|
Today in Obituaries (2004) - Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, President of the United Arab Emirates known for his tolerant views on religion and the West; and Theo van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker murdered for his criticism of Islam. |
|
|
Today in Obituaries (2004) - Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, President of the United Arab Emirates known for his tolerant views on religion and the West; and Theo van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker murdered for his criticism of Islam. |
Now she's done it [and BoiFromTroy agrees -Ed.]. In the course of one day, Wonkette managed to report on Washingtonienne -- a Washington gal who Wonkette wrote "works for senator from the midwest" and "gets paid for" sex -- stoke the fires when Washingtonienne's blog was taken down [and just at 6:30 p.m., post what Wonkette alleges is the "whole sordid Washingtonienne saga"], and report adoringly about Washingtonienne's firing this afternoon:
[F]or chrissakes, Emily Miller still has her job. Donald Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere. What's the message that sends? [dirty language appropriate only for Ms. Cox's site]So, Washingtonienne, we salute you. And, seriously, drop us a line about that book deal. We know loads of agents. Write a thinly-veiled account of this whole misadventure and you'll be the one who can afford some arm candy -- and more.
I can't tell you the times since Wonkette still has no times on her posts. Come on, Denton, get with it!
This certainly takes fired-for-blog to a whole new level. And Wonkette has her Monica now. As much as a book deal could do financially, somehow I think the young woman would rather have her Hill job. Y'all know I love the Wonkette, but this is right on the line -- or maybe a little bit over it.
It is, however, on or over that line in a weird way. Washingtonienne started a blog. I -- like Wonkette and most others -- take that as an invitation to read and possibly link. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy -- in fact, one could easily argue the opposite to be true -- as to those things one posts on his or her blog. That still, however, doesn't mean this woman wanted more than a few friends to read. Or, hell, maybe Washingtonienne did this because she was sick of the job and wanted a way out.
Knowing Hill staff, however, I seriously doubt that.
May 18, 2004 06:28 PM | TrackBackI'm a bit befuddled by this:
Most of my living expenses are thankfully subsidized by a few generous older gentlemen. I'm sure I am not the only one who makes money on the side this way: how can anybody live on 25K/year??
My starting salary on the Hill was 18K, and that was only a few years ago. Never really felt the need to get paid for sex, though I did take in some freelance translation from time to time.
I know nothing about D.C. laws relating to prostitution: would this count? It might not be a 'fired for blogging' thing as much as just indiscretion in general. (Indeed, looking at Wonkette's site, Washintonienne was making open allegations regarding affairs on the part of her LD: not something one should do if one is trying to stay employed...)
Posted by: A. Rickey at May 18, 2004 07:16 PMAs is often the case, A. Rickey and I are of one mind on this matter. I am a bit lost as to why I should feel any sympathy for this shameless creature. BoiFromTroi's take on the matter is postively weird. My weblog is run on a quasi-anonymous basis for work-related reasons; however, as I have noted, my anonymity is really something of a fiction. If you post the sort of material that appeared on Washintonienne's weblog, you are begging for adverse attention.
Posted by: The Curmudgeonly Clerk at May 19, 2004 10:19 AMClerk and Rickey --
I am not necessarily saying anything about Washingtonienne. I am, rather, musing on the intersection of journalistic ethics and blogging. Is there such a thing as a private blog? I would think not. But I am not sure.
As with any new medium, ground rules must be defined. I for one, do not like anonymity -- in blogging or otherwise. At the same time, I had two or three occasions at the paper when I only learned of certain things because I promised anonymity to my source.
Writing this post, I was not sure how I felt about the matter. I definitely think it is an important discussion, however, if blogging is to become an "ordinary" part of public discussion.
Posted by: Chris Geidner at May 19, 2004 05:27 PMChris:
Actually, the question in the first comment was an honest one: would this count as 'prostitution' under D.C. law? (Suffice it to say I'm uninformed here.) Obviously Washingtonienne is claiming there's a quid pro quo here, but I'm not sure where the line would be drawn.
At that point, it certainly crosses over the journalistic ethics threshold: no journalist can publish an admission of having committed a crime oneself and expect a pass. (They might not be prosecuted if the DA doesn't think it worthwhile, but they're still running a risk.)
One should note that if one does want to blog anonymously, or even semi-anonymously about something of the sort, one could at least either (a) use a system like Livejournal, which has security built in, or (b) learn about .htaccess. Seriously, that should have been behind a password. At least if one wanted to keep their job.
One thing I'm curious about: how long was this thing up? Because Google doesn't seem to have any of the old entries indexed in its archive.
Posted by: A. Rickey at May 19, 2004 07:26 PMDunno. From what Wonkette reported today, however, I have worked in the same office (albeit nearly a decade earlier) as Washingtonienne.
Posted by: Chris Geidner at May 19, 2004 08:14 PM[E-mail redacted by editor.]
I recently left DeWine World a few months ago for bigger and better things, and this really pains me to see this being played out, especially knowing who it is. After reading an archived copy, MUCH is destinguishable to those who knew "Washingtonienne." Some of what Wonkette has found makes sense, too. I'm sure Paul (aka LD) DEFINITLY blew a gasketcase! Anyway, what a shame...
annon
Posted by: annon at May 20, 2004 10:00 PM