Departing editor rips bosses in disguised column

[Tarheel316]

Except it's not more power. The person who does something like that thinks it is when he's doing it. It never pays off.

I've said this before. I remember the people I went to school with who said stuff like "I'm not going to take any shirt. Ever."

And some don't. They're also working shirt jobs at 50. And at some point, years ago, they could have improved their lot in life. But they weren't going to take any shirt. Ever

What you say is quite true.

 

[Cubbiebum]

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.

Sorry but I am a firm believer in journalist's work for the people first. This is especially true at radio stations and tv stations where the station in technically owned by the people and can be seized if it fails to continue to serve them. Newspapers are arguable because they don't use wavelengths that belong to the people but I will always believe that I serve the people first and if my company betrays them it is my duty to alert them to that even if it hurts me.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

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.

Sorry but I am a firm believer in journalist's work for the people first. This is especially true at radio stations and tv stations where the station in technically owned by the people and can be seized if it fails to continue to serve them. Newspapers are arguable because they don't use wavelengths that belong to the people but I will always believe that I serve the people first and if my company betrays them it is my duty to alert them to that even if it hurts me.

(a) Radio and TV stations are not technically owned by the people.

(b) This column did nothing to serve the people. It served one cowardly dipshirt's need to embarrass a few mid-managers on his way out the door.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

The number of people with CM Punk avatars in this thread makes me smile. And if this guy had written his column with Punk's entertainment value no one would be complaining.

 

[Cubbiebum]

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.

Sorry but I am a firm believer in journalist's work for the people first. This is especially true at radio stations and tv stations where the station in technically owned by the people and can be seized if it fails to continue to serve them. Newspapers are arguable because they don't use wavelengths that belong to the people but I will always believe that I serve the people first and if my company betrays them it is my duty to alert them to that even if it hurts me.

(a) Radio and TV stations are not technically owned by the people.

(b) This column did nothing to serve the people. It served one cowardly dipshirt's need to embarrass a few mid-managers on his way out the door.

(a) They indeed are. The moguls that "own" them technically are only caretakers. The FCC governs and can seize a radio station or TV station if they deem them to have violated certain rules the FCC have that exist to serve the people. The wavelengths they use are deemed the people's and thus they can be seized by the government.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

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.

Sorry but I am a firm believer in journalist's work for the people first. This is especially true at radio stations and tv stations where the station in technically owned by the people and can be seized if it fails to continue to serve them. Newspapers are arguable because they don't use wavelengths that belong to the people but I will always believe that I serve the people first and if my company betrays them it is my duty to alert them to that even if it hurts me.

(a) Radio and TV stations are not technically owned by the people.

(b) This column did nothing to serve the people. It served one cowardly dipshirt's need to embarrass a few mid-managers on his way out the door.

(a) They indeed are. The moguls that "own" them technically are only caretakers. The FCC governs and can seize a radio station or TV station if they deem them to have violated certain rules the FCC have that exist to serve the people. The wavelengths they use are deemed the people's and thus they can be seized by the government.

The people own the airwaves. They don't own the station.

It's like saying the guy who owns the delivery trucks owns the New York Times.

 

[jackfinarelli]

I support what he did. If I was a managing editor of a paper that threw ethics out the window I would feel the need to alert the readers to the truth. After all, a journalist should be obsessed with the truth.

So, do you think he should use that column as one of his "writing samples" as he applies for new positions?

 

[jr/shotglass]

What jack said. You think I'd hire him to do that again if he didn't agree with something I did?

He swung his fist. OK. I trust he's facing the long-term consequences of doing so with a smile.

In fact, cubbie, I'll go as far as to say I think some of you are painting this guy as a crusader without too much evidence to do so.

Many of us, I would say, see a disgruntled employee standing in the doorway and spitting back into the office as he leaves.

 

[SF_Express]

This is the kind of action I might have taken (the kind, not the exact action) when I was 25 or so.

I really enjoyed reading it, but if he's so interested in integrity, he doesn't slip it past everybody on the way out the door, and he doesn't disguise it under somebody else's byline and a fake headline.

