this whole incident by tweeting that all women are either bisexual or bipolar. Let’s call him some names too-not just the woman brave enough to call him out for being a woman hater.

Except he didn't display any hysterical behavior, and she did.

Funny how only women are ever called "hysterical". I don't think calling out Dave Wiegel for saying that women are either bipolar or bisexual is "hysterical." I do think Dave Wiegel is somewhat sociopathic.

Felicia, just stop. He is in no way "sociopathic." You, however, are being "hysterical." Please get help.

BTW I am a woman telling you this. You are embarrassing the rest of us women. Let it go.

You can try to say this is "Felicia" posting this. But it's not. I'm a female Washington Post subscriber who is disgusted that a newspaper I pay money for would fire someone for calling out a misogynistic tweet. Sorry your mind is so limited that it can't comprehend that people do not approve of behavior that targets women.

Well I am a female feminist VERY liberal Washington Post subscriber who is honestly pretty disgusted with the outcry. Maybe its because I've followed Weigel for years so I feel like this one tweet is really not representative of his entire personality, but like, I really feel like we have all lost the thread if we want to deprive people of their livelihood for mistakes. Seriously, if there is no way to come back from mistakes, why would anyone ever even try? This burn everything down mentality is really short sighted.

The only one who has been deprived of their livelihood is Felicia Somnez, who didn't make any mistakes, but is instead being retaliated against for calling out Weigel's sexist tweets.

It sounds like she violated many company policies. I mean it seems to me like this is the scenario at hand:

Person A: Does something that Person B is understandably offended by but that notably is not injurious to anyone

Person B: Complains about the thing

Person A: Apologizes publicly and sincerely

Company: Suspends person A for a month without pay

Person B: Continues to disparage person A vociferously online and in the office repeatedly despite being warned to stop.

Person A: Continues to take their punishment without pushback

Company: Warns person B to cut it out

Person B: Keeps on launching a vehement campaign to get Person A fired

Company: Fires person B

Wapo punished Weigel, HARSHLY. Suspending someone for a month without pay is a harsh punishment. And he apologized and didn't dig in. She didn't want to accept that and got fired. That is not the same thing as retribution. Use kids.

Kid A: Steals toy and pushes kid B

Kid B: Complains

Parent: Tells Kid A they messed up

Kid A: Apologizes

Parent: Puts kid A in a lengthy time out

Kid B: Whines and whines and whines about how parent isn't being mean enough

Parent: Cut it out A is in timeout

Kid B: Whines and whines and whines about how parent isn't being mean enough in time out and then tells everyone at school about how horrible A is to get the whole school to turn against them

Parent: Grounds B for a month

Good summary. I can only assume that anyone defending Sonmez’s Twitter rampage and attacks on her colleagues has never had a job. I will be very curious to see if she is able to get another reporting job after this.

I am fine with them firing her. But I am still not re-upping my Post subscription because of how they handled Weigel. How could I ever trust his reporting on a claim of sexual harassment again? How could I follow his coverage of female politicians? How can I believe that he is accurately covering a debate between a woman politician and a male one?

It is a bad situation and I honestly don’t know what they should have done to him (not let him report on women? That doesn’t seem workable) but what I do know is that I can’t trust his reporting on women at this point, and probably not the Post’s in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, she was given several warnings to stop her behavior. She had a choice, but continued—sounds like a loose cannon.

+1 although I think she sounds like my 2 year old when he's having a temper tantrum. At this point whatever point she is trying to make is lost because of her poor behavior.

It is hard to see how she could ever be trusted as a reporter in the future and expect people to want to read what she has written because she has gone so far overboard. I know I would skip her article whenever I saw her byline simply because of her clear vitriolic and hyperbolic writings. She had a point, but when she was challenged her response vis a vis the personal attacks and clear animus made her distasteful and now her writing is irrelevant because of the clear bias.

She deserved to be fired because of her behavior and I wouldn't be surprised if she is completely unable to find employment with any legitimate news agency. She might be better off migrating over the New York Post. They are right up her alley.

The only post employee who attacked a colleague was Del Real. He attacked Somnez and she retweeted his attacks. Most of her tweets were retweeting language by the post. Del Real was not punished, Weigel suspended, and she was fired for speaking out. Stay silent ladies!

Nah. You're not reupping your subscription because inflation is up, you're broke, and you prefer to not pay for journalism. Not because you "don't trust" Weigl.

I don’t work at the Post but the optics of what they did looks terrible. Old boys club indeed.

Oh, get real. It was Somnez who was flipping out. I read the chain in the Post. The more she posted the more hysterical and vitriolic she got. She was a loose cannon. They're better off without her.

