This doesn't really sound like a big deal to me personally. First it seems like it's just speculation relying on the statements (opinions? It's hearesay at the very least)of two unnamed sources. From the editor and publisher source, it seems like Farnaz Fassihi's editor stood up for her:

quote:

After she confirmed writing the letter on Wednesday, Paul Steiger, editor of the Wall Street Journal, stood up for her, telling the New York Post that her "private opinions have in no way distorted her coverage, which has been a model of intelligent and courageous reporting, and scrupulous accuracy and fairness." http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1000650551

So maybe Fassihi really is just going on vacation? However, even if the wallstreet journal did take her off the story, it might be justified depending upon what type of reporting she did. Her letter was clearly an opinionated account of how she personally thought of the progress in Iraq. It would be perfectly fine as an op-ed peice. However, if she wrote articles that are meant to be unbiased accounts of situation and derived from facts alone(and let the reader do the interpretation) than it's critical that she give off the impression of being completely objective to the situation no matter what her personal opinions are. If Peter Jennings sent out an e-mail saying that Kerry is a complete moron who competely sucks at debating, than how can I truly listen to Peter Jennings critique the debates and believe that he's giving a fair and objective assessment of Kerry's performance in the debate?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider This doesn't really sound like a big deal to me personally. First it seems like it's just speculation relying on the statements (opinions? It's hearesay at the very least)of two unnamed sources. From the editor and publisher source, it seems like Farnaz Fassihi's editor stood up for her: So maybe Fassihi really is just going on vacation? However, even if the wallstreet journal did take her off the story, it might be justified depending upon what type of reporting she did. Her letter was clearly an opinionated account of how she personally thought of the progress in Iraq. It would be perfectly fine as an op-ed peice. However, if she wrote articles that are meant to be unbiased accounts of situation and derived from facts alone(and let the reader do the interpretation) than it's critical that she give off the impression of being completely objective to the situation no matter what her personal opinions are. If Peter Jennings sent out an e-mail saying that Kerry is a complete moron who competely sucks at debating, than how can I truly listen to Peter Jennings critique the debates and believe that he's giving a fair and objective assessment of Kerry's performance in the debate?

Why can't you let me have a little fun, damn you? Shouldn't you be peppin' yourself up for tonight's debate, Dick?

Okay, I'll backtrack a little bit and plainly state that it is speculation at best, though it does seem fairly questionable. However, if we are to take the quote you supplied by her editor at face value, doesn't that somewhat contradict the actions to give her an "extended vacation", and to not have her report on Iraq until after the election? In any case, the email was not an op-ed piece, nor was it to be published in any paper, although the bloggers did grab this sucker pretty quickly.

I doubt we'll hear much more from her regarding this email however, unless she wants to look elsewhere for another job. But again, that's just my own speculation.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...