turmoil at CapitolHillBlue.com?

[flyingfysh]

Earlier this week, www.capitolhillblue.com announced a new publisher to replace Doug Thompson, and also a decision to remove 217 posts from the archives because it was felt they were not up to their standards. Today, there is this:

New CHB publisher steps down; Editor also resigns

William D. McTavish, new publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, stepped down Saturday after one day on the job, saying he could not serve in the position "without the confidence of the readers and it is obvious I do not enjoy their confidence."

The web site received more than 10,000 emails Friday objecting to McTavish's appointment to replace CHB founder Doug Thompson at the helm. They also voiced strong opposition to his decision to remove 217 articles from the web site's archives because they did not meet what he called "traditional standards of journalism."

"Although the decision to remove the articles was not mine alone I must bear responsibility for it as publisher," McTavish said. "It was never my intent to bridge the trust this web site enjoys with its readers."

Capitol Hill Blue also received more than 2,500 phone calls at the offices of its parent company in Floyd, Virginia, Friday objecting to the change. The company's voice mail system finally shut down from the overload Friday night.

See the rest at http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8722.shtml

[rocktivity]

1. Substandard or not, it's still censorship

And to make it a priority of doing it the first day on the job is hardly confidence-inspiring. If avoiding a lawsuit was the real goal, making the stories disappear won't work.

:headbang:
rocknation

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Too bad the same thing cannot be done to the White House.

[Fridays Child]

3. Wait a minute...

I thought CHB was, basically, a little "one hoss shay," run by Thompson and that nobody took it very seriously. Now, I'm supposed to believe that CHB has a parent company, staff, executive positions, etc., and that, because some executive changes and document removals didn't sit well with CHB's supposedly large readership, Thompson is re-assuming the reins?

Hmm....

[SeveneightyWhoa]

4. You're right on.

Seems like a totally made up fantasy story.

Are the people who took over the reins of the site even real? :rofl:

[Garbo 2004]

6. Yeah, Thompson, according to the site, is the "parent company."

All volunteer staff, not for profit, etc. Are they simply inflating their image or what?

[Garbo 2004]

5. Strange. Doesn't look like internal dissention, but a response to readers?

At least if one goes by Thompson, who apparently gave McTavish his own job and instructed him to clean up practices and standards:

New editor F.R. Hylton, appointed by McTavish, also resigned Saturday. Capitol Hill Blue founder Doug Thompson will reassume the titles of editor and publisher in the interim but said he still intends to bring in a new editor and publisher to run the web site so he can concentrate on the Campaign for Our America, a new grassroots campaign concentrating on election reform.

Thompson said McTavish's decision to remove 217 articles from the web site's archives would stand "for the time being" while he reviews the articles but would be restored "with addendums and updates that explain what, if any, concerns we might have about the information in the stories." However, Thompson added, all future stories printed in Capitol Hill Blue, including those written by him, will be subject to stricter rules on fact checking and source verification.

"I'm saddened by what has happened and disappointed in the reaction of readers," Thompson said today. "Bill was following my instructions to correct what I felt were mistakes I have made and to breathe new life into an operation that I felt had drifted off course. Like all members of the Capitol Hill Blue staff, he volunteered his time and believed strongly in our goals. He did not deserve the response he received."

I recall when previously Thompson said he would pull a couple Bush loco stories due to inadequate sourcing. One of the stories was pulled as I recall, the other remained on the site but the reporter's name was removed.

Wonder what 217 stories were removed?

[KoKo]

7. Why was there such an uproar from their readers if Doug Thompson

wanted to step down on his own? It's not like he was fired...he chose the new Editor...so what was the ruckus about. :shrug:

[MADem]

8. Doug Thompson used to be a staffer on the Hill

He worked for a GOP congressman, way way back in the Reagan era. He used to hit the bottle pretty good, then he cleaned up his act. He still falls off the wagon every once in a blue moon, but he's stuck with the program for the most part. He was a reporter at some local paper too years ago.

He takes great photographs...has a very good eye. He's not a jerk in person, at all.

He still has friends up on the Hill and elsewhere in government who converted to civil service. Now I'll have to go look at the site to see what the imbroglio is all about!


Hmmm...the last three paragraphs are interesting:

New editor F.R. Hylton, appointed by McTavish, also resigned Saturday. Capitol Hill Blue founder Doug Thompson will reassume the titles of editor and publisher in the interim but said he still intends to bring in a new editor and publisher to run the web site so he can concentrate on the Campaign for Our America, a new grassroots campaign concentrating on election reform.

Thompson said McTavish's decision to remove 217 articles from the web site's archives would stand "for the time being" while he reviews the articles but would be restored "with addendums and updates that explain what, if any, concerns we might have about the information in the stories." However, Thompson added, all future stories printed in Capitol Hill Blue, including those written by him, will be subject to stricter rules on fact checking and source verification.

"I'm saddened by what has happened and disappointed in the reaction of readers," Thompson said today. "Bill was following my instructions to correct what I felt were mistakes I have made and to breathe new life into an operation that I felt had drifted off course. Like all members of the Capitol Hill Blue staff, he volunteered his time and believed strongly in our goals. He did not deserve the response he received."