GOP Retaliation: Reporter who broke Bush DUI Story is Fired

[Sandpiper]

Sacking the Messenger

From Zemblan patriot A.I.: Reporter Ted Cohen, who uncovered Bush's DWI arrest several months before the 2000 election, has allegedly been fired by the paper that refused to print the scoop. From Cohen's press release:

Cohen's attorney, John S. Campbell of Portland, said that " Ryan has been retaliating against Mr. Cohen as a result of my client's having spoken to the national media in 2000 when word leaked out that the Portland Press Herald had failed in July 2000 to print a story Mr. Cohen alone unearthed - that of Bush's DWI arrest in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976."

"For three months," Campbell added, "the Press Herald sat on a world exclusive. My client handed his editors a story on a gold platter that no one else had, or would have for three long months, but they rejected his instincts - the same unfailing instincts that have allowed him to be the Press Herald's most prolific reporter and top producer for nearly 30 years."

<snip>

When word got out that Guttman's paper had sat on the story, Guttman at the time denied any intentional effort to sweep the earthquaking news of Bush's arrest under the rug.

The retaliation against Cohen, who had explained to the national media how he got the story on his own, and why it was never printed, began.

<snip>

http://simbaud.blogspot.com/2004_04_04_simbaud_archive.html#108119072190975215

[outinforce]

1. Sorry, But

I looks to me as though this reporter was fired because he bad-mouthed his employer publicly.

"Ryan has been retaliating against Mr. Cohen as a result of my client's having spoken to the national media in 2000 when word leaked out that the Portland Press Herald had failed in July 2000 to print a story Mr. Cohen alone unearthed - that of Bush's DWI arrest in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976."

He wasn't fired, it seems, because he unearthed the story of *'s DUI.

His employer fired him because, apparently, he publicly said that his employer failed to publish his story.

[MnFats]

3. I don't think it was 'badmouthing'

The reporter was asked by other reporters what had happened, and he simply told them.
That meant explaining why the paper sat on the story, which didn't make the newspaper look very good.
He did not go looking for opportunities to unload on his employer.

[outinforce]

7. He's A Reporter

He has no doubt heard people say, in response to his own questions, "No Comment", or "You'll have to ask them".

The fact that he answered questions from other reporters just doesn't cut it.

He could have said any of a number of things that would not have made his emplyer look bad. He chose not to. As you correctly point out, as a result of his comments, the paper -- his employer -- did not look good.

You make your employer look bad and you pay the consequences.

[MnFats]

9. well, I'm a newsie, and i've done the same thing.

and while I got bitched at, my employers were not so hypocritical -- arguing constantly for openness and then stonewalling -- as to fire me.

[outinforce]

12. Are You An Editor?

Have you ever spiked a story? And then had the author of that story run to other newsies outside the organization you work for? And then have your name appear in print or on the air as the person who spike a story?

If so, how able do you think you would be to edit the stories of that author? Do you think that your employer might have an interest in saying that openness means airing the disagreement within the walls of the organization that you work for -- not in the public media?

[Sandpiper]

18. Sort of like the police

Do you think that your employer might have an interest in saying that openness means airing the disagreement within the walls of the organization that you work for -- not in the public media?

And the whole "Blue Wall of Silence" thing, right?

[outinforce]

23. Police = Public Employee

Police are public employess who are empowered to arrest and detain people.

Reporters (at least Mr Cohen) is not a public employee. He is not accountable, as are police, to the public.

He is, accountable for his actions to his employer.

It is not at all like the "Blue Wall of Silence".

[Sandpiper]

4. His employer fired him

Because he spilled the beans about them sitting on a story that would have been embarrassing to Bush.

[outinforce]

8. And In The Process

of doing so, he caused his employer to be embarrassed. He publicly called into question the editorial and journalistic integrity of his editors and his employer.

Not a good career move, regardless of the topic of the story.

[Sandpiper]

14. Whistleblowing usually is a bad career move

Unscrupulous bosses usually get peeved when they get exposed.

[outinforce]

24. Yep

and peeved employees who don't get their way often say things about bosses who adhere scrupulously to the standards of their profession that are not quite correct. And sometimes such employees, having themselves severed the employer/employee relationship, find that they are no longer employed.

