Early this morning, I posted a blog about Jim Zumbo and the fact that I could not see how he was infringed upon through his First Amendment rights. Most readers agree with that assessment but some don’t. Let me attempt to explain it from my perspective of the owner of a media outlet.
Everything that my son Steven and I do with our Internet businesses is media driven. We pay directly to the authors for some of our articles and stories published in our hunting and fishing magazines. As part of our Skinny Moose Media network, bloggers get paid from a percentage of advertising revenue generated on their websites. We feel this is fair and equitable and frees up the bloggers from being concerned about First Amendment issues and more importantly censorship by editors.
As a blogger for Skinny Moose Media, a writer is free to express their opinions on issues pertaining to the outdoor genre they have chosen to write about. Other than the responsibility that they assume as an American speaking their mind, they are free to voice there own opinions about issues. We will not fire them for this, censor them or punish them. They might, as a result of what they say and how they say it, punish themselves. This can happen if they drive readers away. Advertisers will pull support and they will not make money. This is the proportional results of their own actions.
If Skinny Moose Media operated in a fashion where we paid our bloggers salaries or per page, etc., I would be one busy man approving every article submitted by all our bloggers. I would guarantee also that the number of bloggers we have would decrease significantly because one of the biggest reasons bloggers blog is for the freedom to express and not be torn to shreds by editors like me and Steve.
On the other hand, as managing editor, I review all articles submitted to all of our nearly 40 hunting magazine websites. Whether we are paying for those articles or are publishing stories from budding outdoor writers, Steven and I are responsible for the content we choose to put up. This does not mean that we are infringing on anyone’s right to free speech. There are thousands of platforms available to anyone who wishes to make their voices heard.
As an editor, if I choose to publish one writer’s material that angers some readers, I am the one who is responsible for that content.
In the case of Jim Zumbo, it appears that Mr. Zumbo, being outdoor editor for Outdoor Life, was responsible for what he blogged. He did not have to be screened, edited or reviewed by anyone at Outdoor Life. Perhaps this was a mistake on the part of Outdoor Life but nonetheless it is a decision they made and now must live with.
Both decisions that Outdoor Life made is costing them. The decision to let Zumbo’s words go unchecked and the decision to “accept Zumbo’s resignation”, will negatively affect Outdoor Life for a long time. This is why, as an editor for the U.S. Hunting Today hunting magazine network, nothing will get published without first passing by the eyes of either myself or chief editor, Steve Remington.
Some have told me that the mere fact that Jim Zumbo lost his job and had all sponsors sever their ties, is a matter of censorship and therefore infringes on his First Amendment rights. This is flawed thinking. As my good friend Phillip, over at the Hog Blog says,
Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from reaction
So, from the perspective of someone who deals with media issues every day, it is important to understand the First Amendment and then how to give writers a forum in which they can write and be responsible for what they say. With this, both writer and editor share the best of both worlds.
Tom Remington
