Exclusive: AOL Fires Moviefone Editor Who Offered Fired Freelancers the Chance to Work for, Um, Free

April 6, 2011 at 1:28 pm PT

Yesterday, AOL’s Huffington Post Media Group got into hot water after the top editor at its Moviefone unit sent a memo to freelancers it was in the midst of firing, offering them an opportunity to “contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system.”

Today, that exec–Moviefone Editor-in-Chief Patricia Chui–was fired by the company, which is in the midst of drastically rejiggering its stable of writers.

Many of those were freelance bloggers under contract to AOL, who are now getting the boot in favor of reallocating staff back to largely paid journalists.

Thus came the controversial email from Chui, which read, in part:

“We will, indeed, be moving away from a freelancer model and toward one relying on full-time staffers. Sometime soon-–this week, I believe–-many of you will be receiving an email informing you that your services as a freelancer will no longer be required. You will be invited to contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system; and though I know that for many of you this will not be an option financially, I strongly encourage you to consider it if you/d like to keep writing for us, because we value all of your voices and input.”

Oh dear. Really, oh dear, especially since the Huffington Post has had its own share of controversies over not paying some bloggers (although it never quite ever offered up a doozie that this letter was).

Sources said Chui was terminated by John Montorio, the HuffPo Media Group’s culture, entertainment and lifestyle editor. Arianna Huffiington is head of all content at AOL, which recently paid $315 million to buy the Huffington Post.

Since she took over, Huffington has tried to stress a return to journalism over more algorithmic content creation. The unloading of its freelance writers was part of that effort.

Thus, Chui’s missteps did not help matters.

But it was not the first time recently that she had made an ill-advised editorial judgment.

Sources said the firing is also due to an incident several weeks ago, in which Chui appeared to defend a marketing employee who sent an email to TechCrunch writer Alexia Tsotsis, asking her to soften a review of “Source Code” due to studio relationship considerations.

AOL bought TechCrunch, a well-known tech news site, last fall. At the time, its CEO Tim Armstrong promised editorial independence and no meddling over advertising concerns.

Instead of taking this minion to task, on Moviefone’s own blog Chui said, in part:

“The reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them. Staying on good terms with studios means that we will relay information if asked. It does not mean that we would ever force a writer or an editor to edit their work for the sake of a studio–or anyone else.”

Even with the last line, it is not exactly a profile in courage, because it was clear violation of the traditional separation of church and state in force at most media organizations.

Typically, editors are supposed to come down on any such communication. That has certainly been my experience in journalism over the years at the Washington Post and Dow Jones–including during its News Corp. ownership. In fact, I have often been shielded from such requests to pass such complaints onto me and only found out much later of advertiser discomfort about my reporting.

At the time, TechCrunch quite clearly called for Chui’s firing and that happened today.

Here is Chui’s full memo to freelancers, as well as the one about TechCrunch, neither of which were apparently cleared with higher-ups:

From: Chui, Patricia
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:26 AM
To: MoviefoneWriters
Subject: Moviefone/Cinematical–Status of Writers

Dear Moviefone/Cinematical Writers,

I know there’s been a lot of uncertainty regarding the future of freelancers and your status as a writer for the site. I personally apologize for the lack of communication, but I’ll tell you what I can.

We will, indeed, be moving away from a freelancer model and toward one relying on full-time staffers. Sometime soon–this week, I believe–many of you will be receiving an email informing you that your services as a freelancer will no longer be required. You will be invited to contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system; and though I know that for many of you this will not be an option financially, I strongly encourage you to consider it if you’d like to keep writing for us, because we value all of your voices and input.

Some of you have indicated interest in applying for full-time writer and editor positions, and the status of those positions are also part of discussions that are ongoing right now. I cannot at this point, however, tell you how many positions there are, or what the exact nature of those positions will be.

Despite the move toward a full-time staff vs. freelancer model, I’m told that there will be room for “exceptions”–for example, in the cases of writers who specialize in certain subjects. Again, what these exceptions are for Moviefone, and what the budget for them would be, is still being discussed.

