The Bezos Post has suspended a reporter for tweeting about this, and apparently given her zero support for death threats. (And, this is not even the first time that's happened! See below.) The Bezos Post is NOW claiming that her Tweets of screenshots of death emails to her might violate Twitter policy or company social media policy. That may well be true, but, suspending Sonmez is gigantic overkill. That's especially as she's not the only person to face death threats, as well as it not being her first time to face them.
Besides, I'm calling bullshit.
(Update: I'm calling more bullshit on harassers, too. Perhaps not all of them were motivated by this, but per CJR, it looks like we can blame Donald Trump, followed by Breitbart and Daily Caller, for a fair amount of this.)
In the first link, Daily Mail quotes Post ME Tracy Grant:
"The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of colleagues."It's clear to these eyes that he's referring to the original set, not the email inbox screenshots.
Post ME Tracy Grant isn’t on Twitter, which of course has a hugely low signal-to-noise ratio. But, I got her email address.
I sent a link to my blog post with these three observations:
- Between the first story from the Daily Mail, and later stories, the Post's explanation seems to be, uh, "shifting."
- The suspension not having a "date certain" (ie 24 hrs) is overkill.
- If you didn't mention the rape allegations/case in your original story, shame on you, not her. Other reporters needed a bit of undermining. Hell, Red Satan ESPN mentioned it in its initial story.
OK, the biggie, No. 3. The Post did mention it, with basically the same amount of mention as Red Satan. Could they have mentioned it more, per their own columnist and ersatz ombudsman Margaret Sullivan — who, probably with a muzzle on, doesn't talk about her own paper? Yes.
So, Nos 1 and 2. On No. 1, if Grant responds at all, it will be corporate boilerplate. On. No. 2, the suspension is still too harsh. The Post's own Erik Wemple calls it "misguided" and talked about her tweeting "a very good story from the Daily Beast." He also noted the Post was apparently following the old maxim of "speak no ill of the dead," which is "a fine rule for everyone except for historians and journalists." On the last part of 3, I don't know if it "undermines" or not, but, it does surely undercut corporate policy.
And, speaking of death threats, both Bryant prosecutor Mark Hurlbut and the victim got plenty. ESPN has a new story about Hurlbut and the case. And, per some of my friends, more and more of that leads me to think that being less and less of a sports fan looks more and more attractive with things like this. Twitter wasn't around in 2004 and Facebook was in its infancy, but the death threats were still unloaded.
But WAIT. It gets MUCH worse for the Bezos Post.
The editorial union calls out Grant and editor Marty Baron, noting they have previously tried to silence Somnez from speaking on this issue, even though she's a sexual assault survivor herself. As the guild says, it's also not the first time Post management has failed to protect her on this. The Guild also calls out the Post for uneven application of social media policies, explicitly noting (shock me) how they favor management.
And now, Baron's officially entered the world of hypocrisy, Orwell or something, with a statement about this issue and social media policy now posted on Twitter.
The guild also notes, as I did above, that management at Bezos Post can't tell a straight story on this. The Post has since reinstated Sonmez, but per CJR, without apology, or much communication in general, from the brass hats. (Hold on to that thought.) Per CJR, her initial Tweet was apparently just a semi-bare retweet of the old Daily Beast story.
That CJR piece also notes that major media outlets want journos with lots of Twitter followers, but don't want them putting controversial comments on Twitter. It also reminds us that the sexual assault she previously alleged was by an L.A. Times staffer, and I recall the Reason story about that, against which she was pushing back. More on that here. The Bezos Post IS disgusting.
(Update: And the disgust gets worse. Now, re Sonmez, many staffers are saying sexism is rampant at the Bezos Post. And, several years ago, Marty Baron allegedly threatened to fire Wesley Lowery for tweeting about racism in the Tea Party.)
So, Nos 1 and 2. On No. 1, if Grant responds at all, it will be corporate boilerplate. On. No. 2, the suspension is still too harsh. The Post's own Erik Wemple calls it "misguided" and talked about her tweeting "a very good story from the Daily Beast." He also noted the Post was apparently following the old maxim of "speak no ill of the dead," which is "a fine rule for everyone except for historians and journalists." On the last part of 3, I don't know if it "undermines" or not, but, it does surely undercut corporate policy.
And, speaking of death threats, both Bryant prosecutor Mark Hurlbut and the victim got plenty. ESPN has a new story about Hurlbut and the case. And, per some of my friends, more and more of that leads me to think that being less and less of a sports fan looks more and more attractive with things like this. Twitter wasn't around in 2004 and Facebook was in its infancy, but the death threats were still unloaded.
