25 Gannett Wisconsin reporters signed Walker recall petitions

posted at 9:50 am on March 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Gannett Wisconsin thought they had a big scoop when they exposed 29 sitting judges in the state that signed petitions for the recall of Governor Scott Walker.  Unfortunately, the scoop blew up in their face when they had to admit this weekend that nearly as many of their own reporters had signed the same petitions.  Now these 25 supposedly independent journalists in Wisconsin will face disciplinary action for participating in a political process on which they are expected to observe and report (via Twitchy):

Our journalists are expected to provide you with the clearest picture of the news as it develops — with objectivity and impartiality. And, as readers, you must be able to trust that your newspaper is providing you the most complete picture, without bias of any kind.

In the interest of full transparency, we are informing readers today that 25 Gannett Wisconsin Media journalists, including seven at the Green Bay Press-Gazette, signed the recall petition. It was wrong, and those who signed the petition were in breach of Gannett’s principles of ethical conduct.

It is little consolation to us that none of the editorial employees who signed a petition has any involvement in our news or political coverage or decides how those stories are developed and presented. None of the employees serve on the investigative team. Had they been directly involved, we would identify them.

But the fact that any of Gannett Wisconsin Media’s 223 news employees did sign the petition is disheartening. It has caused us to examine how this could have happened, how we will address it and how we will prevent it from happening again. Most important is informing our readers and being as open as possible.

The worst damage to the credibility of these journalists is probably the excuse they offered Gannett.  According to Kevin Corrado, the president and publisher of Gannett’s Green Bay Press-Gazette, they claimed that signing the petition wasn’t “a political act,” but more like casting a vote in an election.  That’s not just hogwash, it’s transparently misleading hogwash.  Petitions in any instance are political acts intended to force a question of some sort on a larger scale.  In this case, it’s even more explicitly political, as the petitions want to use the political process to negate an election and render the ballots cast in it meaningless.

Given the issues of public-employee union reform that swirl around this recall effort, only a truly uninformed person could possibly argue that signing the petition was not a political act.  That leaves Corrado and Gannett with the unenviable position of trying to determine whether these journalists are really that ignorant or just dishonest.  Either way, it doesn’t leave much room for them to be taken seriously as journalists in the future.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yeah, but were they on the clock?

Akzed on March 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM

whether these journalists are really that ignorant or just dishonest.

I suspect both.

CW on March 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Yeah, but were they on the clock?

Akzed on March 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Rhetorical question?

/

CW on March 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM

they claimed that signing the petition wasn’t “a political act,” but more like casting a vote in an election.

So these idiots tried to claim that “casting a vote” in an election isn’t a political act? I’m sure they also understand, a la Whoopi, that there’s “rape” and then there’s “rape rape.”

cicerone on March 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

From what I understand, these journalists are not alone. Why, just the other day all the employees of the Pyongyang People’s Daily newspaper voiced unequivocal support for Kim Jong Un.

Face it, wing dings, you just hate newspapers and facts.

Bishop on March 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It has caused us to examine how this could have happened, how we will address it and how we will prevent it from happening again. Most important is informing our readers and being as open as possible.

My prediction is they will do nothing to the reporters, it will happen again, and the only thing they intend preventing is getting caught.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Sorry, Ed, but I have to side with the journalists on this one. To repeat what I said in the headlines thread:

Okay, on this one, I side with the journalists, not with Gannett. Just because you choose journalism as a career, you should give up your participation on the political process? Rubbish.

The problem is not that the journalists violated Gannett’s policy. The problem is that we continue to advance the myth that there is such a thing as an “objective journalist.” There is no such thing. All human beings are biased. Every reporter covering a news story comes into that situation with a variety of opinions, biases, personal experiences, etc. that color how they cover it. You can do your best to present both sides of the story — some journalists do, some don’t — but you can never be “objective.”

Signing this recall petition does not make these journalists less objective or less able to do their job. They would have held the exact same opinion of Governor Walker and the recall petition whether they had signed it or not.

It’s time we stop perpetuating this “objective journalist” myth. Instead, just say “yes, I’m a human being with opinions, I happen to have liberal opinions, but I’m going to try to give you both sides of the story as much as that is possible” and move on. People would respect that far more than someone who claims objectivity while still obviously possessing a bias.

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

And, as readers, you must be able to trust that your newspaper is providing you the most complete picture, without bias of any kind.

Uh, are you folks even aware that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY?

GarandFan on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

It should be 223-25= 198

docflash on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

That leaves Corrado and Gannett with the unenviable position of trying to determine whether these journalists are really that ignorant or just dishonest.

