Herald: WBZ fires Jonic after FBI story flap

[Joseph Pappalardo]

> >> Oh, what a steaming pile of crap that is!  Conservatives love to throw
> >> the word ""terrorism" around as an excuse to scare people, muzzle the
> >> alleged "liberal media" and chip away at freedom of the press.  Look,
> >> if that story was to air, I'm sure the FBI could make arrangements to
> >> address the problems and beef up security in compromised areas within
> >> hours.
> >
> > You are sure of that?  You're an authority on the FBI, their strengths
> > and
> > practices?
>
> C'mon.  This is the FBI, a major government agency.  I'm sure that they
> can make changes quickly if necessary.  A report on a few security
> weaknesses at an FBI building is no threat to national security.  It's
> just another right wing scare tactic to suppress bad PR stories.
>
> I'm sure you're not an expert on the Iraq war but I'd bet you have an
> opinion on it.

But I would not second guess someone who is an expert....and where lives are
at stake.

You said you were "sure" that they could make the changes necessary.  I'm
just wondering how you can be so "sure" of the facts.

> > The real story is that Flo Jonic was insubordinate to her superiors
> > and was
> > fired.
> > It has nothing to do with right/left wing politics.
>
> My outrage is that WBZ
> management, who's idea it was to investigate this story in the first
> place, didn't have the stones to back up her work and run it.

They saw the FBI request as reasonable....and that judgement is their's to
make.

> >> They intimidated WBZ into caving.
> >
> > Gee, I wasn't aware that you were in on that phone call.
>
> Were you in on the call that said they didn't?

No, I didn't make any allegations one way or another.....you did.

> > The reality is that every reporter has an editor, news director or
> > publisher
> > who makes the final decisions as to what should be printed and
> > broadcast and
> > what should not.
>
> True, but don't investigate a story if you don't intend on running it.

That doesn't make sense....An investigation might lead to reasons why you
would not run it.

> It would be one thing if the story was false, but if the Herald piece
> was any indication, Jonik's facts were solid.

Again, it has nothing to do with the true/false...it has to do with
insubordination, and a request that BZ saw as reasonable.

Newspapers "hold" stories all the time.  For all you know, WBZ is going to
run the story tomorrow...or next week.

> > There is no indication that they enganged in "intimidating".
> > They simply made a request.   And, WBZ saw it as reasonable.
>
> Were you in on that phone call too?  We'll never know for sure whether
> WBZ "saw it as reasonable" or if they were instructed not to run the
> story.

They saw the request as reasonale, because they did not run the story.

You are the one jumping to judgments and making allegations.