Controlled Conversation Equates to Censorship at Salem Newspaper

Being right and speaking the truth is unpopular with the local paper's forum censor staff and their hand-picked participants.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Bill Church, executive editor of the Salem Statesman-Journal newspaper, today (Sunday Oct 14th, 2007) in the online edition let loose with another hypocritical screed defending the paper's inconsistent policy of censoring content and users of their SJ Forums section.

Mr. Church often piles praise upon the SJ Forums participants, but refuses to admit that the SJ Forums censor squads effectively mold and control that which occurs in those forums through subtle, and often quite non-subtle, means of intimidation, inconsistent moderation, and outright censorship.

Many people have been censored by the staff of the SJ Forums, such as censor-in-chief Kent Ecklor, for simply being right and speaking the truth when such was unpopular with the SJ Forums censor staff and their hand-picked forum participants. In his most recent screed Mr. Church lauds his users for being "vigilant about reporting spam, copyright violations and offensive comments. They understand that community forums are much like neighborhoods: different people sharing common ground."

What HE does not get is that common ground does not, and in a free society should not, mean common viewpoint. Spam is allowed all the time in the SJ Forums, so long as it is certain users who post their certain spam. Ad hominem attacks are commonplace and nothing is done when it is certain users making such attacks. But if others simply speak the accurate unvarnished truth, without any profanity at all, they get censored for not 'playing nice,' even though this ludicrous 'play nice' policy is clearly one-sided in its enforcement.

Maybe it should not matter. After all, as the Statesman-Journal points out, it is their sandbox.

However they are also a newspaper that is supposed to, allegedly, stand for free speech, not as a bastion of censorship. Also they laud their SJ Forums as some kind of accurate representation of the will of the local readership when in fact it is nothing but a molded and controlled caricature of one segment of the readership, since they try their best to silence anyone who does not play by their rules - rules they do not even play by themselves.

It would be one thing if they applied all their rules fairly and equally without bias, If they did not censor for content but instead merely excised that which was profane, illegal etc. But that is not what they do.

There is a core cadre of an attack pack in the users of SJ Forums who for whatever reason have been given carte blanche immunity to the posted rules who can attack any other users they wish and violate any rules they wish and if their targets still do not violate the posted rules the rules are twisted ridiculously so as to 'support' claims of rules violations. When this kind of insidious and disgusting censorious behavior is pointed out the censors do not argue their points legitimately because the have no points they can legitimately or credibly argue. They merely state their rulings are law and 'not up for discussion.'

How convenient for them. Like I said maybe it should not matter... but it does. It matters because they are a newspaper that gets a great many privileges from the first amendment and as such should be one of its staunchest defenders, not one of its staunchest opponents. It matters because rules should always be administered fairly. What is a rule for one should be a rule for all.

Whatever the rules are no one should be above the rules and all adjudicators of the rules should be not only able, but wiling, to defend their application of those rules if anyone challenges them on it.

It matters because the Statesman-Journal has through merger, etc, become the sole significant print news media in the Salem area and with that position of great power and influence comes great responsibility to be fair and objective. The Salem Statesman-Journal has been neither. It matters when Mr. Church puts out such slanted and self-serving bile that screams for a credible retort.

The Salem Statesman-Journal, especially in how ir runs (or ruins depending on your view I guess) its SJ Forums area, fails miserably on all counts unfortunately.

Which is why the existence of sites such as Salem-News.com are so important and imperative for the citizens of Salem, Oregon.

It is a place where another side of the story can be presented, In many cases it is the ONLY place a story is presented when the Salem Statesman-Journal staff decides to try and censor what the public sees by burying stories, or refusing to report on them, or when they so obviously attempt to railroad citizens such as Sterling Alexander, censoring those who speak out in his defense as they did so 'proudly' in the screed of Mr. Church's that this is in response to. Here is where the public can see the aforementioned credible retort.

I have pointed out these failings in the Statesman-Journal in general and their handling of the SJ Forums specifically many times in private emails to Mr. Church and others on the Statesman-Journal staff.

Unfortunately such reasonable efforts come to naught when those you send to merely toss anything that disagrees with their unreason into the bit bucket.

