I am sympathetic to him, but there is no constitutional right to an unbought press (like he is quoted as alleging). Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all.
To clarify, this is obviously a bad thing if it happened like he says, but since the press is free, his employer is allowed to fire him and find someone who will express a different opinion. It's a pretty bonehead decision to fire someone over a nearly completely inoffensive cartoon though...
I see this sort of defense a lot, and I find it interesting.
Some party does something many would find ill-conceived, reprehensible, or in some way greedy. Some other people come out declaring that the action wasn't illegal.
It's interesting to me, because often the legality of the situation isn't even in question (edit: as it is in this article).
> Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all.
That's -- still -- an understatement. The right to freedom of the press in the Constitution is exactly the right of the publisher to exert editorial control. Doing so is not merely not unconstitutional, it is Constitutionally protected.
You have no more Constitutional right to control someone else's press because "freedom of the press" than you have to direct someone else's vote because "right to vote".
That is exactly wrong. The editor gets to pick what goes in the paper, who to employ and etc.
What this does say is that the editor didn't review the comic before printing it, and then fired the cartoonist after the fact. This seems unfair to me and I sympathize, but it is entirely within his rights.
There isn't even a semblance of editorial separation anymore.
That separation did good things like give people a reasonable expectation that what was presented was more or less unbiased facts. Now more than ever, we don't have that. If one is smart and looking for the truth, you have to cross-check with other sources.
One says you might have had to do that always but, now everything is suspect. I don't mean that conspiratorially, I mean I have to think, "Could someone profit from me thinking this is true?"
For everything. I wouldn't be surprised if someone manipulated the weather reports slightly to raise sales of coats and umbrellas. It'd be so easy and could make a significant difference. "Your Weather Report is brought to you by Burlington Coat Factory"
> One says you might have had to do that always but, now everything is suspect.
Everything was already suspect. I automatically distrust someone more if they claim a lack of bias, and trust someone slightly more if they explicitly disclose likely sources of bias. Given knowledge of someone's bias, I can weight the information they're providing more appropriately.
Maybe he lost his job because it's just not a good comic. It's seriously just a written statement of fact needlessly wrapped in a drawing of two (identical?) people standing by a fence.
paging Barbara Streisand...(yeah its not perfect but its close)
Seriously though, at what point do people in leadership positions really internalize the influence and power of digital social networks. Social networks are not new, the have existed and spread information(and opinions)since the dawn of our species. Online versions in some form have existed since the telegraph/phone/usenet/facebook (take your pick). You cannot control the flow or spread of information, and you have almost no control over the framing it is spread with. This is a story about a cartoonist, for farmers, in Iowa being discussed internationally...
For christ's sake consider alternate points of view before you act in haste. You can find people of all points of view on the internet, but they seem to be united in opposition to schadenfreude and generalized stupidity/hypocrisy/hamfisted-ness under the guise of 'scandal' and knocking others down a peg. Stop feeding the beast.
It probably wasn't even anyone that high up in those companies. It was probably some PR guy or gal. But the company spends so much in advertising with the publication that the mere mention of withdrawal of ad dollars was enough to get the owner or editor to back down and fire the cartoonist.
I think this encapsulates exactly what is wrong with the world we live in.. We humans need 1. Food and 2. shelter if the weather is too cold or hot.. everything else is a bonus.. and this shows our systems value the fundamental need of food below everything else, a world turned on its head.
I'm an Iowa native. I find the cartoon itself pretty ridiculous. Why shouldn't CEOs of multibillion-dollar companies earn more than farmers? In addition, every single farmer I've ever met is very well off. In addition to the money made while farming, farmers are sitting on millions of dollars of land.
Agree with jccc... the point wasn't that a single farmer wasn't earning the same amount as 3 corporate CEOs, it was that the 3 CEOs earned more than 2000+ farmers combined.
Furthermore, I think you missed a level of insight about where the earning power is. That land may come with a mortgage and other liens. The trick is scrounging enough money to pay the mortgage every month on that land. Only after a lifetime of paying off the mortgage, does the typical farmer or rancher have enough equity in the land to make it a cash windfall when they sell.
I think the cartoon was commenting on the difficulty of making the farming business model work because of the tiny incoming cash flow from raising crops and being the frontline person working the land.
Median farm income in the United States is -$930. Yes, negative dollars. Almost every farmer -- basically the bottom 95% at least -- relies on off-farm household income, and just hopes to make enough farming to keep up with debt service and opex (assuming they didn't go into debt on seed, which can happen).
Partially agree. I do happen to think the cartoon raises a very valid point.
But... having known a lot of farmers they are indeed usually quite well off. And many of them are not aweshucks salt of the earth types people often perceive, but rather more like a sort of spoiled generational semi-duke or noble type thing looking down upon the little non-land owning commoners who they often pay very little and sometimes wantonly abuse.
That being said.. what was the guy thinking? He has to know who financially supports the paper. Maybe he was ready to do something else.
I'm also from Iowa. The value of farmland is complex, and I'd venture that a farmer is very lucky to be "sitting on millions of dollars of land" if that is indeed the case. (Our farm sold for very well less than a million dollars a few years ago.)
That's a naive view, and anecdata. Many farmers don't own their land but lease it. They're also subject to the whims of weather and the commodities market... not exactly a steady income.
The USA prides itself on free speech AND capitalism, but there are obvious conflicts of interest demonstrated here.
I imagine losing Monsanto (or whomever's) ad revenue will be very painful to Iowa Farm News... Anyway, it's clear that Iowa Farm News would never intentionally and will never again speak against a major ad source like Monsanto/DuPont/John Deere, and every other news source has been put on notice.
That's the newsworthy item - the illusion that news outlets aren't on a leash.
[+] [-] roywiggins|9 years ago|reply
To clarify, this is obviously a bad thing if it happened like he says, but since the press is free, his employer is allowed to fire him and find someone who will express a different opinion. It's a pretty bonehead decision to fire someone over a nearly completely inoffensive cartoon though...
[+] [-] iherbig|9 years ago|reply
Some party does something many would find ill-conceived, reprehensible, or in some way greedy. Some other people come out declaring that the action wasn't illegal.
It's interesting to me, because often the legality of the situation isn't even in question (edit: as it is in this article).
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
That's -- still -- an understatement. The right to freedom of the press in the Constitution is exactly the right of the publisher to exert editorial control. Doing so is not merely not unconstitutional, it is Constitutionally protected.
You have no more Constitutional right to control someone else's press because "freedom of the press" than you have to direct someone else's vote because "right to vote".
[+] [-] ball_of_lint|9 years ago|reply
What this does say is that the editor didn't review the comic before printing it, and then fired the cartoonist after the fact. This seems unfair to me and I sympathize, but it is entirely within his rights.
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
So? That's another issue to fix, not a justification for this being a non-issue.
[+] [-] slackstation|9 years ago|reply
That separation did good things like give people a reasonable expectation that what was presented was more or less unbiased facts. Now more than ever, we don't have that. If one is smart and looking for the truth, you have to cross-check with other sources.
One says you might have had to do that always but, now everything is suspect. I don't mean that conspiratorially, I mean I have to think, "Could someone profit from me thinking this is true?"
For everything. I wouldn't be surprised if someone manipulated the weather reports slightly to raise sales of coats and umbrellas. It'd be so easy and could make a significant difference. "Your Weather Report is brought to you by Burlington Coat Factory"
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|9 years ago|reply
Everything was already suspect. I automatically distrust someone more if they claim a lack of bias, and trust someone slightly more if they explicitly disclose likely sources of bias. Given knowledge of someone's bias, I can weight the information they're providing more appropriately.
[+] [-] spb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skronch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BHSPitMonkey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoodoof|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] based2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buckbova|9 years ago|reply
http://www.equilar.com/reports/17-2-100-largest-company-CEOs...
Do the top 3 tech giant CEOs on the list make more than 2192 of you?
[+] [-] goldbrick|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdvholmes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nacs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoodoof|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nacs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avs733|9 years ago|reply
Seriously though, at what point do people in leadership positions really internalize the influence and power of digital social networks. Social networks are not new, the have existed and spread information(and opinions)since the dawn of our species. Online versions in some form have existed since the telegraph/phone/usenet/facebook (take your pick). You cannot control the flow or spread of information, and you have almost no control over the framing it is spread with. This is a story about a cartoonist, for farmers, in Iowa being discussed internationally...
For christ's sake consider alternate points of view before you act in haste. You can find people of all points of view on the internet, but they seem to be united in opposition to schadenfreude and generalized stupidity/hypocrisy/hamfisted-ness under the guise of 'scandal' and knocking others down a peg. Stop feeding the beast.
[+] [-] Zelphyr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slosh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hk__2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] basicplus2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iisbum|9 years ago|reply
Surely if the cartoonist submitted it to the editor of the paper before it was published, shouldn't the editor be the one getting fired?
[+] [-] aurora72|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibotty|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pklausler|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gragas|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jccc|9 years ago|reply
Could it be instead that the cartoon is about the scale of the difference? There is an actual number in the punchline.
[Edit: Nebraska native, by the way.]
[+] [-] rabboRubble|9 years ago|reply
Furthermore, I think you missed a level of insight about where the earning power is. That land may come with a mortgage and other liens. The trick is scrounging enough money to pay the mortgage every month on that land. Only after a lifetime of paying off the mortgage, does the typical farmer or rancher have enough equity in the land to make it a cash windfall when they sell.
I think the cartoon was commenting on the difficulty of making the farming business model work because of the tiny incoming cash flow from raising crops and being the frontline person working the land.
[+] [-] HillRat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmanfrin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lolc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jqm|9 years ago|reply
But... having known a lot of farmers they are indeed usually quite well off. And many of them are not aweshucks salt of the earth types people often perceive, but rather more like a sort of spoiled generational semi-duke or noble type thing looking down upon the little non-land owning commoners who they often pay very little and sometimes wantonly abuse.
That being said.. what was the guy thinking? He has to know who financially supports the paper. Maybe he was ready to do something else.
[+] [-] mholt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|9 years ago|reply
> Every single farmer I've ever met is very well off.
Maybe you're in an area where the crops are in demand and your view is heavily biased.
[+] [-] jkestner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inanutshellus|9 years ago|reply
I imagine losing Monsanto (or whomever's) ad revenue will be very painful to Iowa Farm News... Anyway, it's clear that Iowa Farm News would never intentionally and will never again speak against a major ad source like Monsanto/DuPont/John Deere, and every other news source has been put on notice.
That's the newsworthy item - the illusion that news outlets aren't on a leash.