r_coase

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they shouldn't be held accountable. I'm saying those responsible should be held accountable.

There's not enough information yet to say who is responsible.

The message to Thuan could have been such that he had to delegate to to HR. With issues like these the buck stops in HR. There are all sorts of issues on how to handle these issues and sensitive terminations. If you mishandle things like this you end up stuck between a sexual harassment lawsuit and a wrongful termination lawsuit.

You always delegate issues like this to HR and your lawyers.

Graves and Thuan would be responsible if they either did not delegate appropriately or if they actively interfered.

Furthermore, all sorts of miscommunication may have transpired. If the executives were contacted by email for example, what's to say that the email didn't have a bad subject line and never got read.

We simply don't have facts and we can't hold the right people accountable until we have those facts. Maybe Graves and Thuan are the right people, but we don't know that yet

Without bearing witness to that communication, how can you assign blame? What was said/written? There are so many unknowns here that it's all entirely inconclusive right now, yet people are happy to assign blame and responsibility with almost no information and evidence.

Is that how you'd want your trial to be conducted if you were the accused?

There are serious allegations here that merit more than a peanut gallery trial by public opinion and speculation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold top management accountable, but we should have actual facts and details on what transpired so we know who to hold accountable.

Was there any new information from the investigation in this article or was it strictly a hit piece? I've read it twice and the only thing it is saying is that two executives were responsible because of their position in the org chart, which isn't new information AFAIK.

Since it doesn't seem that Graves or Thuan did anything wrong, I'm trying to understand what vested interest recode has in terms of trying to get either executive thrown under the bus. Do they just want another executive out, any executive, so they can write another piece about people who have left the company?

At worst, one can make some sort of claim of professional negligence due to their positions but it's entirely possible the buck stopped with Renee. We simply don't have enough information to judge either of these two at this point but Recode is painting them as guilty. If they have smoking gun evidence, they should present that, but if they are trying to ruin the lives of these two for the sake of ad impressions, that's incredibly slimy and a breach of professional ethics for a journalist.

The only new information AFAICT are a few insider opinions about these two executives that may have come from someone being merely descriptive or with an ax to grind. Those quotes were also completely unrelated to the investigation. Recode isn't practicing journalism here. They are using a few quotes to craft they own story that is pure speculation. Last I heard, that's called fiction, not journalism. One should not be writing fiction that will be interpreted as fact when it can cause real people to be hurt without merit.