Dear Friends:
The IndyStar is preparing this fall to launch an ambitious and aggressive Editorial Board campaign designed to persuade the governor and state lawmakers to expand Indiana’s civil rights law to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
We would like to privately brief you on our plans for the campaign, to explain ways in which you and your organization can partner with us, to answer your questions, and to hear your thoughts and possible concerns. Please join us for a meeting with community leaders on September 22, from 8:00 – 9:30 am at our offices, 130 S. Meridian St.
We believe that it is critical for all of us to work together to drive this important change and to further the recovery from damage done to our state by the RFRA controversy.
Please join us as we prepare to continue this vital conversation about the future of Indiana.
To RSVP, email [redacted]
Karen Ferguson Fuson, Group President, Gannett Domestic Publishing President & Publisher, IndyStarNotice that Ferguson Fuson continues to hammer the meme of the need to repair "damage done to the state" from the RFRA controversy, which its newspaper created by falsely claiming the law discriminated against gays.
Rose, himself a former publisher of the Jerusalem Post, adds commentary on the decline of the Indianapolis Star under Gannett's ownership:
The Indianapolis Star has seen both its circulation and advertising revenues plummet since it was purchased by Gannett for $1.1 billion in 1999. Under Gannett ownership, the Star’s paid daily circulation has fallen more than two-thirds to less than 100,000 sold copies per day.I would add that Ferguson Fuson divorced her husband shortly after she moved to Indianapolis to assume leadership of the Indianapolis Star after she started dating Pacers Sports & Entertainment CEO Rick Fuson. The two were married this summer. The Star shamelessly advocates for any taxpayer subsidies the Pacers seek without disclosing their top management person's obvious conflict of interest. It's unfortunate that the newspaper's agenda includes aiding and abetting the theft of public assets by political insiders at every turn and lambasting those who question what are clearly illegal and often criminal acts. It's definitely not Eugene Pulliam's newspaper anymore.
24 comments:
The press was originally thought of as a bullwark against government coercion. Looks like The Star's become just another interest group. Interest groups have their place but not while masquerading as an unbiased news source.
http://yournewswire.com/cnn-journalist-governments-pay-us-to-fake-stories-shocking-expose/ Like other fake journalists do you suppose gannett gets $ for their serial lying?
Yes, LamLawIndy, what you said. Especially the last nine words. Indianapolis no longer has a reputable news source in Gannett's garbage wrapper but instead is cursed with just another interest group planning in secret its special interest activities.
It is important to distinguish between the news-reporting and editorializing functions of a newspaper. The publisher's letter says, "The IndyStar is preparing this fall to launch an ambitious and aggressive Editorial Board campaign . . .." The editorial board is the same group that makes endorsements of political candidates just before Election Day. Newspapers have been biased advocates for generations, and this is no different. It is when the newspapers, or the readers, forget that difference that we begin to get in trouble. When her letter says "Editorial Board campaign" it shows she may know the difference, at least this time.
It would be interesting to know who the "friends" are. I can understand a News Outlet having an Editorial point of view, including the old Pulliam Star, which I often disagreed with. This E-Mail by Fuson goes far beyond editorial viewpoint, because we know The Star will manage/slant the story. Thus, we will read one article after another by "guest writers" and the Star staff of stenographers to push their point of view. Fuson's E-Mail simply confirms The Star has taken the role of Pravda of the Soviet Union. The Star's motto should be All the News we want you to know.
This is S.O.P. here in Indianapolis, the old Pullian Star like the Gannett Star never questioned and was and is a rah, rah cheerleader for the Corporate Welfare lavished on the Colts and Pacers.
I am sooo happy I cancelled my subscription to the Star.
An expensive form of birdcage liner.
I yearn for the days of honest journalism with ethics and investigative capacity. The old Indianapolis Star was at least, at that time, at a 5th grade reading level. Now, its lucky to have achieved a 3rd grade reading level. It is garbage, tabloid journalism like this that allows corruption and malfeasance to fester. Oh, and I laugh about the marriage part...birds of a feather knowing those two.
So they don't want to report the news, they want to make the news.
Greg, I agree on making a distinction between the editorial and the news pages. A lot of people don't understand this. The problem is we're not just talking about opining on an issue. We're talking about the publisher of a newspaper taking an active role in organizing and promoting one side of an issue. Journalistic ethics says you avoid such associations that can call into question the integrity and the objectivity of the newspaper. Ferguson Fuson not only doesn't avoid such political associations, she blatantly talks about organizing the effort. There is not a journalism ethics expert in the country who would say that what Ferguson Fuson is doing passes any type of journalistic ethics scrutiny.
Besides that, it is clear to me that the lack of objectivity has bled over into how the Star has covered certain issues. The IBJ is a model, or at least it used to be, of how news reporting and editorializing should be kept separate. The Star's news coverage seems consistently warped to support the political positions of management. We might as well return to the days of newspapers being run by political parties and give up on honest, objective journalism.
