
By Erica C. Barnett
On Friday, January 31, two reporters from the Stranger, Hannah Krieg and Ashley Nerbovig, resigned their positions after the Stranger’s owner, Noisy Creek, the Noisy Union, and the two women reached a separation agreement, resolving an investigation involving allegations that Krieg and Nerbovig were dishonest and engaged in bullying and harassment in their capacity as Stranger employees.
The Noisy Union, a unit of the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild, represents editorial and tech staffers at the Stranger, Everout, and the Portland Mercury, which are all owned by Noisy Creek. Until her departure, Nerbovig was president of the Noisy Union.
The Stranger initially put the two on leave on or around January 16. It was the second time Nerbovig had been placed on leave during her two years at the paper; the first came after she posted a tweet joking about the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, which led to a torrent of right-wing threats against her and other Stranger staffers, leading the paper to shut down its office for five days.
In a joint statement posted on social media Friday afternoon, Noisy Union and Noisy Creek said that while the investigation was unable to substantiate the “original allegations,” all parties agreed it would be a “fair solution” for the two to resign.
After this story was published, Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild Courtney Scott reached out to say, “We feel the employer made a good faith effort to engage with the union and give due process despite having no agreed upon language or legal obligation to do so,” given that Noisy Union members don’t have a contract with Noisy Creek. “We decline to comment further on the details of the investigation or private union meetings.”
Initially, according to sources inside and outside the Stranger, the “original allegations” included the charge that Krieg and Nerbovig had attempted to “lock down” a cover-up story about an inappropriate encounter that occurred last October between the Stranger’s former editor-in-chief, Rich Smith, and now-Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck. After Noisy Creek bought the paper, Smith was replaced by Hannah Murphy Winter and returned to his former job as news editor, where he supervised Nerbovig and Krieg.
The two were accused of failing to disclose Smith’s ethical breach to their editors, then attempting to conceal the fact that they had been aware of it for months by lying to colleagues, management, and their union about both the incident itself and how and when they first found out about it, multiple sources inside and outside the paper confirmed.
Additionally, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of events, the pair bullied and harassed at least one other Stranger employee as part of their efforts to keep the story from getting out.
Nerbovig and Krieg also contacted people outside the Stranger, including individuals close to Rinck, and asked them to deny that the incident between Smith and Rinck ever happened, external and internal sources told PubliCola.
In journalism, having an intimate relationship with someone you cover is a conflict of interest. Separately, newsroom staff who are aware of a conflict of interest, or other serious ethical breach, involving another staffer have an obligation to disclose the conflict, and an additional obligation not to lie about it when asked. Attempting to get others to help conceal the truth is also an ethical breach and a violation of journalists’ obligation to be honest.
These ethical obligations—avoid and disclose conflicts of interest; be honest—apply to all newsroom staff and are a bedrock of ethical journalism that reporters and editors, publications, and the unions that represent journalists have a vested interest in upholding. The Society for Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, for instance, notes that “Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,” and says that journalists must “be honest” and “ac[t] with integrity” on the job, and “avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Other, publication-specific codes of ethics spell out more specific obligations relating to honesty, conflicts, and the obligation to disclose information that could damage a publication’s integrity.
PubliCola spoke with ten sources with direct knowledge of events described in this story, including sources inside and outside the Stranger and the union. All requested anonymity.
According to internal and external sources, Nerbovig and Krieg didn’t just fail to disclose the ethical breach by Smith when they first learned about it in October—they told their editors, colleagues, and fellow union members and union leaders that they had just learned about it for the first time in January, and that they got the information from another Stranger staffer who they said was repeating a rumor, not solid information.
In fact, according to multiple individuals who spoke with them directly, the pair were aware of the incident almost immediately after it happened and began openly talking about it with people outside the Stranger shortly after it occurred. It didn’t take long for the story to spread throughout Seattle’s tight-knit local political community; by election night, November 5, it was circulating in the room at Rinck’s victory party.
