When Journalists Abandon Civility and Accountability

Can an opinion columnist for a news publication retain their job after writing or saying anything she or he wants, however offensive, mean-spirited, or wrong?

On Monday, The Washington Post was ordered by an independent arbitrator to reinstate opinion columnist Karen Attiah, who was fired last September for “gross misconduct” following radical comments she made after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. They were also ordered to give her the compensation she would have otherwise earned since last September. 

On the day of the Turning Point USA founder’s murder, Attiah took to social media to bemoan the collective mourning from those on both the political and ideological right and the left. 

“Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence,” the 40-year-old columnist wrote on Bluesky. 

She then wrote:

“Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.”

Attiiah followed that screed with this one:

“If anything, the rush to coddle violent white men is self-protective — that we know they are not used to feeling vulnerable and mortal — and will react violently out of fear. And we will all suffer.”

Five days later, Attiah announced to her followers that The Washington Post had terminated her employment for violating the company’s social media policies. As a member of the Post’s labor union, she filed a grievance, which then triggered a nearly year-long review.

Sarah Miller Espinosa, the private arbitrator, ruled the Post “did not have good and sufficient cause” to fire Attiah and “violated” its labor agreement by doing so. According to Ms. Espinosa, “The Washington Post failed to establish the grievant engaged in gross misconduct.” 

Those coming to Attiah’s defense have insisted the columnist wasn’t celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder or advocating for more of the same. It seems the arbitrator agreed, but such sympathy ignores the offensive reality of what she posted on social media.

In the hours after Kirk was gunned down in cold blood, Attiah clearly and falsely claimed that the Christian commentator had “espoused violence” and was, himself, violent.

When terminating Attiah’s employment back on September 15, 2025, the company said the writer’s social media posts “violate the Post‘s social media policies, harm the integrity of our organization, and potentially endanger the physical safety of our staff.”

What’s included in The Washington Post’s social media policy for employees? Here are some relevant sections:

A Post journalist’s use of social media must not harm the editorial integrity or journalistic reputation of The Post.

Post journalists should be civil on social media and treat people with respect.

The Washington Post social media policy also calls for employees to exhibit “professionalism, empathy, collegiality and a focus on the facts.”

In what universe is falsely accusing and describing a man who was consistently peaceful and loving as “violent” akin to treating people with civility, empathy, and respect? 

Sarah Miller Espinosa’s arbitration ruling establishes a dangerous and destructive journalistic precedent that strips the publication of its moral authority to rein in employees who may threaten and damage the company’s reputation. It also invites and potentially empowers unhinged opinion writers to recklessly serve up false claims in the interest of garnering more clicks and attention.