As for Cinematical, the resignation of Erik Davis is certainly a loss. But I am continuing to have conversations with the editorial leadership here, and I am hopeful that we will still be able to maintain the Cinematical brand and voice going forward. Again, I will share with you any pertinent information as I have it.

In the meantime, those of you who already have assignments, please do continue to work on them unless you hear otherwise. If you’re uncertain of the status of your assignment, check with me. It may take me a while to get back to you, so please be patient–but I will respond.

I am sorry that I don’t have more specific details to give you, but I promise that I’ll keep you as well-informed as I possibly can. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions or concerns.

Best,

patricia

By now you may have read the recent post in TechCrunch regarding that site’s SXSW coverage of the film “Source Code.” A representative from Moviefone, who set up the interview with Summit Entertainment, received some feedback from the studio and passed it along to TechCrunch (our sister site here at AOL). That email has now caused something of a Internet kerfuffle.

Here is the email–reprinted in the post–that was sent to the TechCrunch writer.

Hey Alexia,

Hope you’re having a good time at SxSW and that it’s not been too crazy busy for you!

First wanted to thank you for covering Source Code/attending the party, etc. But also wanted to raise a concern that Summit had about the piece that ran. They felt it was a little snarky and wondered if any of the snark can be toned down? I wasn’t able to view the video interviews but I think their issue is just with some of the text. Let me know if you’re able to take another look at it and make any edits. I know of course that TechCrunch has its own voice and editorial standards, so if you have good reasons not to change anything that’s fine, I just need to get back to Summit with some sort of information. Let me know.

Thanks!

TechCrunch’s issue with Moviefone is that by sending this email, we, in their words, “asked us to change our post. It’s not just sad, it’s wrong.”

I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify a few things.

1) The person who wrote that email was not acting in an editorial capacity. That person’s job is to act as an intermediary between the studios and editorial–not to dictate content, nor to weigh in on the content of Moviefone or any other AOL site. In fact, the presence of a person with that role is just one means we have of ensuring editorial integrity on Moviefone.

2) This is important: We never told TechCrunch to change the post in any way. A publicist at Summit reached out asking if we could convey the studio’s feedback to TechCrunch. We did so. If the editors had responded that they declined to edit the post–which, naturally, is entirely their call–we simply would have conveyed that information back to Summit.

The reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them. Staying on good terms with studios means that we will relay information if asked. It does not mean that we would ever force a writer or an editor to edit their work for the sake of a studio–or anyone else.

We take editorial integrity seriously at Moviefone, and it’s painful to be depicted as a pawn of the studios when that is emphatically not the case. You may think it unseemly for a studio to request changes in an article; that’s certainly your right. But the accusation of pandering on our part or crossing an editorial line is, to my mind, completely unfair, and I would hope that a reasonable reader would be able to recognize the situation for what it is–overblown and unwarranted.

Patricia Chui
Editor-in-Chief, Moviefone

Tagged with: advertising, Alexia Tsotsis, algorithmic, AOL, Arianna Huffington, blog, Blogger, BoomTown, communication, complaint, content, contract, controversy, culture, digital, Dow Jones, editor, editor-in-chief, editorial, email, employee, entertainment, firing, freelancer, Huffington Post, Huffington Post Media Group, independence, Internet, John Montorio, journalism, journalist, Kara Swisher, letter, lifestyle, marketing, memo, model, Moviefone, Patricia Chui, relationship, reporting, source code, staffer, studio, system, TechCrunch, Tim Armstrong, Washington Post, writer

comments so far. Add yours.

Anonymous

It’s nice to see a journalist turning on her own when HuffPo was doing a fantastic job of scapegoating without your help. Why blame the corporation when you could pin it all on one underpaid woman?

HuffPo’s response in a statement this morning: “Our bloggers, many of whom are not professional writers, post [editor's note: FOR FREE] on the HuffPost platform to expose their views to a wide audience, and to raise their profiles.”

Let me translate that for you. Those bloggers are paid in “prestige,” not cash money.

