Journalism Issues

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002462017

Letter Reveals Reason for Firing of Vermont AP Chief

By Joe Strupp
Editor & Publisher Online

Published: May 03, 2006 12:10 PM ET

NEW YORK -- Former Associated Press Vermont bureau chief Chris Graff,
whose firing for unannounced reasons in March sparked statewide protests
from journalists and public officials, was terminated for distributing a
column by Sen. Patrick Leahy that promoted open public records, according
to his termination letter obtained by E&P today.

The letter, written by AP Northern New England Regional Bureau Chief Larry
Laughlin, revealed that Graff, a 27-year veteran of the Vermont bureau,
lost his job because he distributed the column, which was eventually
pulled from the AP wire.

"This is to inform you that your employment at the Associated Press is
terminated," the March 20 letter begins. "The AP has a proud tradition of
speed, accuracy and impartiality that has made it the most trusted news
gathering organization in the world. Your decision to allow an elected
official's editorial comments to run unfettered on the wire March 8
compromised the integrity and impartiality of the AP's news report."

When Graff was fired, widespread speculation surfaced in Vermont that the
Leahy column had been the reason. Neither Graff nor AP officials had
previously commented on the cause. But Graff, who released the letter
today, said the "elected official" cited in it refers to Leahy and his
column. Many in Vermont news circles had been puzzled that the Leahy
column would prompt a firing since a similar Leahy column on the same
topic had been distributed by Graff's bureau a year earlier with no
repercussions.

The termination letter, which was released by Graff as part of a severance
agreement struck between AP and Graff last week, also notes an alleged
misstep in 2003. That year, Graff allowed a staffer, David Gram, to write
a chapter for a book on Howard Dean. The book, published by the nearby
Times-Argus and Rutland Herald, included submissions from nine different
reporters who had covered Dean in the past.

Laughlin's letter referred to that decision as "a failure in judgment,"
noting that he was "admonished" for allowing it at the time. "Both
incidents could have been avoided by consulting with your supervisors,
specifically me," Laughlin added. "When viewed either independently or in
totality, these grave violations of the AP's policies, procedures and
specific directives supply just and sufficient cause for the termination
of your employment."

Graff said he could not comment on the letter, the reason for his
termination or any other aspect of his severance as part of the agreement.
But he said he had asked that he be allowed to release the letter to
"answer some of those lingering questions" about his departure.

Laughlin and AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll could not immediately be
reached for comment Wednesday. Jack Stokes, an AP spokesman at its New
York headquarters, declined comment.

Since his firing, Graff, who is married and the father of two grown
children, has taken part-time positions with Vermont Public Radio and
Vermont Public Television. "I am still talking to folks to sort out what I
want to do next," Graff, 52, told E&P. "I have to see if we will stay in
Vermont, if that is an option. It is going to be a several-months
process."

UPDATE

In response, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) released the following statement
this afternoon:

.If anything, this letter makes AP.s decision all the more difficult to
accept and understand.

.Those of us in public life never agree with all the news coverage we
receive. But within the two rough-and-tumble professions of public service
and journalism, I have never heard anything but praise about Chris Graff
for his professionalism and his evenhandedness, and he has earned that
praise.

.The ironies of censoring discussion of the public.s right to know --
during Sunshine Week, to boot -- have already been noted by others.

.But it must also be noted that AP itself takes an advocacy position each
year during Sunshine Week. AP bureaus across the country distribute and
also produce materials in which these issues are examined. At a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing that we recently held, a prominent AP witness
testified . and forcefully -- in support of the public.s right to know and
of the bipartisan FOIA reform bills that I have authored and introduced in
the Senate with one of the Senate.s most conservative Republican members.

.Earlier this year the American Society of Newspaper Editors once again
asked for my observations for Sunshine Week, which they distributed to
every newspaper in the country. Making the incidental effort to ensure
that Vermont.s editors were aware of this was, apparently, Chris Graff.s
.mistake,. in the view of his supervisor.

.The letter.s explanation is all the more amazing because the piece that I
wrote and that Mr. Graff simply called to Vermont.s editors. attention is
all about the public.s right to know, calling on the government to be more
open with the press and the public. Since Sunshine Week, and to this day,
I still have not seen anyone venture forth with any column arguing
otherwise, that the government these days is sharing too much information
with the press and the public..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

// posted by newshare @ 1:17 AM 0 comments

Consider why this sarcastic take-down of President Bush allegedly went largely
uncovered by the mainstream media.

ORIGINAL URL:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1529981/20060502/index.jhtml

Stephen Colbert's Attack On Bush Gets A Big 'No Comment' From U.S. Media

05.02.2006 3:46 PM EDT

Mainstream outlets largely ignore Comedy Central host's scathing remarks at
White House dinner. Stephen Colbert speaks at the White House Correspondents
Association dinner in Washington, D.C., on Saturday

By Gil Kaufman
Posted at: MTV.COM

Hey, did you hear about the White House Correspondents Association dinner
last weekend?

