Author's book publication cancelled after a tweet reporting on a WMATA employee eating on the metro

[Anonymous]

Book deal... postponed?
And/ or soon to be picked up by another publisher.
Let’s be real, none of us would have heard of this book if not for this incident.

[Anonymous]

This thread was nothing but a chance for racist to run off at the dag on mouth. And they the same ones were acting like that Metro employee blew up a train not ate a damn Egg McMuffin and they the same MF’s at work using the copier clocking in and out earlier than they put on their time sheet cheating on their taxes using their cell phones at their job when the public can’t use their cell phones at that office.
There are lots of rules that employees are exempt from in their workplace that don’t apply to the general public their clients or vendors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread was nothing but a chance for racist to run off at the dag on mouth. And they the same ones were acting like that Metro employee blew up a train not ate a damn Egg McMuffin and they the same MF’s at work using the copier clocking in and out earlier than they put on their time sheet cheating on their taxes using their cell phones at their job when the public can’t use their cell phones at that office.
There are lots of rules that employees are exempt from in their workplace that don’t apply to the general public their clients or vendors.

Digging in to a plate of hash browns isn’t one of those things, and the worker knew it. So do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread was nothing but a chance for racist to run off at the dag on mouth. And they the same ones were acting like that Metro employee blew up a train not ate a damn Egg McMuffin and they the same MF’s at work using the copier clocking in and out earlier than they put on their time sheet cheating on their taxes using their cell phones at their job when the public can’t use their cell phones at that office.
There are lots of rules that employees are exempt from in their workplace that don’t apply to the general public their clients or vendors.

Digging in to a plate of hash browns isn’t one of those things, and the worker knew it. So do you.

You need Jesus

[Anonymous]

Prominently posted in several places in every Metro train car is the notice (complete with graphical symbols for the illiterate) that eating and drinking, among other conduct, are “[b]strictly prohibited in the Metrorail system. It’s the law. Violation is punishable by fine and/or jail.”

So what part of conduct that is punishable by fine or even imprisonment is ok for a Metro employee, in uniform no less?’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prominently posted in several places in every Metro train car is the notice (complete with graphical symbols for the illiterate) that eating and drinking, among other conduct, are “[b]strictly prohibited in the Metrorail system. It’s the law. Violation is punishable by fine and/or jail.”

So what part of conduct that is punishable by fine or even imprisonment is ok for a Metro employee, in uniform no less?’

She's black.

Rules and laws don't apply to black folk, you should know that by know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Should a Washington Post journalist get fired
if he documents a crime in action?
Or some kind of bad behavior in public?

The answer is that it depends.

When you work in a newsroom, you are expected to exercise news judgment. Is something newsworthy or not? Will you do more good than harm with this story, or more harm than good? Is there a question that matters to your readers you are attempting to answer?

There's no black and white answer to whether something is newsworthy - it requires good judgment, a sense of what is important and interesting in the right balance.

Even here: A reporter could legitimately do a piece on Metro employees eating on the train. But it wouldn't likely just be like this - just posting a photo and saying, "HEY LOOK AT THIS METRO EMPLOYEE." You'd need a hook, you'd need a puzzle to solve. So, like, you could ask, is this common? If so why - because they don't care about the rules, because they know the rules don't matter, because they don't have time to eat somewhere else, because they're jerks who like rubbing it int he faces of those who can't eat on the train? I would say given the potential consequences of showing a Metro employee eating on the train, you probably would not just use a candid photo in your story here - you'd probably use stock imagery, or blur the person's face, or do something that would not make that person the focus.

The calculus changes if the Metro employee is, say, someone famous. Let's say it's an ex-TV star now working for Metro, who's spotted eating on the train. Then you'd probably say that a photo with a caption is enough for newsworthiness. Someone being or having been famous opens them up to more scrutiny and more public interest. Then it's mostly just a weird news story, in that case - not really news news.

And so on.

source: I used to be a reporter in DC.

