EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Was AOL Reporter Tommy Christopher Sacked For Criticizing Misogynist Playboy Piece?

First Posted: 7/6/09 Updated: 5/25/11

Mvp

Earlier this week, we mentioned how Playboy had published a sociopathic, hateful, and unfunny listicle by Guy Cimbalo, listing the ten conservative women he most wanted to "hate fuck" that was replete with some of the most execrable and misogynistic drivel you are likely to ever see. By the looks of things, decent people on both the right and the left have decried the content of the posting. This is a good thing. But you know what is a bad thing? A writer has apparently been fired over this. Why is this a bad thing? Because the sacked writer is not Cimbalo, but rather, a passionate critic of this disgusting article.

I speak, of course, of Tommy Christopher, who up until yesterday was a political reporter for AOL's Politics Daily, and who also blogs at a site called Tommy Christopher's Daily Dose. Eat The Press enthusiasts may remember Christopher as being one of the first reporters in the White House Press Room to take on Robert Gibbs over the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (You might also recall the way I failed to recognize Christopher despite having followed him on Twitter.)

Politics Daily has not made the reasoning behind Christopher's dismissal clear, but it's hard not to see it as stemming from his criticism of Playboy. Christopher attempted to publish a story on the matter at Politics Daily the day Cimbalo's piece hit the web. And that's where Christopher's troubles apparently began. Newsbusters reports the sequence of events thusly:

Christopher had first attempted to post this criticism of Playboy's sick list the day it was published on their website. However, he was surprised to find that shortly after putting his article on Politics Daily it was deleted by an editor.


His surprise stemmed from the fact that in his two years of writing for the site not one other post had ever been deleted by an editor.

Another former Politics Daily writer NewsBusters spoke with, Caleb Howe, confirmed that fact. And while Tommy Christopher released a statement to NewsBusters criticizing AOL's decision to let him go Caleb Howe went further than Tommy in his opinion of AOL's motives.

"His coverage of the Playboy "hate f***" list must have had a lot to do with Tommy being fired, if not everything to do with it" Howe told NewsBusters. "It would be absurd to think the timing is coincidental" referring to the fact that Christopher was fired three days after his original Playboy story and only hours after pitching a new story on the same topic.

This morning, Christopher confirmed the accuracy of this timeline in a Tweet to ABC News' Jake Tapper.

One of the broader questions here is whether or not the article's deletion and Christopher's firing stem from the fact that Playboy Magazine is a property of Time Warner, AOL's corporate partner. What muddies those waters is the fact that Time Warner has announced plans to spin off AOL by the end of the year. CORRECTION: I have been offered a clarification on this point: "Playboy is a standalone company, and not at all affiliated with Time Warner." My apologies, call this a correction to the correction: NewsBusters has what appears to be "a marketing and distribution contract between Time Warner and Playboy's print division" that "establishes a working relationship from January 2006 through January 2009." The contract copy is being hosted by a website called OneCLE, who have confirmed that "the contract was taken from Playboy's SEC filings."

As of this writing, the precise rationale behind Christopher's firing is not known. But it's really difficult to imagine an alternative conclusion that doesn't involve Christopher's criticism of the Cimbalo piece.

I would have to imagine that it would be nearly impossible to justify sacking a productive reporter for the sake of defending another publication's graphic depiction of women being "hate fucked." But here's my email, Melinda Henneberger, editor-in-chief of AOL's Politics Daily! You may feel free to jolly well give it your best shot!

UPDATE: Newsbusters has a screenshot of an email from AOL editor Michael Kraskin to Elizabeth Blackney, who submitted this question, "does Playboy empower or exploit women," to AOL's Hot Seat Poll. Kraskin's response read:

Do you happen to have another article/question we could use? This Playboy story is something we have internally decided not to address.

MORE UPDATES: Melinda Henneberger, at last, responds:

Does it make a lick of sense to you that I would fire anyone for standing up for women, or for taking on that disgusting story in Playboy? [ED. NOTE: Uhm...no, Melinda, it doesn't, which is sort of why I asked the question!] The bloggers for the old AOL site, Political Machine, weren't retained for the new site, Politics Daily, which has only been in existence for the last five weeks, and which we're just staffing up. Sorry so dull, but there's nothing more to it than that.

