Reporter Disciplined For Participating In Gay Pride Parade

[justin899]

NEW YORK Editors at The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa. said they would like a feature writer who was suspended for two days after marching in a gay pride parade last weekend to return to work, but the writer says he is not sure if he will.

“My plan is to talk to my attorney and see what my options are,” said Frank Whelan, 56, a longtime writer for the daily, who also pens a weekly history column. “I think it would depend on how it would be. My civil rights have been violated.”

Ardith Hilliard, editor of the paper, declined to say if or how Whelan had been disciplined for participating in the parade, but confirmed that he had broken the paper’s ethics policy by taking part. Still, she said he had not been fired and was expected to return to his job next week.

“Frank is a valued employee,” she said. “I fully expect him to come back. He is a very valuable person to us.”

At issue is Whelan’s involvement in a local gay pride parade last Saturday, in which he and his partner, Bob Wittman, served as grand marshals. Editors contend that Whelan did not seek permission to participate in the event and they only found out about it after receiving a press release promoting the parade.

Hilliard said participation was a violation of the paper’s ethics policy, which Whelan and others signed earlier this year, and that prohibits editorial staffers from engaging in “public demonstrations in favor of or opposed to a cause.”

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726977">-More-

What damn business is it of theirs what someone does off the job?

[Newsjock]

1. This is a tough one

Because had the journalist merely taken part in the parade, I don't think anyone would have any legitimate beef. But he was a grand marshal of the parade, idenitifed very publicly. And even if the parade was about anything else -- spring harvest, Super Bowl winners, whatever -- having a journalist march as a grand marshal and be associated with the newspaper while doing so is just askin' for trouble.

On the other hand, when journalists on the right pull the same type of thing and get away with it -- and they do, of course -- they should be held to exactly the same standard.

[cboy4]

3. How exactly is being grand marshal of a parade when you're not on

company time a conflict?

If this reporter were to march in a political parade, that's one thing.

But what he did was take part in an innocent celebration of heritage.

[Dark]

13. Some reporters don't even vote in order to refrain from any hint of bias

Not saying it's right, but objectivity is very important.

Anywho, yea, marching is one thing, but being a grand marshall is very noticeable, and can appear to be biased (remember, if he had to interview a conservative, that would look bad.)

[GodlessBiker]

17. It's just the appearance of objectivity (whatever that is), isn't it?

I mean, no one is really "objective." To be so would mean that you aren't human, I would think.

[The Brethren]

15. you're right Newsjock.

but if this were a spring harvest, I bet no one would even think twice about it.

gotta make sure everyone follows the little dotted line when double standards apply. :sarcasm:

[cboy4]

2. Not surprisingly this is a crappy medium sized paper....but I would argue

with the editor, who is clearly a moran:

A gay pride parade is no more of a "public demonstration" or "cause" than is a St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Both are celebrations of heritage.

You gunna suspect an African American reporter for marching on MLK day?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

[sui generis]

10. right there with you on this

it's only in America where you are the property of your employer that an employer could even remotely think they had a chance of getting away with a gambit like this.

I hope it embarrasses them - and if I were him I'd do my next independent article on how our culture is even corporatizing our private lives.

[justin899]

4. Interesting LTTE Published On This Newspaper's Website

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all-hueyjun21,0,1298382.story

[justin899]

5. Incidentally, the link to the original article added an extra http

and it won't let me edit it. so here's the link if anyone wants to read the entire article:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726977

[DarkTirade]

6. Wait... he has to seek permission from his job...

before he is allowed to march in a parade?
I don't care if it's a KKK or neo-nazi parade, that's just ridiculous.

[hraka]

7. Being gay is not an "issue"!

Nor is is something to be "debated". It's our lives!!

What about wearing buttons that say, "Kiss me, I'm Irish" on St Patricks Day? Or crosses as jewelry. Or American flags, for that matter? Aren't those also "issues currently debated in the public arena"?

That editor is so far off the mark. Unfortunately, I've come to expect that, especially from the media.

[hraka]

8. Kick!

[GodlessBiker]

9. Ridiculous. Is voting a demonstration in favor of the cause of democracy?

There were all kinds of "causes" being supported and opposed at the parade. Being a grand marshall does not mean that you endorse any of them.

[Dark]

14. Yes, actually. (See post 13) n/t

[Meldread]

11. This is pure bullshit.

Would a reporter be suspended for attending a well known anti-gay Church? Would a Black reporter be suspended for being elected to speak at a MLK Day rally? Would a Hispanic reporter be suspended for not wishing to see a relative deported?

How far does this company want to go? Do they demand to know if they voted or not? Because if they voted in an election, then that means they are partial to one candidate or the other! *GASP!* Reporters are also people with lives and opinions, who would have thought?

...or is this Newspaper just going to beat up on a gay guy who more or less has no rights under the law? I'm willing to bet the latter.

[NMMNG]

12. Same old crap

Yet people claim gays aren't discriminated against. :eyes:

[kevinbgoode]

16. I don't see this as tough at all. . .

The newspaper doesn't consider it unethical to participate in public religious services with the Catholic Church, for example, as they bleat on about how gays are abominable. And the newspaper has no problem publishing pictures of heterosexuals kissing on the front page, even though that is rather controversial since gays cannot get married. The newspaper never had a problem historically limiting women to role typing recipes or writing about fashion, eliminating black news, hiring black or hispanic reporters, or even acknowledging gay reporters as recently as 15-20 years ago.

An ethics policy has to apply to everyone in a reporting capacity. The reporter writes a completely non-related COLUMN, so he doesn't write about those issues. Would the newspaper suspend a reporter/editor who is asked to speak at the Boy Scouts, even though they are controversial? Would the newspaper suspend a woman editor who is being honored at a Women's journalism conference where she speaks out publicly about women in the media? Would the newspaper prevent a political columnist from appearing on a rightwing radio talk show to shill some more of his opinions? Nope.

This policy was very stupidly administered here. . .you can't claim that this policy is necessary to maintain objectivity, and then declare that the newspaper alone determines what is controversial based on their OWN perceptions of THEIR lifestyles - that boils down to just plain bias in its own form. The newspaper cannot enforce this policy without being arbitrary - after all, it can't ask employees not to attend a wingnut church that politicizes its message every Sunday, even if that reporter might turn right around and be assigned to cover same-sex marriage. In fact, newspapers have always provided allowances for "religious" freedom, and penalized those who participated in other organizations. Being a grand marshal in a gay pride parade is no different than the publisher being asked to be the grand marshal in the damned St. Patrick's Day parade - some Protestants don't like Catholic people of Irish descent, after all - so doesn't that make it an ethical violation?

[The Brethren]

18. kevinbgoode

Well done post. Have you thought about sending a copy to their paper or addressing one just to them? They may not write back or put it in the paper, but I'm sure they'll read it and get the message.