You seem to believe the answer is a matter of opinion and should be debated every time. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread was nothing but a chance for racist to run off at the dag on mouth. And they the same ones were acting like that Metro employee blew up a train not ate a damn Egg McMuffin and they the same MF’s at work using the copier clocking in and out earlier than they put on their time sheet cheating on their taxes using their cell phones at their job when the public can’t use their cell phones at that office.
There are lots of rules that employees are exempt from in their workplace that don’t apply to the general public their clients or vendors.

Digging in to a plate of hash browns isn’t one of those things, and the worker knew it. So do you.

You need Jesus

* worry about yourself

[Anonymous]

If you don't want to get called out, don't break the rules. If you choose to flout the rules in a particularly obnoxious way (eating an open plate of food sitting on a metro while wearing your metro uniform -- I mean really??) then I really think you need to expect for someone to be frustrated enough that they'll publicly call you out on it.

If metro has decided not to have the rule anymore, then they should publicly announce it AND take down all of the "no eating or drinking" signs. Then rule followers will then know that they can enjoy eating and drinking on the metro too. It's pretty easy really. Either it is a rule or it isn't.

This whole situation is an example of people being so far left that they're as obnoxious as those who are far right. And I really don't think this is going to have the intended results. You shouldn't get a public shaming for pointing out hypocrisy when certain people feel that they're entitled to break the rules. Let's see how the next election goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Should a Washington Post journalist get fired
if he documents a crime in action?
Or some kind of bad behavior in public?

The answer is that it depends.

When you work in a newsroom, you are expected to exercise news judgment. Is something newsworthy or not? Will you do more good than harm with this story, or more harm than good? Is there a question that matters to your readers you are attempting to answer?

There's no black and white answer to whether something is newsworthy - it requires good judgment, a sense of what is important and interesting in the right balance.

Even here: A reporter could legitimately do a piece on Metro employees eating on the train. But it wouldn't likely just be like this - just posting a photo and saying, "HEY LOOK AT THIS METRO EMPLOYEE." You'd need a hook, you'd need a puzzle to solve. So, like, you could ask, is this common? If so why - because they don't care about the rules, because they know the rules don't matter, because they don't have time to eat somewhere else, because they're jerks who like rubbing it int he faces of those who can't eat on the train? I would say given the potential consequences of showing a Metro employee eating on the train, you probably would not just use a candid photo in your story here - you'd probably use stock imagery, or blur the person's face, or do something that would not make that person the focus.

The calculus changes if the Metro employee is, say, someone famous. Let's say it's an ex-TV star now working for Metro, who's spotted eating on the train. Then you'd probably say that a photo with a caption is enough for newsworthiness. Someone being or having been famous opens them up to more scrutiny and more public interest. Then it's mostly just a weird news story, in that case - not really news news.

And so on.

source: I used to be a reporter in DC.

You seem to believe the answer is a matter of opinion and should be debated every time. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

I'd like to add, thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's entitled behavior. But should her BOOK be cancelled as a result?

The publishers didn't want to be associated with her. That's their choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's entitled behavior. But should her BOOK be cancelled as a result?

The publishers didn't want to be associated with her. That's their choice.

Because they be woke

And now she be broke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's entitled behavior. But should her BOOK be cancelled as a result?

The publishers didn't want to be associated with her. That's their choice.

The publishers were probably threatened by the crazies.
This nonsense will backfire. Trust me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's entitled behavior. But should her BOOK be cancelled as a result?

The publishers didn't want to be associated with her. That's their choice.

Because they be woke

And now she be broke.

Crazy that she lost her livelihood. Evil, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's entitled behavior. But should her BOOK be cancelled as a result?

The publishers didn't want to be associated with her. That's their choice.

Because they be woke

And now she be broke.

Crazy that she lost her livelihood. Evil, actually.

Actions have consequences. She chose to publicly vilify and post somebody’s Photo on social media. That’s disgusting.

I actually don’t feel sorry for her.

Social media can be evil and people no longer have any idea of boundaries or appropriateness.

This is equivalent to the 1980s xeroxing a photo of employee and taping it up all over town. Would you do that? If this entitle b@t h was so offended she could have taken her concerns directly to Metro officials. She was looking for attention. I wouldn’t want to employ this type of trouble makeker, attention getter either. Can we say Jessie Smollett?