Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=1&nid=5367

Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry

September 29, 2004
The Crawford newspaper’s support of Senator Kerry in the race for president is creating quite a backlash in the small town. Crawford residents talked Wednesday about the effect they claim this opinion piece is having on their town.

The phone at Crawford's Chamber of Commerce is ringing off the hook with people calling mad about the editorial that ran in the Lone Star Iconoclast newspaper endorsing John Kerry and they're blaming Crawford.

"You want people to come to your town and put money into your economy and than you dare to endorse John Kerry in your local newspaper."

Joe Cuff with the Crawford Chamber of Commerce says, "Some people don't understand the article and what it was about. They're thinking it was the people of Crawford that was behind this."

But they're not. The editorial was the opinion of Iconoclast owner Leon Smith and his editorial board. Smith says, despite what many people in Crawford think, he never intended his editorial to speak for Crawford.

Dorothy Spanos, a local business owner, doesn't buy that.

"I think he knew exactly what he was doing and he chose a time when national media was in town," she says. She believes the editorial was to drum-up publicity.

"This was really a blow because we support that paper,” she says. “We advertised in that paper."

And it may be a blow to Crawford's economy. Some Bush supporters say they're canceling their trips, making some Crawford residents worry that their annual festival this weekend may suffer as well.

But resident say they aren't taking this lying down.

"We're mad and yes, we like our president,” Spanos says. “We will fight."

"The people of Crawford are not behind it, don't support it and will be getting Crawford a new newspaper," Cuff says.

Smith says some people have started to pull their ads from his paper and cancel their subscriptions, while others have signed up to get the paper.

My favorite quote: "You want people to come to your town and put money into your economy and than you dare to endorse John Kerry in your local newspaper."

Follow your conscience? Over the economics of "the president came from here, come see"? For shame.

wickerman · 10-13-2004, 09:15 AM

Am I missing something? It's an EDITORIAL, are those people too stupid to realize that?

IceCold · 10-13-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerman

Am I missing something? It's an EDITORIAL, are those people too stupid to realize that?

An editorial by their newspaper. If their newspaper doesn't represent the opinions of their subscribers, then I would certainly expect the subscribers to do something about it...

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

An editorial by their newspaper. If their newspaper doesn't represent the opinions of their subscribers, then I would certainly expect the subscribers to do something about it...

I'd expect readership to fluctuate, at least. But to have the Chamber of Commerce say that the paper's on the way out for publishing an unpopular opinion in an editorial... whoo.

wickerman · 10-13-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

the opinion of Iconoclast owner Leon Smith and his editorial board

Seems to me it's Leon Smith's newspaper, not the towns. If that's the case, he can print whatever opinion he pleases on HIS editorial page. If his readers don't like it they can protest with letters of their own or by not buying his paper.

I'm still not quite sure how this is news worthy. Newspapers consistently print editorial content that is not necessarily the opinion of the town in which they're located. Our society is in sad shape.

*Disclaimer: I am deeply sorry if the above in any way contradicted the personal opinions of those reading it. Please disregard my opinion and feel free to replace it with your own if mine in any way differs from what you personally deem as "right and just". I freely give up my right to express myself if there is the slightest possible chance anyone could be offended or if anyone might be made to feel accountable for their own actions. I will also willingly convert to whatever religion you think I should and will devote the rest of my life and my personal finances to supporting your own personal views.

IceCold · 10-13-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerman

Seems to me it's Leon Smith's newspaper, not the towns. If that's the case, he can print whatever opinion he pleases on HIS editorial page. If his readers don't like it they can protest with letters of their own or by not buying his paper.

Umm, isn't that what they're doing?

wickerman · 10-13-2004, 04:27 PM

I just don't see how it's news worthy. I also think the protestors are overreacting:

Quote:

You want people to come to your town and put money into your economy and than you dare to endorse John Kerry in your local newspaper.

That's an extreme overreaction, "you dare" - like the editor doesn't have a right to his opinion.

Quote:

Some people don't understand the article and what it was about.

Then those people are idiots, why worry about them?

Quote:

She believes the editorial was to drum-up publicity

Future rocket scientist here. OF COURSE it's about publicity. It's a freakin newspaper. they die if people don't talk about it and read it.

And the most extreme and strikingly unconstitutional-sounding

Quote:

The people of Crawford are not behind it, don't support it and will be getting Crawford a new newspaper

Translation: "We'll get a paper we can control that only prints things we agree with." .

