'08 Olympics
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
DONT MATTER wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:20 AM:
HEY DISAPOINTED; If you ever decide to sue someone or feel mistreated may I suggest talking to Mrs.Winfrey and her "PERFECT SON".
J wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:17 AM:
I for one am happy to see her gone because of the unethical garbage she pulled by altering Letters to the Editor and press releases. She often advocated to local nonprofits that if they had something time-sensitive they needed to purchase advertizing to guarantee it being printed intact (a thinly vieled threat) and then, there was no guarantee they would get it printed on the agreed-to date. Of course, she would always point fingers elsewhere. I could think of a hundred unflattering terms to call her, but tabloid journalist covers them all.
Kaye wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:07 PM:
I was overjoyed to see Kathy fired. Because of her I cancelled my subscription to the World a couple of years ago. She had extreme bias and letters to the editor were often re-edited to her likes. When I asked for an explanation about an altered letter I had sent, she was very arrogant and un-apologetic about it.
Furthermore, her kindergarten-teacher cutesy writing style about "the good old times in Marshfield" was highly annoying and just plain bad writing. Good Riddance!
Furthermore, her kindergarten-teacher cutesy writing style about "the good old times in Marshfield" was highly annoying and just plain bad writing. Good Riddance!
A Reader wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:22 AM:
I don't think Kathy was that good but we certainly didn't get anyone any better and from out of town at that. Why can't we get someone that can really run a good newspaper. I don't know why we waste our money on this World newspaper anyway. A real waste. And we can't even get an Oregonian delivered anymore. Guess we rely on TV and the internet to get news.
Flummoxed wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:48 PM:
Wow. Hard to believe so many people are saying The World is leftist. Does that mean the Koos News is considered middle of he road? Scary.
Coos Bay Resident wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:36 PM:
The only thing The World Newspaper is good for now is at the bottom of a bird cage. Good luck to you Kathy on your lawsuit.
howard jarvis here wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:40 PM:
See http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/startherup/archives/136999.asp or http://roadandtravel.com/roadhumor/1943transportation.htm. Perhaps when my favorite ambulance chasing lawyer comes to depose Lee newspaper people they can say that they followed the hiring guidelines - just nobody updated them since 1943.
RJ wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:56 PM:
Bystander,
I never found that to be the case. She didn't agree with everything everyone on her staff had to say, but if they couldn't back it up they didn't win their arguments. And badmouthing your boss around the community isn't professional behavior, so I wonder how much stock you could place in that kind of opinion.
I never found that to be the case. She didn't agree with everything everyone on her staff had to say, but if they couldn't back it up they didn't win their arguments. And badmouthing your boss around the community isn't professional behavior, so I wonder how much stock you could place in that kind of opinion.
Kathy come back wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:52 PM:
Oh Kathy, please come back. The World under your guidance was so much more rich with objective articles and I miss your editorials. What will we do with this empty rag of a paper that does no real reporting....only cheerleading for the rich, powerful & special interests?
Kathy, you may not have been perfect but,...well, you just don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
Kathy, you may not have been perfect but,...well, you just don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
bystander wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:55 PM:
I don't work at the World and never have, but am active in the community and talked to many of the reporters that work or have worked there and they couldn't tolerate the abuse Kathy was giving them. There was only one opinion to be tolerated and that was hers.
johnny wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:17 AM:
Kathy may be well loved by her friends and I know she has been involved in the community, but her job performance is another issue. Altering letters to the editor and holding back time-sensitive press releases from local charities is something she did frequently and she should have been terminated for that long ago.
disappointed wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:22 PM:
Wish I had been born as something other than a white male so I could demand whatever I wanted and then sue someone if I didn't get it.
Nick wrote on Jul 21, 2008 2:55 AM:
I'm sure people in George Bush's cabinet support him, too. Doesn't mean he's doing a good job.
Spare me any partisan or changed-the-subject talk... I'm an independent that USED to vote Republican.
Spare me any partisan or changed-the-subject talk... I'm an independent that USED to vote Republican.
Eric wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:34 PM:
Bystander....It sounds like you and others that have commented on this article work for Lee. There were numerous comments by ex-employees on a previous article that supported Kathy, and I have personally known several people that had worked on her staff. They have the greatest respect for her professionally and personally. Of course nobody is going to please everone.
BEEN THERE. wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:19 PM:
I have enjoyed reading the World immensely since KE left. I especially enjoy the Cheers/Jeers comments!
As for The World under the supervision of KE, what I do know is that if you were an elected official and during a meeting, you happened to say one little thing that didn't come out quite right (as we all have done on occasion), that was the next day's headline -- even if that comment had little to do with the main agenda items of the meeting. That was the story!
As well, KE liked to print "rumor" as fact... so and so said this at the meeting accusing .... with absolutely no fact to back up the accusations. And not taking the time to ask the accused party for their comment... Again, selling papers is more important than truth.
Time and time again, another pathetic attempt at sensationalism ... often times ruining the reputation of hard working volunteers throughout this community.
As for The World under the supervision of KE, what I do know is that if you were an elected official and during a meeting, you happened to say one little thing that didn't come out quite right (as we all have done on occasion), that was the next day's headline -- even if that comment had little to do with the main agenda items of the meeting. That was the story!
As well, KE liked to print "rumor" as fact... so and so said this at the meeting accusing .... with absolutely no fact to back up the accusations. And not taking the time to ask the accused party for their comment... Again, selling papers is more important than truth.
Time and time again, another pathetic attempt at sensationalism ... often times ruining the reputation of hard working volunteers throughout this community.
bystander wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:03 PM:
Previous comments indicated others have been pushed out of the door by Lee Enterprises. Has anyone noticed how many reporters The World has had in the past several years. It is because they couldn't work with Kathy and some of these reporters left without even having another job as it got so bad. Some of these reporters were excellent in their jobs. It takes more than job qualifications to handle the publishing and editor positions. You have to be able to get along with your staff and work with them. Lee knew this wasn't a quality Kathy had and had to make that move to keep qualified help.
Susan wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:24 AM:
No one knows what really happened except Kathy and her former bosses and if she feels that she has a valid case then it is her right as an American Citizen to sue them.
Why get so steamed up about something that doesn't even involve you? Your tax money is being wasted in much more tawdry ways then this little lawsuit. Take a good look at campaign discretionary funds.
I have known Kathy a long time and worked with her for 6 years. She is reasonable and sane person. If she feels she has a valid case then I believe she does.
Oh and Realist while Oregon is a no fault state you can't fire whoever you want, whenever you want. You can not fire them solely because they are a woman or a man or too old or too young. That's discrimination and it's illegal. That's why there is an article about a lawsuit that you are commenting on.
Why get so steamed up about something that doesn't even involve you? Your tax money is being wasted in much more tawdry ways then this little lawsuit. Take a good look at campaign discretionary funds.
I have known Kathy a long time and worked with her for 6 years. She is reasonable and sane person. If she feels she has a valid case then I believe she does.
Oh and Realist while Oregon is a no fault state you can't fire whoever you want, whenever you want. You can not fire them solely because they are a woman or a man or too old or too young. That's discrimination and it's illegal. That's why there is an article about a lawsuit that you are commenting on.
Michele wrote on Jul 15, 2008 4:14 PM:
Kathy Erickson is a stubborn and relentless person, and proved so, time and again in defending "The World". Lee should be aware that she is no pushover, and a worthy opponent.
LYNDA wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:38 PM:
Ah, The World. I've lived here most of my 50 years and the paper has always been consistently bad: mispelled names, incorrect facts or mixed up information, quotations paraphased (or even made up) to the point that they were no longer quotations, not publishing news and letters to the editor based on The World's bias. They used to be guilty of really bad editing, so that a letter to the editor or a new release no longer made sense, but that has improved under Kathy's reign.
In Kathy's defense, she has a passion for our area (which I appreciate) and worked hard at the paper and in our community. The new guy seems like he may be an improvement, but only time will tell.
My compliments to Lou Sennick. He takes great pictures and gets those names and quotes right!
In Kathy's defense, she has a passion for our area (which I appreciate) and worked hard at the paper and in our community. The new guy seems like he may be an improvement, but only time will tell.
My compliments to Lou Sennick. He takes great pictures and gets those names and quotes right!
Realist wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:03 PM:
In Oregon you can let anyone go anytime you want. Kathy Erickson is little more than a relic of the failed feminist movement.
She's just another leftist with an entitlement mentality.
Any attorney deranged enough to take on this case is a clear and present danger to the community and should be disbarred.
She's just another leftist with an entitlement mentality.
Any attorney deranged enough to take on this case is a clear and present danger to the community and should be disbarred.
let it go wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:19 AM:
all the opinions matter not a bit. Everyones opinions over how she covered the news has nothing to do with this.
it seems to have only been a cost saving move by Lee, they havent a clue, or a care in Iowa how she covered the news here in Coos Bay.
If Kathy Erickson's claims have merit they will settle with her and not go to court over this. If it was just cost savings then I would think she has a valid case.
it seems to have only been a cost saving move by Lee, they havent a clue, or a care in Iowa how she covered the news here in Coos Bay.
If Kathy Erickson's claims have merit they will settle with her and not go to court over this. If it was just cost savings then I would think she has a valid case.
Moderator wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:33 AM:
For details about Clark Walworth's journalism experience, go to:
http://www.lee.net/newsreleases/news-2008-04-29-coosbay.shtml
http://www.lee.net/newsreleases/news-2008-04-29-coosbay.shtml
RJ wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:35 AM:
Hey Eagle's Perch,
How many years of journalism experience do you have? I think professionals working in the field would be less likely to be misguided than someone looking on from afar, or from a perch.
How many years of journalism experience do you have? I think professionals working in the field would be less likely to be misguided than someone looking on from afar, or from a perch.
EAGLES PERCH wrote on Jul 13, 2008 5:36 PM:
Seems the only positive comments are from Kathys ex employees. Kudos too their loyalty but misguided about the truth. The change to the World staffing was much overdue.
Esya wrote on Jul 13, 2008 5:01 PM:
In the world of equal opportunity claims, "reorganization" is known as a pretext for getting rid of someone you don't like. Otherwise you could reorganize, keep them on, and just change their job duties. It is unlikely she was ever given a chance to say no to new duties or expectations. Is that gender bias? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. having a woman boss does not mean that the woman does not act on gender bias.
Former Employee wrote on Jul 12, 2008 5:34 PM:
Absolutely, RJ. Obviously something fishy is going on here if they feel they need to replace someone who has been here a very long time, grew up here, and was passionate about this community, with someone who knows nothing about this community and has less experience. Obviously Lee cares more about saving money (if that was their intent), and not about their employees.
Resident wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:47 PM:
If the World really cared about news, the reporters would get rid of reprints of stories and columns originally printed in 2001. What a waste of space. And for the record, I have journalism degree.
Yeah Right wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:34 PM:
No one in their right minds would really say Kathy was okay to work for. She was a really sour person 99% of the time. She wasn't open to new ideas, she ran her staff with an iron fist. No one ever wanted to have to confront her on anything. The problem seemed to be that she did what she wanted, reported what she wanted, and made decisions as though she were the only voice that mattered.
As for being a publisher she would have made a horrible publisher because she didn't listen to anyone, when her mind was set, nothing or no one changed it no matter how compelling their argument was. That does not a good publisher make.
I think she needs to just move on, go somewhere and start over and embrace change, focus on skills and building staff not ruling them.
She has tools to offer, but if she doesn't loose the chip it doesn't matter.
As for being a publisher she would have made a horrible publisher because she didn't listen to anyone, when her mind was set, nothing or no one changed it no matter how compelling their argument was. That does not a good publisher make.
I think she needs to just move on, go somewhere and start over and embrace change, focus on skills and building staff not ruling them.
She has tools to offer, but if she doesn't loose the chip it doesn't matter.
RJ wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:27 PM:
You people need to get a clue. I worked for Kathy Erickson at The World for several years and covered on numerous occasions events NONE of us believed in or agreed with. But we always did it fairly, objectively and with no bias. In fact I was complimented by the people who put those events together on the fair and balanced reporting we did. This bias is your illusion for reality not being the way you want it to be, or what you perceive it to be. The World is not much different than it was before, in my opinion. The issue here is that NOBODY cared as much about that newspaper or worked as tirelessly as Kathy Erickson. She has more experience than the new guy, apparently has won more awards and should have been treated much better than she was. The problem isn't The World's local management; it's the fact that Lee's stock has plummeted to a little more than $3 a share. The problem is in Iowa, not Coos Bay.
Get a clue.
Get a clue.
former subscriber wrote on Jul 11, 2008 3:38 PM:
Ok Blue Eyes, how do you know subscriptions were down?
and what makes you think they are on their way up?
Sagging subscriptions are a sign of the changing times, they wont ever go back up, more and more people are doing what we are all doing, reading online. I have no need to subscribe.But I sure didnt cancel becuse of some issue with the managment of the paper, that would just be dumb
and what makes you think they are on their way up?
Sagging subscriptions are a sign of the changing times, they wont ever go back up, more and more people are doing what we are all doing, reading online. I have no need to subscribe.But I sure didnt cancel becuse of some issue with the managment of the paper, that would just be dumb
seesic wrote on Jul 11, 2008 3:34 PM:
Well Patricia,
I have been a reader for 20 years, I watched the paper evolve too far left for me. I refused to buy it, maybe now I will support our hometown paper. I would be just as upset if it went too far right also!
I have been a reader for 20 years, I watched the paper evolve too far left for me. I refused to buy it, maybe now I will support our hometown paper. I would be just as upset if it went too far right also!
in agreement wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:58 PM:
I agree that it is very interesting that when Lee came in and gave the 2 ladies 15 min to clear their desks and escorted them out of the building, there were over 100 comments on that story in strong support of Kathy.
Now everyone hates her?
Hard to believe.
and,for the record I think the paper really looks the same now as it did then, no improvement or un-emprovement to it.
Now everyone hates her?
Hard to believe.
and,for the record I think the paper really looks the same now as it did then, no improvement or un-emprovement to it.
Former Employee wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:22 PM:
Good for you, Kathy. I'm glad someone will step forward and let people know what's going on here.
Patricia wrote on Jul 11, 2008 1:43 PM:
It is interesting that there are so many negative comments for this article...much in contrast to the overwhelming supportive comments for Erickson to the original article that she was being replaced. I wonder who they are?
Blue Eyes wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:09 PM:
Subscriptions were down and I believe she was to blame.
seesic wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:16 AM:
Former editor K.E. will NOT be missed nor will the bias she injected into the paper.
To Carol S. wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:14 AM:
It is quite obvious she wasn't the right person for the job. Don't you see the paper making progress and providing a better service now? Yeah, exactly, the news is getting better now. She is desperate now, and will say anything to get back at those who are doing better than she did. Oh yeah, working 14 hours a day doesn't mean you're doing a good job, or know what you're doing for that matter.
What a joke wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:11 AM:
Good luck with that Erickson; at least the news now is moving towards some type of organized publication without the pathetic biased content.
