AFTER A WASHINGTON POST reporter received an unsolicited e-mail press release from former DC mayor Marion Barry, the reporter freaked out.He e-mail responded: "Must we hear about it every time this crack addict attempts to rehabilitate himself with some new -- and typically half-witted -- political grandstanding? I'd be grateful if you would take me off your mailing list. I cannot think of anything the useless Marion Barry could do that would interest me in the slightest, up to and including overdose."
Barry, who is now a DC council member and a former crack smoker, wants the guy gone. Should the reporter be fired?
11 comments:
No, he shouldn't. It was in an email, in response to unsolicited spam and was not at all publicized until afterward. He voiced his opinion to Barry's spokesman and had every right to. On the other hand, while he did use his Washington Post email account, he should have reconsidered the wording a bit.
Barry's "open season on black people" comment was a little over the top. He smoked crack, and was therefore, a former crack-head. That has nothing to do with his blackness or black people. Being a politician, how could he not expect to be hearing something like that for the rest of his career? He should have considered his future before smoking crack.
Of course since it was an e-mail and not an actual public print, I suppose he shouldn't be fired. But the e-mail just makes the guy look completely unprofessional, with some pretty uncreative word choice. Does Barry have the means to fire this guy?
Word of advice: Don't do crack. There's a journalist out there just waiting to talk shiiii* on you.
The reporter cannot be fired because he typed up something that Marion Barry didn't like. If I was fired everytime I said something someone didn't like, I would never have a job. I'm sure it hurt his feelings, or really pissed him off, but that is not grounds for firing someone. It was type rude and unprofessional for him to say it but oh well, he did not lie about anything, Barry just didn't want to hear the truth
normally, i like to be original with my stance, but i cant say anything different. he shouldnt be fired. he did nothing to publicly slander the man (libel in print?) and either way, nothing he said was wrong! so he doesn't care. big deal. barry can get over it. its a joke frankly, of a pompous politician who thinks everytime he takes a crap its newsworthy.
Given, I'm not real into politician's personal lives, as they usually have some deep rooted sex fetish or drug addiction, I still think I should know when one of them is a crack addict or child molester.
People deserve to know the nature of the people they represent. How the information is gathered is a completely different ethical question.
Stupid? Yes. Grounds to fire someone? Nah.
It wasn't a very nice thing to say, but it would be ridiculous to fire the repoter over the e-mail. It's not like he published that stuff, although it's out there now, so it's a lose-lose situation.
He should have just blocked e-mails from the sender if he didn't want press releases about Marion Barry anymore, but I guess he just got fired up about it. Maybe he had a bad day and had to take it out on someone, you never know.
I think people slip sometimes, and this started out as basically an e-mail conversation between a few people, so I doubt anyone could make a legit case to fire him anyway.
I bet now he wishes he just deleted the e-mail, like the rest of the world does! Hindsight is 20/20.
Reporter. This is what happens when I don't reread before I post when I'm half asleep. Almost as bad as the guy who commented on the Kolbe story, only without the bad attitude.
I definitely think that reporter SHOULD be fired. His comments were uncalled for. All he did was recieve a press release. I am actually from DC and the people ho arent have NO idea what Barry did for the city as a whole and for African-Americans within the city. He is truly a great man and I have even had the oppurtunity to meet him on several occasions. If you can get fired from the washington post for having a relative work there then this man should definitely be fired. It was a low blow and completely uncalled for.
Why fire somebody for telling the truth.....Did he smoke crack?....Yes.....Are his plans half-witted?....ummm thats 4 you to decied. but it is what it is
The point isn't about what he did for the city, it's about what he did to tarnish his reputation. Was the name calling uncalled for? Maybe. Grounds to be fired? Absolutely not. Not to mention, this is something that many people think when they hear the name Marion Barry just as most people think of Clinton's sex scandal every time his name is mentioned. Sometimes these feelings that many people feel are only ever expressed by the bold and outspoken. Clinton ALSO did a lot of good for our COUNTRY, not just one city; however, this journalist actually has every right to express his opinion. On top of that, he never wrote it publicly, it just got exploited because of his own personal feelings being expressed in response to an e-mail he did not agree with. If journalists were constantly fired for offending people whose beliefs are not parallel to their own, well, let's just say there wouldn't be such an overload of journalists around the world.
E-mails are personal and usually express a person's political incorrect views, he shouldn't be fired.
Post a Comment