Repository censored Letter to the Editor

Rep Editor's Response to Censorship Claim

2006-10-03T19:44:00.000-04:00

The following column could have nothing to do with my letter. But considering the fact that I have been corresponding with editorial page editor, Gayle Beck, for the past month and a helf about why she won't print my letter, I find it very hard to believe that this column was not prompted by my efforts to keep the Repository accountable on it's censorship.

Here is the column with my responses to Mr. Kaminski's article in red:

Yes, we want to sell newspapers Sunday, October 1, 2006
EDITOR'S NOTE DAVID C. KAMINSKI

A common sarcasm expressed by people who disagree with stories we have published in The Repository is this: "All you are trying to do is sell newspapers," or "It's your job to sell newspapers, it's (fill in the blanks) job to: educate children, or defend the nation, or generally do something much more high-minded and worthwhile to society than merely selling newspapers.
This always makes me smile.

None of these critics ever says: I work for, or aspire to work for, or want to own a failing business. I want to go bankrupt. I want to make business decisions that will not be in the best interests of my customers. This will make me feel more high-minded and worthwhile to society.
No, no one says this. And neither do I, nor do I apologize that the newspaper is a for-profit business.

Our free expression and our political debate in this country would be anemic, at best, if it weren't for my company wanting to sell newspapers and advertising, or Simon & Schuster wanting to sell books, Fox News wanting to sell commercials, or any number of other for-profit media companies wanting to make money.

Ours is the only business I know that is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Now, the First Amendment does not talk specifically about newspapers, but newspapers and pamphlets are what the Founders had in mind when they guaranteed freedom of the press.
And it is freedom, not entitlement. The Constitution guarantees your right to print or otherwise express the ideas you choose, but it does not guarantee you the large circulation of your ideas or approval of them. It does not guarantee you commercial success, either.

And it certainly does not impose upon some other person or press or publisher the obligation to promulgate your ideas.

I agree wholeheartedly that the First Amendment does not require anything of the newspaper.
If you want to know who the First Amendment applies to, you need only read the first 5 words of the Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..."

The First Amendment applies only to Congress (in its law-making role). To apply it to anything or anyone else is a perversion of its original intent.

That being the case, newspapers have no obligation derived from the First Amendment, to print articles or letters on any given topic.

However, their obligation not to censor certain subjects or viewpoints does stem from the reputation and credibility they would like to have in the community.
They may not agree with my viewpoints. That's OK. That's what the free exchange of thoughts and ideas is all about.

But when the Repository labels their letters section "Your Views", they obligate themselves to allowing those views to be voiced or their credibility will have taken a hit.

In their rejection of my letter, the Repository did not dispute the facts of my letter.
As long as the facts presented in my letter are correct, should the Repository refuse to print it because my opinions derived from those facts do not match their own?

Should they refrain from printing letters that express an unfavorable view of their internal operations and business practices of their company? Well, they have printed letters unfavorable of the internal operations of other businesses. (The Hoover plant, June 16th 2006; landfills, March 10th and June 7th 2006; and Giant Eagle, January 20th, 2004).

Would it not then, be hypocritical for them to reject a letter critical of their own business?
If the points made in my letter have no merit, what do they stand to lose in printing it? Just discredit me and make me look like a fool!

If they have nothing to hide, why have they censored my letter?

Sometimes letters-to-the-editor writers say that our decision to not publish their letter, for one good reason or another, denies them their constitutional right. Not at all. Their right extended from their mind to the paper or computer screen they used to perform the act of writing.

It is The Repository's right to decide whether to accept that writing and offer it to our readers.

Now, as a matter of good practice, and in a commitment to serve the community that buys our newspapers, we print as many letters to the editor as we can. We give people of opposing views a great deal of access to our readers. We try to tell all sides of every important story.
But it is our choice to do so, not our obligation.

Wrong! It is their obligation, not to the First Amendment, but to their reputation as a professional and equitable newspaper. If they intend to look at it as their "choice" to tell all sides of a story, they will have violated the basic principles of journalism. And they will find that consumers will pass them by a reputable source of news in the community.

Business success at a newspaper is based in part on reporting credibility. Reporting sensational but harmful and misleading material might create sales in the short term. And suppression of subjects harmful to their image may sustain sales in the short term. But then they had better hope that the subject does not get out another way or they will look worse than they would have if they had printed the letter in the first place. But who wants to be in this business for the short term?

We have been in this business since 1815.

And we intend to stick with it. Selling the newspaper, that is.

(This was based on a speech I was asked to give last week at the Stark County District Library to commemorate Banned Books Week. Here is the supreme irony of this article. Is it Mr. Kaminski's view that libraries should not ban books that they believe to be controversial, but he has the right to ban letters he believes to be controversial? Maybe his next speech can commemorate "Banned Letters to the Editor Week". It preceded a presentation on book censorship by the library's executive director, Kent Oliver.)

HELP THE EX-NEWSBOYS
The Canton Ex-Newsboys Association is preparing for another sale day of the charity newspaper association members use to raise money. Sale day is Dec. 8. If you don't know, the Ex-Newsies buy shoes, boots, coats and other clothes for needy children so they do not miss school for lack of proper clothing.

Last year, the association spent more than $149,000 on this worthy cause.
Business in Canton and Stark County has changed a lot since the Ex-Newsies began their work in 1960. Many businesses once locally owned are now owned by distant corporations. Many businesses that permitted the Ex-Newsies to sell their paper on the premises no longer permit it.

If you own a business and would be willing to let the Ex-Newsies sell papers one day a year for the benefit of poor kids, call Joe Bourquin at (330) 875-5859.
Kaminski is editor of The Repository. Call him at (330) 580-8310. E-mail him at:
david.kaminski@cantonrep.com

You can read my comments on the Canton Ex-Newsboys Association in my last post.

More Censors; Some More Courageous

2006-09-28T19:48:00.000-04:00

Here is an update on what others in the community are doing with my letter.

Akron Beacon Journal

After the Canton Repository refused to print my letter, I appealed to the Beacon Journal, since they claim to print the "Voice of the People".

David Sowd, the VOP editor, responded that:

"We are not going to publish it as it concerns a personal matter between you and the Repository, and we have no way of determining whether your allegations are true. Moreover, few of our readers would be interested in our competitor's business practices."

I e-mailed him with proof of what was said in my letter. I also said "If there are other parts of my letter you would like proof of, just let me know and I might be able to help you."
I also responded to his claim that, "...few of our readers would be interested in our competitor's business practices." by saying:

"As to your readers not being interested, I know that you have subscribers to your newspaper in the Canton area. I know some of these customers buy both papers (there are some on my sister's route that do!). And aside from that, this is an issue of a local business that is endangering minors by their business practices. I do not believe that your customers are so callus that they would not want to know about that."

His response was brief and to the point:

"As I explained to you Sept. 1, we have decided not to publish your letter.

--David Sowd, VOP editor"

Canton Ex-Newsboys Association

I called the president of this association, Richard Forte, thinking he could sympathize with my cause.

He called me back and his exact words were:

"I read your blog with great interest. However, our sole purpose is to furnish clothing to children.
And the other thing is, the Repository is probably our largest supporter in many ways throughout the
year- monetarily and they print our newspaper for us and so forth. I read it with great interest, and I
really don't think we could be of any help to you. But I appreciate your call. Thanks very much."

So basically rephrasing in my own words, what I believe he was basically trying to say is, "I read what you had to say, and I
might agree with you, but the Repository has us in their hip pocket so we don't want to get involved."

I think what the Ex-Newsboys do is a worthy cause, but I think they are acting hypocritical to their mission when
they will organize clothing drives for children, but won't speak up when children's lives are in danger.

Massillon Independent

I submitted my letter to the Independent. They initially did not receive my letter. But Joe Shaheen, Managing editor, assured me:

"We are always happy to publish any and all letters to the editor that comply with our published guidelines.
Please feel free to re-submit your original letter. "

But after they found out what my letter was about they changed their tune.

