Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

That seems to be an on-point description to me and I’ve read a lot about it.

She does seem to have had a long history. But he is clearly getting a huge pass for doing something appallingly sexist, and she’s getting fired for pointing it out.

+1 I read the whole NY Times article about the firing to make sure I understood it, and I agree.

And I'll ask again . . . really? You believe that she was terminated for her initial tweet about Wiegel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. Anyone watching this unfold knew she was aiming to get fired so she could bring another lawsuit against the post. And she’d directly made far more insulting remarks about men than the other reporter who got suspended for merely re-Tweeting a joke that wasn’t nearly as malicious.

I don't know. Tweeting about all women being either "bisexual or bipolar" seems pretty hostile to me. I would be pissed to work with someone like that too, and think it's good she called him out.

It was a retweet of a bad dad joke. That wasn’t aimed at anyone.

It was aimed at all women, including those who had to work with him.

Democracy dies in darkness.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, wow, I knew her back in the day.

What was she like?

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this fired reporter, but from where I'm standing the Washington Post looks bad, because they seem to be supporting the first reporter who made an unacceptably misogynist remark. Like PP said, that kind of comment does not exist in a vacuum - for someone to actually type and send this, it means he often thinks like that, and feels secure enough in his employment and colleagues to publish those remarks. It means the Post is a shitty place for a woman to work. He should have been fired first.

+1

Appearances count and the Post now appears to have let the man get away with a slap on the wrist (a month's suspension) while the woman was fired. Even if she does tend to continue escalating and/or she has filed lawsuits previously--even if those things are true, even if she herself is problematic in other ways, the appearance now is very much that the Post is backing him and tossing her to the curb for complaining. That is the image that will stick to the Post. I do believe the whole situation is probably far more gray than anyone outside it realizes, and there are likely to be longer-term frictions between people that are at play and were likely at play before even the initial tweeted "joke." I have worked in several newsrooms as a reporter and editor and I know there's always more to these blow-ups than ever gets covered outside the newsroom. But what matters in the end is the public perception, which is that the Post treated the man and the woman according to different standards. And that's unacceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She acted crazy on Twitter. Coworkers shouldn’t be blasted online like that.

Um, you mean like the guy who wrote that all women are bipolar or bisexual? That guy who still has a job at the WaPo?

He got reprimanded, suspended, didn’t he? Did you want him to get fired for a stupid tweet?

Oh, wow, I knew her back in the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She acted crazy on Twitter. Coworkers shouldn’t be blasted online like that.

Um, you mean like the guy who wrote that all women are bipolar or bisexual? That guy who still has a job at the WaPo?

I don't see where she "went crazy," but I could have missed it. All I see/saw was her retweet with “Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!”
What was the rest that Jose Del Real was calling out>

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

That seems to be an on-point description to me and I’ve read a lot about it.

She does seem to have had a long history. But he is clearly getting a huge pass for doing something appallingly sexist, and she’s getting fired for pointing it out.

+1 I read the whole NY Times article about the firing to make sure I understood it, and I agree.

Anonymous wrote:She acted crazy on Twitter. Coworkers shouldn’t be blasted online like that.

Um, you mean like the guy who wrote that all women are bipolar or bisexual? That guy who still has a job at the WaPo?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. Anyone watching this unfold knew she was aiming to get fired so she could bring another lawsuit against the post. And she’d directly made far more insulting remarks about men than the other reporter who got suspended for merely re-Tweeting a joke that wasn’t nearly as malicious.

I don't know. Tweeting about all women being either "bisexual or bipolar" seems pretty hostile to me. I would be pissed to work with someone like that too, and think it's good she called him out.

It was a retweet of a bad dad joke. That wasn’t aimed at anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

He didn’t get a pass, he was suspended for a month. She didn’t get dinged for pointing out misogyny, she got dinged for tweeting non-stop about it and airing WaPo’s dirty laundry.

So she was fired for whistleblowing? Even worse.

No.

Your "no" means "I disagree with you but have no good reason why I disagree."

Anonymous wrote:

Simply cannot believe I am the first to post this . . .

Lol

Anonymous wrote:

Simply cannot believe I am the first to post this . . .

This is perfect.

Simply cannot believe I am the first to post this . . .