Felicia Sonmez

[Elliotte Friedman]

We should be discussing this.

Full article here: Washington Post Suspends a Reporter After Her Tweets on Kobe Bryant

Washington Post Guild statement here: Post Guild statement in support of Felicia Sonmez

It is important to recognize that Sonmez says she is a victim of sexual misconduct from another reporter (as detailed in the Times story). I have no idea where the tweet is, but, apparently, it has been reported that one of her posts contained private information that violated Post social media guidelines.

I really hope the penalty is not because of her initial tweet. I knew that was going to be a disaster, but there is no way -- in my opinion -- she should be suspended for it.

Thoughts?

 

[Regan MacNeil]

I mentioned this on the Kobe thread. I think Kobe all but certainly did what he was accused of. I can't say 100 percent because I wasn't a witness to it.

But there's a time and a place. With the helicopter wreckage still smoking isn't it, and if I were her boss, I wouldn't want her on any important story ever again if her judgment and sense of timing is THAT bad. If she had tweeted it this morning, I doubt anyone would have batted an eye.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Elsewhere it was claimed the suspension was for sharing the screenshots of the vile stuff she got in her DMs, some of which included email addresses, which I guess is against company policy. If thats the case its a good suspension.

Share the Bryant stories, put his history out there, fair game good work.... make it about yourself with the pics of the reaction of trolls? I have less sympathy for that.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Elsewhere it was claimed the suspension was for sharing the screenshots of the vile stuff she got in her DMs, some of which included email addresses, which I guess is against company policy. If thats the case its a good suspension.

Share the Bryant stories, put his history out there, fair game good work.... make it about yourself with the pics of the reaction of trolls? I have less sympathy for that.

Totally agree. Her first tweet was nothing more than a retweet. Perhaps it falls under the Too Soon principle, but it's not journalistically unethical. The screen grab with the identifying info of those who wrote vile messages to her is unnecessary. By all means, take that screen grab and send it to the cops. Let them handle it. But don't put it out there for the world to see. That doesn't help anybody, the reporter included.
The Greg Wemple Blog, which I have always enjoyed, defended the reporter against management while implying the reporter's only crime was retweeting. It glossed over the screen-grab issue.

 

[Severian]

By all means, take that screen grab and send it to the cops. Let them handle it. But don't put it out there for the world to see. That doesn't help anybody, the reporter included.

No. Someone willing to take the time and threaten to kill a reporter lost his or her privileges to anonymity.

 

[cake in the rain]

Felicia missed her lesson on intersectionality in Twitter Outrage School.

It's only OK to destroy certain people on the basis of past allegations. For others who belong to more privileged groups, past allegations can't even be mentioned.

 

[CD Boogie]

This is a good example of a reporter being a know-it-all busybody and not staying in his/her lane. She exhibited a lapse in judgment and made her colleagues's work more difficult. Plus she sicced people on her and now has to live in a hotel. Ya gotta know the terrain.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

No. Someone willing to take the time and threaten to kill a reporter lost his or her privileges to anonymity.

I guess if you’re Deadspin or Barstool and you want to “get in the mud” with the cretins, sure.

If you’re the WaPo and you have a specific policy against doing that its probably a bad idea.

Look I dont have any sympathy for an asshole who has nothing better to do than Twitter threaten a reporter they’ve never heard of over an RT they don’t like.

But if thats their clearly defined policy you can’t violate it and then spin about being silenced for daring insult Kobe

 

[tapintoamerica]

Another bit of this story is the LA Times guy who resigned over the allegations but proceeded to whine about how they ruined his life, saying he was the real victim. Uh, bro. If you’ve been wronged as badly as you claim, sue your accuser. And don’t resign.
Oh right. You’d have to go through discovery.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

 

[Severian]

If you’re the WaPo and you have a specific policy against doing that its probably a bad idea.

The policy does not specify posting emails of people threatening you on social media is a violation.

 

[WriteThinking]

I had never seen that Daily Beast story/link. And clearly, Vanessa Bryant never did, either. If she had, I doubt she would have been playing the part of the supportive wife throughout that time. Indeed, she probably would have followed through with any thoughts/steps toward divorce.

Kobe Bryant comes off horribly -- entitled, oblivious, a cad, someone with real potential for violence and a willingness to use his size and strength to overpower, and just generally speaking, not a good person at all. I'm not sure I would have trusted him around his four daughters, even.

And don't get me started on how easily he explained away Michelle, the apparent "other woman" in his and Vanessa's lives, and how he even managed to bring Shaq into the mess like his interview with the police was just some everyday barroom conversation.

I don't have any problem with Felicia Sonmez bringing all this out in the hours after Bryant's death. I get the sentiment about not doing it quite THAT soon. But, really, if not then, when? While Bryant's funeral/memorial is taking place? Would that be any more appropriate? Because, a few days after that, Bryant's death -- and life -- to put it bluntly, will be old news.

We're reporters/newspapers/media outlets, and the life-cycle of news is, for better or worse, short. We work on daily, and lately, even hourly (or less) time tables. News is news and should be reported as quickly, fully and in as timely a manner as possible. And in Sonmez's case, an allowance/understanding of her previous allegations of sexual misconduct by L.A. Times Beijing bureau chief Jonathan Kaiman should be taken into consideration.

