Monday, August 17, 2015

Why did the Star Tribune sit on on its own Teague sexual harassment story for so long?

 Brian Lambert at MinnPost writes:

Going deeper into basic newsroom dynamics, Rayno says in her story that she feared losing her beat at the U of M. Is that the same as saying she feared being re­victimized by her own employer, who, instead of standing up for her would (or might) see some retrograde, old school wisdom in reassigning her rather than raise righteous hell with the university and athletic department boosters? If any facet of that scenario rings true, what does it say about the Star Tribune’s enlightenment in the matter of women stepping up and calling “foul”?

But the central issue remains the choice not to blow the whistle on Teague 18 months ago — and not to publish a variation on the story Rayno wrote last Monday. If the paper did contact Kaler, and my guess is they have his cellphone number, when did that happen and what did Kaler promise to do?

No comments:

Post a Comment