Print This Post Print This Post

Nov

6

Foundation of suspicion behind Susan Goldberg’s “logic,” more updates, & tx to Dan


On WCPN’s Sound of Ideas yesterday morning, Plain Dealer editor, Susan Goldberg repeated her position as to why the voices of the currently closed for business Wide Open political blog are now silent (at least at that blog; you can find Tom Blumer here, Jeff Coryell here and our beloved just “Dave” here).

You can listen to Goldberg here.

Goldberg, as she stated on CPN, says that she viewed us as having been hired and paid by the PD. She says that she saw the experiment as “working very well” until they “discovered” that one of us (and “as it turned out” two of us – Jeff Coryell and myself) – had contributed to a political campaign.

STOP

How did Susan Goldberg, editor of the PD, “discover” that one (yeah, two) of us had contributed to a political campaign? It was not because she has it in her head every single day that, as she says just a moment later, it is the paper’s standard to not allow “people to cover campaigns that they have an interest in” and therefore, as impliedly must be done with every single newsroom hire, the HR department had run my name and the other three through the FEC, the Ohio Secretary of State or the Ohio Money Tree database to clear us of conflicts, or “discover” conflicts so that we could discuss what would best serve the readers and the writers.

No. Goldberg’s commitment to that standard (flouted by the Miami Herald spectacularly and in a way that the Herald editors say might become routine) is not what caused her to learn about the contribution.

Jeff Coryell supplies a timeline for who knew what when and shows that there was ample time before last Tuesday for Goldberg’s alarm to go off about whether we were meeting paper standards, and find a solution short of Jeff being given an ultimatum, me leaving because I have the same conflict and the experiment effectively over.

It is logical to ask, then, if we were in such violation that Goldberg could not tolerate the chance that our connections would besmirch the PD, wouldn’t you think that the first thing she would do, upon “discovery,” would be to order that all four of us be vetted, immediately? That she would devise with Jean or human resources a way to check us all out thoroughly and then call us in or have Jean gather us so that her standard of not allowing “people to cover campaigns that they have an interest in” could be explained to all four of us and discussed with all four of us, and the editor to whom she delegated responsibility for Wide Open, so that that which was going along so well, as she says, could continue?

Wouldn’t those be the first steps you would take, before risking that the entire endeavor – into which two of your most senior editors, Jean Dubail and Chris Jindra, had poured their time and effort and yes, I believe, heart – might have to end?

I would.

But none of that happened. Why not?

Because someone didn’t want Jeff to continue. Or someone didn’t want Wide Open to continue.

Those are the only answers, unless we decide to just say that Susan Goldberg is daft. And I do not, for a nanosecond, believe that Susan Goldberg is daft.

I do believe that she is falling on the sword of standards (that are a moving target even among traditional journalists as Roldo discusses here) for some reason that isn’t being clear and hasn’t yet been made clear.

Okay. Back to the CPN narrative.

Goldberg “discovers” that Jeff made political contributions (I don’t really know when she learned about mine). Then, she says that she realized that the PD

hadn’t really thought through the ramifications of that…our standard is that we don’t allow people to cover campaigns that they’ve got an interest in…when we discovered that this one blogger [is that like Bill Clinton calling Monica Lewsinsky "that woman"?] had contributed to a campaign, we asked him to commit to us that he would not write about that campaign, either candidate…He refused to do so and quit….then the other blogger quit in sympathy…

STOP

I have to thank Dan Moulthrop for clarifying just after Goldberg says that, that I did not resign in sympathy nearly as much as I resigned because I had the same conflict as Jeff: I’ve given money to US Senator Sherrod Brown and Ohio AG Marc Dann. Thank you for being such a close reader, Dan (or Paul? just teasing you both a bit). There is a special place in heaven for both of you, I know it.

Back to Goldberg’s narrative:

Goldberg agrees that I did have the same conflicts. But here is where she erases whatever logic you’ve been able to ascribe to her reasoning up until now:

She did but we would have been happy to have had her not write about the campaigns that she had contributed to. To me, that’s the easy solution…you have to know when you need to recuse yourself from making a story decision…but they didn’t want to do that [not write about certain campaigns and candidates to which we'd contributed] and that’s fine and I think the way for us to go at this is to not have paid bloggers but to just have unpaid bloggers…in that case [of unpaid bloggers], frankly I think [disclosure] would be up to them.