So much gender bias in the way some posters are talking about Somnez. “Hysterical” “flipping out”, “loose cannon.” None of these things seem to be apples to the man who started this whole incident by tweeting that all women are either bisexual or bipolar. Let’s call him some names too-not just the woman brave enough to call him out for being a woman hater.

Except he didn't display any hysterical behavior, and she did.

Funny how only women are ever called "hysterical". I don't think calling out Dave Wiegel for saying that women are either bipolar or bisexual is "hysterical." I do think Dave Wiegel is somewhat sociopathic.

Felicia, just stop. He is in no way "sociopathic." You, however, are being "hysterical." Please get help.

BTW I am a woman telling you this. You are embarrassing the rest of us women. Let it go.

You can try to say this is "Felicia" posting this. But it's not. I'm a female Washington Post subscriber who is disgusted that a newspaper I pay money for would fire someone for calling out a misogynistic tweet. Sorry your mind is so limited that it can't comprehend that people do not approve of behavior that targets women.

Well I am a female feminist VERY liberal Washington Post subscriber who is honestly pretty disgusted with the outcry. Maybe its because I've followed Weigel for years so I feel like this one tweet is really not representative of his entire personality, but like, I really feel like we have all lost the thread if we want to deprive people of their livelihood for mistakes. Seriously, if there is no way to come back from mistakes, why would anyone ever even try? This burn everything down mentality is really short sighted.

The only one who has been deprived of their livelihood is Felicia Somnez, who didn't make any mistakes, but is instead being retaliated against for calling out Weigel's sexist tweets.

It sounds like she violated many company policies. I mean it seems to me like this is the scenario at hand:

Person A: Does something that Person B is understandably offended by but that notably is not injurious to anyone

Person B: Complains about the thing

Person A: Apologizes publicly and sincerely

Company: Suspends person A for a month without pay

Person B: Continues to disparage person A vociferously online and in the office repeatedly despite being warned to stop.

Person A: Continues to take their punishment without pushback

Company: Warns person B to cut it out

Person B: Keeps on launching a vehement campaign to get Person A fired

Company: Fires person B

Wapo punished Weigel, HARSHLY. Suspending someone for a month without pay is a harsh punishment. And he apologized and didn't dig in. She didn't want to accept that and got fired. That is not the same thing as retribution. Use kids.

Kid A: Steals toy and pushes kid B

Kid B: Complains

Parent: Tells Kid A they messed up

Kid A: Apologizes

Parent: Puts kid A in a lengthy time out

Kid B: Whines and whines and whines about how parent isn't being mean enough

Parent: Cut it out A is in timeout

Kid B: Whines and whines and whines about how parent isn't being mean enough in time out and then tells everyone at school about how horrible A is to get the whole school to turn against them

Parent: Grounds B for a month

Good summary. I can only assume that anyone defending Sonmez’s Twitter rampage and attacks on her colleagues has never had a job. I will be very curious to see if she is able to get another reporting job after this.

I am fine with them firing her. But I am still not re-upping my Post subscription because of how they handled Weigel. How could I ever trust his reporting on a claim of sexual harassment again? How could I follow his coverage of female politicians? How can I believe that he is accurately covering a debate between a woman politician and a male one?

It is a bad situation and I honestly don’t know what they should have done to him (not let him report on women? That doesn’t seem workable) but what I do know is that I can’t trust his reporting on women at this point, and probably not the Post’s in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that Dave Wiegel was already forced to resign from the Washington Post after just three months (in 2010) for writing unprofessional content. I guess the WaPo didn't learn its lesson.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504413.html

David Weigel, who was hired by The Washington Post to blog about conservatives, resigned Friday after leaked online messages showed him disparaging some Republicans and commentators in highly personal terms.

Weigel, whose tenure lasted three months, apologized Thursday for writing on a private e-mail exchange that Matt Drudge should "handle his emotional problems more responsibly and set himself on fire." He also mocked Ron Paul, the Texas congressman, by referring to the "Paultard Tea Party."

The lesson is that it's ok to disparage women but not ok to disparage conservatives if you work at the Washington Post.

+1 Rules for thee but not for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

Objecting to a colleague’s sexist tweets is not a “tantrum.” It’s standing up for equity in the workplace and what the Post did by firing her is retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

Objecting to a colleague’s sexist tweets is not a “tantrum.” It’s standing up for equity in the workplace and what the Post did by firing her is retaliation.

She did, and he took it down, apologized, and was suspended.

Then she kept going. Sorta like Shapiro, actually. Except he quit in a huff when he didn't get fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

Objecting to a colleague’s sexist tweets is not a “tantrum.” It’s standing up for equity in the workplace and what the Post did by firing her is retaliation.

