Hey, there! Log in / Register
Globe editor apologizes for not naming harassing reporter
By adamg on Fri, 12/22/2017 - 6:32pm
NOTE: Post was corrected to note that McGrory's apology came first, as Dan Kennedy reported.
Today's Globe has a mea culpa from Globe Editor Brian McGrory apologizing for not naming State House reporter Jim O'Sullivan in a story about his actions at the Globe and at the State House, specifically, "lewd propositions to one newsroom colleague and to two women that we are aware of on Beacon Hill."
Shortly after the Globe posted McGrory's apology online Thursday night, O'Sullivan posted an apology for his actions.
Both came only after other media outlets named him several days ago.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I'm getting a real kick
out of morons like Hilary Sargent and Carly Carioli using this nonsense to attack the Globies.
McGrory may be a useless coward, but unlike Carioli, he didn't cash paychecks derived from the profits of human trafficking. And try and ask Carioli about the hypocrisy and the little maggot runs and hides.
Globe
Interesting that the Globe won't allow reader comments on the apology article.
Still covering up
McGrory's "pledge" to apply vital lessons learned to higher standards going forward sounds like the empty language crafted by a media strategist, especially since it failed to address this statement from the Dec 8 article:
As with Jim O'Sullivan, this "contract worker", who in fact held an editor level position, has been named on social media, yet the Globe continues to withhold confirmation of his identity. His misbehavior targeted interns and other subordinates and was allegedly the proverbial " open secret" among coworkers for years. Since he is still prominent in local media circles and is an adjunct professor at one college and one university (already dealing with a different misconduct/harassment issue) this is very much in the public interest.
But perhaps the Globe will get around to naming him, as soon as he's had time to craft his own heartfelt apology?
Isn't the difference about employment law
If you call the Globe about a guy and ask about his reason for termination and the Globe says he was a harasser the guy can sue the f out of the Globe
Cause of action
Employment law is unlikely to have anything to do with whether or not one would have a cause of action for disclosure of the reason for why someone's termination from employment. It would be more likely that the torts of a violation of privacy, libel or defamation might apply.
The first hurtle in a privacy action is determining whether one has an expectation of privacy or if the issue at hand (the disclosure) is already widely known to the public - given one's public persona, privacy about his or her public work becomes difficult to sustain.
Secondly, the matter in which the disclosure took will have a bearing on a privacy complaint if there is a duty to maintain privacy: if one calls for an authorized reference, case is pretty much over (assuming what was disclosed is true).
It is here that the tort action of libel or defamation comes into play: truth is pretty much an impregnable defense. But even if what was said is not accurate or untrue, you have to prove that the disclosing party a) made a false statement, b) knew the statement was false, and c) the statement could reasonably be expect to cause the aggrieved party harm (e.g. emotional distress, reputation, etc.)
So complicated...
Most normal people know the difference between 'hitting on someone' or asking someone out to lunch or something and pressuring someone because you're the powerful one in the workplace.
First scenario, toss the pitch...she doesn't swing, well, take your ball and go home.
Second is the problematic scenario of pressuring someone because you have the power of her job over her.
One is normal life, one is wrong.
Can't have dating without decency and civilization
Forces have got rid of civilization, religion, tradition. Most obviously from the left but the business-right has been doing it too.
You end up with anarchy in sexual choosing which was always fraught, and sledgehammer punishment for a small selection of the many times it goes wrong.
Women are trying to get back to safety of a more traditional society not realizing they killed it. What you are left with for a protector is the federal government for colleges and the media for professions. Both unsuited for the task.
Whoa, slow your roll
What are you speed babbling about? Women trying to go back to a more traditional society? You mean like when marital rape was legal? When women didn't have property rights?
Good news, EM, there are societies you might like! Of course, you'd have to fly to New York first for the direct flight to Riyadh, but I'm sure that's a small price to pay.
Why do you go off
What is wrong with you? Did I say any of that was right? Is this how you learn anything? Jesus
Oh?
Women are trying to get back to safety of a more traditional society not realizing they killed it.
Maybe you want to unpack that then, because if you don't mean going back to the days when men were men and women were meek and mild and did what they were told, you're not doing a good job of explaining yourself.
You obviously know what he means
you're just playing literal-minded games and tarring it because you don't want to admit there's a kernel of truth common sense behind it. I bet you were right on the bandwagon mocking Mike Pence about his habits too.
And what's that about Riyadh, Adam. Did you know that they practice a certain religion over there that you can't say a single bad thing about lest you be tarred as a xenophobic, Islamophobic deplorable yourself.