I'd think Sonmez's suspension had more to do with any email addresses or other personal information/specifics that might have been tweeted or screen-grabbed. Those types of specific things I could definitely see being in violation of the social-media policy of a large company.

 

[PaperClip529]

I had never seen that Daily Beast story/link. And clearly, Vanessa Bryant never did, either. If she had, I doubt she would have been playing the part of the supportive wife throughout that time. Indeed, she probably would have followed through with any thoughts/steps toward divorce.

Kobe Bryant comes off horribly -- entitled, oblivious, a cad, someone with real potential for violence and a willingness to use his size and strength to overpower, and just generally speaking, not a good person at all. I'm not sure I would have trusted him around his four daughters, even.

And don't get me started on how easily he explained away Michelle, the apparent "other woman" in his and Vanessa's lives, and how he even managed to bring Shaq into the mess like his interview with the police was just some everyday barroom conversation.

I don't have any problem with Felicia Sonmez bringing all this out in the hours after Bryant's death. I get the sentiment about not doing it quite THAT soon. But, really, if not then, when? While Bryant's funeral/memorial is taking place? Would that be any more appropriate? Because, a few days after that, Bryant's death -- and life -- to put it bluntly, will be old news.

We're reporters/newspapers/media outlets, and the life-cycle of news is, for better or worse, short. We work on daily, and lately, even hourly (or less) time tables. News is news and should be reported as quickly, fully and in as timely a manner as possible. And in Sonmez's case, an allowance/understanding of her previous allegations of sexual misconduct by L.A. Times Beijing bureau chief Jonathan Kaiman should be taken into consideration.

I'd think Sonmez's suspension had more to do with any email addresses or other personal information/specifics that might have been tweeted or screen-grabbed. Those types of specific things I could definitely see being in violation of the social-media policy of a large company.

It’s early but this is the front-runner for the dumbest thing I’ll read today. Congratulations.

 

[SFIND]

It’s early but this is the front-runner for the dumbest thing I’ll read today. Congratulations.

You calling it the front-runner for the dumbest thing you'll read all day is my front-runner for the dumbest thing I'll read all day. Congratulations.

 

[WriteThinking]

It’s early but this is the front-runner for the dumbest thing I’ll read today. Congratulations.

And this is the front-runner for the most useless contribution to a discussion. Care to elaborate?

 

[garrow]

 

[Double Down]

1. I think the Post was wrong to suspend her.

2. I also think — and I truly mean this -- this is an example of a reporter who couldn't resist taking to Twitter to voice a POV when the Post's main frustration seems to be they wanted to instead weigh in on what was happening by doing some fricken reporting. Hesse and Babb and Svrluga were all working on pieces that touched on the sexual assault stuff and how important it was to remember as part of Kobe's legacy. I honestly don't think wanting THAT to be how the Washington Post weighed in on this matter is all that objectionable. Literally anyone can have a take. Do some reporting instead of taking to Twitter. You're not a columnist. Is that policy getting enforced situationally? Certainly. It doesn't change what I think is Baron's point.

 

[JCT89]

1. I think the Post was wrong to suspend her.

2. I also think — and I truly mean this -- this is an example of a reporter who couldn't resist taking to Twitter to voice a POV when the Post's main frustration seems to be they wanted to instead weigh in on what was happening by doing some fricken reporting. Hesse and Babb and Svrluga were all working on pieces that touched on the sexual assault stuff and how important it was to remember as part of Kobe's legacy. I honestly don't think wanted THAT to be how the Washington Post weighed in on this matter is all that objectionable. Literally anyone can have a take. Do some reporting instead of taking to Twitter. You're not a columnist. Is that policy getting enforced situationally? Certainly. It doesn't change what I think is Baron's point.

I totally agree with this. I don't have a problem with them asking her to take the tweets down and I think a follow up conversation laying out why the tweets were ill advised would have made sense. But to Baron's point, her tweets certainly impacted how people viewed WaPo's coverage of the story and became a big story itself. Politics reporters don't have to only tweet about news just like sportswriters don't have to stick to sports but you should exercise discretion and know when it might be best to just stay in your lane.

Two of my other issues with this story are:
1) The very first thing she tweeted about Kobe was a link to that story. It's totally fair to point out that should be remembered as part of his history but it showed a real lack of empathy that that was the first thing she thought to do. I don't think the reaction would have been nearly as extreme if she showed even a morsel of understanding of why people reacted so strongly to his death.

2) Her providing private emails from Baron and her other editor to NYT felt like a very Deadspin writer thing to do. If I was Baron, I wouldn't be pleased that she didn't respond to my email and instead sent it to a reporter at another organization.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

Instead of taking the W and moving on, she's doubling down by demanding an explanation from Baron.

This reeks of her angling for a future lawsuit against Baron and the paper.

 

[Double Down]

All of this strikes me less as an example of a brave voice being silenced and more as an example of someone the Post is weary of, and someone who has been asked several times to stay off Twitter and focus on reporting. But you can guess which way Twitter sees it.