Update: The Washington Post has conducted an internal review and cleared Felicia Sonmez, saying that while her tweets about Kobe Bryant were “ill-timed,” they were not in direct violation of the paper’s social media policy. “We regret having spoken publicly about a personnel matter,” managing editor Tracy Grant said in a statement.

Sonmez has been reinstated to her position, according to Kristine Coratti Kelly, the Post’s VP of communications.

Original:

The Washington Post is facing criticism—including within its own newsroom—over a decision to suspend reporter Felicia Sonmez on Sunday after she tweeted out a 2016 Daily Beast story that detailed Kobe Bryant’s 2003 rape case.

The original tweet, which doesn’t include commentary about the case, was published hours after Bryant, his daughter Gianna, and seven others were killed in a helicopter crash. Sonmez said that she received thousands of comments and emails with abuse and death threats in response, and was pressured to delete her tweets by senior staff.

Some criticized the national politics reporter for the timing of her tweets, which have since been deleted, but were captured in screenshots:

The New York Times reported that the Post’s executive editor, Marty Baron, sent Sonmez a terse email on Sunday evening before she was suspended: “Felicia, A real lack of judgement to tweet this. Please stop. You’re hurting this institution by doing this.”

Tracy Grant, managing editor of The Washington Post, tells DCist in an emailed statement: “National political reporter Felicia Sonmez was placed on administrative leave while the Post reviews whether tweets about the death of Kobe Bryant violated the Post newsroom’s social media policy. The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues.”

The Washington Post Newspaper Guild, the union that represents non-manager newsroom employees, released a statement on Monday condemning the decision to suspend Sonmez, requesting that the Post “rescind whatever sanctions have been imposed” and provide her with a security detail. The guild also said the Post failed to publicly defend Sonmez in 2018, when she accused a prominent journalist of sexually assaulting her and faced a barrage of criticism in response.

The statement, signed by more than 200 Post journalists, reads, in part: “This is not the first time that The Post has sought to control how Felicia speaks on matters of sexual violence. Felicia herself is a survivor of assault who bravely came forward with her story two years ago. When articles attacking her were published in other outlets, the Post did not release a statement in support of one of its respected political reporters. Instead, management issued a warning letter against Felicia for violating the Post’s vague and inconsistently enforced social media guidelines.”

The guild also said it’s concerned by the Post’s “unwillingness to be transparent” about the reason for Sonmez’s suspension.

The Post’s publishing guidelines specifically require that reporters be conscientious of things like timing, credibility, and professionalism when sharing or liking posts on social media. The Post’s management has declined to elaborate further on what specific policies Sonmez violated in her tweets.

Matthew Keys reported on Sunday evening that a Washington Post employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it wasn’t the tweet with the Daily Beast link that prompted action from the managers—but that the suspension was a reaction to a third tweet from Sonmez that included a screenshot of her inbox, exposing the names of some of those sending her threats.

The suspension, which was first reported by the Daily Mail, has drawn condemnation from journalists and advocates who echo Sonmez’s thoughts that “any public figure is worth remembering in their totality … even if that public figure is beloved and that totality unsettling.”

Some focused specifically on the ethical ramifications of disciplining a reporter for adding facts to the public record. “It’s not journalistic objectivity to allow public praise for a public figure but not factual observations about the blemishes in their history,” tweeted Washington Post D.C. government reporter Fenit Nirappil. Daily Beast media reporter Max Tani described the suspension as “insane and clearly an overreaction by WaPo,” tweeting, “The rape allegation is a part of Kobe’s legacy. Punishing a reporter for pointing that out is confusing and a bizarre choice for an outlet that does serious reporting on harassment and misconduct.”

Others are zeroing in on the decision-making process that resulted in the suspension of a reporter who is facing threats of violence. Slate staff writer Julia Craven tweeted, “Knowing that an institution opted to suspend a reporter who was receiving death threats is incredibly unsettling to me.”

The Washington Post’s own news report of the fatal crash, as well as its obituary, made mention of the rape allegations against Bryant.

Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple interviewed Sonmez about her suspension. She says she reached out to Grant and her editor to flag the threats she was receiving. Hours later, Grant responded to tell her to take the tweets down, per Sonmez, who added that her deletion of the tweets was delayed because she was worried about her safety after someone posted her address.

According to Wemple, Grant told Sonmez in an email that the Post management’s concern was that her tweets didn’t “pertain” to the reporter’s “coverage area” and that her “behavior on social media is making it harder for others to do their work as Washington Post journalists.” No one mentioned to her that the suspension had to do with her disclosure of names of people who threatened her over email, Wemple reports.

Sonmez disagrees with the idea that her tweet made it more difficult for her colleagues. “I would argue that not ignoring a matter of public record is the way to go and making survivors feel seen and heard helps Washington Post journalists rather than making our jobs harder,” Sonmez tells Wemple. “We are more able to do our jobs because we’ve demonstrated to those survivors that we’re worthy of their trust. I’m a little confused. If the Post is arguing that letting those survivors feel seen makes other colleagues jobs harder, I’d appreciate an explanation.”

This story has been updated with comments that Sonmez provided to the Washington Post, a statement from the Washington Post Newspaper Guild, and reporting by the New York Times on Marty Baron’s email to Sonmez.