Washingtonian attacks journalist who broke bowser story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’s inside in one of the photos, acquiring the photos or even crashing imo if you don’t lie or anything to get in is definitely journalism.

That was at the reception not the wedding. Completely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that her mask right there in this picture on the side of her face? Like she's in the process of taking it off or putting it on when this was snapped, and you can see it winged out from her right cheek? It's not part of the centerpiece or a shadow afaict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this is a story.

So what if she wasn't invited? Does that mean she shouldn't report on it?

If seems as if the Washingtonian is attempting to come to the defense of Bowser, which is interesting.

And one last question.......
The mask mandate states that you don't need to wear a mask if you are eating or drinking.
Does research show that the virus cannot be passed to others while someone is eating or drinking? I have never understood why masks are required indoors at restaurants (like walking to tables), but can be removed if eating or drinking.

If Washingtonian were "attempting to come to the defense of Bowser," would they have covered this at all?

Washingtonian is protecting its relationship with the Mayor’s office and their access. No surprise that Media Inc would do that.

But the WT reporter was still wrong and trashy - she invaded someone’s wedding, caused a scene with security, and now the couple will remember the media brouhaha instead of their nice wedding day. The WT reporter broke journalistic ethics, if she had any to begin with.

Journalistic ethics don’t prohibit journalists from crashing weddings. And if the people who got married didn’t want their wedding to stir up controversy, they probably shouldn’t have had the mayor officiate at an “indoor/outdoor” venue right after the mayor imposed a mask mandate. (Of course then they wouldn’t have gotten any prestige or cool points for having the mayor officiate.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that her mask right there in this picture on the side of her face? Like she's in the process of taking it off or putting it on when this was snapped, and you can see it winged out from her right cheek? It's not part of the centerpiece or a shadow afaict.

The journalist says that she has video and that the mayor was unmasked even while not eating or drinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that her mask right there in this picture on the side of her face? Like she's in the process of taking it off or putting it on when this was snapped, and you can see it winged out from her right cheek? It's not part of the centerpiece or a shadow afaict.

The journalist says that she has video and that the mayor was unmasked even while not eating or drinking.

Okay, but the same journalist said she "officiated an indoor wedding" when it was actually an outdoor wedding. I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Bowser has done so much shady shit it seems like a waste of time to try to make a big deal out of a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

A right-wing “journalist” acting in bad faith?

You don’t say?

Tell me, is she a member of the Society of Professional Journalists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this is a story.

So what if she wasn't invited? Does that mean she shouldn't report on it?

If seems as if the Washingtonian is attempting to come to the defense of Bowser, which is interesting.

And one last question.......
The mask mandate states that you don't need to wear a mask if you are eating or drinking.
Does research show that the virus cannot be passed to others while someone is eating or drinking? I have never understood why masks are required indoors at restaurants (like walking to tables), but can be removed if eating or drinking.

If Washingtonian were "attempting to come to the defense of Bowser," would they have covered this at all?

Washingtonian is protecting its relationship with the Mayor’s office and their access. No surprise that Media Inc would do that.

But the WT reporter was still wrong and trashy - she invaded someone’s wedding, caused a scene with security, and now the couple will remember the media brouhaha instead of their nice wedding day. The WT reporter broke journalistic ethics, if she had any to begin with.

Journalistic ethics don’t prohibit journalists from crashing weddings. And if the people who got married didn’t want their wedding to stir up controversy, they probably shouldn’t have had the mayor officiate at an “indoor/outdoor” venue right after the mayor imposed a mask mandate. (Of course then they wouldn’t have gotten any prestige or cool points for having the mayor officiate.)

Actually, she violated a few ethical guidelines, the biggest of which is this: https://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethicscode/?p=10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great that someone is willing to challenge politicians again. Pols have been enjoying a free ride by liberal corporate media for years.

Truth to power => Go Girl!

Amazing you think this is the hill worth dying on

[Anonymous]

To you guys defending the Washingtonian were you shocked and outraged that chris Hansen wasn’t an underaged girl ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that her mask right there in this picture on the side of her face? Like she's in the process of taking it off or putting it on when this was snapped, and you can see it winged out from her right cheek? It's not part of the centerpiece or a shadow afaict.

The journalist says that she has video and that the mayor was unmasked even while not eating or drinking.

Okay, but the same journalist said she "officiated an indoor wedding" when it was actually an outdoor wedding. I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Bowser has done so much shady shit it seems like a waste of time to try to make a big deal out of a nothingburger.

The mayor officiated a wedding that had an indoor component. I don’t think the difference is that big of a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

No, they (rightly) attacked a journalist for doing suspiciously racist “reporting”.

There were lots of white people unmasked there. None of them were singled out.

Why?


Because they weren’t strong Black women. That’s why. Same exact reason Bowser is being attacked here on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

No, they (rightly) attacked a journalist for doing suspiciously racist “reporting”.

There were lots of white people unmasked there. None of them were singled out.

Why?


Because they weren’t strong Black women. That’s why. Same exact reason Bowser is being attacked here on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

No, they (rightly) attacked a journalist for doing suspiciously racist “reporting”.

There were lots of white people unmasked there. None of them were singled out.

Why?


Because they weren’t strong Black women. That’s why. Same exact reason Bowser is being attacked here on this forum.

LMAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

No, they (rightly) attacked a journalist for doing suspiciously racist “reporting”.

There were lots of white people unmasked there. None of them were singled out.

Why?


Because they weren’t strong Black women. That’s why. Same exact reason Bowser is being attacked here on this forum.

Yes. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it was Bowser was the one who made the rule that masks were to be worn inside.

[Anonymous]

Bowser was also apparently at a club last night wearing a Heist ballcap but no mask. Lol.