This is what we're fighting for
Oct. 9th, 2004 11:01 amThe Iconoclast, the paper in Crawford, Texas where, Our Fearless Leader, keeps his Vacation Home, recently endorsed Kerry. They said, in light of the present situation (economy, terrorism, international goodwill) Kerry would be a better choice for president.
Honestly, my reaction (apart from a certain schadenfruede, that Bush's hometown paper came out against him) was, mostly, so what. It's a small town paper. It's in Bush Country, and I count that as all to the good... but it ain't gonna cause Bush to lose in Texas.
Then I saw this editorial
It seems that having the, "wrong," opinion matters.
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....
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....
Unfortunately, for the Iconoclast and its publishers there have been threats — big ones including physical harm.
It goes on. They have published some 700 pieces of e-mail, pro and con, on their web-site Iconoclast, and I am going to head that way and read them.
This is bad... very bad.
Honestly, my reaction (apart from a certain schadenfruede, that Bush's hometown paper came out against him) was, mostly, so what. It's a small town paper. It's in Bush Country, and I count that as all to the good... but it ain't gonna cause Bush to lose in Texas.
Then I saw this editorial
It seems that having the, "wrong," opinion matters.
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....
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....
Unfortunately, for the Iconoclast and its publishers there have been threats — big ones including physical harm.
It goes on. They have published some 700 pieces of e-mail, pro and con, on their web-site Iconoclast, and I am going to head that way and read them.
This is bad... very bad.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 07:56 pm (UTC)Sheesh.