Tweet
Via reader JW over at First Draft, here’s a bit of heartening news:
More than 100 Seattle Times news staffers signed a protest letter Thursday against The Times Co.’s decision to sponsor political ads promoting Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna and the Ref. 74 campaign to legalize gay marriage.
The Times launched the campaign with a full-page pro-McKenna ad in Wednesday’s editions. Company officials described the campaign as an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness of newspaper advertising and attract new political-ad revenue.
But the letter from Times newsroom staffers, delivered Thursday to Publisher Frank Blethen, warned the campaign threatened the newspaper’s credibility with readers.
“We strive to remain independent from the institutions we cover. We shine a light on the process from the outside. We are not part of the process. This ad threatens to compromise that integrity,” the letter said, noting The Times had become “part of the campaign’s machinery, creating a perception that we are not an independent watchdog.”
Which is exactly right, and would have been right if the paper’s ads had said the opposite as well. You can’t tell the rest of us about how you’re the last bastion of independent democracy while letting your bosses make a mockery of that upstandingness every single day. There’s always a risk in this kind of protest, sure, but in the end the greater risk is looking like you don’t notice, or don’t care, what is being done in your name.
A.
23 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
“Threatens to”?
I mean, jeez, yeah, say something, but you might want to fish your paper’s integrity out of the toilet first.
The news media overall have never really been independent of the institutions they cover. There was a rather brief period in the 50s and 60s when they managed to keep their distance from many aspects of the establishment, but they have always largely been in the pockets of large corporate interests (or the local business leaders in small towns). This has gotten notably worse in many ways over the past 30 years, largely owing to media consolidation and ownership by large conglomerates. The real difference today from the past is the lack of diversity of voices. That diversity, where big cities had dozens of papers and even smaller towns often had more than one, is what insured access to all sides.
…We strive to remain independent from the institutions we cover…
Aloha, Athenae…! The very same could be said for our Armed Forces, Admirals and Generals should not be endorsing Candidates…!
I had been under the impression that this was actually a violation of the military Code of Conduct.
It actually is, quite a few Enlisted, and, a few Lts and Cpts have been charged with it, yet, not a single Flag Officer has every been prosecuted for it…! 8-(
You’ll notice that every single name on the list has “(Ret.)” after it. It’s a bad idea for retired officers to endorse candidates, for any number of reasons, but it’s not a violation of the military Code of Conduct.
Woo-Hoo…! In a Deluge, literally, the G-men win 9-0…! ;-)
Yet another way that the Republicans have degraded our military. Bad enough that they have cut pay and benefits for military personnel, but now this.
That just means that they are probably employed by a defense contractor or rightwing think(sic) tank.
????
Yes, that’s probably true.
Excuse me…?
San Fran just beat St. Louis 9-0, in a torrential downpour in the 9th inning, of game 7, to advance to the World Series…! ;-)
If I really gave a damn about sports, I would have to be bummed, as my father, grandfather, and great grandfather (good St. Louis Germans to a man) were rabid Cardinals fans.
The key phrase here is “on active duty.” Retired or former officers are not on active duty. They are free to endorse political candidates, run for political office, etc. See, e.g., Eisenhower, Dwight; Reed, Jack; Duckworth, Tammy.
I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s so.
Time for me to toddle off. Take care all.
You’re right about Retired, I’m a retired NonCom myself, but, if you really scrutinize that list that Tom Ricks posted, there’s quite a few without the Ret. appellation…! 8-(
Pleasant dreams, Dr. D…!
No, I stand by my statement. As far as I can see, every single officer who signed the list is “(Ret.)”.
But I certainly agree with the underlying point of your post, and with Ricks:
Ironically, that DoD directive was dated ’08, and, apparently Shrub changed a lot of the old policies that were in effect during my 20 yrs of service from ’85 to ’05, when a lot of that was strictly verbotten…!
*heh* Betrayus would be the textbook example…! ;-)
Funny how quiet he’s gotten since becoming CIA chief…! 8-(
Would any publication today accept an ad opposing interracial marriage?
Either you believe in equal rights or you don’t.
You might be interested in this discussion of the issue by the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/1018/Should-military-veterans-endorse-presidential-candidates
The only reason that the endorsement of a retired Joe Schmoe from Idaho would carry any weight at all is that Joe was a general before he retired. On the other hand, it is difficult to say that a person who put his life on the line for the Bill of Rights should be denied freedom of speech.