Loading ...Gannett spokesman: We have ‘no say’ over Freedom Forum
flockwoodOn New Year’s Eve, I reported that the Freedom Forum, a supposedly non-partisan organization devoted to promoting journalism, is also funding the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. In that post, I said the Freedom Forum “has close ties to the Gannett newspaper chain.”
This morning, New Year’s Day, I received the following note from Gannett’s top spokesperson:
“Gannett is an entirely separate entity from the Freedom Forum. We have no say or influence over what they fund.
– Tara Connell, vice president of corporate communications at Gannett.”
The two organizations may be separate entities, but I think it was accurate to describe them as having “close ties.”
The Freedom Forum is headed by former Gannett Chairman and USA Today founder Al Neuharth. According to the charity’s 1999 annual report , “The Freedom Forum traces its roots to 1935 when newspaper publisher Frank Gannett (1876-1957) endowed the Frank E. Gannett Newspaper Foundation with 1,500 shares of Gannett Co. stock.
The foundation began by supporting journalism, education and philanthropy in 14 New York cities
served by the 19 newspapers in Gannett’s company.”
Since its founding, the Freedom Forum has become a final [and well-paid] resting place for former Gannett bigwigs. Just two weeks ago, the editor of Gannett’s largest newspaper, USA TODAY, announced that he is resigning to take a top job at the Freedom Forum.
In its article describing the departure of USA TODAY editor Kenneth A. Paulson, the New York Times’ Richard Perez-Pena described the relationship between Gannett and the Freedom Forum succinctly: “The Freedom Forum is closely intertwined with the upper echelons of Gannett. It was created by Allen H. Neuharth, the former Gannett chairman and president who also created USA Today, and the group’s departing president is Peter S. Prichard, another former editor of the paper.”
According to a statement on the Freedom Forum’s website, “the foundation focuses on three priorities: the Newseum, the First Amendment and newsroom diversity.”
But the Gannett Blog reports that these well-paid Gannett executives also use the Freedom Forum’s funds to support other pet projects, including the U.S. Equestrian Team.
It probably won’t surprise a lot of Christian Right activists to learn that these folks are also using Frank Gannett’s charity to fund the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, an organization which has fought traditional Catholic, Evangelical and Latter-day Saint teachings on abortion for decades. But, as a journalist, it definitely surprised me.
It will be interesting to see how they justify using journalism money to support liberal abortion laws.
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Pray tell how is “journalism money” different from “advertising money”?
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
This is a fund started by a rich guy to finance causes he cared about. I don’t know if Frank Gannett cared about women’s reproductive rights or not, but many business leaders of his day did, including Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of presidents, and a founding board member of Planned Parenthood. Gannett was a Republican who made a run for his party’s presidential nomination against Roosevelt in 1940, but fell short. Many Republican leaders of that day were staunchly pro-choice, and had a concern about population control that sounds quaint today.
As Frank has reported on this blog, while Catholics were opposed to legalized abortion from the beginning, nearly all Protestants, including most evangelicals, were in favor of it when Roe v. Wade was decided, and only realized how immoral abortion is when Paul Weyrich and others persuaded them they could make political hay out of it. Now that the religious right is largely declawed if not dead, I imagine that the pendulum of public opinion will now begin to swing more toward reproductive rights than it has over the past twenty years or so.
I suspect the outcry about Gannett’s foundation is mainly from journalists who are offended that one of “them” would sully his hands and his money by supporting controversial political movements. This shows what I have always believed: Money, when divorced from those who have made it, tends to corrupt those who spend it. And here, the corruption seems fairly complete. This trust overpays its executives, apparently has no real standards to determine what charities to support, other than those that are particular favorites of its executives, and is willing to support organizations that are hardly calculated to save the world. I like steeplechase and fancy Episcopal schools as well as anyone, but hardly consider them first-line charities. If anything, to me, the abortion group would be one of the few organizations on their list that I would have supported.
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
While this view is only hypothetical, it would stand to reason with this trust, anything that would be a newsmaker and sell papers, regardless of which side it falls on, would be worth supporting. We all know how abortion seems to cut deep both ways in the public eye, so why wouldn’t an organization founded by a publisher want to create an avenue for potentiial business. This once again is only hypothetical, but I could see it being discussed among his peers, in the day.