That was awesome. Where did it come from?

Somewhere down South.

I hope she gets hired by the New York Times or something man...

I just hope that the workplace gets exposed nationally for what it is. That's workplace harassment from more angles than a pool table.

More here:

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/02/the_dog_is_barking.aspx

And a response from one of her editors:

From: Bill Simmons

Date: February 14, 2008 10:11:20 AM CST
To: Marilyn Mitchell, To-All

Subject: Re: Fuck the glass

As an old white male, let me offer a few thoughts for perspective (and not
to set off an onslaught of similar missives):

1. In my dozen years here, I have NEVER seen anybody (editor or otherwise)
"proud" that the "n-word" was used anywhere. I can't say nobody was, because
I can't be everywhere all the time, but I can say I NEVER saw anybody
manifest any such attitude when I was around.

2. The reference to "wetbacks" has a history -- a history of disagreement
over whether the term is acceptable in any usage, with most editors here
believing it is not. Sometimes the term is used in derision of the view that
using it is acceptable, not in furtherance of its use.

3. I suppose some males will discuss penis size in the news meetings (boys
being boys), and I have heard in long ago meetings some remarks that were
offensive. But this hasn't happened in any recent news meeting that I
attended and it is not appropriate to convey the idea that this is standard
practice in the meetings.

4. The "blonde bombshells" complaint omits the fact that every day some
quipish summary of each leading news items of the day's leading is posted on
the board. When the governor makes a speech, it may be "Beebe's lips move."
When an Al Quaida leader was blown up by a car bomb, it was "Bad Guy Goes
Boom!" And political in-fighting in Pakistan will become "Pakitics." And so
on. The reference to "blonde bombshells" had no sexist nuance that I
perceived, any more than "Econ Tanks" (a summary of a downturn in the
economy) was expressing approval of a recession or anything else. Practicing
humor has its risks, and one of them is being misperceived and distorted.

Cram it churchy this is life and reality. If you can't work in an adult world then you should go work at an old folks home. Hum maybe to firey for you as they would say what they felt also. Sounds like a great place to work and right up my alley. When a workplace becomes politicly correct and tongues are held it becomes a femenized pablam puking feel good fest that suck donkey dicks. Go home and nurse your momies teat.

Meaty you crack me up.

Living in our cozy, progressive bubble, it's sometimes easy to forget that straight-up, old-school racism and sexism are still alive and well in parts of this country. (Let's face it, in Portland you're libel to get called a racist for ordering your sandwich on white bread.)

I really thought the author of "fuck the glass" was exaggerating or flat-out making shit up... until I ready the editor's "rebuttal", which basically boiled down to "What's the big deal? We say offensive shit all the time! In fact, we have an entire whiteboard dedicated to it!"

Amazing.

"Living in our cozy, progressive bubble, it's sometimes easy to forget that straight-up, old-school racism and sexism are still alive and well in parts of this country."

Thank God uber-enlightened Portland is here to show us the way with reportage like:

"And speaking of Old Spice, a wise (?) man once told me, “Steve, if you wear any cologne or deodorant, make it Old Spice—because it reminds women of their fathers, and they’ll subconsciously feel safe around you. Unless they were raped by their father. That could be a problem.”

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/02/i_love_the_smell_of_daddy.php

Because then it's just funny and not offensive.

Moving on...

nothing i like more than a "boys will be boys" justification

Hey Kevin! Wait… are you accusing me of being racist, sexist, or funny? Or all of the above?

Quitting and writing a memo is what Marilyn DID. What Marilyn SHOULD have done is secretly videotape some of these outrageous meetings and then YouTube the whole thing.

Yeah, some footage would have been pretty cool. It would have been like 'Borat Goes to Arkansas'.

Wow, things are going down hill at the Oregonian! lol

yes. the O for sure. well known. ....but sometimes i get very disheartened by what the mercury 'reports' about female politicians in your blog here. yeah, you're thinking you're joking.
....it's not that funny.... and you don't seem to be immune from sexism either.

To the person who recommended videotaping, videotaping has its legal aspects. Strangely, the touchy part is the AUDIO. You need to know if you're in a one party or two party state. In a two party state, not just you (with the recording device) can know that a recording is going on, but any person/people being recorded need to be informed, too. Yeah, I know, it's a bummer, but you can thank all of those left wing ACLU types for screwing that up for you.

Doesn't this, um, sound like every newsroom? Cynical, snarky, and lo and behold, one person got offended.

I work at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and I want to let you know that Marilyn Mitchell's problems at the newspaper don't have anything to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a bad person and poor journalist, regardless of her gender.

