Cleveland Plain Dealer fires political blogger for being…political…Updated: Jill Zimon resigns…
Jeff Coryell is a blogger that I respect very much and recently you might recall me writing about the fact that Wide Open had been created by the Cleveland Plain Dealer with four bloggers from that part of Ohio hired to share their blogging online on the Cleveland Plain Dealer site. The Plain Dealer supposedly thought enough of these four bloggers that they were paying them to blog, which I thought was pretty darn awesome of the Cleveland Plain Dealer to do and I agreed with the choice of the four bloggers as being great representatives of different political beliefs here in Ohio.
Today however I discovered that Jeff was fired. His offense? He’s political…Who could have ever imagined a political blogger would be…political?
This move earns a spot in the “Asshat” category for the Cleveland Plain Dealer…
Update: Eric over at Plunderbund is tracking the blogswarm…which looks to be a tsunami…
PeeDee’s “Wide Shut” Blog Firing Fiasco Roundup.
Second Update 4:30 p.m. 10/31/07:
Plain Dealer’s Wide Open Experiment 1.0, shuts its doors .
For the record, I’m not one of those that would ever tell Jill, “I told you so”, I hope that someday it will be tried again but with the bloggers allowed to be what they were supposed to be…political bloggers…
I am no Democrat, but if that is true, and there is maybe more to the story, I dont know, then the PD is in the wrong. Regardless people that dont like you who write about you come with being a politician.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pmBen, that’s very true though for as long as I have known Jeff he’s tried to be careful as far as posting what he believes to be true, so I have a very strong feeling the way he’s reported what happened is accurate.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:51 pm[...] Glass City Jungle: Cleveland Plain Dealer fires political blogger for being…political… [...]
October 31st, 2007 at 12:07 am“I was told by Cleveland Plain Dealer Online Editor Jean DuBail that Rep. LaTourette complained about my involvement in “Wide Open” to Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial Page Editor Brent Larkin. I was also informed that LaTourette brought the matter of my participation up during an interview with Cleveland Plain Dealer political reporter Sabrina Eaton, when she talked to LaTourette about the retirement of Rep. Dave Hobson (R-Springfield). LaTourette mentioned that I had contributed the sum of $100 to the campaign of LaTourette’s current opponent, Bill O’Neill (D-South Russell). Eaton suggested that he raise his concerns with more senior people at the Cleveland Plain Dealer. As a result of the conversation, Eaton reported my contribution in her story about third quarter campaign fund-raising by various Ohio Congressional candidates.
Cleveland Plain Dealer Online Editor Jean DuBail raised the matter of LaTourette’s displeasure with my participation in “Wide Open” in discussion with the four bloggeres on at least two occasions. We discussed the possibility of my making a disclosure of my support for LaTourette’s opponents whenever I wrote anything about LaTourette.
Today Dubail called me and asked if I would agree to never write about LaTourette on “Wide Open,” as a condition of my continued participation. He said that the arrangement was sought by Susan Goldberg, Editor of the Plain Dealer. When I declined to agree that I would never write about LaTourette on “Wide Open,” I was terminated by DuBail.”
Seems to me there was an ethical problem, which is a eal shocker in todays’ climate, I mean who would have thought that a person would disclose all that was needed.
Contributing to a campaign and failing to disclose, ethcis 101.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:35 amNC, Jeff was hired as a blogger full well knowing that he was partisan, not a journalist. Also, the campaign donations he made was prior to blogging for the Plain Dealer and he’s made donations to other candidates in the past as well.
So it’s not quite Ethics 101, since there was no request for disclosure made further, while he is not a journalist, some media outlets do allow their staff to donate to political campaigns.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:33 amthis is a perfect example of the closing of our society. the internet blogging is our last real shot at remaining a free and open society. i think its clear what is happening with the cleveland plain dealer they are involved with the movement to close our society. we must continue to speak out.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:25 amThe blogger made a decision and the paper made a decision.
Free speech and open society being closed?
Hardly.