These expressions are absolutely nonsensical:

#1 that the PD would have been happy to have me not write about the campaigns to which I’d contributed;

and

#2 that the way for the paper to go at something Wide Open-ish is to not have paid bloggers, but to just have unpaid bloggers;

and

#3 that in the case of unpaid bloggers, they could decide for themselves as to whether they wanted to disclose their contributions.

Here’s why, as to each:

#1 – Again, Goldberg represents that they are coming after us one by one, and only those who have made contributions. There is no upholding of the supposed standard across the board, no intimation that all four of us would be approached and told the situation and asked to help problem-solve. No. The impression left is of picking us off. Talk about not thinking through things. Again – we are left thinking that either Goldberg is daft, or there was never an issue about all four of us, but rather the focus was only on Jeff. Otherwise, the PD is just making the same mistakes over and over (and there are those who argue that, except that they don’t think these incidents are mistakes at all).

#2 – Paid, unpaid – that really is irrelevant in the realm of bloggers. The political blogs discuss this matter all the time – Buckeye State Blog very openly sought out input last year before taking money from something – I don’t even remember what it was anymore.

That’s all blogs have to do – mention it. Then your readers know. Do an “About” page or a “Disclosure” page. Whatever. But pay to bloggers, by itself, especially given how small the amount was and that it wasn’t even all from the PD but in part from Cleveland.com, is a complete red herring of an issue that people are long over – so long as you disclose that you are being paid and who is paying you. Jean did that here.

#3 – To then say that in the case of unpaid bloggers, the bloggers would then decide whether or not to disclose their political campaign contributions (or any other acts of a partisan nature) is absurd. This isn’t about the bloggers. This is about the readers and trust. Which is why the pay means nothing as far as an indicator of bias.

First of all, all four of us insisted that we be able to pick on the PD if we wanted to. And we were told yes and we all followed through on that (I think – I can’t recall if Dave posted anything specific, but I know Tom and I did, more than once).

So right there, the matter of the money, as far as us being nice and easy, is proven as a non-issue.

Second, Goldberg implies that the concern is about how articles written by staff who give money to campaigns might be perceived as slanted in favor of that candidate, or against the opponent, and that that slant will then be grafted onto the PD since the PD pays that staff person.

But, lest any of us forget that which we keep being reminded about: newspapers have editors. Wouldn’t the editors be sure to not assign such stories to the staff? Wouldn’t the editors edit out the slant, regardless?

And finally, the point that so many people keep returning to and is best said in this comment at Brewed Fresh Daily by Bob Rhubart:

The issue I can’t get past is that the entire exercise was op-ed in nature. Otherwise, why hire Liberal/Conservative tag teams? Given that, why the fuss over campaign contributions? Is there any mystery about the political leanings of political editorialists like Frank Rich or, oh, I don’t know, Sean Hannity? Those guys, and their counterparts, are paid for their opinions, and their readers expect a certain perspective. How were the Wide Open bloggers any different?

I cannot add to that supposition.

Now I’ve scratched the surface.

Disclosure: I’ve exchanged emails with Goldberg. I know they want to continue something like Wide Open. I’ve written that my inbox is always open.

However, I do not accept that Susan Goldberg is daft, and her current public line of reasoning lacks any semblance of logic.

So until Goldberg comes clean about how this went down – which means that she must

1) apologize for having gone only to Jeff,

2) say that she was wrong for doing it that way,

3) say that she should have had us all together when they realized what they would have to ask ALL of us to do, and

4) tell the truth about the role that the pressure exerted by Steve LaTourette played in this debacle,

I’m reading and listening, but I have none of the trust essential to doing anything for anyone.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:58 pm November 6th, 2007 in Blogging, Campaigning, Elections, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Wide Open 

Comments

18 Responses to “Foundation of suspicion behind Susan Goldberg’s “logic,” more updates, & tx to Dan”

  1. 1 Keith on November 6th, 2007 2:31 pm

    Oh my God Jill.

    Look you can’t expect to understand the inner workings of a major metro daily as long as you KEEP MAKING SENSE of the situation. So, to paraphrase the Talking Heads STOP MAKING SENSE.

    This is a cloud cuckoo land you and the other bloggers found yourself in. Up is down, left is right and in this bizarro world the only thing that makes sense is power.