I called and spoke to Kevin Coffey, Publisher, and he told me that they do not print letters about their competitors. He said it would just look like they were trying to make their competition look bad.

I countered that it was not their letter, but mine, that was talking about their competition. And that it was an issue of free speech.

But he said that as the vehicle for my letter, they would still look bad.

If they had wanted to, they could have printed my letter with an editor's note that they did not agree with my letter.

But instead, the local media seems to be protecting each other, and refusing to be the one to let you hear of the controversy.

I will give Mr. Coffey credit for taking the time to talk with me. We talked about their position on my letter for about 20 minutes. We never came to agreement on the subject, but he did give me time out of his day and patiently discussed the matter with me.

North Canton Library

Not all the news is bad, I asked the library to post my letter on their community bulletin board and they complied with my request. Kudos to them for allowing public discussion on this matter to happen.

North Branch Library

While not quite as accommodating as the North Canton Library, when I asked to post on their bulletin board, they said it was full. Instead they let me post my flyer on a brochure rack.

The problem with that is that people keep taking my flyer. I do not have the means to print a bunch of flyers, that is why I am posting on bulletin boards. I think they could have made room for my flyer on their bulletin board.

But their approval to post on the brochure rack, was still more accommodating than the local media. And it is still greatly appreciated.

Hear Both Sides of the Story!

2006-09-19T21:05:00.000-04:00

If you would like to know, from the Repository's perspective, why they won't print my letter, you are welcome to read our e-mail conversation on the subject.

It does not seem to me, that they have a clear policy. It seems as if they are making up the rules as they go along because they do not want you to know my views.

They know that if you read my letter, you may make them accountable for their poor decisions.

But I'll let you have the facts and you can decide what their motives are in this decision.

Here is the e-mail conversation on the suppressed letter:

Fri, Aug 11, 2006 11:22 PM
Dear Ms. Beck,
Following is a letter I am submitting for the "Letters to the Editor" section of the newspaper.
Thank you
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible the youth paper carrier may go the way of the dinosaur. The days when children learned the responsibility of work by having a paper route may be drawing to a close.

Starting in September, the Repository is requiring youth carriers to finish their paper routes by 7:30 a.m. Now customers can enjoy the paper with their morning cup of coffee.

But efficiency often comes at a price. Every Repository subscriber must evaluate that price.

As winter approaches, how many parents would want their children out on the streets before sunrise? Would they be safe riding bikes or pulling wagons of newspapers through the dark streets of your neighborhood?

Newsboys in years past may have delivered their newspapers in the early morning hours, but regrettably, we live in a different time.

It seems more careless drivers are on the roads these days, and the streets are also unsafe for different reasons.

Our family recently discovered a sex offender described as having “unlawful sexual conduct w/a minor”, lives on our paper route; do you know everyone that lives in your neighborhood?

I expect many parents will reevaluate their children’s participation as a paper carrier due to the Repository’s new requirement.

As a former Repository carrier, I’m sad to see this “modernization” come about.

Our family has delivered a Repository route (passed down from sibling to sibling) for 10 years. When I had the route, I learned valuable lessons on dependability and treating customers with respect.

It’s sad that other youths may not have such a wonderful opportunity, due to the new requirements dictated by the Repository.

It has been said that, “You can’t stop progress.” But is it truly progress if you’re taking a step back?

Jonathan Stevenson

Wed, Aug 16, 2006 08:24 AM
Dear Ms. Beck,
On Friday, I sent the following message for submission to the "Letters to the Editor" section.
I look forward to your response on printing it, but I will be out of town today through Sunday. Therefore, I am granting my permission (in advance) for you to print my letter in the newspaper.

Thank you for your prompt response in this matter,
Jonathan
Please note: forwarded message attached

Mon, Aug 21, 2006 10:47 AM

Dear Ms. Beck,
I am wondering about your newspaper's criteria for timetables on when letters get printed.
In Thursday's paper, there were 2 letters to the editor commenting on subjects from the newspaper 6 days before.

