Columnists Fired After Criticizing Bush

Editor & Publisher ^ | 9/27/01 | Joel Davis

[gdani]

What are these papers going to do, never allow criticism of Bush again? The Taliban is alive and well in America.

[gieriscm]

There is a big difference between constructive criticism and name-calling.

[freedomlover]

"[Bush]was flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare."

Quick - does the first amendment guarantee the right to have a space in a newspaper?

I'm sure CNN is hiring.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Illbay]

It's called "the MARKETPLACE of ideas," sir. That implies that there are BUYERS and SELLERS. And if they BUYERS won't BUY, what are the SELLERS to do?

These guys stepped over the line in a market that isn't fond of anti-Americanism, especially at a time like this.

Those of you who refuse to understand that things have changed, need to get a clue. P.C. is OUT.

[Hugh Akston]

Newspapers are a business.

When someone employed by a paper writes something that the public finds objectionable, the newspaper needs to respond, otherwise it loses customers.

That is not comparable at all to the Taliban, where the government forcibly dictates what is acceptable or not, and imprisons or kills those who speak out against the regime. These authors still can write, they still can speak, they just cannot use the papers which used to employ them as their microphone for their speech.

[VoodooEconomist]

Quick - does the first amendment guarantee the right to have a space in a newspaper?

No. But I sure hope this doesn't become a pattern. If firing people for being criticial of the president becomes widespread, we will effectively have censorship ... albeit self-imposed (out of fear). This will work the same way the Left has successfully silenced people criticial of homosexuals, etc. By making people "pay a price" for speaking un-PC things, writers begin to censor themselves. When writers begin to do that, we all lose. We need a marketplace of ideas that freely flow.

[LarryLied]

Nothing has changed. In fact, it has gotten worse. Bush is more interested in hate crimes than action.

[calvin sun]

Newspapers are a business. When someone employed by a paper writes something that the public finds objectionable, the newspaper needs to respond, otherwise it loses customers. That is not comparable at all to the Taliban, where the government forcibly dictates what is acceptable or not, and imprisons or kills those who speak out against the regime. These authors still can write, they still can speak, they just cannot use the papers which used to employ them as their microphone for their speech.

Thank you for expressing the idea so well. Why do so many others have trouble understanding it??

[ShadowAce]

Both Publisher Dennis Mack and Editor Dennis Roler denied that the column specifically led to Guthrie's ouster, though Roler -- who read the column before it was printed and then wrote an opinion-page apology after it ran -- conceded it played a role.

This is the part I don't understand. They read it before it was printed, then fired him for it. Was he set up?

[Richard Kimball]

What are these papers going to do, never allow criticism of Bush again? The Taliban is alive and well in America.

You should really think before you write. Idiocy is not a form of intellect. They were fired because their columns were too stupid and their judgement was bad. Happens all the time. Also, freedom of speech means no prior restraint by the government. It doesn't mean the owner of a newspaper can't fire an editorial writer.

[FreePaul]

At least someone recognizes the difference between criticism and a ridiculous, childish temper tantrum. If these fools don't realize the first duty of the president is to maintain security they don't deserve a public forum.

[BibChr]

Perhaps they were fired for being foam-specked, ankle-biting idiots?

It's no wonder The Bee would be interested. If idiocy became grounds for dismissal, most of the entire staff would be forced to fire themselves.

Dan

[dead]

I don’t believe people should be fired for having stupid opinions but, as in any business, you should be fired if you hurt sales significantly. A publisher with a circulation of 5,966 doesn’t have a whole lot of readers to spare.

[Hillary 666]

Gutting wrote, among other things, that Bush on Sept. 11 "was flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare."

Political criticism is one thing. Name-calling and outright distortion of the facts is another. The newspapers were probably telling the truth when they said that the columnists were not fired because of articles criticizing Bush just after 9/11. Anybody who would write such tripe about 9/11 probably has a pattern of yellow journalism. There were probably looking for a reason to get rid of them anyway.

[Hidy]

Can anybody remember a single time any reporter was fired for saying bad things about Clinton -- up to and including treason?

Why (again) the double standard?

Because the press is not liberal.

The press is Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

[BibChr]

Not The Bee! I saw "Sacramento," and assumed.

Dan

[freedomlover]

Because the press is not liberal.

The press is Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA STOP IT YOURE KILLING ME!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[BibChr]

Can anybody remember a single time any reporter was fired for saying bad things about Clinton -- up to and including treason?

No -- as no one can mention a single time when a reporter has been fired for saying bad things about Bush.

And you can say "The press is not liberal," or just wear a T-shirt saying "I am an idiot who has learned nothing in the last twenty years."

I see you already made your choice.

Dan

[dead]

Nothing has changed. In fact, it has gotten worse. Bush is more interested in hate crimes than action.

Only an absolute idiot, like yourself, would believe that the president of the US stepped in to get a guy fired from a paper with a circulation of 5,966.