Karma and Newspapers That Publish Gunowner Addresses

[Ben]

The editor of the New York Paper that published gunowner names and addresses, and then hired armed guards to protect her and her staff when their addresses were published, has been fired.

No connection between the firing and the publishing of the gunowner map, but I see Karma's hand in this. :)

http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/08/07/janet-hasson-fires-caryn-mcbride/

[Hawkmoon]

I'm sure there is no connection whatsoever between her firing and her earlier decisions that led to cancellations of subscriptions and massive ridicule and scorn being heaped on the publication.

No, I'm sure there's no connection whatsoever.

[Ben]

I'm sure there is no connection whatsoever between her firing and her earlier decisions that led to cancellations of subscriptions and massive ridicule and scorn being heaped on the publication.

No, I'm sure there's no connection whatsoever.

Yes, I should have more accurately stated that the publisher claims there is no connection.

[Hawkmoon]

Yes, I should have more accurately stated that the publisher claims there is no connection.

And there probably isn't any direct connection. Exactly. Her release was part of a general downsizing of the enterprise. But, whenever there's to be a downsizing resulting in the release of numbers of employees, "management" goes through a process of assessment and evaluation in order to decide which employees are most worth keeping on, and which employees would result in the least harm to the enterprise if released.

Seems to me that an editor whose actions led to cancelled subscriptions and LOTS of negative publicity would likely not be high on the "must retain at all costs" side of the ledger.

[Levant]

The need for downsizing was very likely a direct result of her actions as manager - including publishing names of gun owners and everything else she did as manager.  We all knew she was incompetent; eventually the owners of the paper had to figure it out.  Had McBride been more worried about the financial success of the paper then she might still have a job.

That raises an interesting moral dilemma in my mind, though.  In a truly free press, editors should state their mind without regard to corporate profits.  the problem here is that we have a press that is so controlled by large public corporations that editors are never allowed to just say what they believe.  They have to worry about profits rather than right.  This double-edged sword that has worked in our favor in this instance has, in many, many more instances, worked against gun owners.  When the corporate headquarters dictates the editorial position for all owned papers we do not get a press capable of questioning the status quo in this country.

Looking into this story led me to http://www.gannett.com/section/WHOWEARE06.  If you look at that page you'll see that they don't view themselves as the watchdogs of society in all of those locations, looking out for liberty and government fraud, corruption, or abuses.  What their page says is that they can deliver customers to advertisers.  The corporate press does not view themselves as having a role in fighting government abuse.

[Regolith]

That raises an interesting moral dilemma in my mind, though.  In a truly free press, editors should state their mind without regard to corporate profits.  the problem here is that we have a press that is so controlled by large public corporations that editors are never allowed to just say what they believe.  They have to worry about profits rather than right.  This double-edged sword that has worked in our favor in this instance has, in many, many more instances, worked against gun owners.  When the corporate headquarters dictates the editorial position for all owned papers we do not get a press capable of questioning the status quo in this country.

Any for-profit newspaper has to worry about profits, large or small, and regardless of who owns and runs it. That isn't something unique to papers owned by large corps. You want to make money, you best not piss off the people who pay your bills, i.e. the subscribers and advertisers.

If you don't like it, you're perfectly free to get together with like-minded individuals and run a non-profit paper, and/or pay for everything yourself.

[Perd Hapley]

In a truly free press, editors should state their mind without regard to corporate profits. 

Incorrect. In a truly free press, editors are free to state their mind, without government interference.* Corporations are free to fund or not fund whichever speech they please.

*Aside from something really egregious, like publishing child porn.

the problem here is that we have a press that is so controlled by large public corporations that editors are never allowed to just say what they believe.  They have to worry about profits rather than right.  This double-edged sword that has worked in our favor in this instance has, in many, many more instances, worked against gun owners.  When the corporate headquarters dictates the editorial position for all owned papers we do not get a press capable of questioning the status quo in this country.

So, if we want freedom, we have to do things ourselves, and not just do whatever someone pays us to do. Nothing new there.


The fundamental mistake you seem to be making is in equating freedom with whatever a corporation pays for. The fact that Soulless Corporation, Inc. doesn't subsidize your speech doesn't infringe on your freedom to speak.

[Ron]

The blogosphere and internet in general is the current domain of free speech.

Newspapers have been hucksters for politicians from the very beginning as well as vehicles to promote the owners philosophy.

What is news to some is propaganda to others.

[Perd Hapley]

The blogosphere and internet in general is the current domain of free speech.

Newspapers have been hucksters for politicians from the very beginning as well as vehicles to promote the owners philosophy.

What is news to some is propaganda to others.

True.

[HankB]

The local rag announced a wave of layoffs several years ago. I posted a message at the paper's website noting that despite their constant editorial vilification of Bush 43, they all had jobs under him; it wasn't until after their man Obama took office that so many of them became unemployed. As I explained, I took no pleasure from their layoffs - as a conservative, I MUCH prefer people to work, pay taxes, and support themselves, rather than going on the dole.

Still, I struck quite a nerve - I think some people's monitors were covered with spittle from their frothing-at-the-mouth responses . . . which made it hard for me to shrug off the resultant feelings of  schadenfreude.