If they can get their letters printed in 6 days or less from the time they submitted them, why has it been a week and a half since I submitted my letter and you have not even acknowledged you received it?

Is the content of my letter to controversial for the editorial staff at the Repository to want to touch it, or is there another reason for the delay.

Thank you for your prompt response,
Jonathan Stevenson

Mon, Aug 21, 2006 11:32 AM

Dear Mr. Stevenson:No, your letter isn’t too controversial. I think regular readers of our letters section know we don’t shy away from controversy or from criticism of The Rep’s coverage.

But your letter doesn’t deal with news or opinion coverage by The Repository. Rather, it deals with our business operations, and we don’t consider that a topic for letters to the editor, just as we don’t consider internal operations of most businesses as a topic for letters.

What I’ll do, though, is send your letter to Circulation Director Jim Porter so he’ll know of your concerns.Gayle Beck

Mon, Aug 21, 2006 05:46 PM
Dear Ms. Beck,
I must disagree with your explanation that you "don't consider internal operations of most businesses as a topic for letters".

For example: I am currently looking at a letter you printed in the June 16th newspaper that discusses the Hoover plant being for sale.

The letter tells of finding out that "there has been an internal feud going on between several of the union members and the union hierarchy."

The letter continues to state how the writer felt about the situation as a union member.
If that is not "internal operations" of a business", then what is?

You may say that that was a letter that involved an issue of public interest, but what could be considered more of a public interest to your readers than how their newspapers are being delivered to them?

It seems hypocritical at best, if not censorship, to print letters about the "internal business" of other companies, but refusing to print letters about the "internal business" of your own newspaper.

If I had violated the requirements you print in the newspaper for letters to the editor, I could understand your refusal to print my letter. If you have other requirements, that are not listed, you should probably include them in your "letters guidelines" that you print in the newspaper, so everyone will understand what is expected.

That being said, it seems I have reached an impasse on this subject. Therefore, I feel free to communicate your reason to withold my letter from the newspaper, to anyone that I distribute my unprinted letter to.

Thank you for your time,
Jonathan Stevenson
Mon, Aug 28, 2006 12:01 PM
Dear Ms. Beck,
Here is another example of "business operations" being a topic for letters to the editor:

Today's (Aug 28th) newspaper, letter entitled "Cutting corners puts Plain Local children in jeopardy". The letter writer talks of a business decision that puts the safety of children's lives at risk. Does this sound familiar? Does the basic premise sound exactly like my letter that you have censored from the newspaper? It is the same area, same children being endangered, just a different "business" doing it.

Does the double standard exist simply because my letter is dealing with your business? It does not seem the standard you put forth is applied to others.

It seems to me, the Repository is discriminating against certain viewpoints in their newspaper because it is different from their own and may, in fact, challenge their own.

I have not yet seen the "business operations is not a topic for letters to the editor" clause in your "Letter Guidelines" in the newspaper. Do you have other secret criteria for what you will not print that you withhold from the general public as well? If this is truly your criteria, why is it not printed in your newspaper and applied to other letter writers?

Thank you for your prompt response,
Jonathan Stevenson

Mon, Aug 28, 2006 02:24 PM
Dear Mr. Stevenson: A public school district is not a private business.

For space reasons, we don’t run all of the guidelines we use for letters; I don’t know of any newspaper that does.We don’t use poetry, we don’t use letters that make serious accusations (we turn them over to the news editors), we don’t use letters about divorces and custody battles, we don’t use consumer complaints, we don’t generally use letters from outside our circulation area, we don’t use more than one letter per writer per 30-day period.

We couldn’t possibly cover all the situations that arise.We include a phone number so that if prospective letter writers have questions, including questions about whether their topic is one we would consider, they can get answers before writing.Gayle Beck

Tue, Aug 29, 2006 10:51 AM
Dear Ms. Beck,
First, I would like to thank you for your quick response. I realize you are a busy person and I thank you for showing interest in my comments.

That being said, I don't understand the difference between a public school and a private business, if either one are endangering minors by their business practice, I don't believe it should be a topic that is off limits for either party.

