Now
Partly Cloudy
28°
High
32°
Low
28°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Columns
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Kathleen Rutledge: Political contributions list includes two from Journal Star

Comments 53 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Saturday, Jun 23, 2007 - 05:51:11 am CDT

Two people who do work for the Journal Star newsroom made a national listing and I wish they hadn’t.

One still works here editing stories and writing headlines. The other, freelancer Paul Fell, no longer will draw editorial cartoons for our opinion pages.

MSNBC reporter Bill Dedman compiled the list of journalists who gave to political campaigns. He found 144, ranging from the ethics columnist for The New York Times to an Omaha Fox television reporter to a business reporter for The Des Moines Register. Most gave to Democratic or liberal causes.  See Dedman’s full report at www.msnbc.msn.com

Story Photo

Related Link(s):


Read the Journal Star's ethics code here
Cartoonist Paul Fell's response to an MSNBC inquiry into political contributions by journalists:

"For your information, I did contribute the amount listed to the Maxine Moul for Congress campaign in 2006," Fell said in an e-mail. "I am a freelance cartoonist who contracts with the Lincoln Journal Star to draw three editorial cartoons a week.

"They don't pay me enough money to be able to dictate how I conduct myself in political campaigns. I generally do not donate to political candidates, but Maxine Moul is a longtime friend and former newspaper publisher where I got my start as a cartoonist in 1976.

"Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what the Lincoln Journal Star or their parent organization, Lee Enterprises, policies are on allowing newsroom staff to give to candidates and parties. I do not believe they did disclose my donations. That's their problem, not mine."

/id/19113485/.

At the Lincoln Journal Star, copy editor Sylvia Hermanson made a $250 contribution to the Democratic National Committee in January.

Cartoonist Paul Fell gave $450 to the Democratic congressional campaign of Maxine Moul in 2006.

Hermanson notified her supervisors after MSNBC contacted her. She checked our newsroom ethics code and realized she had violated it. The code forbids political contributions by staffers who are involved in political coverage. As one of about a dozen news copy editors, she is involved in political coverage in that she edits and writes headlines on local and national political stories, and occasionally designs pages.

She acknowledged her error. We reprimanded her. We trust she will not do this again. We also trust she will continue to keep her personal views out of the judgments she makes about the news.

Fell’s case differs from Hermanson’s. We pay him to express his own opinion on matters of public interest through cartoons that appear on the editorial pages. He is not an employee but a freelancer who is covered by our ethics code. He did not see fit to tell us he had made a political contribution, either at the time he made it or when he was contacted by MSNBC.

The biggest difference, though, is the cavalier attitude about journalistic ethics Fell exhibited. He said he doesn’t give “a rat’s ass” about the policies of this paper. Read his complete comments to Dedman elsewhere on this page.

Fell’s comments make it clear he does not care about guarding this newspaper’s trust with readers. We don’t think he should treat our credibility with such disdain. His comments to MSNBC follow an earlier incident in which he did not disclose to us that he had posted cartoons of a sexual nature on his Web site. He removed them after we expressed concern.

We have lost trust in our professional relationship with Paul Fell. For that reason, he no longer draws editorial cartoons for us.

This is no occasion for celebration, but the MSNBC report does present us with a good opportunity.

We are renewing efforts to make sure all newsroom staffers and freelancers know and understand the provisions of our ethics code. It’s important.

n n n

So what do you think?  Should journalists give money to political campaigns?  Does it matter if they are copy editors or cartoonists or reporters? 

We’d like to know your thoughts on our ethics code, too. See the link to it on this page.

You can join an online conversation about this issue in the comment section below.

Or send me a private comment at krutledge@journalstar.com.

Or send a letter that we will consider for publication as a letter to the editor.

Send it to oped@journalstar.com or Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 81689, Lincoln, NE 68501. It must include your name, postal address and telephone numbers. We use this information to verify the letter and its author, but we don’t print the address or telephone number.

