Tens of thousands of readers made Gannett Blog possible. In an occasional series, I'm singling out a few whose help was above and beyond the call. Not all the contributors were willing participants, of course! So, without further adieu, come on down:
OMG!!! Alleged free-speech advocate
questions whether First Amendment applies to "bad bloggers" (ahem) -- and
USA Today actually publishes it!
And Gannett pays him
$1,923 for the privilege -- again! Strong-arms
transfer of $650 million in
Gannett Foundation money to
Freedom Forum, then
gives $65,700 to third wife's Florida adoption agency! Endlessly showcases six "
chosen children" while ignoring
out-of-wedlock daughter!
But wait, there's more! Surrounds self with
cronies! Gets contracts
paying $200,000 a year for life, while Gannett
lays off thousands! Kept
desk on platform to intimidate office visitors! In short (hah!), no one's offered more raw material than the suntanned,
vertically challenged, 85-year-old retired multimillionaire in Cocoa Beach, Fla. Enjoy the weather where you're headed, man! The tobacco lobbyists already
there say the temps are toasty!
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.
From Al's column:
ReplyDelete"Some politicians, prime victims of bad bloggers, think the First Amendment protection of a free press should not apply to bloggers and have threatened laws to try to do something about it.
They're wrong."
The "They're wrong" part is Al's statement.
I don't think you can fairly say he's questioning whether bloggers should get First Amendment protection. He's clearly saying they should.
Howard!
ReplyDeleteNice to see you back.
I disagree.
1. The headline says, "Should bad bloggers have press freedom?" That's Al talking, because USAT doesn't fart without checking in with the man.
2. The column is replete with references to "bad" bloggers, revealing his real bias. .
3. He references people who "abuse" the First Amendment.
And, yes, I'm sensitive about this; his column is payback for an ugly confrontation we had less than two weeks before, at Gannett headquarters. This hit piece, paid for by Gannett, would be such an abuse -- except I don't believe that's possible.
Jim:
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent from all your previous writings that you have very fundamental and visceral hatred of AHN. What is behind this hatred prior to the meeting?
I don't hate Neuharth. As a major Gannett investor, I object to his bleeding GCI dry.
ReplyDeleteAnd based on your comment, you haven't read a word I've written.
Make up your mind.
ReplyDeleteAl planted the seeds for the future we now live.
ReplyDeleteHe weeded out the top talent to make sure no one challenged Al.
When the storm struck, there wasn't any depth to upper management to have a clue what to do.