Also, as I have pointed out in a previous e-mail, you have also allowed letters to the editor discussing business operations of private businesses. Here is what I wrote in a previous e-mail to you that I never got an answer about:

"Dear Ms. Beck,
"I must disagree with your explanation that you "don't consider internal operations of most businesses as a topic for letters".

"For example: I am currently looking at a letter you printed in the June 16th newspaper that discusses the Hoover plant being for sale.

"The letter tells of finding out that "there has been an internal feud going on between several of the union members and the union hierarchy."

"The letter continues to state how the writer felt about the situation as a union member.
"If that is not "internal operations" of a business", then what is?

"You may say that that was a letter that involved an issue of public interest, but what could be considered more of a public interest to your readers than how their newspapers are being delivered to them?

"It seems hypocritical at best, if not censorship, to print letters about the "internal business" of other companies, but refusing to print letters about the "internal business" of your own newspaper."

So you see, you have allowed letters discussing the business operations of both public and private institutions. Why is my letter different?

Also, on an unrelated note, has your newspaper thought about whether they would be held liable if anything happened to one of the minors delivering newspapers for your company before sunrise? I would think your newspaper would want to think about that long and hard.

Thank you for your prompt response,
Jonathan Stevenson
Thu, Aug 31, 2006 04:55 PM
Dear Ms. Beck,
I've noticed that you are taking an uncharacteristically long time to answer my question about the letter discussing the Hoover plant. You have been very quick answering most of my questions (which I am very appreciative of), answering most questions the same day I sent them to you.

But this question I originally sent you on 8/21 (ten days ago). You never answered that question, and in fact answered another e-mail I sent you after that.

I thought you might have missed my e-mail the first time, so I re-sent the question yesterday and still have not received a response.

Like I said earlier, I realize you are a busy person, I am just puzzled at the uncharacteristic length of time it is taking you to answer this particular question, as opposed to my other e-mails.
Also, I have noted other examples of Letters to the Editor discussing the business operations of private businesses. (In addition to the letter about the Hoover plant I noted earlier) there were also letters discussing landfills (March 10th and June 7th of 2006) and Giant Eagle, January 20th, 2004).

While the subjects covered in these letters were of public interest (as is the safety of minors delivering the Repository), these were still letters discussing the business operations of private businesses. How is my letter different from these?

Thank you for your prompt response,
Jonathan Stevenson
Thu, Aug 31, 2006 05:08 PM
Dear Mr. Stevenson: Well, let’s see, an approaching holiday for which we lose one production day: a day away yesterday because of a family member’s surgery; letters that needed to be sent to more than 40 general election candidates; this in addition to our usual 10-hour days.

My work day today began at 3 a.m. Sorry for the delay.

In my original response, I said this: “Your letter doesn't deal with news or opinion coverage by The Repository.” I think all of the examples you have given refer to letters about stories, editorials, columns or other coverage in the newspaper. I really don’t know how to explain this further, and I don’t plan to try.Gayle Beck

Fri, Sep 01, 2006 08:13 AM
Dear Mr. Stevenson: I want to apologize for my reply Thursday. It was late in the day, and I know better than to send e-mail when I’m tired. Gayle Beck

Sat, Sep 02, 2006 01:01 PM
Dear Ms. Beck,
I took no offense at your e-mail, Thursday. Everyone has bad days. And your explanation of how busy you are was helpful as well. I knew you were busy, but I did not realize the full extent of how demanding your job is.

It seems I have come off as an annoyance, and that is not my intention.
It may seem that I have held on to this issue like a Rottweiler, but you have to see it from my perspective.

I wrote a letter to the Editor, that was truthful and thought provoking. It is a letter about a subject that hits close to home for me (since our family has and still is delivering a Repository route for the last 10 years).

The issue at stake is the safety of minors. I cannot think of many subjects more important.
Yet, it seems to me, as if I am being obstructed from your public forum of letters, by rules that you are seemingly making up as you go along.

Your first response to me was that you "don't consider internal operations of most businesses as a topic for letters".

