Anonymous wrote: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?
I've followed Weigel for MANY years across multiple platforms and always liked his writing and honestly never saw anything that I would say even hinted at being this sexist. The joke was crass but I mean...people sometimes make stupid jokes. I feel like we are really at a bad place in society if one bad joke can change people's perceptions of your ENTIRE personality and moral framework. I guess if this is the first thing you've ever heard him write then I could see it leaving a terrible taste, but as someone that has read his reporting for a long time, it seems like something dumb. Like if my brother said this I would maybe punch his arm and tell him he's being a d but I wouldn't cut him out of my life. That is where I land on the actual tweet.
- very liberal feminist pro metoo hates johnny depp woman
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
Exactly. Reporters need to be objective. I’m not sure when Millenial journalists got this idea that journalism is activism. If that’s what you want to do with your writing, you need to join a different kind of organization, not a major news outlet.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
Exactly. Reporters need to be objective. I’m not sure when Millenial journalists got this idea that journalism is activism. If that’s what you want to do with your writing, you need to join a different kind of organization, not a major news outlet.
+1
It’s been so bad for journalism
+1
This is a good step in the right direction. CNN is apparently also reconsidering their all-opinion/context all-the-time reporting as well (thank goodness!).
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
Exactly. Reporters need to be objective. I’m not sure when Millenial journalists got this idea that journalism is activism. If that’s what you want to do with your writing, you need to join a different kind of organization, not a major news outlet.
+1
It’s been so bad for journalism
+1
This is a good step in the right direction. CNN is apparently also reconsidering their all-opinion/context all-the-time reporting as well (thank goodness!).
+2 media companies FINALLY cracking down on reporters' activism/snark/hot takes/brattiness/opinions etc on social media is way, way, WAY overdue. it's already undermined journalism so much. depressingly so.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
So they couldn't fire her for being a brat. They had to wait until she successfully dug her own grave.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
The question remains. Is she always a journalist when working for the Post? Does the Post have to protect her from the results of insensitive posts on her personal Twitter account? If they are required to protect her as a journalist, doesn't she need to obey company policies? It seems like someone wants to be say whatever they want and hide behind "I'm a journalist" without consequences. Must be nice.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
The question remains. Is she always a journalist when working for the Post? Does the Post have to protect her from the results of insensitive posts on her personal Twitter account? If they are required to protect her as a journalist, doesn't she need to obey company policies? It seems like someone wants to be say whatever they want and hide behind "I'm a journalist" without consequences. Must be nice.
I don't think she was asking for someone to protect her from her own posts. But the Post suspended her for tweeting a public news article that pointed out that Kobe did in fact have a history of sexual assault, even if he had the funds to settle out of court. We don't go deaf, blind and dumb when a public figure dies.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
The question remains. Is she always a journalist when working for the Post? Does the Post have to protect her from the results of insensitive posts on her personal Twitter account? If they are required to protect her as a journalist, doesn't she need to obey company policies? It seems like someone wants to be say whatever they want and hide behind "I'm a journalist" without consequences. Must be nice.
I don't think she was asking for someone to protect her from her own posts. But the Post suspended her for tweeting a public news article that pointed out that Kobe did in fact have a history of sexual assault, even if he had the funds to settle out of court. We don't go deaf, blind and dumb when a public figure dies.
Some of us are able to be respectful, or at least to act like it. Others aren't.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
The question remains. Is she always a journalist when working for the Post? Does the Post have to protect her from the results of insensitive posts on her personal Twitter account? If they are required to protect her as a journalist, doesn't she need to obey company policies? It seems like someone wants to be say whatever they want and hide behind "I'm a journalist" without consequences. Must be nice.
I don't think she was asking for someone to protect her from her own posts. But the Post suspended her for tweeting a public news article that pointed out that Kobe did in fact have a history of sexual assault, even if he had the funds to settle out of court. We don't go deaf, blind and dumb when a public figure dies.
Some of us are able to be respectful, or at least to act like it. Others aren't.
I don't think people who sexually assault others get the priviliege of having their acts swept under the rug. Even if you're a great basketball player. I'll save my respect for those who really earn it.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
So they couldn't fire her for being a brat. They had to wait until she successfully dug her own grave.
Too bad. She should have been gone earlier.
People might take you more seriously if you didn't write like a 6th grader. I hope you're not a reporter.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
So they couldn't fire her for being a brat. They had to wait until she successfully dug her own grave.
Too bad. She should have been gone earlier.
People might take you more seriously if you didn't write like a 6th grader. I hope you're not a reporter.
On Sunday, it came for a Washington Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez.
Nine people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that morning, including the basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. The news rocketed around social media, where mourners shared their heartbreak at the news. As is common with major breaking news, some reports were inaccurate or false, layering anxiety on top of grief.
