Comments on: Free the Gannett 25! http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/03/27/free-the-gannett-25/ Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: nastwood http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/03/27/free-the-gannett-25/#comment-1064 Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:26:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=744#comment-1064 Why didn’t Gannet publish the names of the petition signing journalists? Doesn’t the public have a right to know? The reading public would then be able to judge objectivity of stories these journalists write. This is no different than publishing the names of corporations and individuals that donate to petitions in California.

]]>
By: edgyinchina http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/03/27/free-the-gannett-25/#comment-1059 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:51:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=744#comment-1059 Jack… You need an update pal: you said. “Luckily, under current law, you can’t be barred from voting”…. Go tell that to black people in GOP states, and see how many people laugh at you…..

]]>
By: DawnBerkley http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/03/27/free-the-gannett-25/#comment-1056 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:20:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=744#comment-1056 Reporters can affiliate with whomever they please, but should also quit claiming to be impartial. They are not impartial by any stretch of the imagination –which is why newspapers started failing long before the internet, and why conservative leaning publications do so much better. Look at the stats for FOX News, and the Wall Street Journal.

Gannett is tremendously partisan, and they were exposed publicly –otherwise they could care less. They are a poor excuse for journalism just like the vast majority of publications out there. Reuters being near the top of the list.

]]>