WHAS Radio loses more local programing

My beef is mainly with the nutty editorial board, not the regular staff reporters. Can't we draw the line there?

Ed Vermillion said it best (in the Library Tax thread):

I do hope that once this vote is taken and the issue is settled, again, for another few years that you all would band together and join me in marching to 6th & Broadway. In that once storied building of the Courier-Journal reside an editorial board of such vindictive, shallow and craven ilk that it boggles the mind.

I still have the pitchforks, torches, truncheons and cudgels in a pile ready to go. The editorial board is neither liberal or conservative. They serve the ones that further themselves. They have truly failed the adage of "with power comes responsibility."

[Robin Garr]

They have truly failed the adage of "with power comes responsibility."

Not that I'm any great friend to (or defender of) Gannett, but this phrase always bothers me a little when it's used in the context of a free press.

You've got to answer the question, responsible <i>to whom</i>? Mayor Jerry? The corporate environment? The Bush Administration? Democratic headquarters? "Responsibility" implies a master-follower relationship, and that leaves open the question of who is leading the parade.

Responsible to some idealistic standard of "the betterment of the community" works for me, but then you still come back to who gets to make the rules.

All that said, Ed, I think we're not that far apart: Under Gannett, the editorial board is generally loath to rock the local establishment's boat; they do still take sides in electoral endorsements, but I see no real change there: Under Gannett as under the Binghams, they'll generally endorse Democrats, but they're not "yellow dog" Democrats, and they'll usually throw in a couple of Republican recommendations (like Northup) in every election just to show that they're independent.

As for David Hawpe, he was the best city editor I ever worked for during his tenure at The Louisville Times in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Frankly, I sometimes think that his career peaked there and that he would have been better off not to have sought promotion.

Yes, I have read their editorials. Thye are bad, not as bad as Fox News, but bad.

The paper is FAR from liberal. It is owned by a huge corporation, and the editorial board is very pro-corporate and conservative.

Interesting. I had to check their website to make sure nothing had happened in the last 24 hours, and indeed, I find that David Hawpe is still the Editorial Director.

Would you please call him for me and offer your comment that the editorial board is pro-corporate and conservative. Conference me in to your call - I'd like to hear his reaction.

Here is the contact info:

David Hawpe, Editorial Director 582-4613 dhawpe@louisvil.gannett.com

I'll call him, do you want me to conference you in on the call? But, I am not sure what you want from him. He, as an individual, is a fairly liberal democrat, but I think it has been a long time since he has had any authority over the editorial content of the paper aside from his own column.

Jay: Do you believe that David Hawpe is the person at the C-J who made the decision to repeatedly endorse Northrup?

Just for the record, I often vote for Democrats, but I followed the C-J's lead in voting for Northrup twice: against Eleanor Jordon (I thought Jordon wasn't up to the job) and the last election she won (he was a disaster).

So I don't fault the C-J for those two endorsements, but it does go to show that Pravda they ain't.

They have truly failed the adage of "with power comes responsibility."

Not that I'm any great friend to (or defender of) Gannett, but this phrase always bothers me a little when it's used in the context of a free press.

You've got to answer the question, responsible <i>to whom</i>? Mayor Jerry? The corporate environment? The Bush Administration? Democratic headquarters? "Responsibility" implies a master-follower relationship, and that leaves open the question of who is leading the parade.

Responsible to some idealistic standard of "the betterment of the community" works for me, but then you still come back to who gets to make the rules.

All that said, Ed, I think we're not that far apart: Under Gannett, the editorial board is generally loath to rock the local establishment's boat; they do still take sides in electoral endorsements, but I see no real change there: Under Gannett as under the Binghams, they'll generally endorse Democrats, but they're not "yellow dog" Democrats, and they'll usually throw in a couple of Republican recommendations (like Northup) in every election just to show that they're independent.

As for David Hawpe, he was the best city editor I ever worked for during his tenure at The Louisville Times in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Frankly, I sometimes think that his career peaked there and that he would have been better off not to have sought promotion.

Not at all apart. It is about the betterment of the community. That notion is also not a democrat/republican argument, as both stray. There just seems to be less transparency in coverage of government and business issues that impact the community; ie Billy Reed in LEO. I'm not naive enough to think that no one is getting the vig, but at the old CJ and Louisville Times you at least knew whom. They had a healthy (for the community) rivalry between them. I knew that a story would be hit on all sides, good and bad, and then you could draw your conclusions. The current editorial board is very condescending toward the community, IMO.[/i]

I'll call him, do you want me to conference you in on the call? But, I am not sure what you want from him. He, as an individual, is a fairly liberal democrat, but I think it has been a long time since he has had any authority over the editorial content of the paper aside from his own column.

Jay: Do you believe that David Hawpe is the person at the C-J who made the decision to repeatedly endorse Northrup?

If you acknowledge that he's a "fairly liberal democrat", then there's no reason to involve me. I thought you were saying he is "pro-corporate and conservative", and I would like to have been on a call to him with you when you accused him of that. I don't think he would like that, and I would have liked to hear his reaction.

I have emailed him to ask about some of the editorial practices at the paper that have come up in this thread. I will report back if he replies and if he says it's OK to post his comments.

Just read today's editorial to see how nasty and vindictive the C-J editorial board has become.

I'll repeat what I said at Bluegrass Report...

"Talk about biased hacks who won't give the voices of the community a fair shake! Despite the decent study and loads of facts backing up the 8664 approach, all the C-J board wants to do is diss and preach impatience as a virtue."

I'll call him, do you want me to conference you in on the call? But, I am not sure what you want from him. He, as an individual, is a fairly liberal democrat, but I think it has been a long time since he has had any authority over the editorial content of the paper aside from his own column.