But WAIT. It gets MUCH worse for the Bezos Post.
The editorial union calls out Grant and editor Marty Baron, noting they have previously tried to silence Somnez from speaking on this issue, even though she's a sexual assault survivor herself. As the guild says, it's also not the first time Post management has failed to protect her on this. The Guild also calls out the Post for uneven application of social media policies, explicitly noting (shock me) how they favor management.
And now, Baron's officially entered the world of hypocrisy, Orwell or something, with a statement about this issue and social media policy now posted on Twitter.
The guild also notes, as I did above, that management at Bezos Post can't tell a straight story on this. The Post has since reinstated Sonmez, but per CJR, without apology, or much communication in general, from the brass hats. (Hold on to that thought.) Per CJR, her initial Tweet was apparently just a semi-bare retweet of the old Daily Beast story.
That CJR piece also notes that major media outlets want journos with lots of Twitter followers, but don't want them putting controversial comments on Twitter. It also reminds us that the sexual assault she previously alleged was by an L.A. Times staffer, and I recall the Reason story about that, against which she was pushing back. More on that here. The Bezos Post IS disgusting.
(Update: And the disgust gets worse. Now, re Sonmez, many staffers are saying sexism is rampant at the Bezos Post. And, several years ago, Marty Baron allegedly threatened to fire Wesley Lowery for tweeting about racism in the Tea Party.)
With that, let’s get to brass tacks, first on Kobe, then on the Bezos Post.
Do I think Kobe “did it”? Yes. Do I think he used high-dollar lawyering threats (including of dragging his accuser through the mud) plus the knowledge that a criminal case needs a unanimous verdict, to push her to fold? Yes. Might some African-Americans be glad that Kobe, without even going to a trial, pulled off his version of an OJ? Possible; I don't know. That said, back to sexual assault. I think Big Ben did it, too, to make clear that, restricted to modern athletes, this isn't a "black" issue. Nor is it a gotcha issue; Roethlisberger also didn't apologize. And if he dies in a plane wreck two years after retiring, I'll mention that.
Did Kobe, out of a genuine heart, guilty conscience or both, redeem himself to some degree with some of his later activities? Yes. But, let's also not forget his comments, from that very piece by the Daily Beast after thecivil criminal case was done, that he should be like Shaq and just buy women off with cars or whatever. (Per one Twitter respondent, not the one first mentioned, I had the timeline wrong, and it was between the criminal and civil sides.)
Did Kobe, out of a genuine heart, guilty conscience or both, redeem himself to some degree with some of his later activities? Yes. But, let's also not forget his comments, from that very piece by the Daily Beast after the
According to the police report, while he was being questioned by the officers about the alleged sexual assault, Bryant said, “I should have done what Shaq does,” adding, “Shaq gives them money or buys them cars, he has already spent one million dollars.” The report added, “Kobe stated that Shaq does this to keep the girls quiet.”
So, beyond thinking "he did it," the idea that Kobe 100 percent redeemed himself is also not so true in my book.
And no, contra the National Catholic Register, his statementafter settling the civil suit after the criminal case was dropped was not an apology. I know that it reads a lot like the church's non-apology "apologies" for priestly sexual abuse, so that's why it claims he apologized. But he didn't. Nor did he, at least not immediately, apologize after using the word "faggot" on court in 2011, and was called out for hypocrisy. The NCR might think that doesn't even need an apology, though.
Now, for an analogy, because I love them.
I can "apologize" for robbing a bank while saying that I recognize "you don't view the incident the same way I did," that it was simply a "direct personal deposit withdrawal." And, Kobestanners, reading through the whole thing? Kobe trying to look noble and civic-minded about the lack of a criminal case saving the state of Colorado money? Like this was a sacrifice by him?
Look given the bullying the victim had already had, this is the closest she was going to get to an actual apology. And she knew it, I'm sure.
Nor did the alleged Solons at the Post think about the f-word either. (Red Satan also didn't have it in its piece.) And, the Twitterer whom I muted didn't even try to claim he'd apologized for that.
OK, now to the Bezos Post.
This is also an object lesson on how today's mainstream media hides behind corporate social media policies for largely capitalist reasons.
And no, contra the National Catholic Register, his statement
Now, for an analogy, because I love them.
