Henry Norr has been suspended from the San Francisco Chronicle because the Chronicle doesn't like his views on the war. Ummm, can we say "lawsuit"? Papers have a legitimate need to make sure their journalists don't have conflicts of interest, and so there could exist circumstances where a journalist's private political activities might be taken into account at a newspaper. But, Norr writes about spam! You can look at the Henry Norr Article Archives and see he hasn't written on a political topic all year. I learned of the details of his situation from Dave Winer who gives numerous links. The best is Norr's own account. (scroll down to read it.)
Here's my letter to letters@sfchronicle.com
To the Editor:Shame on the Chronicle for its vengeful suspension of Chronicle technology reporter Henry Norr. I've read your conflict of interest policy and he doesn't have a conflict of interest. He writes about spam for chrissake. Your reporters have a right to participate in politics. When you suspend them after such activity and try to make it seem as if a time card is the issue, it has a chilling effect on the ability of the rest of your staff to freely exercise their rights. You will be lucky if he doesn't sue you and end up owning the Chronicle. The right thing to do at this stage is clear: Announce that you have completed your "investigation" of his time card and found that he took a valid sick day. Reinstate him immediately and pay him for the days missed. Also make it clear to other employees that they are free to participate in political activities, consistent with the Chronicle's stated conflict of interest policy.
If you don't fight for the other guy's freedom, there will be no one left to fight for you when they take away yours.
Posted by Brian at March 30, 2003 03:14 AM | TrackBack