6th newspaper drops coultergiest

[AnnInLa]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/a_seventh_paper.php


A Sixth Paper Drops Ann Coulter
March 09, 2007 -- 10:58 AM EST // View Comments (8) // Post a Comment

I just got off the phone with Billy Liggett, the editor of the Sanford Herald, in central North Carolina. He confirmed to me that his paper has decided to chuck Ann Coulter in the wake of her "faggot" comment.

"We typically ran her in our Sunday op-ed," Liggett says. "This Sunday, we are not going to run her, and we'll explain the decision in an editorial that day." Liggett -- who says his paper has a circulation of 10,000 to 12,000 -- tells me he received 834 emails today asking the paper to drop her. That brings our count to six papers who've decided they're not obliged to publish the work of someone who makes a healthy living calling people "raghead" and "faggot" and all manner of other sandbox epithets.

"We made the decision before that," Liggett says. "It was something we had talked about prior to her recent remarks. Those were kind of the last straw -- they sealed the deal as far as our decision goes."

As noted here yesterday, a list of some of the 100 or so papers that carry Coulter's columns compiled by Media Matters can be found here.

Today this blog is emailing every one of the newspapers on the list to see whether they are going to continue carrying Coulter's columns or whether they've decided to drop her. Stay with us.


-- Greg Sargent

[11 Bravo]

1. I guess we will find out if Death by a Thousand cuts works on a succubus.

I can not think of a more fitting experimental subject.

[delphinium]

2. Coultergeist, lol

[cgrindley]

3. I don't see why you think this is good news

I hate the dumb piece of shit as much as anyone and feel that her language and sentiment was entirely unacceptable but surely you can all see that the success of an email campaign to silence a newspaper columnist is something that has been and is going to be used against people like us fuck of a sight more than against the assholes.

When people get silenced by these mobs, it's usually the left being silenced by the right. Just because just this once it's the other way around, it's no great occasion for celebration. Next time, it'll be against one of ours.

If they're going to fire her, please let them pull her column for editorial concerns of fairness and descrimination, not because 1000 or so people write emails... jesus, that's almost as evil as arranging consumer boycotts.

Great idea, let's use mother fucking capitalism as a means to stifle speech. Guess who that trick will be used against 99.999% of the time.... IT WILL BE US.

[terip64]

4. I don't agree. This is about hatred. It is no different than if she used the N word.

[cgrindley]

10. Let her get pulled for editorial reasons then

or for legal reasons... but don't encourage an angry mob to form. Look what happened to Ward Churchill.

[Beelzebud]

14. What happened to him? He's still a tenured professor...

[cgrindley]

16. It was revoked but is under some sort of appeal

he was fired. His career was ruined. This is the worst possible way to police speech.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. He was fired over academic fraud.

The fraud may have been dug up because of things he said, but academic fraud is a perfectly valid reason for firing a professor.

[cgrindley]

52. Have you read the report?

Do you trust that it was carried out with the best of intent? Do you think that it's conclusions were unmotivated by political interference? Do you agree with its characterizations of his work? The footnote thing... do you buy it?

Wow. Talk about stabbing academic freedom directly in the back.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. No, I haven't read the report.

However the committe "agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in 'serious research misconduct,' including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to 'comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.'"

Are you alleging that any of those aren't true?

[cgrindley]

64. I'm saying that some charges were a stretch others were absurd

and all were placed at a politically expedient and suspect time.

The debacles over the Allotment Act and the Smallpox issue are typical academic disagreements. These type of disagreements happen all the time. I say, for example, that Chaucer most likely read Petrarch's sonnets to Laura, whereas another scholar claims that he only read one of the sonnets. I claim that Chaucer read Boccaccio's Decameron, whereas another scholar claims that he did not. I claim that Chaucer "completed" the Canterbury Tales and that the retraction was ironic. Others disagree. These disagreements are impossible to win, impossible to prove in any conclusive way and are the stuff of a zillion reasonably pointless scholarly articles.

A recent study has shown that at least 40% of studies turn out to be wrong. Should these people lose their jobs?

As far as the plagiarism charges against Churchill go. I don't think that there's anything all that serious there. One article that he may or may not have ghost written for an old lover. Stylistically, it's him. She says otherwise, but they're estranged. The others are more of the same... questions of whether or not he wrote something or edited something or whether or not footnotes went astray.

Say I send an article for publication and say the editor screws around with my footnotes, removing one accidentally when changing from MLA to Chicago endnotes. Am I now guilty of plagiarism? Even if I can show that the footnote was in the original article. That's the long and short over one of the plagiarism charges where a footnote disappeared from one printing to another of a book...

None of this is even remotely as serious as Dr King's thesis plagiarism. None of it. Not even close. And no one is stripping Dr King of his PhD.

[Tansy_Gold]

135. "academic freedom" does NOT equal freedom to lie, steal, etc.

Churchill disgusts me. He is an affront to every academic who does her or his own serious research. He is an insult to every artist who creates her or his own work.

Damn him and the stolen painted horses he rode in on.

"Do you trust that it was carried out with the best of intent?" The best intent of protecting the rights of those he infringed on, yes. "Do you think that it's /sic/ conclusions were unmotivated by political interference?" No, of course not, since "political interference" is neither intrinsically good or bad. "Do you agree with its characterizations of his work?" Yes, I do.

Ward Churchill is sleaze in a bucket.


Tansy Gold, entitled to her opinion

[cgrindley]

138. WTF!!

"political interference" is neither intrinsically good or bad

Political interference in academic matters is ALWAYS wrong. It is a direct assault on academic freedom and is utterly and completely an affront to everything that everything stands for. I don't care if it's interference from the left, right or center, whether its interference from Marxists or Fascists. It's ALWAYS wrong.

You cannot possibly be serious.

[Tansy_Gold]

145. Yes, I can be serious

"Political interference" is not the same as "government interference," but you'd know that if you had any sense at all.


Tansy Gold

[cgrindley]

151. I never mentioned the government

Any political interference in the area of academic freedom is fucking evil. Period.

[noamnety]

5. lol @ being offended by boycotts!

God forbid actual CONSUMERS should take a stand and decide what they are or aren't willing to CONSUME.

[cgrindley]

12. There's a difference

between refusing to buy a newspaper or support its advertisers and attempting to bully a newspaper into silencing a writer. I hate the stupid bitch but god's balls, there are better ways to get rid of her than through an angry mob. Those mobs are usually far more interested in getting rid of progressives, liberals, socialists... don't encourage mob behavior. You never know when it'll be our turn.

[marions ghost]

48. Oh BS--every newspaper

reflects its readers to some extent. Coulter has had her soapbox long enough. Get rid of her and get a GOOD columnist, maybe?

We need more advocacy (or mob behavior)--on OUR side-- for a change.

[cgrindley]

51. I cannot believe this

you're actually suggesting that newspapers should be influenced by factors outside of their strict editorial guidelines? Since when should the public have ANY say at all in the operation of a newspaper?

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Since I don't buy the local rag

since it is written at fifth grade level, treating my like a child and it is so right wing to boot it is not even funny

Their readership has been going down, DOWN, DOWN for years, but they keep their rightward trend, with infantilism to boot

[marions ghost]

68. Any good editor

will consider the feedback of readers and go with it if it resonates with their own opinion.

When Anne Coulter's column was chosen by a paper initially it was an editorial decision. To discontinue the column when her words have insulted so many people across the country --is another editorial decision, perhaps a better one. Editors make these choices all the time. Newspapers should be flexible and responsive to opinion. Or should we pigs at the end of the pipeline be happy with the Pravda model?

[cgrindley]

72. Oh great

so a newspaper in a red state shouldn't take a stand against teaching creationism in the schools? they shouldn't publish op ed pieces arguing for humane treatment of undocumented workers?

WHY DON'T ANY OF YOU SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. The media mostly DOES NOT DO THAT

we do not have a free and independent media any longer

How hard is this for you to understand?

[Tansy_Gold]

101. Some people don't have a clue

A newspaper in a "red" state that printed editorials against teaching creationism might just end up not having any readers or advertisers. Newspapers are BUSINESSES. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

There are many newspapers that DO editorialize against the stupidity of some of their less enlightened readers, but they have to do it in a way that doesn't destroy the cash flow that keeps the presses running.

