In re: Boycotting the Star Ledger

There’s been some “controversy” here between a number of front pagers regarding the Star Ledger, Tom Moran and boycotting the paper.  In the last go ’round, I noted in the comments that the blogger writing in support of a boycott did not speak for Blue Jersey, but did speak for himself.  There are a wide variety of voices here, and unless something is posted under the site’s name it is not the site’s opinion.

The same applies to the Star Ledger, which is why I do not support boycotting it (besides the disagreement I have with the interpretation of my fellow blogger).  While Tom Moran said the other day that he supports the bulk of Governor Christie’s program, the Star Ledger today came out with this:

Republicans aggressively fought the appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and came away with a big scalp: Warren herself, the architect of the new agency, stepped down as nominee and returned to Massachusetts to run for the U.S. Senate. With any luck, voters there will send her back to Washington to continue challenging those who would shield banks and big business at the expense of the American consumer.

I maintain that we should support a paper that comes out that strongly for a good progressive like Elizabeth Warren, and against shielding the corporations that got us into this economic mess.  And doing it about a race in another state.

Comments (14)

  1. Jeff Gardner

    Everyone understands neither Maureen Dowd nor David Brooks speaks for the NY Times. But, that point seems to get lost for some people when speaking of that strange creature – the blogger.

    For the record, individual bloggers speak for themselves, much as individual op/ed columnists speak for themselves.

    Reply
  2. DSWright

    Should being the key word, nobody has to do anything.

    Moran is not just a columnist he is the editor of the editorial page. So he has considerable influence on those eds written under the paper’s name. He reiterated his support for Christie’s agenda, it’s not a distortion he supports “the ed reform stuff” and pen/ben reform. A anti-union agenda that is for privatization in the ed reform case. There’s no reason union members and those supporting them should subsidize that view.

    A boycott is simple, voluntary and peaceful way to protest that position. Everyone should do it but feel free not to.

    Also we generally give a post an hour before posting over it.

    Reply
  3. firstamend07

    Closing your mind to opinions you might not agree with simply makes you a closed minded person.

    Read everything! Educate your self on your friend and your enemy.

    Criticize , do NOT boycott.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *