[teejers1]

My hope is that the WaPo suspension stems not from the reporter's raising of the complicated legacy of a man to whom many are paying uncomplicated, adulating tribute but from her decision to share an apparently unredacted screenshot of her inbox, publicizing the identity of folks sending her hate mail. https://www.vox.com/2020/1/27/21083682/k...st-twitter
Violating legal guidelines is cause for discipline; voicing inconvenient truths is not.

It strikes me a bit like nailing Al Capone due to tax evasion.  One can discipline reporters for a violation of company policy on appropriate social media use short of suspension.

BC

I'm not seeing it:  either the "policy" she allegedly violated, or the purpose behind any such "policy."  If someone sends you vitriolic hate mail, in whatever form, and signs it . . . what is the problem in sharing that person's identity?  Moreover, what would be the policy for suspending the reporter for relaying factual information?  Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, at least from this angle.

You can argue that raising the rape incident is bad form in the immediate aftermath of Kobe's death.  Okay.  And if you want to inflict some punishment for doing so, then at least have the fortitude to say so.  [But we all know that would present its own set of problems . . . punishing a reporter for linking an article written by someone else that reports on the incident (factually, as far as we know)?].  

How come this just feels like more of "if you don't think like I think, and act like I act, you must be punished," even if the actions and thoughts are no illegal.  That stuff really bothers me (even though I happen to agree that the reporter should have waited another day or so before dumping on the deceased).

[teejers1]

My hope is that the WaPo suspension stems not from the reporter's raising of the complicated legacy of a man to whom many are paying uncomplicated, adulating tribute but from her decision to share an apparently unredacted screenshot of her inbox, publicizing the identity of folks sending her hate mail. https://www.vox.com/2020/1/27/21083682/k...st-twitter
Violating legal guidelines is cause for discipline; voicing inconvenient truths is not.

It strikes me a bit like nailing Al Capone due to tax evasion.  One can discipline reporters for a violation of company policy on appropriate social media use short of suspension.

BC

I'm not seeing it:  either the "policy" she allegedly violated, or the purpose behind any such "policy."  If someone sends you vitriolic hate mail, in whatever form, and signs it . . . what is the problem in sharing that person's identity?  Moreover, what would be the policy for suspending the reporter for relaying factual information?  Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, at least from this angle.

You can argue that raising the rape incident is bad form in the immediate aftermath of Kobe's death.  Okay.  And if you want to inflict some punishment for doing so, then at least have the fortitude to say so.  [But we all know that would present its own set of problems . . . punishing a reporter for linking an article written by someone else that reports on the incident (factually, as far as we know)?].  

How come this just feels like more of "if you don't think like I think, and act like I act, you must be punished," even if the actions and thoughts are no illegal.  That stuff really bothers me (even though I happen to agree that the reporter should have waited another day or so before dumping on the deceased).