S.F. Chronicle Editor Suspended for Kerry Donation

[maddezmom]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A San Francisco Chronicle editor who gave Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) $400 has been placed on leave for possibly violating the newspaper's rules, the newspaper said on Wednesday.


The newspaper's letters editor, William Pates, reached at home by telephone, confirmed that he had contributed about $400 to the Kerry campaign but declined to comment on his paper's response. Pates said he had worked for the Chronicle for the past 35 years.


"He's on paid leave while we are investigating. We have not made any judgment at this point as to whether the policy was violated," said editorial page editor John Diaz.


"It would be a concern to have somebody who is involved in selecting letters make what amounts to a public demonstration of support for a particular candidate."

~snip~
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1895&ncid=1895&e=2&u=/nm/20040721/us_nm/politics_kerry_journalist_dc

[AlCzervik]

1. Lou Dobbs gave Bush $1000 in 2000

and Neil the whore Cavuto gave $1000 to the GW bush presidential dinner, i dont think either one of them was suspended.

[hatrack]

2. Yes, yes, but Mr. Pates gave money to KERRY!!

He gave money to a Democrat, and we just can't have that!

[gasperc]

3. good point need a blogger to list all the contributors in the news biz

Novak I'm sure gives generously to the GOP and on and on

this is foolish, but obvious hardball tactics

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Ethics are something for Democrats to wrestle with only.

Republicans are openly corrupt and don't care.

[IA_Seth]

15. Cool site for research

Go here: http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/fec.asp

It allows you to search by zip code to see who gives what to whom. See your slimy neighbors in action.

[BiggJawn]

5. Would Mr. Diaz mind terribly much sharing the "Chronicle"...

"policy" with us out here in the public?

This sounds like bullshit.

"It would be a concern to have somebody who is involved in selecting letters make what amounts to a public demonstration of support for a particular candidate."

So do they have a rule about the food critic patronizing the same greasy-spoon more than once? Is the Sports editor prohibited from cheering for a given team?

Does the classifieds manager have to shop at every store in town in rotation?

If Pates was a Bush Pioneer, there'd been nothing said.

These fuckers think they can punish us for being Democrats. "I'm a Bush supporter, and you're a Kerry supporter, and I sign your paycheck, so guess what? I'm not signing any more paychecks for you. Get Out."

[quaoar]

29. I'm one of the sports editors at a newspaper

And if I openly cheered for one of our state's college football teams over another team, I'd be drawn and quartered by our readers, who are all already convinced that we are biased against whatever team they cheer for.

[BiggJawn]

34. I feel sorry for you.

From what I've read in this thread, it must really suck to work for a paper. You can't be openly "for" anything, lest somebody bitch that you're biased. Unless you're the head man...
Could be worse. you could be a sports editor in Indiana and have a favourite high school basketball team...:-)

[Merlin]

6. Appropriate. I posted these WSJ rules on political activities yesterday.

My friend who is a journalist with the Wall Street Journal and has enormous respect for its journalistic objectivity and integrity (but detests its editorial page political views) sent me an internal memo from senior management:

...(the) Dow Jones Code of Conduct includes specific restrictions on political activities by members of the news staff. The text of this section of the Code is attached to this memo, and I’m urging everyone to reread it, to reinforce our obligation to comply with these restrictions.

The key sentence on political activities is, “All news employees and members of senior management with any responsibility for news should refrain from partisan political activity judged newsworthy by their senior editor . . . .” Partisan political activity includes passing out buttons, soliciting campaign contributions (even from friends or relatives), hosting a fund-raiser for a Presidential candidate or a local congressman, as well as making a financial contribution to a candidate’s campaign. Individual financial contributions to candidates for national office are reported by their campaigns to the Federal Election Commission, and it is a fact of life that these contributions are regularly the subject of news articles. The point of such articles is to raise the question of whether a newspaper covering an election can be fair when one or more of its reporters or editors have contributed money to one of the campaigns. Therefore, it continues to be our position that news staffers cannot, under the Code, contribute to campaigns for national or statewide office or for local offices where candidates are affiliated with national parties.

[BiggJawn]

10. Nothing I hate worse than employers who think they own you.

So what happens if the spouse of a news staffer gets a bug to run for school board? Do you have to get a divorce?

Can't take a day off and work the polls for your guy.
I'd bet they even prohibit you from having yard signs and bumper stickers on the back of your Lexus.

