Departing editor rips bosses in disguised column

You're mistaking me for somebody who hates newspapers. You know what I mean.

 

Sneaky, but I liked it...

 

What a tool. He loses all credibility by promising to keep something confidential and then no doing so; he loses credibility by publishing something in a sneaky fashion under a false byline. He's a liar and a sneak so why should we believe what he says?

I won't even get into how awful the column itself was.

I'm sure the company blows. But this guy did himself no favors.

 

I would guess a few folks on this board have worked at papers as small as the one referenced here, in towns as small as Valley City. Any of you with no reference points should consider before posting.

The guy showed some major cajones by leaving with both middle fingers raised. I read the whole piece. Yes, it was long, yes it was rambling but he made his points and he threw the right people under the bus. Those of you who don't agree, turn in your journalism cards.

 

Your "did you play the game" edict doesn't wash in this one. I don't care how big or how small the paper is. To a lot of us disagreeing with his column, it's not about what happened beforehand. It's about what he did.

You work for the paper until your last byline is history. Anything short of uncovering illegal activity, you're still working for the paper.

I allowed that there's two sides to the issue. Perhaps you should do the same.

 

I think most of the people here are objecting to the unprofessional way in which this guy went about conveying his point.

It's perfectly fine to hate those you work for. Hell, in journalism it's almost a requirement nowadays. But there are ways to do exactly what this guy did (Blog post, letter to another paper, generally talking to people in the coverage area) without using the newspaper as a forum for that view.

When he put this in his company's newspaper, he crossed the line into unprofessional. The newspaper is a place for news and opinions, not for personal vendettas against people running a company.

 

Truth is an absolute defense, but in order to assert it, you have to be in front of a jury because it requires a finding of fact on a disputed pointed.

If you're in front of a jury, you've already spent thousands of dollars defending yourself.

So saying someone can't sue you because what you wrote about them is true is wrong and even if you win on a truth defense, you could still end up spending quite a bit of money.

 

Very good point.

 

In order to bring a public disclosure of private facts claim, the private fact being truthfully disclosed has to be one that a reasonable person would find objectionable. They tend to be highly personal and nothing in those text messages would meet that standard. Things such as Mary Doe had an abortion or John Doe is HIV+ would get there, if true, but not a written statement of opinion that someone else was "worthless."

 

Who "hates" newspapers?

When I see the words "shit job" on this message board, newspapers are an obvious possibility.

 

My assumption is the majority of their readership collectively shrugged their shoulders if they read it at all.

 

Maybe if the lead was better, such as "Citizens, you are not getting the true picture of what is going on in City Hall." or something such as that. The readers would care and this would be a better column.