WSN, The Epilogue

So, I was “fired” from WSN today.

On Saturday, I wrote a post describing my observations about WSN, NYU Local, and a few of the issues I felt these student media outlets (like many of their grown-up counterparts) are grappling with.

Yesterday, I followed up with a post to make some clarifications and, somewhat pre-emptively, defend myself from the guillotine blade I was wholly expecting to drop.

You see, WSN staff members are forbidden from publicly criticizing the paper. As I’d said, this policy isn’t actually on the books anywhere, but it’s pretty commonly understood. New writers who are unaware of it often get away with just a slap on the wrist, but I was fully aware of this “rule” and, knowingly, ignored it. (To be honest, I didn’t expect my piece to either attract the attention or spark the controversy it did, but that’s sort of irrelevant.)

I should point out that, at least for the purposes of this post, I’m not taking a position on that rule. I recognize its purpose and merits, and, likewise, its flaws. But that isn’t my call, it is what it is.

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.

Personally, I haven’t really considered myself a “staff member,” in a true sense, for a long time. (Although I did get a little indignant whenever a certain friend of mine at the paper implied I wasn’t considered part of the staff… but whatever).

Rachel and I disagree on this point, I suppose, but I still contend that the designation has been essentially honorary. As a “senior staff writer,” I was not obligated to fulfill any particular duties, meet any quota for filing stories, or even provide any kind of formal resignation or notice that I wished to suspend or terminate my affiliation with WSN.

Which means, theoretically, that I could’ve ended my “staff member” status the day after I filed my last story, if I felt like it. And I didn’t even need to let anyone know. (My last story was published on Sept. 14, for the record.)

But that’s splitting hairs.

At the end of the day, I stand by what I wrote. And I wrote it, quite deliberately, and with the knowledge that it would probably result in some kind of consequence.

Furthermore, I’m also proud of what I wrote, and the feedback I’ve received has actually been, surprisingly, quite positive. And it sparked, in my opinion, a valuable discussion about the issues plaguing NYU Local and WSN. Issues which the mainstream media is also dealing with, and which journalism students need to get a handle on, as a practical matter, if there are any jobs to be had in this industry once they graduate.

But if Rachel or anyone on WSN’s editorial staff misconstrued my remarks as a personal attack against any particular individual(s) or are truly more concerned with punishing a supposed act of treason or betrayal than acknowledging what I still believe were legitimate points, that’s a damn shame.

And if they’re really more focused on ostracizing me personally (true story: I jokingly asked if I could still eat my lunch in the office, and Rachel’s reply was along the lines of: “I don’t have any control over who comes into the building, but based on how the staff has responded to your post, you’re probably not really welcome here.”), then that’s just petty.

Today’s “firing,” like the position I was fired from, was merely a formality. Yes, I’ll always appreciate my experience at WSN, but let’s be honest: I’d moved on long before I decided to get all meta on its ass.