Post in vengeance mode

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

For a big, important paper, the New York Post is acting kinda small. Ex-Poster Dawn Eden writes:

The New York Post apparently considers me such an important person that it’s not enough for someone there to simply smear me to Women’s Wear Daily (in an article that WWD went on to retract). Now that writer George Gurley has profiled me in the New York Observer, the Post’s Page Six column today takes a remarkably gratuitous swipe at me.

I think you can tell the attitude of the Post pretty well by the way its gossips’ claim “Dawn Eden … was fired from The Post for improperly rewriting a news story to reflect her rabid anti-abortion views.”

Posted by Tim B. on 02/13/2005 at 08:03 AM
    1. The only problem I could find with the Post’s “gossip” column article was the use of the word “rabid” and I’m not even 100% sure that that word was misplaced. Ultimately, you have admitted the actions that resulted in your removal. I personally think that the decision was the correct one for your ex-boss to take. I would find it unacceptable if a pro-choice sub-editor amended an anti-abortionist’s copy to alter their content as I’m sure this website would be screaming bloody murder if they were caught out.

      I respect Dawn but feel that re-addressing this is depreciating.

      Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 02/13 at 08:42 AM • #


    1. “The only problem I could find with the Post’s ‘gossip’ column article was the use of the word ‘rabid’”

      Well, yeah. I do think that’s the point, Karl. Now, let’s address your telling Tim what to blog about, hm?

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 02/13 at 09:02 AM • #


    1. Or Dawn, for that matter.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 02/13 at 09:14 AM • #


    1. What I find interesting is that the Post is finally admitting I was fired for my views. The official reason Col Allan gave for my dismissal was that I made a blog entry on company time. Which is bizarre, when you think about it–what editor in chief personally fires a copy editor for something as minor as making one blog entry on company time? Clearly there’s something else going on–as the Post’s relentless attacks on me (including a smear job instigated by a Post employee in Women’s Wear Daily) continue to prove.

      Posted by Dawn Eden on 02/13 at 01:58 PM • #


    1. This story must be making the liberal press’ teeth hurt.  They’d love to diss the Post as evil suppressors/editors/censors but the person they’d be defending opposes abortion.  Locks their brains right up.

      That said, Dawn, and as someone who also opposes abortion — I’m a writer myself, and if I found a copy-editor adding material to a story that contradicts what I wrote, I’d be thunderously pissed.  What you did, however well intentioned, was wrong, in my opinion.  But what the Post is still doing is just petty and malicious, and perhaps even actionable.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 02/13 at 03:10 PM • #


    1. Don’t give up, Dawn.

      “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

      That got Ann Coulter fired, but she’s still out there ranting and drooling and making money.

      Hang in there, baby.

      Posted by Tom Wopat on 02/13 at 07:38 PM • #


    1. “But what the Post is still doing is just petty and malicious, and perhaps even actionable.”

      It struck me as petty and malicious also.

      I’m guessing the Post’s nose was put out of joint by the nice writeup Dawn received in the Observer. But why bring attention to this writeup by such a comment in Page Six? Why not just ignore it?

      Also, wouldn’t the Post’s readers include other New Yorkers who may also have “rabid anti-abortion views”? Why alienate these readers?

      I don’t think what Dawn did, in altering the article, can be defended. However, I’m wondering how much the Post’s treatment of her (firing plus this malicious attack) can be attributed to her religious views plus her pro-life views?

      If Dawn was a pro-choice pagan who had altered the article to reflect more pro-choice views .. would the outcome have been the same?

      They say that God never closes a door without opening a window. I’m sure God has a window open somewhere for Dawn. She just has to find it.

      Posted by CJosephson on 02/13 at 07:39 PM • #


    1. OK, Wopat, that’s enough. I’m not letting you come here and insult everyone to get your kicks. You are now banned.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 02/14 at 01:19 AM • #


    1. Thank you, O Mighty Blog Mistress Andrea!  Wopat is an asshat.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 02/14 at 03:32 AM • #


    1. Andrea, let him stay. Margo keeps threatening to ban me but, in the end, she doesn’t. She squeals like a cut pig everytime I point out how stupid/mistaken/idiotic either her or one of her drools has become. Wombat does nothing but point out weak and useless arguments of the lefty filth…. sorry faith.

      In the end, all he does is raise the quantity of good retort on this site and damage his Whacky Loony Left.

      Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 02/14 at 06:58 AM • #


    1. Update. Forgot to mention that I even get emails from Margo begging me to stay away from certain topics such as her statements about Jews and media ownership.

      Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 02/14 at 06:58 AM • #


    1. No, sorry. I can’t let people just gratuitously insult other commenters like that. Wopat has an email (click on his name); if you want to continue a debate with him, use that.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 02/14 at 08:49 AM • #


  1. I just want to ask him what it was like working with Denver Pyle on “Dukes of Hazzard.” That was absolutely my FAVORITE program when I was 8 years old.

    Posted by Nightfly on 02/14 at 02:42 PM • #