I can "apologize" for robbing a bank while saying that I recognize "you don't view the incident the same way I did," that it was simply a "direct personal deposit withdrawal." And, Kobestanners, reading through the whole thing? Kobe trying to look noble and civic-minded about the lack of a criminal case saving the state of Colorado money? Like this was a sacrifice by him?
Look given the bullying the victim had already had, this is the closest she was going to get to an actual apology. And she knew it, I'm sure.
Nor did the alleged Solons at the Post think about the f-word either. (Red Satan also didn't have it in its piece.) And, the Twitterer whom I muted didn't even try to claim he'd apologized for that.
OK, now to the Bezos Post.
This is also an object lesson on how today's mainstream media hides behind corporate social media policies for largely capitalist reasons.
And, because of the way social media works, and to make sure I don't totally succumb, I let this "percolate" for 24 hours. Had I posted right away yesterday, I wouldn't have gotten the Post Guild's piece.
As for social media hagiography, I remember similar at the time of Kirby Puckett's sudden death. I told one person, to get outside of sports, this:
3rd, if y're as left-liberal as ppl who follow you that I follow indicate?— reallyDonaldTrump 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) January 27, 2020
W/in hrs of deaths of Schmuck Talk Express McCain and Poppy Bush, I had Tweets, then full blog posts about "the whole truth" about their warmongering and more, precisely because of Twitter hagiography.
Said person had claimed that Sonmez, in her activism, needed to tell "the whole truth." In an earlier Tweet, I said, she did. Well, actually, she didn't mention Kobe's anti-gay comment, but she might not have been aware of it.
CJR, in its coverage of Kobe, referred to "The Resistance" elevating Poppy Bush against Trump as to why social media hagiography often didn't work. A direct tie-in to what I just said.
As for this being a "black" issue? Nope. That's why, although they're politicians not athletes, I made sure to mention Bush and McCain. As I did with white leftist media icon Alex Cockburn. That said, back to sexual assault. I think Big Ben did it, too, to make clear that, restricted to modern athletes, this isn't a "black" issue.
Nor is it purely a sex crimes, or even purely a crimes issue. Christopher Hitchens, whom I called out after his death, had a well-earned (by her) takedown of the fakery of Mother Theresa.
As for the respondent? Look beyond athletes for black heroes, too, IMO. For both you and your kids, if you haven't.
And, whatever color, or gender, you are, even if you virulently disagree with Somnez, if you can't or won't call out the death-threaters first, the Bezos Post second, then her third — in other words, to riff on Gale Sayers, if you can't put your ego-anger third behind those two issues, with the truth of the first being obvious and the truth of the second now revealed to you — you've got a problem. If you won't call a cesspool for what it is, you're an enabler. That's part of why I quit Quora.
The biggest lesson for Sonmez? Can't believe people 15 years younger than me need to be told this.
DON'T USE YOUR REAL NAME ON TWITTER.
Or, if you have to for the company, GET YOUR OWN BURNER ACCOUNT. OR THREE.
I understand that a Sonmez might have more support if she's seen as Tweeting her own story with her own real name, on her own sexual assault two years ago. On this, though, especially given what happened two years ago, both as far as online attacks and lack of support by the Bezos Post, might discretion have been the better part of valor.
The second biggest lesson for Sonmez and anybody working at ANY media corporation, whether MSM or "New Media"?
ALWAYS ASSUME THEY CARE ABOUT CAPITALISM MORE THAN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That includes you, Post Guild. The piece was good, but short of some real union action, like a strike, or better, a slowdown — give us a blank front page in the print version! — you're tilting at windmills.
Because management will care about the hierarchical power of capitalism as well as the money.
And tie to this, this new CJR piece about how even media companies as allegedly librul as Slate are using Trump's National Labor Relations Board interpretation and backstopping on labor law to be more and more anti-union.
And, speaking of capitalist parasites?
Nike is fine with being a capitalist parasite on Kobe's death, but not with anybody else being a capitalist parasite on its parasitism. (Red Satan got that one wrong, claiming it was Nike's reluctance to grift, rather than its reluctance to let others grift off of it. That shouldn't be surprising, though, given that Red Satan author Nick DePaula has the of writing about NBA shoe deals, and is a U of Oregon alum; in other words, is is someone who will smile while letting Nike have prison sex with him.) The Daily Beast piece has the truth about Nike grifting on Kobe as soon as his legal hands were clean and untied.
Although not involving death, maybe it's time to cue up Colin Kaepernick? Of those two, in my book, it's still an open question which is the bigger grifter. (Nike is by total dollars, of course, but by percentages, or by faux idealism?) And, as for my Twitter correspondent saying that Somnez had been harshing his mellow on Kobe hero worship, maybe he needs to remember Charles Barkley saying "I'm not paid to be a role model."
