I was as stunned and saddened as anyone when I heard that Kobe Bryant, all-star shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers, had been killed along with his daughter and seven other people in a helicopter crash. As a longtime Lakers fan, I certainly understood and sympathized with the fans’ reactions to the tragedy, and of course Bryant’s basketball legacy is indisputable. He was one of the greatest players in the game, and an inspiration to millions of adults as well as kids.
But he was not a god. Straight out of his NBA.com tribute, written up yesterday, there was this:
In 2003, Bryant was charged with attacking a 19-year-old employee at a Colorado resort. He had said the two had consensual sex, and the charge was eventually dropped when the women declined to testify in a trial. The woman later filed a civil suit against Bryant that was settled out of court.
The purpose of this post isn’t to rehash the facts of that incident. It’s part of the record of the man’s life, like it or not. You can read about it here in the Daily Beast, one of the most detailed accounts of the episode (and there’s quite a bit more damning details in there than in the NBA.com blurb, let me just tell you).
Or you can choose not to read it. That’s not my point.
No, this is about the Washington Post.
The Washington Post has suspended national political news reporter Felicia Sonmez following her tweets around late NBA star Kobe Bryant’s rape allegation and the backlash she received online.
Ms. Sonmez is a political reporter for the Post. Following Bryant’s death she Tweeted the Daily Beast article linked above. Afterwards she received a barrage of approximately 10,000 hate tweets and death threats from people purporting to be fans of Kobe Bryant and/or people purporting to be “outraged” at the timing of her Tweet. She then highlighted this massive influx of hatred and made the following comment in another Tweet:
“Well, THAT was eye-opening. To the 10,000 people (literally) who have commented and emailed me with abuse and death threats, please take a moment and read the story — which was written 3+ years ago, and not by me. Any public figure is worth remembering in their totality, even if that public figure is beloved and that totality unsettling,” she wrote.
“That folks are responding with rage & threats toward me (someone who didn’t even write the piece but found it well-reported) speaks volumes about the pressure people come under to stay silent in these cases,” she added.
So what does the Post do? It suspends Sonmez. According to her, this is what they told her:
In an interview with The Washington Post's media critic Erik Wemple, Sonmez said was told by [Managing Editor Tracy] Grant that she was put on administrative leave because her tweets didn't pertain to her coverage area and that “your behavior on social media is making it harder for others to do their work as Washington Post journalists.”
Now it’s not entirely clear whether Sonmez’ suspension was related to the fact that she retweeted the Daily Beast article, or that she retweeted the responses she got. But whatever the reason, it smells like bullshit. Apparently it didn’t dawn on the Washington Post that most people willing to take the time to hate-tweet or assert death threats against a female reporter for posting an article about sexual assault are probably operating under, shall we say, different motives.
Sonmez thinks it’s bullshit, too.
Sonmez told Wemple that not writing about the issue of sexual assault when it is part of a public figure's record has the effect of silencing survivors.
“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," she told Wemple. "We are more able to do our jobs because we’ve demonstrated to those survivors that we’re worthy of their trust. 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.”
For those who argue that she used “poor judgment” or “bad timing,” you know what? The fact that Kobe Bryant was a legend at the game of basketball and has a family and friends and a legion of fans makes him exactly one thing—a sports idol, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t make him a perfect human being, and it also doesn’t mean that we must collectively censor anything about his past for fear of offending a cadre of keyboard misogynists.
Others from the Post have chimed in, criticizing the decision to suspend Sonmez:
The backlash that alighted upon Sonmez stems from the ancient wisdom that urges folks not to speak ill of the dead. It’s a fine rule for everyone except for historians and journalists, upon whom the public relies to provide warts-and-all look-backs on the lives of influential people. Bryant clearly qualifies, as does the particular incident that Sonmez was flagging in her tweet: Though precisely what happened in that hotel room may never be known, as Stern concedes, there’s a lot that is known. In a profile of Bryant published in November 2018, The Post included a substantive recounting of the incident. Obituaries also included mention of the case.
At the top of The Post’s policies and standards document are the famous Eugene Meyer principles, named after a former owner of the newspaper. One of them states, “The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.”
The Post should admit it screwed up and reinstate Sonmez, stat.