For both of you who haven’t seen these items elsewhere:
Megyn Kelly demolishes the craven Playboy statement on how, geez, the Guy Cimbalo article about “hate-fucking” her and nine other well-known American women didn’t mean to promote violence:
h/t: Hot Air.
Meanwhile, via Fausta, Tommy Christopher—the first lefty out of the gate in condemning the Playboy hit piece—has been fired for daring to write about Playboy‘s misogyny. It almost sounds like Time-Warner is so determined to stonewall on Guy Cimbalo’s woman-hatred that it is willing to let a good writer go for daring to criticize a bad one. Though Christopher denies that the decision was driven by corporate politics [see below], which leaves us with the even-less-attractive take that Melinda Hennenberger was being reflexively ideological.
Also, there’s a good article about the firing in The Huffington Post.
Tommy Christopher himself adds:
This firing was the decision of the Editor in Chief of Politics Daily alone [Hennenburger]. I’ve spoken with several people inside the AOL organization, lateral to her and up, and without veering into off-the-record stuff, they are supportive of me and my work, and those relationships remain intact. Yes, even with all of this publicity, which has been unreal.
I also want to say that, as Editor in Chief, Melinda Henneberger has every right and authority to dismiss me for any reason. This isn’t about legality.Conversely, I have a right to protect my reputation, and to disseminate facts relevant to that. I want people to know some things.
#1. There was no profanity in my original Playboy story for Politics Daily, although this was the reason given for its deletion. I embellished the reasoning when republishing it to shield my employer from criticism.
#2. My work for AOL has been consistently of high quality, and my role has been as much straight journalist as commentator.
#3. My work has driven the overwhelming share of AOL’s external traffic for the past year or so.
#4. Up until the minute I was fired, Politics Daily’s editorial staff was working actively to expand my role with the site, not end it.
I can’t say exactly why this happened, as none of the shifting rationales (publicly) given for my firing make any sense. Given the facts documented in the articles written on the subject, and facts that I can’t share on the record, I have no doubt that the Playboy article was the true catalyst for my firing.
Finally, go back to my first link for more insights from Ed:
AOL-PD isn’t talking about Tommy’s sudden termination and their decision to spike his criticism of Playboy, but Green Room contributor Jim Treacher thought her name sounded familiar. He linked on his Twitter feed to a Slate article from last summer where Henneberger defended the lack of media coverage of John Edwards’ affair, too.
I found something else interesting about that August 2008 story. I hadn’t known that Henneberger previously wrote for XX Factor before getting hired by AOL. This is the same blog that declared criticism of Playboy to be the death of free speech:
Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.
It’s an interesting connection. Did that have anything to do with Henneberger firing Tommy? And isn’t it more than just a little ironic that XX Factor lamented the criticism of Playboy as the death of free speech while one of its former bloggers was busy censoring Tommy, declaring the topic off-limits, and kicking Tommy to the curb for daring to write about it?
My own previous screeds on the despicable Playboy article are here here and here. The original Tommy Christopher critique of the Playboy “hate-fuck” list ran here. Ed Morrissey discusses the issue again here.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Has the fact that AOL’s parent company, Time Warner, has a business relationship with Playboy may have affected their editorial decisions? After all Time Warner is a major national distributor of Playboy TV through their cable company.
I think this has more to do with the decision than what was written at AOL.
I think senior editors at Playboy gave the slacker-new-hires the rope to hang themselves since PB had been re-inventing themselves to appeal to the ‘new’ market that needs raw and edgy. You know that senior management was treating these new guys as the chosen ones. Moral? Never underestimate the old dogs.