Kansas paper fires reporter involved in shield law battle
The Dodge City Daily Globe fired reporter Claire O’Brien last week following a subpoena battle with the local county prosecutor. See a good summary by the Reporters Committee and an AP story.
O’Brien says the company fired her because she refused to give up the source and the company wanted her to. Stephen Wade, publisher for GateHouse Media Kansas, refused to comment to Reporters Committee, saying it’s a personnel issue. Wade told the AP: “Out of respect to the employee and the law, we really can’t comment.”
This is an outrage on two levels. First, O’Brien suffered terribly during this process as she faced going to jail and felt that few people were on her side, based on my conversations with her. To fire her after such an ordeal is inhumane and unconscionable.
Second, I find it ironic that the company argued for the free flow of information in fighting the subpoena, yet now won’t explain itself. The company hides behind “personnel laws.” Poppycock. Tell the truth and be up front. Maybe they had good cause to fire her. Maybe not. We don’t know. The SPJ Code of Ethics urges journalists to be accountable – to “abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.” Their actions are newsworthy, and just as we would expect a city council to explain the firing of a police chief, we expect the newspaper to explain the firing of a reporter caught in a public event. In my opinion, to do otherwise is unethical and cowardly. Be upfront and explain your actions.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Excellent article. I’m uncontrollably outraged at the newspaper’s “inhumane and unconscionable” cowardice. This kind of action on the American press makes our supposedly exceptional commitment to press freedom look like an empty rhetoric abroad. I think the reporter should have been awarded a bonus, not a pink slip. AEJMC, I hope, will address this and related issues seriously.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I think it is absolutely ironic that a journalist who had the guts to stand up the old fashioned way, without a shield law, with the First Amendment only, the way newspapers always did it, has been saddled with a publishing company that is scared to breath without its precious shield law.
Kansas senate has endorsed its shield law today and some are crediting Claire for getting that bill off the back burner. Kansas City Star:
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/8121
“In Kansas, following the recent jailing of a reporter in Dodge City who had refused to reveal the name of a confidential source, state legislators appear to be more interested in finally passing a “shield law” to protect journalists.”
This is a bill that should have been named after Claire. Instead, no doubt her coward publisher Stephen Wade will get a bonus and promotion from Gatehouse for enduring the long ordeal of their righteous journalist, Claire.
Wade’s LinkIn page is here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pitswade
The timing of the firing is just absurd. We all know it.
One of the many downsides to shield laws is that we will not know going forward who the cowards are. At least in this case, it is obvious.
Congratulations to Claire for helping to pass new laws in Kansas. Shame on Gatehouse and its regional publisher, Stephen Wade. I am putting a bet on it that Gatehouse tanks big time at the Unemployment board trying to justify that firing.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
What the?
Capitol Journal in Topeka reported: “O’Brien said that after that Feb. 12 hearing, she was forced to sign some disciplinary forms, including one claiming she had defamed GateHouse Media.”
According to SPJ ethics guidelines, it was Claire’s duty to speak out.
I wish a committee of SPJ would issue an opinion endorsing her ethical decisions and condemning Gatehouse’s retaliation.
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:31 am
In spite of the outrage at Stephen Wade and Gatehouse, Claire O’Brien continues to suffer from blacklisting by Gatehouse. But outrage is not enough. Where are the job offers, legal assistance and a formal recognition that her fine journalism and ethical stance deserves?