The Detroit Free Press Eats its Own in the #MeToo Feeding Frenzy

It fired its top editor on flimsy grounds


If there is any doubt that the #MeToo movement has become something of a feeding frenzy, it was put to rest last Friday. That's when the liberal Detroit

Feminist Rally
freaksandgigspics on Foter.com

Free Press fired its Pulitzer Prize winning, black editorial page editor Stephen Henderson. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Henderson, the circumstances of his firing should trouble every fair-minded person.

The lack of disclosure and transparency in many of the 45-plus heads that have rolled since the sexual predations of Harvey Weinstein launched the movement is disturbing. But in Henderson's firing, they rise to a whole new level, I note in my column at The Week. From the facts that are currently available, it seems:

The Freep launched an investigation based on allegations by an unaffected outside party with a grudge — not any of the women involved. And the women who its investigation did finally fetch up, as best as one can tell, demanded no action against Henderson.

Henderson's plight is the clearest case of #MeToo gone amok.

Go here to read the column.

NEXT: Starting in 2018, Life in Prison for Oregon Sex Crimes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thank God Shikha wasted no time telling us he was black. It helped my moral compass immensely.

    1. Not only is he a POC, he's also on the right side of history concerning immigration.

      He also hosts Detroit Today for WDET, a local NPR affiliate, where he occasionally invites me to spar over ObamaCare and charter schools (on which we vehemently disagree) and discuss immigration reform and President Trump's draconian law-and-order agenda (on which we largely agree).

      If he were a white guy with anti-immigration views, I'd want him fired. But I'm uncomfortable rushing to judge a member of a marginalized group who wants to let other marginalized people move to this country.

      1. Shikha's Tourette's-like need to mention Trump and immigration in every article she writes is similar to Robby's "to be sure" modifier: It's a kind of digital watermark that assures us the article we are reading was written by a genuine Reason contributor, and not some poor 17 year-old high school student toiling in a dirty journalism sweatshop in Guangzhou province.

    2. No no, Tom. He writes black editorials. He's a nihilist.

      1. "Say what you will about the tenants of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos."

        1. "Say what you will about the tenants of national socialism, at least they're not homeless."

      2. "He's a nihilist."

        That must be exhausting.

  2. I'm starting to get fed up with the stupid "eat their own" saying. It really is a dumb statement.

    1. Eat your own dick. It'll be a small meal.

      1. If I could eat my own dick I wouldn't be wasting my time around here.

        1. I think self-fellating is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but is probably terrible in practice.

  3. So, by Shikha's own account, there's much we don't know about the two incidents, but it's clear to her that Henderson was fired under flimsy pretenses. Huh?

    1. Henderson is her buddy.
      God help me, I clicked the article.

      In the original article, this statement:
      "And the women who its investigation did finally fetch up, as best as one can tell, demanded no action against Henderson."
      "according to Henderson"

      Solid reporting there.

      1. God help me, I clicked the article.

        Me too. I read to the paragraph I posted below and stopped.

        It's ?ber bizarre. Worse than the #MeToo left "eating their own" is Shikha's eating of her own shit. After-hours, sexually-themed conversation are lithely and baselessly equated with graphic and threatening "sexually themed" conversations and de facto grounds for dismissal. But we know that it wasn't sufficient #MeToo material because the women didn't complain.

        I hate to go Al Bundy on this (I'm lying) but no wonder women hate each other.

    2. The Freep's fishing expedition eventually turned up two interactions that HR decided were inappropriate. Both occurred in social situations outside of the workplace. One involved a "sexually themed" conversation and another an interaction with someone who was his co-equal in another department. We don't know much more besides that. And while obviously some graphic or threatening "sexually themed" conversations with colleagues would indeed be grounds for termination, that really shouldn't be the case here. After all, neither woman, according to Henderson, ever filed a complaint against him or even wanted the company to take any action, a version of events that Freep and its parent company, Gannett, has not disputed.

      I can't fathom how Shikha gets out of bed in the morning.

  4. Henderson's plight is the clearest case of #MeToo gone amok.

    More like gone acuck, am I right?

    1. You're right.

    2. Let's get the husbitches out of the workplace and into the kitchen where they belong.

    3. It's only a matter of time before False Accusation Porn sweeps across the internet.

      Rule 34 demands it.