We’d like to hear from you.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Columns > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Observer wrote on June 23, 2007 1:07 am:
" I appreciate the Journal Star's effort to appear to be free of conflicts of interest with political campaigns. However, as much as I believe the newspaper should report the happenings as a neutral observer, they do not in all instances - Unfortunately, Mr. Fell's ego exceeds his talent and has been extremely disresptful and insubordinate in his relationship with the paper and to the public - He owns his words, and he has to live with them. "

 WCG wrote on June 23, 2007 6:50 am:
" Your ethics code seems reasonable for news staff, but perhaps not for an editorial cartoonist, especially freelance. These people do nothing but display their opinions, anyway. Why would you worry about a perception of bias in that situation? And you mention donations by journalists. How about those from publishers? Do your bosses at Lee Enterprises donate to political campaigns? If so, how much political control over Journal Star contents is simply due to who is hired,... and knowing what will keep the bosses at Lee Enterprises happy? And how much is due to recognizing public opinion in Nebraska? You're selling a product, so you've got to be careful that you don't antagonize a customer (reader or major advertiser). I understand that you must sometimes walk a fine line between journalistic integrity and economic necessity. So a strict ethics code is probably a very good idea. "

 Tod wrote on June 23, 2007 7:05 am:
" I can't believe this, but I agree with Paul Fell. His cartoons over the years have probably provided millions of dollars worth of advertising for the Democrat party, yet a $250 contribution isn't allowed? That's just crazy. His political leanings are obvious. He is a freelancer. I don't care if he contributed his entire salary to a Democrat. In fact, that goes for all of the Journal-Star staff. Who do you, Rutlegde, think you're trying to fool? Do you really think the number of cartoons you publish bash Democrats and Republicans equally? If you have fired Paul Fell, you may as well fire the entire editorial staff, yourself included. Sheesh! "

 David wrote on June 23, 2007 8:41 am:
" Whether or not journalists donate to or are involved in political campaigns, they still hold their own personal views. What the J-Star (or Lee Enterprises) is really worried about is the "appearance" of bias, not any "actual" bias taking place. Everyone has an opinion, but journalists are taught to be fair in their reporting. If they are doing their job, there shouldn't be a problem. It's a crazy world when political journalists are singled out for contributing to politicians, and yet our politicians can take money, gifts, and favors from anyone while we (the constituents) naively expect them to work with our best interests in mind. If the J-Star were doing it's unbiased job of giving us news that matters, that would be the story. "

 Liz wrote on June 23, 2007 8:58 am:
" This is one of the many reasons the Lincoln Journal Star is a rag of a "news"paper. Right on, Paul Fell! "

 Greg wrote on June 23, 2007 10:24 am:
" I read your editorial with interest today and I am not sure I understand the almost righteous indignation it expresses. While from a simplistic approach I can understand the ideal of the neutral journalist and paper and how this policy promotes it, but in the real world I don't know if the policy makes sense. I assume the LJS staff is encouraged, or at least not discouraged from voting, i.e. they have opinions and partcipate in the political process, this is generally considered to be a good thing in our democracy. If you conceed the point above then the issue is really about appearances or the public knowing what those opions or political leanings are. I think most of the public is smart enough to know that media employees have opinions and political leanings. So the policy in place just keeps them from being known. One could argue that a policy of allowing political contributions, but requiring disclosure, would be better and promote journalistic integrity--that is the approach the state takes in the lobbying area. Certainly as others have noted, it seems kind of silly for editorialists or editorial cartoonists, who are in fact paid for their opinions, to be precluded from expressing them in a way that is considered to be politically protected free speech. I also feel that the policy is a little onerous if employed to rank and file employees. Lastly, it seems a little hypocritical and heavy handed, the paper endorses candidates and takes sides on issues, but apparenly its employees are not allowed to. Is the real purpose of the policy to prevent those that always accuse the media of having a liberal or other bias from saying "gotcha"? "

 Gerard Harbison wrote on June 23, 2007 10:48 am:
" This is sweeping the problem under the rug rather than dealing with it. The real problem is the heavy pro-Democrat, pro-liberal bias of journalists, and the refusal of editors to correct that bias. Political donations are one way we can find out what a person's political affiliation is. The fact that Ms. Hermanson donated to the DNC is useful information about her, that allows us to evaluate her coverage and that of your newspaper. By forbidding such donations, you are suppressing the truth, not correcting the problem. "

 Whatever wrote on June 23, 2007 10:52 am:
" I commend these efforts to be forthcoming with this information. I only wish our politicians were as forthcoming. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion and the right to voice that opinion but journalists must be especially careful to ensure they are unbiased and that their credibility is beyond approach. It's unfortunate that there even needs to be an ethics code as this should be common sense. "

 So employees can't give, but the LJS can??? wrote on June 23, 2007 11:19 am:
" I find it somewhat ironic that you can scold a reporter for donating $250, and chastise a freelance cartoonist for donating $450, yet when one checks the A&D website for "JournalStar" one finds that the LJS donated $10,000 to the "Yes On Schools" committee on 10/07/99 and $15,185.16 to the "Yes on Streets & Trails" committee on 9/1/04. Not to mention the fact that you have editorials every election that specifically endorse certain candidates (generally Republicans but not exclusively). References: http://nadc.nol.org/ccdb/search.cgi?page=formb7&IDNO=99CUA02625&OFFREC=11/24/1999&MICRONO=5760234 and http://nadc.nol.org/ccdb/search.cgi?page=formb7c&IDNO=99CUA03144&OFFREC=11/01/2004&MICRONO=6870216 I'm not seeing any justification in your code of ethics for why it's OK for the paper to do it but not the individual reporters and columnists. Please enlighten me. "

