(no subject)

[asheris]

Last week the Lone Star Iconoclast of Crawford, Texas endorsed John Kerry for President.

As you can imagine, there was quite a reaction. Some subscriptions were cancelled, some advertising was cancelled - which they had expected that might be the case. Hundreds of letters, both pro and con, were received. Pretty standard for a potentially controversial editorial. In this week's editorial, they mention those issues.

They also describe the harrassment and threats of violence they have been dealing with. Something you would not expect in a civil society. An excerpt:

We expected that perhaps a few readers might cancel subscriptions, and maybe even ads, but have been amazed at a few of the more intense communications, some of which bordered on outright personal attacks and uncalled-for harassment.

We have been told by several avid Bush supporters that the days when newspapers publish editorials without personal repercussions are over. As publishers, we have printed editorials for decades, and have endorsed candidates, both Republican and Democrat. When Bush was endorsed four years ago, the Gore supporters did not respond with threats, nor did Democrats when we endorsed Reagan twice. Republicans did not threaten us personally or our business when we endorsed Carter and Clinton for their first terms.

In the past, when individuals disagreed with an editorial, they would write a letter to the editor politely expressing a different point of view in contrast to the views of the publishers, which we have usually published. Occasionally someone would cancel a subscription or an ad, but this was rare.

The goal of the editorial page has been to provide an arena for the expression of a variety of thoughtful opinions, some by the publishers, some by columnists, and some by our readers.
The new mode of operation, I am told, is that when a newspaper prints an editorial of which some sectors might disagree, the focus is now upon how to run the newspaper out of business. Out the window are the contributions the newspaper has made to the community in the past and the newspaper’s extensive investment in the community.

We do understand peoples’ rights to pull subscriptions and ads, and to express a differing opinion, but we have some trouble understanding threats and payback since in politics there are often a variety of options. For the publishers to herald one of the options should be no cause for persecution.

...

Too, some individuals are threatening innocent commercial concerns, claiming that if they advertise in The Iconoclast, they will be run out of business. We consider this improper in a democracy.

Several young members of our staff covering Tonkawa Traditions this past weekend were angrily harassed and threatened that they must leave, which cut short their ability to fully do their jobs and instilled in them considerable fear for their safety. These reporters had nothing to do with that editorial. They were part-time college students working to pay their way through school and better themselves.

Although several members of the community are upset at the newspaper, there are still those who want us to continue with local coverage as we have in the past. We do have concern for the safety of our staff, however, and find it troubling when they are bullied and cannot do their jobs.

(You can read the letters they've received.)

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

Interesting how this has blown up into a bigger issue than it warrants (at least that's how I see it). The article that this small town nespaper published wasn't exactly done in a polite way to the President, basically calling him a liar! It was designed to be inflammatory, and they got just that response (by way of emails etc). What did they expect?

It is wrong for anyone to be harrassed in their jobs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the paper exgerrated such claims. I am deeply suspicious of a paper that makes unsubstantiated allegations. I'm glad that people who object are voting with their feet so to speak, by moving away from the paper.

[asheris.livejournal.com]

How was their endorsement "not polite"? Not agreeing with someone does not automatically make you "not polite". Nor does laying out a case for why someone shouldn't be re-elected.

And a bigger question, why do you assume they're exaggerating their claims? From which you automatically jump to saying they're making "unsubstantiated allegations". Where is your evidence of such?


I sat and read several pages of the letters they received- I posted the link at the bottom of the excerpt from the editorial so other people could easily do the same. There are some real doozys in there.

Of the non-violent letters, there were a lot of people who think that it's utterly wrong to not support your hometown candidate (I guess you're supposed to ignore everything you know about them and just say hurrah because it's someone local), a couple "how DARE you distract our president with your disloyalty, he's such a busy man" topics, lots of "you will be run out of business". Quite a few "how dare you support the terrorists", "better get used to wearing a towel on your head and learn arabic", "you are traitors to America", etc.

Quite a lot of letters from people who apparently know jack shit about history. Some who think Kerry isn't "enough" generations removed from being an immigrant, one who claims Kerry's really a Jew (you can imagine what the rest of that one read like), and a few "well I'M doing better, so everybody must be doing better".

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

"why do you assume they're exaggerating their claims?" I didn't say that! I said it wouldn't surprise me if they did. Maybe they haven't.

The original article, that sparked off all this heated exchange with readers contained a lot of propaganda stuff like:


And the premise that Bush had a "smoke screened agenda" is plainly designed to inflame.

RE: the news staff harassment - Unsubstantiated is exactly what it is! Where is their evidence that it happened the way they said it did??

Unsubstantiated is exactly what it is! Where is their evidence that it happened the way they said it did?? Who harrassed who? Were there independent witnesses? Did the police deal with those incidents? Do we know?? Well we don't - therefore it is unsubstantiated!

I would agree though that some of the views expressed in those letters to the editor, that you highlighted, are very worrying.