Town takes revenge on paper that backed Kerry

The Age ^ | November 8, 2004 | By Julian Coman

[Melas]

It has gotten rather imaginative.

[LexBaird]

Press is supposed to have equal access,

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.

[Melas]

Could you point me to where the Constitution says that?

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.

[VRWCmember]

However, I'm troubled by the idea that a paper, or anyone else for that matter, has to share my opinion in order to be a "a legitmate member of the press in that community."

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.

[LexBaird]

You're only the eleventyleventh person to put such words in my mouth.

Aww, c'mon. My post was only #163. We've a ways to go to get to eleventyleven.

[Melas]

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.

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.

[VRWCmember]

Funny you should mention that. I love the Observer.

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.

[VRWCmember]

I think your statement that seems to be giving everyone heartburn here is this:

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.

[Melas]

I think your statement that seems to be giving everyone heartburn here is this: That sounds like genuine interference with the press. Press is supposed to have equal access, and this is obviously in violation of that.

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.

[VRWCmember]

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".