The Washington Post fires Felicia Sonmez amid her allegations on Twitter

The Washington Post was in the headlines this week, but this time it wasn’t only for spreading misinformation, but also for staff infighting on Twitter.

It began when WaPo politics reporter Dave Weigel retweeted a ‘sexist joke’ that isn’t even worth repeating.

Weigel’s WaPo colleague Felicia Sonmez with whom he shared a byline in WaPo in April, was offended by the tweet. But instead of scolding Weigel in person, she waged her war in public.

Sonmez acerbically tweeted that it was “Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!” with a screenshot of Weigel’s retweet.

Weigel removed his ‘offensive tweet’ and apologized.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1532771139323211776

The WaPo suspended Weigel for a month without pay. 

That should have concluded the matter., but Sonmez had just loaded her guns.

Sonmez tweeted images of another WaPo colleague Jose Del Real, who urged her to accept Weigel’s apology and to stop “repeated and targeted public harassment of a colleague,”

Sonmez compared Weigel’s tweet to racism and anti-LGBT+ bigotry, implying that Del Real was enabling discrimination.

https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez/status/1533431677518856193

Sonmez then retweeted both the support and the abuses she received.

WaPo Executive Editor Sally Buzbee sent a memo advising her colleagues to be respectful and kind to each other.

https://twitter.com/BenMullin/status/1533479995426865153

But Sonmez’s outburst continued with a 30-tweet thread alleging editors of preferential treatment for higher-profile reporters and their social media presence.

Buzbee then dispatched another memo, stating that the WaPo does “not tolerate colleagues attacking colleagues”. She pledged to enforce the paper's social media and workplace harassment policies.

Almost simultaneous was an unintentionally comical display of loyalty by WaPo staffers occurred that would make the groveling in totalitarian regimes look subtle.

Reporter Josh Dawsey tweeted that he was “proud” to work at the paper, a place “filled with many terrific people who are smart and collegial.” Four minutes later, reporter Rosalind Helderman, too, tweeted that she was “proud” to work at the Post, which is “always striving to be better than it was yesterday.” Six minutes later, another reporter, Amy Gardner, tweeted how she was “proud” to work at the paper, reporters such as Matt Viser, Carol Leonnig, and Dan Balz also pledged pride.

Sonmez remained unimpressed and continued with her tirade

Finally, the WaPo fired Felicia Sonmez.

Sonmez’s termination letter referred to her “misconduct that includes insubordination, maligning your co-workers online, and violating The Post’s standards on workplace collegiality and inclusivity.”  The letter was leaked to The New York Times. In a WaPo article about the termination, Buzbee also declined to comment so did Somnez. 

Sonmez’s anger probably emanates from years of grievances with the paper.

In July 2021, Sonmez filed a lawsuit against the WaPo alleging that she had been discriminated and retaliated against when editors twice barred her from covering stories related to sexual misconduct after she spoke publicly about being a victim of sexual assault. The case was dismissed.

Sonmez was briefly placed on administrative leave in January 2020 after tweeting in the hours after NBA star Kobe Bryant’s death about the criminal charges of rape, later dropped, he had faced years earlier.

Why should the squabbling within the WaPo be of any consequence?

Because highlights their hypocrisy and their attitude.

The WaPo cheered on when a ‘whistleblower’ indulged in insubordination in Trump’s White House. The WaPo cheered every former Trump White House staff member who displayed insubordination and disparaged President Trump in public.

The WaPo also cheered the Supreme Court Leaker who displayed insubordination in his workplace.

But when an employee blew the whistle about discrimination within the paper and wants a public trial about their alleged toxic work culture, they sack her and remain tightlipped about it. They also demand a pledge of loyalty from others.

Democracy within the WaPo has truly died in the darkness of the corridors of the WaPo office. 

Let’s indulge in some what-if analysis.

What if, a female staffer within Trump's White House had made claims identical to what Somnez i.e. of sexism, preferential treatment, and discrimination?

What if Trump had urged all his staffer to pledge loyalty to him on Twitter after the allegation was made?

What if Trump's White House had fired the female staffer who complained?

The WaPo would have called it ‘worse than Watergate’ and demanded a third impeachment.

If challenged the people at the WaPo will claim that President Trump is a public servant and hence is accountable.

But a newspaper is a public service and the people, especially subscribers that fund the enterprise have a right to know what occurs behind closed doors.

To be fair, no organization can run with employees squabbling in public.

But Sonmez was claiming that the retweet was a symptom of a larger problem within the organization. She also said she had exhausted all alternatives and hence resorted to a public exposition. She said she wanted to improve working standards at the WaPo.

There was no harm in hearing her perspective in person after her first outburst. They could have appointed an independent investigator to probe the matter and recommend systemic changes. Perhaps Sonmez could have been part of this probe.

But nothing of the kind occurred.

The WaPo championed the ‘believe all women’ stance during the Me Too movement when there were allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. However, they were quick to abandon it when allegations against Biden emerged, this mentality prevails with Sonmez.

Sonmez’s sacking is likely to scare employees to even speak about harassment with their superiors. 

This once again demonstrates the hypocrisy that prevails among the self-appointed custodians of morality, not just at the WaPo but also among the powerful liberals.

They claimed to be compulsively compassionate, while they demonize their opponents as bigoted, backward, and mean-spirited. But a look at their behavior proves that are accusing their opponents of the very malicious acts they are guilty of.

We saw that during the Me Too movement. A liberal Democrat such as Eric Schneiderman who claimed to be feminist and even participated in Women’s protest marches was actually a vicious predator who exploited, humiliated and abused women around him. There were several others who either participated, enabled, or looked the other way as the vilest of abuse of Women was taking place.

They did not care because the abuser was powerful and helped them, they also had no compassion for the victims. Apex predator Harvey Weinstein was once a star among the Democrats because he was caught.

But do not expect any remorse, introspection, or desire for improvement on their part. The sanctimonious often think rules they prescribe for others do not apply to them.

Also appears on American Thinker