Columnists Fired After Criticizing Bush

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

[Hugh Akston]

Why (again) the double standard?

Because there was no public outcry that threatened those papers' circulation numbers, mostly because the public understood that those were valid criticisms of Clinton, and because the public understands now the gravity of the current situation.

See above. Newspapers are a business.

[membrsince]

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

And who is to be the judge of that? Whoever yells the loudest?

[Marysecretary]

I'm sure the timing of these columns criticizing Bush was a big part in their firings. M

[gdani]

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.

Thanks for attempting to educate me on the 1st Amendment - which I never mentioned - o wise one

Just remember this p.c. crap when people start going after/continue to go after Dinesh D'Souza, Dr. Laura, Anne Coulter, G. Gordon Liddy, Don Imus, Jerry Falwell, etc

[MAWG]

The press is not liberal? Have you seen the N.Y. Times lately? You're still an idiot Hidy. Get lost! You're at the wrong web site.

[dead]

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

You don’t get fired for writing the truth, so the 1-2% of journalists in the US who were critical of Clinton kept their jobs.

[BurkeanCyclist]

Because the press is not liberal.

You really think the Grants Pass Daily Courier and the Texas City Sun constitute "the media"?

Have you stopped taking your medication?

[justaguy]

We need a marketplace of ideas that freely flow.

You mean like the internet?

[mountaineer]

A reporter said bad things about Clinton, really? Who? Even if someone had called him a traitor in print, what's your problem with the truth?

[Billthedrill]

Personally I wouldn't have fired the guy - I've read much worse (like every time Molly Ivins parks her broom on the editorial page). But what was the editor doing all this time? If the column really was that inflammatory shouldn't the editor have said something, at least?

[sinkspur]

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

Do you post this line to every single article, whether it has any pertinence or not?

[doug from upland]

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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Amazingly foolish statement. Newspapers exist because of sponsors and readership. These jerks caused huge amounts of negative responses from readers. The boss had the right to fire them. They were employees who hurt the company. There is no right to a job, only a right to an opinion. They can find another job or they can put their opinion on the internet. They were not jailed. To compare it to the Taliban is just plain stupid. By the way, welcome to FreeRepublic.

[justaguy]

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

Christopher Ruddy

[A2J]

RE: #5

"A First Amendment right to call for their resignation" bump to you.

[alaskanfan]

I heard on the radio yesterday, that in the case of the Oregon paper, the individual was fired after the paper was pressured by advertisers.

[BurkeanCyclist]

"the media"

Sorry. I should have said "the press."

[ThomasMore]

AMEN!

[dead]

I thought it was only for Clinton, but apparently you liberals will drop to your knees for anybody in power.

Wipe your chin and get up.

[hoot2]

"columnists"...thought you said "communists"...never mind