Banned by Greenwich Post!!

Media Matters (4.00 / 6)

Most of the Big Media is in Republican pockets.  Little Media also has long since given up any suggestion of impartiality.  This story won't surprise many; but it nevertheless should be communicated far and wide.  It's a disgrace.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:12:15 PM UTC

Very interesting indeed (0.00 / 0)

Nicely captured contrasts there, thomashooker.

How unfortunate that you used the word bullshit.  It allows people to miss the point of what you are saying, looking for justification.

It is a pretentious civility indeed -- my teacup crumbles in my hand thinking about it -- to disallow your posts (presumably based upon incivility of using a word they don't like) while engaging in patently dishonest and offensive editorial policies.

Is this the Greenwich style -- we like our bullshit au lait or on toast points?  It's not impolite to engage in intellectually corrupt journalism -- but it's oh, so impolite to call people on it in impolite terms.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 19:03:54 PM UTC

Interesting angle! (4.00 / 1)

I am usually far more reserved in my choice of words.  But as one who is well over 50% Celtic, there are moments when one gets one's Irish up, and their blatant attempt to soften the impact of a pointed criticism of Republican Congressman Chris Shays really got me going.  

I don't know about the Greenwich style.  Certainly that's the Greenwich Republican style.  But there are many intrepid, patriotic Americans here in Greenwich, like Ned Lamont and Jim Himes and Ed Krumeich (who took on the Republicans' deputy minority leader in the state house of representatives two years ago and almost beat her.  In fact, Dolly Powers is retiring, and Ed Krumeich is running again!).  There's Sarah Littman, who blogs here and at saramerica.com, and slipped into Greenwich Time as a columnist, and who is fearless in taking on the right wing.

I'm not sure whether the Greenwich Post editor Kristan Zimmer or the publisher actually live here or not.  I think the problem is that they believe their product is best when it is pablum, when it confines itself to "happy talk".  And, frankly, the media in this state is very conservative.  Noticed that Hartford Courant endorsed George Bush twice, then Joe Lieberman, and this spring the most conervative guy running for president- Mitt Romney?  Remember Hartford Courant's David Lightman's reporting?  He's the guy who termed people who wanted us to withdraw from Iraq "the out now crowd", and referred to Rahm Emanuel as "a political grenade thrower".  He's the guy who said of Chris Shays on the public radio program "Where We Live" that "he's one of the good guys" right before the '06 election.  Don't even get me started with Greenwich Time, which changes every Associated Press article about Joe Lieberman to label him "(D-Conn)" or "Democrat" from the (I-Conn) and "Independent" that is carried in the original story.  No joke- they change the article to make him into a Democrat in Greenwich.  Of course, their sister publication Stamford Advocate in Stamford, with the same publisher, same editor, same corporate ownership, but many more Democrats, retains AP's original "independent" description.  Now how's that for stretching journalistic ethics to the breaking point?

I think that journalists and newspaper managements are incredibly arrogant.  They just refuse to be questioned- period.  So Kristan Zimmer refused to consider an apology to the community for the horrendous Obama smear that she published without the slightest qualms.  Nor did she consider publishing a letter from the editor explaining why she let it through.  Likewise, publisher Thomas Nash refuses to even consider that he's violating any sense of journalistic ethics, by protecting Shays from a straightforward letter to the editor about a subject so important as war.  

But they're wrong.  Period.  BS notwithstanding.  And if you want to take it up with Thomas Nash, his email is in the post.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 20:00:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Bullshit" Was Mild IMO (4.00 / 1)

Something tells me that if I find the time to share my thoughts with the folks at Greenwich Post, "Bullshit" will be mild in comparison to what I write. And I will sorely join you proudly on the banned citizens list.

What a pathetic excuse for a newspaper. You don't ban people for criticizing your newspaper or for using foul language in their response to you. That, "my friends", is censorship.

Meanwhile, other more politically correct readers are free to have published the most outrageous lies and smears about presidential candidates who challenge those that the newspaper has endorsed.

---

by: CTPatriot @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 20:29:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's only further to my point, ctpatriot (3.00 / 1)

The perspective on what is/is not outrageous is really bizarre.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 21:00:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bullshit is a word (4.00 / 1)

This is an old tactic used by lawyers.  Feign an injustice and then dismiss your opponent as crazy.

It is possible that the newspaper saw the "bad word" as a reason to ban thomashooker.  However, "bullshit" was used in correspondence regarding the fact that they were holding the publication of the letter until they could fact check it with Shays.  They truly cannot be that sensitive.  They needed a pretext not to publish his letter and chose this one.

