Comments on: Miami Herald President Resigns, Rehires Flack Reporters

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:06:59 +0000

john: The combination of "send me a photo" and discussion about some other dude's body is a bit more than disturbing, no?

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:04:14 +0000

Madmatt, Look at the emails. "How did you survive Katrina? Let me know how you are doing. Send a picture" (I'm paraphrasing but that is pretty close to the content). Do you really want to live in a world where you could lose your job for sending such an email. Or do you only want gays to lose their jobs for such an email. Based on the emails, and I emphasize the emails, there really isn't a story. What would the MSM have run "Foley sends friendly email to ex-page"? What would the censure charge have been "Foley nice to ex pages". If they had the IM, then I think it would have been a totally different story. Who was sitting on the IM until October? The emails were in the hands of the MSM and they didn't run it. Despite what your conspiracy fantasies might entail, Fox is really just a fair and balanced news channel. They don't run stories just to help the democrats, they run stories based on content. The emails are not a story, the IM is the story. If the GOP leadership had access to the IM, then they should have moved quickly to censure Foley.

By: Duzpe

Duzpe — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:36:23 +0000

NPR reporters sure get alot of government money when they leave; not that they weren't already -and NPR keeps alot of dems happy.

By: madmatt

madmatt — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:25:47 +0000

John,

Then why didn't hastert and boner and FOX news release the information last spring so all of this could of blown over by now?

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:27:42 +0000

Madmatt,

Do you think the Foley scandal would do more to hurt the GOP in November of 2005 (when I understand the MSM first got a hold of the emails) or October of 2006? If they held of until greater damage could be achieved against the GOP, can you explain your logic that this disproves the "MSM favors the democrats" idea.

By: madmatt

madmatt — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:18:10 +0000

So they shill for the govt. and they covered up foleys emails....this must be the liberal media you go on about so!

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:35:46 +0000

While I think it is good practice to disclose conflicts (how about a few reporters confessing which party they support), I think it is not written in stone that it has to be that way (e.g. John Burgess comments above).

Based on what the article saying the management was not consistent and clear, I think it is somewhat refreshing that when a management mistake is made that a senior manager steps down.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:04:42 +0000

I think this is more a problem of an older standard's continued practice while the world changed around it. During the Cold War, it was certainly not unusual for a journalist to be paid for writing pro-US pieces in USG media. Only over the past 20 or so years has a brighter line separating the two been around. The Cold War isn't over yet when it comes to Cuba (nor, likely N. Korea). I think Diaz realized (or was pressured to realize) that he was using a new yardstick to measure old practices which was, in fact, an error. Having committed the error, it was a matter of his pride and professionalism that he had to take the hit. I doubt that it was punitive on the part of the publishers, though most don't take kindly to editors who create plunges in circulation no matter the cause. The Miami Herald piece doesn't appear to draw any causal linkage, nor does Diaz' letter suggest one.