It happens a lot.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. So, publicly stating that your boss refused to print your story is...

..."bad-mouthing" your employer in public?

Please...I think most of us know exactly why this veteran reporter was fired. We've seen this kind of tactic used way too often by the NeoCon thugs.

[outinforce]

10. It Sure Is

Saying such a thing goes to the very heart of the nature of journalism.

Editors are hired to use their journalistic judgment about running stories. THAT is precisely what they are paid to do.

It happens frequently that an editor will decide not to run a story. It could be that, in the judgment of the editor, the story is not important enough to run. OR it could be that the story is poorly written. Or it could be that the editor's judgment is that the story is poorly reserach.

The point is that it is the editor's job to apply her/his judgment about running a story that a reporter hands in.

It is also true that reporters often disagree with the judgment and decision of their editors.

And they often express their disagreement in any of a number of ways.

The employer -- whether it is a newspaper, radio station, magazine, or TV station, can handle a numbber of different expressions of reporters who disagree with their editors -- reporters can buck the case up the line to the news director -- or even to the owner. But taking a case like this outside the employer, and making it appear that the reason for the editor spiking the story was something other than good journalistic judgment is about the worst thing a reporter can do to his or her employer.

[Sandpiper]

13. OR it could be

It happens frequently that an editor will decide not to run a story. It could be that, in the judgment of the editor, the story is not important enough to run. OR it could be that the story is poorly written. Or it could be that the editor's judgment is that the story is poorly reserach.

That he was a Republican who wanted to keep potentially damamging information about Bush under wraps.

[outinforce]

15. We Just Don't Know, Do We?

The link that was provided cites, of all things, a press release by the reporter's attorney.

Do ya think that that might be a little biased?

Did ya notice that lack of actual quotations from the editor or anyone else?

Do ya think it just might be possible that Cohen did a sloppy job collecting his facts or drawing conclusions about those facts?

[Sandpiper]

16. A sloppy job collecting his facts?

From an arrest report?

Your bending over backwards to absolve the editor of any blame is getting a little ridiculous.

And a sloppy job drawing conclusions? Well, when it plainly states the reason for an arrest in the arrest report, it makes drawing sloppy conclusions next to impossible.

But maybe, just maybe, his story said that Bush had been arrested for a homicide rather than a DUI. :eyes:

[outinforce]

21. "bending over backwards to absolve the editor "

You lecture me, thus: "Your bending over backwards to absolve the editor of any blame is getting a little ridiculous."

Excuse me?

We have one -- and only one side of this story. It is a prss release from Mr. Cohen's attorney.

It seems to me that I am not the one hear rushing to judgment.

I would at least like to know the editor's side and the newspaper's side.

I have found that that often presents a more complete picture.

[sandnsea]

6. That's why we have no press

People are fucked over and way too goddamned many people don't come to their defense. Fuck the boss, printing the news in a Presidential campaign is what the hell a free press is all about. It was their duty as free Ameican citizens to print that story. And it's this guy's obligation as an American citizen to say they failed in that duty. And he shouldn't be fired for it.

[outinforce]

11. What You Say is True

if the reporter works for the Federal Government.

If he works for a private newspaper, then that private employer has every right to hold him accountable for going outside the newspaper to suggest that the decision of his editor was not journalisticly sound.

[sweetheart]

20. Reporters don't have free speech, hmm...

That explains a lot... your stupid thinking.

The reporter has every right to speak his mind. THe employer has
every right to let them go. That the two are related means that
every single employer of a person here on DU could fire you tomorrow
if they hired a private investigator to discover you speek freely
in disagreement with your employer's owners.

I suggest toilet paper, and not the constitution.

[outinforce]

22. "Stupid Thinking"??

Here's a little thought experiment for you.

Suppose a reporter, wishing to exercise her free speech rights, goes on national television, and says, "Hello. My name is Jane Doe and I work for the New York Times. I want you all to know that I think George W. Bush is the absolutely greatest president we have ever had. And I think that Vincent Scalia and Clarence Thomas are the brightest men in the whole world. My investigative work as a reporter for the Times has led me to these conclusions. BUt I also want you to know that the Times steadfastly refuses to print these conclusions of mine. They are refusing to print my conclusions because I am a woman, and the Times just hates women -- all women."

