Honorable journalists seek to give voice to the disenfranchised; this is a story about what happens when we lose sight of that goal. The following e-mail was written by a Wausau man almost certainly thrown under the bus by the Wausau Daily Herald, after he stood up to a local government official who used tax money to investigate and intimidate him. The official, Village of Weston Administrator Dean Zuleger, wrote a letter on official village stationery, threatening legal action against the man. Zuleger also said he shared the letter with the police chief and other village officials in steps the victim regarded as an effort at further intimidation.The Wausau man wrote to me after I asked how he felt about the newspaper's handling of the case.
Jim,
I thought about this hard overnight and I have come to the conclusion that the status quo of the Wausau Daily Herald and its relationship with Dean Zuleger is toxic and must be allowed to see the light of day.
1. I have written numerous open letters (with my real name) to the paper, often criticising their editorial positions. I have also voiced views opposing the WDH using my online name.
2. I have been a very vocal opponent of Weston Village Administrator Dean Zuleger and the Village Board: his actions in office, the ordinances passed by the board, and Zuleger's overall megalomaniacal, in my opinion, tendencies in the way he conducts his affairs.
3. I believe it is becoming clear that Zuleger strong-armed the Daily Herald into releasing my information. Armed with that information, Zuleger proceeded to use public resources to exhaustively research my background and produce a personal letter written on Village of Weston stationery. The somewhat cordial tone of the letter is a thin facade for a message that says:
"We know who you are, we oppose your dissent, and we have released your name to other top officials, we have the ability to use public resources to research your personal information, and we will be watching you.''
4. The WDH will claim they are in full compliance with their Terms of Service. True. Yet, they stated publicly they have a policy of reviewing news forum posts and have protocols for addressing the censure and banishment of inappropriate forum contributors. Never have my comments been called into question by the WDH editorial staff. The WDH acquiesced to Zueleger's demands for political expedience and to silence a dissenter.
Please do everything in your power to expose the truth. I'm a bit scared, but this backside muffling of dissent and abuse of power needs to be exposed.
Best wishes,
[XXXXX XXXXX]
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.
[Today's front page, Newseum]
Gannett needs to do something (fire the publisher who released this information) and make a statement that it's release was inappropriate and not in the spirit of the internet or the commenting aspect of its blogs. If not, it sends a strong message to the folks aware of this situation that Gannett is prepared to disclose the private info. of its posters to anyone, including public officials seeking back rubs. It's just bad for business. If I was the clown running Gannett I would be furious about this. Of course, you have to keep spare sets of blinders nearby when you are the Gannett CEO.
ReplyDeleteThere are cranks everywhere. This guy sounds like the typical thorn in the side of every forum on earth. Nobody likes these guys (or gals) but themselves, and they fancy themselves as some kind of standard-bearer for the rest of the forum. But they're not. They're just annoying cranks.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, how in the world did this city official ever stay in public office for so long with such a thin skin? He's probably got an ego the size of his girth.
Oops. I just violated the terms of service of every wannabe moderator in Gannett by being mean to the fat guy. Including the publisher who exposed the crank. Better take this anonymous comment down, Jim, for the good of journalism. It's too mean to see the light of civilized discussion, er, the editorial page.
IMO, everybody needs to grow up.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCrank alert.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs a Poughkeepsie Journal reporter, I've been the subject of comments that called into question my integrity, my ability and my competence.
ReplyDeleteNever once have I asked the digital editor for information that would compromise the story chat participants' identity.
No public offical, unless it's clearly libel or defamatory, should ever pick up the phone and be given identification of any of our story chatters.
Believe me, I would give up some of these b******* in a heart beat, but I believe in freedom of speech.
"No public offical, unless it's clearly libel or defamatory, should ever pick up the phone and be given identification of any of our story chatters."
ReplyDeleteAnd even then, they ought to have to go to court to get it, unless the practice is to identify any chatterer to any member of the public upon request. Public officials should not get special treatment.
Aaaargh! Per 12:21 AM: No public offical, unless it's clearly libel or defamatory, should ever ...Kids, since Gannett isn't going to educate you about professional journalism, do some self education in Internet law. No website or IPS is responsible for libel or defamation posted to bulletin boards and forums. Period.
ReplyDeleteGannett had no self interest in outing this poster, no matter what.
IMHO, even Gannett's addition of the "business interest" clause in the user agreement doesn't support its apparent decision to out the guy, because there's no actionable cause against Gannett no matter what the guy wrote.
And I say "apparent decision" because professional journalists must be careful not to connect a dot without facts. The poster who called the superviser fat is stating a suspicion he cannot know that the official asked for the ID info and the WHD management made a deliberate decision to comply.
Don't repeat unprivileged assumptions as fact. That may not be how this went down. Low-level ed techs have access to the info; anyone with access could have offered it, directly or innocently to a friend who told a friend who told the superviser.
Deleting the guy's post would have been kosher, albeit unethical. But this crossed the line into a special favor for a public official.
10:37 PM wrote: "There are cranks everywhere. This guy sounds like the typical thorn in the side of every forum on earth. Nobody likes these guys (or gals) but themselves, and they fancy themselves as some kind of standard-bearer for the rest of the forum. But they're not. They're just annoying cranks."
ReplyDeleteAgain, I said this on POST #2 on this topic, way back when it all started.
The guy sounds like a first-class nutjob/gadfly. Now, should that mean the paper gives up his identity to someone else? Probably not - but the temptation is clearly understandable.
But should this guy have registered using his REAL NAME in the e-mail address? Certainly not - and had he been a little smarter about it, all of this could have been avoided.
I hate to say it, Jim, but I bet you're losing fans by pursuing this as you are.
I don't think Jim is "losing fans" on this topic. As the newspaper evolves as a digital multimedia, these new pitfalls must be discussed.
ReplyDeleteI agree someone needs to be fired, if the newspaper outed the guy. Crank or not, no one in the newsroom should be granting favors to any politician. It's unethical.
1:16 PM: Crank alert.
ReplyDelete