I recently fired off this letter to Kathryn Dunn of The Claremont Courier. I don't think she'll print it, but people ought to know all about her bias.
Hi Ms. Kathryn Dunn, editor of The Claremont Courier,Update: 03/06/2011 1:46 PM. In the comment section, Dunn insists that she is not a public figure so I had no right to post the photo above without her consent. She's wrong.
I wanted to salute you for having the courage to publish a fact-challenged ad in your pages. It took really good editorial judgment to publish it!
I guess you won't print letters from concerned people about a professor who supports terrorist organizations but you will print letters from a group that uses a piece of satire from a candidate and acts as if it is serious. Of course, in the first case, the letter from a parent of a student asked you for space to write the letter and in the second case, you received money for the full page ad. I'm sure that had nothing to do with your decision. I mean, gosh, you are a first rate editor of a humble small town newspaper, which, dontcha know, has standards -- if only.
I suspect that you knew well that the full page ad was false but you ran with it anyways, because, hey, it was paid for. By the time you came around to issuing a correction, the election would be over and that little ditty would have done its damage. Well done.
I'm sure that this has nothing to do with you sharing the ideological disposition of the people attacking Opanyi. Nah, that couldn't be it. This photo of you and Bill Clinton was and it's not like you are listed as a liberal on Facebook or anything. Oh wait? You are?
Oh, well, that explains it!
--Charles Johnson
She's demanding that I remove the picture of her, even though her Facebook settings were open to the public. (We aren't friends in the public.) She threatens me with hearing from her "representatives." I'm not to be intimidated.
21 comments:
Your myopic delusions are astonishing. The tone of this letter might be well-suited to a pair of bickering twelve-year-olds, but you're in college!
With all due respect, it really seems that you're going the way of Glenn Beck with all this nonsense and people are just getting to see you become increasingly unhinged -- which is sad. Maybe a break is in order?
The tone of the piece was deliberately sarcastic, as was the tone of Opanyi's letter. There's back story here -- Dunn has, in the past, ignored material that others have sent her that didn't conform to her political views.
As for me becoming "increasingly unhinged," I wouldn't worry. I'm well hinged, if a bit squeaky.
"Dunn has, in the past, ignored material that others have sent her that didn't conform to her political views."
That may very well be true -- but you have to also keep in mind that you're the originator of the story that you're accusing her of ignoring, and are therefore very invested in it. However, whether you like it or not, sane-minded people are recognizing that there is actually no story there at all -- just a heap of hyperbolic paranoia and are rightly ignoring it. Giving it any serious attention would be like giving credence to one of Beck or Bachman's conspiracy theories, or taking Charlie Sheen's rants seriously. No respectable new organ, whether it be a small town rag or a national paper are going to place themselves in that kind of situation.
The Courier will occasionally run a profile on one the town's quirky inhabitants -- you might be better suited getting your name in print that way.
Yes, you deliberately deleted my comment, because clearly while you have no problem dishing out your sarcasm and accusations about others, you clearly are unable to receive it in return. So much for your transparency. You are just as a much hypocrite as you accuse others to be while you perpetuate this holier than than thou attitude.
Charles, I respectfully ask that you remove the photograph of me with President Bill Clinton. It was taken from my private facebook page without my permission. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Additionally, the Claremont COURIER endorses Sam Pedroza, Opanyi Nasiali and Joe Lyons in the March 8th City Council election.
To the anonymous complaining about deleted comments, I delete comments that don't comply with the policy. If you attack me rather than make an argument,I'll delete it. I think I've shown myself to be rather tolerant about what I let fly in the comment section.
To Ms. Dunn,
Your Facebook settings are set so that anyone can look at your profile. As such I will not be removing your photo. Thanks.
--Charles
My privacy setting on facebook is "Friends Only." You and I are not facebook friends. Please remove my photograph. You do not have my permission to reprint it.
Then how did I access it? I'm not your friend. It appears you have since changed your settings. I will not remove the photo as I think it indicates your bias, which is rather apparent.
Four areas of the right to privacy are recognized:
(1) intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs;
(2) public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff;
(3) publicity that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye, and
(4) appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.
As an editor of a small town newspaper, you are a public figure.
As an editor of a small town newspaper, you are a public figure.
I am not an elected official, I do not hold public office. I work for a corporation and, therefore, am a private citizen. I won't comment again, but you will hear from my representatives next week. Thank you.
Dear Ms. Dunn,
You are in fact, mistaken. You are a public figure by virtue of you editing a newspaper and by virtue of the public outcry the publication of that scurrilous ad garnered. The letter, which I addressed to you as editor of the Claremont Courier, is also true. Every word of it. The photo was taken from what was then your open Facebook settings. (I understand that you have since changed your settings.)
I take it that you are threatening me with legal action. As such, I will also be making public all of the email correspondence between the two of us the moment I am contacted by your "representatives." (I sincerely hope that you are not threatening me with anything more than that, as I am not sure what a representative is.)
Until then, I will also be writing on your decision to try to intimidate me and contacting the publisher of the Claremont Courier.
--Charles
Charles,
You are missing the point. The picture you posted is copyrighted. Those rights belong to whomever owns the picture (Ms. Dunn) and whomever she gives rights to (i.e. Facebook, when she uploaded it). Just because that image was visible to you does not mean that you have the right to download it, re-upload it, and distribute it yourself. It isn't yours.
She has to prove that she retains copyright to it (which she has not done) Indeed, she may not be the one who owns the copyright in the first place. (Typically, photographers own it, which she is obviously not as she is pictured in the photo.) By making her Facebook settings open to the public, I could credibly claim that it was open to the public and therefore was not intended to be private.
Moreover, it is not clear that a photograph taken in the Oval Office was not taken by a federal photographer. (Pardon the double negative, but you get the point.)
"She has to prove that she retains copyright to it (which she has not done)"
I think this must be like the tenth consecutive post where you've acted like an infant.
For once in your life, maybe you could not be a complete douche and do the right thing?
Nahhh!!!!
This is incredibly childish. I am astonished that two people who like to think of themselves as respectable journalists are actually arguing over something so trivial.
Charles, at this point, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong and most respectable journalists would just let it go. Think about it. Is it really worth sacrificing some of your reputation and making a new enemy for yourself over the nuances of the Facebook privacy settings of someone you barely know and will barely interact with in the future?
Screw all you naysayers! I think CJ's work is hilarious. Keepin' fools honest...
No matter what your opinion of Ms. Dunn and her political views are, you are still clearly in the wrong for posting her picture without her permission. That photo was taken from her private Facebook page, and even if her settings had been "open," it does not give you the right to repost her picture.
And also, are you not aware of how a newspaper works? Apart from revenue received through subscriptions, a newspaper runs on the money from ads sold. While an editor *can* decline to print (and receive payment for) an offered ad, it is not the norm to do so, even if the ad is in any way "wrong," factually or otherwise. Ads are paid for, and any intelligent person would know that the newspaper staff itself does not endorse anything advertised in the paper, or must it be clearly written above each ad for you to understand?
However, there is no obligation whatsoever for a newspaper to print every single letter to the editor received. This is the right of the editor, and has nothing to do with advertisements.
I would hope that a college student would espouse more intelligent articles. Alas, I was evidently mistaken on your part.
Post a Comment