He gives the story to somebody else, or starts his own blog and posts it here and sends it to Romenesko, or maybe he just writes to Romenesko and asks him to post it.

He's going to defend it with "the readers have the right to know what's happening to their newspaper," but one thing that shouldn't happen is the ME doing something this underhanded.

It's fun, but it's not professional, and even if he doesn't care if he burns this bridge or any others, it's still wrong. At the end of his life, it will be on the ledger of "wrong things I did."

Saying that isn't fun, even for me, but it's true.

 

[Cubbiebum]

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.

Sorry but I am a firm believer in journalist's work for the people first. This is especially true at radio stations and tv stations where the station in technically owned by the people and can be seized if it fails to continue to serve them. Newspapers are arguable because they don't use wavelengths that belong to the people but I will always believe that I serve the people first and if my company betrays them it is my duty to alert them to that even if it hurts me.

(a) Radio and TV stations are not technically owned by the people.

(b) This column did nothing to serve the people. It served one cowardly dipshirt's need to embarrass a few mid-managers on his way out the door.

(a) They indeed are. The moguls that "own" them technically are only caretakers. The FCC governs and can seize a radio station or TV station if they deem them to have violated certain rules the FCC have that exist to serve the people. The wavelengths they use are deemed the people's and thus they can be seized by the government.

The people own the airwaves. They don't own the station.

It's like saying the guy who owns the delivery trucks owns the New York Times.

That's a horrible analogy. This isn't something that the company can just new people to deliver. The FM signal frequency and the channel number is nearly everything to the station. Plus if they actually do something that causes the station to be seized they won't just be getting another one. Every single way in which to deliver your material is owned by the people and governed by the FCC.

Anyways, if you actually look at the contracts the "owners" have they are described as trusted caretakers of the frequency. They are not described as the owners.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

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.

Sorry but I am a firm believer in journalist's work for the people first. This is especially true at radio stations and tv stations where the station in technically owned by the people and can be seized if it fails to continue to serve them. Newspapers are arguable because they don't use wavelengths that belong to the people but I will always believe that I serve the people first and if my company betrays them it is my duty to alert them to that even if it hurts me.

(a) Radio and TV stations are not technically owned by the people.

(b) This column did nothing to serve the people. It served one cowardly dipshirt's need to embarrass a few mid-managers on his way out the door.

(a) They indeed are. The moguls that "own" them technically are only caretakers. The FCC governs and can seize a radio station or TV station if they deem them to have violated certain rules the FCC have that exist to serve the people. The wavelengths they use are deemed the people's and thus they can be seized by the government.

The people own the airwaves. They don't own the station.

It's like saying the guy who owns the delivery trucks owns the New York Times.

That's a horrible analogy. This isn't something that the company can just new people to deliver. The FM signal frequency and the channel number is nearly everything to the station. Plus if they actually do something that causes the station to be seized they won't just be getting another one. Every single way in which to deliver your material is owned by the people and governed by the FCC.

Anyways, if you actually look at the contracts the "owners" have they are described as trusted caretakers of the frequency. They are not described as the owners.

Again, not true.

Familiar with cable? Satellite? Internet? Not "owned by the people."

The people own the broadcast frequency used to transmit over-the-air signals to TV viewers. In most areas that's significantly less than half the audience, and it's shrinking every day.

The people own one key means of delivery for the TV station. They do not own the station. Not even close.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The number of people with CM Punk avatars in this thread makes me smile. And if this guy had written his column with Punk's entertainment value no one would be complaining.

That's what this column reminded me of, and why I put in my first post that the only thing missing was a shoutout to Colt Cabana.

I don't have a problem with being underhanded in sneaking in the column. The writer knew very well that had he put his byline on it, that it would have been spiked before it had a chance to run. Although I'd think that the fake guy must not be too happy about it.

A lesson can also be learned by corporations here: Treat your employees right. This guy is going to have a heckuva time trying to get another job. Either he's really stupid (in all probability), or this company drove him so nuts that he stopped giving a shirt about the consequences.