Plain Dealer fires Wide Open blogger to appease LaTourette
… or, why reporters have a union.
Cleveland Plain Dealer Online Editor Jean DuBail raised the matter of LaTourette’s displeasure with my participation in “Wide Open” in discussion with the four bloggeres on at least two occasions. We discussed the possibility of my making a disclosure of my support for LaTourette’s opponents whenever I wrote anything about LaTourette.
Today Dubail called me and asked if I would agree to never write about LaTourette on “Wide Open,” as a condition of my continued participation. He said that the arrangement was sought by Susan Goldberg, Editor of the Plain Dealer. When I declined to agree that I would never write about LaTourette on “Wide Open,” I was terminated by DuBail.
I’m really interested in hearing from the other Wide Open bloggers about this bizarre development, especially Blumer and Dave. Are we going to get campaign contribution disclosure statements from them? Have they agreed not to write about any Democratic officeholders on their own blogs?
I mean, how does this work, Jean Mrs. Goldberg?
Does Dennis Kucinich get to throw someone off the team next?
P.S. Susan Goldberg has been sending an “explanatory” email around (not to me). Jeff says it doesn’t really explain anything.
Lots of links at Plunderbund.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
[...] Callahan’s Cleveland Diary: Plain Dealer fires Wide Open blogger to appease LaTourette [...]
November 5th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Here is a link to a column written by the Readers Rep, Ted Diadiun on the Wide Open Blogger situation:
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/119416912484390.xml&coll=2
It now seems to be a “he said/she said” situation. The PD is saying that it dealt no differently than how it deals with other reporters. The bloggers are saying that the PD caved to the LaTourette.
So who is right? The column sure sounds reasonable. That and my total lack of respect for “conspiracies” in general (insert whatever conspiracy you want to insert here) leads me to think that this was much ado about nothing.
If bloggers want to be reporters, then they have to play by the same rules.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I think it needs to be pointed out that the PD has responded to the “Wide Open Blog” situation (I refuse to call it a fiasco anymore, since the PD position seems to be a standing policy)
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/119416912484390.xml&coll=2
We have a “he said/she said” situation. The PD says that their policy is to restrict potential conflicts of interest among employees. The Blogosphere is trumping up a conspiracy that the evil republicans are squelching free speech.
Personally, when someone starts shouting about a conspiracy, I tend to not believe them, especially when they have a vested interest in getting me to believe it.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
See Jill Zimon’s response to the Diadun column here.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:09 am
If you really want to condemn what the PD says as being inaccurate, then find PD writers who’ve contributed to campaigns and then written abotu them. Find that and you may have a bone to pick. otherwise, the bloggers sound like kids who want it both ways… respected as journalists and yet not bound by the journalist’s code of ethics.
Ted Diadiun may have been off by a few days here or there, but it still comes down to someone on the PD staff contributing to campaigns and how the PD handles that.
And the namecalling associated with the whole story is truly unnecessary.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:24 am
[...] Callahan’s Cleveland Diary » Plain Dealer fires Wide Open blogger to appease LaTourette [...]