Board wants Monifa to step down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Write to the Board, [e-mail]
Demand answers
Demand action
Follow what the Board does
Question promotion practices
Stick with it until they have answered

There have been numerous reports and investigations. It's all been answered. Now it's time to move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe his divorce caused the hostile environment. Quite often personal issues can have an affect on your professional life. Not an excuse but I hear she took him to the cleaners.

I literally do not care at all about this, and it is not pertinent.

The bottom line is the guy engaged in sexual harassment on dozens (hundreds?) of occasions. So excuse me for not caring if his personal divorce had anything to do with that.

Another classic diversion post.

The evidence at least that's presented in the WaPo doesn't make that clear at all.

You can say that, and you might even believe it. But let's ask Dr. McKnight what she thinks of the OIG report:

"MCP Superintendent Dr. Monica McKnight said in a statement Friday, “The investigative report abour Dr. Joel Beidleman released today by the Montgomery County Inspector General clearly and professionally documents years of disturbing and egregious behavior. The report finds that this behavior indisputably violated both MCPS policies and the Employee Code of Conduct.”"

https://www.mymcmedia.org/inspector-general-report-confirms-beidleman-misconduct/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe his divorce caused the hostile environment. Quite often personal issues can have an affect on your professional life. Not an excuse but I hear she took him to the cleaners.

I literally do not care at all about this, and it is not pertinent.

The bottom line is the guy engaged in sexual harassment on dozens (hundreds?) of occasions. So excuse me for not caring if his personal divorce had anything to do with that.

Another classic diversion post.

The evidence at least that's presented in the WaPo doesn't make that clear at all.

You can say that, and you might even believe it. But let's ask Dr. McKnight what she thinks of the OIG report:

"MCP Superintendent Dr. Monica McKnight said in a statement Friday, “The investigative report abour Dr. Joel Beidleman released today by the Montgomery County Inspector General clearly and professionally documents years of disturbing and egregious behavior. The report finds that this behavior indisputably violated both MCPS policies and the Employee Code of Conduct.”"

https://www.mymcmedia.org/inspector-general-report-confirms-beidleman-misconduct/

I get that it's popular to error on the side of caution but commenting on someone's makeup is hardly criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe his divorce caused the hostile environment. Quite often personal issues can have an affect on your professional life. Not an excuse but I hear she took him to the cleaners.

I literally do not care at all about this, and it is not pertinent.

The bottom line is the guy engaged in sexual harassment on dozens (hundreds?) of occasions. So excuse me for not caring if his personal divorce had anything to do with that.

Another classic diversion post.

The evidence at least that's presented in the WaPo doesn't make that clear at all.

You can say that, and you might even believe it. But let's ask Dr. McKnight what she thinks of the OIG report:

"MCP Superintendent Dr. Monica McKnight said in a statement Friday, “The investigative report abour Dr. Joel Beidleman released today by the Montgomery County Inspector General clearly and professionally documents years of disturbing and egregious behavior. The report finds that this behavior indisputably violated both MCPS policies and the Employee Code of Conduct.”"

https://www.mymcmedia.org/inspector-general-report-confirms-beidleman-misconduct/

I get that it's popular to error on the side of caution but commenting on someone's makeup is hardly criminal.

Yeah but commenting on whether an employee should shave their pubic hair and whether employees should engage in anal sex with their spouses is perhaps outside the bounds of acceptable professional behavior anywhere and especially in a middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were there other misconducts related to Admins promoted in Farquhar school? Our horrible MS Principal used to work in Farquhar school as an Assistant Principal under Biederman . She was prompted to be middle school principal although she is terrible match and I’m afraid her appointment is related to this scandal. How would I know that this is not related to the Biederman scandal?

Tilden?

How can it not be related?

What is the best way to investigate it ? I guess MCPS doesn't want another scandal now. There must be something we can do to proof it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Write to the Board, [e-mail]
Demand answers
Demand action
Follow what the Board does
Question promotion practices
Stick with it until they have answered

There have been numerous reports and investigations. It's all been answered. Now it's time to move on.

They have asked for her resignation. I may have missed the news of her leaving, or them negotiating her staying. So, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Write to the Board, [e-mail]
Demand answers
Demand action
Follow what the Board does
Question promotion practices
Stick with it until they have answered

There have been numerous reports and investigations. It's all been answered. Now it's time to move on.

Literally no one thinks this but you.

The is overdue for some actual action and accountability. McKnight and other head MCPS officials. The entire BOE. And the council. So far its been all talk and awaiting the next report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

You're accusing me of conspiracy theory mongering when you're the one trying to fan the flames of misinformation with regard to the legitimate and credible reporting of one reporter. And your basis for doing so is a so-called lack of transparency on the motives of the reporter. So it's only fair to ask what YOUR motive is. But you continue to avoid answering that question. Pot, meet kettle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

No arguement from me. I think a couple of you think I was trying to make a different point than I intended, although I'm not sure what that was.

[Anonymous]

I think people in mcps can’t stand alexandra Robbins because she called them out. Some people might want to undermine her for that reason alone, even if it doesn’t do anything to help them.