Free speech for some.

My local paper is trumpeting their commitment to free speech today:

Our editorial opinions are crafted by our editorial board, whose members live and work in this community. We publish the views of our Community Editorial Board and our new Youth Community Editorial Board, citizens at large. Our pages are open to the reasonable views of all, including those who differ vociferously with our editorials. The right to free expression and a free press demands room for all these voices.

A year ago I was a member of their community Editorial Board. I wrote something that politely disagreed with the publisher. The editor explained that even though I made a good point the publisher refused to print it.

Here’s what I wrote:

Record publisher Fred Kuntz, wondering why we can’t attract the kind of investment that Silicon Valley or Boston do, suggested that we had a branding problem. I respectfully disagree, having lived and worked in both Boston and Santa Clara. Those areas consist of many small yet competitive towns that co-exist without any sharing of services at all. It is that collection of towns – that area – that attracts people because of its diversity. It offers different things for different people, just as Waterloo Region does.

Here’s what they printed:

I’ve lived and worked in both Boston and Santa Clara in Silicon Valley. Those areas consist of many small, yet competitive towns that co-exist without any sharing of services at all. It is that collection of towns – that area – that attracts people because of its diversity. It offers different things for different people, just as Waterloo Region does.

Their commitment to free speech didn’t seem all that strong then. Fortunately, free speech no longer depends on ownership of printing presses.

Technorati:

Powered by Bleezer

3 thoughts on “Free speech for some.

  1. To me, that just looks like good editing. You say you disagree about there being a branding problem, but what follows doesn’t address that. Maybe if someone had just read Kuntz’s piece they would see the connection, but on its own, it doesn’t connect.

    If you had gone on to discuss branding, then it might have been a questionable edit. But you don’t mention branding at all, ouside of the sentence they took out.

  2. To me it had nothing to do with ‘good editiing’ at all, but the fact of disagreement.

    This is just another attempt for the media ‘priesthood’ to exercise its dwindling influence.

  3. Careful reproducing any content from the Wreckord – they’ll be after you!
    :)

Leave a Reply