Let me further translate for you: HuffPo is hanging Patricia Chui out to dry for being honest with her freelancers, and you’re helping. I’m ashamed for you.
http://twitter.com/EricDSnider EricDSnider

AOL’s firing of Patricia is an act of cowardice. She passed along to her writers what she understood of the situation from her higher-ups; that information went public and produced a backlash; the higher-ups backpedaled and threw Patricia under the bus. She’s a scapegoat for AOL’s weaselly behavior.
Anonymous

Aren’t you the gentleman who initially made her email public?
Anonymous

Headline: Editor Fired For Doing What Publishers Asked Her To Do
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QJZKS46AANIIHIMHKPZVSGLM44 KellyW

This is total and complete BS. Patricia Chui is a talented, hardworking editor who busted her ASS every single day for Moviefone. What exactly was inaccurate about that e-mail to the freelancers?

What about openness and transparency, Tim and Arianna?
http://twitter.com/EricDSnider EricDSnider

I am. And if I’d had any idea they were going to fire her for *telling us what they told her to tell us*, I wouldn’t have. I’m glad the information got out there, because AOL/HuffPo deserved to be vilified for what they were doing. But I never thought they were going to shoot their own messenger. It’s deplorable. I’m sick about it.
http://profiles.google.com/jasonnewman8 Jason Newman

The whole situation reeks of railroading. Almost all freelancers were kept in the dark on the situation and asked to “apply for full-time jobs” despite no one actually saying what those full-time positions were. All Patricia was doing was updating freelancers on the situation given what info she knew. This just sounds like HuffPo covering their own ass, firing one of the hardest-working and on-the-ball editors I’ve worked with.
http://profiles.google.com/jasonnewman8 Jason Newman

The whole situation reeks of railroading. Almost all freelancers were kept in the dark on the situation and asked to “apply for full-time jobs” despite no one actually saying what those full-time positions were. All Patricia was doing was updating freelancers on the situation given what info she knew. This just sounds like HuffPo covering their own ass, firing one of the hardest-working and on-the-ball editors I’ve worked with.
Anonymous

So it’s OK for an editor at Techcrunch, essentially one of Chui’s co-workers, to publicly call for her firing? What other job could you do that at and still have a job?

And when you’re talking about “separation of church and state” when it comes to journalists and entertainment entities, you left out the part of her blog post where she mentions that the person who relayed the message about review from the studio is not an editor at Moviefone. This person’s job is to basically act as a bugger, precisely to keep the journalist from interacting directly with the studio. But hey, I can understand you leaving that part out, since it would undermine your argument that firing Chui was deserved. Never let facts get in the way, right?

And do you really think this freelancers letter was initiated by Patricia Chui? The entire rest of her staff was let go by HuffPo, and now they’re eliminating the rest of her freelancers. Not only that, they’re making her give them the news.

and the “Oh dear. Really, oh dear, especially since the Huffington Post has had its own share of controversies over not paying some bloggers” part is just a gas. This is not some funny coincidence. The HuffPo takeover of editorial is obviously directly responsible for the firing of the freelancers. I don’t know why anyone is even surprised. The only mildly shocking thing is that they didn’t fire everyone – chui included – on day one.
Anonymous

AOL Values: We say what we mean and do what we say. We act with integrity.

Patty was fired for following the AOL values? Oh, I get it.
http://twitter.com/walterpeck Walter Peck

This is what happens when you hire women.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TG2QBQDHZNLZKADGQNVM53ATIQ Jeng

In my opinion, Patricia was being nothing but transparent and honest with her staff and colleagues. I very much respect her and read nothing negative, in tone or in context, in either of the emails you posted here. It’s really unfortunate that AOL would fire her for giving employees and writers the information and support they seek… if the higher ups at HuffPo & AOL removed their heads from their @sses, they’d be able to recognize the huge mistake they’re making and the terrible precedent they’re setting.