The Stranger did not launch a formal investigation until January; it is unclear precisely when management became aware of the allegations. According to internal sources, Nerbovig, in her capacity as president of the Noisy Union, called a union meeting to discuss the allegations and drum up support for herself and Krieg after the investigation began last month.
According to Stranger sources, Guild leaders believed the false version of events presented by Nerbovig and Krieg—one in which the two were guileless victims— and began considering a full-throated mobilization on their behalf. The decision to jump straight to a mobilization was unusual, according to union sources, given that the two had not been disciplined and the union had not gathered all the facts about the case yet.
Because they don’t have a contract yet, Stranger employees don’t have access to a formal grievance process, but can file Unfair Labor Practice complaints with the National Labor Relations Board.
Additionally, according to internal sources, the union argued that the investigation should be limited to internal allegations, rather than “external” issues such as whether Krieg and Nerbovig asked people outside the Stranger to back up a false story for them. As a result, the investigation was limited to allegations involving the Stranger and its staff, which appears to be one reason, according to sources, that the joint union-management statement says the “original allegations” were “not substantiated.”
The executive officer of the Newspaper Guild, Courtney Scott, and Noisy Creek management both responded to our questions by referring us to their joint statement. Prior to working for the Guild, Scott was a labor organizer with UNITE Here, which represents workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries, and the Actors’ Guild; they do not have a background in journalism, according to their public bios on LinkedIn as well as members of the newspaper guild.
As late as last week, according to sources with direct knowledge of the situation, the Guild was preparing to mobilize members in favor of Krieg and Nerbovig—at least somewhat convinced that the two women had been manipulated by Smith and were now being unfairly blamed for his actions. (Smith was fired last year; Nerbovig and Krieg, along with other members of the local media, publicly decried the decision, with many accusing Noisy Creek founder Brady Walkinshaw of having it in for him.)
The union scheduled an emergency meeting to interview Krieg, Nerbovig, and two of their colleagues last week, according to internal sources and communications, but then called it off the following day.
One revelation that the union became aware of late in the investigation—and that reportedly helped sway the union from going any further in defense of Krieg and Nerbovig—was evidence that they had engaged in a bullying and harassment campaign against at least one colleague, according to multiple sources inside and outside the Stranger.
This new evidence was compelling enough that it was a key reason the union decided to stop backing Nerbovig and Krieg last week, according to sources familiar with the union’s reasoning.
After the meeting was canceled, the union and management agreed on the joint statement and the two reporters were given the opportunity to resign with severance. (Several sources confirmed that Krieg was initially offered the opportunity to stay at the Stranger in a different role.) Both were asked to sign a mutual non-disparagement agreement that that would prevent each party to the agreement— Noisy Creek and its two former employees—from publicly criticizing the other.
Non-disparagement agreements are less restrictive than nondisclosure agreements, which impose broad confidentiality requirements and significant restrictions on speech.
After resigning, Krieg posted on X that she did not sign the separation agreement.

Erica cites the SPJ’s Code of Ethics in this story and then violates the same code repeatedly throughout.
Specifically the following points:
* Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for
sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information
that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Anonymity is supposed to be reserved for narrow cases in which information can’t be gathered by any other means AND in which there is a presumption they will experience significant harm. Nerbovig and Krieg had already resigned at the time this was published. They had no power over any employees at the Stranger or the union.
At most, they could inflict social harm on sources by bad-mouthing them, which at least Krieg can still do with no NDA. That’s not to a reason to grant anonymous people a soapbox to air their dirty laundry, which may or may not be true. No other media outlet is covering this besides Jonathan Choe and Safe Seattle because the prolific use of anonymous sources goes against every best practices for anonymous sourcing at the AP, Reuters, SPJ, etc.
* Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing
It doesn’t say anywhere that Nerbovig and Krieg were contacted and declined comment, so are we to assume that Erica didn’t contact them? She talked to a union rep, but Nerbovig and Krieg were no longer in the union at the time this came out. It seems unfair and unethical to let unknown sources trash two people who just got fired and might never work in journalism again without letting them tell their side of the story.
