Emily Wilder, fired by AP after 16 days on the job. (photo: Angel Mendoza)
Emily Wilder had thought she’d hit it big. After interning at the Arizona Republic, she earned a newsroom assistant job at the Phoenix bureau of the Associated Press, starting May 3. It wouldn’t last long.
Several right-wing organizations, including the Federalist (5/19/21) and Washington Free Beacon (5/18/21) outlets, attacked the news service over Wilder’s previous affiliation with Students for Justice in Palestine, when she was an undergraduate at Stanford University. AP, which recently had its office in Gaza destroyed by Israeli missile fire, bowed to the pressure (Washington Post, 5/20/21).
The News Media Guild, the union representing AP staff, said it was investigating Wilder’s firing (Twitter, 5/20/21):
The company told the Guild that Wilder had violated the Social Media Policy that was negotiated with the union and by which all employees are required to comply. AP noted that the policy was specifically brought to her attention after her hiring, but did not specify which comments caused her termination. The Guild asked if the comments that caused her termination were posted before or after her hiring, and awaits a response.
This is a thin excuse from AP. Wilder told SFGate (5/20/21) that some of her past social media posts had been highlighted in a thread from the Stanford College Republicans, such as one calling Sheldon Adelson a “far-right, pro-Trump, naked mole rat–looking billionaire.” SFGate reported that “Wilder…said she would not have used such language today,” and that “not long after the thread started to gain steam on Twitter,” an AP editor told Wilder that “she would not get in trouble for her past activism and social media activity.” Wilder described her “firing as selective enforcement against those who have expressed criticisms of Israel.”
Wilder told FAIR in a phone interview that “to anyone with eyes and ears and brain,” the fact that her firing came after right-wing trolling “is no coincidence,” and that “it feels like it was a convenient opportunity to make me a scapegoat.” Wilder said that AP brass haven’t told her which of her posts were the reason for her firing, or what line she crossed. She noted that her views on Israel/Palestine were irrelevant to her work, which was entirely local. “I might have been one of the youngest employees at the AP,” she said, adding that her opinions as a “citizen, as a young Jewish woman, have nothing to do with the work that I’ve done.”
The first reaction of many supporters of Palestinian rights was that the firing was an example of just how eager and able right-wing organizations are to ruin the career of anyone who dares speak out about social justice in Israel/Palestine. Would someone who interned at AIPAC and/or shared memes from the IDF’s Twitter account be treated the same way? And it’s of course another example of hypocrisy: While the right talks a lot about fighting “cancel culture,” it is one of the biggest agitators for silencing speech it disagrees with (FAIR.org, 10/23/20), especially when it comes to Palestine.
This comes at the same time as Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones was denied a tenured position at the University of North Carolina school of journalism (Inside Higher Ed, 5/20/21), with the university’s board of trustees overruling the school’s hiring process. Given that much of the negative attention against Hannah-Jones comes from conservatives who focus on her role in the New York Times’ “1619 Project” (8/14/19), a feature that looked at US history through the lens of slavery, the event seems akin to what happened to Wilder—with the right essentially exercising veto power over hiring at prestigious institutions. These incidents aren’t outliers: Right-wing activists successfully forced the Times to fire an editor for “tweeting she had ‘chills’ at seeing Joe Biden’s plane land” (Guardian, 1/25/21), and the Guardian fired columnist Nathan Robinson for making a joke about US support for Israel (FAIR.org, 2/22/21).
But beyond the censorious power of the right, there’s something else in corporate journalism’s culture to blame here, and that is its obsession with “objectivity“—not just in coverage, but in the expectation that full-time journalists be completely neutral in the issues of the day.
Ideally, a news organization would not want its Jerusalem correspondent to have conflicts of interest while covering the Middle East conflict, although FAIR has found plenty of pro-Israel conflicts of interest at the New York Times (Extra!, 4/10, 5/12) and Washington Post (FAIR.org, 9/26/13). It isn’t uncommon for newsrooms to have rules about political correspondents not giving money to candidates (though these rules don’t necessarily apply to their corporate bosses—FAIR.org, 11/5/10).
The Washington Post recently told its staff about what behavior was acceptable off the clock. According to Washingtonian (5/3/21), the memo said, “Context matters: It would be fine to participate in a celebration at BLM Plaza but not a protest there, or attend a Pride gathering but not a demonstration at the Supreme Court.” The memo also said of DC statehood: “A shirt with the flag of the District of Columbia is fine. One supporting statehood would not be—that would be an expression of public advocacy on a matter we cover.”
In this case, AP hired a young woman who graduated from Stanford, perhaps the most prestigious American private university west of the Mississippi River. What kind of education should someone with worldly intentions receive in order to travel and report on the world? Someone who never debated in political science class? Someone who never had to have their views challenged? Someone who has never been motivated by passion to learn more and conduct research?
