Sometimes there’s such a thing as too much schadenfreude

For example, the activist who in 2008 was raped and killed in Turkey while on an worldwide “peace tour” meant to promote inclusion and tolerance with Muslims.  Or the leftist Norway politician who felt remorse after the Somali refugee who sodomized him was deported.

These folks, deluded and dumb as they may be, didn’t deserve their fate.

The same can be said of a journalist who recently found herself in hot water.

Julia Ioffe, a Russian-born, left-leaning writer, has been given the dreaded near-Christmas boot from Politico.  Her crime?  Tweeting the following: “Either Trump is [f------] his daughter or he’s shirking nepotism laws. Which is worse?”

Yeesh.  Ioffe implied that the president-elect is not only breaking the law, but also bedding his kin.  Talk about a twofer.  The honchos at Politico were quick to disavow, and they sent a message to staff stating, “[W]e understand how absolutely infuriating it is to have incidents like this tarnish POLITICO and the great work being done across the company.”

Mind you, this is the same publication that has faked stories, published profanity-laden gotcha messages, and employed a self-admitted “hack” for Hillary Clinton.

A den of journalistic integrity Politico ain’t.

But no matter. Ioffe has become a casualty of the buzzy publication’s attempt to gain credibility after licking Hillary’s shoes for over a year.  Canning her right before Christmas certainly will send the signal that Politico is no longer a Clinton-boosting, rumor-spreading, amateurish publication.  Now they’ll take professionalism seriously.  Super seriously.

I should point out that Ioffe’s dismissal wasn’t actually a career-killer.  She was already tapped to go to The Atlantic, that old crusty American institution.  The age-old periodical has put out a statement declaring its willingness to keep Ioffe on.  Had the opposite occurred, however, it would be a sad consequence if the snappy journo was out of a paycheck come January 1.

I won’t lie: it pains me to stick up for someone like Julia Ioffe.  Her chosen profession has been completely delegitimized due to Trump’s election.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence saw how in the bag the media were for Hillary.  The press’s fawning coverage of Queen Clinton, and its fastidious defense of her flaws, was disgraceful and disgusting.

Ioffe was very much on Team Clinton.  Her punditry continues to be painfully liberal.  From defending BLM rioters to calling Christianity a religion of violence to disseminating the fake news that Trump was financially in cahoots with the Russians, she’s a loyal foot soldier in the war to spread the progressive narrative.  She’s also enormously hawkish and highly critical of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

All that said, her pink slip was unjustified.  News publications should certainly have standards of decorum.  The media qua media is supposed to be predilection-free.  Reporters covering a beat should be “just the facts” folks.  Their personal views should have little to no bearing on the information they feed the public.

Ioffe’s incest implication was beyond the pale by even the loosest journalistic standards.  A reprimand was in order.  But termination?  For one tweet, which she apologized for?

I’m all for social shaming.  Lewd behavior in public, crass language in sacred places, ungentlemanly behavior around women these and more deserve a good tut-tutting.  Idiotic tweeting deserves, if nothing, a barrage of berating.  It shouldn’t result in a summary firing, though.

Thanks to the left’s embrace of Alinskyte tactics, a person’s livelihood has become a potent target for revenge.  Even popular right-wingers have adopted the ploy and are willing to exact vengeance on their ideological enemies or, even worse, virtue-signal to the media.  This is how we end up with small-town pizza parlor proprietors harangued into closing up shop because of their spiritual views.

Every time the mob bays for blood over someone’s racy thoughts, it’s never asked: what’s really accomplished by cutting off someone’s income stream and health insurance?  Do you really change someone’s view by humiliating him into applying for food stamps?

Anyone agitating for someone to lose his situation over a salty tweet should remember the old adage, “there but for the grace of God go I.”  In the era of angry social media, we’re all one tweet, one Facebook rant, or one blog post away from getting called into H.R.  A good deal of charity and humility should be exercised to keep social media from further turning into an ugly, coarse battlefield.

People shouldn’t be fired for bad tweets.  That goes for even the most biased journalist.  I can’t put it any simpler than that.