Reporters do not kowtow to harassment and demands to reveal information that could identify anonymous sources. As the group of people I interviewed is small (10 with direct knowledge of events who told stories that were consistent, plus one more after the story ran for clarification of a general union issue) I am not going to include the kind of information you are demanding.
I understand that the purpose of your comment is to cast doubt on my reporting—maybe I just made it up, or talked to randos who said they heard a rumor and decided to refer to them as sources with direct knowledge of events. Readers of this story, and this exchange, might ask themselves why not one element of this story has been challenged by anyone at Noisy Union, the Newspaper Guild, or anyone else at the Stranger—and why the Newspaper Guild said they are satisfied with this outcome.
Did you attempt to contact Nerbovig and Krieg before publishing this story?
Hi there. I did contact both of them before the initial story; both ignored my detailed list of questions and I received a response from the union. Subsequently, they—along with their friends and Ashley’s partner—began attacking me personally and suggesting that I fabricated this story, that I wrote it at the behest of management, etc. For this second story, I again contacted the union that represented both of them in this investigation and received comments from the union about efforts made on their behalf. I do not believe that people committed to the narrative that I fabricated this story or that the investigation found they did nothing wrong would be satisfied by another “did not respond/referred questions to the union” line in this story, since your faith in this narrative is clearly deeply felt. Nonetheless, my story is accurate and well-sourced and I stand by it.
I have not followed this story closely, but am just disappointed that we’ll be losing two reporters whose work I really valued. That’s not to say they’re not guilty of professional lapses as this article describes. From my 20k foot view, the punishment seems harsh, but I can also understand a paper not wanting to sully its reputation. If others at the paper felt bullied and the workplace had become toxic, then maybe it was the right move. Hard to know for sure what happened.
What is the Stranger and who cares?
Erica, thank you for covering this story. It doesn’t seem like anyone else is reporting it, least of all The Stranger itself.
Thanks for this story. Enlightening.
People saying Hannah and Ashley are being punished for the actions of their male colleague are clearly missing the point: they created a disinformation campaign that said other journalists were the source of this rumor, and even invoked someone extremely close to Alexis Mercedes Rinck, asking them to be part of the cover up. This is not only unethical and dishonest, but could also create a potential quid pro quo situation compromising any future coverage of AMR from them.
It’s clear to me from following them that neither are interested in being journalists because they care about the truth — they want to be journalists for the influence it brings, and to be even more blunt, the Twitter followers.
It continues to amaze me that you chase down this story about Ashley & Hannah, while the behavior of the person who committed the original offense leading to all this has been completely swept under the rug. You even went as far as to minimize it in your first article. If there’s *any* culpability to be had in all this, the majority of it belongs to their boss – you know, the one who actually had the affair, the one who put his employees in a position to lie to them, and the one who now happens to be literally working for a union.
For a one time sexual encounter to be (you should pardon the expression) blown up to end the employment of two reporters, neither of whom were involved in the encounter, seems odd for a publication like the Stranger. Was Dan Savage consulted? I doubt it. Had it been an ongoing relationship, it would be different. Give me break, we’re supposed to be, and act like adults here.
Well if all involved had acted like adults and just admitted up front to the encounter then not covered her as a journalist there would have been no issue. But they chose not to act like adults. Or journalists. That was the problem. And if I read the article correctly the boss was fired right off.
“According to Stranger sources, Guild leaders believed the false version of events presented by Nerbovig and Krieg—one in which the two were guileless victims— and began considering a full-throated mobilization on their behalf. It was an unusual decision; ordinarily, unions go through a grievance process after a union member has been disciplined and gather facts about the case, rather than jumping straight to a mobilization.”
This characterization shows a pretty limited knowledge about union representation and grievance procedure. My understanding is that Noisy Union does not have a collective bargaining agreement. Without a CBA there is no “grievance process” that includes the union so a union often will have to do a mobilization to compel the employer to include them.
Yeah this is exactly right. Pre-contract firings (especially those targeted at union leaders) are *often* met with mobilization. There’s no grievance process to go through & no just cause policy, it’s up to organizing to protect your job at that point.