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerman

That's an extreme overreaction, "you dare" - like the editor doesn't have a right to his opinion.

Why does the (liberal) editor have a right to his opinion but the (conservative) people who disagree with that opinion and choose not to hand him their money are "idiots"?

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Why does the (liberal) editor have a right to his opinion but the (conservative) people who disagree with that opinion and choose not to hand him their money are "idiots"?

Oh, idiots have a right to their opinion too, leejo.

I wouldn't be around otherwise.

It's not just that they choose not to hand over their money for the paper; it's that somehow, the readership took great offense at an editorial; to the point where they're calling for the death of the paper based on an unpopular opinion found within.

I'd just as soon blast liberals for doing the same thing to a traditionally liberal paper. But lucky me, I don't have to. :P

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 05:25 PM

Well people in a town are entitled to strong feelings about things. If a local paper here ran an editorial about how terrible UT is and everyone should pull for the Sooners, that editor would be run out on a rail.

It would be nice, I guess, if people could spout off any dumb thought without any consequence at all, but most of us learn pretty quick that the 1st amendment may protect us from government reprisals (i.e. people calling Bush a liar, nazi, murderer, etc.) but the 1st amendment does not protect us from employers' and customers' opinions. There ARE consequences for actions.

wickerman · 10-13-2004, 10:35 PM

Sure there are consquences, that's not the point. The point is that these conservative A-holes have the audacity to FAULT the paper for an opinion piece. It's not enough for them to disagree, they have the short-sightedness to actually blame the editor for an opinion simply because it differs from theirs. They have EVERY right not to purchase the paper AND to post differing opinions. EVERY right. What they do not have the right to do is claim some moral high-ground as if their opinion is in any way better than that of the editor.

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 11:02 PM

Sure they do. The editor is claiming the moral high ground in his editorial. You're claiming the moral high ground in your position. That's the name of the game, hombre.

wickerman · 10-14-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

You're claiming the moral high ground in your position.

I guess it's a slippery slope. Each side is entitled to their opinion, but neither should be entitled to fault the other side for having an opinion that differs from theirs, which is a type of enfringment on their right to an opinion. I'm actually hard pressed to come up with an argument for either side's position that doesn't slide down the same slope. I think the reason I find the townspeople's reaction particularly distasteful is that it's the "I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality and I loathe that.

**leejo** · 10-14-2004, 11:28 AM

See and I take it as a lesson in not crapping where you eat.

10-13-2004, 09:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
wickerman Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 230	Re: Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry Am I missing something? It's an EDITORIAL, are those people too stupid to realize that? __________________

10-13-2004, 05:25 PM	#10 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry Well people in a town are entitled to strong feelings about things. If a local paper here ran an editorial about how terrible UT is and everyone should pull for the Sooners, that editor would be run out on a rail. It would be nice, I guess, if people could spout off any dumb thought without any consequence at all, but most of us learn pretty quick that the 1st amendment may protect us from government reprisals (i.e. people calling Bush a liar, nazi, murderer, etc.) but the 1st amendment does not protect us from employers' and customers' opinions. There ARE consequences for actions.

10-13-2004, 10:35 PM	#11 (permalink)
wickerman Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 230	Re: Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry Sure there are consquences, that's not the point. The point is that these conservative A-holes have the audacity to FAULT the paper for an opinion piece. It's not enough for them to disagree, they have the short-sightedness to actually blame the editor for an opinion simply because it differs from theirs. They have EVERY right not to purchase the paper AND to post differing opinions. EVERY right. What they do not have the right to do is claim some moral high-ground as if their opinion is in any way better than that of the editor. __________________

10-13-2004, 11:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry Sure they do. The editor is claiming the moral high ground in his editorial. You're claiming the moral high ground in your position. That's the name of the game, hombre.

10-14-2004, 11:28 AM	#14 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry See and I take it as a lesson in not crapping where you eat.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Opinion article from local paper	phyllis	The Sandbox	150	10-14-2004 11:05 AM
The Kerryness of Kerry	leejo	The Sandbox	3	09-27-2004 10:03 PM
Carnac The Magnificent sees a long fall for JF Kerry	leejo	The Sandbox	3	09-14-2004 06:35 PM
That's gonna leave a mark!	leejo	The Sandbox	115	09-06-2004 10:18 PM
Kerry waffles on illegal aliens...	CingularDuality	The Sandbox	2	07-03-2004 08:58 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links