For example, the activist who in 2008 was raped and killed in Turkey while on an worldwide “peace tour” meant to promote inclusion and tolerance with Muslims.  Or the leftist Norway politician who felt remorse after the Somali refugee who sodomized him was deported.

These folks, deluded and dumb as they may be, didn’t deserve their fate.

The same can be said of a journalist who recently found herself in hot water.

Julia Ioffe, a Russian-born, left-leaning writer, has been given the dreaded near-Christmas boot from Politico.  Her crime?  Tweeting the following: “Either Trump is [f------] his daughter or he’s shirking nepotism laws. Which is worse?”

Yeesh.  Ioffe implied that the president-elect is not only breaking the law, but also bedding his kin.  Talk about a twofer.  The honchos at Politico were quick to disavow, and they sent a message to staff stating, “[W]e understand how absolutely infuriating it is to have incidents like this tarnish POLITICO and the great work being done across the company.”

Mind you, this is the same publication that has faked stories, published profanity-laden gotcha messages, and employed a self-admitted “hack” for Hillary Clinton.

A den of journalistic integrity Politico ain’t.

But no matter. Ioffe has become a casualty of the buzzy publication’s attempt to gain credibility after licking Hillary’s shoes for over a year.  Canning her right before Christmas certainly will send the signal that Politico is no longer a Clinton-boosting, rumor-spreading, amateurish publication.  Now they’ll take professionalism seriously.  Super seriously.

I should point out that Ioffe’s dismissal wasn’t actually a career-killer.  She was already tapped to go to The Atlantic, that old crusty American institution.  The age-old periodical has put out a statement declaring its willingness to keep Ioffe on.  Had the opposite occurred, however, it would be a sad consequence if the snappy journo was out of a paycheck come January 1.

I won’t lie: it pains me to stick up for someone like Julia Ioffe.  Her chosen profession has been completely delegitimized due to Trump’s election.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence saw how in the bag the media were for Hillary.  The press’s fawning coverage of Queen Clinton, and its fastidious defense of her flaws, was disgraceful and disgusting.

Ioffe was very much on Team Clinton.  Her punditry continues to be painfully liberal.  From defending BLM rioters to calling Christianity a religion of violence to disseminating the fake news that Trump was financially in cahoots with the Russians, she’s a loyal foot soldier in the war to spread the progressive narrative.  She’s also enormously hawkish and highly critical of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

All that said, her pink slip was unjustified.  News publications should certainly have standards of decorum.  The media qua media is supposed to be predilection-free.  Reporters covering a beat should be “just the facts” folks.  Their personal views should have little to no bearing on the information they feed the public.

Ioffe’s incest implication was beyond the pale by even the loosest journalistic standards.  A reprimand was in order.  But termination?  For one tweet, which she apologized for?

I’m all for social shaming.  Lewd behavior in public, crass language in sacred places, ungentlemanly behavior around women these and more deserve a good tut-tutting.  Idiotic tweeting deserves, if nothing, a barrage of berating.  It shouldn’t result in a summary firing, though.

Thanks to the left’s embrace of Alinskyte tactics, a person’s livelihood has become a potent target for revenge.  Even popular right-wingers have adopted the ploy and are willing to exact vengeance on their ideological enemies or, even worse, virtue-signal to the media.  This is how we end up with small-town pizza parlor proprietors harangued into closing up shop because of their spiritual views.

Every time the mob bays for blood over someone’s racy thoughts, it’s never asked: what’s really accomplished by cutting off someone’s income stream and health insurance?  Do you really change someone’s view by humiliating him into applying for food stamps?

Anyone agitating for someone to lose his situation over a salty tweet should remember the old adage, “there but for the grace of God go I.”  In the era of angry social media, we’re all one tweet, one Facebook rant, or one blog post away from getting called into H.R.  A good deal of charity and humility should be exercised to keep social media from further turning into an ugly, coarse battlefield.

People shouldn’t be fired for bad tweets.  That goes for even the most biased journalist.  I can’t put it any simpler than that.

RECENT VIDEOS