Daily newspaper columnist who defended NRA quits after suspension

What people are led to believe is she published the column, but that is a deliberate lie. The column could not be published without the approval of the Op editor. He could have required a bias disclosure, but didn't. Yet she gets suspended and he doesn't? She was suspended for being a black female conservative after the fact... a scapegoat after an op ed approved publication complicaints by liberals. Despicable.

 

The requirement exists and always exists in journalism and you are naïve if you think she was never informed of its parmeters. If you are asking why, each day, before and after each submission or each interaction, the editor does not start with the question, " what possible biases do you have to disclose today, with this new article?" you are expecting the paper to treat her like a 6 year old.

The column should be published because the content is not out of line or beyond expectation. the editor should publish it. She did right by writing it. they knew she was conservative when they hired her. They knew she was black when they hired her. Your argument does not make sense. Something new happened..

 

Again, the editor could have rejected the column, but he didn't. That she wrote a piece is not the same as having the authority, ability, and freedom to have it published by her paper.

I have often reflected for years with my American friends, in Ireland every new paper's bias is well known, which is why most Irish read multiple rags a day... a requirement for pub, or really any, political discussion. In the US, I have long maintained all new sources are biased, but try to fly under a banner of objectivity.

I suggested earlier in posts, that aside from her being a scapegoat, there is something else we don't know yet. It will emerge.

 

again, the editor could have rejected the column, but you have not told me why he should or would. You keep thinking that it follows that if its writer had done something wrong, the readers should be denied access to the column. If the problem is disclosure, rather than content, it would have been irresponsible for the editor to refuse to print the content and that assumes the editor knew about the disclosure issue in time to consider it. Have you figured out how it came to pass that the editors missed knowing that this particular writer of editorials was black and conservative when she had been writing for this newspaper and others all along as a black conservative woman?. Do you think she wore a mask and gloves throughout her professional career, or did she refuse to be photographed, or interviewed in person?

I am sure there is something we don't know, because normally fired employees are very selective about what they say for reasons of pride, and employers are circumspect for reasons of liability and privacy. I am equally sure that the something had nothing to do with her race or the political slant of her editorials. Those variables are not new in the equation. The disclosure issue makes more sense than the race/ ideology angle.

 

I agree completely.
I remember many heated conversations I had with freinds over certain Political matters, and after, I realized that such matters were way more complicated and harder to understand given the nature of media coverage.

 

Because they are openly biased. Doesn't need explaining.