 Timmy wrote on June 23, 2007 11:21 am:
" I think the policy is rather unfortunate and laughable, and believe Paul Fell's reply is the appropriate citizen response to any efforts at anti-democratic controls in the United States. Unless a political contribution is viewed to be a form of a wager where it's feared, like Pete Rose in baseball, that an employee who has money on the line is more likely to try to manipulate the outcome, what difference does it make whether or not your employees give to political campaigns? Do journalists surrender their citizenship rights? Whether or not they give to a political campaign will not change their own political leanings. And, unlike people in many other businesses, it's hard to imagine how a journalist is going to gain financially from giving a contribution by receiving anything like preferences on contracts, legislation that favors their businesses, etc. Paul Fell is a political cartoonist. What great political cartoonists have not had a very clear point-of-view? Thomas Nast never really tried to hide where he was coming from, nor does Oliphant. The LJS policy seems more about projecting an illusion of objectivity than it is about assuring that objectivity is really taking place. For your policy to make logical sense it would seem that you would also have to decree that your employees cannot belong to a political party, but instead must register as independents, if at all. It just doesn't seem very American. I agree with many of the points from David above. I'm much more concerned about corporate influence over the content and editorials of the newspaper that occur in ways both covert and overt than I am about whether underpaid employees of the paper give campaign contributions. I expect journalists to adhere to their training and do all that they can to be objective, and editors to remain vigilant in trying to assure that objectivity. I expect editorialists, especially cartoonists, to be very opinionated and only hope that those opinions are intelligent, no matter where they're coming from politically. I don't give a rat's ... if any of the newspaper employees give to political campaigns. "

 IR wrote on June 23, 2007 11:47 am:
" I think it far superior to know the political leanings of the news than to have a faux-veil of neutrality waived to indemnify the newspaper from political controversy. Wrapping ones-self in a nationalistic banner proclaiming to be 'fair and balanced' does nothing to make one either. Were Paul Fell to have made an illegal donation, that would be wrong, were he to make a cartoon criticizing Maxine Moul's opponents without disclosing a possible conflict of interest, that would be wrong, but making a small donation to a longtime friend to aid her political ambitions is quite frankly rather banal. Just like the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' rule does nothing to affect the actual orientation of servicemen, just the way it is [not] talked about, this rule does little to affect the opinions or the credibility of the news, only the way it talks about itself. Honestly I would much rather a democrat/republican saying 'here's the news' than a reporter giving slanted news without informing anyone as such. "

 Another cartoonist wrote on June 23, 2007 11:52 am:
" This sounds somewhat out of character for Paul Fell to say what he did. He must be angry. I have to ask myself why that might be. It sounds to me like the Lincoln Journal is singling out these two to make an example. You must remember this is a free country. What anyone does outside of his or her job is none of their employers business. Period! Times are indeed changing, America is divided. Your job as a newspaper is to report the facts. As a political cartoonist, Mr. Fells job is to do political cartoons. I remember your paper endorsed George Bush. I also remember seeing Ken Svoboda campaign adds on your online site. Could it be that you are more upset about the fact that these individuals gave to the Democratic party? Would you have been so upset if it was to the Republican party? I wonder. Your paper needs to remember there are two sides to every coin, by refusing to acknowledge the other side, you only give half the story. And, to quote a popular movie, "The tighter your grip becomes, the more systems (Cartoonists) will slip through your fingers". "

 Jo Naber wrote on June 23, 2007 11:59 am:
" I'm sure if the political opinions and donations of employees of the JStar (Lee Enterprises) were given to Republican candidates and right wingnut groups, there would be nothing to report. Ridiculous to think that employees have no opinions, or if they do, they must never be voiced or acted upon. The purpose of editors is to supervise and censor stories that are biased, irrespective of the political affiliation of the writers or even of the editors, themselves. Freedom of speech is a precious gift of the Founding Fathers. "

 Former Journalist wrote on June 23, 2007 12:43 pm:
" I support Kathleen Rutledge's decision. In fact, the copy editor should also be removed. We learned journalism ethics at Kearney State College. (Long before it was the University of Nebraska at Kearney!)When you join the editorial side of the business, it's well-known that you give up your right to donate or participate in political campaigns. I know you will find this hard to believe, but some journalists at the Washington Post either register as independents or don't vote at all. "