One of the reasons liberals have a less effective record at getting their "agenda" implemented is that by and large we are more tolerant of dissent, even if we consider that dissent just plain stupid. But even we have our limits, and we've chosen to exercise our right of free speech to speak out against the continued publication of Ann Coulter's column in the newspapers that do so.

What part of "free speech" don't you get?

And yes, as you've said several times in this thread, it's very possible that the wingnuts will launch a campaign against some "liberal" columnist. The problem is, there aren't that many "liberal" pundits, and few of them have the distribution of the wingnut squealers. Furthermore, few "liberal" columnists use the kind of hate-filled epithets and downright lies that seem to be the stock in trade of the Coulters, the Hannitys, the O'Reillys, the Krauthammers, etc. On what basis do the wingnuts demand the removal of Paul Krugman's column from a newspaper? That he's telling truth about the economy and it's depressing?

Your advocating the silence of the lambs is, imho, the worst kind of cowardice I've seen on the left in long, long, long, long time. You're not advocating it from some sense of tolerance or gentleness or diplomacy, but from fear. Sorry, fella, I will NOT give in to fear any more.


Tansy Gold, once again fearless

[spooky3]

120. well (and fearlessly) said

[cgrindley]

139. Is this irony?

One of the reasons liberals have a less effective record at getting their "agenda" implemented is that by and large we are more tolerant of dissent...

If there is anything that I have learned in my experiences on DU is that there are a great many people here who are intensely intolerant of any form of dissent.

I will remind you once more... I am defending the concept of editorial independence. Editorial independence is a progressive value. Attacking it is not progressive.

[Tansy_Gold]

148. Well, it might be "sarcasm," but sure ain't "irony"

cgrindley wrote:

"If there is anything that I have learned in my experiences on DU is that there are a great many people here who are intensely intolerant of any form of dissent."









(sniff. . . . . .. . . . . . sniff. . . . . . .. . . . . sniff. . . . .. what's that I smell?)

:sarcasm:

[riderinthestorm]

50. People need to complain about her hateful rhetoric or she (and others) will never be stopped

If we don't express our displeasure and disgust, newspapers will never know where the "line" is that columnists can cross: AC's commentary has crossed that (ambiguous) line and she needs to be called on it.

You know the rethugs won't try to curb their own, so it's up to us or they will simply escalate. I believe AC has escalated because she hasn't had to pay a real penalty for her spew... until now. Perhaps she'll take a more professional approach (snort) in the future but she sure as hell won't unless she doesn't suffer any consequences.

[cgrindley]

54. You're honestly trying to tell me

that when an editor sees a word such as the ones Coulter has been known to use in a column that he or she doesn't immediatley know that the use of said slur is unacceptable in a journalistic context if 1000 angry people don't write emails?

Are you serious?

[riderinthestorm]

59. I'm serious, and apparently the editors of these papers haven't seen fit to drop AC before this.

So apparently they didn't get it until they were hit with a "thousand" emails. Cause that's what it took to start hitting AC in the economic balls. Are you serious that you don't see that cause and effect?

[cgrindley]

66. I'm not saying it didn't work

I'm saying it's a bad idea, and shame on them for caving to public pressure. It just means that we won't be able to rely on them to safeguard our speech the next time the evil ones start some global war on terror or human rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. So far they have?

The NYT even admited playing the administration game in the road to war to Iraq, they published a huge mea culpa but they are at it again WITH IRAN

Once again how many corporations own the media?

(I'll even give you the answer since you seem incapable to answer that question, Five)

In order to have a functional media you literally need to break it up in tiny itty little pieces, aka break the monopolies, and then you also have to pass legislation that will make it next to impossible for EITHER side to develop an echo machine

For the moment, you are not facing a media aparatus that has informing the people as its top priority and if you think you do... there is much you need to do to learn

[riderinthestorm]

76. Uh, newsflash! They don't "safeguard our speech" NOW!

The number of newspapers that actually printed anti-war stuff is/was miniscule in comparison to the numbers that print shrill pro-war screeds.

If the progressive left can take down ONE of the bloviating, lying, rethug columnists through an economic boycott, that will only be moving the newspaper into more responsible journalism at the least.

Furthermore it will clearly demonstrate to the newspaper how far is too far. Otherwise how the hell are they supposed to know?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Yes my local paper is a good example of this

if the slurr comes from a right wing blowhard that's fine

[noamnety]

84. "stupid bitch" "god's balls"

mmm-hmmm.

Mighty helpful of you to remind us that the most effective way to combat offensive speech is for us to shut the hell up about it. Perhaps if we use it ourselves, then we'll really show the right who's boss, eh?

[cgrindley]

95. I don't think that anyone should shut up

about the important issues we face. I just happen to think that editorial policy should be set by editors not the mob. I don't Coulter. I'm not about to lose sleep if she never publishes anything ever again.

Why can't anyone see why this issue is important?

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Editorial policy is set by owners

not editors.

Need I explain this again to you?

We do not live in that ideal world you think we live in

[cgrindley]

106. Editorial policy

So you disagree with UNESCO on the concept of editorial independence? Ditto the CSE? Great. Keep that up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. I have my head firmly implanted in reality

and the reality of the US Press is far from what you or UNESCO advocate. Those are IDEALS that do not exist right now

The OWNERS, aka the Charmain of the board for GE, can determine what will be printed in every paper in his stable, and the slant of the stories you will see in all his TV stations, as well as the web

You seem to have a problem comprehending this. They are using the media to advance their policies. You do NOT have a free or independent press. You just think you do

[cgrindley]

112. So we should just get used to a homophobic society

or a racist society or a misogynistic society because that's what exists now?

The attitude that I'm seeing here today sickens me. People are, in good faith no less, arguing that instead of attempting to fight for our ideals and support the concept of editorial independence, we should actually contribute to the situation becoming demonstrably worse.

This is gross. It's worse than Freep because in this case, people are being hypocrites. People here *know* the value of an independent press and are actively arguing against it, and arguing against it from a capitalist perspective. Disgusting.

[riderinthestorm]

114. We don't have a "free press", we don't have editorial independence

(if we ever did) - papers are/have been controlled by capitalism and market demands since papers were first printed. It's even worse now since so many papers have been purchased and are now run by large media conglomerates who are only seeking to 1. make money 2. make money and 3. perhaps make more money by pandering to the rethugs who are also in the business of making money.

Nobody is arguing against an independent press: hell, every single progressive wants that. But we don't have that and the only way to get it back is for the citizenry to speak up (like with this boycott) and begin flexing their muscles to demonstrate to the capitalist pig owners (how about that - does that make you feel better?) that there is a problem with rhetoric like Ann's.

[cgrindley]

115. Let us write letters to the editors

arguing why Coulter should be pulled... let us argue on sound rational grounds... argue that her works are intolerant and hateful and not worthy of publication in a considered and sound newspaper or on a well-edited opinion page. Let's debate the issue on its merits as well-written opinion (which it is not). Perhaps suggest other commentators whose works might be published. Suggest some good liberal names.

I'd be a million times happier with that.

Yeah, let's boycott Coke. Let's not buy clothes from companies that basically use slave labor.

But let's not threaten newspapers. We will regret it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. What part of we no longer have a free press are you having

such a hard time comprehending?

You want it back? Demand certain legistlation to be passed (Fairness Doctrine comes to mind)

And break up the monopolies

Until then, we DO NOT have a free press, PERIOD

And the little power, and it is rather small, we have is the power of the pruse

Now here is a big secret

you think they are pulling her becuase of the boycott?

I fear you really do not understand how this works. They are pulling her off becuase of the national reaction. The boycott is just a nice reminder of the national reaction to her macaca moment... she's crossed the line before, but this was the straw that broke that damn back

[Tansy_Gold]

136. "Let us write letters to the editors. . .. "

What part of it was letters to the editors complaining about coulter that got the editors to pull her column don't you get?

Regardless what the letter writers said -- whether they said they were appalled by coulter's use of the word "faggot," or just couldn't stand her attitude in general, or thought she was a lying sack of hate-filled shit -- it was letters to the editor that got her pulled.

Since the paper in question hasn't printed every letter they received, we don't know -- and that "we" includes you and me -- what the letter writers wrote.

