SF Chron's response to Henry Norr's termination feedback

Return-Path: <rep [at] sfchronicle.com>
From: Special SFReaderRep <Rep [at] sfchronicle.com>
To:
Subject: RE: Henry Norr comments
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:38:30 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1053013294-24979-221
Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline

I received your e-mail about Henry Norr. I would answer you personally, but
time doesn't permit. So I'm giving you some reactions to the most common
points I've heard. If you wrote multiple e-mails to the paper, you might
receive multiple responses. I apologize for that.

First, you should understand that Henry's dispute with the paper is a
personnel matter and is confidential. I can't talk about the details and the
paper can't talk about the details. What you've heard is what Henry has
said. Remember that you're getting one side of the story.

To those who accuse the paper of firing Henry for refusing to toe the
company line on the war, consider this: The paper's position, reflected
again and again on its editorial page, is that the Bush administration was
wrong to go to war without the blessing of the United Nations and was wrong
to pursue a strategy of preemptive attack.

To those who've decided that the paper has a policy of punishing journalists
who oppose the war, look more carefully. The paper's policy prohibits
journalists from engaging in political advocacy related to the war. Period.
Journalists should no more be marching in support-the-troops rallies than
they should be marching in anti-war rallies.

To those who argue that someone who covers technology has nothing to do with
politics or war, ask yourself why George Bush paid a nationally publicized
visit Friday to a Silicon Valley defense contractor. Technology is a key
part of the war and the paper needs to be able to cover that angle fully,
credibly and without conflicts of interest.

To those who say that the paper should encourage political advocacy, which
politics would you like? Only anti-war politics? Or should the paper allow
reporters to join the latest "hot-talk radio" pro-administration
demonstration? Would each story, headline and photograph carry a disclosure
statement? And how should newspapers select and deploy their staffs? Should
they have a political litmus test? Should they hire one reporter from the
left and one from the right? Who would cover which beat and under which
circumstance?

To those who say that the paper is plowing dangerous new ground, consider
that hundreds of newspapers across the country, as well as respected trade
organizations, have policies and canons of ethics intended to minimize
journalists' conflicts of interest. Among them are the New York Times, the
Baltimore Sun, the San Jose Mercury News and the Society of Professional
Journalists. The Chronicle's policy is less strict than many, though the
philosophy is the same: Journalists who can't restrain themselves from
publicly displaying their political passions can't be expected to strive for
fairness and balance in print.

And to those who say that journalists should be encouraged to be passionate,
I couldn't agree more. They should be passionate about even-handed
reporting. They should be passionate about giving voice to a wide range of
ideas. They should be passionate about learning. They should be passionate
about the idea that readers deserve coverage that doesn't reflect or appear
to reflect a writer's personal causes.

Dick Rogers
Readers' Representative
San Francisco Chronicle



--------------------
This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the San Francisco Chronicle (chronfeedback [at] sfchronicle.com) immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

------------=_1053013294-24979-221--