‘Union-Tribune’ Vet Goldsborough Quits After Column Is Spiked

22 Responses to “‘Union-Tribune’ Vet Goldsborough Quits After Column Is Spiked”

1. 

   route66 said on Friday, December 3, 2004, 8:56

   Good riddance.
2. 

   oso said on Friday, December 3, 2004, 13:18

   Yeah, I agree with route66 - for a while I was confused as to if the Union Tribune was actually trying for balanced commentary. Now I can stop reading it altogether.

   OK, but in all serious, two thoughts come to my mind:

   1.) Goldsborough is sufficiently recognized, established, and (I imagine) financially taken care of, that he should join the throng of ex-journalists turned bloggers in order to express themselves freely. Rebecca MacKinnon comes to mind. Just like my offer to Ed, I’d happily help Goldsborough set up a blog.

   2.) When William Safire of the New York Times announced he would be retiring from his long time conservative column, Glenn Reynolds suggested that the Times replace him with a rotation of conservative bloggers. The idea is ingenious, but it doesn’t look like the NY Times is yet brave enough to try it. The San Diego Union Tribune now has the opportunity to really elevate itself in the national spotlight by replacing Goldsborough with a rotation of some of the most well known political bloggers. Imagine how many millions of bloggers and blog readers would come to SignOnSanDiego.com to read the thoughts of their peers.
3. 

   oso said on Friday, December 3, 2004, 13:21

   Did anyone hear this morning’s editor’s round table? Did they talk about this?
4. 

   oso said on Friday, December 3, 2004, 17:22

   Goldsborough just emailed me with this:

   I’ve received a ton of emails about my departure. I am moved by them
   all and trying to answer them all, however briefly. The newspaper has
   received some 50 letters about it, and it was only announced today. Few of
   those letters will be printed, so it’s good that your blog is operating.
   Regards, Jim G.

   I hope that people feel free to use this comment thread as a space to express themselves about Goldsborough’s departure since the Union Tribune clearly has an interest in not making much noise about it.
5. 

   James said on Saturday, December 4, 2004, 8:21

   People need to open their eyes to the New World Of the RFID chip and how it will impact
   our lives. Please people see now. I am tell who will listen. see my site too from San Diego it is all RFID news and more
   http://www.zombiewire.com
6. 

   Derek said on Saturday, December 4, 2004, 12:14

   Goldsborough’s offensive, knee-jerk, Jew-baiting is nothing new. I’m glad the U-T finally shows a backbone — it was getting a little embarrassing to have such a militant on their staff. Nothing that virulent needs to be published in a respectable newspaper — there’s always Indymedia for him. Let the public decide.

   I imagine the U-T will lose subscribers because of this. But they’ll probably also gain back subscribers who cancelled (as I was thinking about doing) because of Goldsborough’s lunacy. My guess is that it’ll be awash.

   We need to wonder, really, why San Diego only has one main metro newspaper. That’s a shame, and considering the success of KLSD, why there hasn’t been a separate, mainstream, for-profit, lefter paper instituted yet seems odd. The funding must be out there.
7. 

   route66 said on Sunday, December 5, 2004, 12:37

   Goldsborough’s motivations are nothing new.
8. 

   Dave Wojo said on Sunday, December 5, 2004, 21:46

   Derek you idiot. Goldsborough’s columns were a welcome change to a very conservative paper
   that is often searching for minimal quality in its columns. Folks like Robert Caldwell are
   so out to lunch it’s mildly embarassing to read his column in a paper of the UT’s size. Who
   will the brilliant editors get now? Another right wing, minimal thinking Bush loving hack?
9. 

   oso said on Sunday, December 5, 2004, 23:07

   It is true that Goldsborough’s was really the only voice of dissent in what is otherwise a strictly conservative publication.
10. 

    Derek said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 8:41

    Oso, I’m talking about extremism here, not dissent. It could be argued that such a paranoiac is a bad example of leftist thought, and that progressives and liberals may want someone at the U-T less prone to falling back on bigotry to make a case.

    Dave, one person’s “very conservative” is another person’s “center-right”, I guess. (As it seems one person’s “you idiot” is another person’s “love me daddy”.) I’m sure they’ll be able to find another Jew-hater to fill his shoes, don’t worry.
11. 

    oso said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 10:11

    Derek, your one example of Goldsborough’s “paranoiac,” “Jew-baiting,” “extremism” is an Op-Ed piece saying one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to defend the interests of Israel. I think most Israelis would happily and thankfully agree with him. In fact, many that I met in Southeast Asia this year told me just that.

    You must have some more substantial examples of what you call “bigotry.”
12. 

    route66 said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 11:46

    Granted Israelis are not unhappy about the overthrow of Saddam. A Kurdish friend of mine is very happy about removing Saddam as well, as are many Americans. However, you are wrong in you characterization of “most” Israelis. Israel was and is much more concerned about Iran than Iraq. Goldsborough is again expressing his anti-semitism indirectly by blaming the Iraq war on Israel. Oso, go back and read the the last couple of years of his editorials on Mideast issues. Read the letters to the editor from Jewish leaders generated by his extremist editorials regarding the Israeli-palestinian conflict, before you sadly elevate him any higher on the pedestal you are building for him.
13. 

    SMASH said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 12:59

    I met Goldsborough a couple of months ago at the KPBS studio — we both went on “These Days” to discuss the war in Iraq.

    He’s a nice enough guy, to be sure. But his claim that he is a persecuted “moderate” is ridiculous on its face.

    By way of example, here’s a direct quote from his closing remarks:

    “I really object to the use of the word “terrorism.” Were the Minutemen in this country terrorists? When you have a foreign country coming over and occupying your country illegally, and you resent that occupation, when you resist it, like the French resisted the Germans – are you a terrorist? Or, are you a freedom fighter? Are you an insurgent? Are you a guerilla?

    “What would Americans do, if a foreign country had invaded us, and tried to impose their government on us? And (if) we resisted it – would I be a terrorist? No, I don’t think so. And I don’t regard these people, who are opposing an illegal war, as terrorists either.”

    Now, some may consider that a “moderate” position to take on the Iraq War. I don’t.

    But let’s keep some perspective here. Goldsborough wasn’t fired. He quit, after one of his columns was spiked. he claims that he was being “punished” by the editors for opposing Bush. I sincerely doubt that is the case.

    The chief editor has the final say on what gets published, and what doesn’t. If he found that something Goldsborough wrote was offensive to Jews, then it was his legitimate choice to refuse to run that column.

    Goldsbourough didn’t have to quit. He could have submitted his spiked column to any number of publications, including The Nation, that would have been happy to run it. He’s not the first writer to have a column spiked — but most don’t cry like a baby about it, and tear up their contracts.
14. 

    oso said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 13:23

    SMASH,

    You are right - Goldsborough did quit and in his farewell column it sounds like he was getting tired of the job. Certainly Goldsborough is a liberal (and the only one at the UT), but what I don’t understand are claims that he is an anti-Jewish bigot. I’m just asking for a little evidence.

    Also, I listened to the These Days you were on with Goldsborough (which I thought you did an excellent job on) and the quotes you selected are taken completely out of context. I wish that KPBS made their archives available for more than a week so I could put a link to the stream. If you have a recording or a transcript, you should put a link to it here so readers can decide for themselves.

    Route66,

    I’ve been reading his column for the past year at least and nothing has ever jumped out at me as anti-Semitic. He’s a policy analyst who has been published in the moderately conservative Foreign Affairs.

    I’m not trying to elevate him on any pedestal but calling someone a Jew-hating bigot is a pretty serious accusation and I think it deserves some evidence.
15. 

    route66 said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 14:41

    Oso, get your new pen pal Goldsborough to provide a link to the spiked column. And I’ll repeat what I said earlier, Read the letters to the editor from Jewish leaders….
16. 

    Joe Crawford said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 14:54

    Only one poster has actually provided a link to actual quotes from Goldsborough. Bravo Derek for making your points with actual hyperlinks to relevant evidence.

    Sad, really, that again in the realm of politics, we have lots of heat, and precious little light here on San Diego Blog. I had no idea when I posted about this there would be this level of animosity about it. I was simply reminded of Neil Morgan’s firing, and thought it would be of note for the blog because of that.

    I can’t decide based on this thread what I feel about Goldsborough’s quitting. Justified? Not? Is he a simpleminded anti-Semite? Is he a misunderstood leftist? Who knows? I can see people hated him, and say he’s an anti-Semite. So how was he a columnist for the SDUT? What kept him there for as long as he was when he was such an odious voice?
17. 

    route66 said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 16:06

    I don’t have the answer for his longevity, but what the hell, I’ll provide the link to the spiked column.

    Goldsborough agreed to share the killed column with jewishsightseeing.com, so that the Jewish community could judge for itself. This act doesn’t mitigate his objectionable body of work as a whole.

    I’ll admit that the spiked column is milder than many of his previous columns. I’ve read much more virulent columns by Goldsborough, so I guess this was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back. As one jewishsightseeing.com reader noted “This column was mild compared to most of his diatribes against Jews.”

    You need to be a SDUT subscriber to view his older columns. If you are, read Israeli-fueled war in the Middle East from Jan 24, 2002 to get a feel for this leftist. As another jewishsightseeing.com reader observed “I protest against your bias, distortions, selective quoting, giving a pass to the Arab side despite corruption and terror, and outright lies.”
18. 

    route66 said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 17:02

    And then there is this:

    As usual he doesn’t miss an opportunity to either stereotype Jews or Israel. I think that Rabbi Rosenthal got it just right. Goldsborough is an individual who is mean spirited, ideologically anti-Israel, profoundly insensitive to Jewish issues, and one who will not be missed by the Jewish community. —Morris Casuto, Regional Director, Anti-Defamation League.