Even if the editor is influenced by letters regarding the content of the material he publishes, isn't that the same as being influenced by economic pressures? He or she is still not "independent" of public opinion.

Tansy Gold

[noamnety]

131. You're arguing against your own point now

So we should just get used to a homophobic society or a racist society or a misogynistic society because that's what exists now?

No, we should actively combat homophobia and racism and misogyny by speaking out against it, loudly, and boycotting those who promote those ideas.

People are, in good faith no less, arguing that instead of attempting to fight for our ideals and support the concept of editorial independence, we should actually contribute to the situation becoming demonstrably worse.

No, that's a false choice. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the choices are the people's voice vs. the corporate neocon voice. There is no people's voice vs. "an independent press" at this point in time.

[marions ghost]

46. right

:applause:

The newspapers who are making this decision deserve to be supported.

[cgrindley]

74. Only if they're making the decision for the right reason

that she's a homophobic asshole. If they're only doing it because people are writing to them and threatening to boycott their advertisers, then the editors in question should be run out of town.

[riderinthestorm]

90. Yes, because god forbid the editors consider the bottom line.

Or the will of their readers.... I mean, Ann Coulter has NEVER crossed the line into being a homophobic asshole before, so of course those editors NEVER had a reason to drop her before this boycott right? :sarcasm: Damn the liberals for expressing their outrage at her comments via a boycott!

They should only drop AC because they are principled upstanding moral men and women and Ann Coulter has just NOW crossed the line right?

[Bake]

82. I offended a couple of Kansans on the Phred Phelps thread

because I suggested ways to refine a boycott. Seems to me that boycotts have long been a valid and valuable tool for expressing the collective voice of a group. Does anyone really think that a boycott (or a lynch mob, for that matter) against Coultergeist is somehow trampling free speech?

The First Amendment only applies to STATE ACTION. STATE ACTION. In the marketplace of ideas, there are always consequences and repercussions to controversial ideas. Even more so to hateful bile like Coulter's. It is axiomatic that the State cannot take action to curtail the content of her speech, but there's nothing that says a newspaper has to give her a forum. If her speech has value, the forum will seek her out. If not, she'll fade into oblivion (one can hope!).

Bake

[Cerridwen]

7. Or maybe, the "fourth estate" will start taking their jobs seriously

and report facts rather than talking points. Maybe they'll start being a mechanism in their role in creating "an informed electorate."

I actually remember Walter Cronkite on the news - reporting - not bloviating.

It could happen. Maybe this kind of thing from the "right" AND the "left" is just what the Constitution ordered.

[cgrindley]

15. That's a much better solution

but the last thing we need is for a lynch mob to be formed. The press should be more responsible. Coulter shouldn't be writing, but creeping shit, the worst possible thing for everyone is a mob of people with torches.

[Beelzebud]

17. Boycotting newspapers that carry her is not a damn "lynch mob"....

The people who rile up lynch mobs are the ones that attack people based on hatred. You know. Like calling people "faggots" and "ragheads".

[cgrindley]

20. Soooooo

no one's been sending emails? no one's been writing to advertisers?

you somehow think that our side won't get hurt way worse than the bad guys in the long term?

[Beelzebud]

22. No I don't. I think people like you are wimps afraid to fight for what is right.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

What do you think will happen? You are fucking scared, and it is irrational.

And sending emails and making phone calls isn't a "lynch mob".

[cgrindley]

27. There's a right and wrong way to get rid of Coulter

the correct way is for a paper's editor or editorial board to determine that her column is in no way proper journalism or political commentary.

The incorrect way is for an angry mob to to send thousands of emails and phone calls to all and sundry demanding her column be pulled.

If you can't see the difference, we have nothing to say.

[Beelzebud]

29. You keep using violent terms. "Angry mob"? Get real!

Maybe this "angry mob" is making the editors of these papers take a close look at the hate speech they're paying for on a weekly basis.

You're the one that doesn't "get it", and we really do have nothing to say, because you aren't going to convince anyone to back off. We've been putting up with this hate monger for years. Her free ride is over.

[Clark2008]

41. Actually, that is what happened at my old newspaper.

The Mountain Press was one of the first newspapers to pull her column and the editor (whom I didn't work with, so I don't know him to vouch for him) said their decision was because she wasn't using journalism, but was, instead, going for cheap laughs.

"Ms. Coulter's column drew an unusual amount of criticism from our readers when we first started running it, but we felt she was a nationally known writer offering her opinions in her own style. However we will not continue to publish the columns of someone who uses people as a punch line to get a cheap laugh and who so freely uses an offensive term to describe another human being."

Now, a few things about Sevier County, where this paper is published: the number of Democrats in the county could fit into a phone booth. The vast majority of the readers are paelo-cons (as opposed to neo-cons) who would vote for a yellow dog if he had an "R" after his name. They are highly religious (there's two churches on every corner as opposed to one) and probably, for the most part, think homosexuality is "disease," as a result.

I highly doubt any mob or readers bullied Editor Stan Voit into dismissing her column. More likely, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. The editors could no longer, in good conscious, keep running her vile crap without risking publishing something in the future that was so vile, it would offend EVERYONE, Republican or Democratic, in that county.

I worked there for eight years. I'm quite aware of the demographics of the county and the make up of the paper's editoral stances.

[cgrindley]

49. That editor's sentiment was noble

that's the way to handle Coulter. Newspapers should maintain absolute autonomy from outside influences. Absolute.

[Bake]

87. Please don't hurt me anymore! Please please please?

We'll behave like good little sheep!

Bullshit!

Bake

[Cerridwen]

37. I don't see a "lynch mob" forming.

I see a bunch o' people using the power of their dollars and their voices to express their dissent; we used to call it "voting with your feet."

Our Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to financially benefit from speech (disclaimer: this link is to an earlier post of mine on the topic).

That's where market forces come in. If a business puts out a bad product, it's not guaranteed the right to make money from it. Same here. she wants to market a product that's vile and disgusting, I'm not gonna buy it and I'm going to use "word of mouth" to let my friends, family and co-workers know to avoid it and why as well. Part of a business' assets is "good will" (they can even include it in the selling price). republican mouth-piece annie probably didn't have much "good will" for starters and she's rapidly losing whatever small customer base who once thought she had it. her product is her words. her words are now fodder for the market. I don't buy shoddy products and I let my friends know. This is no different.

[Beelzebud]

38. Sad to see peaceful action described as a "lynch mob". No historical context at all...

As I told this person a few minutes ago: Read some history.

I'm starting to wonder where this person with their "friendly advice" is coming from....

[Cerridwen]

44. Yah,

the last 20 or so years have turned us into a nation of people who talk in hyperbole and "SENSATIONALISM!!!" Aided and abetted by little miss republican mouth-piece annie and her ilk.

It's far too easy to get sucked in to it.

[cgrindley]

56. Read some history my ass

go ahead, question my political motivation for suggesting that editors and editorial boards should control editorial content in newspapers... I double dog dare you.

Newspapers, as the fourth estate, must be immune to outside interference regardless of the nobility of intent of those attempting to apply that influence. Period.

Perhaps you don't believe in a free press.

[Beelzebud]

57. You do need to read some history. You are totally clueless. Read the 1st Amendment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. We have one?

Tell me in all your wisdom how many corporations control the media in the US? Then tell me in a seriou tone that we have an free and independent press

[noamnety]

91. ding ding ding ding

Thank you!

Apparently the OP is offended at the idea that the people might challenge the power of the corporation - not just in the media, but any boycott. BOYCOTTS ARE EVIL!

All you folks that stopped shopping at Walmart? EVIL!
Have you been avoiding buying SUV's? DARK-SIDED!

If we don't allow the corporations to run amuck without challenging them, if we speak out against bigotry and hate, the republicans will have won!

[riderinthestorm]

63. This isnn't editorial commentary. Hell, this isn't even content written by the newspaper's editors

She is a columnist. She is fair game for readers to object to, and voice their opinion via an economic boycott.

[cgrindley]

67. The editor of a newspaper

controls what appears and does not appear in a newspaper. It is immmaterial whether or not she works there or is syndicated or simply writes her shit in for the letters page.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. You sure?

You are telling me that there is no responsabilty to those who own the paper chain and sing his checks?