Ah, yes. The eternal question when dealing with the Left. And the answer is always an easy one…

All the above!

cicerone on March 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM

trying to determine whether these journalists are really that ignorant or just dishonest.

Journalists these days are uniquely qualified to excel in both.

aquaviva on March 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

They violated their company policy and when they got caught, they tried to spin their way out of trouble. I hope Gannett has the guts to put them on unemployment.

armygirl on March 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

A few JournoTards in Wisconsin being honest is nothing compared to the entire JournoLister industry trying to whip up a race war because a white Hispanic White shot a gangbanger cute young black (as seen in a pic several years old) in circumstances that we don’t totally know yet.

Eye meet ball…ball, eye…

MNHawk on March 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

CW on March 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I eschew sarc tags.

Akzed on March 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

elitist judges and elitist journalists have disdain for the will of the people…yawn.

t8stlikchkn on March 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I’m sure none of their personal opinion has ever influenced their objectivity.
I’m confident that they never would slant a story to favor their political preferences.
They are professionals after all and are highly trained to bring us all the correct information.

NeoKong on March 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

The respect-for-journalism ship sailed long ago. Some say during the FDR regime; others think it goes back to the time of Wilson. I think they drove the final nail in their own coffin during the Clenis administration.

swinia sutki on March 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Heartache!

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Our journalists are expected to provide you with the clearest picture of the news as it ……blah, blah, blah…….
But the fact that any of Gannett Wisconsin Media’s 223 news employees did sign the petition is disheartening….blah, blah, blah…….Most important is informing our readers and being as open as possible

“There, now that THAT’s out of the way, we can go back to being partisan hacks.”

olesparkie on March 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

they claimed that signing the petition wasn’t “a political act,” but more like casting a vote in an election.

So, selecting a politician to hold a political office isn’t a political act. And these idiots want us to depend on them for news.

Petitions in any instance are political acts intended to force a question of some sort on a larger scale.

See above. They differ only as a matter of degree.

RadClown on March 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

What lame stream media bias???

Roy Rogers on March 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

What they’re really in trouble for is letting the cat out of the bag.

Drained Brain on March 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

The respect-for-journalism ship sailed long ago. Some say during the FDR regime; others think it goes back to the time of Wilson. I think they drove the final nail in their own coffin during the Clenis administration.

swinia sutki on March 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM

And they completed their meltdown after a man they all Hated “stole” the 2000 Presidential election, saw his job approval soar to 90% after 9/11, and then “steal” another election in 2004.

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

those who signed the petition were in breach of Gannett’s principles of ethical conduct.

They broke a rule and should be punished.

What you want is no punishment for breaking the rules on one’s employer.

Have you written to Gannett yet to encourage them to change their rule?

Didn’t think so.

Akzed on March 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Just because you choose journalism as a career, you should give up your participation on the political process? Rubbish.

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Yes, but you are not supposed to give the game away, either. It’s far more effective to trash Walker from a faux objective standpoint than when you are openly slurping from the union trough. Whether you are Alger Hiss, or an ersatz Hiss in a cheap suit, you don’t read Trotsky on your Kindle and whistle the International in the elevator. You pretend to be something you are not.

These idiots should be fired for stupid.

Mr. Arkadin on March 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

When did ‘News Reporters’ acquire this luxury?

TimBuk3 on March 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Either way, it doesn’t leave much room for them to be taken seriously as journalists in the future.

This could apply to about 99.9% of the MSM. I mean who do we really trust to give news consumers fair and impartial coverage anymore? Bias appears in reporting or, in many cases, by non-reporting of stories, i.e. Fast N Furious.

Bitter Clinger on March 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Rally, what your saying is that we can’t believe anything we hear or read because all journalists have a bias one way or the other.

It’s best to know their bias so we can judge the “news” item accordingly.

Vince on March 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

“POND SCUM”

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

JournoTards…

MNHawk on March 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I need to use this pejorative more often!

Roy Rogers on March 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Well we already know where so called journalist stand so this is no big revolation!

lisa fox on March 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Politiburo?
BFD!
Unbiased?
WTF!
RIGHT!

KOOLAID2 on March 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

So these idiots tried to claim that “casting a vote” in an election isn’t a political act? I’m sure they also understand, a la Whoopi, that there’s “rape” and then there’s “rape rape.”

cicerone on March 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Exactly, there’s a vote and a vote-vote. This was only a vote, not a vote-vote. To matter it has to be a vote-vote. Unless, of course, a conservative does it. Then you call them nasty names and steal their money.

Gladtobehere on March 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Heartache!