Jay: Do you believe that David Hawpe is the person at the C-J who made the decision to repeatedly endorse Northrup?

If you acknowledge that he's a "fairly liberal democrat", then there's no reason to involve me. I thought you were saying he is "pro-corporate and conservative", and I would like to have been on a call to him with you when you accused him of that. I don't think he would like that, and I would have liked to hear his reaction.

I have emailed him to ask about some of the editorial practices at the paper that have come up in this thread. I will report back if he replies and if he says it's OK to post his comments.

do you believe that he is responsible for the C-J repeatedly endorsing Ann Northrup?

do you believe that he is responsible for the C-J repeatedly endorsing Ann Northrup?

Yes.

Note that Anne Northup ran 6 times winning 5 and losing 1. The CJ endorsed her twice. To me "repeatedly" connotes more than 33%, but you might have a different connotation.

David Hawpe (Editorial Director of the Courier Journal) replied to my email and gave me permission to publish his answers in a public forum (except where noted). His responses to my questions are in boldface type below (unless noted):

(JM) Mr. Hawpe,

I’ve been having some discussions with some friends and the subject of editorial practices at the Courier-Journal has come up. Would you be willing to answer the following questions for me?

(DH) Certainly

(JM) Who are the members of the Editorial Board (if there is such an entity)?

(DH) Yes, there is an editorial board. It comprises Executive Editor Bennie Ivory (non-voting), myself, forum editor Keith Runyon, Senior editorial writer Steve Ford, columnist/editorial writer betty Baye and editorial write Jill Keeney.

(JM) As Editorial Director, do you have the final say on the editorial content on the Op-Ed page?

(DH) Yes, but on a day-to-day basis Keith Runyon chooses that content.

(JM) Do you have authority over the editorial content of the paper aside from your own column?

(DH) Yes, I have authority over editorial content. Bennie Ivory has authority over news content.

(JM) My opinion of the Courier-Journal is that it has a reputation in its editorial content for being liberal. My friends have suggested that the Editorial Board is very pro-corporate and conservative because the paper is owned by the Gannett Corporation. Do you feel that the editorial content is influenced by the Gannett Corporation ownership?

(DH) Gannett corporate has made no attempts whatsoever to influence our editorial policy, since we were bought in 1986. Gannett wants vigorous editorial pages that make a difference in the local civic dialogue, but it doesn't attempt to influence our editorial policy. I might mention that in the last two presidential elections, about half of Gannett papers endorsed the Democrat and half endorsed George W. Bush.

(JM) Did you have the final say on the paper’s endorsement of Anne Northup in two past campaigns?

(JM) Mr. Hawpe answered this but stated that he was answering on a confidential basis, so, out of respect for his request of confidentiality, I won't publish his response.

(DH) Yes, but on a day-to-day basis Keith Runyon chooses that content.

Note that Keith Runyon is the husband of River Fields' Director Meme Runyon.

River Fields is the same organization that has been trying or squash or delay the construction of the East End Bridge for many years, and one violently against 8664, as that plan puts emphasis on completing the East End Bridge first and foremost.

This is certainly a reason why C-J editorials tend to be so irrational and nasty when it comes to the subject of 8664.

do you believe that he is responsible for the C-J repeatedly endorsing Ann Northrup?

Yes.

Note that Anne Northup ran 6 times winning 5 and losing 1. The CJ endorsed her twice. To me "repeatedly" connotes more than 33%, but you might have a different connotation.

I don't see in any of Mr. Hawpe's answers where he says that he was the one who pushed for the endorsement of Northrup.

As for "repeatedly". Jay, if you say something once, and then you say it again, is that not "repeating" it. I was unaware of any rule that required something to be done more than three times for it to be done repeatedly. Repeatedly is simply the adverb form of repeat. I had to use an adverb to modify the verb "endorse".

When a debate gets to the point that we are arguing over the meaning of common words, I know it has become too ridiculous to continue.

I know how important it is for the right wing in this town to scream about the C-J being a liberal commie rag, so please Jay, by all means, don't stop.

Meanwhile, I'll keep turning to Sean Hannity for my "fair and balanced" news.

[I don't see in any of Mr. Hawpe's answers where he says that he was the one who pushed for the endorsement of Northrup.

As for "repeatedly". Jay, if you say something once, and then you say it again, is that not "repeating" it. I was unaware of any rule that required something to be done more than three times for it to be done repeatedly. Repeatedly is simply the adverb form of repeat. I had to use an adverb to modify a the verb "endorse".

When a debate gets to the point that we are arguing proper grammar, I know it has become too ridiculous to continue.

I know how important it is for the right wing in this town to scream about the C-J being a liberal commie rag, so please Jay, by all means, don't stop.

Meanwhile, I'll keep turning to Sean Hannity for my "fair and balanced" news.

No need to get testy. For the record I never said it was a commie rag. I thought this thread brought up some interesting issues and I asked the source for some answers. I am convinced that Mr. Hawpe "repeatedly" supported the endorsement of Northup - if you're not, that's fine - it really makes no difference anyway. I'm finished here, too.

I'm not testy, I just don't think we are geting anywhere with this, so why continue?

[Robin Garr]

I'm not testy, I just don't think we are geting anywhere with this, so why continue?

Being Not Testy is a good thing.

I do want to jump in, though, and thank Jay for an exceptional effort in going right to the source and getting direct information. That's worth note, and applause to Jay for it.

I do think the point that Hawpe may have glossed over is that, in my observation, Gannett editorial boards are aware of corporate's interest in not rocking the boat. While I do strongly believe that Gannett does not meddle in specific editorial (or news coverage) decisions, the paper is run by corporate Gannetoids now, and even the holdovers from the Binghams who remain can't be totally unaware of what kind of decisions make the home office happy and what kind of decisions do not.