My Wall Street Journal piece about the Don Rosenberg fiasco ran today. The link will take you to it.
They’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they don’t say anything, they look guilty. If they deny involvement, they’re widely not believed.
They need a PR strategy (assuming, which I’ve come to believe, that they weren’t involved). My suggestion was bold — that they publicly ask for Don’s reinstatement, and ask the publisher to step down from the board. I doubt they’ll do those things, and I can see one understandable reason. If they really did stand apart from any interference, how can they interfere now? I might argue that the situation has changed, and that the paper has taken action that makes them look bad. That might give them standing to ask for a reversal.
But what should they do? They need a PR strategy. It’s an intriguing problem, whatever you think of them. Any suggestions?
(I have personal and professional relationships with many of the principals here, which of course I disclose in my piece. I talked to none of them while I was writing, and anything I put in the piece comes only from me.)