    Of course the rationale is being applied unevenly! Of course it was aimed at Jeff and we all know why.

    You’re thinking like an attorney here and certainly no one at the PD is going to beat your argument here. Good work. Remind me to hire you if I ever get in legal hot water.

    But its also for that reason that you’ll probably never grace the PD’s webpage again – you’re expecting an apology and an explanation. That will never, ever happen. Heck, I’d love to know exactly why I was banned from Wide Open Blog and all the PD’s comment pages.

    We’ll be waiting a long, long time for those reasons and apologies. I’ve worked for papers and they simply never apologize unless forced to by those more powerful than they.

    Because all they have is their credibility. If they apologize, that’s admitting they acted in bad faith. See the conundrum? They have to, but they can’t. So pretend it never happened and hope it all goes away.

    Heck I once had a ringside seat to see the editor of the last paper I worked at, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, hang one of its own reporters out to dry in brutal style. Her crime: she wrote an honest restaurant review of a local eatery. And it wasn’t even that bad – she just noted that several tables had not been bussed.

    The owner, who has some pull apparently (and darkly from what I was told), called the editor the next day. To say that this guy is a miserable toady little excuse for an editor is putting it mildly. Despite whatever faults Susan Goldberg might have, she looks like Louis B. Seltzer next to this guy.

    Anyway, said editor runs a FRONT PAGE retraction the next day saying the reviewer wasn’t qualified to write the review and that reviews in the paper are not REAL reviews anyway but are expected to simply tell the readers what is available. And the paper is very, very, very sorry and please don’t kneecap the editor in the street tonight (making that up but again, there was some kind of threat made).

    I’m not kidding. I wanted to throw up.

    They expect to uncover other people’s mistakes and have them pay for them or apologize but nail them and watch them clam up.

  2. 2 Tom Blumer on November 6th, 2007 3:01 pm

    I just added an update at my place without reading this post opining that non-payment is irrelevant.

    Stipulate that LaTourette did apply pressure at the moment, although the degree of it and whether it’s perception or reality remain open. Does anyone think that a politician would be LESS upset, or even NOT upset, if he or she learned that the blogger isn’t being paid.

    Heck no, and it might even be worse —

    “You’re giving a platform to someone who is so bent on taking me out that he’s doing it for nothing, and you’re letting him!”

    Or am I supposed to believe that he would say, “Oh that’s okay, because you’re not paying him, you can let him rip me limb from limb on a daily basis, and I don’t care”? Uh huh.

  3. 3 Anne M. Hutchinson on November 6th, 2007 9:30 pm

    I think your fifteen minutes are over, Jill.

    It is a long-established rule that journalists at newspapers as well as other news media do not give financial support to political candidates (or their opponents)that they write about or discuss.

    You and Coryell are so arrogant that you insist this somehow doesn’t apply to you — even though the Plain Dealer, which signed your checks, advised you that you were not to function as shills for candidates you have given money to.

    You both seem to have the misguided idea that breaking fundamental rules of ethics makes you into some kind of heroes. What it makes you into is a pair of childish exhibitionists.

    Lots of luck to both of you if and when you have the gall to seek employment at a newspaper at some point in the future. Speaking as a manager, I wouldn’t hire someone like you — a person who has gleefully given the newspaper that hired you a black eye because it insists that its writers adhere to longstanding principles — to sharpen pencils.

    People like you and Coryell, whose need to pop off and preen is so great that it causes them to disregard ethical rules and the values they represent, are — in my opinion — unemployable.

    I think you need to find something else to blog about. Your grandiosity is becoming not only ridiculous but also extremely boring.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on November 6th, 2007 10:33 pm

    Anne – Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. The beauty about blogs is that if the reader is getting bored, they can click away.

    You wrote: “You and Coryell are so arrogant that you insist this [rule re: news media do not give financial support to political candidates (or their opponents)that they write about or discuss] somehow doesn’t apply to you — even though the Plain Dealer, which signed your checks, advised you that you were not to function as shills for candidates you have given money to.

    Coupla things:

    1. I’ve yet to receive a check from the PD.
    2. The PD didn’t advise us that we “were not to function as shills for candidates you have given money to.”
    You have evidence that we 1) were advised? Let me know about it – news to me; 2) that we were shills – also news to me.