“NC, Jeff was hired as a blogger full well knowing that he was partisan, not a journalist.”
So what was the point of him writing on a blog? If not journalism in some sense of the word.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:35 amActually all here that is quoted is but one side of the story and we all know that there are other parts of the story.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:38 amThanks, Lisa Renee.
NC – How would you feel if I told you that the COO, VP and 34 year veteran of The Columbus Dispatch, Michael F. Curtin, who was that paper’s politico for some time, and is a lawyer, gave $25,000 to Vote No Casinos? go check it out for yourself.
He also gave $1000 to Kevin Coughlin.
So – why can the state’s capital’s paper of record employ this person for 34 years, who then gives $25,000 to an issue campaign and $1000 to a political elected official and candidate, but the PD fires a BLOGGER over a $100 contribution that could have been discovered with the same search I used to find several folks at the Dispatch and the PD giving money to politicians?
You go investigate, then come back and tell us what you’ve learned. I would LOVE to know more.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pm“NC – How would you feel if I told you that the COO, VP and 34 year veteran of The Columbus Dispatch, Michael F. Curtin, who was that paper’s politico for some time, and is a lawyer, gave $25,000 to Vote No Casinos?”
How would I feel?
Blissfully unaware of the situation. And now that I know? Well my feet hurt.
“So – why can the state’s capital’s paper of record employ this person for 34 years, who then gives $25,000 to an issue campaign and $1000 to a political elected official and candidate, but the PD fires a BLOGGER over a $100 contribution that could have been discovered with the same search I used to find several folks at the Dispatch and the PD giving money to politicians?”
At will employee and employer terminated the free lance agreement.
Did I miss the conspiracy part?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:27 pmGONG – we were independent contractors, a completely different species in employment law.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:34 pm“we were independent contractors, a completely different species in employment law.”
We?
One blogger was terminated and there is no mention of the independent contractor status in the article.
Okay, so the person was an indie and fails to state what the terms of the agreement were/was/is.
Now my feet and elbows hurt because a blogger makes an allegation and fails to provide facts.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:43 pmAn indie contract clause, good or evil?
“Termination Of Agreement.
Termination Upon Notice. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, either party hereto may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ________ days written notice to the other party.”
October 31st, 2007 at 8:45 pmNot sure why you have such tsuris but best of luck to you.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:46 pmNC, if you go back and read the post that Jeff wrote he states:
As also was stated, Jeff was hired as a blogger not a journalist and there was nothing in a contract that he violated, he was not terminated for violating anything, he was fired because way before he even started blogging for the Cleveland Plain Dealer he made a campaign contribution, something that is not an ethics violation even for a majority of journalists still working today. Given his position as a blogger, it’s an even farther stretch to call that a violation. Political bloggers care enough about politics to spend hours upon hours of their own time blogging, it’s a given they will donate to candidates and causes…
October 31st, 2007 at 8:49 pm“Not sure why you have such tsuris but best of luck to you.”
No troubles really other than in the greater scheme of things the article raises little more than a one sided allegation and little else.
I have been an indie and signed the standard agreement. It is all just business and in this case political business won the day.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:51 pm“NC, if you go back and read the post that Jeff wrote he states:”
Ya know I do read the articles before I post and there is one viewpoint or allegation.
And in the very same article there is this; “Today Dubail called me and asked if I would agree to never write about LaTourette on “Wide Open,” as a condition of my continued participation. He said that the arrangement was sought by Susan Goldberg, Editor of the Plain Dealer. When I declined to agree that I would never write about LaTourette on “Wide Open,” I was terminated by DuBail.””
He and the business made an agreement.
The point about his political stance is not lost on me, no really it isn’t The paper made a point and he decided to not accept the terms so the contract was ended.