---

by: mvbrown @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 15:10:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Should be Front Paged (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: CTPatriot @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 20:21:07 PM UTC

That would be appreciated! (0.00 / 0)

Also sent this in to Media Matters.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 20:42:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Haven't Any Of You Noted The Date On This? (0.00 / 0)

It didn't really happen, did it?

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 20:47:45 PM UTC

Yes. I got the email from Nash today. (0.00 / 0)

Shall I include the times for the other emails?  I'd be happy to.

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:49:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

april fool's day is jon's implication (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, the joke is not a funny one.  It's the joke of an editorial decision that makes the Nash email perfect for April Fool's Day.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:41:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you locate any Liberal/Progressive Advertisers (0.00 / 0)

If so, perhaps you can persuade them to hold their ads for several weeks, not enough to effect their businesses but just enough to cut revenue to the paper.

An alternative option is for them to add a banner on their ads which reads: Why is this paper blacklisting it's readers?

Or something more briefer.  

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:37:34 AM UTC

How much does an ad cost? (4.00 / 2)

maybe some MLN'ers can chip in and try to run an ad in the Post... see what happens.  

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffet

---

by: joesaho @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 14:12:22 PM UTC

Free press (4.00 / 3)

Hersam-Acorn is the same company that owns the Milford Mirror.  We have never been able to get a decent word in edgewise in that paper.  They publish the most vile, anti-democrat letters and very little on the other side.

The idea that the press is free in this country needs to be completely dispelled.  "Free press" used to mean "free speech".  Now it just means a free newspaper, which gets to publish one side but never the other.

Bypass the media.

---

by: mvbrown @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 14:55:04 PM UTC

... (4.00 / 2)

Meh, Thomas you come off as a dick.  I'm not at all shocked that the newspaper decided to stop dealing with you.  And at the end of the day, you failed to get your message into their medium.  At the very least you gave them ammo to deny you.  Fail.

---

by: AThomas @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 21:39:47 PM UTC

I tend to agree (3.00 / 1)

if I got this email at my job, I'd have forwarded it to my boss after the first sentence .. and then I'd delete it.

angry words and insults are a great way to turn people off. and then there's no discussion at all.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 21:51:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Beware of Dirty Tricks! (0.00 / 0)

I agree that the term "bull shit" was unfortunate -- because it provided an excuse for ignoring the very relevant and substantive comment, which the paper ought to have printed without delay.

We progressives have a hard rope to tow:  The right-wing opposition has no qualms about lying, breaking the laws, and labeling others in offensive and inappropriate ways. [For example, I was particularly incensed at Joe Lieberman's characterization of we Lamont supporters as crazy jihadists.]  That said, I think it is imperative for us to not take the bait!

In recent years, Chris Shays has exhibited shameful behavior in full public view:  

o   In a taped debate, he called Abu Graib "sex," not torture; the mind boggles at that one.

o   He assaulted a DC policeman.

o   At a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he interrupted and was verbally abusive to the Blackwater widows whose husbands had been murdered in Iraq.

The press has said little about Shays' behavior; but a citizen's outrage at our Congressman has resulted in the failure to print a well researched and important letter. Where's the balance?  

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 15:51:27 PM UTC

Let's Keep the Record Straight (0.00 / 0)

He verbally assaulted the policeman.  

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 15:58:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Are Not Quite Correct (0.00 / 0)

I thought I remembered that Shays had made physical contact with the officer; so I did some cursory research.  Here's what I found:

Assault - legal definition:
Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.
www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/22542B6F-FEDB-450A-889A82A49EA50CEB - 32k -

In any case, here are two quotations from one report about the incident:

"Shays reportedly grabbed the officer during the dispute over whether the officer should allow a group of tourists to enter the building, said several sources."

"The officer took offense to the manner in which the Congressman spoke to him and said that the Congressman also reached out and touched his nametag."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

I rest my case, and I stand by perfectly fair use of the term assault.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 19:00:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reaching Out And Touching Isn't Assault (0.00 / 0)

And neither is swearing. He did not physically threaten the officer. I think we can make a strong enough case against Shays without exaggerating.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:03:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Depends . . . (0.00 / 0)

First of all, the officer and witnesses have described the "altercation" differently.  I am not aware of any footage that might reveal how menacing or out of control Shays might (or might not) have been.  

I can tell you -- because I personally have been on the receiving end -- that when Shays encounters the unexpected, he often becomes very aggressive.  Two years ago, at the first Town Meeting I ever attended, Shays began the meeting in what I have since learned is his usual style.  Taking pen and paper in hand, he asks constituents what they want to talk about; as people offer their issues of choice, he writes.

The meeting I attended occurred very shortly after it was disclosed that the government had been spying on private citizens without first obtaining FISA approval.  I honestly had no idea what Shays' opinion about this might be.  So I asked.  At this point, he put down the pen and paper and started yelling at me: Some people just don't understand the seriousness of terrorism, he shouted.