You are completey sure on this one? After the last six years I am amazed you can even type this statement about the US Press... er propaganda machine

[cgrindley]

83. Absolutely

The absence of ownership influence on editorial policy is a cornerstone of all of the world's great newspapers and media outlets. Just because it is poorly practiced in this miserable excuse of a country is no reason to abandon the concept entirely.

as the CSE so aptly puts it:

Editors should have total responsibility, authority, and accountability for editorial content of the journal, an arrangement that is usually referred to as "editorial independence." The journal should have a stated policy on editorial independence, and a disclaimer indicating that material published in the journal does not represent the opinion of the publisher, sponsoring society, or journal owner should be published regularly. Editors should resist any action that might compromise editorial independence. Editors must be free to authorize publication of peer-reviewed and other appropriate research reports, as well as society news, appropriate advertising, and other materials. The publisher, sponsoring society, or journal owner is usually responsible for financial and other management issues and business policies, but it should always recognize and accept the journal's scientific integrity and objectivity and the editorial independence of the editor, and it should not interfere in the assessment, selection, or editing of journal articles. The relationship between the editor and the publisher, sponsoring society, or journal owner should be based on trust and respect.

Editors and publishers, sponsoring societies, or journal owners should have a signed contract to ensure proper editorial freedom and responsibility. The contract should identify the officers, committee, or other management group to whom the editor is primarily responsible. The publisher, sponsoring society, or journal owner should ensure that the editor has direct access to the highest management level and, preferably, reports to a governing body and not to an individual administrator. The contract should state the editor's rights and duties and contain the editor's job description, reporting responsibilities, and performance measurements. These should include statements of the scientific, editorial, and administrative expectations of all parties, the length of the contract, financial conditions including operating expenses and remuneration (if any), and terms for termination by either party. There should be a mechanism for resolving conflicts between the editor and the publisher, sponsoring society, or journal owner. A journal oversight committee for performance review and evaluation and for conflict resolution should be considered.

To maintain professional autonomy associated with publication of peer-reviewed reports, editors should not allow their editorial judgment to be influenced by political, commercial, or other considerations. Editors should be able to express views that might run counter to the positions, commercial aims, or strategic plans of the publisher, sponsoring society, or journal owner. Editors should have the right to review and refuse advertisements and advertising placement. Advertising considerations should not influence editorial decisions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. But that is the theory

the reality is VERY DIFFERENT.

The reality that we live under RIGHT NOW does not have an independent media

Once again how many corpos own the media (Five) So to use a blatant example, you are telling me that MSNBC did not fire Donahue for political reasons on the way to war?

You are telling me that his antiwar stance and his program (the most popular in the line up) were not axed by General Electric?

You want to that to come back, if the ideal ever fully existed, you need the reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine and to break up all the media into itty bitty little outlets

Right now the only power I have as a consumer of this so called free press IS NOT TO CONSUME... PERIOD

And it seems that even the five powerful ones realize that we do have that power left

But if you think the editors do NOT answer to pressure from owners, I have a bridge to sell you... in Nevada, which will include beach front property

[Tansy_Gold]

104. Any editor

who ignored the wishes of her or his publisher, management, or readership would not last long, and it wouldn't make any difference if the publication in question is a local weekly newspaper that covers junior high sports and traffic accidents or an international scientific journal.

Editors are not gods, although I've worked for more than one who thought she was at the time. They do not work in a vacuum. They have to be responsive to trends in readership and public opinion.

Oh, and by the way, tenure does not confer godhead on professors. When Ward Churchill entered academia, he tacitly agreed to play by its rules, as we all do when we choose to enter any professional or social arena. He was found by his peers and by those who had control over his career to have broken those rules. The fact that some people outside his immediate milieu chose to support him in spite of the evidence or chose to dismiss the evidence against him does not negate the decision of those who are in a position to affect his career.


Tansy Gold, not tenured but not seeking tenure either

[spooky3]

122. You are right.

Signed, Spooky, who IS tenured and was also tenured at another university prior to joining the current one.

I am giving up trying to discuss this issue with our friend for reasons of futility.

[Tansy_Gold]

125. Futility is in the eye of the beholder

;-)

Oh, I am well aware that there is at least one person actively posting on DU today who won't "get it" no matter what we do, but there may be a lurker out there who will get it. So I write for the lurkers, rather than for the clueless.

Tansy Gold, who admits that she sometimes even writes for herself

[spooky3]

126. and I am glad that you do!

:hi:

[riderinthestorm]

80. Yes, and consumers have the right to voice their displeasure

via a boycott/email/public input. How the hell else are newspapers going to know when they are over the line?

You seem to be saying that editors/newspapers/columnists can say whatever they want and the readers just have to take it. Is that what you really believe?

Look, those editors carried AC for years because she was incendiary and outrageous. They KNEW absolutely that she was a shithead. They didn't give a shit cause she made them money (or so they thought). If they are told that continuing to carry AC will STOP making them money, well I see nothing wrong with that. Apparently you do. You believe the editors/columnists/newspapers should do whatever they want, readers/public be damned. Well, if that's true, there is one recourse for the readers/public - vote with your dollars. And the fact that we are also articulating WHY we are taking this action is also somehow objectionable to you - like the editors/columnists/newspapers shouldn't be exposed to our displeasure? WTF?

[Tansy_Gold]

99. It's very difficult for me to avoid comments that would result in

my post being pulled, but I'm going to try to put this in acceptable terms:

An editor -- or a publisher for that matter -- is NEVER free to do what he or she wants. Publishing, whether a book, a newspaper, a magazine, a column, a short story, or a poem, depends on the marketplace. Publishing, of which editing is a part, is not a "creative" endeavor; it is a business venture.

Any editor who wishes to keep her or his job has to put out a product -- yes, cgrindley, a PRODUCT -- that people will buy.

People who are in the market (pun of course intended) for a newspaper have several options if they discover that the content of that newspaper no longer satisfies whatever needs prompted them to buy the newspaper in the first place.

1. They can continue to buy the newspaper even though they don't like it. Maybe they want to support the local businesses who advertise in it. Maybe they want to support the person who delivers it. Who knows? Some people buy newspapers they don't like and never read. No big deal. They're free to do that.

2. They can stop buying the newspaper and never tell anyone why they've chose to do so. They don't tell their friends and neighbors, and they don't tell the editor and/or publisher. They just quit buying and leave the reasons to everyone else to figure out.

3. They can stop buying the newspaper and exercise their rights of free speech to explain WHY they stopped buying the newspaper. They can tell their friends that they're tired of seeing poor coverage of local events. They can write to the editor that the front page headlines are sensationalistic and misleading as to the actual content of the stories. They can picket the newspaper offices to demand fair treatment of delivery personnel. The point is, readers/consumers of news product have a RIGHT to voice their opinions. And editors who want to keep their jobs and continue to put their product in the marketplace had damned well better pay attention to their readers.

I've worked for local newspapers and I know that the editorial department can be very, very sensitive to the comments they receive from readers, because very, very few readers ever take the time to write or call with their views. They grouse to their spouse or they bitch to the neighbors, but they don't often write to the editor.

I remember one case where the editor had chosen to put a photo on the front page of a car accident, including a view of the body of the woman who had been killed in the accident. Only the top of her head as she lay slumped in the front seat was actually visible in the photograph, and it was only black and white, but readers were so outraged that the office was virtually flooded with letters, phone calls, faxes, emails. Advertisers threatened to cancel contracts if an apology for the poor taste shown in publishing that photo weren't printed on the front page of the next edition. And the editor DID apologize. He admitted he thought the photo would make people pay attention to the story and drive more carefully as a result of actually seeing the woman lying dead in her car. He hadn't thought people would be so upset.

Editors absolutely MUST pay attention to their readership -- both end consumers and advertisers. If the content of the newspaper offends readers, the readers have a RIGHT not to read, not to buy. Ditto with the advertisers. It's not the editor who "controls" what goes into the newspaper -- it's the reading public. And they don't care if what they read in the paper that offends them comes from an editorial committee, a syndicated columnist, a stringer reporter, the adult video store that can afford the back-page ad space, or a local crank who has nothing better to do than write six letters a day complaining about the noise coming from the schoolyard that abuts his front yard. If they don't like what they're reading -- what they're paying for -- they have a right to complain.