STILL MORE UPDATES:

In emails to me asking for clarification after Newsbusters published this item, Melinda Henneberger repeatedly suggested that she valued Christopher's contributions and asserted that every effort was made to keep him employed at AOL, in some capacity. That means two alternative stories as to why he was released from contract have been proffered. In one version, it was a part and parcel to staff reductions and realignment, part of a wave of firings, and it had nothing to do with the original article on Guy Cimbalo. In the other version, it was because Christopher "trashed" AOL. I suppose one should pick the explanation that suits them best.

Henneberger tells the Huffington Post that, "THE REALLY SAD THING ABOUT THIS -- OR ONE OF THEM, ANYWAY, IS THAT EVERYBODY LIKED TOMMY SO MUCH THAT WE ALL REALLY WANTED THIS TO WORK OUT, AND EVEN WHEN IT DIDN'T, THE FIRST THOUGHT I AND OTHERS HAD WAS HEY, MAYBE HE COULD STILL HELP US DO THE SOCIAL NETWORKING HE'S GENIUS AT." She goes on to say that the sticking point was Christopher "RUNNING AROUND TRASHING AOL." I've not been able to find any instance of "trashing" occurring prior to Christopher's actual firing, at least not a public instance. Henneberger maintains that she sees "A LOT OF POTENTIAL IN TOMMY" and maintained hope "THAT WE COULD MAKE IT WORK."

With regard to the deletion of Christopher's story, Henneberger cops to being the one who deleted it. She says that she received word from an "editor" that read: "Hey chief, whole lotta f*** in this Christopher piece; that OK?" She tells me, "I NEVER DID READ IT, NO. BUT I DID DELETE IT, YES." It's not clear why the aforementioned, unnamed editor did not tend to the deletion themselves.

Bear in mind that there was no actual profanity in the article -- we are literally talking about "f***" being used in place of the actual obscenity, and in all cases quoting Guy Cimbalo. Naturally, Henneberger, who admits to having deleted the article site unseen, could not have known this.

It is not clear to me why Christopher's article had to be deleted, instead of simply being revised to omit usages of the censored word "f***." I asked Henneberger if she was ever informed after the fact that the piece she did not read did not contain profanity. I also asked if she could identify the person who said, "Hey chief, whole lotta f*** in this Christopher piece; that OK?" As of this writing, she has declined to answer these questions, referring me instead to AOLs flacks.


[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

Earlier this week, we mentioned how Playboy had published a sociopathic, hateful, and unfunny listicle by Guy Cimbalo, listing the ten conservative women he most wanted to "hate fuck" that was replete...
Earlier this week, we mentioned how Playboy had published a sociopathic, hateful, and unfunny listicle by Guy Cimbalo, listing the ten conservative women he most wanted to "hate fuck" that was replete...
 
  • Comments
  • 103
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
12:31 PM on 06/07/2009
Melinda Henneberge­r editor in chief, at AOL Politics Daily which took over AOL Political Machine is shallow and calloused to have fired the original PM writers. I know this kind corporate crap happens all the time in takeovers, where the original employees are fired and replaced with their own people, however it doesn't make it any more acceptable­.

Henneberge­r walked into a an establishe­d site with decent traffic that these original writers establishe­d, for her to fire them is a disservice to journalism and a discredit to the hard work these writers have done. It is also disrespect­ful to original base of trafficker­s to the site.

Her statement: "Does it make a lick of sense to you that I would fire anyone for standing up for women, or for taking on that disgusting story in Playboy? "

WOW Melinda, for someone who has a womens column on her site, not addressing this is a disservice to all women....f­iring the only writer on your staff who would address is just sheer ignorance.

Her statement: "The bloggers for the old AOL site, Political Machine, weren't retained for the new site, Politics Daily, which has only been in existence for the last five weeks, and which we're just staffing up."

WOW Melinda, so as we all know in takeovers it is not "what you know" but "who you know"'. I must say... you don't deserve good writers like Tommy Christophe­r.
01:29 AM on 06/07/2009
From the Urban Dictionary­-

hatef*ck

1) To have sex with someone you once loved and/or dated after a bad break up.

2) To have sex with someone you find sexually attractive but loathe as a person.

3) To break up then make up and have a hate f*ck. Its like make up sex but with someone you hate.

4) To have rough sex.