Taken aback, I nonetheless replied that Some people can be concerned about both of these things at the same time. The guy clearly can become a bit unhinged -- this case occurred in public with the cameras running -- and suggests that he can get out-of-control with little-to-no provocation.  Sans camera, some may be left to wonder; but not me.

The DC officer (who might well be used to encountering much more serious "assault") felt affronted, but may not have been fearful. The onlookers, on the other hand, may well have responded differently. So then I go back to the definition of assault:

Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.
www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/22542B6F-FEDB-450A-889A82A49EA50CEB - 32k -

I'll take your point that we don't know for sure how aggressive Shays appeared; but from one reasonable person to another, I will point out that Shays did apologize -- and leave it at that.  

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 13:11:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you, Ann (0.00 / 0)

Indeed, it is highly likely that a common citizen who had engaged in such an extended profanity-laced tirade against a Capitol Hill police officer, then made physical contact with him, would certainly have found himself flat on the ground, the officer's knee on the back of his neck, his hands being handcuffed behind him and the officer calling for backup.  If anyone but Shays does that, he's headed to the slammer!

And it is curious, indeed, that Shays was let off so lightly, with just a gentle talking to by the head of the Capitol Hill police, after the officer assaulted had filed a complaint against him.

Let's keep in mind that Representative Cynthia McKinney, who swung around with her fist when a Capitol Hill police officer grabbed her shoulder from behind, was hauled before a federal grand jury by a federal assistant district attorney for the District of Columbia.  The grand jury failed to indict her, but the law enforcement officials definitely treated her far more harshly than they did Shays.  And the media most certainly treated the two differently, with Fox News and other cable channels going after McKinney for days, and her local print media also hounding her.  Let's recall that Greenwich Time didn't even bother to carry news of Shays' altercation until days after they'd received several emails questioning them as to why they were remaining silent.  Connecticut Post carried one tiny square in the inside pages about it, then let it drop.

But, Ann, I'm not sure whether you're right that Shays actually ever apologized to the officer.  He said he was going to, but the officer was on vacation.  I never heard if he actually apologized after the officer returned.

---

by: thomashooker @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:32:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thomas Nash, Publisher of "Greenwich Post" (0.00 / 0)

I was tempted, but through sheer willpower resisted, to prefix and suffix the name of the publication with "im" and "er"... I'll let you have the joy of figuring out just which word they should be attached to.

I called twice to the publisher's phone number listed and received a reply a couple of days later. We had a civil conversation, but ThomasHooker is clearly on their s-list with no remorse whatsoever felt by the publisher. When I asked if the publisher thought it reasonable to allow Barack Obama's team the opportunity to respond, the phone went dead. I called back, but got only a recording.

The response to being denied publication and the use of a garden-variety (pun intended) vulgarity--one so earthy and frequent that one doesn't even hear a bleep on late-night TV (values voters, anyone?)--may have been a little over the top. Can't decide if "crude" is more appropriate to the word or the ham-handedness of the paper and its inveterate management.

We may finally be at the point where news media are so inept and unimportant that they self-destruct. Truly, this is one excellent reason for us all to be concerned about the Internet and equal access. If papers are so biased as easily to be labeled propaganda, then the Internet has to be accessible without restraint. I'm not into samizdat, but maybe that's what it will come to. In the meantime, continue to respond to requests for "net neutrality" with gusto.

---

by: Route66 @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 20:29:20 PM UTC

censorship (0.00 / 1)

Question: is it really censorship?

It is a privately held paper. They can print what they want.

I'm sure oberman isn't required to have conservative guests on.

If you don't like the the Greenwich Time or Post don't read it. You still have the NY times, nbc, cbc, abc, washpost, cnn, msnbc, la times, connpost, the newlondon day, new haven register, etc, etc, etc.

Hollywood!
 

---

by: turkeylegs @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:15:08 AM UTC

Journalism, As It Once Was Defined, Is Dead! (4.00 / 1)

Actually it really is worse than censorship; the press has become a propaganda tool. Historically, the Fourth Estate  represented an independent, and critical, institution in democratic countries:

After the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Once private corporate entities took over our mainstream media (and both financial and political considerations prompted the elimination of most investigative journalism and many foreign news desks) the concept of "journalism" -- as opposed to stenographic reporting of politically motivated talking points -- was dead in the water.

You list many mainstream so-called news sources.  But unless you listen to the BBC, or read The Guardian [to give examples I frequently employ] AND comb the blogs for information that either doesn't get printed or is distorted beyond recognition, it is impossible to remain informed.

Burke was right.  Without a thriving Fourth Estate -- which we no longer have in this country -- a democratic form of government cannot survive.  