what cowards.
Anonymous

It’s true, your honor. This man has no dick.
Anonymous

The presentation of this as karma getting Patricia is ridiculous. she may have been complicit in passing on the wrongheaded strategy information to her team — as complicit as you can be when you’d like to keep a salary. this was the first, though, that I heard of contract terminations that hit my teams with a sledgehammer several hours later. I was glad to at least know of it.

she shouldn’t have tried to position the free writing as such a great outcome. but the karma is deserved elsewhere. and I, for one, appreciate the foreknowledge.
Anonymous

Also, this headline is misleading. Chui didn’t offer freelancers the chance to work for no pay. AOL/HuffPo did. They just sent the message through her.
http://www.facebook.com/scotteweinberg Scott Weinberg

Count me among the Patricia Chui supporters. I have no loyalty or animosity towards Moviefone, so I have no reason to sling bullshit. I worked with Patricia for years, and while we did disagree on things here and there, she was always professional, helpful, and honest.

AOL/Huff can take a leap as far as I’m concerned; I’d work with Patricia again tomorrow.
http://twitter.com/JacobSHall Jacob

As someone who worked with Patricia for over a year, I can vouch for her as an honest, straight shooting and encouraging editor who worked her butt off on a daily basis. AOL/HuffPo axing her is cowardly and well, kind of evil. They’re trying to save face and make her the villain. Don’t write articles like this until you actually know what went down.
http://twitter.com/ErikDavis ErikDavis

This story is beyond disturbing. Having worked with Patricia for years, the woman is an outstanding writer and editor who was doing everything she could to follow the new HuffPo rules and give it a go. She was so excited about the future, and she really believed in the new HuffPo model working once things were fine tuned.

So what did they do? They fired her for promoting her own company’s blogging platform, and then (probably) leaked the firing to The Wall Street Journal, who then publicly bashed the poor girl … for being a cheerleader for her own company.

This is how we’re doing business these days, huh? This is how we’re treating our colleagues? Like Scott said, I’d work on any team Patricia runs from this day forward, and anyone who brings her on after this will be rewarded with one HARD worker. Girl is damn dedicated to what she does, and I have nothing but respect for her as a manager, a leader and, above all else, a great person.
Anonymous

I won’t try to argue that the firing was scapegoating on the part of AOL about the freelancing issue. But on the TechCrunch issue, the email to the TechCruch writer from the non-editor “buffer” at MovieFone wasn’t just “passing along information”. It was a clear suggestion that the TechCrunch writer should think seriously about editing the snark out of her piece.

Chui’s response should have been to condemn that suggestion. If it’s MovieFone’s policy to pass along such messages, fine, then Chui should have said that was the policy, and then stated that the buffer person was wrong for wording the email the way it was worded. Instead she *defended* it, saying that it was a necessary part of maintaining good studio relations. Supporting a suggestion that a writer should think seriously about changing a piece at the studio’s request is clearly a horrible ethical position for an editor to take.

Again, I’m not saying she should have been fired for it, nor am I saying that AOL’s scapegoating of her in this case wasn’t completely in the wrong. But I am saying that she was entirely in the wrong for taking a position that favored a studio’s feelings over a writer’s freedom to write what she felt was true.
Anonymous

What a misguided, irresponsible, utterly despicable article. But considering what a despicable act this is on AOL/HuffPo’s behalf, I suppose it’s fitting.

Anyone who’s ever worked with Patricia Chui will tell you she is the hardest working editor on the planet.

In the last three weeks, Patricia has seen pretty much her entire editorial staff get laid off, had to deal with that disastrous TechCrunch debacle (which was a direct result of AOL’s longstanding policy of bowing down to the studios’ demands, one I can tell you she often fought vigorously against), and then had to inform her entire team of freelancers, many of them friends, they were longer needed. True, she may have not used the best language, but her only crime was being transparent, honest and relaying exactly what was happening to freelancers otherwise left in the dark.)

Not only did HuffPo/AOL not defend her through any of this, now they’ve gone and made her the scapegoat. And if that’s not bad enough, from the looks it they leaked the story to you for maximum shame and embarrassment. Truly evil, evil stuff.

And you took the bait.

By the way, Kara, Karma’s a bitch.
Anonymous

That was her job.

I agree – journalistic integrity all the way, but not for Moviefone, because Moviefone has never been a journalistic site.

Moviefone is a site that showcases softball interviews with celebrities, and tells you what theater to go to at what time. Chui having someone pass along that email was her job. If you doubt that, why would someone have that job position? Because AOL/Moviefone’s goal is to stay in happy, hand-holding with the studios. They don’t write negative reviews. How’s that for integrity?

Now, I’m not indicting the site for that because I don’t think they claim to have that sort of reputation. Their reputation is that place you type your zip code into to see what time’s things are playing.

So, absolutely it was AOL/Moviefone’s corporate model to place nice with studios, it was their model to have someone appease the studios, and it was Chui’s job to pass along that email.

And it will be TechCrunch’s editorial model soon enough.

Hopefully that sheds some light on the situation. AOL/Moviefone/HuffPo is feeling burned in the media because their practices are vile, and they needed a name to take the fall for that. I don’t for a second believe Chui came up with the idea for freelancers to join the unpaid blog network out of thin air. It was fed to her, probably as a nudge-nudge suggestion from AOL passing it down from HuffPo, and she did her job. And got fired for doing it.
http://www.twitter.com/christaran Chris Taran

Not a single thing this editor did is defensible. She will hopefully never hold an editorial position again.
http://twitter.com/lizbethxq Elizabeth Chan

@EricDSnider
You are a completely at fault for your part in hanging a woman who helped to employ you. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
http://twitter.com/lizbethxq Elizabeth Chan

@Kara Swisher. You baited this information. Your hand helped to hang another journalist.

Do you know how many freelancers at AOL highly depend on the checks? In this economy Patricia was doing the decent thing to keep them apprised of a very fucked up situation.

Kara, when you sleep well at night — know that because you had your own “exclusive” today, it was at the peril of several other fellow journalists. Not just Patricia. You’re helping to pave the way for a situation where you’re almost commending the Huffington Post for treating their writers like slaves.
Anonymous

Well thats some pretty crazy stuff when you think about it lol.

http://www.anon-tools.no.tc
Anonymous

@Kara Swisher: Have always enjoyed your columns and enjoyed meeting you in person at Web 2.0. But with your editorial position on this issue and the tone of this column – it’s hard for me to respect you as a journalist or as a decent human being. Chui being fired for this is wrong on so many levels. Seems that with your point of view on this, that you’d fit in well at any big f’d up company. Much less likely to care about your columns in the future, “exclusive” or otherwise.
Anonymous

Hey Kara – I just read your ethics statement. It’s a fascinating read and your transparency is commendable. I suppose your’re covered since you never once said you wouldn’t be an uncritical mouthpiece or participate in a corporate lynching. Bravo on maintaing your integrity. We should all raise a glass tonight and celebrate your fearless journalism while toasting to the firing of a hardworking, talented editor!
http://www.dansolomon.com dan solomon

I just wanted to add that the notion that asking the freelancers to become unpaid bloggers being Patricia’s idea is illogical from a basic technical standpoint — MovieFone, pre-HuffPo merger, had no system in place to accept or process submissions from unpaid bloggers. The idea that Patricia had planned independently of any HuffPo influence — which is essentially the position that Kara’s been arguing on Twitter — to add a bunch of unpaid bloggers to the site would ALSO mean that she had planned to create a new approach to the CMS to allow them to contribute. Surely you’re not suggesting that she was going to, say, put on Craigslist that anyone who wanted to sign up to write for MovieFone free was welcome to email her for a Blogsmith account. Right?
http://allthingsd.com/boomtown Kara Swisher

Both your comments border on the kind of rudeness and incivility we bar on this site. I am going to leave them up here for now, but just because you disagree with me or Eric does not give you the ability–at least here–to question his or my ethics in such a manner.
Anonymous

She’ll let you slide, Elizabeth… after all she wouldn’t want you to have to tone down the snarkiness ;)
Anonymous

@Kara, please revisit this story. As an avid Boomtown reader, I agree with many of the comments and this story deserves another look. Based on the comments, your readers would appreciate it and Patricia deserve it.