Call me an anarchist, but I've always held that if you're gonna dictate my conduct outside of working hours and the workplace, you're gonna compensate me HANDSOMLY for my indenture....F'instance, you pay me 70 kilobucks for a 2080-hour work year, the price just went up to 210 kilobucks.

[Merlin]

11. Far from it, this is a policy to insure objectivity. You're exaggerating.

It's clearly limited to contributions and campaign activities for candidates for national office, including President and local Congressperson.

It also has a clear objective, which, as stated, is to avoid raising questions about "whether a newspaper covering an election can be fair when one or more of its reporters or editors have contributed money to one of the campaigns.

Looks like a pretty enlightened policy to me.

[BiggJawn]

14. You can be objective without being neutral.

Really, people used to do it all the time. Guess it's gone the way of our attention span.

I stand pat. You gonna dictate my conduct outside the customary workhours and workplace, it's gonna cost you.

Looks like a pretty draconian policy to me.

Agree to disagree, OK?

A newspaper trying to "be fair" is a joke, anyway. The editorial policy set down by the Publisher (more often than not a huge GOP donor) trickles down all the way to the lowest reaches of the press room.

[Merlin]

16. Sorry but it is just not true that editorial policy must trickle down

At the Journal there is an acknowledged "iron curtain" between the editorial and the journalistic side. That's why the WSJ's stories have consistently been more critical of the Bushies than most any other newspaper--especially during the dark ages of the first 3 years.

Unfortunately the capitalist fundamentalist management has made the determination to keep its web site--even (ridiculously) its non-financial stories--exclusive to subscribers. The result is that the Journal has become even more insular and less exposed than it was before. It has already payed a preposterous marketing price for this myopia. It could have seen its excellence praised far and wide--particularly when Americans were desperately seeking objective news sources during those dark ages.

In any case, I would be upset if I learned that the guy writing stories about, say, the Kerry campaign, had just contributed $1,000 to Bush. I don't care what paper he worked for. As with judges, it is important for journalists to maintain not just the fact but also the appearance of objectivity.

[BiggJawn]

19. Funny you should mention judges...

As we have seen time and again, the highest (especially the highest) and the lowest judiciary are always beholding to the party that installed them.

Here in Indiana, judges run on party tickets. there are Democratic judges, and ReTHUGlican judges.

Screwed-up rules, anyway I look at it. OK, so my employer has like rules concerning disclosure, discoveries, inventions, patents, etc. But the people who have to sign these agreements Don't make the same piddly level VIII pay I do.

[Baltimoreboy]

17. Fair enough

Work somewhere else. No one is forcing you to work under these rules.

[BiggJawn]

18. Exactly.

Which is why I don't work in such places.

Quitting time comes, I walk out the door, and the job can just Cheney until starting time the next morning.

Which is how it should be, unless your name is over the door.

[Baltimoreboy]

21. Not exactly

If what you do in your off time impacts your job, your company and your ability to do your job, then you are the one Cheneyed.

[BiggJawn]

24. And I'll bet you support mandatory piss-testing, too.

So if I go sail-boarding on Saturday, and get hurt and miss a week of work, I should be fired? Or if some SUV cargo knocks me off my Raleigh, or I fall off the ladder doing a "Norm Abrahms project"...

"If what you do in your off time impacts...your ability to do your job..."

Oh, yes, do nothing that would negatively impact the precious company you owe your life to for saving you from a cardboard box under some bridge.

Sorry, I'm not Borg, and you will not assimilate me.

[Baltimoreboy]

26. No, I don't unless you are in security or operate dangerous machinery

However, donating money STRONGLY impacts the public's view that you might be biased. And that hurts the media firm you work for.

Again, don't be assimilated. No one asked you to be. But if you take on obligations with a job, you have to fulfill them.

Now, what is a "Norm Abrahms project?"

[BiggJawn]

33. You don't know who Norm Abrahms is?

Google is a wonderful thing.
Try "This Old House" or "New Yankee Workshop" for search terms.

[Baltimoreboy]

35. Ah that Norm

Sorry, didn't ring a bell instantly.

[Tempest]

7. Chronicle purchased by rightwing owner couple of years ago

This should come as no surprise.

