Ignoring for a moment that he used an emoticon in an article for an actual newspaper or that the basic premise of his piece is strange — organizations attempt to minimize bad press about themselves, as if this is surprising somehow? — Josh Brodesky used his column today to a weird end, announcing the names of the women (allegedly/apparently) victimized by Paul Cunningham’s boorish behavior:

Convenient timing. The report never outlined what Cunningham said to the three city employees. It didn’t even name the three women on the receiving end of Cunningham’s comments: [the names, go over the Star if you feel the need to know them].

The names were already out there, considering that most people could piece together who was probably in the bar based on the list of those who went on the trip and since the Star already mentioned the three in a previous article co-written by Brodesky, but what’s gained from pointing that out again? Those three happened to be in a bar with a guy who can’t handle his booze on a company trip on night, but apparently, the report, which seemed effective in calling Cunningham out for what he did while establishing that there might be a pattern of poor liquor-induced activity, needed to mention three city employees by name to really sell the point.

I haven’t really been sexually harassed in the past, but I would assume the experience is humiliating enough without having the daily newspaper in town dragging your name back into the fiasco unnecessarily, but perhaps Josh Brodesky has his reasons.

This article appears in Jul 12-18, 2012.

The editor of the Tucson Weekly. I have no idea how I got here.

9 replies on “Really, Josh Brodesky?”

  1. Josh wanted to know exactly what Paul said and to whom he specifically said it so he you take a different approach with his own pick-up lines.

    Seriously, Paul was drunk and beyond obnoxious that night. He has taken full responsibility for his boorish behavior.
    When will Brodesky do the same?

  2. Josh wanted to know exactly what Paul said and to whom he specifically said it so he you take a different approach with his own pick-up lines.

    Seriously, Paul was drunk and beyond obnoxious that night. He admits he has a problem and is working hard to resolve that issue. He is a stand-up guy and has taken full responsibility for his boorish behavior.
    When will Brodesky do the same?

  3. Josh has a little discretion problem. He seems to think that just because he has some information that isn’t widely know, he just has to publish it – no matter who gets hurt. Had a little issue not to long ago with Josh “outting” the supposed name of an anonymous blogger on BlogForArizona. Didn’t help his story. Wasn’t necessary to his narrative. Just mean and impudent.

  4. Perhaps Brodesky sometimes offends the insiders by disclosing their foibles. But, is there any other reporter in town who is ever willing to do so? This episode included the naming of some who probably didn’t need to be named. But in many regards Brodesky is a lone voice in speaking for hordes of us who are not admirers of the local political powers. Apparently he will not be invited into the Tucson Reporters Old Boys Club.

  5. The problem is, nobody at the Star is interested in real news. They spin their wheels rehashing old stuff until it’s dead in the water and ignore the bigger picture. In this case, why were city officials and staff in San Diego, what, if anything was accomplished for the public good? Pesky details, for sure.

  7. Sorry, but in my opinion the usual Tucson Weekly criticism of the Arizona Daily Star is misplaced in this case. Josh Brodesky, as another poster indicated, “is a lone voice in speaking for hordes of us who are not admirers of the local political powers”.

    I appreciate the Tucson Weekly’s independence and ability to critically example local issues. You aren’t, however, the only voice for an independent viewpoint.

  8. @Dylan: Point taken, although really my issue is the misplaced outrage. Why would the report need to mention the names of people who are ostensibly victims? Why is that in particular a point of contention.

    Also, to everyone else: Josh Brodesky does fine work at times, but the idea that he’s some lone voice in the wilderness standing up against the forces of evil is insane.

  9. Thanks, Dan. I always suspected that I was insane and now you have confirmed it. Well, you won’t have Matthew to kick around any more.

Comments are closed.