Her email to freelancers appears to be nothing more than looking out for her team of writers. She appears to be keeping them informed with the information she had available and simply letting them know their options.

As for the Techcrunch issue, trade-offs are often made for access or exclusives, especially in entertainment. It happens all of the time. Maintaining good relationships with studios is important for entertainment outlets. Moviefone never claimed to be the WSJ or the NYT. They are Access Hollywood or ET. And let’s not forget, Patricia didn’t make the writer change the piece, she simply explained why the message from the studio was passed along.
Anonymous

I said this once, and I’ll say it again: There’s a big difference between passing along information, and making a clear suggestion that a writer should think about changing a piece. The email to TechCrunch was the latter, and Chui defended that practice.

I’m an editor, and if my higher ups decided that it was policy that I “pass along” such requests instead of making it our policy to kindly remind the requester that we simply don’t do that, I’d 1) think seriously about whether a job that required me to do so was the right job for me, or anyone with a soul, and 2) I’d pass along the email from the studio as a forward, and make it clear to the writer that I’m just passing it along as a matter of policy, and she should feel free to ignore it as it should be ignored.

And then, at happy hour that week, we’d all have a good laugh about the idiotic flack who thought we’d actually tone down some snark (that was already really mild to begin with) just because they didn’t like it. That’s what an editor who supports writers does.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=528171491 Anonymous

Maybe AOL will ask her to stay on and “exec” for free.
Anonymous

There wasn’t anything rude or incivil in her comments, that’s just your ego getting in the way. Almost unanimously you’ve been taken to task here – by many of your peers – for this piece. Time to write a Mea Culpa and acquiesce rather than threaten.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2UPVQL5ZEWST56PQZXJ5V53VKE Peoria D

I think Elizabeth made an excellent point on how you’re defacto approving of HuffPo’s cloak and dagger approach. It’s also interesting that no one from Tech Crunch was fired for calling out another AOL editor. If anyone in any other company did that, under any other circumstances — all parties would be reprimanded. Obviously HuffPo is sending out a message to legacy AOL employees. “Our way or the highway.” The fact that someone called you out on this doesn’t make it incivil. If it struck a chord, you’ve heard the tune.
Anonymous

Your ethics have EVERY right to be called into question without the threat of being banned. You accepted a corporate spoon-fed line from a side of the media industry you don’t work in or understand and made no attempt to investigate the other side — you work for the Wall Street Journal. Doesn’t it seem strange that AOL/HuffPo wouldn’t go to a film industry trade with this news? Probably because a film blogger would know enough to smell something fishy and try to get another side of the story. I get it though — it was a juicy exclusive and you’ve certainly gotten a lot of traffic as a result. I had no idea you existed until yesterday…but honestly I don’t think this is what you want to be known for.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_POWPP4HSJPZJ6XAEZWGWIAQSEI Jonathan Chan

Wow I thought Chui handled both situations pretty reasonably, very suprised to hear this. Glad to see a lot of people coming to her defense
Anonymous

The system wouldn’t let me reply to your newer post for some reason. Fickle technology, eh?

I’m with you. I really am. As an editor, I rolled my eyes at the TC situation for two reasons 1) the email was silly 2) TC acted like petulant children and overreacted. It’s great that you (and I) have the editorial power to tell a flak to politely buzz off with their “suggestions,” but Patricia lived in a different editorial world. Moviefone existed to be friendly to studios and serve a broad-based non-critical readership. Maybe you would have hated that job, and it would have made you question the health of your soul, but that doesn’t make it editorial poison for someone else.

Plus, Patricia lived in a reality where she had to balance that while keeping the Cinematical team safe from that kind of BS. From what I know, she fought damned hard for both sites, especially through all this AOL merger nonsense, but that’s never going to get reported like this non-scandal will, and that’s pretty sad.

