It’s official: Daily Illini is now the crappiest student newspaper in America
As I expected, the
In Acton’s own words:
As I’ve said from the very beginning, I knew this was going to happen the day before I was given my suspension notice. I was told exactly how it would all play out, and it all has … to the letter. I have my prediction on who would take over command, but I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to read the new mast head of the newspaper.
Last night’s meeting before the board of directors took only about 10 minutes of the 30 minutes I was allotted to defend myself against the allegations levied against me. There were no questions. Just a curt dismissal after my statement. And I wasn’t interviewed by the “student task force”.
Among its other responsibilities, the Daily Illini is supposed to be preparing its student journalists for the rigors of newspapering in the real world, not just the rarefied atmosphere of the U of I campus.
What lesson-by-example do the people who run Illini Media think they have taught? What will these future reporters and editors do out in the real world when confronted by people and organizations who would rather they not cover certain stories? What will they do when confronted by organizations who are quick to claim charges of racism to keep certain stories out of the paper?
They certainly did not teach them to tell the truth and don’t be afraid.
Instead, they taught these future journalists that the only proper response is to cower in a corner and plead for mercy.
Feh.
Daily Illini publisher
What really angers me is that there are no reports of Daily Illini staffers quitting in protest.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
A good journalist always remembers to ask: “Why is the source telliing me this news item in the first place? Does the person have an agenda? What is it?”
I have serious doubts about why Acton Gorton decided to publish the cartoons. I suspect it may not be in the interest of providing information. It might have been to raise attention for himself as a crusading journalist while he is busy looking for a job or internship. It’s a tough business, and his name has now been raised to most of the editors who make hiring decisions in the state of Illinois. That’s just speculation on my part. That may not have been his motive, but I can’t help but think it may not be as pure as Dennis is portraying Gorton’s motives to be. (Gorton’s obviously media savvy; did you notice he hired a Muslim attorney?)
In the past, Dennis, you suggested that Gorton published the cartoons so that UI students could see them. Now, do you not know about a little thing called the Internet? Because I’m pretty sure that a bunch of 18-22 year olds who’ve never known what it was like to use a typewriter know what the Internet is. And since UIUC is one of the most wired campuses in the country, where every dorm room has a high speed connection — and even those renting a shack near campus probably do too. Then, it seems unlikely that they could not do what every person that was somewhat curious about what the cartoons did and type a few keywords into this Web site called Google. You should check it out; I’m sure the students have.
Finally, and I think this is the most important thing, the decision to fire Gorton wasn’t based on the mere fact that the cartoons were published, but rather the way it was done. From the media reports that I have read, Gorton and another editor got together and decided they should run it. Instead of asking the whole editorial board, or allowing imput, they dictated that it would run — and then they paginated the cartoons themselves and only told the staff on the night that the page was to be printed. They gave little warning that might have caused a scuttlebut and prevented their plans. That’s the problem (period). If they had gone to the whole board and made a decision in the light of day (even if that decision contradicted prevailing opinions), then I would fully support their actions. But to do it in a covert manner is ridiculous and indefensible.
The way they went about doing what they did only brings me back to my first complaint. It seems they wanted to grab some attention — for whatever reason that is. (It may not be to get a job; it could have been because they’re iconoclasts. However, it’s still not a reason for a newspaper to do something.)
But, I’m glad you bring the issue up Dennis. Keep blogging away.
“Tim”, your argument is full of holes. Dismissing the need/utility for hard-copy publication because “do you not know about a little thing called the Internet” is pretty grasping. I’ve only been tangentially following this UofI thing, and then only when something new happens, and even I read in the Champaign papers that “most” students hadn’t seen them and were glad they were printed.
It’s sorta similar to declaring that having, e.g., a backyard garden is useless, because “do you not know that you can buy your tomatoes and peas at a thing called a grocery store?”
You started your dismissal by suggesting that Gorton may be massaging his side of the story [duh!] by scolding “Why is the source telling me this news item in the first place? Does the person have an agenda”.
But then three paragraphs later, you forget your very own lesson, and describe as “the most important thing” the stated position of the other side of the issue.
Tim, Tim, Tim … who? is saying that “it’s not what he did but the way he did it”? Why are they saying that? Do they have an agenda?
C’mon, physician, heal thyself, here; if you can’t even pretend to be fair and impartial in the wide span of four paragraphs, then it’s probably best that you come right out and admit your bias up front.
Personally, I think you are, like countless others, offended — probably by proxy — by the cartoons, didn’t want the published at all by anyone, and are desperately grasping for rationalizations why publishing them was inappropriate. But that’s me.
The fact remains through all of this rhetoric that the pictures can and were published so people could see and decide for themselves what all of the hub-bub was about.
Nobody gets fired over coverage of a KKK rally, but a few cartoons are published in Denmark months previously, a few Muslims get pissed over them and then the First Amendment gets trampled all over here in the U.S.?
It’s overreaction across the board. Let’s get to more important issues, like killing terrorists.
rwilymz,
To begin with, I am not offended by the cartoons. I could care less. I think the reaction to them in the Islamic world is ridiculous and discredits most Muslims from being taken seriously.