It's insulting to hard-working women everywhere and particularly to the ones at the newspaper who are actually good at their jobs for Mitchell to claim that she's any kind of victim. That's why I'm posting this to your blog. The editors have told us not to respond in anyway, and, frankly, I couldn't care less what the Arkansas Times thinks about us. But this is a different audience.

First off, let me say that I'm not claiming the paper is a bastion of forward-thinking and progressive thought. It most certainly is not. There are real problems (meaning real people) here that hold this paper back from being anything more than ordinary. I'm not here so much to defend the newspaper as to tell you that Mitchell is not someone you should be defending.

Mitchell appears to be an interesting dichotomy herself. Google her and you'll see she has held significant management positions at other newspapers. I don't know if what I saw here was an aberation in her behavior or maybe she just bullied her way to the top. Some of the women at the paper found her immediately abrasive and believed she has adopted that as a management technique.

What I can tell you is based on my own direct observations of her behavior, discussions I've had with reporters who worked for her, my own inquiries with my co-workers into her claims and my knowledge of how this newspaper works.

First off, Mitchell was hired over a man who also interviewed for the job. I don't know his qualifications exactly so make of that what you will. All of women in the newsroom who met and/or interviewed her for the job strongly recommended against hiring her. After she got the job, Mitchell regularly (and obnoxiously) claimed to have a close personal relationship with the managing editor and his wife - I don't know if that was true or not. (I'm guessing that friendship has gone by the wayside now.)

Secondly, the state editor job and duties were actually strengthened and expanded when Mitchell was hired. I don't know if that was the plan originally or if the powers-that-be did that for her. I do know that they were significant changes and actually gave the positioin much more authority.

Third, I don't know if you are aware of it, but a tornado killed 13 people in Arkansas the week before Mitchell quit, one of the worst storms to hit in decades. As state editor, Mitchell was in charge of the coverage. This was a big deal. They brought reporters and editors in to help cover it. Now, here's where my knowledge gets shaky, but apparently, there were some problems with the job that got done. I don't know specifically what problems management had, but from reading the paper, I certainly could find fault. Somehow that led to a shouting match between Mitchell and the city editor (male) in the newsroom. Frankly, I walked out when that happened because it was too disruptive so I don't know what exactly was said. I do know that both editors were called on the carpet and that Mitchell left in tears. I do know that responsibility for the storm coverage was reassigned - to another woman, an editor who has been at the paper for more than 20 years.

Mitchell didn't come back the next day, which was Thursday, Feb. 7. She did return on Friday, and I didn't pay much attention to her. We could tell that something was going on the first few days of this week because senior editors kept ducking into meetings - they think they're being sneaky, but they're not. Something happened on Wednesday. I don't know what, but I expect it was some kind of disciplinary action. I doubt that it was any kind of financial punishment or firing, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to lose some of her authority.

And that brings us to the St. Valentine's Day massacre. That has got to be the most immature resignation I've ever seen. At least, this should have the side effect of keeping Mitchell from ever working at another newspaper again. In fact, if I was an employer in any field and I found this email, I'd be reluctant to hire anyone who would quit in such a public manner. (Full disclosure: I've regularly fantasized about quitting jobs, including this one, with a well-publicized "Screw You" to the management. My continuing need to eat, keep my kids in shoes and pay my mortgage keeps me from doing so, but someday, I'm going to win the lottery, and then it's on!)

From my knowledge of the newspaper and Mitchell, I think it's mostly (if not completely) lies.

It's hard to start, but let me start with Mitchell's "likeability." No one liked Mitchell (except for maybe her husband) because she was relentlessly unprofessional. She was rude and abrasive with her reporters (I saw her make at one cry on more than one occassion) and she seemed to go out of her way to pick fights with her colleagues. Sometimes things would get so bad I'd have to leave because her remarks were so derogatory and abusive that I was embarrassed to hear them. I'm not the easiest person in the world to get along with at times, but Mitchell was unique in her apparent quest to alienate almost everyone she came in contact with. I seldom ever heard her reply to a question in what I consider a respectul tone. She should have been fired just because of her daily behavior.

The reporters I talked to who had worked for her complained that she regularly introduced mistakes into their copy, which she insisted on changing without talking to them. That's a sure sign of a poor editor, in my book.

Regarding her husband's career, she might have ended that, too, at least in Arkansas. From what I can tell, he seemed genuinely surprised by the email, as much as anyone. One time I saw him that morning, and it looked like he had been crying. I don't know how they could keep him on or why they would want to.

