Posted on 11/07/2004 7:07:48 AM PST by johnny7
As Democrats resign themselves to four more years with George Bush in the White House, one beleaguered newspaper is discovering the consequences of taking on the President in his own backyard.
The Lone Star Iconoclast, in Crawford, Texas, where Mr Bush has a ranch, usually covers high school football games and local court cases. But a week ago, in an editorial misjudgment of staggering proportions, the newspaper - circulation 920 - decided to endorse John Kerry in the race for the White House. Readers, wrote the paper's editor, Leon Smith, "should not rate the candidate by his home town or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country". President Bush, he continued, "has let us down" on Iraq and the economy. His words did little to sway the electorate, and the President held Texas with ease. But the Iconoclast's readers, many of whom profit from the regular visits of tourists, journalists and the occasional world leader to Crawford, are furious.
The newspaper has been flooded with angry letters, readers are boycotting it and shops refusing to stock it. Mr Smith is considering pulling out of town. "The hate mail hasn't stopped," he said. "There have been about 2000 letters in all, from Crawford and the rest of our circulation area. We knew some people wouldn't like it, but the vehemence of the reaction has been extraordinary. People just glare at me in the street." The Kerry endorsement was a bold move for a paper dependent on local advertising income. Road signs around Crawford proclaim the area to be "Bush Country". Shops sell Bush badges, Bush mugs and Bush T-shirts. About 80 per cent of Crawford's 700 residents are declared Bush supporters. Almost all, it seems, have penned an angry letter to The Lone Star Iconoclast. Advertising revenue has collapsed and football coaches are refusing to allow reporters to cover their matches.
But while local readership of the Iconoclast has halved, its now-famous editorial has attracted new subscribers from Barcelona, Toronto and Dublin. Despite his plummeting circulation and the ostracism of his reporters, Mr Smith has no regrets. "We did that editorial based on principle," he said.
This week, the Iconoclast is working on an election conspiracy theory, involving possible tampering with electronic voting machines in Florida and Ohio.
Could you point me to where the Constitution says that? They can publish anything they like, but there is no "right of access", nor "right to readership". There is also no right to be free of the consequences of our decisions, which this editor is now discovering.
No, because I never once claimed that it could be found in the constitution. You're only the eleventyleventh person to put such words in my mouth.
The paper doesn't have to share the community's opinion to be a legitimate member of the press. But in this case, the staff of the paper made a decision to thumb its nose at the community. In the free marketplace of ideas, if the paper wants to take such a position, it must face the consequences. In the DFW area we have a couple of mostly leftist publications (the Dallas Observer and the Fort Worth Weekly) that are pretty entertaining. It is pretty easy to find them on the "free" racks at book stores, gas stations and convenience stores, bars, and other places. These are both "underground" tabloid type papers that are distributed for free and rely primarily on advertisements for erectile implants, personal dating ads, escort services, adult video stores, etc. for their revenues. I would not consider either of these papers to be "legitimate" media -- not because they have a different opinion but rather because they marginalize themselves by the market niche they attempt to serve. The Iconoclast seems to have sought out some underserved niche of counter-culture types in Crawford, and has thus similarly marginalized itself.
Aww, c'mon. My post was only #163. We've a ways to go to get to eleventyleven.
Funny you should mention that. I love the Observer. It far outshines the Dallas Morning News in many areas. The Observer's restaurant guide for one, can't be beat. I've never seen the Fort Worth Weekly, but then I'm in Garland, a long way from Ft. Forth.
I like the Observer too. It is very entertaining, one of life's "guilty pleasures". However, I wouldn't consider it part of the "legitimate press" and wouldn't give it press credentials at a sporting event or any other serious event. I consider it pretty much a leftist tabloid that is fun to read but not to be taken seriously -- sort of like the Iconoclast.
That sounds like genuine interference with the press. Press is supposed to have equal access, and this is obviously in violation of that.Interference with the press? What is that supposed to mean? There is no guarantee that just because you consider yourself part of "the press" that you will be free from "interference", especially if you deem the freedom of organizations to choose who will be granted credentials to cover their events (sounds kind of like the freedom of association clause) as "interference".
Equal access? Again, what do you mean by this? That everyone identifying themselves as part of "the press" has some inalienable right to "equal access"?
Violation? How is refusal to grant them interviews or access to cover the games a "violation" and of what principle -- "equal access"?
You claim that people are putting words in your mouth and responding to comments you didn't make, but it sounds to me like people are responding to the words you did choose to use.
Ok, let's look at that. Put aside whether you agree with the statement, or whether you think I'm wrong. Do you see a constitutional reference in there anywhere? I don't. I don't even see how anyone could read the slightest constitutional inference into that statement. Now go back through the replies and count the posts to me that begin with, "Show me where in the constitution...."
If that's not putting words into my mouth, I don't know what is. I wouldn't mind posts that were just disagreeing with mine. I'm married, I know all about disagreement. It's being repeatedly asked to defend what I didn't write that's galling me.
So you didn't say it was a constitutional issue. I grant you that. But the statement "... this is obviously in violation of that" implies that you feel there is a principle being violated. The other posters INFERRED from your implication that some principle was being violated that you were talking about a constitutional principle (presumably since the press is forever touting certain limited aspects of the first amendment while ignoring others, not to mention completely disregarding the second amendment). Again, I ask my original question(s) back to you: What do you mean by "interference with the press" and what exactly is this obvious violation violating? If the other posters were incorrect in inferring that you meant a constitutional principle was being violated, then what is the issue that you meant was being violated? While I understand your irritation, I wouldn't characterize an incorrect inference of your words as "putting words in your mouth".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.