Print This Post Print This Post

Nov

2

Editor & Publisher weighs in on Wide Open’s demise, hints at its future


Here’s the article from Editor & Publisher.

And for the first time I’m learning that the project is in fact suspended:

“A car can’t run on two wheels, and Wide Open can’t continue with only one side of the political spectrum represented,” Jean Dubail, assistant managing editor/online, wrote in a note on the blog today. “So we’re going to call an indefinite halt to the project and step back to re-group.
 We still believe that newspaper and newspaper websites need to engage the new media. Our first effort in that direction obviously didn’t fare well, but it would have been a still greater mistake not to make the attempt. 
Over the next few days and weeks we’ll be giving a lot of thought to alternative ways of accomplishing the same end.”

The future prospect?

Dubail said the paper did not believe it could find liberal replacements who would adhere to the restrictions, and added that paying them might create an ongoing conflict for the paper.

“We believe the atmosphere had become super-heated over this thing,” Dubail said. He said the blog may resurface again, but through an unpaid approach that would limit some of the potential conflict problems. “That is probably our next step, to review something like this on an unpaid forum.”

E & P did a good job with the story. Thanks.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:47 pm November 2nd, 2007 in Blogging, Campaigning, Elections, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Wide Open 

Comments

6 Responses to “Editor & Publisher weighs in on Wide Open’s demise, hints at its future”

  1. 1 John Ettorre on November 2nd, 2007 12:55 pm

    E&P is also perhaps the first outfit to write about this case that seems to pay enough attention to basic facts as to realize that the word Cleveland is no longer part of Plain Dealer’s name. A small but telling detail.

  2. 2 tim russo on November 2nd, 2007 1:51 pm

    unpaid? i can’t imagine anyone giving the PD free content after this incident.

  3. 3 redhorse on November 2nd, 2007 3:27 pm

    righto. Why should one labor at/for the PD at the healthy rate of zero dollars per word, when they can do that at home, without restriction, and without the threat of the fragile LaTourette becoming enraged at them?

    Face it — it’s dead.

  4. 4 Tim Higgins on November 2nd, 2007 3:37 pm

    Perhaps the telling point here is that the PD feels that a blogger loses their First Amendment rights of free speech by political contribution when they take a job. I wonder if all of the other reporters at the paper, or at its parent Advance Publications, are held to the same standard?

  5. 5 Keith on November 2nd, 2007 3:41 pm

    Dubail continues to spin this thing mightily and ineffectively. Of course no leftwing blogger would ever agree to those idiotic stipulations. Again and again, the paper’s owners and editorial page can be as political as they want and somehow that gets a pass but average joe and jane reporter have to play this silly game of objectivity. Again, no such animal. The PD is about as objective as Fox News is fair and balanced. My prediction is you’ll never see anything like Wide Open Blog in the PD again.

  6. 6 ohdave on November 2nd, 2007 4:46 pm

    Jill, I confess that I don’t really know a whole lot about what’s going on, being a southern Ohioan and all, but I do know that you are all class and that I’m on your side.

    From what I’ve read so far, you made a brave and principled stand. There are a couple of commenters here biting at your ankles but so much for them. Keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply




"));