A "free" press means a press not controlled by the government, not censored by official decree. "Free" does not mean free of control by the public, by public opinion, by the preferences of readers, by the moral sense of the community, by the needs of the readership.

Read some history? Read more than that, my friend.


Tansy Gold, who has worked for some good editors, some bad ones, and sometimes is one herself.

[cgrindley]

105. Great defence of media manipulation

I disagree. Editors should be absolutely free from extortion and financial blackmail. Personally, I think that the Guardian has it right. It is funded by a trust to ensure that the editors are not subject to pressure.

Imagine this... if the Pentagon Papers were going to be published today... imagine all those nutjobs and kooks writing in to suppress them. Then imagine the Times giving up.

Hooray! Mission accomplished.

[Tansy_Gold]

123. You're living in a world of absolutes; I live in a world of reality

Not even the Guardian or the Nation or Mother Jones or any other publication would tolerate an editor who didn't follow the publication's guidelines. Otherwise, you'd see editors who were just bums picked off the street. "Here, Joe, you're the editor. Pick whatever you want. We don't care if it's well written or makes sense or tells the truth. Just put whatever the fuck you want in there. You want gay sex with explicit pix in Ladies' Home Journal? Hey, fine with us! You want creation science in New England Journal of Medicine? Sounds great! You're the boss!"

Even an editor who uses what you might deem professional, noble judgment is using some kind of input to make that decision.

And I'm far from "defending" media manipulation. I'm defending the rights of readership to voice their opinion, whether that voice is expressed by cancelling subscriptions, writing letters to the editor, or making phone calls.

Media manipulation comes in the form of corporate decree that all expression support and sustain the corporate status quo. You think Mother Jones is free of bias? The Progessive? In These Times? On Our Backs? Of course not. Every medium, whether print or broadcast, has an agenda. What corporate control has done, however, is to limit the choices and the voices. Corporate control has closed many of the forums once open to dissenting opinions.

Human beings are "learning" animals. Indeed, we are flip-floppers by nature, changing our opinions as experience changes our perspectives. If there is no input from outside to effect that change of editorial perspective, NOTHING will ever change. No new writers will be syndicated, no old ones retired. No new opinions will be aired, no old ones discredited.

There is not a single other person in this long thread who supports your position, cgrindley. There are numerous people, however, who have offered a host of rebuttals. You alone are refusing to be open-minded.

There is an old saying --

If one person calls you a jack-ass, you can ignore him with impunity. His is just one opinion.

If two people call you a jack-ass, you can ignore them but you might want to consider what they've said and why they've said it.

But if three people call you a jack-ass, perhaps it's time to be fitted for a saddle.


Tansy Gold

[cgrindley]

140. Groupthink different

There is not a single other person in this long thread who supports your position, cgrindley. There are numerous people, however, who have offered a host of rebuttals. You alone are refusing to be open-minded.

This is a creepy and frightening sentiment.

I alone refuse to be open-minded? About what exactly? Being forced to have the same inherently anti-progressive opinion? Tough shit. If I have to defend the concept of editorial independence all by myself, I'll continue to do so. You realize what you're attacking, right?

[Tansy_Gold]

150. No, I'm not attacking

I'm pointing out a fact.

You are the only person defending an amorphous, ambiguous, and probably fatuous notion of "editorial independence." Others have pointed out your stubbornness. My saying that is not an attack.

You, like anyone else on DU, are attempting to persuade us that your vision is correct and ours is wrong. So far, none of us are buying it. That's not an attack on you, and if you think it is, maybe you're a bit paranoid. I'm not sure why you would be, but you might.

But I would ask you not to take "dissent" -- or "disagreement" or "independent thinking" -- as an attack on you personally but rather as a rebuttal to your ideas. I assure you, cgrindley, it's not personal.

"Ditto" is the mark of groupthink. I'm not "dittoing" anyone, and neither is anyone else who happens to disagree with you on this thread. We are setting forth our own independent opinions, backing them up with statements of fact, and coming to our own conclusions. The fact that there is a remarkable convergence of our conclusions isn't the same as "groupthink."

In fact, one could easily compare the stubbornness of one who refuses to engage in spirited debate, who falls back on the same vague mantras that have some resemblance to talking points, as a victim of groupthink from some other venue. One could do that, if one wished to. I'm certainly not saying that one must do that, or that that is the only conclusion one might reach, but it certainly seems to me to be one conclusion that one might reach if . . . . well, I think you get my drift.


TG, drifting

[spooky3]

121. again, well said--and thanks for taking the time to

explain this not only to one poster but for the benefit of all of us.

[Tansy_Gold]

153. You're very welcome, spooky3

Actually, I enjoy the debate and the mental exercise, although I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the constant references to "rightwing talking points" and accusations of not being "progressive" are wearing thin, kind of the way the lipstick on a pig only lasts so long. Underneath, it's still a pig.


Tansy Gold, who generally pretty much admires professors and sometimes even wishes she were one

[adigal]

8. I LOVE boycotts - I love to take my $$ away from

people who I feel are hurting our world. I am under NO obligation to buy from anyone.

[DaveJ]

9. It's not about silencing her...

...it's more about going after her undeserved wealth and career. Her career is based on doing one thing -- irritating liberals.

So, as with any business, there is only room for so many people to have space in a paper, and someone with such a simplistic view of life, someone who is clearly unqualified, not only because of her bigotry but because of her lack of intellect or insight, should not have jobs over others with better credentials.

[Beelzebud]

11. Did you argue in favor of the Montgomery Bus Company? Read your history damn it....

This is a non-violent, legitimate tactic. We don't call for her death, send her death threats, or threaten her followers with violence. We simply boycott.

[wicket]

13. Amen

:thumbsup:

[cgrindley]

18. This is not 1955

and if you think that the right won't be further emboldened by this, you're kidding yourself.

[Beelzebud]

19. Frankly I don't give a damn if the right is "emboldened".

Your kidding yourself if you think we should just sit silently in an effort to keep hateful dumb-asses from being emboldened.

[cgrindley]

21. Ask Ward Churchill

how many more Ward Churchill's will this create?

[Beelzebud]

24. He's under review for shoddy research practices, not what he said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

"There have been disputes over Churchill's claim of American Indian heritage, and there have been findings of academic fraud and plagiarism. University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into the allegations of research misconduct, which lead to findings of falsification, fabrication, plagiarizing, improper reporting of results, and failing to follow standard rules that apply to author names on publications, among other findings."

Stop being a coward.

[cgrindley]

25. Great to have you on our side

We'll all sleep much better at night.

[Beelzebud]

26. Sorry if it's too uncomfortable for you. Free speech is a two way street.

She has the right to spew her bile, and we have a right to express our disgust with it.

Making change doesn't happen by sitting on your ass being scared of what "they" might think.

[Cerridwen]

70. Psst. Who pays his salary?

You're comparing government funded speech with market funded speech.

Apples and pomegranates, I think.

[cgrindley]

79. Apples and pomegranates

are both the fruiting bodies of small deciduous trees that are cultivated by humans. Both contain similar nutrients including vitamin C and other anti-oxidants. Both have similar caloric value. Both fruits have a rind. Both fruits can be red. They are easily compared. Indeed, they are quite similar.

[Cerridwen]

85. True. But they don't grow on the same trees from the same roots.

And that, is what this is about. Market influences versus government influences.

I'm a little tired of businesses thinking they get to influence my government which is supposed to be about people first - business profits, er, not so much. But that issue, is totally off topic. :D

[Bake]

92. The BIG difference between the apple and the pomegranate, the only one that matters

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the former, and not the latter. It applies only to STATE ACTION.

Bake

[RetroLounge]

53. emboldened?

now where have I heard that term?

:eyes:

RL

[cgrindley]

94. Do you read?

It's a common word. Lexis Nexis says it was used 709 times in general news stories by major newspapers in the two years before bonehead said it.

[RetroLounge]

100. Do you have a spine?

:shrug:

RL

[cgrindley]

107. Yeah... right now it's being kicked by a bunch of short

sighted fools who fail to understand that editorial independence is more important than any other consideration in this stupid debate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. And I am telling you there is no editorial independence

left anywhere anymore

[cgrindley]

113. Why don't we burn down the offices

of the remaining papers that publish her then? That seems like the most logical next step in this little pogrom.

[RetroLounge]

124. Lynch Mobs? Burning Offices?

Funny, you use the same language as Coultergeist herself...