Let's look at this from the paper's perspective and briefly give them the benefit of the doubt and that Mitchell is lying in her email: If she is planning a lawsuit against the paper, is her husband going to help gather material for the suit? Will he let her into the building to search for incriminating materials? Will he spy at meetings to gather information? Will he suddenly quit by emailing the entire newspaper? Would he vandalize? If he worked for me, I'd sure be curious about where his loyalties lay. Look at this from the newspaper's perspective and his employment prospects don't look to good. Hopefully, he'll at least get a decent severance package. Unfortunately for him, this comes at a time when they are actively cutting the newsroom budget.

Now, let's get to the "resignation" (A caveat: I don't attend the meetings Mitchell seems to be referring to)

"All I wanted to do at this newspaper is to do a good job. I
came here because I thought it was a good newspaper. But,
it's not. It's a good ole' boys club made up of old white males.
Nobody else has a voice."

This newspaper is run by mostly men, but I think the majority of the newsroom employees are women, excluding sports. Women hold significant editor positions throughout the newsroom, and most of the top reporters are women. That's not to say that there aren't any elements of the boys' club, but it's in decline. There is one guy who has been a problem, but he's been disciplined and that most recent incident was months ago, probably even before Mitchell came to work here in September, from what I can tell.

"This is a newspaper in which: The city editor can verbally abuse another editor in the presence of the managing editor and nothing is done."

Oh kettle, thou are black, sayeth the pot. I don't know if Mitchell has ever savaged anyone verbally in front of the ME, but I wouldn't doubt it. He's not really the most attentive to that sort of behavior. And from what I hear, some strong disciplinary action is in the works.

"The managing editor in a news meeting slugs a potential 1A story as blonde bombshells - a story in which bombs were strapped on two retarded foreign women and sent into a crowd."

Doubtful, but possible. Usually the slugs are written by the female international editor, but this could be true. Anyone who works at a paper knows there's a lot of gallows humor. Is this the best she can do?

"Male editors are allowed to talk about penis size during
news meetings."

I couldn't find any female editor who remembered anything like this since Marilyn worked at the newspaper. I know there are people at these meetings who wouldn't tolerate this kind of discussion.

"Editors call Hispanics wetbacks in news meetings
Editors are proud to call blacks n-----s in news stories."

Can't address the wetback comment directly, but if it came up, I'd attribute it to the gallows-humor school. I've never heard anyone at the paper "proudly" use the N-word, but I do know that it has been used in stories and the paper has written rules to govern it's use.(For the record, let's be clear that Mitchell wrote out the full word in her email)

"A city editor gets his feelings hurt over coverage of a story and I'm penalized for it. The managing editor is a bald face liar and the executive editor doesn't give a damn. So to "the glass," I resign effective immediately."

Let me just say that Mitchell's email has been personally embarrasing to me. Over the weekend, I've been questioned repeatedly about what goes on in the newsroom. Well, if Mitchell's description was accurate, I'd no longer be working there. I'm not going to tolerate racism, sexism or juvenile bathroom speech. That's not the way I was raised.

But now I've been unfairly tarred with Mitchell's brush. It's hard to deny that you're a racist, sexist pig - when that representation goes against everything I believe in. I just have to trust that the people who know me really do know me.

Let me address Bill Simmons' response now. Simmons has been at the paper for 30-40 years, and if there's an old boy at the Dem-Gaz, it's Simmons. That man has seen and heard it all at the paper, including, I'm sure, penis talk and the casual use of racial slurs. Maybe he's even indulged in that behavior in the past, but I've certainly never heard or seen him behave the way that Mitchell describes. However, it's folly for him to address the editor meetings since I do know that he doesn't go to them.

I'm writing this not so much with the hope of changing anyone's mind here on this blog. You are free to believe Mitchell. Heck, I'd probably believe her if I just stumbled across this post. I just wanted to give you an insider's perspective, and encourage you to remember the journalist's maxim, "There are two sides to every story."

I'm probably risking my job if the bosses see this message and figure out who has written it. Like I said before, I don't care too much what the Ark Times and its readers care about the Democrat-Gazette. The Times has had a long time vendetta against the paper and all of that is a matter of public record.

But I hate to think that Mitchell's rant is floating around the Internet without any serious rebuttal. I would hate to think that any woman would be discouraged about working at this paper or entering the journalism field because of Mitchell's lies and distortions.

This paper does have problems, including some misogyny and elitism. It regularly falls short of excellence in a manner I find both heart-breaking and discouraging.

But the paper and the people who work there don't deserve to be maligned by someone who is truly an exemplar of the worst practices of the field, no matter her sex.

Even if we stipulate that Mitchell is "a bad person and poor journalist," that doesn't make her a liar.