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

lol

KOOLAID2 on March 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

You are right insofar as they are human beings and can’t really be completely unbiased. However, they present themselves as completely unbiased. If they were truly honest, they would admit that they have biases and prejudices and let the rest of us decide how much that has colored their coverage or not.

Bitter Clinger on March 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I’m with Shump and the journalists on this one as well–whether you like the idea of recalls or not, they are a part of the democratic process–it provides a means for voters to pull elected officials out of office. A person should not lose their right to participate in that process by virtue of their job.

That being said, full disclosure is always a good policy in these kinds of instances. Don’t pretend to be unbiased, since everyone is biased. But have the honesty to disclose your biases.

Mohonri on March 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

The worst damage to the credibility of these journalists is probably the excuse they offered Gannett.

Again, the phrase “Fifth Column Treasonous Media” speaks for itself in describing how and where these so called journalists lost their credibility.

SWalker on March 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Either this is the proper move by Gannett…or pure theater for good PR.

It depends on whether the journalists violated any kind of contract agreement with Gannett.

22044 on March 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Bitter Clinger on March 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Exactly! What about fair disclosure in any article that they write from now on placed under their byline:

“I am a journotard, anything I express in the following article is suspect as being biased, ill-researched, patently false or just plain propaganda. Read with caution.”

OkieDoc on March 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM

“And, as readers, you must be able to trust that your newspaper is providing you the most complete picture, without bias of any kind.”

The fact that media big shots actually think it’s possible to present news “without any bias” shows what a strange dream they live in. You present bias just in deciding which stories to publish, which to place above the fold, how much length to give them. Bias is an inherent human condition.

Oh, wait a minute, that doesn’t fit the narrative.

Never mind.

MaxMBJ on March 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

“POND SCUM” ALGAE OIL OF THE FUTURE

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Fixed it for you, bro.

Archivarix on March 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM

It’s time we stop perpetuating this “objective journalist” myth. Instead, just say “yes, I’m a human being with opinions, I happen to have liberal opinions, but I’m going to try to give you both sides of the story as much as that is possible” and move on. People would respect that far more than someone who claims objectivity while still obviously possessing a bias.

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Such a concise piece of intellectual dishonesty is seldom seen.

As recently as 50 years ago, the professional ethics of journalists were rooted in the morals of the individual. Swamped with media that has given up any pretense of objectivity, your proposal is to embrace the amorality of time as an improvement.

How progressive of you. No doubt we should give up on equally outdated myths like “impartial judges” and “freedom of speech”.

You truly are blind to how egregiously offensive the statement ” …but I’m going to try to give you both sides of the story as much as that is possible …” is to anyone who feels people must be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

I must say how glad I am that I am unlikely to ever meet you in person. Your moral equivocating is truly repulsive in print. In person, it is no doubt completely unbearable.

PolAgnostic on March 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So what? So some journalists have biases? Are they not allowed to have their own opinions? How would that even work?

All citizens, including journalists, have a right to hold their own opinions about political issues.

Journalists can and do voice their opinions about political issues with their colleagues, friends or family. Journalists can and do vote in elections. Those actions are appropriate.

I agree with every word of the above quote. It is their right to have opinions on the important issues of the day. The error here is committed by management, not the journalists. These journalists should be named! That way, when we read stories that they have written, we will know something about the views of the person who wrote it.

It is the view of the editorial staff that these journalists have committed a grave sin in lifting the veil to show that journalists are not, indeed cannot be, neutral. My view is that we all know journalists have opinions. We should know what they are.

rogaineguy on March 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The degree to which this was blatantly done suggests these so-called “journalists” either had the explicit approval of their management or felt their actions would be sanctioned.

It is only in the outrage, which further confirmed what most people already suspected, they felt a need to reply. How predictably dishonest is that?

Marcus Traianus on March 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I think it’s far more telling that they have 223 employees in Wisconsin and still cannot get the Walker story right.

That fact should have concerned Gannett’s management a long time ago. This most recent dust-up is just a symptom of a larger problem in their organization, namely either biased or incompetent folks, or both.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on March 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I believe its too late to show moral outrage by any of the so-called journalistic news outlets regardless of whether they be television, radio or the printed word. Their journalistic credentials were sullied during the 2008 election and subsequent years of displays of propaganda and indoctrination. The whole mainstream media has been suspect for a very long time. The shock would have been to find no propagandists that work for the newspaper signing the petitions.

This is no different than the leaked climategate emails showing that global warming data was maniuplated to further their argument and how it tainted their whole study.