:shrug:

Your violent streak is showing, among other things...

RL

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Having an undestanding of what a progrom raelly is

this hardly qualifies

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. You are right, this is 1936

and people did not stand to the bullies back then, and million DIED.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. I'm sure you're very "concerned."

:crazy:

[Beelzebud]

30. Yes we should just sit down and shut up like well behaved citizens!

[spooky3]

31. a) She isn't "silenced"--she can say whatever she wants

It's just that no paper is obliged to pay for her hate speech. Capitalism is not being used to "stifle speech."

b) Do you REALLY think that papers (or other media) have not chosen in the past to exclude liberal or any other columnists on the grounds that their customers might not like or be interested in what the columnist has to say, or that the column reflects badly on them? Don't you remember stories like that of Jimmy the Greek? Do you REALLY believe that this case changes ANYTHING about their policies?

c) Do you REALLY want to stifle the free speech of those who protest her being paid for her words?

d) Coulter has made a nice living with her hate or inflammatory speech. The most appropriate way to have her experience fair consequences of this irresponsible profit-making is through speaking out to the those providing the payments to her. That is the capitalist system at work.

[Beelzebud]

36. I'd like to know how you silence someone that publishes books, goes on TV, and tours the nation

doing speaking engagements.

The newspapers that are still carrying her column don't *have* to carry her. And if they don't she'll still have plenty of outlets to spew her garbage.

[spooky3]

39. agree

[cgrindley]

71. Coulter isn't the important part of this debate

I don't care if the dumb piece of shit spontaneously explodes. She's not important.

The important part is whether or not newspapers should cave to public pressure on ANY issue.

I believe that they should not. I also believe that we should protest Coulter. We should tell her what we think about her. But I also think it is a monumentally bad idea to put forward the inherently right wing notion that the press is something to silence.

[Beelzebud]

77. Ann Coulter is not "the press", and we aren't silencing anything...

[ProfessorGAC]

86. You Do Understand That "Freedom Of The Press". . .

. . .is a constitutional PROHBITION against the gov't. It does not apply in any way shape or form to consumers. The first ammendment doesn't grant any rights. It elucidates those things upon which the gov't cannot impinge.

Citizens, joint and severally, are not bound by that prohibition.
The Professor

[Beelzebud]

88. As I told them earlier. They need to actually read the 1st Amendment.

[ProfessorGAC]

93. Well, They Didn't Listen To You

So i suppose i shouldn't expect much, either.
The Professor

[cgrindley]

110. I am NOT responding to FREE PRESS IS

arguments because I have not used a FREE PRESS is argument...

I have argued that mobs of people attempting to pressure newspapers and demand hat certain editorial policies change or that certain stories run or don't run is a fundamental evil.

Wanting to control the press in that sort of way is NOT cool and certainly NOT progressive in any way at all. Matter of fact, wanting to exercise that sort of control over the press is inexcusable.

[spooky3]

118. in paragraph 1 you say you aren't using a free press argument

and in paragraph 3 you decry "wanting to control the press."

Rather than continue to make such inconsistent statements, which are not the slightest bit persuasive (as you can see from the many replies on this page), don't you think it would be a better use of your time to to open your eyes, ears, and mind, and try to understand what multiple people are trying to explain to you?

You are living in a free market. Consumers cannot make newspaper owners do anything at all. I haven't seen anyone here call for legislators to force anyone to do anything. Papers' owners are driven by what they think consumers will buy, and better papers' owners are also concerned about their social responsibility to report the news and responsible opinion. In the latter case, it is clear that any such owner should drop Coulter's column without any action by anyone else since it is neither news nor responsible opinion, and good for consumers to urge them to do so. In the former case, the best way for the public to exercise the small amount of power that they have is to express their views and drop their subscriptions. That is what is done in a free market.

In all likelihood, these owners picked up Coulter because they thought she would help them sell papers and/or she expresses views that they like, and perhaps they believed at one time she was provocative but responsible, which she clearly is not. Did they pick up other writers who were more liberal and equally provocative? Probably not. Did anyone try to shut down their paper? Doesn't look as if anyone here tried to do so. Consumers and DUers are simply trying to show the newspaper owners that their hoped for market- or opinion-driven decision-making isn't working for them.

[cgrindley]

119. No

people have been yelling "first amendment only applies to government" at me... and for no reason... I've never said that this was a "first amendment" issue... it's not a government thing... the government has nothing to do with it... Issues of editorial independence and "control" have NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

Instead, I have been saying that people wanting to bully the press into anything is wrong.

Editorial independence is one of those issues that supercedes the free market. It is more sacred than ownership rights.

[Madspirit]

134. ...and we have a right to not buy their stupid paper. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

142. "it is a monumentally bad idea to put forward the inherently right wing notion that the press is

something to silence." - Straw Man

I saw no one on this thread advocating the "notion that the press is something to silence."

Btw, Ann Coulter is not "the Press" nor is she a "journalist." She is a foul-mouthed pundit and a rotten comedian... and not of this world.

[tandot]

34. "...that's almost as evil as arranging consumer boycotts."

Yes, where would we be if the consumer gets to decide what businesses to give their money to.

We should all just shut up and buy what they are selling us. Don't ask any questions, just shut up and buy. :eyes:

[Beelzebud]

40. Those are either the words of a coward or a usurper. Not sure which...

[tandot]

45. I totally agree. How can a progressive think that consumer boycotts are evil?

I don't get it.

People have to stand up against hateful bigots.

[cgrindley]

69. You're serious

you're seriously equating a boycott of National Fruit or Anaconda Mines or the Montgomery Bus line with a boycott of a newspaper? Really? You're honestly thinking that the two are in any way equivalent?

[ProfessorGAC]

81. If You Believe There's No Equivalence, Wouldn't It Be. . .

. . .one of scale? The newspaper is a business entity that has product choices and consumer validation as parameters. Just like any other business. If it makes poor product choices, consumers talk with their wallets. If they ignore consumer validation, they lose revenue.

So, all boycotts are economically equivalent except for scale. Now, as to the negative impact of the practices of your three example companies, vs. these newspapers, that would appear to be one of perception. There is no right or wrong answer. Did Montgomery bus lines deserve it? Hey, they didn't write the Jim Crow laws. Per your POV, they should not have been targetted.

I think you are expecting too clear a line to be drawn as to when a boycott is valid and when it is not.
The Professor

[tandot]

97. Oh, please. You are the one who equated the emails to boycotts

Here is what you wrote:

"...not because 1000 or so people write emails... jesus, that's almost as evil as arranging consumer boycotts."


If that odious piece of shit has the "right" to spew her hateful tirades, we sure as hell have the right to let the newspapers know how we feel about it.

[cgrindley]

108. I will go to my grave telling you that's wrong

Don't read Coulter. Burn her books. Run her out of town for all I care.

But when mobs of people threaten newspapers and attempt to dictate editorial policy, then there is a real big problem.

[RetroLounge]

127. Do you even read the shit you write?

Burn her books = OK.

Run her out of town = OK.

But send some emails and "mobs of people threaten newspapers"

Wow. As for your title of your post, your logic is already in the grave...

RL

[cgrindley]

130. I don't care about Coulter

this isn't about her. It's about the press.

[RetroLounge]

132. No, it's about you being wrong and stubborn...

And the "press" hasn't been free for many years.

:shrug:

But maybe if you repeat yourself enough times, someone might believe you. No one on DU, but someone might...

RL

[Tansy_Gold]

133. editorial policy

Dear Editor:

I enjoyed very much the essay printed in the 6 March 2007 edition of The Weekly Blurb written by Ms. Tansy Gold. I found her reasoning on the issue of highway speed limits made more sense than anything I have ever read. I hope you will print more of Ms. Gold's essays in the future.

Sincerely,

Wilma Wildacre




LTTEs such as this frequently appear in many publications, from "Arizona Highways" to "Zinc and Tin Quarterly." (Okay, I made the last one up.) They are nothing more than an expression of the reader's opinion.

AND THE EDITOR IS FREE TO IGNORE THEM.

I think that's the point you're missing, cgridley. None of the editors who dropped coulter was forced to. Urged to, yes. Encouraged to, yes. But the readers who expressed their opinion did not have the power or authority to force the editor to change her or his policy. The readers simply said, Hey, you keep publishing her if you want, but if you do, I won't buy your paper.

