Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Sutherland Responds; Times Edits

1

Way to hold their feet to the fire! Seriously Erica, I think you have done an excellent job bringing this story to light.

I am also glad to see that the Times removed some of the more offensive parts of their story.

Posted by Jonny H | July 17, 2008 12:06 PM
2

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a "private matter" now?

Posted by MvB | July 17, 2008 12:09 PM
3

He's dirt, and he's trying to sweep himself under the rug.

Posted by Fnarf | July 17, 2008 12:13 PM
4

Tthat new headline actually belongs to the AP wire version of the story. i still got the original times piece, hedline and all, when i searched their website

Posted by frank | July 17, 2008 12:16 PM
5

do you have a link to the times running the different version? or was it in print or ?

Posted by frank | July 17, 2008 12:29 PM
6

Peter Goldmark made him touch that woman.

Posted by J.R. | July 17, 2008 12:32 PM
7

So the non-denial of the substance of the charges indicates that they're all true.

Thanks for clarifying that, Doug!

Posted by Mr. X | July 17, 2008 12:32 PM
8
the woman who was made uncomfortable.

That phrase makes my head explode.

Make that an active verb and replace "uncomfortable" with "sexually harassed" and you get "the women who he sexually harassed" which seems to be much more accurate.

Posted by Julie | July 17, 2008 12:41 PM
9

I'm not sure who you are more angry with: Sutherland or the Times' coverage.

Please clarify, becuse you seem to be holding the Times feet to the fire while missing the whole point--which is that Sutherland is a skeezy old bastard who likes to fondle young employees.

Posted by Jeff | July 17, 2008 12:59 PM
10

@9 Uh, I don't think she's missing the point that Sutherland is a sleaze at all. Go back and read her original post on the topic.

She's expressed indignation at both the Times and P.I. regarding their reluctance to publish the story, and I think it's entirely justified. A public official sexually harassing an employee on the job should be reported for the sake of public interest, not shelved until someone from the blogosphere finally applies some pressure to break the story.

Posted by Hernandez | July 17, 2008 1:30 PM
11

Hernandez,

Why hasn't the accuser came forward? Why has she refused ALL requests for interviews? Why has she not agreed to speak off the record?

In the interest of fairness, the real scoop would be for Erica to get her on the record.

Until then it's all just posturing on Erica's part to show that she is better than her cross-town rivals, which is pretty trivial considering the sleeziness of the story to begin with.

Posted by Jeff | July 17, 2008 1:38 PM
12

Good point, Hernandez.

And, Jeff, stop trying to cover up.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 17, 2008 2:05 PM
13

@11, Jeff, ECB is so right on all this, and you are so wrong, you should just pack up your toys and go home. Seriously. Hush.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | July 17, 2008 2:10 PM
14

Who gives a shit if his opponent dredged this shit up? Sutherland should have thought of that before he harassed one of his employees. Douchebag.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 17, 2008 2:19 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.