What do you think would happen to that reporter?

By the way -- do you really think that people could get fired simply for speaking freely in disagreement with their employers? I suggest that the situation you pose -- where employers need to hire "private investigators in order to find out what their employees are saying -- is notwhat happened here.

Cohen's statements were made in almost the most public way possible -- to reporters. They were not private comments. He would not, I suggest, have been fired if he had made his comments in a less public fashion.

[sweetheart]

25. The first amendment seems to say...

gives all citizens the right to free speech, regardless of what
corporate interests are involved.

Perhaps it bears re-reading:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.


There were no corporations at the time, so that the only threat to
free speech was the government itself. Now we have corporations that
determine what is and is not free speech.

I, frankly, think that MASS MEDIA free speech is using public goods
(legal and financial system), and as such, has obligations to tell
the truth... but certainly no private corporation arbitrates truth,
and hence why there is no truth on american mass media.

The amendment says nothing about public or private. You've added
that yourself. The person has the right to speak freely, and were
there some justice in labour rights, the employer would only be able
to take grievances in terms of liabel.

[outinforce]

28. Huh?

"I, frankly, think that MASS MEDIA free speech is using public goods
(legal and financial system), and as such, has obligations to tell
the truth... but certainly no private corporation arbitrates truth,
and hence why there is no truth on american mass media".

I would guess, by this statement of yours, that you believe that there is no truth on the mass media of most major countries -- Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium.

Are you saying that it is only those coutries where there is no private corporation engaged in the mass media -- countries like Cuba, China, and North Korea, where, because "no private corporation arbitrates the truth, that the mesasages in the mass media in those coutries is true?

Did you care to comment on the thought experiment I proposed in an earlier post?

[sweetheart]

29. The charter of the BBC and liabel law

I don't know about all the countries you list, but certainly
britain's primary news organization is created by public mandate,
and though it is a private corp, is under legal public obligation and
is partially funded by a license tax. I expect there are more
nations amongst your list that have similarly made news reporting
a public subsidized activity to overcome the bias of "news for
entertainment" that has made a farce out of american news reporting.

Regarding your thought experiment.... and... ? So that happens, and
we all hear it and move on. Perhaps the corporation in question
might take up liabel charges against the person slandering them.
Then a public court can decide whether they have grounds to be
"offended", or whether the reporter is right to have come forward.

Either way, i agree, that dismissing the reporter is not an issue,
and do not expect any employer to retain an employee who has gone
AWOL. That said, there is that fine line, that were any one of us
to step up our outspokenness on the web and other media; whether
we can be fired from our jobs "without reason". It strikes me that
employment law is such that the constitution is totally undermined.
.. That the government can say things like (regarding Clarke)
"He'll never work in this town again." This is not the constitution.

[sandnsea]

27. First Amendment

Sorry no. If we don't protect a reporters right to speak out when news isn't being reported, then we risk having no press at all. I just cannot understand why people suck into this right wing propaganda that "private employer" means the country is governed for them and not us. Reporters have freedom of the press rights that go beyond "private employer".

[Eric J in MN]

26. it's called whistleblowing. it's an imporant service to society (nt)

nt

[xchrom]

2. of course

what ever else could you expect from people struck with bush blindess?

[Blaze Diem]

17. AL Franken should have him on AAR to get the REAL story...

Its no secret that censorship from the Bush people prior to the election was the order of the day.
Much was known and exposed right here on DU, only to have any negative facts about Bush, simply drop off the radar. Censorship and consequences were spelled out by the Bushies during the campaign..We all know what happened to Hatfield...and many other "examples".

I'd like to hear his story ..on Al Franken's AAR

[rinsd]

19. Is this old?

He was writing as of 3/8/2004

http://www.pressherald.com/news/york/040308sidewalks.shtml

But I did find this article detailing a previous supension

http://www.portlandphoenix.com/archive/features/01/02/09/tji/media.html