[Nameplate] A Few Clouds ~ 67°F  
High: 72°F ~ Low: 59°F
Monday, Sep. 15, 2014

The Clinton-GQ mess

Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 9:48 AM

As much as I wouldn't have believed it possible, it seems that both the Clintons and GQ (Gentlemen's Quarterly) Magazine have reached new lows.

Apparently, a reporter with GQ magazine was working on a story that would have gone in-depth about the fighting within Hillary's campaign.

When Hillary learned of this she decided to handle it the way all politicians handle bad news...with threats.

It appears that Hillary's aides order GQ to "Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton."

As everyone should expect, GQ buckled and did exactly what they were asked to do.

My beef here is that we're talking about journalists. Who should principals and have the guts to stand up to someone when it means getting information out to the people who really need it.

Of course Hillary was unhappy. No one wants to see themselves smeared in the news, but what if we were talking about Kenneth Lay or even Guiliani.

Do you think they would have handled it the same? Certainly not.

As a journalist you have a duty to your readers. If a child molester (or his family) came in and asked us to please not continue covering his case we certainly wouldn't stop.

That's the job.

What do you think?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

The Clintons and the magazine are trash, it seems journalism at the national level is so bias it doesn't matter what the event is, it will be reported to suit their agenda (conservatives AND liberals).

-- Posted by mobrigade on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 2:08 PM

Cry cry that is all you poor Bush boys can do.

-- Posted by rusty nail on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 5:42 PM

Tell us all about all the way Bush kills stories that happen in his cabinet meetings, now that would make a big book, if Powell had not buckled under Bush and lied to public many boys would have been alive today.

-- Posted by rusty nail on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 5:54 PM

Tell us all about all the way Bush kills stories that happen in his cabinet meetings, now that would make a big book, if Powell had not buckled under Bush and lied to public many boys would have been alive today.

-- Posted by rusty nail on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 5:54 PM

Worth posting twice, Rusty Nail!

-- Posted by goat lady on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 9:21 PM

This isn't a partisan issue. The problem is media sucking up to whoever they think they need to in order to gain access to a story or what passes for news. Just this week national columnist Eugene Robinson wrote an excellent article about Dan Rather's $70 million dollar lawsuit against CBS. Rather alleges he lost his news anchor and 60 Minutes jobs because the owner of CBS, Viacom, was afraid to incur the Republican administration's wrath for Rather's accurate reporting about GB's Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

-- Posted by FJGuy on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 PM
Corey Noles' response:
That's exactly right...thi isn't a partisan issue, it's a media issue.

That fact that the Clinton's (and the Bushes in other cases) threw their weight around to get a story pulled doesn't surprise me. They're politicians and that's what they do.

My problem is when a major media outlet (CBS, not GQ ) buckles to that pressure. There are millions of people who only get their news from CBS and trust them.

However, I don't think Dan was fired because of some Republican conspiracy. Rather was fired because he was so eager to believe that story he was telling that he didn't think it was necessary to look into the issue any farther. Come to find out his source had forged the documents and made Dan look like an idiot.

So, that I see as Dan's fault.

I hardly think GQ qualifies as a hard hitting, journalistic magazine. To my mind, it's a male equivalent of Cosmopolitan. Must admit, though, I've never read it .

The purpose of a magazine like that is to inform and entertain its audience. Most of their stuff is done by freelancers, not staff members.

That said, all media from our humble hometown paper all the way up to the big TV networks rely on readers/viewers AND advertisers, not necessarily in that order, to keep their companies afloat.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this incident, whether true or not, has gotten Senator Clinton noticed by a key demographic -- males who must be convinced that she is ready and capable to lead this country if elected.

Pretty shrewd, if you ask me.

-- Posted by scotswoman on Thu, Sep 27, 2007, at 12:44 AM

I haven't seen a newspaper that was reluctant to run negative articles about our current sitting and elected President. Some stuff has been ran which has been proven to be less than acurate hasn't it. I haven't read GQ and now I know why.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Thu, Sep 27, 2007, at 6:38 AM

Article pulled from GQ, and now a picture "ordered" to be removed from a NY restaurant???? Is that what is in store for us when/if Ms Clinton is elected - supression of those things that SHE does not like?????

-- Posted by D.W.B. on Thu, Sep 27, 2007, at 12:32 PM
Corey Noles' response:
The picture thing is ridiculous for those of you who don't know the story. Apparently, Chelsea Clinton ate at a small restaurant some time back. The owner, being a "fan" (is that the right word? Seems like politicians don't have a fan base of the Clintons ), took a picture of Chelsea eating in his restaurant and hung it on the wall. or some reason I'm not sure of the Clinton's have hired an attorney to call and threaten this guy to take the picture down.

I just don't see the big deal.

I did a quick check on the Missouri Bar's website. It says, "Under the law, every person, whether a celebrity or an ordinary person, possesses the right to control and exploit the commercial use of his or her name, likeness, or personal attributes. This concept is often referred to as the "right of publicity."" The exception is First Amendment uses, such as in a newspaper or magazine.

This "right of publicity" might be like a trademark, which you HAVE to defend whenever you find a violation, or you lose it. Does anyone know if Chelsea Clinton has to legally protect the commercial use of photos of her or she'll forever lose control over the commercial use of those pictures?

-- Posted by FJGuy on Sat, Sep 29, 2007, at 4:57 PM
Corey Noles' response:
The key word in what you found on the Bar's website is "commercial". While technically Chelsea's pic is hanging in a restaurant, the owner is not making money from it. However, if he made a burger and called it "The Chelsea Clinton" then she could complain about it. At least that's my understanding. If anyone disagrees let me know.

As far as whether you can lose the right to protect commercial use of photos of yourself, I'm not sure. I haven't heard that before, but it makes sense. If one person uses your likeness without asking and then another comes along and you only sue one then that's not right. At least not in my opinion.

Thanks for commenting



Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Corey Noles, staff writer for The Daily Statesman and Editor of The North Stoddard Countian, is the author of a regular baseball/St. Louis Cardinals column and also uses his blog to sound off on various happenings in sports. He also operates a weekly baseball mailbag column.

UCB logo
UCB logo
BBA logo