Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF Chron's response to Henry Norr's termination feedback
SF Chron's response to Henry Norr 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--
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--
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
While it may be true that the Chronicle ran many anti-war or anti-Bush administration editorials BEFORE the war started, once the U.S. attacked Iraq, the Chronicle turned around completely and supported THE PRESIDENT himself (not just the troops)!!! So much for corporate media sticking to their beliefs.
Norr was a COLUMNIST, not a REPORTER.
Get the difference?
Herb Caen wrote for years as an unabashed advocate for many things. As did Art Hoppe. On the sports page, writers like Glenn Dickey and Lowell Cohn were also equally opinionated.
For example, Dickey has trashed Al Davis of the Raiders repeatedly over the years, to the extent that no one would perceive him as an objective journalist when it comes to Davis, regardless of his personal activities.
The idea that either the Chronicle or the old Examiner prized objectivity in their columnists is just plain ludicrous.
Newspapers also frequently run columnists who have connections to various political perspectives and organizations.
So, about 90% of Rogers' statement is irrelevant, because the whole point of distinguishing columnists from reporters is that a reporter is supposedly writing an objective news story, while a column is considered an opinion.
Also, note that Rogers accidentally confirms Norr's contention that he was fired for being antiwar. Even given the obligatory "we can't comment on private personnel matters" response, Rogers could have said that the Chronicle took action against Norr for reasons that it cannot divulge unrelated to Norr's political beliefs. But he didn't. Instead, he implicitly confirmed that Norr's politics were the issue. I hope Norr, his union or his attorney is reading this website, because Rogers's response to the public posted here could useful in fighting his termination.
Leaving aside the columnist issue, why does the Chronicle only prohibit antiwar political activity, or is this the only area when the goddess of objectivity must be worshipped? Could it be that people like Phil Bronstein, Phil Matier, and others have activities that would be deemed inappropriate if a broad based policy were applied?
Finally, Rogers' reference to the President's visit to United Defense Industries, and his suggestion that Norr could not have been objective in covering it (again leaving aside that Norr is a columnist, not a reporter) is really a hoot. Admittedly, I didn't pay any attention to the Chronicle's coverage, as I pretty much ignored the whole charade, with the exception of the protest, but did the Chronicle note the Bush and Bin Laden families connection to UDI through the Carlyle Group?And the money they made off of it through defense contracting?
Somehow I doubt it. In this instance, Norr's alleged lack of objectivity would have helped, because he could have written a column, an OPINION PIECE, that put the inadequacies of the coverage into perspective. I'm sure he must be aware of the background of Bush, the Bin Ladens and UDI.
Apparently, this is the real problem.
Get the difference?
Herb Caen wrote for years as an unabashed advocate for many things. As did Art Hoppe. On the sports page, writers like Glenn Dickey and Lowell Cohn were also equally opinionated.
For example, Dickey has trashed Al Davis of the Raiders repeatedly over the years, to the extent that no one would perceive him as an objective journalist when it comes to Davis, regardless of his personal activities.
The idea that either the Chronicle or the old Examiner prized objectivity in their columnists is just plain ludicrous.
Newspapers also frequently run columnists who have connections to various political perspectives and organizations.
So, about 90% of Rogers' statement is irrelevant, because the whole point of distinguishing columnists from reporters is that a reporter is supposedly writing an objective news story, while a column is considered an opinion.
Also, note that Rogers accidentally confirms Norr's contention that he was fired for being antiwar. Even given the obligatory "we can't comment on private personnel matters" response, Rogers could have said that the Chronicle took action against Norr for reasons that it cannot divulge unrelated to Norr's political beliefs. But he didn't. Instead, he implicitly confirmed that Norr's politics were the issue. I hope Norr, his union or his attorney is reading this website, because Rogers's response to the public posted here could useful in fighting his termination.
Leaving aside the columnist issue, why does the Chronicle only prohibit antiwar political activity, or is this the only area when the goddess of objectivity must be worshipped? Could it be that people like Phil Bronstein, Phil Matier, and others have activities that would be deemed inappropriate if a broad based policy were applied?
Finally, Rogers' reference to the President's visit to United Defense Industries, and his suggestion that Norr could not have been objective in covering it (again leaving aside that Norr is a columnist, not a reporter) is really a hoot. Admittedly, I didn't pay any attention to the Chronicle's coverage, as I pretty much ignored the whole charade, with the exception of the protest, but did the Chronicle note the Bush and Bin Laden families connection to UDI through the Carlyle Group?And the money they made off of it through defense contracting?
Somehow I doubt it. In this instance, Norr's alleged lack of objectivity would have helped, because he could have written a column, an OPINION PIECE, that put the inadequacies of the coverage into perspective. I'm sure he must be aware of the background of Bush, the Bin Ladens and UDI.
Apparently, this is the real problem.
Quoted, even: "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. "
Anticipated rejoinder: "Hey, I can do ANYTHING I want, and you can't do ANYTHING, because I have FREE SPEECH and you don't."
The problem here is some who think they can impose their will on others. If someone spends time replying to you with a request to not copy, and you disrespect their wishes, then you're no better than Saddam or Al Qaeda or those killers who pose as and who target civilians. You're just another damn religious evangelist.
Just DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO TO YOU, and get the fuck out of my City until you get such a clue.
Anticipated rejoinder: "Hey, I can do ANYTHING I want, and you can't do ANYTHING, because I have FREE SPEECH and you don't."
The problem here is some who think they can impose their will on others. If someone spends time replying to you with a request to not copy, and you disrespect their wishes, then you're no better than Saddam or Al Qaeda or those killers who pose as and who target civilians. You're just another damn religious evangelist.
Just DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO TO YOU, and get the fuck out of my City until you get such a clue.
Hey, Doofus!
You should try reading that quote again. But in case you still can't figure it out, let me clear it up for you...
It asks that if you are NOT the Intended Recipient, then don't distribute it. Thus, if you ARE the Intended Recipient (IR), then you can go right ahead and distribute it to the world (which some of us might consider a type of *personal use*). Obviously, for such a distribution to have much meaning, the persons to whom it is distributed need to be able to review it.
We are all, effectively, secondary recipients of the message, and are collectively aiding the IR in both his/her *personal use* and the effective distribution of the message (which may, in this case, be the same thing). Just trying to help each other out. <grin>
As such, there is no conflict between the Chron's request and the recipient's action.
And make no mistake, it is just a request. Without a prior binding agreement/relationship with the recipient, the Chron has no legal power whatsoever to arbitrarily impose restrictions on the use of information that it voluntarily sends to private citizens. The Chron can try to present its request as though it were a demand, but it is still merely a request. And in my world, that type of request should include the word *please*.
SIDE NOTE.
Quoted, even:
"The problem here is some who think they can impose their will on others."
On that, my friend, we agree. You know, it reminds me of a recent situation where this one particular guy really, REALLY wanted to engage in a certain activity. He went all over the place, telling everyone within earshot about his big plan for this certain activity. He was quite effective at getting his message out there and after a little while, practically everyone in the whole world knew about it. But, as it turned out, most of the people thought that it was a horrible idea. Many of them even believed, correctly, that carrying out such a plan would constitute a criminal act. And they didn't keep quiet about their opposition, either: they wrote him lots of letters and emails; they sent word to him through official channels; they convened parliaments and congresses to make declarations and resolutions; and when he still insisted on imposing his will upon everyone else, then they took to the streets by the MILLIONS in order to try to prevent this crime. But he could not be deterred (sociopaths are like that, you know), and he committed his crime. In fact, he committed many, many crimes. He murdered a bunch of people. Thousands of people, in fact. And many times that number of people were injured, broken, bloodied, amputated. And he smiled about it all. Bragged about it on television. He said he enjoyed it and he wished that he could do it again. He hasn't said for sure, but more than a few of us suspect that he's already planning to do it again, conspiring with his oily henchmen. He's dangerous and we all know it.
Like you said, "If someone spends time replying to you with a request to not [engage in a certain activity], and you disrespect their wishes, then you're no better than Saddam or Al Qaeda or those killers who pose as and who target civilians."
Peace out,
mr. normal
========
"Let us laugh while we may,
though there be bitterness in our laughter;
let us laugh while we may,
for capitalism has tears enough in store for all of us."
~ James Connolly, "Harp Strings," 1908.
You should try reading that quote again. But in case you still can't figure it out, let me clear it up for you...
