A one-stop source for news, links, source documents and gossip about journalism in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and environs. Send tips to nepamedia@gmail.com.
And the city should cave in. I agree. But how about if the TL's brass also revealed to the paper's readers who carries the money bags behind the paper's ownership?
Wait ... is this the same Dave Iseman who founded the SAYSO line? So it's OK for the Times Leader to sell papers by letting people spout off anonymously, but the city has to follow a different set of rules. Hypocrisy much?
It's not hypocrisy. In response to both above questions, the TL is a private company and held to a different standard than that of a public institution. Of course the city has to follow a different set of rules than a private (or even publicly traded) company.
The public is supposed to own the government. That's why anyone can get the salaries for teachers and cops, but not for reporters and editors.
OK, Big Ben. But the TL is supposedly a "public institution," in that it supposedly is serving the "public interest." It remains hypocrisy. It's actually sad that you can't seem to comprehend the obvious.
4 comments:
And the city should cave in. I agree. But how about if the TL's brass also revealed to the paper's readers who carries the money bags behind the paper's ownership?
Wait ... is this the same Dave Iseman who founded the SAYSO line? So it's OK for the Times Leader to sell papers by letting people spout off anonymously, but the city has to follow a different set of rules. Hypocrisy much?
It's not hypocrisy. In response to both above questions, the TL is a private company and held to a different standard than that of a public institution. Of course the city has to follow a different set of rules than a private (or even publicly traded) company.
The public is supposed to own the government. That's why anyone can get the salaries for teachers and cops, but not for reporters and editors.
It's actually sad that I have to explain this.
OK, Big Ben. But the TL is supposedly a "public institution," in that it supposedly is serving the "public interest." It remains hypocrisy. It's actually sad that you can't seem to comprehend the obvious.
Post a Comment