Gannett is a psyop on red state America. Look at the the geographical layout of the places Gannett purchased daily newspapers. It always puts its political agenda ahead of profits. Their goal is to emasculate males, tear down traditional parenting and family mores, rub out the influence of Christianity in America, replace hard news coverage with pop culture dribble and an over-emphasis on sports as a way of dumbing down the people, and always come down on the side of finding ways of chipping away at people's most basic fundamental rights in favor of empowering an all-protective big government.
At this point, it becomes difficult to see how the Star is protected under the Freedom of the Press.
The Star has become more like a for-profit corporation that publishes its own newsletter.
Think about it. The Star is a for-profit corporation that publishes commentary designed to sway opinion to advance its own economic interests. The Star is no different than Cummins or OneAmerica distributing their internal newsletters on street corners. It's certainly legal to write corporate newsletters, but we have to give such products the proper legal recognition.
If Cummins or OneAmerica published a scandalous or defamatory story in their newsletters, they wouldn't be able to hide behind press protections in concealing their sources. They'd have First Amendment protections in being able to write the newsletters, but the content of their corporate self-interest newsletters must be vetted and verified to a much higher standard than is demanded of the press.
It is more than clear that the Star is no longer "the Press."
Newspapers come out on sides of issues all the time. All the time. Always did. Always will. They support issues. They decry issues. They support candidates. They vilify candidates. Why all the moaning? Indiana's RFRA debacle made national press and even today is being held up as a model. We're a state with a Governor that didn't concern himself with the opinions of others on a major issue; who plowed ahead to sign a controversial law that he was warned not to sign; and it did make national press, absolutely destroying any further talk of Pence's Presidential ambitions, and even putting in question his reelection. Nationally a lot of States are positioning themselves to pass anti discrimination legislation covering gays, and even a federal law is being planned. EEOC regs have been interpreted to begin covering gays under existing law. And the public is happy to support a little protection for gays in the workplace and in housing. Stop moaning about it like its the end of the world. Honestly. Its not the 1950's and this isn't a theocracy. Asshole Christian conservatives flat out fire gays at the drop of the hat with impunity citing their Christian morality. It's going to end, just like ridiculous arguments against equal marriage rights. If Republicans want to win the white house again they are going to have to be more inclusive. Those are not just words. They are truth. When is it going to start. Otherwise, demographically get ready to lose red state after red state. The Gannett newspaper in Indianapolis wisely recognizes the need for anti-discrimination legislation in this State. Bravo. Corporate America also gets it. These slow local conservatives are the problem . They whine about every change, even though they have no solutions besides the status quo. Its sad really. Even Trump supports anti discrimination laws. Wholeheartedly. Get used to it.
Favor the Star on this one rather than Rose the Governor's 'leaker'.
Like the Burrito Supreme Court / Thwart; Anon 2:29 is wrong. The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's recognize the right to contract, associate & disassociate; not change or debase common language. People understand civil unions as a right to contract, they also know what the word marriage means; based on religious tradition, not the contract registry of any state. The only legitimate involvement / interest of the state, is the registration of a contract.
No common language, no common law- no law! "Special protections" are oxymoronically in conflict with the Constitution & specifically the First Amendment. The ability to say yes or no, accept or reject, associate or disassociate, is the difference between tyranny & freedom; which no amount of faith bashing (read bigotry) will change.
We have an anti-discrimination law; the Constitution, a charter of human rights not categoric confusion.
Sorry, people but I agree wholeheartedly with anon 2:29 on this one. You are actually surprised that the Star has taken a position on an issue? I mean, how naive can you be. This is a long standing function and tradition of the free press. And you may not realize it, but there's such a thing as the Indiana Democratic Editorial Association -- (sarcasm intended) Yes, newspapers
do take positions on issues, candidates -- as 2:29 says, always have, always will.
And speaking of conflict of interest, I am surprised that Tom Rose did not identify himself as a Pence operative....did he get paid by Breitbart for submitting that article....was it written on state time...will he face a ghost employment inquiry? Inquiring minds want to know.
And yes, the RRFA debacle -- and it was a debacle -- still has legs, and will and has adversely hurt the state....I can imagine a scenario in which Indianapolis is a finalist for a conference or the state a finalist for a plant relocation....you don't think that the narrow-mindedness shown by Pence and the Indiana Taliban won't be considered under such a scenario. It will take months if not years of rehabbing that image -- and the equal protection legislation is one vehicle in which the state can move its image....but make no mistake about it, the damage was done...and despite what Paul and others of you believe, Indiana's statute was more extreme that the other 20 statutes on the books -- and would have allowed discrimination.....
You won't find me defending the star on much these days -- it is a sad excuse for a newspaper and has gone downhill big time since Gannett took over -- but that is the reality of the newspaper model these days -- we are in the midst of a new model, and the Star has not quite figured out how to compete with the likes of Politico, The Huffington Post, Breitbart etc...but you conservatives are way off on this one....I mean, are you really shocked that the Star's editorial page/dept has taken a position on a public policy issue....?
