From Deseret News archives:

Is angst about editor valid or overblown?

Published: Sunday, Oct. 7, 2007 12:16 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Pignanelli: Joe Cannon, editor of the Deseret Morning News, has committed an act of appalling cruelty. Because of him, I lost a free lunch... at an Italian restaurant.

I like Joe Cannon. He has been good to me, despite my obnoxious heathen Democrat tendencies. He openly supported me in the mayor's race. Joe is a progressive Republican visionary, hoping to expand the GOP tent through racial and religious diversity.

Cannon's appointment as editor of this paper caused much grumbling by Democrats and many Republicans. They believed his prior position as chairman of the Utah State Republican Party drives a political agenda for the paper and even his well-meaning intentions would be viewed with suspicion. I thought otherwise. I countered his detractors with a firm retort that he was "too smart" and possessed the common sense to avoid even the appearance of journalistic impropriety. Confident of Joe's savvy, I made several wagers for lunch.

Cannon was a recent featured speaker at the Council for National Policy. This group conducts meetings behind closed doors — even guest presenters are not allowed to reveal the details. All members are sworn to an oath of confidentiality (an obvious incentive for big dues). Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was in attendance, as was Dick Cheney.

Story continues below
A lot of journalistic think tanks are livid that one of their own (technically but not spiritually) would attend such a supersecret event. No other representative of the "traditional" media was present. These newspaper gurus believe that no journalist should prioritize the secrecy of such meetings over the interest of readers. But the issue is bigger than the legitimate right of this organization to secrecy.

When Cannon consented to serve as editor, he agreed to surrender certain rights. Just as elected officials, celebrities and sports figures sacrifice privacy, Cannon had to abandon certain affinities. Publishers and editors of newspapers are entitled to have political opinions and even express them. However, an editor's opinions are secondary to a higher calling. The public and readers must have confidence that all political parties, special interest groups, public individuals, etc., will be held to the same level of scrutiny. Americans reasonably expect that newspaper leadership will not engage in the active promotion of policy through political action. They must be separate from the process — notwithstanding their personal beliefs. This is why you do not witness responsible editors participating at political conventions.

Recent comments

LaVarr seems to have missed the whole point -- he never acknowledges...

Josephs Myth | Oct. 9, 2007 at 10:07 p.m.

I just read on the trib website that "smoking" joe cannon (I didn't...

kjs | Oct. 8, 2007 at 3:35 p.m.

Wilkey - The DMN has it's own P&L, and is not subsidized by the...

MEB | Oct. 7, 2007 at 3:25 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

The Temple is not considered a landmark in San Diego! Maybe if your LDS but...

I think anyone would lose there Job for having sex on the clock. And those...

Hatch's Hanukkah tune

Writting a song celebrating Hanukkah in no way removes Christ from...

Wealthiest generation in the history of the world. Even Americans living in...

Gay-friendly curriculum phased out

To Trevor | 1:48 p.m. Protests and boycotts CAN be bullying. Especially...

Unga might enter NFL draft

Do it, BYU isn't going anywhere

Boys basketball rankings

Well we won't get SS on our home floor, but we do next week in Kanab. Too bad...

Phoenix temple inspires thanks

To Jayeg, I would have no problem if a Muslim mosque was built on the...

Casual sex not always bad for health?

The study has the same validity as the survey of skydivers who have just...

...remember SynCrete?

Advertisements