Denis, do you really think it matters if Zusman (who is the friggin' editor of an alt-weekly, NOT a senator or something) sent this e-mail from a personal or work account?
Doesn't he have free speech? Isn't he allowed to help his boss's wife's campaign if he wants to? Can't his personal aims occasionally conflict with the generalized aims of the paper? In the rare instances when they do, does the ethics of it really rest on which email account he sent something from?
This post reminds of precisely why I don't read WW - because every issue is centered around taking someone/something down for some completely trumped up reason.
The guy's campaigning for his boss's wife, and not doing it in the pages of WW, as promised - what more should we demand?
@CC: Your third paragraph explains why the O first reported this and why we're calling attention to it.
For an outfit that does its share of harrumphing about other journalists' perceived ethical lapses—and wouldn't have kept quiet if things were reversed and the name attached was Wm. Steven Humphrey or Peter Bhatia—it's fair game to point out.
And it's also okay to wonder whether Zusman was careful enough, in walking an admittedly awkward line, to do his campaigning from an account that didn't say "wweek.com." Sticklers have to be extra cautious, is the point here.
Is it a scandal? No. But it's interesting and worth a Friday afternoon blog post. (And I can promise you our next issue won't be "centered around" it.)
I've very much interested in stories that involve the media, but, just as Colin, I don't really see what the rub is, or at least I didn't until Denis pointed out that this is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" backbiting. I'm cool with that; just be up front about it. Or don't. It's not all that important.
Doesn't he have free speech? Isn't he allowed to help his boss's wife's campaign if he wants to? Can't his personal aims occasionally conflict with the generalized aims of the paper? In the rare instances when they do, does the ethics of it really rest on which email account he sent something from?
This post reminds of precisely why I don't read WW - because every issue is centered around taking someone/something down for some completely trumped up reason.
The guy's campaigning for his boss's wife, and not doing it in the pages of WW, as promised - what more should we demand?
For an outfit that does its share of harrumphing about other journalists' perceived ethical lapses—and wouldn't have kept quiet if things were reversed and the name attached was Wm. Steven Humphrey or Peter Bhatia—it's fair game to point out.
And it's also okay to wonder whether Zusman was careful enough, in walking an admittedly awkward line, to do his campaigning from an account that didn't say "wweek.com." Sticklers have to be extra cautious, is the point here.
Is it a scandal? No. But it's interesting and worth a Friday afternoon blog post. (And I can promise you our next issue won't be "centered around" it.)