OK, so let's go old school a bit here
A woman gets her ass pinched (say 1962) and turns around and slaps the guy in the face. In an office.
Message sent, "I want to pinch your ass"
Message sent, "Nope" (loudly and clearly)
That would be old school. Before my time a bit, but hey it did happen.
Just don't ask me for citations...
What would really happen
The woman would be fired. Like my cousin was fired for doing exactly that.
Because, even when it came to coercive office sex, it was always the woman got fired. Secretary coerced by her boss into sex on a conference room table and someone walks in and guess who is let go? Not the executive who had a long history of such, oh no. Happened in my first professional workplace.
Shit like that was still happening when I joined the workforce in the 1980s. My grandmothers had a lot of similar stories going back to the 1940s. In my aunt's workplace, a woman couldn't get a raise unless she was available for sexual favors (1970s).
Talk to older women if you really want to know about "how this worked". Theories are nice - actual information is crucial. Movies won't help you here.
I hear the strawman
not only demands sexual favors from his subordinates, he demands them from his supervisors too!
How about we steer the conversation back to the idea of a society where ideals of sexual propriety in the public and professional spheres are aspired toward rather than being mocked as prudish and out-of-date.
Hey Roman
Tell us about your experiences as a woman in the workplace? Those of your elder female relatives?
Here's a "strawman" from my grandfather, who worked in a sawmill in the late 1930s. Much more credible coming from a male! One day he asked about an open job (somebody left) because he was hoping to bring his brother on board.
The boss said "I'm going to get a widow with kids - work twice as hard for half the pay and will do anything you want to keep her job (wink)".
Ah yes, the good old days of free love and open relations between men and women. Not. Also a reason that my husband's grandmother changed apartments frequently - women get tired of "romance" like that (read: rape and threats of rape).
Grow up and learn some history - and reality - little boy. Also, learn what a strawman is and what constitutes appropriate behavior in the workplace before Raven bites you in the ass.
Hey Swirly
Learn to understand when you're being agreed with.
It isn't right now and it wasn't right then. Mocking men who choose to conspicuously and publicly make a point about avoiding that sort of impropriety as if they were part of the problem isn't right either.
"Movies won't help you here."
No, but a little reading comprehension might help you. I said nothing about movies. The incident happened to a family member of mine, who fought back long before #metoo was a thing.
She did not get fired.
"Talk to older women if you really want to know about "how this worked". Theories are nice - actual information is crucial. Movies won't help you here."
It is actual information. Believe it or not, not every life experience of yours is the law as applied to everyone.
Roman nailed it:
"How about we steer the conversation back to the idea of a society where ideals of sexual propriety in the public and professional spheres are aspired toward rather than being mocked as prudish and out-of-date."
I'm sorry about the things that happened to the female members of your family. It seems that the chips you carry on your shoulders are getting heavy.
Have a Merry Christmas.
When you say safety of a more traditional society
do you mean like just pumping out the papooses and doing whatever the fuck they're told by their old man, who still gets to do whatever the fuck he wants?
Just wondering.
Safety of a traditional society
Oh honey.
Spoken like a guy who wants the safety of tradition to protect him from the consequences of his behavior.
Here's a tip: real men don't rape.
Strange phrases and words
I understand you are trying to say something here but cloaking misogynistic thinking with obtuse wording and phrases does not lend themselves to clarity. More importantly, your premises and assumptions are, at best, antiquated but more likely just garden variety bigotry.
Permit me to be more direct: what in the hell does "anarchy in sexual choosing?" Having a few issues meeting and developing relationships with women?
Love the idea that the lost of civilization, religion and tradition is "obviously from the left" - just curious, were you home schooled?
You do reveal ourself, however, when you blame women for killing traditional society - I see you fancy yourself as the arbitrator of how the world needs to organize itself.
To be honest with you, you sound like a guy who has experienced more than a few complaints directed towards yourself about unwanted behavior. But keep pounding the drum with your view of the world, eventually, you'll stumble across another dinosaur who agrees with you.
American Thinker
Possible source of our friend's ideas around "anarchy and sexual choosing":
From The irrational modern woman, sexual anarchy, and 'rape culture'
posted on American Thinker website 5/19/13
We talked to ourselves and decided after previously
talking to ourselves that we should consult ourselves about rethinking our previous position on ourselves.
We, me self-awareness lacking asshat.
McGrory sez:< Please know
McGrory sez: