Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Last week, I was fired from a job for the first time in my life. If it had been because I'd been incompetent, or I'd consistently handed in second-rate columns, or my I'd been unreliable about deadlines or some other just cause, I could understand it. But the reason given by Media News for removing me from my columnist post at the Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate after five years was that by writing the column criticizing Lee Whitnum (which you can read at the end of the previous post) having held a meet and greet for her opponent for the Democratic nomination for the 4th Congressional District, Jim Himes, I had somehow "compromised the newspaper".

I don't want to go into the whole story because you can read all about it here and here, and frankly, it's kind of weird to be the subject of press attention that has nothing to do with my day job as an author.

I certainly don't want to do anything unethical, so just out of curiosity I went onto Open Secrets and searched for a few well-known columnists. Sure enough, my suspicions that I'm not the only opinion columnist that has ever donated to a political candidate and written about that race was confirmed.

Before he passed away, I used to appear on the editorial page with noted columnist William F. Buckley Jr. In fact, I used to take great amusement in telling people that my column was "to the right of William F. Buckley" - albeit on the page, rather than in content.

WFB's donations pages are quite illuminating in light of my firing:

So it didn't "compromise" the paper when WFB donated to candidates and wrote about them (and we're talking much larger numbers than the measly sum yours truly donated in kind for the meet and greet). Maybe that's because he was a prominent male Republican?

Meanwhile, on a more positive note, I've been really touched by the outpouring of support. I got a really nice e-mail today that says it all:

Is it true that the Greenwich Times terminated you over the Lee Whitnum Op
Ed piece? If they did I have to say they are really one of the dumbest
papers around. While I may be a republican I love reading your stuff as it
gives a different point of view in an intelligent and concise manner which
broadens my own perspectives (I suppose that is what Op Ed pieces are
suppose to do).

Yes. That is what Op Ed pieces are supposed to do. That's why I have the greatest respect for the former publisher of the papers, Dhurrie Monsma. According to one of my former editors, he got a lot of pressure to get rid of me prior to the 2004 election. But his attitude was that I was a good writer who sparked debate and so there was a place for me at the paper.

And boy, did I ever feel vindicated for writing that column exposing Lee Whitnum for the anti-Semite that she is when I watched the debate between her and Jim Himes on News 12 on Monday:


( 11 comments — Add your 2 cents )
Jul. 31st, 2008 02:50 am (UTC)
what a total crock of suckness!!!

Well, you can write all you want here and no one is going to fire you.

you go, girl!!!
Jul. 31st, 2008 12:47 pm (UTC)
Whitnum's response?
I can't find Whitnum's printed rebuttal; can you provide?
That debate was absurd. I'm surprised more groups are not coming out with statements against her.
Jul. 31st, 2008 05:00 pm (UTC)
Re: Whitnum's response?
Sure, you can read it here
Aug. 2nd, 2008 04:03 am (UTC)
Re: Whitnum's response?
Thanks- I had yet to see it. I don't get why it was not online.

Could you IMAGINE the responses her rebuttal would have gotten on Topix?
Aug. 2nd, 2008 02:01 pm (UTC)
Re: Whitnum's response?
I reckon that's exactly the reason they didn't put it online! Great to see you on Thursday and sorry we didn't get to chat more. Let's do coffee or something. I want to talk to you about other thing (she says, myseteriously).
Aug. 2nd, 2008 02:02 pm (UTC)
Re: Whitnum's response?
or even "mysteriously" if her fingers work properly.
Aug. 1st, 2008 04:09 am (UTC)
Great meeting you this evening. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts and views. Again, I'm sorry about how this all shook out for you but I have a feeling that it will actually be a blessing in disguise. Best of luck with this.

Aug. 2nd, 2008 02:08 pm (UTC)
Hey Ricardo, I really enjoyed meeting you too. I'm definitely going to be heading over to your blog to check out that particular story we were talking about...heh heh heh...it sounded too fascinating for words.

See you at the next FBG&BS mtg. :-)
Aug. 1st, 2008 03:16 pm (UTC)
Sniff. You had links to other sites protesting your ouster, but not mine.

And to think that mine was the first, and the one that got the others rolling. Thomas Hooker was an early commenter, and the notorious Ken Borsuk always trolls my blog for stuff to write about without ever bothering to give credit where due.

*Bill goes off to find a corner to cry into his hankie*
Aug. 2nd, 2008 02:06 pm (UTC)
Aww. I'm sorry. It was late at night. I linked to the two latest things. Mea Culpa.


BTW, FYI, Ken was on the case from the beginning as well, but the wheels of the print media run slower than in our rapid as the speed of our fingers and the internet connection blogosphere.
Aug. 15th, 2008 03:11 am (UTC)
Sarah your a sweetheart a very nice person, but honestly only a tad more coherant than Lee. You kind of agree with Meirsheimer's anti Israel BS as does Lee. I have heard you say this!

You only come out against this anti Israel/ anti Jewish vitriol when it threatens the gent you support for Congress. You were silent on the Lee W (If America Only Knew) stuff going on for months ... until Himes needed a bit of the love. You are a loyal friend to him but were silent on the anti Israel hate going on in town for a long time...until it was safe to come out. You are an adorable chicken, but a chicken none the less.

Love ya anyway but the truth need be told.
( 11 comments — Add your 2 cents )