Having recently being "Terminated" by the co editor's, without any explanation, I am using this venue
to share my thoughts with the rest of the community, as to whether they feel our paper is biased in
many respects....One particular individual found the word "G-d" inappropriate and requested it be
removed from any and all articles(it was)..One co editor, due to a clash with an individual, refuses to accept
any articles for insertion into the paper..It would seem to me, one has to seperate one's self from their
professional and personal positions...after all, they do not OWN the paper..they are only the
Current care taker's...they too will be replaced.. in time to come..
To my knowledge, whether it be the Palm Beach Post, New York Times, etc., prints
ALL OF THE NEWS.....ALL political points of view.... which of course does NOT appear in
our UCO Reporter.. We have unfortunately gone through this before, I believe this practice
must be reversed. \
Bettie L Bleckman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is a very hard thing to keep a newspaper unbiased, although I agree it is a worthy goal. Who among us does not have opinions about things? And don't we agree that some opinions are better than others?
ReplyDeleteWe read certain editorials because we have come to respect the opinions of certain editors, or at least in general agree with them. And the reverse is true.
Opinion pieces are just that: the opinions of writers.
To what extent can those who make the decisions about what to publish keep things equal? And is that always desirable? In our US politics, unless you are a right-wing or left-wing newspaper, you try to report equally on what the Republicans and Democrats say. What kind of space, however, should you give a splinter party? Or some "off the wall" candidate? Or say, a spokesperson for a Fascist party?
I don't know how (unless he or she knows the inner workings of a newspaper) one can know the New York Times, the Palm Beach Post, or the Wall Street Journal prints "all of the news" and "all political points of view." To my way of thinking, the first two lean to the left, and the third leans to the right.
And what of someone who threatens an editor to the point the editor (rightly or wrongly) actually is in fear of physical harm? Do you think that editor—NY Times or otherwise—will go on merrily printing what that person submits? I don't, nor do I think the editor should. The only way one could know this with regard to the Times, the Post and the Journal would be to be a behind-the-scenes person involved with that publication.
But should we strive to be as impartial as possible IN GENERAL? Yes. There are newspapers that do this, and they are to be commended.
The newspaper staff are doing an excellent job with FACTS and following their policy of not allowing, gossip, innuendo, nasty and inflammatory remarks, etc.
ReplyDeleteUCO is a secular organization neutral on matters of religion.
Writing about god beliefs will be offensive to many people, and unnecessary in our paper.
ElaineB: Regardless, the Reporter, "Our Community" Paper,
ReplyDeletewas created to reflect the views of owner/residents of THIS Community...all of them....
provided they were presented in a
Respectful fashion.
The Article I referred to which you have no knowldege of, had nothing to do with one's belief's
but ended with a commonly used expression...If in fact there are those that are offended, perhaps they should find another Country
or use Credit cards only, as OUR
Currency reflects the words
"In G-d we Trust"
Lanny
ReplyDeletePersonal threats do not belong anywhere, I agree and should have been reported to PBSO, however whether an individual likes or dislikes the writer,the article
should be published providing it
does not vilify another individual.
and space permits...
Once more,they are only the caretaker's..not the Owner,which as you well know is all of us!
The money I carry says "In God We Trust" not g-d
ReplyDeleteBob, my dear, The money I carry reflects the same statement, however people of my faith do not fully
ReplyDeletespell the word...for that would be
taking the Lord's name in vain...
It can be verified...