Pulitzer Prize–winner Nikole Hannah-Jones was denied a tenured position by the University of North Carolina board of trustees after right-wing attacks on her ideas.
Professional journalists have all sorts of backgrounds. New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers previously served in the Marine Corps, an experience that shaped how he has covered war and insurrection (New York Times, 6/23/20). It’s common for reporters to take a break by working in public relations, and then return to journalism. The point here is not that objectivity is wrong, but rather that it doesn’t truly exist. No one walks into a newsroom for a job without a worldview, or unsullied by affiliations with groups that might end up being newsworthy. Reporters should strive to get the facts right, talk to all sides, take a step back from a story and paint it fairly. But no one can be expected to be a robot even before their first day on the job.
Obviously, any news organization might have misgivings about having someone on staff with a past of promoting violent extremism—like a member of a white nationalist organization—or someone with a history of fringe conspiracism. There are disqualifying factors, but reasonable people should be able to recognize those exceptions. These days, college campuses pride themselves on their activist organizations, acknowledging that activism beyond the classroom is often part of education. As the Supreme Court noted in Regents v. Bakke, “The nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth” through dialogue and debate. Employers like AP should want well-rounded recruits who have gone through that kind of dialogue.
But Wilder told FAIR that the vagueness of when such standards of objectivity apply meant these standards could be “asymmetrically imposed on certain journalists in a way that has censored and policed journalists before me.”
Wilder said she worried that her firing will dissuade “aspiring journalists who have opinions and have righteous outrage and want to channel that into storytelling,” and that AP damaged its mission and commitment to standards, because it “sacrificed someone with the least power to this kind of trolling and bullying from random bad-faith actors.”
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to AP through this web form (or via Twitter: @AP). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message to AP in the comments thread of this post.
“Would someone who interned at AIPAC and/or shared memes from the IDF’s Twitter account be treated the same way?”
I don’t mean to be rude, but isn’t this a question that you should be answering? It would be helpful, if possible, to find all other known instances of AP journalists being fired for violation of this policy*. As well as which “sides” of politics in general their tweets may have been.
So in this case, if no examples of firings for IDF memes is found, while that may simply mean no AP employees did so–if there are also dozens of firings for pro-Palestinian Authority [or such] tweets, that may indicate a bias.
*(or has any single person other than Wilder ever been fired by AP at all? A quick attempted search by me has examples as in your article of other news orgs, but not the AP)
Good article, but this is also one of several about this case I’ve read in the last few days and not a single one notes whether or not any person other than Wilder has ever been fired for violating this particular AP policy. Have 0 others been fired? 5? 200? Such context–whether this is unusual or not for this specific policy of this specific news org, seems important.
To HippoDave:
Of course, one must look at the state of journalism today, to see if the LACK of work in journalism could also be a factor.
Remember , that recently the Chicago Times was bought by ,.” vultures on Wall st.” who in the past, have hollowed out businesses quickly and left them a shadow of their former selves. Perhaps a lack of jobs in journalism is here and those wth political purposes only, want their team to be the employed ones .
Could even political opinion be a source, but also the gender of the reporter, as more and more papers and magazines are failing, and the RIGHT seems to be less favorable to women in many instances.
Although, I must say the the University in North Carolina is showing a dismaying action. Perhaps we should examine the motto of the state of North Carolina—is there something here which seems to ring false. Here is the motto of said state:
“Esse Quam Videri, or “To be, rather than to seem.” My goodness, state of North Carolina—–it seems to be unclear as to what your purpose may “seem” to be.
Perhaps what an entity stands for is most paramount as women appear to be losing jobs for such strange reasoning.
Hi. What the fuck does your reply have to do with my initial post? My response to the excellent journalist Ari Paul, of which I had some quibbles.
Bother someone else please with your off-topic non sequitors.
[Although, I must say the the University in North Carolina is showing a dismaying action.]
The absurdity of many of “Pulitzer Prize–winner” Nikole Hannah-Jones’ claims in her ahistorical rewriting of history has been pointed out to her many times.
I suggest the University in North Carolina is showing a respect for truth.
As for the worth of a “Pulitzer Prize,” it is bebeath contempt. Witness the “Pulitzer Prize” the New York Times still claims for the falsehoods it helped spread about Stalinist Russia.
“The absurdity of many of “Pulitzer Prize–winner” Nikole Hannah-Jones’ claims in her ahistorical rewriting of history has been pointed out to her many times.”
That itself is a *claim* I’ve seen many times, but I’ve yet to find a single example of “ahistorical” rewriting of history. Got any examples?
“As for the worth of a “Pulitzer Prize,” it is bebeath contempt. Witness the “Pulitzer Prize” the New York Times still claims for the falsehoods it helped spread about Stalinist Russia.”
