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.