Newspaper fires editorial writer for telling Obama to shove it

Drew Johnson of the Chattanooga Times Free Press said the paper's new guidelines took effect after he was fired.

http://benswann.com/journalist-fired-for-negative-obama-editorial/

It ended up being the paper's most-read story ever.

 

Gotta be more to this one. When the Nashville Tea Party founder is a personal friend setting up a donation fund within days, yeah, there's more to it. He'll be working for Townhall in a week.

Incidentally, it makes sense that an anti-Obama screed would get more reads than anything else in that paper. There's a concerted effort by conservative bloggers worldwide to find every negative article anywhere, link to it, then remind all of their readers that the media loves Obama to such an extreme that there's a groundswell of media that doesn't, if that makes sense.

 

One thing I didn't quite understand: They complained about the headline for his column. Did he also write the headline, or did the copy editor? Because if it's the copy editor, then why is he responsible for it, unless he gave final approval.

 

"The Free Press"

 

Yep, there's more to it. Don't ever count on some GOP blogger to tell the whole truth.

Johnson changed the headline manually after everyone had left. He'd been asked more than once not to do it.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/02/times-free-press-responds-inaccuracies-coverage-dr/

From the piece:

<i>Contrary to statements made by former Free Press editor Drew Johnson and national media reports, Johnson was told on multiple prior occasions not to make material changes to editorials or headlines once they were approved by the editor responsible for the page.

On Monday night, Johnson changed the approved headline on his Tuesday editorial from, “Keep your jobs plan to yourself, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough already” to “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough.”

However, he waited until his editor had left for the day before changing the headline. That is a violation of our clear editing practice, and our trust. He admitted the following day that he failed to follow the standard set for him.</i>

The paper took a shot at Johnson right at the end:

<i>The newspaper has allowed Johnson to write his opinions freely and without censorship during the time he worked here – even when he wrote about very controversial topics that many readers complained about. In the past year we have printed at least 46 editorials critical of Obama on the Free Press page.

In fact the only instance when the Times Free Press ever denied Johnson the freedom to present his views was last week when he referred to pornography as a “miracle product” and touted the benefits of pornography stating that if teenagers watched pornography it would result in lower rates of teenage pregnancy.</i>

 

Are you suggesting that Liberal bloggers always tell the truth?

I think it cuts both ways. I think every blog should be read with
a good deal of skepticism.

 

Everyone has an agenda. That's where the money is these days.

 

"Free Press"

 

For what it's worth, his headline was a lot better.

 

Yeah, politics aside, we've all lost arguments like that in the newsroom even when we knew our hedline, lede or whatever was better. Once the decision is made you don't sneak around and change it behind the editors' backs without telling anyone. You just don't do it.

 

That is correct.

 

and he used "Mr."