Oh, yeah, that cute thing where President Bush parried with a look-alike and
poked fun at himself? That was adorable. No, not that. Did you hear the
three or four dozen verbal napalm bombs that Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert
laid out for the president at the annual dinner on Saturday night? No?

Well, maybe it's because much of the mainstream media from CNN to Fox News,
from the "Today" show to The New York Times ignored or largely glossed over
reporting on the stinging zingers Colbert lobbed Bush's way in favor of brief
mentions of his more innocuous jokes. Colbert's comments were nothing if
not controversial.
During his show-closing roast, Colbert whose TV program, "The Colbert
Report," is built on the premise that he is a flag-waving Bush apologist
looked the president in the eye and let loose a characteristically blistering
barrage of invective, which was met with a stunned silence by the crowd and
reportedly made the most powerful man in the free world squirm in his seat on
the dais. Colbert said things like, "Most of all, I believe in this
president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a
32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the
polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect
what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal
bias. ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half-empty,
because 32 percent means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in
that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually
backwash." There was also sarcastic praise for Bush's tendency to stick to
his guns. "The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where
he stands," Colbert said. "He believes the same thing Wednesday that he
believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this
man's beliefs never will."

Colbert stayed in character during his entire monologue, calling Bush his
"hero" and saying, just a minute into his talk, that being at the
correspondents' dinner made him feel like he was dreaming. "Somebody pinch me,"
he said, setting up a sharp left jab to Vice President Dick Cheney. "You
know what? I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot
me in the face."

No aspect of the president's troubles over the past year was given a pass:
From the NSA spying scandal ("If anybody needs anything at their tables,
speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the NSA
will be right over with a cocktail"), to the premature declaration of
"Mission Accomplished" in Iraq he made three years ago to the disastrous
government response to Hurricane Katrina.

"I stand by this man because he stands for things," Colbert said. "Not only
for things, has he stood on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble
and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message: that no
matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most
powerfully staged photo ops in the world." One reason for the media's
reluctance to report Colbert's comments could be that some were directed at
them.

"Here's how it works," he said. "The president makes decisions, he's the
decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the
press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a
spell-check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your
wife. Write that novel you've got kicking around in your head. You know, the
one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the
administration. You know, fiction."

He also took some broad slaps at Fox News, saying the news station gives you
every side of a story: "the president's side and the vice president's side."
Not surprisingly, Colbert got a chilly reception after the speech from the
president and his wife. According to an account in Editor and Publisher, "as
Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and first lady
gave him quick nods, unsmiling. The president shook his hand and tapped his
elbow, and left immediately."

More surprising has been the chilly reception his speech the sentiment of
which was very much in line with any number of editorials that appear in
major American periodicals every week has received from the mainstream media.
Some outlets have essentially treated him as they would a heckler; others
criticized his failure to observe the decorum of the annual dinner, the jokes
of which traditionally stop well short of Colbert's level of intensity.

Writing in a blog on the Web site of the conservative magazine National
Review, reporter Stephen Spruiell suggested that the virtual media blackout
was not a result of the press protecting Bush, but rather their colleague,
Colbert. "I like Stephen Colbert as someone who watches cable news every
day, I find his pundit-show satire is dead-on," Spruiell wrote. "But his
routine at the WHCD was not funny. It was not effective satire, either. It
meandered all over the place, ending with the usual leftist critique of the
reporters who cover the White House: that, with the exception of Helen
Thomas, they are an uncritical bunch of stenographers who rarely challenge the
administration's line on anything. ... The jokes bombed because the truth in
comedy is what makes it funny.

"The lefty bloggers who are now complaining believe that Colbert's critique
of the White House press corps was accurate, but by and large they also
believe that the Bush administration is a criminal enterprise and that all
reporters should be spouting invective and accusations at press conferences
like Helen Thomas."

Elizabeth Fishman, assistant dean for academic affairs at the Columbia
School of Journalism and a former "60 Minutes" producer, had a different
explanation for the media's favoring of the skit with Bush and his
impersonator. "I thought some of the things he said were more provocative
than what I've typically seen," she said. "But from working in television
news, the quick hit whether it's morning or evening news shows is to have the
Bush impersonator standing next to him. It's an easier set up for visual
effect."

However, Columbia School of Journalism professor Todd Gitlin begged to
differ. "It's too hot to handle," said Gitlin, who teaches journalism and
sociology. "He was scathing toward Bush and it was absolutely devastating. They
don't know how to handle such a pointed and aggressive criticism." Gitlin said
the criticism was so harsh that its omission from most major news outlets
made it all the more remarkable.

"I think this is a case of a media who have tiptoed away from the embrace of
the administration and are now reluctant to take what would seem to them a
deeper plunge into the wilderness of criticism," Gitlin said. "When Bush makes
fun of himself, it's within a very narrow and limited framework. But
Colbert's digs went to some of [Bush's] fundamental incapacities."

© 2006 MTV Networks. © and TM MTV Networks. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available
in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First
Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S.
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the
material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog
for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.

// posted by newshare @ 11:26 PM 0 comments