    James O. Goldsborough, a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune, wrote on March 3, 2003 that the idea to go to Baghdad is “to serve Jerusalem,” that Bush’s war “has nothing to do with peace and security,” but is the “brainchild of a handful of neo-conservatives … who have argued that Iraq was the main threat to Israel.” The neo-conservatives he mentions - Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, David Wurmser - are all Jews. No mention of the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys. —Anti-Semitism, Pure and Simple by Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League

    Unfortunately the Anti-Defamation League site is currently under cyberattack and won’t be viewable for a day or so.
19. 

    Dave Wojo said on Monday, December 6, 2004, 18:50

    It seems rather naive to me to believe that Israel and Sharon didn’t “really” want the US and Bush to go to war in Israel. There is countless evidence of the neo cons views on this and their solution and even interest in the Middle East revolves around oil and Israel. I don’t know how anyone could argue otherwise. Now that’s not anti-semitic - I imagine most Israelis would not disagree. You say they are more concerned with Iran? Well don’t you think they wanted Bush to go into Iraq in large part to establish a strong permanent US footprint in the area and to put a warning to countries like Iran? The events in Iraq are directly linked to dealing with problems in Iran (I don’t agree about the method but I don’t see any credible rationale to argue against their relation). Isn’t Goldsborough Jewish himself? There is a contingent of people in the world that want nothing more than to yell “anti-Semitic” at every corner. It gets tiresome and makes your opinions irrelevant at some point.

    Now if you’ve got evidence of Goldsborough being truly anti-Semitic let’s see it. Smash - why not post your text from Early Days verbatim? Why only include out of context quotes? Bottom line is the UT didn’t even carry the story of Goldsborough quitting - we have to hear about it here on this blog - ridiculous. Does anyone still consider the UT a reputable “news” paper?
20. 

    patriot said on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 10:36

    I never could figure out if goldsborough was a self hating jew or a self hating american!
21. 

    Ex U/T Subscriber said on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 15:20

    Anyone who wants a fair and open discussion of the serious issues that face our country and this community should be seriously concerned with the direction that the U/T is going. James Goldsborough was one of the few voices left in this city that had the courage to buck the pressure of the “good old boy network” and say what many people want to have said. He took the time to do careful research and was very thorough in his coverage of divergent viewpoints. As with all editorial writers, you can choose to agree or disagree, but when a one-newspaper town has a completely one-sided bias, the electorate become more like sheep buying into the mainstream propaganda. Blogs are great to cover these other viewpoints, but they and other web news sites reach only a small percentage of the population. TV and papers are still the primary vehicle for news, and they are becoming less and less trustworthy with each passing day.
22. 

    juliette said on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 15:36

    it is a little tiresome that one cannot criticize either israeli policy, or the u.s.-backing of it without being called anti-semitic. i am jewish, and have many jewish friends (not, i feel, that that should really matter), and in discussions of goldsborough’s columns, not once has it ever come up that he may be anti-semitic. and we always found letters to the editor written by “outraged jews” to be simplistic in their analysis of his “anti-semitic”columns. talk about knee-jerk. criticism of israel does not make you a jew-hater any more than criticism of your own government makes you unpatriotic. the people of this country have become paranoid and fearful and, frankly, angry in an ugly way…i find it so sad at how polarized this president has made what used to be a unified, proud country. now it has basically become “war-mongers” vs. “unpatriotic wuss liberals”. please…where’s our pride?

    isreal and the middle east is a sticky situation, as we all know isreal was created after WWII to help jewish people establish a land and identity for themselves after their persecution, and yet how that situation has developed is less than ideal. it kind of reminds me of bush saying “i have earned political capital and i intend to SPEND it”…that sent shivers down my spine. being granted the opportunity to start afresh, as jews were with israel, or as bush was in the last election, does not mean that that opportunity can be blindly abused.

    as for the spiked column that lead to goldsborough’s resignation, i frankly found it laughable that that is the one copley chose to kill…i found it to be completely admirative of jewish voters’ intelligence in elections in being able to separate issue from issue and not just blindly vote for a candidate who supports our “homeland” in favor of displacing others. don’t get me wrong, i hate terrorists, be they palestinian or other, but historically, i don’t find that israel has handled things appropriately. and when they did have a leader, yitzhak rabin, who tried to work towards a middle-east peace, he was assassinated not by a palestinian fanatic but by one of his own people. in the same way that the u.s. has blown all the international goodwill we received after september, 11, israel has blown much of the goodwill that the jewish people received after WWII.

    so let’s wake up, open our eyes….goldsborough’s voice of dissent in a blatantly conservative publication will be so sadly missed. whether or not you agreed with him, he provided balance which is what ed and op-ed pages are supposed to do…it is appalling that our one and only newspaper will no longer have that balance.