Featured, On Campus - by Jessica Roy on Thursday, October 8, 2009 12:17 - 23 Comments - 1,368 views
Official NYU journalism tiff instigator and (former) WSN Senior Staff Writer Sergio Hernandez was officially fired from the paper yesterday after his treasonous attempts at stimulating a discussion about the relationship between NYU Local and WSN Quiet city download. Though there is no gag rule explicitly outlined in the 1,000-page Official WSN Rule Book (with index and glossary), it’s a widely known fact that no staff members are allowed to publicly voice criticisms of the paper. As for our tired Fight Club reference? It was too applicable to ignore.
“You see, WSN staff members are forbidden from publicly criticizing the paper,” writes Hernandez. “As I’d said, this policy isn’t actually on the books anywhere, but it’s pretty commonly understood.” In a post explaining his talk with higher-ups at the school paper, Sergio writes:
New writers who are unaware of [the policy] often get away with just a slap on the wrist, but I was fully aware of this “rule” and, knowingly, ignored it… Anyway, yesterday I received an e-mail from WSN’s Editor-in-Chief, Rachel Smith, requesting a meeting with me to discuss the content of my posts. Today, she and I met to discuss my “motivation” for writing such a “negative” — but, more importantly, public — critique of WSN. And, because I was still considered an “active” staff member, violating WSN’s “don’t talk about WSN” rule meant I could no longer report or write on behalf of the newspaper.
Of course, WSN isn’t the only paper interested in monitoring the actions of its contributors for the sake of its reputation. But the irony of this incident is that it comes on the heels of a WSN editorial, published yesterday, defending the right for a free student press, and on a larger scale, the right to free speech. I guess WSN wants rights for the paper as a whole, but not for its individual staff members. A choice quote emphasizes the hypocrisy of the whole matter: “An attack on free speech anywhere is an attack on free speech everywhere,” they write.
I suppose we should consider Sergio’s firing an attack on free speech everywhere, then.
In order to grant agency to both sides in this debate, I wanted to hear Rachel Smith and MaryJane Weedman’s side of the story. I e-mailed them, asking if they could confirm the veracity of Hernandez’s post. Their statement reads:
WSN will no longer be accepting writing or reporting from Sergio Hernandez. This decision was not made because WSN has any established “gag rule” for staff, but because of the very negative, public nature of his criticism. We encourage criticism of the paper from our staff; every Sunday we have critique meetings where we rip the paper apart. We realize that we have lots of room for improvement — we’re a student newspaper, after all — and we welcome constructive criticism. But Sergio’s posts were not constructive, nor were they addressed with any member of staff before he posted them. Before Oct. 3, Sergio had not contacted either of us about any of the issues about which he wrote. His blog posts aimed to be damaging to the paper. And though Sergio believes he was not an active staff member when he wrote them, we absolutely disagree.
Any member of staff who took the same active actions against the paper by writing publicly and negatively about it would be fired as well. We stand by our decision.
— Rachel Holliday Smith, editor-in-chief, and MaryJane Weedman, managing editor, Washington Square News
Assuming non-WSN staff members aren’t allowed to attend Sunday meetings, it’s clear here that criticism is acceptable–just don’t be too loud about it. Sergio responded to the statement via e-mail: “On the one hand, she says WSN welcomes criticism and does not impose a ‘gag rule’ on its staff,” he wrote. “On the other, I was fired because my remarks were public and too critical.”
Rachel Holliday Smith and Sergio Hernandez are, for the record, no longer Facebook friends.
Photo by Dean Stattman
23 Comments
I’ll jump in for a moment to clarify that I’m not the one who did the un-friending.
Go outside, you dorks.
NYU Local is trying too hard to be gawker, god.
M. Pool
for the record, that last sentence made me say “BURNNN” really loud.
Ashley K
Wow, I almost joined WSN. I’m glad I went with Reality Uncensored instead.
Henry Chan
I thought last names were needed to comment? Or first names for that matter.
@Henry I usually approve if people use their last name, though obviously the rule is specifically “first and last.” Ashley comments on here a lot so someone already approved her comments awhile ago despite the fact that she doesn’t use her last name.
Ashley, for the record, it would be nice if you used your last name! And same with you M. Poole, in regards to your first name.
I know Josh didn’t even write this post, but he commented so I think that gives
me the right to call him a terrible human being.
Ashley K
I seriously would if I had a name like Henry Chan (with over 2 million Google results) but my name is a lot less common so when prospective employers internet-stalk me I don’t want them to think I spend all my free time on a site for a publication I don’t even write for.
Sorry 
@everyone: The comment thread on this post started off and continues to be mostly unrelated and silly. I apologize for that. If you have thoughts about this post, please start anew here.
Tweets that mention The First Rule of WSN? You Don’t Talk About WSN | NYU Local -- Topsy.com
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Guan Yang. Guan Yang said: “Rachel Holliday Smith and Sergio Hernandez are, for the record, no longer Facebook friends.” http://is.gd/45nOV [...]