 Thanks to Ms Rutledge wrote on June 23, 2007 3:34 pm:
" You are honest and to be commended for addressing this issue head-on. My opinion, while admittedly anonymous, should be taken at face value. 1) It is difficult for the LJS to justify it's desire to limit a contract partner (in this case Mr. Fell). If I were in his shoes, I would have reacted the same way...I'd bet you would too (maybe without the "French"). 2) With regard to the compromise of objectivity or the potential to scandalize readers, I think the damage is done. It's assumed that the mass media are liberal. The MSNBC story indicates about 9 out of 10 contributions were made to liberals. To have a policy which doesn't address the slant observed in your paper is fruitless and adds to the cynicism of readers. Either address why most media-types are (and support) liberals, or else drop the pretensions toward objectivity. I submit this honestly for the counsel my words might provide. You may take them at their value. Thank you for making yourself open. "

 Disillusioned wrote on June 23, 2007 4:10 pm:
" Despite this santimony about upholding journalistic ethics that any idealist would die to believe The Journal Star's Republican stinkiness (and far less than open-minded and squeaky-clean ethics) leaks out from every smudgy page. People at the Journal Star have obviously greatly benefited from from the climate of dumbed-down ethics and arts coverage the Bush administration promotes. "

 Get a clue! wrote on June 23, 2007 5:41 pm:
" Oh, so I get it. When investigative reporting is done to make those on the left look a little bit on the unethical side, its not ok but its ok for the NY Times and other left leaning newspapers to report FALSE information about the right. Jo Naber and the rest of these self-proclaimed "oppressed" views of the left need to get a reality check. Journalism ethics flat out dictate it is NOT ok to give money to political campaigns, especially when you are on the editorial side. I like the view from Disillusioned...anything to blame on the Bush administration, the left will try to do no matter how illogical and idiotic it may be. As someone who recently graduated with a degree in journalism from the U, I greatly appreciate Ms. Rutledge's letter of explanation. "

 Journalism student at UNL wrote on June 23, 2007 6:04 pm:
" To me, the information presented by the MSNBC report is useless. Unless this report can show me whether those reporters wrote any differently on politics, whether those copy editors wrote headlines favoring one politician over the other, etc., before or after their political contributions, the information of journalists' campaign contributions has no bearing on the bias of media, perceived or otherwise. It is possible to keep your private life separate from your professional - possible, yet some people may have trouble doing so. Political contributions are an expression of opinion, and a person's opinion is completely under his or her ownership, not under the command of his or her employer, as the Journal Star seems to believe according to its ethics code. However small or meaningless an example of free speech political contribution is, it is STILL an expression of free speech. Readers know journalists have opinions; it is impossible not to have them. If you want to start getting rid of this perceived liberal or conservative bias in the media (if it exists), start with examining your newspaper's coverage, not with suppressing the rights of your own employees. And one more thing: To ban editorialists, columnists and cartoonists from participating in political contributions is illogical, as their entire job is based on expressing their opinion. I would hope those writers would have the courage to back up their opinions expressed in the Journal Star by participating in politics. "

 J-Raz wrote on June 23, 2007 6:58 pm:
" I find it funny that people are labeling the J-Star as a liberal rag on some pages and yet, since the firing and reprimand came to people who contributed to Democratic causes...its is suddenly the dreaded "Republican" paper? I'd like Disillusioned to really think about who is open-minded and who is close minded. Is it all Republicans that are truly close-minded? I don't think so. It seems to me that a "Democrat" like yourself is the least open-minded person you could possibly find. You never take into consideration the beliefs and thoughts of others...but take some sort of either moralistic or amoral superiority and think that if its not exactly what you think...its evil. Sounds like the definition of close-minded. Thank you Journal-Star for actually looking a little more "Fair and Balanced" than anyone would have you believe! "

 Josh wrote on June 23, 2007 8:01 pm:
" I am sure many on your staff volunteer for political campaigns..... "

 LJS Wins wrote on June 23, 2007 9:06 pm:
" This is great. After reading the posts on this board, the LJS is accused of being aligned with both Democrats and Republicans. That's the whole goal of journalism. Someone once said, "If you have offended both sides, that means you are doing a good job as a journalist." "

 CLS wrote on June 23, 2007 9:35 pm:
" You know you are a Nebraskan when your boss tells you that you can't support the policital party of your choice ... and your response is, "Frankly, I don't give a rat's (snip) ... " At least Fell is honest about his politics. That's more than can be said about the rest of the L-J staff. They hide their liberal bias beneath the vell of an 'ethics policy'. "

