The Seattle Times Co. placed this full page ad in its flagship paper today for Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna, and plans to run another ad in support of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Washington. (A disclosure in very small type at the bottom of the ad says: “No candidate authorized this ad. It is paid for by The Seattle Times Company.”)

“The News Department was not part of the discussion or the decision to do this,” says Seattle Times executive editor David Boardman.

The Times notes:

The Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed both McKenna and R-74, but the ad campaign takes that support to another level.

The contributions in support of the campaigns will amount to between $75,000 and $80,000 each and will be reported to the state, said Jill Mackie, a Times spokeswoman.

Todd Donovan, a political science prof, tells the Times that “my sense is the public perception of the Times’ credibility and objectivity takes a big hit here. …It’s a big money contribution by the Times to a candidate, and a big money (in kind) contribution to a ballot measure campaign.”

* Seattle Times Co. launches ad campaigns for GOP gubernatorial candidate, gay marriage (seattletimes.com)
* There’s nothing wrong with being an unrepentant GOP news outlet, but… (thestranger.com)

Read what McKenna’s opponent says about the Times ad after the jump. Read More

(Graphic via theatlanticwire.com)

New York Times Magazine editor Hugo Lindgren says: “In light of his recent comments on Twitter, Andrew [Goldman] will not be contributing the Talk column to the Magazine for four weeks, beginning Oct. 28. He’ll be back with the column after that.”

* NYT suspends Andrew Goldman (capitalnewyork.com) | (atlanticwire.com)
* After Twitter outburst, NYT reinforces its social media rules (nytimes.com)

Anti-fracking activist Sharon Wilson — “likely the only person in Texas who gets paid for helping Texans who are negatively effected by oil and gas development” — tips Romenesko readers off to Hearst Connecticut Media Group’s ban on the word fracking in the comments section.

In an email to Wilson, executive producer Mickelson acknowledges that “there is nothing unsettling about the word ‘fracking,’ and it is an important issue in current events [but] that doesn’t stop others from using the term inappropriately in an entirely different context.”

Wilson’s reaction: “Fracking is a real word. It is used by real — often angry — people to describe impacts to their vital natural resources, health and long-term well-being. …Banning all comments using the word fracking effectively prevents a large segment of the populace from exercising their First Amendment right.”

Wilson tells me she hasn’t come across any other comment sections that ban the word.

(Here’s what Urban Dictionary says about fracking.)

* New fracking ban in the U.S. (texassharon.com)

UPDATE: Sharon Wilson sends this follow-up:

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Mickelson, Brett wrote:

Sharon,

It was a technical issue tied to anti-profanity screening. It has been fixed to allow the word “fracking” to appear in our comments section. It was never a policy here or elsewhere at Hearst.

Thank you.

Brett Mickelson
Executive Producer
Hearst Connecticut Media Group

University of Missouri journalism professor Yong Volz and Chinese University journalism professor Francis Lee examined biographies of all 814 Pulitzer winners from 1917 to 2010 and found that “the majority of the 113 female Pulitzer Prize winners enjoyed access to greater resources than the average male winner.”

Beyond talent and hard work, majoring in journalism, earning a graduate degree from a prestigious institution such as an Ivy League university, a metropolitan upbringing, and employment with an elite publication such as the New York Times were among the things females needed to achieve this highest professional recognition. Male winners have not necessarily had to possess such high qualifications in order to win.

The professors found that only 27% of Pulitzer winners since 1991 were females, while newsrooms are about 33% female.

“Volz saw an increase of female winners after the 1950s through the 1980s,” says Missouri’s release on the study, “but those winners were more likely to have higher credentials compared to their male counterparts in order to compensate for gender disadvantage. For women who did not possess additional qualifications, however, they had a better chance to win a Pulitzer only when working in teams and/or working on local reporting and in-depth reporting.”

Any thoughts from Pulitzer winners …. and readers still hoping to grab the big prize?

* Female Pulitzer Prize winners require higher qualifications (missouri.edu)
* Earlier: Volz and Lee examine international reporting Pulitzer winners (sagepub.com)
* April 16, 2012: Newsroom smiles on Pulitzer day (jimromenesko.com)

h/t Corey Levitan

I’ve asked Examiner.com if it wants to explain this headline.

* Las Vegas champaigns anti-bullying effort (examiner.com)

ALSO: A Romenesko reader writes after seeing the photo caption below: “I guess some people just don’t qualify to be mentioned in Forbes.” (Or Forbes doesn’t know who they are?)

At the Philadelphia Inquirer, “the sudden reassignment of this group of people, all of whom are of a certain age and have a certain length of service with the company, raises an eyebrow,” says the local guild president. “And we will monitor the new assignments and the situations, and the demands that are placed on these employees.”

Theater critic Howie Shapiro, initially reassigned to South Jersey, has taken the buyout and says that he understands the paper’s need to focus shrinking resources where readers demand. …

Shapiro, who says that he was enticed by the buyout rather than scared off by the reassignment, doesn’t think he was targeted because of his 64 years. Indeed, the theater critic position will be eliminated entirely.

* Reporters mull age bias complaint against Philadelphia Inquirer (citypaper.net)
* Oct. 1: Inquirer memo outlines coverage changes prompted by readership study (jimromenesko.com)

Kristina O’Neill (image via intothegloss.com)

Kristina O’Neill is leaving Harper’s Bazaar to become editor of WSJ. Magazine. She’ll report to Ruth Altchek, who has been named to the newly created role of editorial director for WSJ Weekend, overseeing the Off Duty lifestyle section and WSJ. Magazine.

The Journal says:

As the number two editor at Harper’s Bazaar, Ms. O’Neill helped drive the magazine’s editorial vision and direction. She was instrumental in more than a decade of designer coverage, collaborated with storied writers and photographers, oversaw brand extensions and was an integral part of the critically acclaimed March 2012 redesign.

O’Neill replaces Deborah Needleman, who was recently named editor of New York Times’ T magazine. The Times says its new T editor’s first issue comes out Feb. 17.

Read the release after the jump. Read More

Awesome juxtaposition of bylines on the @nytimes home page. #fishgutting twitter.com/jackhealyNYT/s…

— jack healy (@jackhealyNYT) October 17, 2012