You miss the point, anon. 5:39. Yes, newspapers have traditionally had editorial pages on which they advocate their viewpoint on matters of concern for their readers. The approach taken by the Star goes beyond that. Their editorializing activities are advertised as a campaign--one that it is reaching out and organizing members of the community to engage them to affect the change it advocates. That crosses into the realm of lobbying, which is a regulated profession. If it wants to lobby the legislature, then it needs to register with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission and report its expenditures. After all, the Hoosier State Press Association of which it is a leading member is the organization that led the charge for lobbying reform that required transparency in the lobbying activities of individuals, businesses and special interest groups. I've similarly complained about The Star and other news organizations allowing their executive employees to serve on boards that are advocating certain public policy positions as well. Once those special interest groups make a decision, The Star owns those as their own editorial position and uses both its editorial and news pages to advocate those changes, drowning out and marginalizing anyone who holds opposing views. The newspaper's State House and city beat reporters don't even feign objectivity anymore. Their reporting reflects the editorial view of the newspaper's management. I know people will argue otherwise, but I've read many old news stories that were published in the newspaper under Pulliam's management that did not fit their editorial page views and actually did great harm to policies and politicians favored by the Pulliam family.
The world is changing, guys. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
On the one hand we have common sense legislation. Much needed by the State. On the other hand we have a Republican Super majority General Assembly unwilling to pass anything to help gay people. All big corporate business wants the legislation. The country is embracing it as necessary equal protection. Its needed to help remedy a badly tarnished State reputation for being bigoted and homophobic. So the newspaper prepares to launch “an ambitious and aggressive Editorial Board campaign” designed to persuade the governor and state lawmakers to expand Indiana’s civil rights laws. Focus on the words “Editorial Board” campaign. Nothing improper here. Rather, the sound you hear is the loud sadness of conservatives that can’t believe they are losing on these issues. And not only are they losing, but they look like horrible, bigoted, discriminating haters who simply don’t recognize their hypocrisy. In any event, they have lost the younger generation, who view them as tired, incalcitrant morons who blather on about sin and just seem so out of touch with the real world where gay people interact quite well with just about everyone.
anon 5:39 - anon 6:20
The difference is between reporting something as a matter of fact ( a front page story in the star) and openly admitting that something is an editorial opinion (marked as such).
There is way too much media disguised as fact when it is either a lie or an exaggeration.
And when the way media covers ("markets") a candidate, determines who gets into debates and the outcome of an election, that is a problem.
6:20: FYI: That's a non-statment. Yea, and the world's changed since you made that inane slob-sevation; the BS quality of "everybody's doing it Mom." Perhaps on this issue, the Governor's wearing his big boy Pence & a kind, tolerant majority are "dealing" with that...
Gary, 5:39 here. I am not sure I agree with you...you say" "Their editorializing activities are advertised as a campaign--one that it is reaching out and organizing members of the community to engage them to affect the change it advocates." How is that any different from when they editorialize in favor of Mike Pence for Governor and urge their readers to vote for him. What I think you and others find distasteful is the notion of a "campaign" - a well coordinated series of activities designed to advance a candidate or a cause...their campaign launch is the invitation-only meeting, which I imagine will be supplemented by other activities -- a series of editorials; by gosh, I bet they will encourage op-eds to be written by business leaders, stakeholders, and others (probably, they will invite those attending the meeting) a letter to the editor campaign (orchestrated) Golly gee, they may even use social media in support of this.....and yes, they might even encourage their news reporting staff to report (favorably of course) on any and all developments on the issue. Again, I am not an advocate for the star, but at least give them the credit for figuring out the nuances, subtleties and basic elements of modern campaign tactics. And, all of this is being labeled by the Star as an "editorial board campaign." Again, this is no different than the Star advocating for Common Core, scrapping of the ISTEP test, a new football stadium, or an end to crony capitalism. And, Paul, once again, sadly you are wrong about this not passing muster in the "journalistic ethics" area. Once again, your head is in the sand, covered by blinders, unable to think logically because the world is passing you by.
When a newspaper endorses a candidate for office, it's not actually going out into the community and organizing precinct workers and door-to-door canvassers to work on behalf of that candidate's campaign to help him or her get elected. That's precisely what Ferguson-Fuson is advocating. She's taking her editorial board position and going out into the community and organizing an effort to make sure a law gets passed that she had decided our state can't live without. That goes well beyond the traditional role a newspaper's editorial board serves. What newspapers like The Star have decided is that there is only one right decision--the one it decides is right. Once it makes that decision, everything it does as a publication is premised upon establishing and preserving that point of view as fact, not opinion. Readers will be hammered and hammered on what it says is the right view because it believes it can't be wrong. Opposing viewpoints are shut out. That's fine if you like living in totalitarian countries where the media is nothing more than an instrumentality of the state and no dissenting opinions are tolerated.
If Ms. Fuson is related to wayne Fuson he's rolling in his grave.
With the Indy Star conducting large-scale meddling across the city and applying so much corporate pressure to their enemies, can we use RICO against the Star?
Post a Comment