Keeps getting more and more plausbile, doesn’t it?

It’s also amusing that working for a bunch of media outlets is supposed to give her more credibility.

Jim Treacher on June 8, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Hey, she’s an up-and-comer, Jim! Working for the Times, Newsweek, and Slate were the dues she had to pay to reach the nadir of Henneberger’s career … AOL! (heheheheh)

Communication is hard work. Even for a media company. I work in Tel-Com, and we can’t communicate for sh*t either.

She should have tried harder to work with Tommy. That’s part of what managers & editors get paid to do.

Asked about her reaction to the original piece, Henneberger explained that she didn’t read it, although she said she was the one who hit the delete button on the story.

Keeps getting more and more plausbile, doesn’t it?

It’s also amusing that working for a bunch of media outlets is supposed to give her more credibility.

It’s hard to remember the days when AOL was the industry standard. As we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, my memories of relying on AOL are as foggy as memories of riding a bicycle with training wheels.

“I’m an economic liberal but also a socially conservative…”

Henneberger

Wow. Stupid and politically indifferent – what a combination!

I’m sure that was just a typo.

She is a special kind of stupid.

Is she getting fired? Where are her traditional journalistic values?

And btw, I was merely lamenting the fact that everything is so pubic and many of us took sides without getting the whole story.

Careful, or you’ll be banned.

But having seen the Playboy “article” but not Christopher’s article about it, I have to wonder if the asterisked profanities were sanitized quotes from the Playboy site used in order to convey the spirit of the Playboy article.

taznar on June 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM

They were. The whole article was about “hate f’s”, and it’s kinda hard to discuss that without, including that letter. No synonym will work.

Although isn’t it breaking some kind of law for her to give the reason why she fired Tommy?

I don’t know. In this instance, she’s only doing so to protect her own reputation, which is hurt because of Tommy’s claim on why she fired him.

And btw, I was merely lamenting the fact that everything is so pubic and many of us took sides without getting the whole story. It’s none our business in the first place.

therightscoop on June 8, 2009 at 1:25 PM

I still disagree that it’s none of our business. Ed is a personal friend of Tommy’s, and for that reason, some here are his fans (and the article in question was linked to here). And if AOL is indeed firing people over political issues, it’s news.

Karl on June 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Bingo!

Seems like a good rule for a site, Ed, AP, & Michelle.

In general, I agree. But having seen the Playboy “article” but not Christopher’s article about it, I have to wonder if the asterisked profanities were sanitized quotes from the Playboy site used in order to convey the spirit of the Playboy article.

Why would I care about one firing?

*don’t get it here*

AnninCA on June 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM

No one expects you to. Sociopaths lack empathy.

Why would I care about one firing?

*don’t get it here*

AnninCA on June 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM

As I just noted above, it’s also about evidence that AOL was trying to suppress the Playboy story.