OMG wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:57 AM:
Kathy had pros and cons to her reporting at The World. Change is great and welcomed. Kathy often times was very biased on her decisions to cover the news. If you read the comments and I think that Kathy is reading them too, she will see that whatever the reason she was let go, it has been good for the paper. Lets move on with life, if Kathy can't that's her issue.
carol s wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:07 AM:
I worked with Kathy for the entire 10 years she was at The World. She is an outstanding, caring person. She would routinely work 14 hour days, and cared very much about the paper. She deserved to be considered for the position.
period.
period.
jfred wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:42 AM:
Dull day so far so visited to see if I am the only person not feeling sorry for Mrs. Erickson. Guess I need to learn to communicate better in my old age so I don't make Mr. HPOCRITE's day worse. We are caucasians. My wife worked long days, seven days a week, while successfully raising three children, working her way to VP. Along comes a white male pal of her leader who needs a job - she's demoted for no reason. Again works her way up the chain and the bank merges. Same jerk who promoted his male friend needed to save a relative of the new bank exec. Guess what happened. Deciding this was bs - she retired early, did volunteer work, still does, and was never happier. And the jerk. We heard that he got fired late last year and is unemployable. He may be living here now and using the nom de guerre HYPOCRITE.
LuckyCat wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:29 AM:
Nice slant. Erickson and Geary were FIRED! No explanation other than we're combining your positions, pasta lasagna! What did Lee think? That nothing bad would come of firing two women and bringing in a man to do both of their jobs?
Smooth move, Twinkle Toes.
Smooth move, Twinkle Toes.
bs wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:34 AM:
It's funny how if a white male gets passed over for a job or promotion and claimed discrimination it would be a big joke, yet it happens all the time because employers are often times afraid to promote a white male over someone else for fear of the appearance of favoritism. God forbid you work for a government agency and they are forced to promote or hire a certain way because of quotas rather than work performance.
Sick and tired wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:22 AM:
Sick and tired of hearing how it is discrimination any time someone who is something other than a white male gets passed over for something. You'd better pray if your a white male going for promotion, against someone who is somthing other than a white male. I for one would want to know I'm getting promoted on my merits and experience, rather than my sex or skin color. So it's her opinion that she is more qualified, but apparently not her bosses opinion... guess that must mean it's sexually motivated. If that doesnt work out, maybe she'll claim some long lost tribal right of her ancestors and throw racial bias into the pot.
JFred is a hypocrite wrote on Jul 11, 2008 3:42 AM:
Um, here's your logic. My wife worked her way to a "nation wide financial institution Vice President" and knows firsthand about being a victim of sex discrimination. Whatever... You just lost all credibility in my book...
Nick wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:57 PM:
I'd like to point out that people, especially in higher positions in a corporate atmosphere, are OFTEN replaced when someone better applies for the job. You can do "okay" (I argue that Ms. Erickson was not doing an okay job, based on recent years) at your job, and STILL be replaced by someone who has done better in a similar environment.
Remember, experience is not just measured in time. Quality matters.
Remember, experience is not just measured in time. Quality matters.
Ed wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:49 PM:
I can't help but find some questionably as to the source of some of these Comments. She accepted the responsibility for her work, and beyond that, volunteered devotion and loyality for whatever was needed to support the paper, only to an unjust end.
Resident wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:02 PM:
The story didn't include important information--when is the court date?
Scribbler wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:54 PM:
This is sort of like suing a buggy-whip company. Who actually wastes money on newspapers any more?
RJ wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:14 PM:
What do you mean Kathy Erickson and Janet Geary left? Certainly not of their own accord. Way to put the company slant on this "news" story. It just kills me to hear people whining about how the paper used to be slanted and sensational. All the while I've actually been noticing MORE sensational headlines and stories than before since this new guy took over. This story certainly doesn't tell it like it is.
Mr E wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:04 PM:
I would also like to point out, as many others have suggested about Mrs. Erickson's tenure for this company, that in her years, there were PLENTY of important stories that were flat-out ignored by The World. I know about the biased coverage that spewed out of this newspaper... I know of those who were edited or ignored when posting opinion pieces to the newspaper. You wouldn't have expected a good word to be published if you were, say, trying to post a pro-union editorial.
Had this story happened in another time, and Kathy had been the editor of the newspaper while another party tried to pull a lawsuit, it would never have been published.