    You wrote, “You both seem to have the misguided idea that breaking fundamental rules of ethics makes you into some kind of heroes. What it makes you into is a pair of childish exhibitionists.”

    Perhaps you don’t know much about blogs or bloggers, Anne but from my experience I’ve learned that there are few if any fundamental rules of ethics related to political blogging, except transparency.

    Heroes? That’s big of you but no – nothing heroic here. What do you think is heroic? You could also tell me what you think is childish and what you think is exhibitionist. I don’t agree with any of those inferences you’ve made based on…well, I’m not sure what they’re based on since I don’t know you or what you’re reading or who you’re talking to. But I hope you’ll explain further.

    You can’t be serious that you believe either Jeff or I have any interest in seeking employment at a newspaper, right? Again – I don’t know what your sources are, but that statement shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about Jeff and myself. Again – whatever you can provide to help understand that idea, that would be helpful in understanding your anger.

    You write that you perceive me as being “a person who has gleefully given the newspaper that hired you a black eye because it insists that its writers adhere to longstanding principles…”

    The paper didn’t hire me – the contract was for an independent contractor.

    What black eye? Whatever black eye the paper has it’s because, as Susan Goldberg has said, they made the mistake of not setting out this rule as something they wanted the political bloggers to follow from the beginning. That doesn’t sound like I inflicted a black eye on anyone.

    Finally – what do you think about associate publisher of the Columbus Dispatch, Michael Curtin, giving $25,000 to the Vote No Casinos group last year? He’s been with the Dispatch for 34 years, as a political reporter and editor. That doesn’t strike you as woefully unethical?

    Thanks for sharing your opinion here: “People like you and Coryell, whose need to pop off and preen is so great that it causes them to disregard ethical rules and the values they represent, are — in my opinion — unemployable.”

    Need to pop off and preen, huh? Cool.

    Disregard ethical rules – you mean the ones no one told were required to be followed or else? Hmm. Okay.

    And the values they represent – well – you know – that value seems to be a moving target if you’ve been following items like the Indy Star and the Miami Herald. And that item about Michael Curtin.

    Again – since I know nothing about you, I can’t really judge whether I should care that you feel this way, but, you know, okay. You obviously think you know me. So, there we are.

    If you are bored, please feel free to click away. I won’t take it personally. But for myself, you know, to preen, I feel the need to point out a few things:

    As for the rule you seem to adore, I’ve argued the even if argument numerous times, since I am, after all, a member of SPJ (for how long, I don’t know!).

    The even if, in case you missed it, is that even if we take as true this ironclad standard about reporters and contributions and not writing about people we support, how are we to believe that Goldberg was so blindsided by the fact that political bloggers had acted politically, prior to blogging on Wide Open, that she forgot managerial decorum?

    That is – we still have no response or answer whatsoever as to why, once Goldberg discovered that this standard should apply to all four of us – because certainly no one is arguing that it should only apply to Jeff, or to me, and not to the other two, right? – she didn’t approach us all at once.

    Or have HR approach us all at once.

    Or tell us we needed a new contract – all four of us at once.

    When someone explains to me why she selected Jeff, and not the rest of us, as someone who needed to be given the ultimatum about following this standard, then I might come around.

    But until then – not going to happen.

    I want to hear some logical rationales for why, if this rule is so beholden, Goldberg #1 forgot about it when we were being brought on and all the way until…we don’t know the exact date, then, #2 sought out only Jeff and informed only Jeff that he had to either not write about certain races and people, or no longer write for Wide Open, and #3 continues to say that she didn’t have a chance to offer me the same deal before I resigned – as opposed to, again, saying that she didn’t have a chance to bring all of us in to tell us what she believed needed to be done to salvage literally months of work on the part of Jean Dubail, someone who has been at the PD for, I believe, at least two decades.

    My point being: Either Goldberg applies that standard to all of us at the same time, or not at all. Otherwise, it is a witch hunt on Jeff or on someone else’s behalf.

    When Ms. Goldberg beefs up her logic, then I’ll think more about my grandiosity.

    Again – thanks for reading and leaving a comment. I’m sorry that you haven’t said more about your experiences or provide more evidence of what it is you think you know, but you’ve got some serious factual lapses when it comes to what went down with the Wide Open project.

