This weekend WJLA-TV announced that it had fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station’s news director. McKelway is a longtime journalist in the Capitol and his termination raised questions about the limits on fair commentary for anchors in political coverage.
In a brief story on environmentalists protesting the influence of the oil industry in Congress, McKelway referred to the small demonstration as “largely representing far-left environmental groups.” He went on to note that such protests “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.” It is, in my view, clearly wrong to suggest that the protesters were “far left” since many environmentalists are appalled with the level of influence of the industry in Congress and the Administration. The second comment, however, was fair game in my view and has been noted by other journalists in covering such stories — though it has been challenged on the grounds that it came from employees as opposed to company itself.
The second segment is more problematic. He added in a later piece that the Senate was unlikely to pass “cap-and-trade” legislation this year, because “the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then.” That seems well over the line for reporting as opposed to commentary. It is the very talking point line put out by conservative advocates to justify more drilling and less regulation. It is greatly disputed and should not have been reported as a fact. However, the question is whether it justified termination.
That coverage led to a confrontation with ABC7’s news director and general manager, Bill Lord. In a letter to McKelway this week where McKelway was accused of insubordination and misconduct. It was the argument with Lord that was the direct justification for the termination decision.
McKelway has accused local news of having a liberal and pro-democratic tilt in the past. He comes from a long line of Washington journalists in his family. He also attracted criticism in 2009 when he was accused of threatening to punch a gay blogger over his practice of “outing” politicians who are in the closet.
McKelway is well known in my area not just as a newsman but as a musician. My family and I have enjoyed his performances with a local blue grass band that plays at restaurants and other venues. He is a very talented banjo player. It is a sad way to end a long career at the station, but McKelway is reportedly working on a book and could still find another venue as a journalist or commentator.
Source: Washington Post
“Mike Spindell:
too bad you are wrong.”
Hubris,
Sad to say I’m not wrong. If you think your political ideas are commenssurrate with what’s in the Gospels (note I specifically say Gospels and do no mean the rest of the Christian Canaon) than you are delusional.
Gyges,
I generally agree, but in certain cases like Hubris, Tootie, et. al, their appalling ignorance of what they profess to believe just invites comment and invective.
I don’t think that’s on his agenda … time will tell.
Blouise,
Well if he’d lose the confrontational attitude he might actually get a conversation going. It works for Byron after all, and Puzzling, FFLEO, etc.
Heck I remember having a civil conversation or two with Tootie, and even Wayne.
Has anyone informed the Merc that the Bill of Rights came later, as promised, but after the ratification of the Constitution … just wondering if it has been pointed out to him … the Merc really doesn’t know his basic history … and doesn’t understand what little he knows. What in the world is he doing on this site?
(Yeah, I know, I know)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/the-myth-of-a-christian-n_n_720195.html
Cue Bob with the Federalist Papers in 5…4…3…
Hubris,
Since protecting me from your religion requires that the government wield secular power, it should come as no surprise that the Constitution empowers our government. It is, after all, the founding document granting all power in the first place. That is what the Constitution does: it grants rights to citizens and reserves powers for government. If it didn’t, it would be useless as a foundation for our legal system. That religious based laws are unconstitutional on their face is the mechanism that protects government from perpetrating abuses based on your religion by forbidding it, ergo, it protects the government from abuses by you and your religion that you would have enforced against others not of your faith and doing so under the color of law.
It’s the same mechanism that protects Americans and our secular government from imposing Sharia or some idiotic Fundie Christian version thereof.
Mike Spindell:
too bad you are wrong.
no it wasnt meant to protect government at all. Government doesnt need protecting, it should be doing the protecting.
What it is doing is protecting you from my religion or vice versa, it is protecting the government not at all.
It is protecting the individual from something he/she does not want to do against the dictates of their conscience.
There is a distinction. Your way empowers government, my way empowers people.
Mike,
To keep theological debates to a minimum I always go by the definition that a Christian is someone who claims to follow Christ.
Short, sweet, and from the dictionary. Also, that way I don’t have to worry about which particular teachings of Jesus (or whoever wrote down what he was supposed to have said a couple generations later) people are claiming to follow.
Would that Hubris and Tootie were real Christians and let their lives be informed by the Gospels and not some Preachers who lack understanding and insight into what Jesus was teaching.
Jesus = Newt/Sarah/Mitt, etc.? Read your Gospels and get the fact that they are hardly equivalent, or even on the same page.
“I wondering how many people realize there never has been any such thing as a “real” news organization, by what seems to be the common understanding of the term.”
A fabulous point that needs no further explanation except the call for people to understand its meaning.
Hubris,
“By the way do you even know why the founders put that ole little clause in there?
Hint it wasn’t to protect the government from religion. Government don’t need protection from the people as is obvious by what has transpired over the last century, but the people sure as hell need protectin from our government.”
What I did was prove that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was meant to protect both citizens and the government from the influence of religious based laws – which was my assertion here http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/20/abc-news-anchor-fired-over-alleged-partisan-comments-and-fight-with-news-director/#comment-160744 and here http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/20/abc-news-anchor-fired-over-alleged-partisan-comments-and-fight-with-news-director/#comment-160759.
You can try to claim I’m making your point when I’m actually making mine, but it only makes you look more foolish than you already do.
Bud:
I sorta think that is pretty much what I said. But thanks for making my point.
It’s so much easier to have the master of cut and paste do my research for me.
Hubris,
Why rationalize away that you have picked the perfect name for yourself as demonstrated by your lack of logical skills and proofs? It was the one thing you have going for you. Since you obviously don’t understand the letter of the law as stated in the Constitution, here is just some of what one of the Founders had to say about religion and governance.
“I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it… Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808. [emphasis added]
“[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779 [emphasis added]
And last but not least,
“I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799
It logically follows that to protect the civil and secular nature of government’s powers that the influence of religion on government – especially when used to promote one religion over another – that the 1st Amendment does in fact operate to limit the influence of religion on government to keep one religion from asserting dominance over another and that this was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
I should also add your efforts at insult and puerile “nanny nanny boo boo” act is still just as ineffective as it has always been. It seems you have nothing logical or factual to offer yet again, Hubris.
Sucks to be you.
The usual rightwing hijack from someone who blathers about talking points. This a newscaster who was fired by a not exactly liberally-owned station. He didn’t have his facts straight and he seems likely to have a second career as a right wing blatherer. Good tghing he also has the music gig.
“Obviously your boss can fire you but if this is a real news organization then it has lost a good deal of credibility and has become a shill.”
I’m beginning to wonder how many of our news organizations are “REAL news organizations.” I’d say, in this day and age, we don’t have news media–we have corporate media.
==============================
I wondering how many people realize there never has been any such thing as a “real” news organization, by what seems to be the common understanding of the term.
In terms of the ABC Anchor who got canned for spouting partisan nonsense and Republican talking points, I would expect their ratings to improve as their reporting becomes more well-reasoned.
Bud:
that Hubris handle is a warning to you.
By the way do you even know why the founders put that ole little clause in there?
Hint it wasn’t to protect the government from religion. Government don’t need protection from the people as is obvious by what has transpired over the last century, but the people sure as hell need protectin from our government.
you are a simple putz, Bakersfield and Spamheed have you dead to rights. I also doubt you are even a lawyer or have a degree of any type for that matter. Cause your thinkin is stinkin up the joint.
But keep dreaming about how all logical you are, I haven’t seen one rational sentence from anyone on this site ceptin Spamheed, Bakersfield, Tootie, Rhubarb, Secret Agent Man, Agent Orange, and Rhubarb with a silent Q. The rest are dithering idiots or is that idiots dithering? I haven’t yet figured that out.
Good night, Blouise.
I am not far behind you.
Buddha,
Yep …
I’m off … early to bed … up early tomorrow
Good night all