Every article here can be commented upon. Yes there is a delay as the editor views each post to make sure they are not laced with profanity, actionable threats etc. But far from being unreasonable censors, the editors pass through the vast majority of the posted comments, even (some might say especially) those specifically critical of the editor, or their position. You almost never see this in the Statesman-Journal and certainly never in the SJ Forums.

Circulation for the Salem Statesman-Journal continues to drop even though the local population increases while the viewership of Salem-News.com continues to grow in leaps an bounds.

Speaking the truth and being accurate and consistent, those are the hallmarks of good journalism. These are practiced here at Salem-News.com. They might have been practiced at the Salem Statesman-Journal at some point in history but clearly they are not any longer, which is unfortunate.

But at least the citizens of Salem, Oregon and elsewhere do have a place they can go to get the truth about the news without such blatant censorship.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Anonymous January 17, 2011 4:49 am (Pacific time)

out of curiosity what does the badge say under the censored bit? :) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

grayfox1930 October 16, 2007 10:45 am (Pacific time)

I must say I don't see SJ censorship to any significant degree. Maybe that is because I am a sweetheart but trust me, I am not. I do have a few themes that draw me to comment. The most important are law enforcement or the lack thereof and the related invasion of our country by illegal aliens with the (illegal IMHO) support of too many elected.

Henry Ruark October 16, 2007 6:25 am (Pacific time)

Grey et al: Yrs goes to heart of matter re responsibilities of press, friend Grey...and that's what's been missing all these years in SJ, as I have deep file to document. Was like-that during early years in Salem, much worse when I returned after 12 years in Chicago and other points. Good to hear from you again, too.

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 9:35 pm (Pacific time)

Grey - You may disagree with me but I appreciate you putting your views out there. Agreement is never required. I get my say, you get yours. It is what free speech is about. Something censors and closedminded trolls will never figure out unfortunately. Their loss. Ah well...

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 9:33 pm (Pacific time)

Eockin - Yup, it is clear they banned me because I could never lower myself intellectually or behaviorally to the level of the SJ Forums. I guess I will just have to live with the reality than I am above you and your kind. There will be tears over it but I will soldier on. Ah well...

Grey October 15, 2007 7:47 pm (Pacific time)

In a way I feel the same grumbling disappointment Neal feels and shared, especially concerning the SJ forums. Most of us jumped at the chance SJ gave us by designing and implimenting the forums. For people like me that wanted to use the Op'Ed section of the paper for getting our views out to our compatriots, we knew from experience that the Father Editors used considerable personal issue belief to approve or deny a letter. I know I felt relieved that even if I didn't get a "printed" letter to share with friends, I could at least post a view on a story or idea. I noticed after several posts that the foul mouthed, un-educated beat-nik wanna-be's held sway over the board and a legitimate view was spanked with peppers of vulgar speech and vile diatribes. If SJ truly wanted a "public" forum where everyone, no matter what the subject, could leave their name carved on the tree, there would absolutely no censorship, except where it crossed the line of decency and criminally liable speech.

Neal, you've written things I will never agree with, but I understand the level of your frustration with a system that used to adhere to the First Amendment values it was written for. Right, Left, Centrist, Anarchist, Atheist, Agnostic, you name it---the writing that was on the wall is now white-washed in the parlors of editorial privilege. I would guess that is one of the foundation reasons people love their blogs. At least censorship there is self motivated.

Oh, and Hank, it's been awhile since I was here, but it's nice to view a post of yours too :-)

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 7:11 pm (Pacific time)

Pam - not sure where you get emotional diatribe from... but apparently tyour 'ten years' has bot taught you the difference between commentary and news report. If you mean something else then it is clear that your 'ten years' has taught you nothing about clarity. So I will consider the source. As for Night Owl, pretty weak and pathetic ad hominem. How typical of your type. No more need really be said regarding your nonsense. Ah well...

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 6:42 pm (Pacific time)

Pam" Commentary is NOT "news" but opinion built on experience and study. NtOwl: Which one do you flee from this time ?

Rockin October 15, 2007 6:30 pm (Pacific time)

now I see why the SJ banned ya Neil

Night Owl October 15, 2007 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

Well its nice to see Neal have a new home. Its the only internet asylum that will take him.

Pam October 15, 2007 6:12 pm (Pacific time)

I am not impressed by your emotional diatribe. The S-J has its problems, but as a journalist with 10 years of experience, I can say that the way you present your "news" leaves a great deal to be desired.