 What About Spouses? wrote on June 23, 2007 11:15 pm:
" Do family members of your employees or their entities count in your "internal ethics crackdown?" Or is there some bright white line when there are shared resources to be drawn from? "

 Lola wrote on June 24, 2007 12:49 am:
" I agree that beat reporters and editors whose functions involve "straight" reporting should not donate to or be involved with political camapaigns and candidates. But Fell was paid for having an opinion and expressing it, so firing him for expressing his opinion in another venue is unreasonable. The Journal Star is the most conservative newspaper I've ever read, and I've lived all over this country. I notice what stories get two paragraphs and what gets 12, and that's more of a gauge of a paper's political leanings. I've been waiting since Thursday for a story about Dick Cheney's brash assertion that the vice presidency is not part of the executive branch, and thus not subject to the same disclosure requirements as the president. What doesn't run in a local paper sometimes tells more than what does make it in. "

 Former J prof wrote on June 24, 2007 10:06 am:
" Journalism student at UNL... as a former J professor at a university in the south, I would STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY encourage you to take a class on journalism ethics. If you already have and they taught you that a journalist can separate their profession from their personal feelings concerning politics, you need to transfer to a better J school because UNL's must be awful. There is something called "the perception of a conflict." Your job as a journalist is to promote as objective a persona to your contacts and the public as possible. If you honestly think people who read your work don't perceive a political bias when they know you contribute to a political candidate, you need to find another major because you don't have the ability to judge scenarios that you need to be a good journalist. "

 Buffalo County wrote on June 24, 2007 12:01 pm:
" I am happy that Ms. Rutledge wrote the piece and came forward with the information. But I also think that Sylvia should have been fired. One of the reasons I no longer subscribe to the LJS is people like Fell and Don Walton and Molly Ivins and now, Garrison Keillor. But those people are (or were in the case of Ivins)up front with their views and politics and biases. But to know that there are people like Sylvia working behind the scenes at LJS really makes a reader wonder whenever he reads a headline or a story if the slant on that headline or story was a result of editing by Sylvia or some one like her who contributes to the Democrat Party. It also makes one wonder about the person who approves or disapproves these online responses and how many we do not get to read. "

 Skeptic4 wrote on June 24, 2007 3:10 pm:
" Let she who has not sinned throw the first stone. Is there really a strong reason to punish journalists or anyone else harshly and publically unless they establish an egregious PATTERN of flouting ethics codes? Typically these kinds of rules are enforced selectively, and the appearance of propriety counts for more than its actual existence. Rules are usually best not enforced in a completely humorless, deadpan light either, although at least you provide a coherent rationale. Isn't irreverance part of a cartoonist's job description? The Paul Fell cartoons will be missed as part of the saner and more honest commentary in this paper. "

 ho hum wrote on June 24, 2007 9:45 pm:
" Well, the LJS had two left wing liberal, democrat cartoonists...now it appears to be down to one. As neither one was partuclarly talented it seems that LJS found a convenient way to divest itself. Wonder how hard they might look for soemone with a bit more talent and wit e.g. Koterba who pens for the Omaha paper but who draws with a slightly more conservative viewpoint. If that happens I might consider restoring my subscription. "

 Gustavo wrote on June 24, 2007 10:17 pm:
" Why do I have the feeling Paul Fell was low balled? And you are questioning Paul Fell's ethics? Oh, please. "

 Lis wrote on June 24, 2007 10:33 pm:
" I'm with the cartoonist on this. A cartoonist can draw his opinions, but can not express them out of the newspaper boundaries? That's silly, if not hypocritical. "

 Think wrote on June 25, 2007 1:56 am:
" So, the Lincoln Journal-Star can print an ENDORSEMENT OF A CANDIDATE, ( see the LJS endorse Republican Rep. Jeff Fortenberry over Democratic challenger Maxine Moul at this link: http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/11/03/editorial_main/doc454540cadf8e1061167083.txt ), but Paul Fell cannot contribute $450 to her political campaign? Don't you think the LJS's endorsement was worth a lot more than $450 to Fortenberry's campaign? "

 get out Paul wrote on June 25, 2007 7:16 am:
" I am glad Paul Fell is gone. Now if we can find something to get rid of Neil. This is proof good things come to those who wait. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 25, 2007 11:20 am:
" Yes, a publication can produce an endorsement of a candidate if the endorsement is based on facts that demonstrate why a certain candidate is more qualified for the job, and not based solely on the political leanings of the editorial staff. And people complain that Paul Fell's contract was cancelled not due to his improper attitude in regard to his political contributions, but simply because he was a Democrat? Please! I think the fact that Ms. Hermanson was able to keep her job is a demonstration of the fact that the LJS is NOT biased against Democrats. "