So, at worst, it means rough sex. Lighten up, people.
03:05 PM on 06/07/2009
I'm sure you'd be every bit as nonchalant about it if you were on that list or knew someone who was.
05:34 PM on 06/07/2009
Man...I was sitting there going...I don't remember writing that...you have to use the exact same Penguins logo? Oh well, EFFF Detroit.

I, honestly, wouldn't care one bit if the guy wrote the entire article about my mother.

Why would you care what he thinks? You realize they are just words, right?

There is no law that says everyone has to play nice. The women on his list sure don't....
08:32 AM on 06/06/2009
Do any of the overly PC liberals whining about this story even know why?

Unless he advocated violence or rape, then everyone should reread the First Amendment and get down off your crosses and soapboxes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:53 AM on 06/06/2009
PC Liberals? You mean PC Conservati­ves.

It was first mentioned and ridiculed by The Right leaning bloggers like Michelle Malkin, who was in the list. And mentioned in detail by Meghan Kelly on her Fox news show. She was also on the list.

So I guess these women are the PC ones.
05:56 PM on 06/06/2009
Conservati­ves only care because the target was conservati­ve women. Didn't see them saying anything when the target was Janet Reno or Hillary or Chelsea Clinton or Pelosi, so...

Again, can anyone show where he advocated rape or violence? If not, then...
07:07 PM on 06/06/2009
Do YOU know what you're talking about?

I read the article. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, advocate rape. (Phew!)
But it IS tacky and unfunny, and it's basically a series of vile personal attacks. And I'd say that it's definitely misogynist­ic. Not to mention misandroni­stic, because it doesn't give men much credit either. (My boyfriend was NOT amused.) The more you think about it, the worse it gets. And that's what people are saying.
What does the First Amendment have to do with anything?
Who's calling for the author to be jailed? Nobody.
Who's lobbying for a law against writing what he wrote? Nobody!

What is it with you conservati­ves?
Enough already with the Pavlovian "but, but, First Amendment!­" squawk.
It's called criticism.
I'm doing it to you right now. Deal with it.
08:19 PM on 06/06/2009
I'm a progressiv­e who is to the left of Obama.

I just dislike humorless knee jerk shrill PC liberals who give everyone on the left a bad rap.
05:57 AM on 06/06/2009
This demeaning shock story can be placed right at Keith Olberman's feet.

These women are nightly called the worst people in America with much hatred.

He is sanctionin­g this attitude that it is okay and mainstream to say anything you want about conservati­ves.

That Cimbalo would think raping conservati­ve women would be a funny or entertaini­ng story is symbolic of the "to the winners...­....." anything goes mentality.
08:25 AM on 06/06/2009
Can you please point me to where he talked about raping anyone?
03:07 PM on 06/07/2009
Can you please stop making excuses for hate speech?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:55 AM on 06/06/2009
Bottomline­, you guys aren't going to sucessfull­y silence Keith Olbermann, so get over it.

He's our guy and he is going to be on his show for a longtime, just like PapaBear has been on his.
01:49 AM on 06/06/2009
The odd thing is, none of the "WomanUp" writers/co­ntributors had nothing to say about the Playboy story. I read the Tommy Christophe­r post and he was the only one that had attacked the Playboy story. What agenda is being set by AOL Politics Daily when T. Christophe­r is fired? Is the "WomanUp" section of AOL a faukty collection of writers that do not completely buy womens rights??
12:16 AM on 06/06/2009
Why is he dressed like Martin Bormann?
09:51 PM on 06/05/2009
I have not been able to find the original article just random quotes here and there....

Did he advocate rape?

If not, what is the beef?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VirginiaJeff
Waiting for the "Jennifer Government" movie
10:36 PM on 06/05/2009
I read part of it, and it was quickly clear that "hate f***" implied rape.
11:36 PM on 06/05/2009
Quickly clear....i­n what way?

How does hate ____ imply rape?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:57 AM on 06/06/2009
The piece was removed from Playboy's site. Click on the "the left" link in the above article and it will take you to the Gawker article that basically lists what he said about each one.
10:14 PM on 06/07/2009
How in the world am I the first fan of "fair." is everyone a fan of being unfair. Just saying.

