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.
Which is why the likes of Salem-News.com is so essential.
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.
Maybe the old dog can relearn some tricks from the new dog.
Time will tell.
Controlled Conversation Equates to Censorship at Salem NewspaperSalem-News.com