22.8 C
New York
Tuesday, July 5, 2022

The anocracy and the dismissal of Felicia Sonmez

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Political journalist Felicia Sonmez was fired by email a few days ago. In… work Washington Post. Nobody told him personally. His termination of contract arrived in his inbox “for misconduct, which includes disobedience, defaming his employees online and violating the company’s standards post about camaraderie and inclusion in the workplace.

The same newspaper that banned her from covering stories of sexual violence for years after revealing in 2018 that she had been the victim of sexual harassment — and encouraging other women to share their experiences — fired her this time because she had denounced via Twitter the sexist attitude of one of his co-editors, Dave Weigel. The newspaper’s political reporter retweeted a joke implying that women are either bisexual or bipolar. Sonmez, who saw it, tweeted, “How amazing it is to work in a newspaper that allows retweets like this!” Weigel apologized for the retweet and the post He was suspended for a month without pay, as reported The New York Times. But the one who was thrown out on the street for pointing out misogynist attitudes is the same woman who was also punished at the time for tweeting a 2016 message on the day Kobe Bryant died that said about the allegations of aggression against the player reported in 2003. Sonmez was cornered to the point of being completely silenced for not turning a blind eye and not being an accomplice to the abuse and misogyny of her time. For even risking doing it among those in his own guild. Some of us call it journalism, but for their bosses, it’s quitting ground for spoilers and something even uglier on their moral thermometer: being a bad partner.

Irony of fate, these days the Sonmez case went in unnoticed Twitter journalist before the interview that the new director of New York TimesJoeKahn, given to the newspaper ABC. One of most shared quotes the one who defends that the newspaper’s chroniclers should work with their backs to the virtual hubbub. “We want journalists to continue their journalistic mission outside of the networks. This recommendation is a message to journalists to focus on the essentials. Twitter creates very toxic debates and we shouldn’t use it as some sort of barometer of what’s good and what’s not,” he said. Kahn’s professional idealism, that reasonable voice from the top of the guild – common sense, what a coincidence, is always imposed from above – tells us why we should worry about this virtual dunghill in 2022, where the debates are sterile and the Cacophony of opinions keeps us from seeing things clearly.

Why do people feel compelled to say that there is nothing appropriate or effective to tweet? About this discouragement to participate in the virtual debate being broadcast by the networks themselves, the Newsletter of the magazine true life He wondered that and brought up the concept of “virtual anocracy”. Anocracies are those systems of government in which there is much political instability, inefficiency, and an incoherent mix of authoritarian and democratic practices. One could say that the anocracy of networks is what combines a loss of confidence in democracy with a sense of helplessness in relation to what surrounds us, leading us to conformism and acceptance. Why are we tweeting our moral outrage when nothing is going to change? “Concentrate on the essentials,” says the guru, to whom the whole guild looks. Don’t be Felicia. Don’t you dare complain. Overall, you end up getting fired and everything stays the same.


Source elpais.com

- Advertisement -

New Articles