That’s been addressed ad nauseum.
https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/
Besides all those prizes including the Nobel Peace Prize given to Obama and pretty much every *fake* Nobel Price in Economics award have some degree of bogusness to them. That said, I think you’ve cited one out of maybe two or three Pulitzers awarded for bad reporting, EVER.
I’m surprised FAIR didn’t pick up this Emily Wilder quote from the Washington Post, spotlighting AP’s hypocrisy but also WaPo’s own:
‘Objectivity’ feels fickle when the basic terms we use to report news implicitly stake a claim. Using ‘israel’ but never ‘palestine,’ or ‘war’ but not ‘siege and occupation’ are political choices — yet media make those exact choices all the time without being flagged as biased.
It mirrors a critique FAIR has expressed many times. Maybe you should take her on as a contributing editor. Or something.
I’m surprised FAIR did not pick up this Emily Wilder quote from the Washington Post, spotlighting AP’s hypocrisy but also WaPo’s own:
‘Objectivity’ feels fickle when the basic terms we use to report news implicitly stake a claim,” she wrote. “Using ‘israel’ but never ‘palestine,’ or ‘war’ but not ‘siege and occupation’ are political choices — yet media make those exact choices all the time without being flagged as biased.
It mirrors a critique FAIR has expressed many times. Maybe you should take her on as a contributing editor. Or something.
On the plus side, perhaps this grossly unfair event will convince Wilder to make her journalism career outside corporate journalism. Obviously the opportunities are far fewer. But the opportunities to cover meaningful issues are far greater.
It may be the case that ‘much’ of the criticism of Nikole Hannah-Jones’s potential employment came from the right, but it is worth noting that the WSWS has been right on her historically dubious 1619 case for months.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/05/22/uncc-m22.html
[It is worth noting that the WSWS has been right on her historically dubious 1619 case for months.]
Quite so. I find the one-sided version of the issue presented by the author of the above article totally UN-“FAIR.”
I can only conclude that the author has a one-sided ideological axe to grind. And to heck with being FAIR.
I just read the whole article at WSWS and they only make vague assertions of ahistorical work that she’s done. So far as I can tell, the only thing she’s done “wrong” is present U.S. history from a different angle than what we’ve been traditionally taught. So what?
Does anyone have any actual examples of something she wrote/said that is provably categorically false?? I’m genuinely curious. So far all I’ve been able to find are these articles:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/04/10/fals-a10.html
Neither one makes any serious accusations with backing footnotes/texts.
The NYT responded to the letter they received from a small group of historians.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html
I really don’t see the problem with presenting history from a different viewpoint even if it’s an uncomfortable one for some people and/or flies in the face of their particular agenda(s).
The left started cancel culture. Now they get upset when it happens to one of their own. FWIW, I object to it from either side.
Ari is once again wrong. While every journalist comes in with their own world view is correct. If they are writing opinions, then they are welcomed to insert their view. If they are writing news, they should not insert their opinions. TOO many “journalist” insert their opinion on news articles. Of the few articles that I read by Emily, she did not insert her opinion. The articles were heavily slanted toward her left leaning views. They purposely tried to pull on the readers’ heart strings. There were some facts in the beginning and then the rest of the articles described why cops were bad.
Nothing more than the rest of us expect from leftist journalists.
Actually you’re 180 degrees from the truth there. The only way that anyone can truly be canceled is if the party or organization doing the canceling has power to do so. It has always been the American right and capital that canceled any work or thought that didn’t align with the dominant pro-capitalist, pro-militarist, pro-Israeli policy. Today’s hyper-concern over “cancel culture” on the right is mere projection.
https://fair.org/home/panic-over-cancel-culture-is-another-example-of-right-wing-projection/
Why argue against me then and not Ari?
The link you attached doesn’t prove anything. The left attacks the right for canceling > 10x than the right
FAIR ought to understand the political considerations which go into the Pulitzer Prize well enough not to cite it as a measure of excellence…..
Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn’t have the body of work or scholarship customarily assumed and expected of tenured faculty. If denial of tenure by the trustees was politically motivated the same could be same of the initial recommendation; this appointment jumped the fence.
The University has every right to assure itself that Ms. Hannah-Jones, who’s expected to do academic work for which she hasn’t yet proved capable, deserves the appointment.
Why would she get tenure without a PhD? What has she actually published academically?
And, as already mentioned 1619 project has too many academic problems (with critics on the right and left) to be considered academically valid.
I look forward to seeing her on RT.
Nobody has suggested that Emily’s reporting led to her being fired. Her objectively accurate critique of the corporate media’s requirement that their writers use specific, politically slanted terminology is the reason the Washington Post, a CIA propaganda mill, and not a newspaper, fired her. The corporate media had to make an example of her to prevent other journalists from practicing journalism: if a reporter practices ethical journalism rather than oligarchic advocacy, they will be fired.