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:01:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not exactly (4.00 / 1)

Newspapers have always been guided by what are called "journalistic ethics", which include many things.  Among them are airing letters to the editor reflecting all sides of an issue.  The paper, as the New York Times public editor once pointed out, can publish several more letters supporting one point of view in order to reflect the fact that the preponderance of letters received supported that viewpoint.  Likewise, the cardinal rule for newspaper reporting is that there are almost always more than one side to a story, and it is the responsibility of the reporter to reflect all those sides in his story.  

Newspapers are supposed to be disinterested reporters of the truth and the facts.  They are also supposed to reflect the opinions of the community they serve to that community.  While the Wall Street Journal maintains a, in my opinion, grotesquely far-right editorial page.  Yet its news reporting has always been scrupulously even-handed and factual.  Whether it will remain so under Rupert Murdoch remains to be seen.

There are other requirements of ethics that journalists and publications are supposed to follow.  But there are limits in terms of community decency that I believe Mr. Nash, Ms. Zimmer, and Greenwich Post clearly violated when they printed the letter from Murray Paroly that so smeared Muslims and Islam, and indulged in fear-mongering by insinuating that a President Obama would be quartering Islamic terrorists in the White House.  There are also ethical requirements that a newspaper not knowingly print lies and untruths.  That requirement, too, Nash and Zimmer violated when they permitted the publication of Paroly's letter with the now thoroughly debunked charge that Obama had attended a school in Indonesia that was run by Islamic terrorists.  I'm sure journalism professors could give you a better rundown on this; indeed, that's what they do for a living.  But in short, newspapers in America aren't supposed to print anything.  Of course, there are extensive libel laws that also apply, although it is almost impossible to be prosecuted for libeling a public political figure like Barack Obama; that impinges on first ammendment freedom of speech guarantees.

So the answer is that it isn't OK for Greenwich Post to just print anything.  There are limits.

---

by: thomashooker @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go tell him what you are thnking without an editor (0.00 / 0)

The following is Shays' Community Meeting schedule:

Bridgeport
Saturday, April 12
4:30 - 6:00 P.M.
North Branch Library
3455 Madison Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06606

New Canaan
Friday, April 4
5:30. - 7:00 P.M.
New Canaan Library
Lamb Room
151 Main Street
New Canaan, CT 06840

Stamford
Sunday, April 6
11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Stamford Government Center, Cafeteria
888 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901

Darien
Sunday, April 13
11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Darien Town Hall, Auditorium
2 Renshaw Road
Darien, CT 06820

Norwalk
Saturday, April 12
11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M
Norwalk Community College
188 Richards Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06854

Trumbull
Friday, April 11
5:00 - 6:30 P.M.
Trumbull Town Hall
Council Chambers
5866 Main Street
Trumbull, CT 06611

Easton
Saturday, April 5
2:00 - 3:30 P.M.
Easton Town Hall
225 Center Road
Easton, CT 06612

Oxford
Saturday, April 5
4:30 - 6:00 P.M.
Oxford Town Hall
Community Room
486 Oxford Road
Oxford, CT 06478

Weston
Sunday, April 13
2:00 - 3:30 P.M.
Weston Town Hall
Meeting Room
56 Norfield Road
Weston, CT 06883

Fairfield
Friday, April 11
2:30 - 4:00 P.M
Pequot Library, Auditorium
720 Pequot Avenue
Southport, CT 06890

Redding
Saturday, April 12
2:00 - 3:30 P.M.
Redding Town Hall, Council Room
100 Hill Road
Redding, CT 06895

Westport
Sunday, April 6
2:00 - 3:30 P.M.
Westport Center for Senior Activities
21 Imperial Avenue
Westport, CT 06880

Greenwich
Saturday, April 12
9:00 - 10:30 A.M.
Greenwich Town Hall
Meeting Room
101 Field Point Road
Greenwich, CT 06830

Ridgefield
Friday, April 11
10:30 A.M. - Noon
Founder's Hall, Lecture Room
193 Danbury Road
Ridgefield, CT 06877

Wilton
Saturday, April 5
11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M
Wilton Library
Rimer Room
137 Old Ridgefield Road
Wilton, CT 06897

Monroe
Friday, April 4
3:00 - 4:30 P.M.
Edith Wheeler Memorial Library
William Ehlers Meeting Room
733 Monroe Turnpike
Monroe, CT 06460

Shelton
Sunday, April 6
4:30 - 6:00 P.M.
Shelton City Hall, Auditorium
54 Hill Street
Shelton, CT 06484    

---

by: ctpublius @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 14:01:11 PM UTC

Thanks for Posting This (0.00 / 0)

I already plan to attend at least one meeting -- and have several questions ready.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 15:42:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]