In the Wall Street Journal today was an
article The Media’s Self-Censors with the following quote, “In the past week,
the editorial page editor of the New York Times, the editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer and the editors of Bon Appétit magazine and the young women’s website Refinery 29 have been
forced out by the staff and owners of their publications for offenses regarded
as at odds with the beliefs of the current protests.”
I don’t usually add more than one post on my
blog in a week because I know you are busy. But this one really jumped out at me.
The veteran opinion writer at the WSJ could not
have been more wrong when he argued that those editors were protected by the
Constitution and were unduly fired.
He is conflating private business decisions
with government control and the freedom of the press. He is arguing that writer’s
have constitutionally protected rights. Yes they do, but not against their own
bosses. The New York Times professional who was fired was not let go by
a government official but by his boss. The NY Times is a business and as
a business it is free to hire and fire those that help accomplish the paper’s
objectives. He even associates the roles played by these newspapers with social
media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. This equivalence makes no sense.
These papers exercised the freedom to make a
business decision, but it clearly did not subtract from anyone’s Constitutional
right of free speech. Can’t a newspaper decide to send a consistent message
through its editorials?
Doober: I'm back
ReplyDeleteRE: "......for offenses regarded as at odds with the beliefs of the current protests." I do not think it was because their positions were at odds with the current protests. Rather, I fear that in this current environment the owners of the businesses fired these people because they were afraid of the impact on their businesses of keeping them on-board. A sorry state of affairs.
Welcome back. That's what I meant by a business decision -- the bottom line would be injured by those writers.
Deletethis is about censorship. the rights to free speech and freedom of the press has nothing to do with money
DeleteI don't think so. If you read my article I am making a distinction among different types of firings. A newspaper can fire an employee whose writing is not consistent with the paper's editorial policy.
DeleteComplicated Subject. Just watched the movie Post....with Tom Hanks as the editor of the Washington Post during the "Pentagon Papers. The government tried to shut it down because it revealed the papers.
ReplyDeleteIn this case I believe that the News Paper or Digital Communication must state in their rules that they are one way or another ....if they fire employees fore one or another. However firing an employee does not mean they violated their freedom if unless they were not not following the paper's objectives or rules.
Thanks Hoot. I doubt there are few newspapers who would send such a clear signal about what they represent.
DeleteYup. Remembering the movie POST and the dialog between the owner, editor, reporter and attorney for the paper. This really brings out the slight but very realistic back and forth pull by a business, a freedom of speech mandate in the constitution, secret information and philosophical politics.
ReplyDeleteToday we have a very divided nation but we do not know if on a conspiracy basis the marketing directors of some politicians are behind it or that is just how things turned out.Take for example Kapernick and the kneeling and the difference as Kiltie says between staying in the locker room during the anthem or coming out. Well said by the way. If I was to just take a knee and not following through by making my point verbally or in writing to those who are in a position to act upon it then I am remiss.Nothing gets done and nobody understands. On the other hand to show how police brutality breaks all kinds of laws and freedom in one thing but to organize a movement to change the laws and also improve the social conditions that the minorities are coming from....and I am not talking about free this and that. The peace protesters in the late 60's early 70's got a lot accomplished. People are frustrated as I m when seeing obvious manipulation of the laws to fit self serving interest and fool the people into believing all is good.
Thanks Hoot. Symbols can energize but as you say, that energy needs to be harnessed towards real change. Let's hope that will happen this time.
DeleteDear LSD. So, the WSJ got you steamed. I say, “Take a knee, bring the ball out to the 20-yard line, call a nik’d bootleg, follow yer blockers and when you get a break—SCORE. Then, in the end zone, take a nudder nee, unscrew de cap ‘n pour a deep JD, raise yer glass, ‘n yell . . . “FREEDOM!”
ReplyDeletePardon de pun, but we be at a tipp’n (yer glass, that is . . . ) point in the good ol U.S. of A. If ly’n, kruk’d, karupt, daft, and senile Joe winz Nov. 3rd we be see’n the country go down the proverbial turlit.
Gotta pull the R lever all the way down the ticket. That’s weally all that can save us. BTW, stay out’a Seattle’s Capital Hill.
Dear Tuna,
ReplyDeleteNice to see you back in the action. As you say, Rs should have a lot of motivation to get out and vote. Trouble is, some Rs see Donald as losing his luster and might just stay home. Too many neutrals have had a hard time defending Donnie's many seemingly unnecessary tweets. I will definitely stay out of Capital Hill's autonomous zone.