I self-promo­ted a show with Lizzy, Tommy, and others. Then read the rules, and, they're fair. But, I just wanted the readers to hear a pretty good discussion­. Tough gig baing a moderator, We need more empathy when it comes to being fair.
08:54 PM on 06/05/2009
I find it interestin­g that the right wing are actually celebratin­g this article in a way: they seem to be holding it up as an example of what we liberals REALLY think about women - and to me, that's just as bad as excusing it as satire - in fact worse.
Those excusing it as satire simply have a silly opinion about an awful piece.
The right wing, however, are using it as propaganda - in other words, they're using it in an attempt to benefit from it: for their cause to profit.

Those on the right using the article for political gain are just as disturbed as the Playboy Editor who let it slip through.
08:48 PM on 06/05/2009
Though uit does seem odd - why anyone would use Newsbuster­s as a source is beyond me!
They are so full of lies and distortion­, they rival Fox News at their worst!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:59 AM on 06/06/2009
Newsbuster­s was started to counter Media Matters. But unlike Media Matters is a Far Right leaning propaganda site.
08:31 PM on 06/05/2009
AOL has reporters? LOL. I'm sorry, but I can't -- I mean can't -- have sympathy for anyone who would work for that pack of thieves and dimwits.
02:58 PM on 06/07/2009
No sympathy for the way people earn a living? People and their families you don't know? That's nice. I guess you have no sympathy for Tommy Christophe­r. Who lost his job. His pay. His livelihood­.

For that matter, I doubt you have sympathy for much of anything with such a callous remark. Or rather, empathy. I say "empathy" because I doubt you've ever been a paid reporter. Imagine for a moment if your living was based on your blog posts. Further, see if you can conjure an image of fretting with a family wondering how you will pay the bills. Can you do that? How might you feel? Not only have you no sympathy, but, no empathy as well. I'm not even getting into the substance of the Playboy article -- which Mr. Christophe­r was first to decry.

Your attack is an insult to journalism en toto. Further, it turns any concept of reason and morality on its head. I happen to know, very well, Mr. Christophe­r. Even he defends attacks on his previous employer. Sir, despite your remark, whether intended for those doing the firing or those who were fired at AOL, if you are ever fired without any good reason and have to struggle to make ends meet, I will have sympathy for you.

Perhaps next time you write something, take a moment to pause and realize someone is behind the glow of your monitor.
08:12 PM on 06/05/2009
Misogynist­?

No it was about REPUBLICAN women.

that isn't misogynist­, it's just standard Democrat talking points.
08:25 PM on 06/05/2009
I thought conservati­ves didnt believe that there was gender inequality­...Aren't you people the 'affirmati­ve action is discrimina­tion' crowd?

Isnt Palin the governor who makes the rape victims in her town pay for their own rape-kit exams?

Yes this article is mysogynist - but you dont care about sexism, and neither does Palin - you just want to score political points on this issue.
07:25 AM on 06/06/2009
"Isnt Palin the governor who makes the rape victims in her town pay for their own rape-kit exams?"

No.

If you actually watched the news, rather than Jon Stewart, you would know that was an Internet rumor.
08:47 PM on 06/05/2009
That's right child: you encourage that hate between Americans - the adults will get on with being adults.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zen0469
An empty micro-bio is a happy micro-bio.
07:15 PM on 06/05/2009
Now we know what AOL supports. Hate speech and any drivel that a right wing hack delivers.
07:08 PM on 06/05/2009
Thanks huffpo, for coming out against this example of hate, pure, unadultera­ted hate, against women.

If anyone, and there are a few of you on this thread, thinks this is ok, then you need to take a look in the mirror, and decide if you believe in womens rights, or just liberal womens rights.

No-one, i repeat, NO ONE, can condone this kind of filth.

If you try to justify this, and then feel compelled to rant about Palin, or Kelly, or any other conservati­ve woman, consider this your wake up call. You are just as vile as the person who wrote the original article.
04:13 PM on 06/08/2009
I am no one.
03:15 PM on 06/09/2009
Oh, like YOUR party has any better record about women's rights. Keep 'em out of the workplace and in the kitchen, that's your motto.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ramblin jack
06:04 PM on 06/05/2009
YOur headline is biased from the start this not reporting but rolling your own log Viva Playboy
05:40 PM on 06/05/2009
Are we really expecting PLAYBOY to be Politicall­y Correct? Really?