Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
(UPDATED x 3) Where’s Editor and Publisher’s Editor?
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, November 04, 2006

Editor and Publisher is reporting that the "4 leading military papers" are editorially saying Rumsfeld must go.

The papers in question are publications which cater to the military reader, certainly, but are hardly "military papers" (which I would define as those published by the military such as "Stars and Stripes"). They are owned by Gannett Corporation (USA Today), not an entity which actually is associated with the military.

Additionally the same editorial board writes for all 4 publications, hence it is one board published in the 4 cited publications saying Rumsfeld must go.

As to Rumsfeld? Frankly, Rumsfeld has become more of a lightning rod for negativity than anything else and one has to suspect that his political utility as Sec Def was negated long ago (or said another way, he's a political liability). Whatever you might think of Rumsfeld and his actions during Iraq, it would be hard to argue that politically, replacing him might indeed be the smart move.

However, I mostly wanted to point out that when you see the headline from E&P, keep in mind it's one board of a Gannett owned property being published 4 times in 4 separate publications which are commercial ventures not actually associated with the military.

UPDATE: A little feedback from those the editorial(s) supposedly represent.

UPDATE II: Here's the editorial.

UPDATE III: The DoD responds to the editorial.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Don’t think the Editorial Boards aren’t reflecting their readership. No oversight has been an unmitigated disaster that the military has had to bear the brunt of. Putting 20-something GOP political idealogues in charge of the Iraq reconstruction doomed it from the start and Congress abdicated all responsibility. Rumsfeld championed this misguided effort and needs to go now.
 
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
Don’t think the Editorial Boards aren’t reflecting their readership.
That’s an assumption which has no basis in hard data nor any particular history in civilian media (the NYT’s editorials (or any other major daily) may or may not reflect the opinion of their readership).

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The papers in question are publications which cater to the military reader, certainly, but are hardly "military papers"

I wouldn’t have known this if you hadn’t told me.
However,

That’s an assumption which has no basis in hard data nor any particular history in civilian media

well, there’s no proof, but one would assume that, since they rely on military personnel for their audience, and their sources, it would be in their interest to avoid publishing things they know their audience *disagrees with.

If they are out of touch, then we should expect to see it in a loud reader backlash by the military audience...
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Living in the former corporate headquarters city of the Gannett corporation, I can tell you for a fact that they’re also most often associated with left wing causes. Their local paper, "the Democrat and Chronicle" is often referred to as "the Chronic Democrat", as an example.

Frank Gannett, who died the year I was born, from what I know the man, would be rolling in his grave, if he had the slightest idea of what was being done in his name.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
well, there’s no proof, but one would assume that, since they rely on military personnel for their audience, and their sources, it would be in their interest to avoid publishing things they know their audience *disagrees with.
So that’s now the purpose of editorials and editorial boards ... to agree with their audience.

Heh ... ask any editorial board if that’s their purpose ’nost ... go ahead, I’ll wait.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I take your point. The problem comes (and I ran into it myself in writing my own headline), it is difficult to come up with a simple way to summarize Army Times, Navy Times, etc. in a headline.

Still, the fact that these papers (through one editorial) are calling for Rumsfeld to go is significant.
 
Written By: Steven Taylor
URL: http://poliblogger.com
Still, the fact that these papers (through one editorial) are calling for Rumsfeld to go is significant.
OK.

But not as significant as "4 papers (implying 4 editorial boards)" which cater to the military would be.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Lots of editorial pages go against their readership. How many non-conservative Republicans are there in NYC who read the NY Post? How many non-liberal Democrats read the Louisville Courier-Journal? How many non-conservative Republicans read the Ann Arbor News? How many non-liberal Democrats read Norfork Virginia Pilot? It’s very common to have editorial pages that run contrary to the wider readership. Hell, I love the Wall Street Journal. But I don’t touch the editorial page with a ten foot pole. I imagine people on the other side say the same thing about the New York Times.

That said, the Military Times group is a bit different. I’m sure it isn’t hard to find soldiers and officers who dispute an editorial that calls for Rummy’s resignation. I’m actually surprised the outrage isn’t greater. Frankly, the silence is deafening.
 
Written By: Elrod
URL: http://
I’m actually surprised the outrage isn’t greater. Frankly, the silence is deafening.
You might want to wait until they actually print the editorial.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
An official military paper couldn’t publish a "Rumsfeld Must Go" editorial even if it wanted to...
 
Written By: nobody
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider