Resigned

On the way to work this morning I was caught somewhat by surprise to learn that New Times editor Jim Mullin had resigned. Publisher Bob Rucker has insisted that the timing has nothing to do with the publication and resulting backlash over the "Meth Made Easy" piece published earlier in the month. How that is possible though, I have no idea.

Area radio host Dave Congalton reported yesterday that Mullin resigned on Friday: Word came out around town today that Jim Mullin, controversial New Times editor, has resigned after less than two months on the job. Mullin, as you may recall, lived in Miami, yet edited our weekly alternative newspaper from home, raising more than a few eyebrows in the process.

While surprising to learn, Mullin's 'tele-editing' at least answers the question about how an editor could be so tone-deaf about the market he serves as to run such a piece. Congalton also pointed out a couple of weeks back that Mullin has a history of similarly poor judgment and/or bad behavior:

But more importantly is (2) Who exactly is Jim Mullin? He's listed as the new editor of New Times and he came on board in January with zero fanfare. I don't know Mr. Mullin and I have nothing against him personally, but I believe there are at least three examples that suggest he is a bad fit for the job. Keep in mind that Mullin doesn't even live on the Central Coast. He lives in MIAMI, FLORIDA and tele-edits.

Anyway, the examples. First, I ask you to go Google "Jim Mullin Miami New Times" and see what you find. Mullin was forced to step down as editor of Miami New Times last August following a PUBLIC UPROAR (sound familiar?) because his paper outted a local public official. Following the publication, the man killed himself. Do the research yourself.

Congalton also today posted a letter, ostensibly from Mullin to SLO Tribune staffer Leslie Griffy that reveals a snarky and near-bitter man. I stick by my assessment, one echoed by Congalton, that Mullin is only sorry for the backlash and not for his poor judgment:

Many thousands of copies of that February 2 issue were stolen by individuals who, in their roles as self-appointed community censors, decided that others should not have the opportunity to read the story and make their own judgments as to its merits. Yet we heard nothing from the Tribune about this brazen abridgement of New Times’s First Amendment right to publish the story and the public’s right to read it. Does the Tribune condone the confiscation of publications that contain controversial material? Would the Tribune sanction the theft of its own papers under similar circumstances?

The Tribune, it seems, has arrived much too late for this party. That should embarrass its editors and reporters, but not as much as the paper’s shameful silence in the face of actions eerily and frighteningly reminiscent of book-burning in Nazi Germany. A Constitutional right in which the Tribune has a vital interest was trampled in its own back yard, and what was the response? Silence.

True, but so not the point.

The New Times faces a difficult road in winning back readers and advertisers (if reader response is emblematic of real opinion). Surprisingly, I would find myself agreeing with Congalton's analysis: The community has a vested interest in New Times succeeding. We need that alternative voice. Let's hope for better days ahead.