On a more serious note, I find it interesting to compare the WSN fight club-esque policy with the comments local got on the Linkgate post. Some people believed we should have dealt with WSN privately. While that may be true (and I’m pretty sure local has tried that anyway) I don’t see the harm in discussing issues publically as well to involve the readers who get their news from both local and WSN. I think Sergio’s comments exposed the shortcomings of both sides, and at the very least forced WSN to say something about the issue. Now he’s been fired and I’m assuming that is meant to intimdate the people whose opinions are most insightful into stay silent.
Sergio Hernandez
For the record, below is the full text of the statement I sent to Jessica this morning:
I’ve already described, at length, my personal reaction to being “fired” in my own blog, so I won’t rehash those details here.
But Rachel Smith’s words today are contradictory and inconsistent, at best.
On the one hand, she says WSN welcomes criticism and does not impose a “gag rule” on its staff. On the other, I was fired because my remarks were public and too critical.
By that logic, I guess WSN staff is free to critique the paper publicly, but only if Rachel and MaryJane decide the criticism is “constructive,” which means “not negative.”
Finally, I’m disappointed that WSN has chosen to respond by dismissing my critique as purely “negative” and without merit. That strategy is, ultimately, a disservice to themselves and their readers more than anyone.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again:
If you want your comment to appear on the site, please use your first and last name. “grad student” at umright@nyu.edu is not a legitimate commenter name. Your opinions are valuable, but I can’t publish your comment until you re-comment with a real name and e-mail.
Thanks.
renee hackenberg
For clarification: How is this exactly an attack of free speech? WSN didn’t attempt to censor Sergio or put his blog down. They just fired him for not following their rules, however crazy they may be.
I’m not saying what Sergio did was wrong. He got his point across and sparked some really interesting discussion. But he acted against the wishes of his superiors and he suffered the consequences for his actions. That sucks, but from the things he said about WSN, it doesn’t sound like a fun place to be anyway.
@Renee
I wouldn’t argue that the firing itself was an attack on free speech, but I would say that the ‘gag rule’ is, and it was his refusal to adhere to this rule that resulted in his firing. Telling someone they have to forfeit their right to speak freely about an organization or resist being fired from that organization is, I think, curtailing their free speech– though, as I point out above, obviously it’s something done at tons and tons of organizations, and not just at WSN.
I don’t think it’s a infringement of free speech, it’s the way that most organizations work. If you have one person speaking about the organization, this person will be taken as representing the whole. When I was on the Senate Sophomore year I was not aloud to speak to any news agencies because of being a senator and represenation of the Senate. It’s about solidarity and team work.
A question to the editors, How would NYU Local handle a similar situation? I feel like there’s a lot more breathing room with you guys cuz it’s not an NYU branded institution like WSN. But would you want to keep someone who was actively criticizing NYU Local on their personal blog without bringing it up to you guys too?
Jessica Roy
@Cooper: I get what you’re saying, and I did acknowledge in both my post and the comments that most organizations have the same rule, but just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s not 1) Wrong and 2) A very basic infringement of a person’s right to state their true opinion.
As for how we handle it, as per my bio, I actually joined NYU Local after I wrote an incredibly critical post about them on my blog, and they reached out with a chance to prove me wrong. Even after joining I wasn’t very pro-NYU Local on my blog, and obviously no staff member ever had a problem with that.
But there is a difference: we’re an opinionated blog entertaining no notion of objectivity. They’re a newspaper that values objectivity. It makes sense that we would handle this situation differently. I still disagree with their decision to fire Sergio, though.
@Jessica I see your point but I don’t necessarily agree about the gag rule. We shall agree to disagree.
But like WSN’s situation, based on what the editors said, Sergio never brought his criticisms to them, but rather put it all on his blog sparking controversy between NYU Local and WSN. Would you guys keep someone around who was being passive aggressive with their complaints and criticisms and never brought them up to you, but just wrote about them instead never being forthright about how they feel?
If you’re not willing to be honest and direct with the organization first and then complaining about it outwardly, then you’re sacrificing the dignity and validity of the organization. Which, then, you should not necessarily be part of if you don’t feel fully for it.
Chris Kennedy
Guys, the “right of free speech” is not in question here. It’s not like Sergio was put in jail or legally enjoined from speaking by a WSN lawsuit.
I get what you’re all saying, but using that language has a connotation used against WSN unfairly.
the “gag rule” is just an agreement between WSN and their writers. If they want to be a part of WSN, don’t write stuff about WSN. Certainly, in this sense, Sergio broke the “rule”. Let’s be honest though, his article about WSN wasn’t really that negative. He probably got fired more because his article had too much truth for WSN to handle.
Jessica Roy
@Chris
Right, obviously I wasn’t trying to say they were breaking a law, I was simply pointing out the irony of them championing the right to express your opinion when they couldn’t let one of their writers express his.
And yeah I totally agree with you that Sergios’s post is not particularly critical but would have definitely hit a sore spot.
Lily Q doesn’t use her first and last name…
OBLIGATORY COMMENT ABOUT HOW THE AUTHOR OF THIS POST IS RETARDED AND GAY AND SHOULD GET A LIFE
- ANONYMOUS SIGNATURE