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

BYU/Utah game big

Good luck to both teams and may both teams' fans applaud good plays and think...

Logan aims for impact on Wynn

Waaaah! It's all in fun. If you are looking to be offended, you will be...

Letters: Selfish agendas

People are so childish and apparently ignorant that they will sign up the...

Thanks to the Deseret News for posting this each year. It is a great service...

Logan aims for impact on Wynn

As much as some Utah fans would like to think so, Utah isn't nearly as good...

Hey Anonymous~ If you were active LDS you would know that hundreds, if not...

Smith--what do you have against libraries? Have you been in the Farmington...

Could I really the first person to comment on this story? Booz really D-will...

Cougs to host Weber St.

Bub, wow that was quaint. Is the Mtn. still broadcasting in Standard Def,...

Is that a word? See the "uneducated" posts in other articles. Exhibit B

Advertisements