It asks that if you are NOT the Intended Recipient, then don't distribute it. Thus, if you ARE the Intended Recipient (IR), then you can go right ahead and distribute it to the world (which some of us might consider a type of *personal use*). Obviously, for such a distribution to have much meaning, the persons to whom it is distributed need to be able to review it.
We are all, effectively, secondary recipients of the message, and are collectively aiding the IR in both his/her *personal use* and the effective distribution of the message (which may, in this case, be the same thing). Just trying to help each other out. <grin>
As such, there is no conflict between the Chron's request and the recipient's action.
And make no mistake, it is just a request. Without a prior binding agreement/relationship with the recipient, the Chron has no legal power whatsoever to arbitrarily impose restrictions on the use of information that it voluntarily sends to private citizens. The Chron can try to present its request as though it were a demand, but it is still merely a request. And in my world, that type of request should include the word *please*.
SIDE NOTE.
Quoted, even:
"The problem here is some who think they can impose their will on others."
On that, my friend, we agree. You know, it reminds me of a recent situation where this one particular guy really, REALLY wanted to engage in a certain activity. He went all over the place, telling everyone within earshot about his big plan for this certain activity. He was quite effective at getting his message out there and after a little while, practically everyone in the whole world knew about it. But, as it turned out, most of the people thought that it was a horrible idea. Many of them even believed, correctly, that carrying out such a plan would constitute a criminal act. And they didn't keep quiet about their opposition, either: they wrote him lots of letters and emails; they sent word to him through official channels; they convened parliaments and congresses to make declarations and resolutions; and when he still insisted on imposing his will upon everyone else, then they took to the streets by the MILLIONS in order to try to prevent this crime. But he could not be deterred (sociopaths are like that, you know), and he committed his crime. In fact, he committed many, many crimes. He murdered a bunch of people. Thousands of people, in fact. And many times that number of people were injured, broken, bloodied, amputated. And he smiled about it all. Bragged about it on television. He said he enjoyed it and he wished that he could do it again. He hasn't said for sure, but more than a few of us suspect that he's already planning to do it again, conspiring with his oily henchmen. He's dangerous and we all know it.
Like you said, "If someone spends time replying to you with a request to not [engage in a certain activity], and you disrespect their wishes, then you're no better than Saddam or Al Qaeda or those killers who pose as and who target civilians."
Peace out,
mr. normal
========
"Let us laugh while we may,
though there be bitterness in our laughter;
let us laugh while we may,
for capitalism has tears enough in store for all of us."
~ James Connolly, "Harp Strings," 1908.
For more information:
http://www.zmag.org/
Oh, yeah...
1. In your post, you included a direct quote from the email message in question.
2. In order to create your post, you must have reviewed that message.
3. Your post is a form of distribution.
4. You, I can safely guess, are not the designated Intended Recipient.
5. You incorrectly believed that a contract had been formed. One that, if it were valid, would prohibit YOU from reviewing, copying, or distributing any part of the message.
6. As such, you engaged in each and all of the activities which the *contract* <snicker> expressly prohibited and by such actions have made it clear that it is YOU who has no respect for the very legal institution which you claim to support.
Shame on you! I hope your mother hears about this.
The ruling of the High Court of Your Own Logic hearby finds that you are as bad as Saddam or Al Qaeda...
You are hearby sentenced to leave the City immediately!
<much laughter and derision>
1. In your post, you included a direct quote from the email message in question.
2. In order to create your post, you must have reviewed that message.
3. Your post is a form of distribution.
4. You, I can safely guess, are not the designated Intended Recipient.
5. You incorrectly believed that a contract had been formed. One that, if it were valid, would prohibit YOU from reviewing, copying, or distributing any part of the message.
6. As such, you engaged in each and all of the activities which the *contract* <snicker> expressly prohibited and by such actions have made it clear that it is YOU who has no respect for the very legal institution which you claim to support.
Shame on you! I hope your mother hears about this.
The ruling of the High Court of Your Own Logic hearby finds that you are as bad as Saddam or Al Qaeda...
You are hearby sentenced to leave the City immediately!
<much laughter and derision>
Shame on you, SF Chron. If Herb were still alive, my money says you would not have the balls to fire Norr. Quick question...in the 70's Herb Caen (along with many others) was an active participant in the strike against the SF Chron. Why wasn't he fired????
to Spam anyone would be wrong, you should be a pedestrian on the side of the information highway.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network