I agree with this, but she didn't just object and keep it moving. It would be one thing if she had gone to Dave and said "What you retweeted was super gross, to the point of actually being offensive, and I hope you'll consider taking it down." Honestly, if Dave made her uncomfortable (I wouldn't blame her for that, the guy looks like a skeeze and clearly is a moron if he finds the tweet funny in the first place but then is also dumb enough to tweet it from his PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT) she could've gone to management and said "Dave's tweet was offensive." She didn't do that. She broached the subject via a snarky tweet about the retweet and then continued to fight her colleagues via twitter and air Post dirty laundry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

Objecting to a colleague’s sexist tweets is not a “tantrum.” It’s standing up for equity in the workplace and what the Post did by firing her is retaliation.

I agree with this, but she didn't just object and keep it moving. It would be one thing if she had gone to Dave and said "What you retweeted was super gross, to the point of actually being offensive, and I hope you'll consider taking it down." Honestly, if Dave made her uncomfortable (I wouldn't blame her for that, the guy looks like a skeeze and clearly is a moron if he finds the tweet funny in the first place but then is also dumb enough to tweet it from his PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT) she could've gone to management and said "Dave's tweet was offensive." She didn't do that. She broached the subject via a snarky tweet about the retweet and then continued to fight her colleagues via twitter and air Post dirty laundry.

Even the first tweet didn't get her in trouble. Sure, yes, the better thing would be to talk to your colleague privately - but where't the public glory in that? And I think she even had a lot of support after that first tweet, and no rebuke from her employer. It was when she would not stop tweeting after she already got what she wanted that she ran into trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

Objecting to a colleague’s sexist tweets is not a “tantrum.” It’s standing up for equity in the workplace and what the Post did by firing her is retaliation.

I agree with this, but she didn't just object and keep it moving. It would be one thing if she had gone to Dave and said "What you retweeted was super gross, to the point of actually being offensive, and I hope you'll consider taking it down." Honestly, if Dave made her uncomfortable (I wouldn't blame her for that, the guy looks like a skeeze and clearly is a moron if he finds the tweet funny in the first place but then is also dumb enough to tweet it from his PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT) she could've gone to management and said "Dave's tweet was offensive." She didn't do that. She broached the subject via a snarky tweet about the retweet and then continued to fight her colleagues via twitter and air Post dirty laundry.

Even the first tweet didn't get her in trouble. Sure, yes, the better thing would be to talk to your colleague privately - but where't the public glory in that? And I think she even had a lot of support after that first tweet, and no rebuke from her employer. It was when she would not stop tweeting after she already got what she wanted that she ran into trouble.

^ The real chef's kiss was when she called Weigel a "good friend" in a subsequent tweet, on day two or three (I can't remember) after she'd gotten him suspended without pay for a month. Because that's what good friends do to each other! What other option was there, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is probably not wrong about that. It’s probably an awesome spot for the Weigels of the newsroom. Less so for others.

He was suspended without pay over an RT that he deleted and apologized for

This would have been fine for her too if she'd tweeted two, three, even four times - and then had stopped spending day and night attacking her colleagues and RTing people calling her a hero

^ Which is not to say there's no favoritism at the Wash Post. I've only been full time staff at one publication - a really big one! you'd be impressed - and there sure as heck was there. It was infuriating, demoralizing, all the things you'd imagine. I have to expect every newsroom - every office, for that matter - has favorites who can do whatever the heck they want, and everyone else who isn't quite as special. It stinks to be on the non-special side of that.

But even if you're mad, you still can't throw a nonstop tantrum on Twitter, keep going after your boss says to stop, and expect you're going to come out still employed.

Objecting to a colleague’s sexist tweets is not a “tantrum.” It’s standing up for equity in the workplace and what the Post did by firing her is retaliation.

This take omits a pattern of behavior on her part prior to this incident.

[Anonymous]

I don’t have a problem with her being fired. But those of you who think that it was just a “dumb joke,” no big deal, the apology is enough, Weigel did nothing wrong, it is a “dad joke” (wtf), do you really trust Weigel’s reporting on women now? Do you think Weigel can fairly report on a woman who raises an assertion of sexual harassment or assault? Or about an employment dispute of unequal pay?

If so, where is your line? Last year Mike Huckaee tweeted the racist “joke” below. If a reporter had retweeted that Tweet from his or her professional account, would you be okay with it? Would you trust that reporter on any issues having to do with Asian Americans again? Where do you draw your line?

[Anonymous]

Not really seeing that retweet as “creating a hostile environment”:

Elements of a hostile work environment include:

Discrimination based on religion, age, race, sex or disability.
Intimidating environment
Offensive behavior
Physical or mental abuse

https://www.schwartzandperry.com/blog/2021/june/3-things-that-may-indicate-a-hostile-work-enviro/

I mean, this was offensive behavior and that’s why he was disciples. The system worked the way it was supposed to.