What am I missing? Other than a blogger, and I am not a blogger, and a media outlet could not come to terms.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:54 pmYou are missing the point that what was asked of him and what led up to it should not have been an issue under the format of what Wide Open was supposed to be. Four political bloggers, two conservatives, two liberals sharing on the Cleveland Plain Dealer site topics that they were passionate about in politics…
They were not asked to be journalists, they were hired because they were well known political bloggers…to blog…
To ask a blogger to not blog about something or someone raises the hackles of quite a few bloggers. It’s not as if there were not other alternatives, as an example, Fox Toledo has their “Rant and Rave” and it’s clearly stated the opinions of those who do the rant and rave are not necessarily the opinion of the Station…it’s actually quite common to insert that type of a disclaimer.
For the newspaper to fold under the pressure of a politician is a bad thing, which is an additional issue.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:05 pm“You are missing the point that what was asked of him and what led up to it should not have been an issue under the format of what Wide Open was supposed to be. Four political bloggers, two conservatives, two liberals sharing on the Cleveland Plain Dealer site topics that they were passionate about in politics…”
Nope, eye site 20/20 on that.
Should not have been, well sure, whatcha ya gonna do about it?
“To ask a blogger to not blog about something or someone raises the hackles of quite a few bloggers.”
Yup, I can tell that as when this many women write about a comment I make I am pretty sure it was not my Right Guard.
“For the newspaper to fold under the pressure of a politician is a bad thing, which is an additional issue.”
Sure, well sure, whatcha ya gonna do about it?
In the greater scheme of things it is but a small drop in a larger pool of troubles we face.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:09 pmPerhaps the bloggers could band together in an affiliation or group or act as one and have agreements set up and dare I say it……….unionize….oh dear I did.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:14 pmSure it’s a small drop in the larger pool but one little drop of giving in to political pressure multiplied by quite a few other little drops? Hurts us all…
Most of the men out there in other parts of the blogosphere are responding the same on this one as Jill and I are, it’s one of the rare times the liberal side of the blogosphere and some conservative bloggers are in agreement…
Scary thing for Halloween yet perhaps appropriate…
October 31st, 2007 at 9:15 pmI don’t support bloggers unionizing, we don’t need a union, we seem to do just fine when it comes to banding together when an issue is important. While it may not change the end result this time? It’s at least important to point out the concerns.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:16 pm“It’s at least important to point out the concerns.”
And, it is also important to put forth all the facts as in what was the free lancers agreement, what were the terms.
Other wise it is one sided commentary, yes? All a reader has is what the blogger says.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:20 pmSometimes, but with the addition of Jill’s post in the update, as well as more posts on Jeff’s blog there is more now out there than when the story was first posted.
At the Wide Open link, they posted their “side” of it as well.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm“Sometimes, but with the addition of Jill’s post in the update, as well as more posts on Jeff’s blog there is more now out there than when the story was first posted.”
Has the Plains Dealer spoken or written about it?
Google shows a lot of bloggers commenting but was does the paper say?
October 31st, 2007 at 9:29 pmNC, yes, the PD has spoken – check out Poynter E-media Tidbits and Media Giraffe. Check out Buckeye State Blog which has direct quotes from Jean Dubail in response to questions from Jerid Kurtz.
Or write the PD yourself, or leave comments on Wide Open regarding your concerns of unanswered questions.
The contract has a confidentiality clause – you want to know what’s in it – go ask the PD.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:36 pmNC, that’s why I included the link to Wide Open in the post, here is a direct link to what was stated there and now there are posts by the other three bloggers who were involved since the initial termination of Jeff, at Wide Open.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:59 pm“NC, that’s why I included the link to Wide Open in the post, here is a direct link to what was stated there and now there are posts by the other three bloggers who were involved since the initial termination of Jeff,”
Yes, been there, read them and it is still one side of the story and nothing more.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:30 amto neighborhood concerns what is the other side of story ?
November 1st, 2007 at 8:23 am“to neighborhood concerns what is the other side of story ?”
And I have no clue.
Other than a business entered into an agreement and the parties failed to agree and the agreement was terminated and people are unhappy.
Let me see if my crystal ball is around here….
November 1st, 2007 at 8:26 am