 Brian T. Osborn wrote on June 25, 2007 12:36 pm:
" I believe the reason more journalists contribute to the Democratic Party is because, as a rule, most journalists - and definitely most cartoonists - are more intelligent than the average citizen. They spend the majority of their time thinking about issues that confront all of us and figuring out ways to explain them to us in simple terms. Cartoonists distill complex issues into one thought provoking panel. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. A political cartoon requires not only technical skill, but a brilliant mind. Paul Fell is one of the best. To think that ANY American can be fired for exercising their right to support the candidate of their choice, frankly, frightens me. But, in the political climate that our current administration has created, it doesn't surprise me. I once worked as a journalist. I was called into the office because there were (substantiated) rumors around town that I was considering a run for Mayor. I was told it would be a conflict of interest. I was the Sports Editor! Just for the sake of transparency, I am the Chair of the Phelps County Democrats and a good friend of Paul Fell's. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 25, 2007 3:25 pm:
" I see, so basically, Mr. Osborn, you're telling us that journalists vote for and financially support Democrats because they're smarter than the rest of us? Man, why didn't anybody ever tell me! I would have made sure to tank the ACT test and goof off through college en route to a 3.5 GPA...so that way I could be dumb enough to vote Republican! Imagine the fun I could have had by just drinking my nights away and answering "C" for every answer on every multiple choice test I ever took! You're buddy Paul's cavalier attitude is what cost him his job...good riddance. Elitists like yourself and Paul Fell are why I have a hard time voting Democrat, maybe next time you could try sounding a little less condescending. "

 Brian T. Osborn wrote on June 25, 2007 4:19 pm:
" Mr. Honcho, I guess you're right, all those darned journalist are a bunch of elitist left-wingers. You know, the ones like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingrahm, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Savage, Drudge, etc., etc. etc. Paul Fell lost his work with the LJS, not his job, because he was righteously indignant about someone complaining that he supported a dear friend and a candidate of his choice. He won't march in lockstep to the dictates of a Republican NeoCon administration, and neither will I. If you choose to do so, you have every right and don't need to seek my permission. So far as I know, it is still no crime to be a Democrat. I happen to be one, a very partisan one, because I believe in the ideals and principles that the Democratic Party adheres to. So long as free speech is still allowed in this country I will stand up and defend my party, and my friends. "

 Mike wrote on June 25, 2007 4:53 pm:
" They should be able to give to whomever they want, however, full disclosure should be made prominently by the paper. More importantly an aggregate total (not by individual)should list party affilition, if any, of all LJS staff who influence any aspect of paper content, given as a percentage. That way we can all read through the lens of representative or misrepresentative bias based on the overall make-up politically of the community the paper purports to represent. "

 Brian T. Osborn wrote on June 25, 2007 7:40 pm:
" I see no reason why a person that works for a newspaper should be held to any different standard than anyone else. When they report the news, they should be held to standards of honesty, integrity, and fairness; but what they do in their private lives should be of no concern to anyone else so long as it is legal. A newspaper is not owned by the public; it is a private venture that can reflect the will of its publisher or its editorial staff. If I disagree with that I can buy a different paper or get my news from other sources. In today's world that is more than easy enough to do. Why should a newspaper be required to publish what, if any, party affiliation its staff has? We don't expect the guy that runs the hardware store to post how many Republicans, Democrats or Mugwumps he employs. There are certain standards for broadcast news such as radio and television since the airwaves are owned by us all. Cable television and sattelite radio needn't adhere to such standards, nor do they. Fox News and Air America are outstanding examples. That newspapers are immune to bias is a myth. Maybe I'll believe differently the day after I have shaken hands with a Sasquatch. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 25, 2007 11:24 pm:
" No, Mr. Osborn, you are wrong about Mr. Fell being 'righteously indignant' about someone's complaining. He was irrationally indignant about someone pointing out his political contributions. I read the MSNBC article in it's full text...there was no complaint about his contribution, only questions regarding it. His response was to go on a tirade, rather than remain reasonable. However, your self-admitted heavy partisanship is highly evident, as you point to a small handful of conservative journalists as being some sort of justification for the majority of journalists maintaining a liberal slant. Even if you look at those sources and persons you listed, each and every one of them has 9 liberal counterparts...and the irony is that those liberal counterparts claim to be neutral. Granted, the journalists for Fox News also claim to be 'fair and balanced', which is often a misnomer....but Fox News is the only channel that is ever called out for being biased. "