There. I've killed about a dozen sacred cows and gored several oxen.
==
Update, Feb. 19: Sadly, a submitted piece at Counterpunch goes Kobe-stanning about halfway through, and while it throws the Eagle victim partway under the bus and directly attacks Gayle King, it ignores his faggot comment entirely. The reality, contra a linked story, is that a putative rape victim failing a mock trial is probably not that rare, and secondly, doesn't prove that Kobe didn't do it, in this case, especially since the mock trial occurred after her name had been made public and other information had been revealed. And Counterpunch still hasn't given me the time of day on two submissions.
CJR, in its coverage of Kobe, referred to "The Resistance" elevating Poppy Bush against Trump as to why social media hagiography often didn't work. A direct tie-in to what I just said.
As for this being a "black" issue? Nope. That's why, although they're politicians not athletes, I made sure to mention Bush and McCain. As I did with white leftist media icon Alex Cockburn. That said, back to sexual assault. I think Big Ben did it, too, to make clear that, restricted to modern athletes, this isn't a "black" issue.
Nor is it purely a sex crimes, or even purely a crimes issue. Christopher Hitchens, whom I called out after his death, had a well-earned (by her) takedown of the fakery of Mother Theresa.
As for the respondent? Look beyond athletes for black heroes, too, IMO. For both you and your kids, if you haven't.
And, whatever color, or gender, you are, even if you virulently disagree with Somnez, if you can't or won't call out the death-threaters first, the Bezos Post second, then her third — in other words, to riff on Gale Sayers, if you can't put your ego-anger third behind those two issues, with the truth of the first being obvious and the truth of the second now revealed to you — you've got a problem. If you won't call a cesspool for what it is, you're an enabler. That's part of why I quit Quora.
The biggest lesson for Sonmez? Can't believe people 15 years younger than me need to be told this.
DON'T USE YOUR REAL NAME ON TWITTER.
Or, if you have to for the company, GET YOUR OWN BURNER ACCOUNT. OR THREE.
I understand that a Sonmez might have more support if she's seen as Tweeting her own story with her own real name, on her own sexual assault two years ago. On this, though, especially given what happened two years ago, both as far as online attacks and lack of support by the Bezos Post, might discretion have been the better part of valor.
The second biggest lesson for Sonmez and anybody working at ANY media corporation, whether MSM or "New Media"?
ALWAYS ASSUME THEY CARE ABOUT CAPITALISM MORE THAN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That includes you, Post Guild. The piece was good, but short of some real union action, like a strike, or better, a slowdown — give us a blank front page in the print version! — you're tilting at windmills.
Because management will care about the hierarchical power of capitalism as well as the money.
And tie to this, this new CJR piece about how even media companies as allegedly librul as Slate are using Trump's National Labor Relations Board interpretation and backstopping on labor law to be more and more anti-union.
And, speaking of capitalist parasites?
Nike is fine with being a capitalist parasite on Kobe's death, but not with anybody else being a capitalist parasite on its parasitism. (Red Satan got that one wrong, claiming it was Nike's reluctance to grift, rather than its reluctance to let others grift off of it. That shouldn't be surprising, though, given that Red Satan author Nick DePaula has the of writing about NBA shoe deals, and is a U of Oregon alum; in other words, is is someone who will smile while letting Nike have prison sex with him.) The Daily Beast piece has the truth about Nike grifting on Kobe as soon as his legal hands were clean and untied.
Although not involving death, maybe it's time to cue up Colin Kaepernick? Of those two, in my book, it's still an open question which is the bigger grifter. (Nike is by total dollars, of course, but by percentages, or by faux idealism?) And, as for my Twitter correspondent saying that Somnez had been harshing his mellow on Kobe hero worship, maybe he needs to remember Charles Barkley saying "I'm not paid to be a role model."
There. I've killed about a dozen sacred cows and gored several oxen.
==
Update, Feb. 19: Sadly, a submitted piece at Counterpunch goes Kobe-stanning about halfway through, and while it throws the Eagle victim partway under the bus and directly attacks Gayle King, it ignores his faggot comment entirely. The reality, contra a linked story, is that a putative rape victim failing a mock trial is probably not that rare, and secondly, doesn't prove that Kobe didn't do it, in this case, especially since the mock trial occurred after her name had been made public and other information had been revealed. And Counterpunch still hasn't given me the time of day on two submissions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.