The Clinton-GQ mess
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
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires free registration:
- If you already have an account, follow this link to login
- Otherwise, follow this link to register
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 just don't see the big deal.
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