----------------------
Jan. 21 Update:
Publisher responds to request for clarification, answers question:
My involvement in the newsroom meetings during [now-departed editor]'s tenure was as a silent observer less than once a month.
time to go cut Hospice a check...
Jan. 20 Update:
The Union's publisher has responded with an email, which is now posted over here; it details his current (since former editor's departure earlier this month) and expected future (after new editor's arrival) involvement in The Union's newsroom.
Executive summary: it sounds quite reasonable.
What we wanted to know, though, is the degree of past involvement
----------------------
Original post:
The Sacramento Bee article on the movement to oust The Union's publisher ** may have had more than just the single error.
To clarify the status of this second issue, we emailed the publisher last night to ask one question; we hope that he will consent to reply.
Subject: Question re Bee article and news meetings
To: [publisher of The Union]
For the record -
Kearns [author of Bee article] says:
Question:
Roughly how many news meetings (i.e., discussions
about possible or actual upcoming stories) have you
attended since you became publisher of The Union?
Thanks -
Anna
To: [publisher of The Union]
For the record -
Kearns [author of Bee article] says:
[publisher] said he stays out of newsroom decisions.
"I don't have any idea what goes into the paper until
I pick it up in the morning"...
Question:
Roughly how many news meetings (i.e., discussions
about possible or actual upcoming stories) have you
attended since you became publisher of The Union?
Thanks -
Anna
Maybe the publisher was too busy to answer today; in any case, it's likely that he doesn't count corresponding with us as one of his favorite activities.
We will donate $100 to Hospice of the Foothills if he will answer the question.
See updates, at top of this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.