Classic song, catch phrase, unethical headline.
In a classic example of the stark difference in world views between the so-called “conservative media” and the mainstream (a.k.a. Left-biased) news media, the firing of a Chattanooga newspaper editor for an editorial headline telling President Obama to “shove it”is either being held up as proof that the President’s allies are censoring the news and trying to drive objective journalists out of their jobs, or being ignored as a local story with no larger implications.
The story has larger implications, and they are these:
- You can be critical of the President, but he is still the President, and deserves a fair measure of respect and deference at all times.
- Vulgarity or implied vulgarity does not belong in a general audience newspaper.
- A newspaper editor should not embarrass the publisher, degrade the brand, or knowingly act in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the paper itself.
- A newspaper editor who knowingly acts in a way that is contrary to the interests of the paper cannot be trusted.
- Using an editorial headline to tell, in effect, the President of the United States to, in essence, stick something—anything, really—up his ass is disrespectful, vulgar, embarrassing, unprofessional, unnecessary, and contrary to the interests of the paper.
- A publisher could reasonably conclude from such conduct that such an editor is not trustworthy, and thus…
- …firing the editor who composes and runs such a headline is also reasonable, and not, in itself, proof of bias of any kind.
Might Chattanooga Times Free Press editor, now former editor Drew Johnson have been fired more for his lack of support of President Obama than his unprofessional headline? Sure. Nonetheless, the headline was sufficient justification for firing him anyway. The publisher may have been unwilling to sack an editor for his political views, but once he had a legitimate reason to fire him, we cannot blame him for thinking, “Thank God I’m rid of that right-wing trouble-maker!” I will presume that the publisher did a bias check, as any ethical, fair manager in such a situation must, to determine that he would have fired a politically simpatico editor just as quickly, if not as joyfully, as he fired Johnson.
Johnson deserved to be fired. Sorry, conservative media. The news media is outrageously and unethically protective of this President, but this incident doesn’t prove it.
________________________________________
Facts: Huffington Post, The Blaze
Ethics Alarms 
The fact this firing was even questioned is indicative of how polluted, misguided and inane public discourse has become.
I always wondered why responsible publishers and broadcast executives never called out their employees for gleefully and incessantly refering to President George W. Bush as “Bush.”
And sure, it was his last name, but it was terribly disrespectful of the office and the institution. But they got away with it.
It’s definitely indicative of how each side has so polarized and each realizes that the nation is on the edge of a revolutionary cliff, very shortly our nation will have to decide if it wants to veer sharply away from its founding principles towards the society that the extreme leftists have been pining and agitating for recently or if we wish to wake up and reinvigorate our federalist ideas.
Because we are so painfully close to having to make that decision both sides are comfortable with forgiving and endorsing uncivil attitudes while condemning the same in the other side.
It’s a sad fork in the road we’ve come to, but not one that couldn’t have been avoided.
I’m guessing most of you haven’t heard the song the title of the editorial was a take of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrSVkTRb24
You did read the caption on the button, right? The fact that it’s a well-known song doesn’t change the meaning of the catch-phrase or the title, and that it’s inappropriate for an editorial that addresses the President directly. I realize this might seem mighty balnd for you, as you would doubtless be lobbying for something more along the lines of “Oh, Eat Me, Mr. President!” Or, “Why don’t you just go fuck yourself, Barack!”, but I also don’t think you’d last too long at that paper either.
(And if Ampersand was the publisher, neither would I…)
The editorial is very good. In so far as it was related to a jobs bill and the newspaper is in Tennesee, I’m reconsidering whether the headline was in fact disrespectful of the presidency.
“Shove it” has probably become as sanitized as “suck” has been. Both seem to be perfectly acceptable terms for teeny-boppers on up. Not that I’m at all excited about it.
I’m pretty sure “Your jobs programs suck, Mr. President!” would also be regarded as unprofessional. I agree that the editorial was fine. The headline showed awful judgment.
Ratings, money and the need to grab attention often cloud judgement in a time when pop culture has shrugged off any modicum of civility in its discourse.
Why was society’s standards for behavior so high in the past and so strictly enforced in the past (much to the disgust of the ‘take it easy man’ cultural revolutionaries)? Because we knew that people taking the high road can be easily beaten by those who appeal to a lower standard. But once that lower standard is normalized, there are no barriers for civility, there is no distinction between decent behavior and militant behavior. Anything goes and instead of appreciating the strict boundaries between individuals and offices in life which help keep society livable for all, we ignore all that under the ‘take it easy man’ attitude.
Never mind that now we don’t respect anything.
That sounds like a resigned acceptance of our slow slip towards idiocracy.
I remember when Frank Caprio told Obama to take his endorsement and “shove it.” He regrets the remark, surely, but I don’t think he’s ever apologized for it.
I think he wants to try to get back into politics around these parts. Somehow, I doubt I’ll be voting for him.
There’s disrespecting the Presidency, and disrespecting the sitting President. In this case, a known liar (Master Obama) was properly called out for his factual inconsistencies. That Drew Johnson spoke “Trvth to POWAH!” is deemed unacceptable by OFA-programmed Obamaphytes is more a shame-mark on our drooling populace in general and the MSM in particular than an actual OUTRAGE! against Bumblefuck.
The issue isn’t with the content of the article which most likely does a very appropriate job calling out a known liars factual inconsistencies.