Had this story happened in another time, and Kathy had been the editor of the newspaper while another party tried to pull a lawsuit, it would never have been published.
thankful wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:49 PM:
kathy was so biased in her story selection and editing of news stories, had the world been a radio station it might have lost its FCC license. Reorganization was well over due if one watched the circulation drop.
bandonwoman wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:40 PM:
First time commenter here. Ten year World reader. Apparently NOT A HYPOCRITE has not been exposed to the bias of Mrs. Ericson like others in the World cirulation area. My husband has known the commenter jfred for 30 years. He told me that he was ahead of his time and once got demoted for promoting a woman ahead of a man. It's interesting that 14 of the 16 comments posted as I write this do not support Mrs. Erickson. She may not find a sympathetic jury.
Who are you people wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:42 PM:
Who are you people and what planet are you from? A local woman who has dedicated her career and life to providing us the news is fired and replaced by some big wig man from another area who is not doing such a good job.
Have any of you asked when it will be your turn? This is not the first time I have heard of this kind of discrimination at The World or in this community and it won't be the last unless we make it that way.
Kathy deserves more than what she is asking for and our community deserves to have real news again.
Have any of you asked when it will be your turn? This is not the first time I have heard of this kind of discrimination at The World or in this community and it won't be the last unless we make it that way.
Kathy deserves more than what she is asking for and our community deserves to have real news again.
Louise wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:36 PM:
This paper is garbage without Kathy! You people who judge her in posts are part of the problem with this paper and this community, but what do you expect from Republicans. Booooooo to you!
Thomas wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:20 PM:
Cathy censored my comments .........
..........that said, you go, girl!!!
..........that said, you go, girl!!!
reader wrote on Jul 10, 2008 4:29 PM:
I have a brother who was pushed out of a management job of 35 years to have a woman take his place, actually two women are now doing his job. It took two women to do the job my brother did. So I wonder if he has a lawsuit he could start ? ? ? ? Sue Sue Sue oh boy....
OneWalker wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:37 PM:
It's my understanding that Lee didn't even give Kathy Erickson the opportunity to apply for the job of Publisher/Editor. With her experience she is well qualified for the position, and as a long-time member of this community, she cares very deeply about the integrity of The World and the news they publish, as well as the issues facing our community. Kathy Erickson did an outstanding job as Editor and was given many awards which attest to that. I have read a couple of the editorials written by this new editor, and his arrogance is loud and clear. He writes like he thinks he knows this community, the people in it, and the issues affecting us, and in my opinion, he doesn't know squat. I find it interesting that this story tries to put such an innocent spin on the fact that Kathy was fired by saying that she left The World...it's clear to me they have something to hide. I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out, and more so hoping to see Lee Enterprises get what's coming to them.
Fact Finding wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:05 PM:
It looks like to me that Lee went against some of their own Corporate Governance Policies...Those that question if what's going on is valid of not research the company and what they "stand for" and then compare it to what's happened.
http://www.lee.net/governance/code.shtml
http://www.lee.net/governance/code.shtml
Not a hypocrite wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:32 PM:
Oh, come now,JFred. Everyone with an open mind can recognize bias and bigotry -- and you.
pril wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:27 PM:
psst. You forgot to capitalize the name of your own newspaper.
Donna wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:22 PM:
You know, if the World did not publish this story, they would be accused of hiding something. There's just no way to win in this community.
OMG wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:53 PM:
This comment is for "WHAT"... would you rather that The World didn't cover news that could possibly shame or embarass readers, that's called censorship and I don't think that anyone would opt for that. If Kathy Erickson has filed a lawsuit then it's part of public record and once you enter that arena you could possibly get press coverage. Kathy being a former editor also know this, who's to say, she might want the press...have you thought about that?
