NP Rank:
New York Post Accused of anti-Obama bias, former editor sues
The New York Post is accused of anti-Obama bias by former editor Sandra Guzman. Guzman claims the New York Post is on a mission to destroy President Barack Obama.
Ms. Guzman, who was fired after speaking out against a cartoon depicting the author of the president's stimulus package as a dead chimpanzee has sued the paper.
Sandra Guzman, a former editor at the New York Post, has filed a lawsuit against her former employer with allegations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination and "unlawful employment practices and retaliation."
Huffington Post has the 36-page complaint, which details instances of sexual harassment involving top editor Col Allan. While those charges will likely get the most attention, Guzman — who spoke up against a controversial Post cartoon earlier this year — claims that the paper is out to get Obama."The Post's decision to publish the racist cartoon was part of a concerted effort at the Company to undermine President Obama's authority and attack the first African-American President in this country's history."
Guzman also claims that D.C. bureau chief Charlie Hurt "and a high ranking journalist at the newspaper had confirmed to [her] that the Post had such a policy in place, telling her that the Post's 'goal is to destroy Barack Obama. We don't want him to succeed.'" (Hurt didn't respond to HuffPo.)
“This lawsuit has no merit and is based on charges that are groundless," a Post spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO. "As previously stated, Ms. Guzman’s position was eliminated when the section she edited was discontinued due to a decline in advertising sales.”The Post's editorial page — viewed as a window into Rupert Murdoch's head — endorsed Obama in the Democratic primary but went with John McCain in the general election.
The New York Post is the 13th-oldest newspaper published in the United States and is generally acknowledged as the oldest to have been published continuously as a daily, although – as is the case with most other papers – its publication has been periodically interrupted by labor actions.[2] Since 1993, it has been owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which had owned it previously from 1976 to 1988 before being forced to sell it because of government restrictions on the press. It is the sixth-largest newspaper in the U.S. by circulation.[3]
Crowd Power
-
Jarrett Martineau
Vancouver, Canada -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Recommendations (52)
-
The_Cynic
Freddy Beach, Where the deer r, Canada -
marianmo
Mission, Canada -
Ninja Mayhem
Middlesex, United Kingdom -
albertacowpoke
Canada -
tikun
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
-
Simples
Caruaru, Pernambuco, Brazil -
jjenet
Ilford, Essex, United Kingdom -
Blue Crush
Toronto, Canada -
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States






Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 13:59 on November 15th, 2009
You can't sue based on a violation of reason and evidence and beat out Freedom of Speech. I would like to know all the particulars about the firing before reaching any conclusion.
The cartoon in question was not intended to be racist, but I could see how it could be misinterpreted as such.
What a frigging ridiculous lawsuit, though! Total attempt at revenge and headline-grabbing. Get a job, the operative phrase here, both for this "journalist" and her lawyer. No job? Go and help give out soup at a soup kitchen.
at 14:22 on November 15th, 2009
Some more information on the New York Post lawsuit via Gawker.
at 15:24 on November 15th, 2009
So, fellow believers in Justice, where are all the David Letterman lawsuits? No hostile work environment there?
Sort of like getting sexually harrassed by Bill Clinton. Gets a pass based on his backing of abortions.
Complete hypocrisy.
Gawker is wrong. The cartoon is not about Obama writing the bill. He didn't write a single line of it. It was Pelosi and her minions.
Give the Gawker points for slander in the first degree as a sign of giving it their all.
at 15:57 on November 15th, 2009
Please every newspaper has a political bent. Anyway isn't the Post owned by Murdock? Is it unlawful to present someone in a bad light based on his/her actions as president?
at 16:49 on November 15th, 2009
Gets a pass based on his backing of abortions.
That has noting to do with the subject. This is an unfair dismissal litigation politicized for press purposes. Abortion, nor Clinton enter the debate
at 18:48 on November 15th, 2009
it takes guts to file a lawsuit like this ...she is to be applauded for standing up for her rights
at 18:57 on November 15th, 2009
If those allegations in the lawsuit were true, where were all the other lawsuits previous to this? I would bet that there was a whole of lying going on.
She may be standing up for her rights like that liar, the "dancer" and sometimes prostitute did, for the Duke false rape accusation.
We will see.
The double standard, that is, the one whereby Letterman is let off the hook, is blatant that it is a joke in itself.
at 07:12 on November 16th, 2009
This is not a class action. This is not Federal prosecution. This is an employee suing for unlawful dismissal. If Letterman's employees elect to take the same decision power to them, but it is their choice. You can't logically make every decision made by an individual connect to a colective damnation of all things liberal. You can try, but it doesn't make sense like the attempted abortion comment in the earlier comment you made.