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 2:58 pm (Pacific time)

mrjoe - I take you at your word and appreciate your candor. I never expect everyone to agree with me (even when I am right lol) but so long as they honestly weigh the facts that is all I really expect of folks (and am disappointed with humanity with how often that is not done). Thanks again. Ah well...

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

MrJoe: Thanks for your sensible action re subscription and also for your courageous final endorsements...rationality and reason prevail for both.

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 1:41 pm (Pacific time)

MrJoe - that may be... nativesalemite was/is an idiot. No real other way to accurately state it. But the lies, misrepresentations, revisionist history and crap I even see over there in the thread related to this article persist to this day. My life went on quite nicely while the attack pack over there consistently obsessed about me. I find it hilarious actually. Truth will out. They can censor their forums but the SJ censor squads nor the little attack pack can silence the truth no matter how hard they try. And they just do not seem to realize that the more extreme they have to get in their attempts the more they undermine any such attempts. I see it clearly as do many others. I guess if someone is bound and determined not to get a clue that is their problem. Ah well...

mrjoe October 15, 2007 1:40 pm (Pacific time)

And fwiw, I do agree with many of the points that you make in your article here. While I don't believe that 'freedom of speech' exists on most forum boards, and that there is a need for 'mods'(porno spam from a previous poster is an excellent example for the need of a mod), your points about inconsistencies in the SJ's stance and moderation on certain types of posts are very valid ones. Despite the supposed 'company that I keep', I have a very dim overall view of the SJ, and the way that it runs it's forums, and it's newspaper, for the most part. Part of the reason why my subscription is down to Sunday only, and it's not going to even be that for much longer. So, despite my first smart assed comments, I do agree with many of the points and statements made in your article concerning the SJ.

mrjoe October 15, 2007 1:18 pm (Pacific time)

I think you can probably thank Nativesalemite for your celebrity status on the Sound Off forums, as he claimed that about 75% of the posters that joined after Silver was banned were actually you in disguise. I, myself, had the dubious fortune of being Neal for awhile.

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 1:00 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel - what more can be said? ROFL! Ah well...

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 12:27 pm (Pacific time)

MrJoe - it is more with the company you keep I guess. Ah well...

Daniel October 15, 2007 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

It looks like you have your own little group of followers Neil, they hang on your every word so they can attack it. Some paint you larger than life.. just think years down the road they will be telling stories about you. Who knows, you may even gain Chuck Noris status. "I remember when Neil flamed a dozen people with one word..." :-)

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 12:05 pm (Pacific time)

Bam - you seem to have a good handle on it. lol Ah well...

mrjoe October 15, 2007 11:58 am (Pacific time)

Neal, I'm curious as to why you lump me into this supposed "attack pack" that you speak of, in regards to your postings at the Urinal Forums? I joined those forums just before the final days of Silverstorm. I don't think that I even commented directly to any of your postings back then, as I was mainly just reading. In fact, shortly after Silverstorm was banned, nativesalemite accused me of being you for about the next 6 months....I guess it had something to do with the timing of my joining the forums. Anyways, just making sure that you're not confusing me with someone else.

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 11:46 am (Pacific time)

MrJoe - I've never needed sock puppets, but those who keep accusing seem to do so because that is what they do. I have never posted to any forum under more than one identity at a time. That is what sock puppets are. But it amuses me that you are so incapable of thinking anyone might agree with me that they must be sock puppets. It is so sad. Ah well...

Henry Ruark October 15, 2007 11:33 am (Pacific time)

To all: Thirty years of documentation and experience with Letters et al at SJ backs up necessities for Neal's efforts. Many examples of SJ "errors" uncorrected, changes-made and denied, documentations refused but never rebutted, protracted delayed-response, et al, et al, et al. But that's Gannett-pattern as seen (AND reported in the profession) nationally, now and for past decades. Damage to reader understanding also damage to role dailies must play in any democracy.

bamboozler October 15, 2007 11:00 am (Pacific time)

From what I gathered (I didn't subject myself to the entire kerfawful) but what I saw was a bunch of people get really upset at Neal because he was challenging some of their thinking. He had material to back up his assertions and it bugged the half-baked, penny-pinching 'nativesalemite' thinking. I think Neal gets a certain measure of satisfaction out of 'grilling' people he believes need it. After he left he got accused of everything but kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. dp

mrjoe October 15, 2007 10:19 am (Pacific time)

My apologies. I didn't realize that the Statesman Urinal Forums had gotten under your skin so much.

