Daily newspaper columnist who defended NRA quits after suspension

Amazing how you can lose your job for defending the second amendment.

This will catch the eye of the posters who fight for the right contained in the second to keep and bear arms. This is attacked daily by Democrats. I suspect Libertarians are with us in defending this vital amendment.

Why is it vital?

By right of living, we have the right to want to remain alive. We may face another human wishing to take our life. If we do not have the right to arms, we will lose to the armed. They will then be in charge of our life that day they show up with a gun.

We must protect our own lives. Cops can take 5 to 45 minutes to get to you. It depends on available cops and if they take you serious enough. But by the time the swiftest cop shows up, you will be injured or perhaps dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/0...-who-defended-nra-quits-after-suspension.html

 

Yeah lets ignore this part. LOL

Her active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association represented an unacceptable conflict of interest in her most recent column, which resulted in our suspension of her work,” Tod Robberson, the Post-Dispatch’s editorial page editor, wrote in a response to Washington’s suspension and quitting.

Robberson added: “Columnists are expected to fully disclose conflicts of interest when writing about topics where such a conflict might arise. We apply this standard regardless of the lobbying or advocacy group being written about in a column.”

 

people who hate the second amendment often hate the first amendment too

 

I think she looks really good with that Rifle in her hands.
I think we should E-Mail a nice message, and let her know she has supporters.

 

Yep, denied the right of the 1st for defending the 2nd....

 

LoL I was looking at this yesterday on her Twitter feed.

I read her story and the resulting fallout. If I was her I'd sue them for racism, that would make their heads explode.

She put the following pic on her Twitter feed which made me laugh my ass off:



We got your back Stacy.

 

The left often likes to interject emotionally driven, false analogies to demonize gun owner and slander the NRA; they don't like being called on it, and for a Black woman to do so...heresy.

 

So you contend that it's proper for a news organization to fire an employee for being registered in a political party and writing about politics?

With that in mind, I guess you are advocating for 90% of the media to be fired for conflict of interest.

 

That is not what happened in this case. She WORKED for and had an affiliation with the NRA, wrote an article about the NRA and then did not disclose that conflict to her boss. She should have been fired

 

She did appearances with them, she did not work for them.

So if a member of the political media donates cash and is a member of a political party you advocate for their firing because of the obvious conflict that arises there.

 

She had a direct relationship with them and did not report that OBVIOUS conflict to her boss. You MUST report conflicts to your boss in journalism so they can assign you to jobs that do not even have the APPEARANCE of bias. This is journalism 101 and she failed.

 

So I wonder how they found out about this conflict so quickly after the column was written. Did they investigate her for her unauthorized support for the Constitution? Maybe it was leaked?

More likely they knew about it all along because she was open about it and fired her because of the column.


And again, you are advocating for most of the political media to be fired for conflicts of interest.

 

Well now you are guessing. You have no idea. All we know for a fact that is she broke one of the most basic rules in journalism

 

If VG had any intellectual integrity he would see the hypocrisy. The mainstream media is packed with people who meet his standards for "conflicts of interest" but because they say what he wants to hear he sees no problem with them.

 

We don't know that. All we know is what they said. I would say there is at least as much reason to not believe them as there is to believe them.

 

What they said is she broke the first rule of journalism. She does not deny it. Let her present her evidence

 

All you have to do is name them and I will condem them. But you can't. LOL

 

It's not a left/right thing. Few people get into political journalism without being politically savvy. Those that are politically savvy overwhelmingly fall into either the R or D camp.

 

If you have an open relationship with a party you are reporting on and YOU DON'T AT THE VERY LEAST PUT A DISCLAIMER IN YOUR PIECE you are guilty of an ethics violation

 

Conflict of interest before truth? Sounds about right for the media. Wonder who the senior editor associates with outside his job.

 

Like Donna Brazil?

 

If you have evidence of something ....say it. You do not

 

Yes like her. That was unacceptable. See how easy that is?

 

I've never seen one of these disclaimers from the openly biased reporting I see every time I open a political article or editorial.

 

Then you don't read the news at all. I see them all the time. They are usually at the end of a byline in a newspaper and before the story is read on tv and radio.