S.F. Chronicle Editor Suspended for Kerry Donation

[russian33]

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.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040721/media_nm/politics_kerry_journalist_dc


I don't get it, I guess it's just the Chronicle rules, or is it every paper? Or does it only apply for giving actual hard cash? I take it's OK to whore for a candidate, but Koresh forbid you give them money....

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Will my fellow DUer's EVER LEARN? We need OUR OWN...

'Moonie Times'! To Hell with "objectivity"! :grr:

I want to push OUR AGENDA! That is how they fight and we must do the same or perish at our OWN Peril!

[Cyrano]

3. We don't need a Moonie Times

Eleven percent of the American public reads newspapers.

What the Rethugs are missing is that the future is the web and websites like DU. We get it. They don't.

Hopefully, it will make a difference this year. If not, we have to somehow find a way to survive another four years of these fascist dung heaps. If we win this year, it will be proven that the web made a difference.

The bottom line is that we have the long-term advantage here. Most of their voters never read. A good portion of Dems are more thoughtful and open to new things. If the web becomes "the media of the future," we will win for many decades to come.

[eyesroll]

2. Most newspapers forbid their editors from contributing

to political candidates. (Some are OK with sports/features/etc. types giving money, since they don't write about politics; others have a blanket ban.) This is to avoid the air of impropriety or bias (I know, I know).

I do think this is fair -- if you write about a business sector, you generally can't own stock in that sector. If you write about a sports team, you're not supposed to gamble on it. If you write about politics, you shouldn't do things that seem to reveal a bias.

There is a problem, though. Often, corporate-level executives are under no such ban, because they (theoretically) don't drive content (theoretically). So, you get conservative owners donating to conservative candidates, and the people in the field aren't allowed to.