Washington Post fires reporter Felicia Somnez who objected to misogynistic tweets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher did a segment on this last night. You can find it on you tube.

He points out that the WaPo male journalist retweeted a joke. Then she went next level bananas.

Yeah I can’t stand Maher lately but I mostly agreed with this. “Emotional hemophiliacs” is on point. But, annoying that of course the only generations that exist are Boomers and millennials <massive eyeroll>

His segment was spot on, but he definitely is so old that all he sees are millennials. I’m Gen X and I tend to agree with most of what he says each week. At the very least, he is entertaining.

Watching him smoke weed and kvetch about everything on his new podcast show is hilarious. He’s very close to “Get off my lawn!” Cranky Old Man territory.

[Anonymous]

Bill Maher’s absurd whiny rant is making me support Somnez more and I had no problem with her being fired initially. I’m changing my mind on that slowly, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher’s absurd whiny rant is making me support Somnez more and I had no problem with her being fired initially. I’m changing my mind on that slowly, I think.

You're a contraction? Like Turley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Actually the Washington Post got in trouble for it, because almost no one in the news media understood why they were sanctioning a reporter for tweeting a news article on sexual misconduct and they had to backtrack. Even the Washington Post ran editorials about how its own decision was misguided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/posts-misguided-suspension-felicia-sonmez-over-kobe-bryant-tweets/

Why were they sanctioning a reporter for being a jerk? Wow, it's so hard to understand!

Some might say you’re being a jerk for unreservedly celebrating the legacy of an athlete who admitted to non consensual sex (is rape).

Bryant made no such admission.

Wrong. He told the polict he didn't explicitly ask for consent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/sports/basketball/kobe-bryant-rape-case.html

The case against Bryant began on June 30, 2003, when he checked into the Cordillera Lodge and Spa in Edwards, Colo. He was there to have a knee operation at a clinic in nearby Vail.

After being led to his room by a concierge, Bryant asked her to return later and give him a private tour of the property. She did, and then Bryant invited her into his room. They both said later that they began kissing, but what happened in the next few minutes became the heart of the dispute. The woman told the police that Bryant had raped her. Bryant said they had consensual sex.

Prosecutors seemed to have a strong case. According to court documents, an examination of the woman at a hospital revealed a bruise on her neck and tears in her vaginal wall. Both her underwear and Bryant’s shirt were bloody. Bryant told the police he had not explicitly asked for consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Actually the Washington Post got in trouble for it, because almost no one in the news media understood why they were sanctioning a reporter for tweeting a news article on sexual misconduct and they had to backtrack. Even the Washington Post ran editorials about how its own decision was misguided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/posts-misguided-suspension-felicia-sonmez-over-kobe-bryant-tweets/

Why were they sanctioning a reporter for being a jerk? Wow, it's so hard to understand!

Some might say you’re being a jerk for unreservedly celebrating the legacy of an athlete who admitted to non consensual sex (is rape).

Bryant made no such admission.

Wrong. He told the polict he didn't explicitly ask for consent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/sports/basketball/kobe-bryant-rape-case.html

The case against Bryant began on June 30, 2003, when he checked into the Cordillera Lodge and Spa in Edwards, Colo. He was there to have a knee operation at a clinic in nearby Vail.

After being led to his room by a concierge, Bryant asked her to return later and give him a private tour of the property. She did, and then Bryant invited her into his room. They both said later that they began kissing, but what happened in the next few minutes became the heart of the dispute. The woman told the police that Bryant had raped her. Bryant said they had consensual sex.

Prosecutors seemed to have a strong case. According to court documents, an examination of the woman at a hospital revealed a bruise on her neck and tears in her vaginal wall. Both her underwear and Bryant’s shirt were bloody. Bryant told the police he had not explicitly asked for consent.

Again, he made no admission of rape. It's your view that any sexual contact outside of explicit consent is rape.

[Anonymous]

It was a hilarious joke that the person retweeted. You can either laugh or ignore it. Plain and simple. He wasn’t even tweeting and or doing so in his role as an employee. He was wrong to delete it and to be suspended by the WaPo is ridiculous.

She deserves to be fired for her continued public rant.

[Anonymous]

So hypocritical for the post to suspend David for violating “their values”.

Apparently their values don’t include free speech…even when it offends others.

[Anonymous]

This is what happens to a generation who got participation trophies and demanded safe spaces in college for fear of anything that might offend or challenge them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens to a generation who got participation trophies and demanded safe spaces in college for fear of anything that might offend or challenge them!

Amen to that. As a society unfortunately we are now reaping what we sowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a hilarious joke that the person retweeted. You can either laugh or ignore it. Plain and simple. He wasn’t even tweeting and or doing so in his role as an employee. He was wrong to delete it and to be suspended by the WaPo is ridiculous.

She deserves to be fired for her continued public rant.

Why was the joke hilarious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So hypocritical for the post to suspend David for violating “their values”.

Apparently their values don’t include free speech…even when it offends others.

I might agree if he had retweeted from an account that he did not use for professional purposes. He represents the Post from the account he used. It’s completely within the paper’s rights to suspend him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a hilarious joke that the person retweeted. You can either laugh or ignore it. Plain and simple. He wasn’t even tweeting and or doing so in his role as an employee. He was wrong to delete it and to be suspended by the WaPo is ridiculous.

She deserves to be fired for her continued public rant.

Why was the joke hilarious?

Just look around...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a hilarious joke that the person retweeted. You can either laugh or ignore it. Plain and simple. He wasn’t even tweeting and or doing so in his role as an employee. He was wrong to delete it and to be suspended by the WaPo is ridiculous.

She deserves to be fired for her continued public rant.

Why was the joke hilarious?

Because Dave Wiegel or one of his misogynist WaPo buddies thinks sexism is HILARIOUS. They're making the Washington Post look bad (although the Washington Post is doing a good job doing that to themselves).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a hilarious joke that the person retweeted. You can either laugh or ignore it. Plain and simple. He wasn’t even tweeting and or doing so in his role as an employee. He was wrong to delete it and to be suspended by the WaPo is ridiculous.

She deserves to be fired for her continued public rant.

Why was the joke hilarious?

Just look around...

What does that mean? If the joke is funny you should be able to explain why. So why was it hilarious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a hilarious joke that the person retweeted. You can either laugh or ignore it. Plain and simple. He wasn’t even tweeting and or doing so in his role as an employee. He was wrong to delete it and to be suspended by the WaPo is ridiculous.

She deserves to be fired for her continued public rant.

Why was the joke hilarious?

Because the line from the comedian made me laugh out loud. On this very group in a discussion about a certain movie featuring Tom Cruise, a comment was made “because the men were hot.” One could call that a sexist line.

So yes I found the retweeted line laugh out loud funny. Not sexist at all just a simple observation or anecdote calling out his generalized experience. That’s what comedians do. They exaggerate their own experiences.

You may not find that joke funny, yet you, the royal you, has no problem finding the men in Top Gun Maverick hot.