EAGLES PERCH wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:47 PM:
Erickson should be very careful shouting discrimination. Many local groups and organizations could charge her for years of not covering or reporting events that she personaly was opposed to! It's nice to finally have unbiased (or the appearance of unbiased) reporting at the World.
jfred wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:15 PM:
We know gender discrimination fisrt hand. My wife was a large nation wide financial institution Vice President who got stomped on because she was female. Any person who knows about Lee Enterprises knows that the Chairperson of Lee is a lady. Women are promoted equally with men. Study the record of my former San Diego North County Times neighborhood classifed advertising lady, Ms. Cheesman, who has had a meteoric rise at Lee - now publisher of the Rapid City South Dakota Lee paper (about twice the circulation of the World). Gender discrimination - poppycock. It's a business and the former editor lost touch with the people and drove customers to the competition.
Mr E wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:15 PM:
So, an editor for a MUCH larger newspaper (and with more than twice the subscribers) is hired in place of someone who has spent her life with small-town newspapers, and that means sex discrimination? I'm sorry, but time spent at a seven-day-a-week STATE-CIRCULATED newspaper beats out time spent at small regional newspapers.
This country disgusts me. We NEED to have a loser-pays system, where if you file a lawsuit that can be deemed frivolous, you pay all court costs, and attorney's fees for ALL parties. This is definitely a case that, on the outside, looks as if it can be deemed frivolous... now, if she has a smoking gun, I guess that could make things different. But from afar, this looks like a greedy woman with absolutely no case... just a few lawyers who want to waste everyone's time and money.
This country disgusts me. We NEED to have a loser-pays system, where if you file a lawsuit that can be deemed frivolous, you pay all court costs, and attorney's fees for ALL parties. This is definitely a case that, on the outside, looks as if it can be deemed frivolous... now, if she has a smoking gun, I guess that could make things different. But from afar, this looks like a greedy woman with absolutely no case... just a few lawyers who want to waste everyone's time and money.
Republican Girl wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:10 PM:
Why doesn't she take the high road instead of coming up with this excuse. Under her leadership subscriptions dropped. We cancelled our paper due to her obvious bias. Ms. Erickson, it's time to move on.
Marge wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:07 PM:
To my understanding, Erickson was not fired for any misgivings or inabilities related to her quality of work. It will be interesting to see how reorganization is defined.
JFRED wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:07 PM:
This returning World customer considers the move to replace the editor with Mr. Walworth an outsider to be the best business decision made by Lee since they bought the paper.
Extreme Perversity wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:49 PM:
It would figure that this ploy would be used, considering the record of Ms E was to sensationalize, distort and even invent things to the level of tabloid journalism. Try getting a legit press release printed under her watch without alteration, or for that matter, a letter to the editor (she altered mine every time!).
I can believe it being a business-based decision, simply on the basis of her track record. The World lost a lot of it's community credibility under her watch and I could see her being terminated for cause, not just restructuring. Sexual bias...rubbish. Go Away K.E. !!!
I can believe it being a business-based decision, simply on the basis of her track record. The World lost a lot of it's community credibility under her watch and I could see her being terminated for cause, not just restructuring. Sexual bias...rubbish. Go Away K.E. !!!
what wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:45 PM:
It is still stupid!!!
Supporter wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:42 PM:
I support you 100% Kathy! They've pushed so many others out the door it's time one of us stood up for what's right!
Former reader wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:28 PM:
Embarrass her? Why in heaven's name should Kathy Erickson be embarrassed for standing up for herself? It's about time corporate America understands you just don't discard women when you want to put a man in a job. Good for you, Kathy! You go, girl! Oh, and by the way, Kathy and Janet didn't "leave the company." C'mon World; where's your fairness? They were fired. Fired. Period.
A different view wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:08 PM:
"What" wrote: Why would the world publish this story?
Because it is news!!??!!
Because it is news!!??!!
Kay wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:02 PM:
Maybe it was discrimination against ANYONE not willing, as is the new "Editor" apparantly is, to so far be on the losing side of each issue.
Think so?
Can't have anyone thinking for themselves, just follow your orders.
Think so?
Can't have anyone thinking for themselves, just follow your orders.
what wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:43 AM:
Why would the world publish this story? So they could say shame on you and embarass this lady??
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines