Sunday, November 04, 2007

New candidate for Ombudsman position

The following letter to the editor appeared on yesterday:

Re Edward Schumacher-Matos' Oct. 28 column, Contribution to Clinton campaign weighed: The Miami Herald approved a reporter covering a political fundraising event, even though access required a contribution to the candidate. The newspaper provided the money. The event featured Bill Clinton, whose only purpose was to draw money into his wife's campaign.

What was the news story that justified buying into a Democratic Party device to allow candidates to raise campaign funds in Florida, but not speak on issues here? What's to keep the candidate's campaign from touting The Miami Herald as a contributor? What are readers to think should the newspaper recommend the candidate to whom it contributed?

The Miami Herald's published rationale smacked of sophistry, leading readers to believe that a serious news-making event was taking place inside a common political fundraiser.

One is reminded of the days when reporters were lauded and rewarded for their creativity and ingenuity in doing tough assignments; when a reporter would have created a nasty scene at being denied access to a newsworthy event in a public place; when the thrill of gathering news was the challenge; when great newspapers would not take ''no'' for an answer, and when reporters would rather stand outside on principle than pay to sit on the line of impropriety.


It seems like reader George F. Knox has at least one favorable attribute that Edward Schumacher-Matos does not, a strong rationally-formed opinion. If I were Schumacher-Matos I'd be looking over my shoulder.

1 comment:

asombra said...

Schumaker-Matos is a reflection of the outfit that hired him. Again, think window dressing.