Paul October 15, 2007 2:11 am (Pacific time)

Glad to see they're so anxious to get rid of differing opinions, but yet they'd rather let the forums fill up with porn.

Neal Feldman October 15, 2007 12:19 am (Pacific time)

Oh and just checked the SJ Forums thread to see the lies and revisionist history presented there. I never abused anyone but was the subject of quite a lot of abuse. No biggie as I can handle it. I woud be interested to hear of these 'veiled threats' I allegedly made against anyone because I never threatened anyone veiled or otherwise, thinly or otherwise. But the dishonesty and revisionist history game is one the attack pack knows well. FoJ was not me nor were the dozen or so others falsely accused of it. It seems any time someone says something similar to something I may have said that person was instantly me. This of course ignored all the carbon coppy tirades which of course were all distinct individuals, Go figure. As for my use of the word screed I use it when applicable, appropriate and accurate. Anyone not familiar with the term is fully welcome to look it up as it has a set definition. But it is not surprising to see the ol attack pack resorting to the same BS now they used then. Their selection of tactics seems quite limited indeed so it is clear I'm really not missing much not being there. I find their pathetic mewlings quite amusing and even more so when I know how much my amusement gets their blood pressure up. But the truth will out as it has. Once the SJ censors lost their power to control. Poor babies whatever will they do? But I almost laughed up a lung when someone commented in their forum that the SJ Forums were uncensored. Oh that was rich! I forget who it was who said it but it made my entire day! Ah well...

Neal Feldman October 14, 2007 11:49 pm (Pacific time)

Oh, and for the record I was banned for seeing stupid things said by idiots and stating the stupid things were stupid and made the idiots saying them look like idiots. No profanity and in no way violating a single rule of the forums as I pointed out in detail to the censors at the time who finally just said, literally, that I was in violation because they said I was and that it was not up for debate. You gotta love those petty little egos in positions of authority who cannot seem to help themselves abusing said authority. They really dislike it when such is pointed out to them in irrefutable form. The fact that they never banned those in the attack pack who HAVE violated rules against profanity, real world threats, ad hominem attacks etc also proves everything I've said clearly and completely as well. No better proof than clearly observable reality I always say. LOL. Ah well...

Neal Feldman October 14, 2007 11:42 pm (Pacific time)

MrJoe et al - No chip on my shoulder. I guess your ilk in the lil attack pack just hate the truth... and hate it even more when your pet censors cannot silence those who speak the truth you wish silenced. I could post on SJ Forums any time I wished as spoofing IP and MAC addresses is no real challenge. My point is why bother? The fact that anyone might have to do so just to speak the truth there is clear and absolute proof of the censorship that goes on there which reduces the relevance of the SJ Forums to nil. Why would I waste that much effort in such a zero credibility area? I merely point out the truth of it. Sure, I had three account names there.. silverstorm, lazarus and censorresistant. I hid nothing, just saw no relevance to mentioning it. I found it amusing as all get out each time anyone disagreed with the attack pack they were accused of being me and purged. Your ilk just cannot handle those who speak honestly and back up their positions with logic, reason and fact instead of logical fallacies, sophistry and schoolyard bullying tactics. So enjoy your toxic little pond and I will continue to enjoy the truth about it. What was it they said about he who laughs last? Ah well...

Mrjoe October 14, 2007 10:51 pm (Pacific time)

You're running sock puppets here, too? Gotta love it. Have fun, Neal, in your new digs.

Former SJ poster October 14, 2007 10:16 pm (Pacific time)

I thought "banning" only happened to a person once. You guys seem to be the ones with a chip on your shoulder! Couldn't you do better Muck (love that name) than to post an open innuendo like that, "if they only knew part"? That is weak! Geez, go get 'em Neal, they hate that you have their number it seems?

MrJoe October 14, 2007 10:02 pm (Pacific time)

Got a slight chip on your shoulder, there, Neal? Imagine that.

Muck October 14, 2007 8:21 pm (Pacific time)

If only they knew, Neal. You missed the part where you were banned three times, and it sure wasn't about censorship.

[Return to Top]