Is this a fireable offense?

I agree. Writing about player/coach reaction if Christine were to go into a locker room would be reasonable. Writing about viewer/reader reaction to Christine and her work would be reasonable.

However, this guy didn't do any of that. And I think that's the problem most of us have. Not only did he focus on her appearance and his personal thoughts on that subject, but he was a condescending bastard throughout.

 

Agree. Fertile ground for a great story. Too bad this idiot went the lazy way with his ignorant observations ...

 

Would commenting on how attractive Daniels is be part of that story, though? I'm trying to get at the sexual harassment aspect of this, if there is one.

 

Description yes. Editorializing with demeaning comment? No.

 

No, how Daniels looks as a cross-dresser isn't relevant. I think the reaction to a cross-dresser in the locker room would not be dependent on how he pulls off the look. But Obey is not Daniels' employer or boss, so it's not a sexual-harassment issue, per se.

 

My argument was focused on the process of blogging was different. I'm not saying it is an excuse. But I don't know of many newspapers who use the same processes used in putting copy in print as they do to copy on a blog. That is how it is different.
I think if this was looked at by two other people, at least one of them might have said. "You sure you want to say this?" And yet, it is the conversational/personal tone of blogs that many papers are promoting. It's a double-edged sword.

 

Dools, so a company will allow you to harass women-- as long as they don't work for that company?

 

I think it would be relevant and good reading in an objective news story. If you're writing about what the players are reacting to you have to "show" them what they're actually reacting to by describing what he looks like, what he wears ...

 

I'd like to say Mizzou hit the nail on the head.

Bloggers NEED to be edited before the thing gets on the Web. Even if it's just an editor (I don't care what editor, even an assignment editor) or a colleague there to provide a filter, saying, "you know, this just doesn't work."

I'm not talking about grammatical stuff. Get someone else to read the damned thing for content purposes.

As a copy editor, I don't wanna add more work to my plate, but this stuff demands a look-over before it goes up online.

 

Dan: Well, hopefully this case will bring a reassessment of the philosophy.

Lugnuts: The San Bernardino Sun can take action, but it wouldn't be for reasons of "sexual harassment", which is a workplace definition. The paper can find some good rationale to dump him on, if it wishes.

Write: Obey was not describing, he was editorializing.

 

There's a difference between harassing a woman and saying mean things about them. I know what lugz is saying, but I don't think you can call it sexual harrassment, per its actual definition.