However, I will admit that I don’t find the cartoons particularly funny or offensive. I do think that the motivation by the Danish newspaper is suspect. From accounts I’ve heard, they admit they published them solely to create controversy in a nation with a burgeoning Muslim population. OK, I think encouraging dialogue is important, but I no longer think that shock is the way to do it. Maybe I’m wrong, but being offensive just to get a rise is pretty fruitless; it creates anger but not open dialogue.
Now, your gaping holes that you see in may argument seem to be limited to two things. First of all, the fact that I suggest the students could get the information from another source. Well, I think that’s a questionable argument. I’m not sure a newspaper should shy away from publishing something because people can get it somewhere else. If that were the case, they wouldn’t publish anything. However, I think given the reaction, this may have been treated differently. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but one has to be professional. Most newspapers will publish controversial information, but there are limits. And I’m not so sure that the images have to be seen to be understood.
The fact that most students say they hadn’t seen the cartoons is probably a sign of apathy. They had to have the cartoons thrown in their face. Does that mmean they should have been? Well, I’m inclined to say that debate and interest could have been created through a series of columns and editorials. The students who still were not interested probably are the same ones that looked at the cartoons, thought about the issue for three seconds and then went back to their beer bongs.
The second ‘gaping hole’ that you point out is the fact that I fail to look at the other sides motives. True enough. However, I have not heard Gorton complain that they have mis-represented the process (of course, he may have). Instead, I’ve hear him complain about the fact that he had the right to publish and that a journalist should do that type of thing. That’s a red herring. It’s not addressing there concern. Which gives me reason to believe that they are telling the truth? And if he did what they say, then that’s my whole problem. Like I said before, I have no problem with the cartoons being published; I just think that a group of editors should have collaborated. Not had one person unilaterally decide to publish it. It’s not his newspaper. It’s the whole group. And next semester one of those sub-editors would be in charge. So, why not let the people who will inherit your mess have a part in making it? Even if they disagree, you could still run it. But, you’d be telling everyone before hand that you’d made a principled decision — not trying to justify what you did after the fact.
Tim, you are greatly oversimplifying the original Danish motivation. The editors of Jyllands-Posten didn’t sit around one afternoon and, apropos of nothing, propose pissing off their muslim population by committing heresy. They had a situation in their nation in which someone, legitimately attempting to write a book explaining the life of Mohammed to children, could not find an illustrator, most of whom begged off citing Theo van Gogh. The newspaper asked: are we that afraid of islam that we will censor ourselves before daring to submit islam to the same criticism we submit everyone else?
They published twelve fairly tame cartoons in response to that question. To phrase the Danish motivation as anything resembling “suspect” as you do, or gratuitous insult as others have done, is disingenuous, and people who do so are missing the point entirely.
But that point was made last September…
To have republished the cartoons in February — apropos of nothing — would indeed have been gratuitous insult. Even if it wasn’t insulting, it would have been pointless. But by February, muslim clerics had been mischaracterizing the cartoons, adding some of their own, and fanning islamist outrage over them that by the time the Daily Planet published them and every other newspaper in the US [save two] refused, the cartoons **themselves** were the issue.
I.e., they were the news.
Ergo, publishing them was well within the purview of a news organ.
As editor in chief, Gorton had “final authority” over what went into each edition — as described publically by his publisher Mary Cory. And he was advised to collaborate.
I’ve got no idea how old you are, but I’m going to guess: late teens/early twenties.
I’ve got no idea what your personal situation is, but I’m going to guess: not married/no kids.
I’m 45, married, with 4 kids. In some respects, I’m the “final authority” over certain family matters, but I’m advised to collaborate. Certain considerations — like the kids’ bedtime — are determinable be either my wife or myself, unilaterally. But to maintain consistency, we are advised to consult each other.
We still don’t have to. If one of the kids acts up, I’m perfectly within my authorized duties as father to send the kid to bed at 7:30. I can’t be fired as father over that, and if I were fired as husband over that, then the person doing the firing would be understandably viewed as petty in the extreme.
When Gorton is given “final authority” over the content of the paper, and then fired because he didn’t submit the content to a board meeting, then he doesn’t have “final authority”, and publisher Mary Cory is a liar.
At the very least, Gorton was given conflicting work rules to comply with [and such conflicting rules are legally actionable]; he’s either the final authority or he’s not. If he is, you can’t punish him for *being* that final authority; if he’s not, then you can’t say he is.
Gorton has been stating his case to the exclusion of any other; the rag has been stating theirs to the exclusion of his. A month and a half ago, Mary Cory publically stated both: he’s the final authority, advised to consult.
The folks he didn’t consult with are ever so pissed that he used his “final authority”, and they have staged a coup, essentially firing him for doing what he was authorized to do. …unless Cory was lying.
The children rule the house.
My take on the issue isn’t that Gorton and Prochaska needed to “do the democratic thing” or whatever – they were the ones in charge. However, in order to do more than go “here are these offensive cartoons!” they’d have to involve other people at the DI to do reporting, etc, and that’s what they didn’t do.
Then again, I may just be projecting reason on the situation.
