Comments on: Mann, Oh Mann

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:49:59 +0000

[3] You took the words right out of my mouth. Newsday is a business that create whatever product it likes. The irony, of course, is Newsday’s policy is probably very similar to how the papers treated sports team during the golden eras of sports/journalism about which so many wax poetically.

One of my biggest issues with today’s journalists is their universal sense of entitlement. I am sorry, but having a byline doesn’t give you the latitude to use “loaded” words, be “unnecessarily harsh” or resort to name calling. Conduct like that isn’t accepted on a children’s play ground, so why should it be permitted at a newspaper?

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:33:23 +0000

[3] I pretty much agree — since you did focus on tone and style. Of course, there’s going to be a blurry line between tone/style and content, but it’s sharp enough that it’s at least possible for Newsday’s editors to say, go ahead and criticize, but do it with equanimity rather than bile.
I’d add that even if Newsday decides to censor content, it’s most definitely not objectionable in the same way that it’s objectionable for the government to do it.

By: Diane Firstman

Diane Firstman — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:36:33 +0000

[3]

well-said …

By: rbj

rbj — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:32:33 +0000

IIRC, the NYTimes under Howell Raines killed a couple of sports columns (I forget the name of the columnist) who took issue with Howell’s crusade against the Augusta Golf Club’s all male membership requirement.

Now private business can do what it wants, but if you are going to put limits on what your employees can write, we can be suspicious of what the end product is.

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:25:52 +0000

It’s rank censorship,” said a current Newsday sports reporter. “You can’t tell journalists that there are things to avoid and call it anything but censorship.

And another word is emptied of its meaning. It’s not “censorship” in any meaningful sense of the word for the editorial staff (as opposed to, say, the government) to decide that they want a softer tone to their stories or that writers should adhere to a less polemic style. It is the job of the editorial staff to set the tone for a publication, to determine the types of stories that a magazine runs (i.e., editorial policy), to set limits, etc. It is, in fact, arguably well within the purview editors precisely to tell journalists what they are to avoid.

Now, this may be a *bad* policy; it may mean that Newsday will be a lesser product. It may convince the best writers to seek employment elsewhere in a freer journalistic environment. Indeed, this strikes me as an awful institutional decision on the part of Newsday.

It doesn’t really strike me as censorship. Or rather, it IS censorship in the strictest neutral meaning, but not necessarily in its pejorative sense.

By: The Mick536

The Mick536 — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:14:16 +0000

Newspeak. We shall meet in a place where there is no darkness.

By: Mattpat11

Mattpat11 — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:11:40 +0000

The Dolan’s need their own reality show