Into the mix, Ms. Sonmez tweeted the link to a 2016 article from The Daily Beast about a young woman’s accusation that Mr. Bryant had raped her in Colorado. Criminal charges against him were dropped in 2004 and a civil suit was settled out of court.
The tweet highlighted the fact that Mr. Bryant’s legacy is fraught and complicated, and attracted the attention of fans as well as trolls who bombarded her inbox with abuse and posted her home address online. Ms. Sonmez then posted a selection of the threats she received, without obscuring the names of the people who had sent her hate mail. She slept in a hotel on Sunday night, fearing for her safety at home, she said.
We don’t know all the details, but it seems that The Post’s managing and executive editors were not pleased. They chastised her over email and placed her on administrative leave while the organization reviewed whether she had violated the company’s social media guidelines. Their reasoning on Monday: “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.” The Post reversed her suspension on Tuesday, roughly 36 hours after the initial tweets, stating that senior managers had concluded that Ms. Sonmez’s tweets didn’t violate company policy.
This, of course, was obvious to almost everyone but The Post’s higher-ups. It was impossible to imagine how posting a link to a story by a different publication on Twitter could undermine the work of colleagues. Just as it was impossible to imagine which colleagues would have felt undermined (more than 300 of Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues expressed solidarity with her in a letter from The Post’s union to management).
There remain glaring questions. Did the executive editor, Marty Baron, inquire about Ms. Sonmez’s safety when he emailed her to criticize her tweets? What, beyond a reflex for online civility, led The Post to determine the reporter was “hurting this institution” by discussing a part of Mr. Bryant’s legacy that appeared in The Post’s own news pages? Why, after years of watching journalists, women and vulnerable individuals being trolled and abused by viral outrage online, are newsrooms still falling for the same Gamergate-style tactics? The Post’s official statement (it doesn’t quite rise to the level of an apology), which included the caveat “we consistently urge restraint” for reporters online, doesn’t begin to answer these questions.
Mr. Baron released a memo to Post staff on Thursday admitting “It is not always easy to know where to draw the line” on many of these issues. Notably, the memo did not include an apology.
Personally, as someone who has been attacked on social media by reporters who cover the issue that I research, I'm glad that the Post tries to avoid having reporters who have strongly formed personal views on various issue cover those same issues for the Post. I recognize that no one is truly objective, but if you are on the record with strong feelings on a particular issue (pro or con) and if you are interacting with random readers in highly opinionated ways, you should not be tasked with news coverage of those same issues. Sorry Felicia (and the NYT reporter who covers the issue that I know best, whom I've called out on Twitter for harassing those who disagree with her.)
I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In this case, I don't think the problem is that she was a victim of sexual assault (though when you read the account...) or that she is publicly against sexual assault (we all should be!). It's that her tweets and behavior showed her as someone who would report as an advocate, not as an impartial reporter. Calling Kobe a ra**st on twitter on the day he died sort of shows your hand.
Maybe she just shouldn't be in straight news, because she likes to share her opinions on things too much. She could be an opinion columnist, though. Then you get paid to have an opinion.
Wow, what a bunch of lies. She didn't call him a rat**** on the day he died. She retweeted an article that pointed out that he settled a felony sexual assault case and thus had a far more complicated legacy than all the accolades would suggest. If you work for the Washington Post, why don't you try reading some news articles?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html
DP. Jeff has a one-day rule about no negative posts after someone has died. There is plenty of time later to talk about "a complicated legacy" after 24 hours have passed.
If DCUM has this rule, then it's not unreasonable for WaPo to have it as well. Such a low bar. SMH
DCUM is not a news organization. SMH that someone working for the WaPo doesn't understand that. If you read any obituary, the good and the bad of the person's legacy is included. In fact, your own newspaper realized that punishing Sonmez for tweeting about Kobe was "misguided" and almost apologized.
The reaction among Ms. Sonmez’s colleagues started to emerge on Monday with a post on Erik Wemple Blog, The Post’s media criticism column, and in a letter that was organized by the NewsGuild, the union that represents Post journalists, and signed by more than 200 staff members, including the paper’s most prominent reporters.
In his post, Mr. Wemple called the suspension “misguided.”
The letter signed by Post journalists, which was addressed to Mr. Baron and Ms. Grant, criticized how the paper handled the matter.
“Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant,” the letter said. “Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy.”
While acknowledging the tragedy of Mr. Bryant’s death, the letter went on to note that “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
So they couldn't fire her for being a brat. They had to wait until she successfully dug her own grave.
Too bad. She should have been gone earlier.
People might take you more seriously if you didn't write like a 6th grader. I hope you're not a reporter.
I'm just calling it like I sees it.
Yes, you clearly have an axe to grind. I guess you have a lot of free time due to your month's suspension, right Dave?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}