Politics & Other Mistakes: The rights of wrong writing

Jason Savage claims he’s a journalist.

I say he’s not.

We’re both kinda correct.

Savage’s regular job is as the executive director of the Maine Republican Party. No question about being a journalist there. He’s just a political hack. But “outside the scope of his employment,” to use the snappy phrase coined by his lawyer, Savage runs a website called the Maine Examiner. It features unabashedly conservative takes on current events, mixed with semi-news-like attempts to embarrass Democrats and liberals.

So, he’s a political hack there, too.

That doesn’t matter. Political hacks have the same rights as everyone else to operate propaganda sites, even if, like Savage, they’re the sorts of cowards who do so anonymously. Nowhere in the Constitution’s First Amendment does it require the exercise of free speech to be conducted ethically.

The state GOP repeatedly denied it had anything to do with the Examiner, even though it regularly reposted articles from it on social media, particularly after the Examiner published a couple of negative stories about Ben Chin, a left-wing candidate for mayor of Lewis ton. Those articles may have tipped a close runoff election in favor of Chin’s right-wing opponent. The stories contained just enough fact to convince some voters to reject Chin, even though the allegations weren’t particularly accurate or remotely fair.

That shouldn’t have been surprising, since the postings were written by a political hack. Except readers would have no way of knowing that, because Savage kept his role in the site a secret. That made it more difficult to assess the Examiner’s credibility.

A California computer geek eventually exposed Savage as the owner and operator of the Examiner. The state Democratic Party then filed a complaint with the Maine Commission of Governmental Ethics and Election Practices (motto: In Reality, Far Less Impressive Than Our Name Would Suggest), claiming the site was a thinly disguised tool of the Republican Party and an attempt to circumvent campaign finance laws. Savage defended the Examiner as “community-based news” and said he kept it anonymous because “certain people” would have attacked his stories if they knew he’d written them.

The ethics commission held a hearing on the matter in late February, and, as it nearly always does on tricky ethical issues, decided to punt. On a 3-2 vote, it opted not to investigate whether Savage was operating the site as part of his job or as the sort of bizarre hobby that only a political hack would enjoy.

This prompted all sorts of liberal handwringing. The Maine Sunday Telegram editorialized (in an ironic footnote, the editorial didn’t carry a byline, so we don’t know who wrote it) that the commission had “decided that if it looks like it came out of a newspaper, that’s good enough for them.” As a result, said the paper, “political operatives can send anything they want over the internet as long as they make it look like journalism, and the paid staffer who wrote it swears he did it in his free time.”

Samuel Nathan Kahn is a well known writer, publisher in UK working in the field for 7 years. He had worked so well in the field and earned a lot of followers. Using my knowledge of the printing industry and my educational background in business.

For More Information:- Al Diamon

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s