Friday, November 10, 2006

If I owned the newspaper

Tonight is a milestone of sorts. This is my 301st posting. Less than a year and one half ago, I began this blog on July 13, 2005.
At that time, I wrote the following two paragraphs to begin the blog.

“Moved back to Illinois last year from Tucson, Arizona. I have always been politically involved. After reading the local newspaper and sending in a few letters to the editor, I was dissatisfied with the news coverage and the editorial content. I had a few letters published and a few that were not. I thought the paper was biased in its presentations.

In political science terms, a gunslinger is someone who comes in and cleans up or operates a political campaign that isn’t going well. That’s what I hope to do. Give the local news an alternative voice from a Christian perspective. I don’t mind debating. If alternative sides to an issue are discussed usually the truth comes out.”

The front page headline on November 1, 2006 in the Peoria Journal Star declares “Journal Star for sale.” The newspaper, whose content I originally reacted to as I began writing this blog, is now for sale. If the paper is sold, the new owners may move the content even farther to the libertine side, may keep it at approximately the same position, or may move it closer to the moral position that I support.

I thought it might be interesting to give some of the things I would do if I purchased the paper. For those who are not familiar with the Peoria Journal Star this might not be too relevant except that some of it may pertain to your own local paper.

I would dismiss the editorial writers presently employed by the paper. I think their viewpoint is out of line with the majority of the people in Central Illinois. There is no reason why the editorial staff should be a carbon copy of the viewpoint of the area. However, they also should not be too far a field which I believe they are at the Journal Star. It costs the paper readership. Even though it is the only daily paper in town, there are alternatives. People tend to not read papers that are consistently contrary to their own point of view. People also tend to not trust the content under such circumstances, for obvious reasons. A newspaper has tremendous power to control what information is available and how it is presented. For the sake of unbiased presentation of the news, the editorial staff would be gone.

Pam Adams would be gone too. It seems obvious that she is blatantly sexist and racist. If a Caucasian male had written the same sexist, racist blather that she writes, he would have been dismissed long ago. Sexism and racism are sexism and racism regardless of the gender and race of the writer. She would be history.

The mix of the national columnists would be drastically changed. The paper has added a conservative columnist since I moved to Illinois. However, there are far too many columns from libertine journalists for this more conservative area. I probably don’t read a majority of the columns printed because they are filled with the same lies, half truths, and ignorance over and over again. More conservative, more moral, and more intelligent would be the requirement of the day.

I would greatly expand the forum for letters to the editor. I would remove many of the restrictions. I would change the philosophy to “thou shalt not edit.” I would envision the letters forum to be a complete section of the daily paper. Let the people express themselves. Let the debate begin.

To make room for the expanded “letters forum” section, I would lose much of the fluff that is now present in daily papers that distract from their function of (shock, shock) reporting the news. I don’t care which so called “star” is now out of the closet, declaring his homosexuality, and that he is loud and proud. He/she has serious problems if he is proud of his sin and broadcasting it to the world. I don’t care if he is doing what to whomever. I don’t care who is pregnant but unmarried. I don’t care who is shacking up with whom. I don’t care for the whole promotion of “Sodom and Gomorrah” as if it was normal and acceptable. It is not and never will be to GOD.

“Doonesbury” would be history. It isn’t particularly funny, the author lies at will, and he is transparently a libertine. Other comics where the author believes he is a great political commentator would also be history. I read the comics to be entertained not to be subjected to political propaganda. I am quite capable of political thought without help from the comic section of the paper.

Gone would be “Annie’s Mailbox.” I would sum up each daily dose of “I can’t think for myself so would you please think for me” by publishing this: Some people have a problem. They should seek counseling which will cost thousands of dollars, will not solve the problem, but they might feel better except for the loss of the money. Better yet my advice would be: turn to the LORD JESUS CHRIST and your problem will not matter much in the scheme of your personal salvation and spending eternity in Heaven with GOD.

I can think of nothing more arrogant than I small number of hired editorial writers telling me how to vote my vote. The endorsement of candidates would be history and would not return. Why do these people think they are qualified to tell me how to vote?
Which brings me to the second major problem with elections. Newspaper reporters lie. Not so much with direct lies as misrepresentation or omission of pertinent information. For example, Jim Kolbe who just retired as a U.S. Congressman was a practicing homosexual before he was first elected to Congress. Newspaper reporters in Tucson knew that information. They knew that information because they hung out at the same homosexual establishments. That information just might be information that would influence a person’s vote. The newspaper reporters suppressed the information from the public even as the paper identified him as married.

To insure that the information presented was information approved by the candidate, I would have each candidate write their own article about their background and political stance on the issues. If they give incorrect information, the newspaper can address those issues separately, the other candidates can address those issues, and the letter forum can address those issues. I know from personal experience that reporters misrepresent the facts during a political election. That would end. The newspaper’s responsibility is to present the facts accurately; not to distort the information presented to help candidates they support. Endorsements would end permanently!!!

In short, much more accurate reporting of events and much less fluff!!! Newspapers just might sell some papers and increase circulation. They sure aren’t now with what they are presently doing.

Public service instead of public advocacy.

Public service instead of public fluff.


Post a Comment

<< Home