Musings —12.11.2017 10:56 AM—
Dear Davide Mastracci: does HuffPo protect sexual abusers?
Get this: I sent that column below – the one the Hill Times printed, about sexual harassment on Parliament Hill – to HuffPo.
Here’s the response I got from one Davide Mastracci, a student at Ryerson: “DECLINED…[this] is not the forum for investigative reporting…Although you omitted names, the CBC employee you describe is easily identifiable.”
So Huffington Post will therefore assist in protecting that harasser. Because theirs “is not a forum for investigative reporting.” And because he’s “easily identifiable.”
Listen, Davide Mastracci: you are full of shit. It isn’t investigative journalism – it’s an opinion column, based on verifiable fact. Ryerson, I’m confident, teaches you the difference. If not, I’ll send you one of my books to help you out.
But if the victimizer is “easily identifiable,” as you claim – and I’m not so sure about that, but let’s just say you are right – then why are you conspiring to ensure he is not identified? What about HuffPo’s pious editorials, demanding that we all take these stories of abuse seriously? Oh, wait.
HuffPo protects sexual harassers: that’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from your actions, today.
Notice: Undefined offset: 180 in /home/q84jy4qfdyhq/public_html/wp-content/themes/warroom/functions.php on line 314
To follow standard journalistic practices you would have to tell them the victim’s name so they can confirm it with her. That would make it a verifiable fact. Then they would have to get comment from the victimizer.
That would turn it into an investigative report. I think it would be a worthwhile investigation. Maybe a news organization will take it up.