      1. That's Rule 35, holmes. We used to have a Rule 35 enforcer around here.

    4. The funniest thing about the whole "cuck" thing is that it is not even the correct word. The correct word is "wittol." The alt-right chose "cuck" because it sounds like "cock" and they are all secretly obsessed with penises.

      1. The funniest thing about the whole "cuck" thing is that it is not even the correct word. The correct word is "wittol." The alt-right chose "cuck" because it sounds like "cock" and they are all secretly obsessed with penises.

        Huh? Cuck is short for cuckold and the distinction is that a cuckold is ashamed of his wife's infidelity and/or his own inadequacy while a wittol is more accepting or just apathetic. They chose cuck because it explicitly indicates shame or humiliation and is a derision or slight. Only the Left would choose to insult someone by saying they were too under committed and apathetic.

        1. A bit like saying they're using the wrong word, they're saying 'drunkard' when they should be using the word 'lush'.

        2. I thought the whole point of "cuck" is that the pro-immigration side is willingly letting immigrants in to rape our country, or something to that effect. Accusing the pro-immigration side of being ashamed of what they support doesn't make much sense, does it? Hence, "wittol" would have been more accurate to capture their demented sentiments.

          1. The point is that a cuck knows it's happening, and although he wants it to stop, he's too ashamed to stand up for himself. He is ashamed because he is too afraid to act.

            The alt-right slur "cuck" in relation to immigration works like this:
            1. They're coming in and fucking your country and your people.
            2. You know they're doing it.
            3. You're too ashamed / scared of being called mean names to stand up and put a stop to it.
            4. You're an embarrassment to mankind, to your ancestors, your nation, your people. Sac up or become an hero.

      2. Or they chose it because of "cuckold." But, yes, it was probably that cock thing, to be sure.

        1. I don't think they got into a committee, all agreed that they liked cock, and thus chose the word cuck as short for cuckold.

          Cuckold is archaic as an insult and cuck is a rather obvious truncation. While I'm sure there's an overlap between the alt-right, familiarity with the word cuck(old), and love of cock; the idea that there is causation or that their needs to be is speculative to the point of projection.

          1. Pssst, prolly time to get that sarcasm detector in for it's annual calibration.

  5. I really began to fear #MeToo had gotten out of control when Al Franken was pushed to resign. There are rumors that many prominent Democrats realize they acted too hastily in that case and that Franken may not resign after all. I sure hope the rumors are true.

    1. Democrats were not calling for Franken's resignation because of the accusation. They were calling for his resignation so the press could focus on Moore.
      Notice that there has been no reported change in the accusation, but now they are comfortable with his un-resigning. All that changed was Moore (most likely) lost. It is never about justice with the democrats, just power.
      Reference Billy-Jeff and Teddy, among others.

      1. And no doubt you are both right; demanding his "resignation" [note no date was ever offered beyond "a few weeks"] was sufficient to take the moral high ground against Moore. Now that he has lost why should Mr. Smalley actually go? He's made his penance after all, and works for the welfare of women everywhere. [SI].

      2. It will backfire. Jones will switch parties. He is an Alabama senator, and he wants to remain such, ergo he will become a Republican.

  6. I hereby declare the #notyou movement.
    Any male accused of any form of misconduct, guilty or not, must immediately file a lawsuit against the accuser, to get the true facts on the record and under oath. If he is innocent, this will bring the events under oath in the civil trial. Even if he is guilty, this will reduce the piling on to those who can truthfully testify to the facts.

    1. "I hereby declare the #notyou movement."

      No need to go that far. Get a job as a guard in a prison, or a worker in a meat packing operation, if you fear the consequences of sexual abuse. Franken, Weinstein etc would still be holding their jobs today if only they had followed my advice. Meanwhile, let's celebrate the fact that vast swaths of American industry don't seem to be affected by this.

  7. Love it when the Left eats their own!

  8. So this guy led his own witch hunt against Conyers, which Shikha seems to approve of, then in turn gets taken down by the same angry mob he helped to create. Seems like poetic justice to me!

    Of course what I would really like to see is proper due process applied in both cases, even though I don't like either of these people very much. This differentiates me from the author, who seems to prefer mob justice for those she disfavors, and proper justice for her friends.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.