  5. 5 Keith on November 7th, 2007 1:48 pm

    Anne: the perfect embodiment of the American managerial philosophy. The corporation is God and I am its acolyte.

    The sad thing as someone who has been in the newspaper business and given my former employers a black eye (that they well deserved by the way – you know corporations CAN be wrong Anne and they CAN admit it but don’t) I can’t think of ever working on another one. Because of their corporate ownership structure they’re simply compromised themselves from telling the truth as it is.

    Thankfully now there are blogs.

    And Jill we all know what a shameless preening exhibitionist you are. There’s a picture right here on your blog that proves it.

    :)

  6. 6 John Ettorre on November 7th, 2007 2:48 pm

    Oh, my. Quite an outburst from a new commenter. But I do think this issue has been pretty well milked for all its worth, and then some. Maybe time to move on? I suppose these two sides are simply fated not to understand each other, ever. It’s as if they speak completely different languages, and no one is trying too hard to translate. I had hoped you might help to serve as something of a translator, Jill. But that was not to be. Oh, well.

  7. 7 Anne M. Hutchinson on November 7th, 2007 7:54 pm

    I was hoping that you’d finally let this silly piece of performance art die a natural death. The demise of Wide Open is a non-event. I agree with Mr. Ettore that this matter has been milked for all it is worth.

    My own opinion is that blogging is very overrated by the public and in particular by its practioners. You know what they say about opinions: like a certain body part, everybody has one. Any Chaim Yankel with a computer can make up stories, tweak the facts, and generally present opinion and speculation as real information. If he makes enough noise, a blogger can sometimes attract an audience.

    And I’m not surprised that you say that — where rules are concerned — blogging is basically a free-for-all. Real journalism — in case you didn’t notice — is expensive. It involves careful research, access to information not generally available to the public, and lots of editorial time. And there are lots and lots of rules that need to be observed — annoying as you seem to find them.

    If reporters and editors feel threatened by bloggers, it’s not because we’re afraid of losing our jobs. It’s because bloggers tend to corrupt the mix by not respecting the boundary that separates speculation and propaganda from news.

    For example, Coryell’s insistance that Steve LaTourette caused Wide Open to be shut down, — and that, ergo, the PD is vulnerable to pressure from politicians — is hardly a proved fact. Actually, since Coryell was offered the opportunity to stay but chose not to, it is not even plausible.

    And the claim that either of you was fired is a further instance of how bloggers prefer to serve the ongoing “I was a Political Martyr” puppet show by distorting a pretty straighforward set of facts. The words “resigned” and “fired” are not interchangeable, you know.

    Goldberg’s logic was basically, “we have decided that one of the rules that applies to our reporters will also apply to bloggers in the future, and the bloggers affected by it can take it or leave it.” You chose to leave it. Why pretend it is anything more than that?

    You say you are a member of the SPJ. Perhaps — before continuing with this hysteria — you need to take a look at their code of ethics for journalists, which you and your supporter (Keith) can find at:

    http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

    If you and Keith dismiss ethics as mere “managerial philosophy”, you have no business advertising yourselves as liberals, or even as people whose opinions deserve the attention of the public.

    The fact that the rules of ethics are sometimes flouted doesn’t mean that it’s okay to disregard them.

  8. 8 Jill Miller Zimon on November 7th, 2007 8:09 pm

    Anne – thanks for coming back – I’m surprised, given how you boring I thought you thought it was. But, it’s a free country.

    So – if you return again, could you address these issues I raised in my last comment to you, since I tried to address your concerns:

    1. “Heroes? That’s big of you but no – nothing heroic here. What do you think is heroic? You could also tell me what you think is childish and what you think is exhibitionist. I don’t agree with any of those inferences you’ve made based on…well, I’m not sure what they’re based on since I don’t know you or what you’re reading or who you’re talking to. But I hope you’ll explain further.”

    2. “You can’t be serious that you believe either Jeff or I have any interest in seeking employment at a newspaper, right?”

    3. “…what do you think about associate publisher of the Columbus Dispatch, Michael Curtin, giving $25,000 to the Vote No Casinos group last year? He’s been with the Dispatch for 34 years, as a political reporter and editor. That doesn’t strike you as woefully unethical?”

    4. “The even if, in case you missed it, is that even if we take as true this ironclad standard about reporters and contributions and not writing about people we support, how are we to believe that Goldberg was so blindsided by the fact that political bloggers had acted politically, prior to blogging on Wide Open, that she forgot managerial decorum?”