An old saying asks “what do you get when you put a teaspoon full of fine wine in a barrel of sewage? Answer: Sewage. What do you get when you put a teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of fine wine? Answer: Sewage”.

iamsaved on March 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I’m with Shump and the journalists on this one as well–whether you like the idea of recalls or not, they are a part of the democratic process–it provides a means for voters to pull elected officials out of office. A person should not lose their right to participate in that process by virtue of their job.

That being said, full disclosure is always a good policy in these kinds of instances. Don’t pretend to be unbiased, since everyone is biased. But have the honesty to disclose your biases.

Mohonri on March 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Your ignorance of the special protections that have been granted to the fourth estate (that would be the media/journalists in your terms) in this country is based on the expectation they are professionally committed to remaining unbiased is astounding.

This may come as a shock to you – Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are not universally celebrated on a global basis. Quite the opposite is the norm – but perhaps you are one of these progressive people who feel the Constitution is outdated?

PolAgnostic on March 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

More dishonest worthless leftist journalists exposed.

jqc1970 on March 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Journalism is a dirty word. Just like slut.

AttaBoyLuther on March 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Shump is not completely wrong here. Everyone does have a ‘bias.’

The only genuinely objective solution for news organizations that want to be actual news organizations instead of just propaganda outlets is to have a vigorous ‘affirmative action’ hiring and promotion policy to create more diversity of opinion in their organization.

For most of the mainstream media this would mean not hiring or promoting any Democrats/progressives/leftwingers for the next twenty or thirty years.

Seems fair and reasonable.

fadetogray on March 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

PUBLISH THEIR NAMES!!!! PUBLISH THEIR NAMES!!!!

SansJeux on March 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM

It is little consolation to us that none of the editorial employees who signed a petition has any involvement in our news or political coverage or decides how those stories are developed and presented. None of the employees serve on the investigative team. Had they been directly involved, we would identify them.

Name them.

Alinsky rule 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Name them. Google fodder. Make them live with their actions. The list of signators is probably available, and some googling of Gannett stories will probably make the connections. At least if google hasn’t already been swept.

bofh on March 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Journalism is a dirty word. Just like slut.

AttaBoyLuther on March 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

.
Change “journalism” to “journalist“.

listens2glenn on March 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM

This scandal will sweep through the legacy media like wildfire…nah. Anybody seen this on any legacy media outlet..?

d1carter on March 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

There is a difference between journalists…. Blogging, commentary, opinion and reporting.

In today’s toxic political atmosphere there appears to be literally zero integrity in journalism…. Non-disclosure of political bias is destroying any possibility of being able to read or watch any type of “News” report and believe that you are getting any part of the story based on “FACTS”.

I have said it before and I’ll repeat it again…. All bets are off in this election…. The Democrat machine is in the gutter fighting for it’s very survival and has no intention of retreat or compliance to moral values or honor. America… is under siege from within.

Journalism is no longer journalism… it is very much now a POLITICAL ACTION NETWORK.

ActinUpinTexas on March 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Finding it hard to get worked up about this. I’d rather know their bias up front rather than have them pretend they’re neutral when they’re not.

taznar on March 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I’m sorry, but there’s no way I can even consider ANY journalist to be “independent.” It’s an oxymoron – everyone carries a bias in some way, shape, or form: it’s simple, basic human nature.

Yes, there are those that operate in a more even-handed way, but it’s foolhardy to say they aren’t biased.

Today, I can visualize three categories of journalists: the activist Journ-O-lists, the moderate (or fair) journalists, and the citizen journalists.

Myron Falwell on March 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

The worst damage to the credibility of these journalists is probably the excuse they offered Gannett.

Post-Watergate, “journalism” has zero credibility.

Spotting and wading through the lies, misinforation and propaganda of “reporters” has become of a way of life in America.

NoDonkey on March 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

PolAgnostic on March 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I agree, its called integrity, people used to have it, not so much anymore. I completely disagree with several comments that a person can’t be unbiased, they certainly can if they have integrity.

cigarcamel on March 26, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Looking forward to Bernie Goldberg’s comments on THE O’REILLY FACTOR about this…

Khun Joe on March 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I agree with most of what Shump says, in spite of the fact that I think most of the MSM has a leftist bias. There’s a difference between signing a recall petition, gathering signatures for a recall petition, speaking at a rally, and using your position as a journalist to influence people to sign a recall petition. At this point I’m not sure where the line should be drawn, but it depends upon the newspaper’s concerns of appearance of partiality. Whether the journalist has an opinion, and whether he can write an objective article on a political issue (if he even covers politics) are two different questions. I’m considering whether this is similar to accusing a business of racism because they don’t have enough people of a particular type on their staff.

marlin77 on March 26, 2012 at 1:24 PM

One of the Gannett papers is my hometown paper. Trust me, unless one is as dense as lead or so far to the left that Marx would need binoculars to see them off his port side its apparent the papers leanings.

