Felicia Sonmez

People really serious about free speech can't really be arguing that it's wrong for companies and individuals to rethink associating with a man who berates his customer base, spreads homophobic conspiracy theories and pornographic memes, and fires people who criticize him. Right?

Felicia Sonmez

@feliciasonmez

10h

Great thread by

@kbeccaandrews

, and I especially agree with this last point on how pieces like

@semaforben

’s make it harder for actual investigative journalists to do their job.

Quote Tweet

Becca "order NO CHOICE" Andrews

@kbeccaandrews

11h

There is no excuse for this level of irresponsibility broadly, much less from a man who has the sort of career Ben Smith has. Also: shit like this makes it even harder to do investigative journalism regarding sexual misconduct.

Show this thread

Important thread by

Quote Tweet

Jude Doyle, Still On This Website

@byJudeDoyle

19h

So now we've had the time to read this stunningly bad piece I would like to talk about my experience with Ben Smith as a reporter. I have reason to believe he would eliminate or distort any facts that did not suit his intent to clear Diaz. twitter.com/semaforben/sta…

Show this thread

read image description

ALT

Felicia Sonmez

@feliciasonmez

19h

Amazing exchange in Beijing, with several protesters pushing back against efforts to blame domestic unrest on “hostile foreign forces.” One man notes that traveling abroad/accessing the foreign internet are largely impossible for most Chinese right now: “境外势力怎么跟我们沟通？”

Quote Tweet

Chenchen Zhang 🤦🏻‍♀️

#A4Revolution

@chenchenzh

Nov 28

someone mentioned "foreign hostile forces" in Liangma river the crowd responded in fury: "the foreign force you talked about - are they Marx and Engels"? "Was it foreign force that set fire in Xinjiang? Was it foreign force that toppled over the bus in Guizhou"? "Are you all here twitter.com/renminwansui5/…

Show this thread

Felicia Sonmez Retweeted

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

@IBJIYONGI

20h

Felicia was banned by the Washington Post from writing about sexual assault because she is a survivor and this thread shows that she has an actual competency on the topic while the man who wrote about Junot Diaz does not. Funny how that works

Quote Tweet

Felicia Sonmez

@feliciasonmez

Nov 28

This piece is a sparkling example of how *not* to write about sexual misconduct allegations. It leaves out a host of key facts and context, including the full scope of the public allegations and Díaz’s own contradictory statements on the matter. 1/x twitter.com/semaforben/sta…

Show this thread

212

1,005

One more error in

’s piece. His claim about “the other guests” at a dinner does not include a guest who publicly corroborated

@monicabyrne13

’s story — in 2018.

Quote Tweet

Monica Byrne

@monicabyrne13

23h

Replying to @feliciasonmez

Yup. I could have told him who was within earshot. There were three others. One was a famous male writer who also kept talking over me, one was Diaz’s girlfriend, and the other was my friend, who wrote this blog post corroborating my account: eugenefischer.com/2018/05/04/on-

Felicia Sonmez Retweeted

Jennifer Barnett

@jenzerb

Nov 28

There should be razzies for dude reporters doing the most to rehab abusers. It's all self serving. If they can keep themselves and each other in power they can control the narrative for all the news you see, including reporting on sexual assault.

Quote Tweet

Felicia Sonmez

@feliciasonmez

Nov 28

Show this thread

116

For readers, here’s a red flag (for this article and for the future). If none of the people who have publicly made accusations are willing to speak with a reporter, it likely means that reporter hasn’t earned their trust — and shouldn’t earn yours either. 17/17

264

1,248

In order to write fairly and accurately about sexual misconduct, journalists need to earn the trust of survivors. Doing so takes time and effort. When writers churn out “quick hit” pieces seeking to exonerate a subject without doing the full reporting, there are no winners. 16/x

123

708

As written,

’s story appears to question the credibility of Clemmons — but pointedly avoids casting doubt on Díaz’s own credibility, allowing him to dodge accountability for his own words by simply … not mentioning them at all. 15/x

344

Díaz told the Boston Globe months later that he regretted the statement, calling it “the worst thing I’ve put my name to.” He also offered a belated denial, telling the Globe that he “did not kiss” Clemmons. The Semafor story makes no mention of this. Why not? 14/x

238

Lastly there are the statements of Díaz himself. His initial reaction to Clemmons’s allegation was to offer a sweeping apology. But then … 13/x latimes.com/books/la-et-jc

217

In a statement at the time, the poetry editors said that while they had raised “reservations to the executive editors and asked them repeatedly to rethink their position, they went forward as planned.” This seems like important context. Why omit it? 12/x

publishersweekly.com

'Boston Review' Poetry Editors Resign over Díaz

Three poetry editors at 'The Boston Review' announced their intent to resign on Tuesday, citing disagreements with the magazine’s executive editors over their decision to retain Junot Díaz as fiction...

265

In another omission,

’s piece focuses at length on Deborah Chasman, who as co-editor of the Boston Review played a key role in keeping Díaz on as fiction editor. But the piece makes no mention of the fact that the magazine’s 3 poetry editors resigned in protest. 11/x

297

A separate issue, unaddressed in the piece, is whether Pulitzer board members were required to keep the details of the investigation confidential. Imagine a survivor sharing their experience with investigators, only to have it retold by board members without consent. 10/x

323

Then there’s this quote from the then-Pulitzer board chair describing Zinzi Clemmons’ accusation against Díaz as “the one that was an actual allegation.” The quote is presented uncritically, and again, without any mention of the numerous other actual allegations. 9/x

263

I wonder why the other guests didn’t experience it in the same way that the target of the tirade did? Could it be that they were merely present and not participants? Readers are told nothing about the identities of these other guests or anything further beyond this sentence. 8/x

425

On top of that,

’s piece includes this puzzling sentence: “What one high-profile accuser had described as ‘verbal sexual assault’ took place at a dinner party whose other guests didn't experience it that way.” 7/x