This is EXACTLY what the bus riders of Montgomery did: If you want to change your ways, we'll ride your buses. But until you do, we'll prefer to walk or share rides or depend on our employers to come get us or set up our own transportation "network" independent of you.

There was no "lynch mob," and I think your use of the term, cgrindley, is an insult to those who were truly harmed by true lynch mobs. No one is stringing coulter up to the nearest tree and depriving her of life. No one is advocating that she be stripped, beaten, mutilated, and murdered for her crimes without benefit of trial and jury. There is such a thing as a coordinated peaceful effort to achieve a goal. That is what the Montgomery bus boycotters engaged in; that is what the readers who object to coulter's column are doing.

But to get back to the matter of the favorable-comment hypothetical LTTE with which I opened this post:

Are you, cgrindley, suggesting that the editor should not pay any attention to Ms. Wildacre's opinion? Are you suggesting that the editor should only pay attention if that opinion agrees with his own? Are you suggesting that if an editor isn't sure of his opinion of a piece, he shouldn't run it anyway and solicit reader input? Are you suggesting that editors should never be open-minded enough to consider views that disagree with theirs?

Not only is there no such thing as "editorial independence," but there is also no such thing as "human independence." We ALL ALWAYS base our opinions and subsequently change those opinions based on the input we receive from external sources. They may be other human interaction, such as our mother telling us we will get burned if we touch the stove when it's on. They may be from personal experience, such as touching the stove and burning the hell out of our hand. They may be from a combination of human input AND personal experience. But none of us, whether we are editors, writers, professors, students, lawyers, doctors, landscape laborers, grocery store clerks, or bus drivers operates in a vacuum.

Those who adamantly stick to a viewpoint that NO ONE ELSE AGREES WITH may have deeper psychological problems than they themselves are aware of. This includes such notable non-flip-floppers as booooosh and cheeeeeeeney. Present company, of course, not excepted.


Tansy Gold

[cgrindley]

137. Oh dear

Those who adamantly stick to a viewpoint that NO ONE ELSE AGREES WITH may have deeper psychological problems than they themselves are aware of. This includes such notable non-flip-floppers as booooosh and cheeeeeeeney. Present company, of course, not excepted.

Insult me again. I dare you. You'll just end up with your post deleted and the thread locked.

Now, why don't you try to behave in a civilized manner? Perhaps you could defend the dangerous sentiment in your above statement--perhaps you'd care to consider what sort of societal practices are represented by an appeal to mass support and a charaterization of a political opponent as insane.

Now, realize, if you can, that I am defending editorial independence.

You do realize the indefensible nature of your position, right?

[Tansy_Gold]

147. You are NOT defending "editorial independence"

Let the mods pull this post or even lock the thread, but I am going to defend my position -- which pretty much matches the position taken by every other poster on this thread, to wit:

1. No editor, and no publisher for that matter, has "editorial independence" of the type you keep harping about. Assuming you understand the difference between "publisher" and "editor," allow me to remind you that ANY EDITOR who consistently or egregiously defies the agenda of the publisher will be fired. In the United States of America, we have a capitalist press in which those who own the media have the right to hire and fire those who produce it. Editors are employees and they can be fired. They routinely ARE fired when they don't perform to their publishers' satisfaction.

Publishers -- and I speak in the sense of the companies that own the media, not the individuals who hold the title on the masthead -- also have agendas, whether those agendas are financial, political, social, whatever. They can and will do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their goals, and as such they can be and often are influenced by external factors.

2. The companies that publish newspapers are primarily engaged in the business of making a profit. They make this profit in two ways: they sell newspapers and they sell advertising. Even if the newspaper is distributed to its readers free of charge, the content of that newspaper has to "sell" the reader on the notion of picking it up and reading it, especially reading the advertising. Editors of newspapers in our market-driven media have a responsibility to their publishers to produce a product -- the newspaper -- that readers are willing to pick up and that advertisers are willing to advertise in.

Is there an underlying and altruistic agenda involved? Do all editors, do all publishers have a deep moral desire to get the truth out to their readers? Do all editors have a driving commitment to persuade their readers to a particular social or political agenda? Do any editors put themselves on the throne of Moral, Literary, or Political Arbitration and set themselves up as judges second only to God and Jesus? (If you knew Mark Shepard of the Buckeye Valley News 20 years ago, you'd know that this latter is occasionally true.) Regardless what that underlying agenda may be, the bottom line (pun intended) is that the bottom line rules. If the paper doesn't make money -- and I'm excepting rags like the moonie-funded Washington Times because their agenda is pretty clearly neither truth nor profit -- it doesn't get published. It takes money to pay reporters and ad copy writers and graphic artists and printers.

Are you following me to this point, cgrindley? (No, of course you're not because you apparently have no desire to actually learn anything, only to spout what everyone else on this thread has dismissed as sheer non-sense /sic/.)

3. If readers don't read the paper, advertisers won't advertise. Most newspapers make far more money on the sale of advertising than on the sale of copies of the rag. Do you know why many local papers put those coupons that have expiration dates on them, things like "Oil Change only $19.95 with this coupon! /and in fine print the expiration date, which changes every week/." Because they can track who's reading their ads that way, and they quit advertising if no one is reading. (They will often, to be sure, change their advertising to make sure the problem isn't the ad rather than the newspaper, but if eventually they aren't getting any bang for their advertising buck, they will stop advertising.)

4. Readers are the ultimate consumer of the content of the newspaper. It is readers who determine if the newspaper is going to achieve its publisher's goal. Do the readers like what they read? It's not important whether they agree with everything in it: they may disagree but still like it. Even if they only read it for the weekly grocery store ad or the high school sports reporting or to find out who got arrested for public intoxication, as long as they like enough of it to keep reading/buying, that's fine.

But as the ultimate consumers, readers also have rights. They have the right not to buy, not to read, if they don't like the paper. (Or, for that matter, the magazine, the book, the website, the newscast: most of this analysis applies to all forms of media.) They also have the right to let the editor know WHY they've decided not to read. Furthermore, if they dislike the paper to such an extent that they consider the advertisers as supporters of the paper -- which they are -- the readers have a right not to support the advertisers and to let them know that they aren't supporting them and WHY they aren't supporting them.


All of the above are RIGHTS of individuals -- the rights of publishers to fire editors who don't perform, the rights of advertisers to pull advertising, the rights of readers to complain. When you blather on and on and on and on about your imaginary "editorial independence," you display how very little you really know about publishing, about the real world, about, well, about anything.

I'm not going to be able to get the quote perfect because I don't have the time to look it up, but it was Margaret Mead who said something along the lines of "Never underestimate the power of a small group of determined citizens to effect social change. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Readers of newspapers, and indeed consumers of media in general, should never be mushrooms -- kept in the dark and buried in shit. Readers should have independence, too, and backbone, and imagination and spirit and determination and fire and passion.

People who won't speak up, people who defend the oppressive status quo and clothe it in high-sounding verbage (like "academic freedom" and "editorial independence") are sheep of the worst kind. They defend their own oppression. That's why it's called the silence of the lambs.

None of us living in a complex society is "free." We all have to live with the consequences of our actions. Are we "free" to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, just to see the panic that ensues? Sure, we're free to do so. But we're not free of the consequences: the guilt (maybe) when we realize our irresponsible actions have led to injury and perhaps death; the lawsuits; the criminal charges. Are pharmaceutical companies free to market drugs that ultimately prove harmful? Sure, it's been done. They've falsified the research, paid off the FDA, you name it. But ultimately they pay the price, they face the consequences.

The very same is true of editors. As many people much more clever than I have pointed out, there is a weird dissonance at the Wall Street Journal, where the news reporting is excellent and the editorial page sucks dead canaries. Why? Because different editors have different agendas even within the same publishing concern -- and those agendas may complement the publication's overall goal, which is to sell newspapers and advertising.

At the end of the day, editors and publishers and writers and readers and basketball coaches and movie stars and politicians and police officers and marines and mothers and teachers and waitresses and grocery store clerks are all HUMAN BEINGS. We are fallible. We aren't abstractions like "EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE" or "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" or "ACADEMIC FREEDOM." We are real and we are human and we make mistakes and we have personal agendas and we get angry and we get hurt and we react to things that stimulate us either positively or negatively.