 Zoomie wrote on June 26, 2007 6:55 am:
" I notice no one - including Ms Rutledge - noticed that this list of political donations came from less than one-twentieth of one percent of America's registered journalists (a figure so small as to make it totally meaningless). And most of the donations were so small as to be barely noticable ($100 here, $400 there...where are those multi-thousand dollar donations that actually affect campaigns?). And it's an amazingly selective list...Where is Tim Russett? Olberman? Blitzer? Dowd? In fact, most of the actually influential names (corporate-leaning inside-the-beltway journalists are all missing!)... "

 Julie wrote on June 26, 2007 1:18 pm:
" Quite frankly, i'm a little surprised that the LJS would reprimand a FREELANCER for not adhering to their ethics clause... I'm sure that Mr. Fell will find other work, and I think it would have been a little more professional for Ms. Rugledge to wish him the best instead of tattling on him to the readers. Neal-O: tread lightly! "

 Jack London wrote on June 26, 2007 3:09 pm:
" Apparently it is a widely accepted professional standard that when one becomes a journalist she/he must give up the first amendment right to back political candidates and campaigns with a checkbook. This policy aims to calm public mistrust of the media and its inevitable conflicts of interest and/or to support individual journalists' independence. Journalists are allowed to have opinions though: they just have to distinguish them as strictly as possible from factual news information and give equal attention to all sides of a story. Policies like these do seem pretty unfair to freelancers and particularly to editorial cartoonists who are usually just preaching to the choir anyway. At least you take your editor's responsibility to be transparent and disclose potential biases seriously. Good for you, but based on reader comments public distrust of the media remains alive and kicking. "

 Nina wrote on June 26, 2007 4:05 pm:
" I'm sorry to read that someone thinks Paul Fell doesn't have much talent - especially since he is a national award-winning cartoonist. It would thus seem many would disagree. How many other nationally recognized staff can LJS tout? What a revolting development! LJS now has less talent and less class, and comes closer to being just another mid-size corporate newspaper. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 26, 2007 4:19 pm:
" I don't think Ms. Rutlege "tattled" to the readers, but simply offered an explanation of why Mr. Fell's cartoons will no longer appear in the LJS. Freelancers are covered by the same ethics code as employees...and rightly so. He violated the ethics code, he thumbed his nose at it...end of story. "

 Sparki wrote on June 27, 2007 9:52 am:
" I never had much use for Paul Fell's cartoons (I thought 1 out of 10 was funny/thought-provoking), but he is a FREELANCER. You don't pay his medical insurance, his 401(K) or anything else, so you shouldn't be controlling how, when, where or why he spends his money on a political campaign. I find it rather appalling that you kept the staffer who violated the rule but jettisoned the freelancer who works for himself, really, not you. What REALLY happened, Ms. Rutledge? "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 27, 2007 3:10 pm:
" You wanna know what really happened? Read Paul Fell's response below Ms. Rutledge's picture. One comment he made struck me as particularly strange, "They don't pay me enough money to be able to dictate how I conduct myself in political campaigns." So...if they paid him more, then he might conduct himself differently? I guess if he didn't like the pay, he shouldn't have signed the contract. "

 CD wrote on June 28, 2007 6:48 am:
" Ethics codes are good with intent and lousy with regulation. Bias is a fact of life. As a newsperson one ought to report the news, not interpret it. However, as a newsperson one ought to enjoy the same privileges as all Americans as respects political support, religious choice, etc. When a newsperson wishes to not report the news but opine upon it, he ought to go to the opinion page like the rest of us and be free to do so without reprimand from management. Doing one's job and expressing one's bias are two different things and when one can't keep them separate that person needs new employment, such as Mr. Fell, but for those who can, let them enjoy the rights of being an American. "

 Scott wrote on June 28, 2007 10:18 am:
" Oh thank you so much for airing journalism's dirty laundry -- the language journalists use among other journalists is SO enlightening. Because anyone with any intelligence knows that the only person who can be truly objective is one who doesn't know anything about anything. To project an "objective persona" is a tool of the trade -- but it's not ethical, unless your standard of ethics is utilitarianism. Everyone has an agenda. To single Fell out for an "appearance of impropriety" amounting to the price of a cheap suit strikes me as a "doth protest too much" situation. Congratulations on causing the scapegoat to nay. "