But, yeah, I’d have that drink and make fun of that flak while making fun of the flaks that send me “feature ideas that we can totally use.”
http://twitter.com/shoshido Susan

“We value all of your voices and input. [We just don't measure that value in money.]“
Anonymous

Kara,

I apologized to you directly, which I hope will suffice.

In all directness, I wholeheartedly believe that you should dig deeper into this issue. You’ve created a false truth scenario in your mind where Patricia is guilty unless she comes forward with a document, and frankly, that might not happen because Patricia may never speak out on her own behalf. I wish she would, so it would save us all the trouble.

But your piece takes a corporate butt-saving line and runs with it at light speed. You’ve already proven Patricia guilty by getting one side of the story. I don’t think your ethics should be called into question, but I do think that your methods on this particular situation should be. There are three sides to every story, you got one, and you’re satisfied enough to condemn.

Granted the overwhelming response to your piece, it might just be that these people (several of whom have knowledge of how Moviefone worked) have a point.
http://www.wopular.com/blogs/senh Senh

How did this spam make it through moderation?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2H7S4MG6PLQUVOA2CFNMZ2QUQ Ric Desan

Wow the collateral damage continues to grow! AOL in trying to buy relevance and stave off its editorial demise, is killing off content creation all over the Web!

Hope you guys are proud of yourself. In any case I and many of my friends can – with a much clearer conscience – dismiss HuffPo as the POS aggregation sweatshop we all know it to be.

Good Riddence.
Anonymous

I don’t think the email “was a clear suggestion that the TechCrunch writer should think seriously about editing the snark out of her piece.” I think it was an employee with a crappy job, trying to do whatever was necessary to keep her crappy job. If that meant passing along an email to a writer from a studio, that’s what she was going to do. And she did say that the writer could basically ignore the suggestions and adhere to TC’s own editorial standards (whatever the hell those may be. So far all I know is that it’s OK to publicly call for a co-worker’s firing). But that says to me that she knew it was a ridiculous request, but it was her job to relay all requests, ridiculous or otherwise. Definitely a case of the messenger getting shot. Actually, several messengers.

And, on a semi-related note, I, personally, would like to issue a suggestions to bloggers everywhere to “tone down the snark.” We get it. You’re witty and insouciant.
Anonymous

the good news is that Pat Chui(bacca) was also offered a chance to edit for free to raise her profile. The other offer came from Taco Bell as a counter person. First she had to spell “Chalupa.”
Anonymous

nobody’s hanging anyone out to dry… this editor was a jerk and now she has to eat her own medicine
Anonymous

in the big picture AOL will never be the leader it once was. How many people use it for anything these days? AOL was 1996-2000. Let that dog sleep already!
Anonymous

Before yesterday, I was unaware of this site, and after today, I’ll go back to ignoring its existence, since this kind of histrionic, unbalanced reporting is no better than HuffPo’s cowardly behavior or Tech Crunch’s deplorable showboating.

I find it disingenuous at best that you would defend your ethical stance, Kara, when you have clearly amended this post at least twice over the past couple of days — first to update with some scapegoating, @ss-covering statement from John Montorio on Chui’s firing, and then to apparently delete it without notice or a note of correction once it was obvious that the tide of comments weren’t about to turn in your favor. Utterly reprehensible.
Anonymous

For what is she a jerk, precisely? The blog-for-free model is not something Chui developed. It’s a model HuffPo has been using for years, and intends to continue using at AOL.
Anonymous

You seriously wrote an article questioning the ethics of a fellow journalist, and then chastised a member of your audience for questioning your ethics?

This is really shameful behavior, Ms. Swisher!
Anonymous

Everything she did is defensible. See the comments defending her actions?

Your usage of ‘hopefully,” however, is indefensible to most editors. Unless you are saying that Chui hopes to never hold an editorial position again. Has she told you this? Do you know her? You seem to know a lot about her indefensible activities and hopes and dreams.

I hope you are not an editor.

Plus, it’s just plain mean to wish ill on a stranger who just got fired.

Exclusive: AOL Fires Moviefone Editor Who Offered Fired Freelancers the Chance to Work for, Um, Free

comments so far. Add yours.

AllThingsD by Writer