The Real problem with cancel culture

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think it's a good look for a media organization to try to restrict employees from public commentary on public statements made by other employees. 

At the same time, for this specific incident, where Weigel took down the tweet and apologized, I think a suspension was an excessive response.

My preferred approach would be a little more tolerance in all directions and try to minimize piling on more HR rules.  But that may be naive.

[FunkMonk]

By the looks of her tweetstorm today it sounds like she's going after the Post more than any particular colleague.

I am fairly sure the editors at WaPo would love to fire her but they realize that will just throw even more gas onto the dumpster fire.

[The Brain]

Not talking about this specific case, but aren't newspapers in general notoriously crappy employers and dysfunctional organizations? At least that's my impression. And no that's not just because they like to talk about themselves good and bad, a lot of stuff that they do would simply never fly in a real organization.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is a history here - the reporter sued the paper last year in a suit that was dismissed but raised some interesting issues.

[The Brain]

There is a history here - the reporter sued the paper last year in a suit that was dismissed but raised some interesting issues.

What was it about?

[The Minsky Moment]

There is a history here - the reporter sued the paper last year in a suit that was dismissed but raised some interesting issues.

What was it about?

The reporter had been a sexual assault victim.  The paper took her off the Kavanaugh-Blasey Ford story on the grounds that because of her personal history it would create a perception of bias if she reported the story.

[Razgovory]

The standard punishment for making a misogynistic joke is 18 hours watching Margret Cho.  After that, people don't make jokes.

"Margret Cho" is just a word; the reality is much worse.

[Sheilbh]

The reporter had been a sexual assault victim.  The paper took her off the Kavanaugh-Blasey Ford story on the grounds that because of her personal history it would create a perception of bias if she reported the story.

She was also suspended for tweeting about Washington Post coverage of Kobe Bryant's death by noting that it wasn't mentioning the sexual assault settlements. Which seems a fair point - same as the initial eulogising of William Hurt needed an asterisk and some corrections after a few hours.

One can tsk tsk about it, but the none of these social media genies are going back into their neat little bottles. Everyone's laundry is now out on the line to see.  Companies have to adapt and adjust best they can.  And employees using social media to augment their professional presence should be accordingly forewarned.  Just like we all had to learn (or fail to learn) how to use and not use email.

Every media company will have detailed social media policies on what their reporters should or shouldn't do.

Dragging the paper publicly or having a big public fight with multiple colleagues about internal arguments is probably the number one thing on the list of things you shouldn't do. That's the thing I've found so surprising is how this has run for days with lots of people employed by the Post in public with, inevitably, emails from the editor immediately leaking. It just feels like the entire thing should have been dealt with internally not as a multi-drama for everyone else to enjoy.

As I say it's just very, very messy and - in my view - letting people see a little bit too much of how the sausage is made. I think it's less about "cancel culture" and more about the blurring of personal and work, but also what is and isn't public. I think it is messier for those jobs where social media is part of it - like journalists, politicians etc.

[Oexmelin]

Indeed, and I note that the people who take to twitter are people who are used to having an audience in front of whom they perform their expertise: journalists, politicians, academics, lawyers.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and I think the performance is key.

Once they move from areas of genuine expertise - which they normally do - I'm not sure social media has helped with public trust/respect for those professions

[Oexmelin]

Yes - that's one of the main difference between being an intellectual and hogging for attention. An intellectual usually has to venture out of their area of expertise (otherwise, they are just experts). But it takes time to reflect, and intervene properly. The constant need for reaction encourages people to go for low-hanging fruit with quick dopamine fix...

[Legbiter]

Dragging the paper publicly or having a big public fight with multiple colleagues about internal arguments is probably the number one thing on the list of things you shouldn't do

 

[FunkMonk]

I didn't realize we could embed YT videos now

Now we just need the ability to embed tweets so we can be LOOKING LIVE NOW ON TWITTER

[Sheilbh]

We are a liveblog?

[FunkMonk]

We are when the big news hits I think 

The posting was massive when the Ukraine war started