If I were you, I’d quit making assumptions about me. So far you’re 0 for 2. You might think it improves your argument to attack what you perceive me to be, but when you’re wrong — well, it just makes you look silly.
First off, I agree with you about the Danish paper’s justification. I’m afraid that I didn’t know the full story. I’ve read some AP stories and seen an interview with the editors on “60 Minutes.” On that show, they came off flippant about the decision to run it.
As for your analogy with your family, I’m not sure who is playing the role of whom in the analogy. Is your wife the staff? Is the staff the children?
If the staff is the children, then I guess I would completely disagree with asserting that a newsroom staff of editors that have about the same amount of experience as the editor are the analog to young children.
If it’s your wife, then I would say OK. However, if your wife knows what your decision beforehand, objects and you just say I’m not talking about it – I’ve made up my mind. Then, I guess that I would say that the person is in need of some marriage counseling.
As I’ve read on the topic, the wife (or the other editors) could have been consulted beforehand. Gorton didn’t do that. When they were told, they objected. Instead of thinking that they might have valid concerns that should be discussed (and worthy of holding off on printing the cartoons for one day), he said too bad. I know best. That comes accross as arrogant.
Hey, we all make mistakes. And perhaps he could look to the fact that newspaper editors who have been controlling newsrooms longer than he’s been controlling his own bowel movements might know a bit more than him. And those editors decided not to run it. Why not have the discussion beforehand? Why not hear them out? If he still wanted to make the decision to run it, then stand up and say ‘I’m going to disagree and run it.’ That’s real leadership. The ability to hear all opposing sides, let your colleagues and subordinates feel a valuable part of the team, but ultimately making your own decision.
“squire”, in the real world, the workplace is not a democratic environment in which “the democratic thing” is a viable work rule. If the job were open to a vote of the shop floor, 40 hours of pay would accompany 36 hours of lunch-hour and a daily “leaving early to run some errands”.
Either the editor in chief has “full editorial control of the paper” or he does not. Gorton’s own publisher said he did; now we come to find out he didn’t. Somebody lied to Gorton and Gorton’s taking the fall.
My cynicism says that he was bound to learn that eventually, but it’s sorta like blaming the bartender when the alkie gets drunk and plows into a school bus.
….hmmm, we tend to do that, too, don’t we?
——————–
Tim: per the analogy: yes. Either way you want to look at it. I’m either an authorized actor, or I’m not. If I am, then I can send a kid to bed early, and I’d expect to not get divorced for it, or have the kids stage a coup that was ratified by the sob sisters in the community.
Pardons for missing the guess[es] on you, but you don’t sound like a seasoned veteran.
You have very good questions, “why not have the discussion beforehand” etc. But the publically stated position of his publisher was that the editor in chief has “full editorial control of the paper”, and, to any jury of reasonable people, that kinda implies he didn’t *have* to have the discussion.
Courtesy, and common practice, may have suggested that editors discuss the subject, but if we are to take Cory’s statements on their face — and I don’t see why we shouldn’t, she’s his boss, after all — a “suggested” action is not an order.
Editors and journalists get fired every day for running afoul of the publisher, and there’s no defense for running aful of the publisher. There *is* a defense for “failing to follow procedure”, and that is to find a work rule that contradicts it.
I think Gorton has one. Apparently 80% of the rest of America does too:
from cnn.com
Was the University of Illinois right to fire a student editor for publishing caricatures of Mohammed?
Yes 20% 11624 votes
No 80% 45544 votes
Total: 57168 votes
The University of Illinois DIDN’T fire Gorton, the Illini Media company did. Your poll is therefore meaningless. Besides, I can’t even find it on the CNN.com page.
Also, I don’t hold to the “democratic newsroom” argument, so I’d kindly appreciate it if you didn’t throw up that strawman. Thank you.
Trelawney: your staement is as follows:
My take on the issue isn’t that Gorton and Prochaska needed to “do the democratic thing†or whatever – they were the ones in charge. However, in order to do more than go “here are these offensive cartoons!†they’d have to involve other people at the DI to do reporting, etc, and that’s what they didn’t do.
To put it mildly, I’m reasonably literate and able to comprehend the written word, and at best you offer up a contradictory policy statement. At worst, it is cynical hypocrisy.
You delcare that Gorton didn’t need to do “the democratic thing” but then declared that he needed to involve the others. Albeit in reportage.
So which is it?
Did you read ahis accompanying essay at the time the oh-so-horrific cartoons were published? He said that in the coming days that was all coming…
Didn’t he?
Why, yes he did.
Was he lying?
Or can we not tell whether he was lying because he was relieved of his duties before he could implement it?
Are you leaping to just one more convenient conclusion that rationalizes your craven and baseless position?
Exactly how many sides of your mouth are you willing to allow yourself to be seen speaking from?
Anday… areay ouyay oinggay ootay igpay atinizelay eemay erehay, owardcay?
Another Cowardly Retreat in the face of Muhammad Cartoons
The hoofbeats you hear in the distance are the echos of the ever-the-brave journalists and university ‘intellectuals’ running towards Dhimmitude.
Â
Nothing new in that. Just one more step closer to the complete surrender by the leftists.
…