The issue with the title, an obviously uncivil reference.
Personally, I think that there comes a breaking point to where an official’s low level of conduct, agenda and competency can no longer be insulated from criticism by a traditional respect for the office he holds. What I have seen from Barack Obama scares me as nothing I have yet seen from a sitting president… not even Lyndon Johnson. Many share that opinion. The liberal venom that was spewed at presidents such as Reagan or the Bushes renders what criticism of Obama that occasionally filters out from the MSM as nothing at all in comparison.
Nobody is arguing that Obama should be insulated from criticism.
Not openly, of course. Merely in practice.
You’re creating a strawman that ignores the actual arguments presented here. Good to see you haven’t changed.
Except that he wasn’t addressing anyone’s particular arguments here.
Starting a new line of discussion (as you often do, and have claimed as a defense against the accusation of straw man yourself) is completely allowable.
I think the fair thing for you to do is either address his comment for its merits or ignore it. Calling it a straw man seems pretty incorrect.
This comment is set up as a response to the position that Obama should not be criticized. It’s not a starting point for a line of discussion.
Or SMP’s original comment asserted, based on an unspoken premise, that at this point Obama cannot rightly be insulated from criticism. When you called him on the inconsistency you perceived because of the unspoken premise.
But his response to you, seems to indicate that the unspoken premise he based his original comment on was that Obama has been insulated from a level of criticism SMP feels is deserved.
That’s how I read this as a starting point not a response.
Assuming you are right, that topic would be a non sequitur to this post.
Topics arising that are even remotely related to the post topic seem completely fair to discuss regardless of not immediately and completely relating to the original post.
SMP’s comment seemed pretty closely related to the topic of disrespect as part of criticism. To which I’ll ask So what?
When we go off main topic, there’s normally a note that we’re doing such. Most of the tangents are also pulled off an existing comment. This was just a partisan attack on a random position that hadn’t been averred ever. You seem to be engaged in rationalization.
Normally a note that we’re doing such? Please…
Also I’ve already demonstrated how its not an attack on a position that hasn’t been asserted. But a newly started, albeit possibly partisan, assertion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEFQTY4hjUk
I’m glad you’ve shown us your personal anthem.
For the longest time I imagined it was this delightful tune by Scott Joplin called “Maple Leaf Rag”
Now I remember why I didn’t jump on TGT’s “strawman” with both feet. Tex kicked the scarecrow’s butt while I was away… somewhere!
I disagree. Presidents are, without exception, egotistical gasbags who have volunteered for a position in which they know they are going to be subject to endless abuse. They deserve no more respect and deference from the press than any other person – and in fact, considerably less, since the average person has not knowingly volunteered for such abuse.
Furthermore, it’s actually dangerous to the country if the news media becomes too respectful and deferential to the President (as well as Senators, Governors, CEOs, etc).
It’s fine for a newspaper to fire someone for failing to live up to that newspaper’s internal standards, but I would disagree with any newspaper that demanded accord the President a “measure of respect and deference” that they wouldn’t accord to any ordinary person.
George Washington was an egotistical gasbag?
Reagan? *Silent* Cal? Lincoln, egotistical?
Perhaps your commentary is applicable to the modern presidency, and a culture so uneducated on the civic nature of the constitutional presidency has allowed a climate that requires ‘egotistical gasbags’ to even fulfill this cultures expectations of the fully imperial president.
All citizens should be afforded civility in when others wish to criticize them, the President undoubtedly so. I think you are equating Jack’s denunciation of blatant disrespect (wrong) with appropriate criticism (healthy and necessary). This is a mistake.
Also, you may have missed this. I feel you should have an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by your censorship.
Leaders, I think by definition, have to believe in their own virtue, wisdom and superiority to some extent. Those who don’t are not good leaders, generally. Grant, Hayes and Harding, to name three Presidents, all suffered from self-esteem problems that undermined their effectiveness.
I think, actually, we have had very few true gasbags as Presidents. Washington and Lincoln surely don’t qualify by any definition. Most of the President’s prior to radio seldom spoke, by moderns standards. Jackson meant what he said. Polk was pretty quiet…he just did his job. Teddy talked a lot, but he talked substance. FDR was a legitimate orator, like Lincoln…so were Kennedy and Reagan. Orators aren’t gasbags.
LBJ didn’t like public speaking. Neither did Truman, Nixon, either Bush, Carter, Ford or Ike—who was no gasbag. They weren’t good at it.
The only two Presidents who fit the term “gasbag” are the last two Democrats. Bill and Obama.
I agree thoroughly with your analysis but one part. I don’t think believing in your own virtue makes you an egotist. It seems a bit more involved than that.
Okay, I withdraw the “gasbag” comment; I was wrong, that’s not universal. But I stick by the “ego” comment.
“Presidents are, without exception, egotistical gasbags who have volunteered for a position in which they know they are going to be subject to endless abuse. They deserve no more respect and deference from the press than any other person – and in fact, considerably less, since the average person has not knowingly volunteered for such abuse.”
This is a big rationalization of “because people are going to do it anyway, it is ok”.
Yes they deserve just as much respect as any other person, but the *office* itself is what demands more respect, because of what the *office* symbolizes. It doesn’t symbolize just this particular gasbag’s person. It symbolizes far more than that. Disrespect the office and you disrespect the system that is ultimately designed to protect you from governmental overreach.