    Thanks – I look forward to your thoughts on those thoughts.

  9. 9 Thomas Blumer on November 7th, 2007 9:09 pm

    This has been interesting to observe from the sidelines but Anne drew me out with this howler:

    If reporters and editors feel threatened by bloggers, it’s not because we’re afraid of losing our jobs. It’s because bloggers tend to corrupt the mix by not respecting the boundary that separates speculation and propaganda from news.

    That doesn’t even pass the stench test, let alone the smell test.

    Speculation — Who gave legs to the tabloid trash about John Edwards having an affair? Answer: The LA Times.

    Who attempted to bring Bush and cocaine to the top? Newsweek and several others.

    I could go on and on.

    Propaganda? Don’t get me started on Old Media reporting from Iraq vs. people like Michael Yon and the milbloggers. Remember Jamil Hussein? Fauxtography? The NY Times missing weapons that weren’t? The made-up Burning Six?

    Closer to home: Jayon Blair? Dan Rather? Janet Cooke? Dateline’s rigged explosion? Food Lion?

    And how about what doesn’t get reported, from county endorsement victories by underfunded challengers against supposedly untouchable incumbents, to the dubious background of an incoming imam, to the immigration status of people who commit crimes …. the list seems endless.

    Journalists should be afraid of losing their jobs, because too many of them aren’t doing their jobs. The public has noticed, as newspaper circ has been dropping for years at a rate faster than the onset of technology alone would justify.

    As to ethics: Ex-PDer Bill Sloat made an excellent point that a significant portion of Newspaper Guild/CWA dues are spent on Democratic candidates and liberal causes without a peep of objection that I know of from “objective” journalists. This is ethical?

    Anne, the best among the bloggers, and that would include Jill, are at least as high on the SPJ ethical plane as the average journalist, and probably smarter, to boot — even if you “penalize” her for the “sin” of contributing to political candidates without mea culpa disclosures (disclosures that I would, FWIW, support).

    Tom Blumer
    BizzyBlog.com

  10. 10 Anne M. Hutchinson on November 8th, 2007 10:21 am

    Okay. Here are my responses to your list:

    1. I don’t think you and Jeff are heroes for resigning from the PD’s blog. I think it’s a non-event upon which too much hot air has been expended.

    2. I have no idea what your plans for the future are. Why do people blog at all? What makes them think that anybody cares about their ideas? My point was simply that people who want to leave the door open for employment possibilities should avoid public hairpulls such as the one you and Jeff have involved yourselves in. Duking it out with the PD over an issue where they think there’s an ethical problem is not a good idea.

    3. I agree that newspaper personnel should not be giving money to political candidates — or causes — because that has the appearance of being an endorsement, and it is part of a newspapers remit to retain its objectivity. An endorsement suggests the issue is closed. So I think it was unwise for Michael Curtin to donate to Vote No Casinos.

    4. How did Goldberg “forget managerial decorum?” IMO, the blog thing was not well thought out. That’s pretty clear. The PD thought that, by revising the ground rules, it would be correcting something important that had been overlooked. The bloggers didn’t agree, and they left. What’s so dramatic about that? How is any of that as sinister as it’s now being painted?

    To Mr. Blumer: One of the differences between bloggers and the press, is that when the press prints lurid speculation that turns out to be untrue, they get spanked for it, whereas bloggers have little or nothing to lose if they are incorrect. Some of the stuff that turns up in blogs really belongs on Snopes.

    If you’re saying that newspapers shouldn’t print personal information about candidates (Edwards and his supposed affair, Bush and his cocaine use), I agree they shouldn’t do it if they haven’t nailed the facts. But the personal behaviors under discussion — drug use and infidelity — are regarded by many as character indicators. So, IMO, they belong in the dialogue — as long as there is more to these stories than whispering.

    I don’t have any opinion about whether a newspaper’s union should support candidates. In general, I think unions should support candidates who are pro-labor. But journalists are in a peculiar position visavis endorsing candidates, and I agree that a newpaper union donating to a campaign raises questions.

    As for the press scandals that you mention, don’t you think there’d have been a lot more of them if most journalists disregarded the rules? No matter how many rules there are, there will never be perfect compliance. Realistically, the goal is to come as close to perfect compliance as we can.

