The Washington Post’s editorial union on Monday slammed the company for suspending a reporter who tweeted about a years-old rape allegation against Kobe Bryant.
“We write to share our alarm and dismay that our newsroom leaders have chosen to place Felicia Sonmez on leave over a social media post, and to urge The Post to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of our colleague,” the union’s members wrote in a statement.
The longtime Los Angeles Lakers star, along with eight others, including his 13-year-old daughter Gianna, died Sunday in a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California. Bryant’s death unleashed an outpouring of public grief for the basketball icon, who shattered records and racked up accomplishments including five NBA championship titles, Olympic gold medals, and multiple MVP nods.
ADVERTISEMENT
But many were quick to point out that Bryant’s legacy was tainted by a credible rape allegation from 2003, in which a then-19-year-old resort staffer claimed the NBA star sexually assaulted her in a hotel room.
On Sunday, Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez posted to Twitter a link to The Daily Beast’s 2016 article recapping those allegations and the evidence behind them. Thousands of social-media users, including Donald Trump Jr., attacked her. And so, in subsequent tweets, she screenshotted an emailed threat she received, and reminded “the 10,000 people (literally) who have commented and emailed me with abuse and death threats” that the linked story was “written 3+ years ago and not by me.”
According to The New York Times, Sonmez received an email from the Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, that included a screenshot of her initial tweet on the allegations against Bryant.
“Felicia,” Baron wrote. “A real lack of judgment to tweet this. Please stop. You’re hurting this institution by doing this.”
Sonmez was then suspended by the newspaper.
“National political reporter Felicia Sonmez was placed on administrative leave while The Post reviews whether tweets about the death of Kobe Bryant violated The Post newsroom’s social media policy,” said Tracy Grant, the newspaper’s managing editor for staff development and standards, in a statement. “The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.”
Her punishment drew condemnation from the Post’s editorial guild, which represents a significant portion of the paper’s editorial staffers.
“We urge The Post to immediately provide Felicia with a security detail and take whatever other steps are necessary to ensure her safety, as it has done in the past when other reporters were subject to threats,” the guild wrote in its Monday statement. “The company should issue a statement condemning abuse of its reporters, allow Felicia to return to work, rescind whatever sanctions have been imposed and provide her with any resources she may request as she navigates this traumatic experience.”
The union added, “This is not the first time that The Post has sought to control how Felicia speaks on matters of sexual violence. Felicia herself is a survivor of assault who bravely came forward with her story two years ago. When articles attacking her were published in other outlets, The Post did not release a statement in support of one of its respected political reporters. Instead, management issued a warning letter against Felicia for violating The Post’s vague and inconsistently enforced social media guidelines.”
And in his write-up of the events, Post media columnist Erik Wemple railed against his employer’s decision, saying it was “misguided.”
Sonmez, for her part, told Wemple that she was suspended after reaching out to the paper’s editors to alert them to threats she received in response to her Bryant post. She was then told by Grant to take down the tweets, saying if she did not Sonmez would be “in violation of a directive from a managing editor.” In an email Somnez shared with Wemple, the paper’s managing editor warned the reporter that “your behavior on social media is making it harder for others to do their work as Washington Post journalists.”
“I would argue that not ignoring a matter of public record is the way to go and making survivors feel seen and heard helps Washington Post journalists rather than making our jobs harder,” Sonmez told Wemple. “I’m a little confused. If The Post is arguing that letting those survivors feel seen makes other colleagues’ jobs harder, I’d appreciate an explanation.”
Wemple further argued that by the paper’s own social-media standards, Sonmez’s tweets “would appear to invite a pat on the back from management.” According to internal guidelines, he wrote, the paper instructs reporters simply to “be informative,” “fact-check” all information you share, and “take ownership” for posting any erroneous information.
“This case also reflects fundamental flaws in The Post’s arbitrary and over-broad social media policy. We have repeatedly seen colleagues—including members of management—share contentious opinions on social media platforms without sanction,” the guild added in its statement. “But here a valued colleague is being censured for making a statement of fact. Felicia did nothing more than what The Post’s own news stories have done when she shared an article about the past allegation against Bryant.”
In recent years, the company’s increasingly strict social-media rules have caused some internal friction.
According to a source familiar, in 2017 the Post issued an edict that employees could be fired if their tweets “adversely affect the integrity of The Post’s journalism, adversely affect your job performance or the performance of your coworkers, or otherwise adversely affect The Post’s legitimate business interests,” per a copy shared with The Daily Beast.
The policy raised eyebrows among the staff’s editorial union, which brought concerns about the policy to management. When the company refused to negotiate on the policy’s language, the company’s editorial union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board for unfair labor practices, and eventually forced the company to roll back some of the language in its new social-media policy.
The Washington Post would not specify why exactly Sonmez was suspended, or which part of the social-media guidelines she had violated. Grant did not respond to a voicemail message from The Daily Beast, and executive editor Marty Baron likewise didn’t respond to emailed questions.
“We are not commenting beyond what Tracy had to say last night.” Post spokesperson Kris Coeratti told The Daily Beast.
Full statement below, via Post Guild.
--
To Marty Baron and Tracy Grant:
We write to share our alarm and dismay that our newsroom leaders have chosen to place Felicia Sonmez on leave over a social media post, and to urge The Post to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of our colleague.
Felicia received an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address, in the wake of a tweet Sunday regarding Kobe Bryant. Instead of protecting and supporting a reporter in the face of abuse, The Post placed her on administrative leave while newsroom leaders review whether she violated the social media policy. Felicia had to leave her home out of fear for her safety and has gotten insufficient guidance from the Post on how to protect herself.
We understand the hours after Bryant’s death Sunday were a fraught time to share reporting about past accusations of sexual assault. The loss of such a beloved figure, and of so many other lives, is a tragedy. But we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.
This is not the first time that The Post has sought to control how Felicia speaks on matters of sexual violence. Felicia herself is a survivor of assault who bravely came forward with her story two years ago. When articles attacking her were published in other outlets, The Post did not release a statement in support of one of its respected political reporters. Instead, management issued a warning letter against Felicia for violating The Post’s vague and inconsistently enforced social media guidelines.
The Post’s handling of this issue shows utter disregard for best practices in supporting survivors of sexual violence — including the practices we use in our own journalism. Assault survivors inside and outside this newsroom deserve treatment that is fair and transparent; that does not blame victims or compromise the safety of survivors.
This case also reflects fundamental flaws in The Post’s arbitrary and over-broad social media policy. We have repeatedly seen colleagues — including members of management — share contentious opinions on social media platforms without sanction. But here a valued colleague is being censured for making a statement of fact. Felicia did nothing more than what The Post’s own news stories have done when she shared an article about the past allegation against Bryant.
Even now, after numerous conflicting reports have been published about Felicia’s situation, The Post has failed to offer a clear explanation of why she was placed on leave — to Felicia or to anyone else. We are concerned by The Post's unwillingness to be transparent about this issue, and alarmed by the implication that reporters will be penalized for talking about any topic not on their beat.
We urge The Post to immediately provide Felicia with a security detail and take whatever other steps are necessary to ensure her safety, as it has done in the past when other reporters were subject to threats. The company should issue a statement condemning abuse of its reporters, allow Felicia to return to work, rescind whatever sanctions have been imposed and provide her with any resources she may request as she navigates this traumatic experience.
We also hope that Post management will work with the Guild to educate themselves on treatment of assault survivors and improve the social media policy so that employees can get back to the work we all want to be doing: journalism.