 Nate wrote on June 28, 2007 1:04 pm:
" Bah, no subscription to the Journal Star for me now. Who cares what reporters do on their own time? I certainly don't, and I'm as liberal as we can get. All the JS is worried about is the 'appearance' of bias, not actual bias. Personally, I don't mind bias in journalism at all. The trouble is when the media screams 'Fair and Balanced!' but has a cleverly disguised bias. If the media was clear about their biases, we would be able to see it and therefore adjust our trust appropriately. I've never seen where 'Freedom of the press' equates to 'Freedom from bias.' "

 Randy Cohen fan wrote on June 29, 2007 2:45 pm:
" I don't regard the New York Times ethics columnist as completely above reproach or error. Doubt he sees himself as an infallible moral guru either, but ordinarily he does show a great deal of reflection and evenhandedness in his advice. His insights are worth listening to, and he commands strong respect. He also is or has been an NPR commentator. Like Paul Fell, Cohen is a freelancer. Randy Cohen couches his contributions to Moveon.org in terms of civic engagement, and states that to have an opinion is not the same as being biased, and that to conceal one's biases is not to be impartial. He doesn't seem to believe life can be compartmentalized. It sounds like there may be some genuine latitude and relativism in the way journalists can reasonably and honestly practice their own ethics. This debate should be openly acknowledged and treated with sanity and maturity in the workplace. It's not like a list of rules your boss hands you necessarily completely implicates and mirrors your own personal integrity. Sometimes having integrity can even mean getting fired for blowing the whistle on policies and people who may be less than completely above board. Journalists are thinking people who thankfully might not always just kowtow automatically to authority. Apparently, a journalist's credo is not as onerous in its demands as the Hippocratic oath might be for doctors. Some elasticity in values should be expected and encouraged. Too bad I pretty much merely shrug indifferently about this issue, but perhaps it's because you are treating ethics as a semantic issue, not one's internal compass of right and wrong but something that can easily be imposed and exacted from the outside. "

 Darryl wrote on June 30, 2007 7:31 am:
" Paul Fell made the mistake of acting like a jackass on a national forum. After torching the bridge with the Journal Star, he realized that maybe he was wrong in doing so, and claims that he now understands that he forced the paper to fire him. The best part is reading some of the douchebaggery that is being posted on this comment page calling his firing "wrong". If Paul understands, why shouldn't all of you? "

 nan welsh wrote on June 30, 2007 7:39 am:
" Who cares. Paul Fell is the best. How dare you stifle him. He has no more distain for your policy than what you have displayed toward him. Paul Fell Lives Forever! My subscription with you is questionable. "

 Scott Enk wrote on September 16, 2007 4:11 pm:
" As a one-time award-winning journalism graduate (okay, okay, it was over 25 years ago, but it included winning a prestigious statewide Society of Professional Journalists scholarship competition and several highly respected local-level awards) who finished literally at the top of his college class of over 1,400, I realized even then that my concerns for our society and our future, my strong and continuing record of political activism, and my even stronger belief that journalists do not cease to be citizens away from their jobs would mean that I would never work for most mainstream news organizations. I knew even then that I would have to carve out an alternative career path. One particularly disappointed journalism instructor of mine told me, sadly, that he thought that if I continued with my political activism, I was "throwing away a brilliant journalism career with both hands." That is far more journalism's loss than mine. I value my rights as a citizen and a human being, including the right to free speech and expression on political and other topics, far more than a million Pulitzer Prizes. My First Amendment rights are not for sale. Nor should they be subject to sale or restriction for anyone, journalists included. Even though I am sure my political activism--something I have never engaged in on any employer's time or premises--has over the years cost me a great deal financially and professionally, I do not regret it at all--except that I wish I had done certain activist work a thousand times more visibly and powerfully. Included in my work have long been efforts to enact effective laws (like California's) in every state and nationally that would protect the rights of employees and job applicants, including journalists, to engage in any lawful political or other activities away from their jobs they choose without fear of employment discrimination. If journalism executives and managers continue to insist--paradoxically and, given how many newspaper executives themselves engage in activities that can easily be construed as political, often hypocritically--that the supposed foot soldiers of the First Amendment themselves "refrain" from exercising their own rights, even when on their own time, journalism itself will continue to deserve to lose the talents of many of the "best and the brightest." Sadly, however, so will our society. "Objectivity" is a myth and a farce. Every mortal has his or her biases. As long as any journalist makes any possible conflicts of interest publicly known and reports the news fairly, as long as any journalist or publication makes clear the distinction between news and opinion, what journalists, like anyone else, do on their own time is generally none of any employer's business. Scott Enk Hales Corners, Wisconsin senk8105@sbcglobal.net "

Ads by Yahoo!