Example- run up to 04 election there was a little box on the front page listing the average gas price in the valley and many, many stories on the horrors it was creating with working families. Today…I guess it just isn’t “newsworthy” or something.

Gannett’s management is just mad that the mask slipped and now those who already treat the paper like a biased rag have another reason to mock them.

Betenoire on March 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Wonder how many readers this cost the paper. I know that leftist reportage and editorials have driven readership to new heights but….oh wait. Readership has dropped off with every left driven cause de celbre so now newspapers and broadcast news are the fastest dying industry in America. And ironically online British newspapers, particularly the Daily Mail and Telegraph, are read by more Americans than any American online newspaper excepting the WSJ. Because American newspapers refuse to report many stories or do so in such a poor fashion that one leaves the story with a belief opposite reality. Think AP here. Bizarrely inaccurate analysis of data by its economic, scientific, and political reporters.

pat on March 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Well, kudos to them for publically acknowledging it. That had to hurt but they didn’t try to cover it up like they could have. Whatever else you think of them, they deserve some credit for that as far as I’m concerned.

JS on March 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

This probably includes the entire Capitol Times staff.

M240H on March 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

So, selecting a politician to hold a political office isn’t a political act. And these idiots want us to depend on them for news.

RadClown on March 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Hey, truth is what the liberal media tells you what it is!!!

Waiting for The Wisconsin State Journal, the Milwaukee Sentinel, and other newspapers, along with the local tv news, to get right on this and do in-depth reports on this….

Once again, crickets.

Sterling Holobyte on March 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Shump on March 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

You are both right and wrong. News reporting can be delivered objectively but it’s not. Why? Because newsrooms, for all their fealty to “diversity” are anything but diverse when it comes to politics. I’ve seen plenty of biased stories where the reporter honestly thought they were being objective. Their editors thought so, too. A lot of their bias is displayed by what they choose to cover or not cover. Libertarian or conservative journalists not on an editorial or Op-Ed page stay in the closet. If they like their job, they keep quiet. As one who worked on the editorial pages of newspapers 25 years, the newsroom constantly tried to cause as much trouble for us as a department and individually as they could. And I knew many conservatives at other newspapers that experienced the same culture. Now, since that ain’t going to change, I agree we should end the “objective journalist myth” and at least give full disclosure. But that myth is important to lefty reporters, they won’t give it up.

cartooner on March 26, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Now tell us how many MJSentinel reporters signed.

wi farmgirl on March 26, 2012 at 3:00 PM

One can only hope that Wisconsonites can identify these LEFTIST lunatics, and STOP READING THEIR CRAP PUBLICATIONS!!!

Colatteral Damage on March 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM

It is the view of the editorial staff that these journalists have committed a grave sin in lifting the veil to show that journalists are not, indeed cannot be, neutral. My view is that we all know journalists have opinions. We should know what they are.

rogaineguy on March 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

They violated the terms of their employment with their employer.

Suck on it.

Spliff Menendez on March 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM

There are still newspapers? Really?

Huh.

Ygritte on March 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM

“…it doesn’t leave much room for them to be taken seriously as journalists in the future.”

What has the future got to do with it? I don’t take them seriously now. They lie and spin, and do little else. I don’t automatically believe anything you guys at Hot Air write either.

woodNfish on March 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It was wrong, and those who signed the petition were in breach of Gannett’s principles of ethical conduct.

I didn’t know liberal news outfits like Gannet had any principles other than smear the right and revere the left.

chickasaw42 on March 26, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Maybe, if someone were to leak the names and addresses of these so-called “journalists,” Spike Lee would tweet them.

Just sayin’

georgej on March 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I spent more than a view hours reviewing petition signatures (it was too cold to pump septic tanks that day otherwise in retrospect I would have preferred that).

But back to the point…I was amazed at the number of signatures from Green Bay…it may be that all these “reporters” (I put that in quotes because I read the paper from time to time for a laugh) were only part of a herd mentality.

It led me to wonder what GB people are so mad about. Is it possible that a clever petition coordinator masked the form such that the signators thought they were entering a drawing for Packer tickets?

teejk on March 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I once heard a poll cited that the #1 answer given by journalism students (when asked why they chose to major in journalism) was “Because I want to change the world”.

E-R

electric-rascal on March 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

So now “journalistic ethics” joins “democratic socialism,” “unionized labor” and “military intelligence” in the Great Pantheon of Oxymorons.

bgoldman on March 27, 2012 at 12:38 AM