Editorial Staff Refuses To Print Candidate Letter
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 11/3/08 @ 6:21 pm - Filed Under Featured, Local Politics
An editorial board is supposed to be in the business of opining. However, there should be some basic level of fairness. For example, one local newspaper editorial staff came out against Jon Olinger as a school board candidate but then refused to print his rebuttal letter. (You can read the rebuttal letter here)
This really gets to the heart of what makes the blogosphere so much more interesting than traditional print media. Here at FWP we take on all comers. If you have a dissenting opinion then you are always welcome to post it. If you want to challenge something we write then we would encourage you to do so. We never refuse to post other comments simply because we disagree with them.
In the blogosphere, ideas win out. In print journalism some editor with an ax to grind decides whose thoughts get put into the public domain. They don’t understand free market journalism and frankly they aren’t very good at it - all of the local media blogs are essentially worthless.
The reason is that they want to control the information and moderate the public debate. That’s why they won’t print certain letters or even acknowledge the existence of the blogosphere (and I’m not talking about reporters here - there’s a distinction between them and the editorial staff).
The amount of information available can no longer be easily contained or manipulated. Now even newspapers have to compete just like everyone else. And if you ask me they are woefully behind the curve and losing ground every day…
Comments
10 Responses to “Editorial Staff Refuses To Print Candidate Letter”
Leave a Reply
Mr. Pruitt,
We post Jon Olinger’s letter on our Web site as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, he sent it to us too late to have it published in the print version of the paper.
Here is the link
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081030/EDIT09/810300324
Jeff,
First - how incredibly sad. Regardless of whom anyone supports for this school board race - all candidates should be able to have their letter to the editor published (assuming good taste guidelines are applied across the board).
Second - I know I’m getting old however, as a youngster, I don’t ever remember the JG being this obvious, biased, and discriminating. Sure, they have always had their slant - and particular endorsements and that is to be expected. But this extreme?
Hey - maybe Olinger should pull the race card?! ;)
Kristina
Jon just didn’t think ahead. After my candidate interview I knew I was going to get trashed when their endorsements came out. So I sent Tracy an op ed to try to get my positions printed beforehand, which surprisingly he published. Of course when their endorsent came out for Corona, trashing me as racist, I had used up my chip, but I figured I got the best I could hope for from the JG.
I heard to make it up to Jon, the JG is going to run an endorsement by beloved sportswriter Ben Smith. I managed to smuggle an advance copy:
On your mark, get set, go. Jon Olinger is. Running. For School Board. Running for School Board he is. The Running Man. His cup runneth over. Run DMC. My little Runaway. Running on empty. Born to Run. Run up the score. Jon Olinger is. Running.
All in all, some of Ben’s finest work.
First of all I reject Stacey Stumpf answer. They can cling to a rule they have but it is interesting that at least one OP-ED piece from the previous Mayor’s office was hand delivered to them and appeared the following day in the paper.
One would think a paper that cared about the community, over self promotion of their agenda, would go out of their way to present the other side.
Maybe that is why the paper’s readership continues to get smaller and smaller. They have lost their way in what a REAL NEWSPAPER should be like. What the papers have missed is the people are the ones who will decide if they stay in business. For some time their people have turned a deft ear to them and will continue to do so.
I can post a letter here - I don’t need the JG to do that. The point of writing a letter to the editor is to get it into the print edition…
If the Journal Gazette is so over and tired and irrelevant and last-century and all, why would Olinger or anyone else care if his letter got in? If blogs are the future and so much more interesting, shouldn’t that be his forum of first response?
This part made me laugh out loud:
They don’t understand free market journalism and frankly they aren’t very good at it - all of the local media blogs are essentially worthless.
As opposed to the hand-over-fist cash-collection action of the MSM-free blogosphere? Stop, you’re killing me.
Nance,
I can see you missed the entire premise of my post. Traditional media types like to make it out to be an us vs them approach regarding bloggers. I’ve said this numerous times - blogs, as they are today, won’t replace newspapers.
My point is people read the newspaper for news - not for what some editorial staff has to say. Meanwhile people read blogs for opinion.
Yes the editorial staff has a bigger microphone and they have their reporters to thank for that. But in the blogosphere, where equality reigns supreme, the editorial staffs can’t compete. Their blogs fail time and again.
I used the term worthless not in a monetary sense but as a synonym for pointless.
First, there’s a difference between the present and the future.
Second, you can’t really believe that print newspapers are the future? John McCain might believe that, but I think most people that know how to operate a computer would know better.
Look at how far the blogosphere has come in the last 6 years. Blogs have changed the media landscape and will continue to do so in the future.
Newspapers are going to have to adapt their operations to provide information in the format people will want in the future. The way I think of it is that blogs are pushing stagnant media, i.e. newspapers, to innovate and that’s a victory for everybody.
Something to consider:
Some person(s) at Fort Wayne Newspapers have been regularly reading my blog since I first started it. There is no way that they can say they are unaware of what I am saying there.
A few months ago, I met one of these reporters in person, while he/she was covering a crime scene investigation here. He/she walked up to me and called me by name, even though we had never met before, and proceeded to tell me that he/she regularly follows my blog. When I mentioned this person during a subsequent post, he/she sent me an e-mail in response to correct an error. This person specifically requested that I not share this e-mail with anyone, and I took the way this was stated to indicate that communicating with me would be looked down upon by his/her superiors. A few weeks later, I called the newspaper to speak with this reporter, but was told that he/she no longer works there.
Another example: Several months ago, I witnessed a very large house fire. There were dozens of police, fire and ambulances on scene for several hours so I took several photos of it. I offered these photos to a local newspaper. They first asked my name, then promptly declined to ec=ven look at the photos. I was in the front lobby of their building at this time, and they didn’t even want to walk a few yards to look at the photos to see if they were worth printing???
I understand the editorial board interjects their opinions in major ways. But I wonder if they are actually going so far as to delete entire stories or to ignore very credible sources for information, simply because they don’t like the name associated with it.
I think Jeff is correct that MOST newspaper blogs are really just cheap imitations of the real thing. They seek to manipulate the forum there to the same degree that they do in their printed versions. But I will have to say that I exempt Leo Morris from this rule. I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, and some of his posts I think are actually quite worthless, but that in itself is no worse than any other blog. The reason I like his blog is thathe allows people to leave comments that might seem a bit controversial. I know, I have tested this proposition a couple of times. Also, although he does not rply to most comments, it is not unusual to see him do so, especially if they directly address a question or issue to him. I know because I have tested this proposition also.
At face value though the fact that Stacey’s comment is first one would presume that to certify that yes they do watch the blogs…heartily and dont like to admit it.
The way to solve this is for the blogosphere to ban together and start their own Collaboration Periodical or Paper. Im game and I have the publication and journalism experience to prove it.