Posts
Until Saturday Stan Wischnowski, 58, had worked for The Philadelphia Inquirer for 20 years and been its executive editor for a decade. Under his leadership the paper won a Pulitzer prize and doubled the number of non-white employees.
He had to resign (it sounds like he was dismissed to me) because the paper published the headline
Inga Saffron apparently thought her article would be headlined “Black Lives Matter. Do Buildings?” In it she said,
More than 40 non-white journalists at the newspaper called in sick in protest on Thursday. In a message telling staff of Mr Wischnowski’s departure, Lisa Hughes, the Inquirer’s chief executive, said that the headline was “offensive and inappropriate”. The paper apologised for a “horribly wrong” decision to use the headline.
On the theme of BLM and free speech this is from the (London) Times today:
He had to resign (it sounds like he was dismissed to me) because the paper published the headline
“Buildings Matter, Too”over an article by the paper’s architecture critic, who expressed concern that damage to historic buildings during Black Lives Matter protests might “leave a gaping hole in the heart of Philadelphia”.
Inga Saffron apparently thought her article would be headlined “Black Lives Matter. Do Buildings?” In it she said,
“You can be appalled and heartbroken by our country’s deadly racism, and yet still quake at what the damage to downtown portends for Philadelphia. Racism is built on strong foundations. The momentary satisfaction of destroying a few buildings does nothing to remove those structures. All it does is weaken our city.”
More than 40 non-white journalists at the newspaper called in sick in protest on Thursday. In a message telling staff of Mr Wischnowski’s departure, Lisa Hughes, the Inquirer’s chief executive, said that the headline was “offensive and inappropriate”. The paper apologised for a “horribly wrong” decision to use the headline.
I wonder if the sub who wrote the headline has been fired.
Does it remind you ever so faintly of Stalin's Russia?
Here is the editor of the Financial Times in London, approving the dismissal of two people because they thought it acceptable to allow a U.S. Senator to express his opinion, that the army should be called in to deal with rioters, in the New York Times.
This article from the NYT, was recommended by Gideon Rachman of the FT on Twitter. I quote the first paragraph below.
By
Before Donald Trump became president, most newspaper op-ed pages sought to present a spectrum of politically significant opinion and argument, which they could largely do while walling off extremist propaganda and incitement. The Trump presidency has undermined that model, because there’s generally no way to defend the administration without being either bigoted or dishonest.
This remark, of course, shows that Michelle Goldberg is astonishingly bigoted in the true sense of the word.
Does it remind you ever so faintly of Stalin's Russia?
Here is the editor of the Financial Times in London, approving the dismissal of two people because they thought it acceptable to allow a U.S. Senator to express his opinion, that the army should be called in to deal with rioters, in the New York Times.
The two top editors of the New York Times op Ed page have resigned amid furore over publication of Sen Tom Cotton’s call for troops on the streets. This is not about free speech, but about an editorial process which lacked rigour and judgment. That’s why they both had to go— Lionel Barber (@lionelbarber) June 8, 2020
What nonsense. NYT published an op-ed by a senior leader of the Taliban: a designated global terrorist. Where was criticism of the editorial process and resignations then?— Gareth Alston (@gareth_alston) June 8, 2020
This article from the NYT, was recommended by Gideon Rachman of the FT on Twitter. I quote the first paragraph below.
Tom Cotton’s Fascist Op-Ed
How should opinion pages respond to the right’s authoritarian turn?
Before Donald Trump became president, most newspaper op-ed pages sought to present a spectrum of politically significant opinion and argument, which they could largely do while walling off extremist propaganda and incitement. The Trump presidency has undermined that model, because there’s generally no way to defend the administration without being either bigoted or dishonest.
On the theme of BLM and free speech this is from the (London) Times today:
Several British universities have begun investigations into alleged racism after social media posts showed re-enactments of the death of George Floyd.
...Bradford University has suspended a student after an image on Snapchat showed a teenager kneeling on another’s neck, with the caption “police brutality”. Warwick University also investigated the photograph but found no association. Three teenagers, two aged 19 and one aged 18, were arrested on suspicion of hate crime and have been released on bail.
So brave https://t.co/JPuxcP1mBD— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) June 8, 2020
It is especially painful to see what has happened to the FT. I used to read it with pleasure.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. It used to be much the most trustworthy paper. I do remember though that Norman Tebbit described it as communist and it backed Labour in 1992.
Delete