The hoofbeats you hear in the distance are the echos of the ever-the-brave journalists and university ‘intellectuals’ running towards Dhimmitude.
 
Nothing new in that. Just one more step closer to the complete surrender by the leftists.
…

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?

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.

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

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.

Then again, I may just be projecting reason on the situation.

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.