Sometimes, when we're young (or not so young) and impressionable and full of ourselves and eager to impress others with whatever it is that's made us so full of ourselves, we spout off and make utter fools of ourselves in the process. And we become defensive and argumentative, even though we aren't quite sure what we're doing or saying. We're so afraid to admit we're wrong, so afraid to admit we've made a mistake, so afraid to acknowledge that we're human, we just keep going in the same stupid, ignorant, childish circle, defending what we really ought to know is indefensible. And we sometimes lash out at the very people who are being the kindest to us by pointing out that we didn't "get it" quite right, that we've got a bit more to learn, and that we need to come down off the pedestals we've put ourselves on and touch base with the real world.

There's no harm in admitting we've made a mistake. Hey, I voted for Reagan. I didn't know any better. I lived in a community where everyone else voted for Reagan and my family voted for Reagan and we all thought he was a great guy. But then I got out into the wider world and I discovered he was a piece of shit, and I regretted my actions. But in the real world, we can't go back for do-overs. Do I sometimes feel stupid for having been so ignorant? Sure. But I'd feel even more stupid if I persisted in doing something that I knew was wrong and doing it only so I wouldn't have to admit I was wrong. Whether you admit it or not, whether you acknowledge it privately in your heart of hearts, it's still wrong.

My sig line is a little epigram I learned in high school Spanish and I've never forgotten it: El ojo que ves no es ojo porque tu lo veas; es ojo porque te ve. "The eye that you see isn't an eye because you see it; it's an eye because it sees you." The eye -- and the DUers who have been so patient with a single dissident -- has its own intrinsic reality, and our perception of it can't change that. One DUer insists on her/his perception of reality, but that doesn't change the reality's "perception" of itself.

Bottom line: There is no way to defend "editorial independence" because it doesn't exist, certainly not in the abstract theoretical version being tossed out as a reason for readers not to try to influence what an editor chooses to publish in her/his publication. In essence, there is no there there. That's been pointed out by several people on this thread. It's been explained and examined and analysed. As difficult and uncomfortable as it might be to have to change one's thinking about that issue, such change and the new, enlightened awareness it brings might make further enlightenment much easier. But to persist in the darkness of ignorance when all around are enlightened and offering more light is, well, it's stupid.

Some might even say it was freeperish, but I wouldn't say that. No, not I.


Tansy Gold, who ought to proofread this but has already spent far too much time on it (and then went back and proofread anyway)

p.s. Thank you, Charles, my 4th year Spanish teacher, for introducing me to Machado.

[marions ghost]

149. whew

:applause: tansy_gold

As u say --"Editorial independence" doesn't exist." And you have elaborated well.

[Tansy_Gold]

154. Thank you, marions ghost!

For giving of your valuable time to read my rambles.

Like any writer -- or editor, for that matter -- I put my words out there and wonder who, if anyone, will read them and then what they will take away from what they've read. It's always an adventure.



TG, who enjoys writing MUCH MORE than editing

[femmedem]

146. Indefense of boycotts.

Newspapers pay to run Coulter's columns. When consumers buy newspapers which run Coulter's columns, they are indirectly paying Coulter.

Therefore, if consumers don't want to support Ann Coulter, they must stop supporting papers which run her columns. And if they care about their local papers, they should let newspaper owners know why they've taken this action.

If I were to write an e-mail to my local editors telling them why I couldn't support their paper if they continued to run Coulter's column, I would do so in a polite, well-reasoned way. And I don't think that would make me part of an angry mob.

Free speech means that anyone is free to offer their opinions without fear of criminal prosecution. It does not mean that consumers can't decide which opinions they are and are not willing to pay to read.

[Tansy_Gold]

152. Gee

I wish I could say things so succinctly!

Great job!

[Bucky]

6. Media Matters has a list of newspapers that still carry her column

If you want to, you know, email them or something, you can follow the link to Media Matters.org.

[wicket]

32. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[progressoid]

23. 6 down, 38 to go.

Strike while the iron is hot. Contact your local paper people!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703080002

[DaveJ]

35. Is the list really that short?

I'm embarrassed to see the newspaper from my college town on the list. To be honest I didn't know she had a column. It never occurred to me that someone who says things like "I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag" could ever make a living writing in legitimate newspapers. I hope the list really is that short and continues to shrink.

[riderinthestorm]

47. Well, it's seven newspapers now. Please write to your college town's newspaper

I don't subscribe to the Dekalb Daily Chronicle which just dropped AC, but I fudged that fact and focused more on her comments and how badly it reflected upon the newspaper that she was one of their columnists.

The person from the paper who emailed me back said they had been swamped with complaints. I emailed since I'm sorta in the Dekalb area and it's conceivable that I would have seen the paper..... Take a shot and see what your old newspaper says.

[spanone]

42. She has no conscience so hit her in the pocketbook....real hard!

[riderinthestorm]

43. I just heard from the Dekalb Daily Chronicle. Ann is dropped.

(they are replacing her with Michelle Malkin however so not sure how much of a "victory" this is :-( but at least if enough editors/columnists hear our voices about this kind of insulting rhetoric from columnists, they will think twice before hiring).

I'm not registered at DKos, so can someone who is please get this message out there too?

From today's editorial in the Daily Chronicle:

A Public Termination
The rapid escalation of electronic communication options and the frequent inappropriate and indiscriminate use of those options have combined to produce horror stories regarding job terminations that we’ve all heard about and shake our heads over. Namely, stories of folks getting fired via e-mail or through a voice-mail message left on a home or cell phone answering machine. We can’t fathom the gutless and impersonal nature of such terminations. We can’t fathom it – yet we’re about to do one better – we’re going to fire someone publicly - in print – right here and right now.

(snip)

Exactly one week ago today – not in a column printed in the Chronicle but rather in a speech to attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington – Ann Coulter said the following, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’.” She said it boldly and without apology. The audience – either in affirmation, or because people sometimes react oddly when offended – applauded.

Ann Coulter is not a “real” employee of the Chronicle. She isn’t a freelancer or even an independent contractor. If she were an employee, and referred to another human being as a “faggot”, that employment would be short-lived. As it is, the acerbic Coulter is a syndicated columnist whose material is distributed through Universal Press Syndicate. Universal President and Editor Lee Salem has responded to Coulter’s remarks by saying “she is not an employee and we have no legal power to ‘fire’ her”.

That’s a lot like the Chronicle saying “She didn’t say it in one of the columns we ran, so it isn’t our problem.” Wrong. It is our problem, and not dealing with it is a cop out. So yesterday we called Universal Press Syndicate and “fired” Coulter. What she said was wrong and hurtful and stepped way beyond the line of human decency, much less political commentary.

(snip)

http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2007/03/09/opinions/editorials/aeditorials01.txt

[Ganja Ninja]

65. They're replacing her with Malkin.

So it's not a win win but I'll take it. It's at least a lesson for the rest of the right wingers. Their act is getting old and stale.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Well you know two steps forwards

one step backwards...

[Radical Activist]

102. Their list is missing this paper that runs her column

State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL

www.sj-r.com
[email protected]
[email protected]
publisher: [email protected]

[sarcasmo]

103. Maybe little Annie will learn to choose her words carefully next time.

[Nikki Stone1]

116. No way. She'd have no personality if she did!

:evilgrin:

[AnnInLa]

117. Ann Coulter is NOT the Press, NOR is she a REPORTER

She is an "OPINION COMMENTATOR", and as such, can be democratically set-upon by an angry mob....altho, our boycott/email-campaign was very well mannered, more than I can say for her.

This is not a "free press" or "free speech" issue. The issue is whether or not I want to spend my money on sponsors of her site, a site which promotes bigotry. I Have a right to know if her opinions reflect those of her sponsors. If don't choose to spend my money with those sponsors, then I have a right to email them and let them know. She can use her Free Speech Right all she wants to....but I have the right not to support the commercial enterprises that spotlight her speech.

Am having a hard time with previous poster who thinks coulter represents the Press....Please.

[Swamp Rat]

141. HA HA!

[wicket]

143. ROFL!

:rofl: :rofl:

:D

[Swamp Rat]

144. >:-D

:evilgrin:

[stonebone]

155. kick