  11. 11 John Ettorre on November 8th, 2007 11:22 am

    All well said. I couldn’t argue with much of that. The self-righteousness of many bloggers is a real turn-off to many people.

  12. 12 tim russo on November 8th, 2007 11:47 am

    Anne,

    A little lawyer talk for you.

    Res ipsa loquitor…the thing speaks for itself.

    i.e. – if it’s such a non-event, why the hell are you commenting on a lowly, unethical, no-rules, preening blog in hundreds and hundreds of words over a period of two days in response to a bunch of other unethical, no-rules, preening commenters?

    Perhaps you and Ted Diadiun could have a cup of coffee and discuss with the utmost professionalism and ethics.

  13. 13 Anne M. Hutchinson on November 8th, 2007 1:29 pm

    Tim, I don’t think it speaks for itself. Sorry. Perhaps you and your friends have been breathing too much of your own air to understand what’s clear to the outside world and what isn’t.

    And — if you feel the urgent need to enhance your posts with Latin quotations — you should take care to conjugate properly.

    FYI, I don’t work at the PD so there’s no reason for Mr. Diadiun to have coffee with me.

    My interest in this “lowly event” is that I question the logic of noisily (and smugly, I should add) attacking the press for supposed bias, while at the same time condemning them for enforcing rules that are intended to prevent biased reporting from happening.

    Also, I hope that when you write about how I shouldn’t be expending time and words on a matter I regard as silly, you’re not really trying to say that you don’t want feedback from the public.

    I mean, is this a blog, or is it really only some kind of mutual admiration society — a digital clubhouse intended exclusively for Jill and her claque?

    If that’s what it is, excuse me for butting in.

  14. 14 tim russo on November 8th, 2007 2:56 pm

    Anne,

    So far, the only people I see being smug and unethical are the PD and their defenders. Call me crazy, but when a contracting party changes the rules of an ongoing contract in mid-stream because a congressman complains about a $100 contribution, that’s a breach.

    The unethical behavior here is on the part of the PD, asserting some standard of their own ethics trumps the contract, when that standard was not even important enough at the outset to merit a single effort to “discover” the offending behavior which precipitated the breach.

    No one is attacking the press or the PD for bias, but for being completely untrustworthy in a contractual relationship based on the interference of outside parties.

    Whatever world you are living in where such behavior is defensible, it is neither the real world nor one that a paper of the stature of the PD should be proud to inhabit. And my guess from your voluminous protestations to the contrary, is that you recognize the problem here, but for whatever reason feel compelled to defend the indefensible.

  15. 15 John in Erie on November 12th, 2007 11:17 am

    Jill,

    Even though I am a displaced person in Erie from CleveHts, I have been following this from afar.

    IMO, it appears that the PD has the same problem that most dead-tree media have – they are in over their heads when it comes to the web and blogs. Most of these organizations really could care less about opinions expressed and got into the web as a means to increase their ad revenue.

    They don’t understand the mentality of bloggers because they have lost their way when it comes to reporting the facts. If the PD would report a tenth of what is happening to and in this country, there would be mobs with pitchforks at the gates.

    I think that this whole fiasco is just an excuse as someone internal to the PD realized that there are INFORMED opinions out there that they can’t control. And they don’t like that!

  16. 16 Jill Miller Zimon on November 12th, 2007 11:19 am

    John in Erie – your comment has to be as close if not the closest to what I think has happened, when I let my super-cynical self takeover. I can absolutely see it that way. Sad, huh?

    Do you think we’re just jaded, or do you really think it really is as you say?

    Thanks for commenting.

  17. 17 fireaway on November 15th, 2007 5:21 am

    This is all so typical of Goldberg’s half-assed management style. Her opinions are usually those of the last person who called to complain.

    Check the reports on contributions by owners and managers at other newspapers she’s worked at, or of the PD.

    You will find plenty of them. Check her husband’s contributions.

    Have fun Cleveland. This is only the start of a long reign of mediocrity.

  18. 18 Jill Miller Zimon on November 15th, 2007 6:19 pm

    Thanks, fireaway. I’m sad to say, though, that the reign you write of? Might be the start of your seeing it – we’ve been grappling with it or a while, no matter how great the individuals there are, and there are several.

Leave a Reply




"));