[genius]

8. Clearly the owners are right-wing fascists

[LiberalFighter]

9. Must be private rule subject to random changes

They only have this ethical code at the American Society of Newspaper Editors website

San Francisco Chronicle: Ethical News Gathering

[Book Lover]

12. SF Chron also fired Henry Norr

for marching in the antiwar protests earlier last year.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/a...

The San Francisco Chronicle has reached a settlement with Henry Norr, a onetime technology reporter and columnist for the paper, over the paper's dismissal of Norr in April of last year.

Norr's termination occurred as a result of events arising out of his role in anti-war protests against the current war in Iraq.

Commenting on the settlement, Norr said, "Because I didn't violate the ethics policy The Chronicle had in place at the time, it is clear I was fired because of my political views -- my opposition to the war in Iraq and Israel's occupation of Palestine. That is unfair, and it is a clear violation of California and San Francisco law, not to mention basic democratic principles. I think I'm entitled to my job back, and my politics wouldn't prevent me from covering technology effectively in the future, any more than they did in the past. But since The Chronicle has said it may never give me a byline again, I've decided to accept financial compensation and my pension and move on to other things."

The Chronicle's managing editor, Robert J. Rosenthal, denied that the paper had violated any laws or otherwise acted wrongly in the termination of Norr.

"The issue here was never about personal political beliefs, but rather about The Chronicle's commitment to its readers to serve as a trustworthy and objective news source. To that end, the paper requires its journalists to abide by an ethical code that includes the avoidance of the appearance of a conflict in the ability to report events without bias. Any journalist who assumes a prominent public role in any political issue inevitably creates the appearance of that conflict. When a reporter brings about that ethical conflict, as occurred here, the unfortunate but necessary result is a separation. We wish Henry well in his future endeavors," Rosenthal said.

[Democat]

13. Can someone run a report on every employee at the paper?

One of the DU investigative types?

[AZCat]

20. I have a personal beef with this...

I think this is part of the larger issue of American news media weaknesses. I think it is difficult to remain neutral on a topic, even with draconian ethics codes. I would rather the paper allow the employees to exercise their rights as citizens and then disclose the contributions or activities of the employees. The reader could then weigh the bias on his own. Enough of this claim that news is neutral - anytime anything is reported, there is bias. I feel it is time we acknowledged that.

[Baltimoreboy]

22. Everyone should know there is bias

We all have biases. But there is a big difference between an inherent bias and funding a presidential candidate.

[fr3]

23. yes, you are right

[AZCat]

25. Funding a presidential candidate...

I think that funding a presidential candidate is a manifestation of bias. It is the symptom - not the cause - of bias. When someone is prohibited from contributing to a campaign, it makes it more difficult to determine their actual bias. When we can see how someone donates their money or time, we have actions we can use to determine bias, as opposed to speculating about the slant of an editorial page.

[Baltimoreboy]

27. It openly declares that person's slant

For all readers to see and compromises the ability of the paper to appear fair.

[AZCat]

28. That's my point

The paper may appear fair if there aren't any contributors on the editorial staff, but it may not be. There may be a core of rabid Kerry fans on the staff, but how will anyone know (except by parsing their work) unless we have some sort of indicator?

I am open to suggestions to alternatives, I just think that prohibiting contributions hides the issue rather than addressing it.

[Baltimoreboy]

30. You shouldn't be able to tell

That is the whole idea of keeping bias out of what you do. Openly declaring it makes your paper an organ for that party.

[AZCat]

31. Can you with some papers?

I thought some papers had an obvious bias, but I admit that I have not spent a lot of time searching for a bias in different papers. Perhaps that is where my difference in opinion originates - in a belief that the bias is there and while it may not be obvious, it does play a part in a paper's slant. It seems you believe that it is possible for a paper to appear neutral, and that most do a good job maintaining this. Is this true?

Do you think a change in policy would change the way newspapers operated?

[Gopens]

32. Each paper usually determines its own policy

A rag like the Washington Times probably encourages its editorial employees to give to Republican causes because it makes no pretense of objectivity. A paper like the San Francisco Chronicle is another matter.

My girlfriend works for the news department of a major metropolitan newspaper, and she can't give money to any candidate or political cause, nor can she participate in activities such as fundraisers or protest marches or anything like that. She is, however, free to vote for the candidate of her choice.

I work for a small newspaper, and I don't know what its policy is, but I do know that since I'm a rabid Bush-hater, any kind of story I wrote that was critical of him (unless it was an opinion piece) would ruin my credibility with readers if they knew my political background.