But I found out otherwise, by the letters you have printed in the past.
So you further explained, "In my original response, I said this: 'Your letter doesn't deal with news or opinion coverage by The Repository.' I think all of the examples you have given refer to letters about stories, editorials, columns or other coverage in the newspaper."

Yet that standard can't be applied to letters such as the letter from Kathleen Davis on Aug 31st (which was just a political commentary by the writer and had nothing to do with the Rep's coverage) and the Letter from Mark A. Villono on Sept 1st (that talked about the Jerry Lewis telethon, which also was not covered in the newspaper).

The reason I was frustrated earlier, that you do not include all the requirements you use in your "Letters Guidelines" is because it seems rules are being made up as you go along, just to keep my letter from being printed. If that is not the case, why are they not applied to everyone?
Jonathan

Tue, Sep 05, 2006 06:24 PM
Dear Mr. Stevenson:I don’t make up rules as I go along.

The letters from Kathleen Davis and Mark Villono have nothing to do with businesses — as most of our letters don’t. Our discussion has been about letters that do concern businesses.

I’m sorry you feel frustrated, but you ought not take this personally. With our current volume of letters, I probably file as many as I use. Gayle Beck

Why should you be concerned about this?

2006-09-09T11:19:00.000-04:00

You may be asking yourself, "What's the point? Why should I care about this?"

The #1 reason is because the safety of children is at stake.

Do you have children? If you are younger, do you have friends that have paper routes?

Would you want them to deliver newspapers in your neighborhood before sunrise? Would you think they would be safe?

I realize that there are adults today that may not readily understand the severity of this issue.

They had paper routes when they were kids and delivered the papers in the morning. But this is, unfortunately, not the same world that is was back then.

Back a few generations ago, people thought nothing of leaving their doors unlocked when they weren't home or when they went away.

We do not live like that anymore. We must be very concerned when minors are delivering newspapers in the dark, especially in neighborhoods that are not well lit.

And we must also get past the mind-set that this is only a problem that affects poor neighborhoods. There are no rules about which neighborhoods a sex offender can live in.
They aren't allowed to live close to schools or churches, but the average income of a neighborhood has nothing to do with it.

Unless you know everyone in you neighborhood, this is not just a city problem, it's not just a problem for those who live "on the wrong side of the tracks". It's everyone's problem.

If we ignore this issue, and something happens to a child because of it. We are accomplices!

You might say, "But I know of many newspapers that have a morning delivery."

But I have 2 responses to that: First, I have no problem with adults delivering newspapers in the morning. Many of the routes are car routes and as such, adults are delivering. That is not an issue. The problem comes in expecting children to be held to the same standard. This is unreasonable and dangerous.

For a long time, the Repository has had car routes that are early morning deliveries. It was not until recently that they started holding children to the same standard. I don't know how many papers require children to deliver in the morning. Maybe most morning papers are delivered by adults and these newspapers are not requiring the same standard of children; maybe they are.
But this brings me to my next point:

Even if, other newspapers are requiring early morning delivery of their child carriers, should the Canton Repository be willing to sacrifice the safety of their child carriers just to compete with the other papers?

I believe the answer is a resounding "NO". Please help me keep the Repository accountable, and Keep the Children Safe.

Newspaper obstructs open discussion

2006-09-01T09:29:00.000-04:00

WARNING: The Repository found the following letter unacceptable to print in their newspaper.

I submitted the following letter for publication in the Letters to the Editor section of the Canton Repository. Gayle Beck, the editor of the editorial page refused to print it, explaining that they, "don’t consider (their business operations) a topic for letters to the editor".

Please take the time to read my letter that has been censored by the Repository and feel free to let them know what you think about this situation.

I can not stand up to this censorship alone; any help you can give me would be appreciated.

Repository main number: (330) 580-8300
Editorial page Editor: (330) 580-8308
Letters to the Editor E-mail: letters@cantonrep.com

The following is the letter I submitted:

It is possible the youth paper carrier may go the way of the dinosaur. The days when children learned the responsibility of work by having a paper route may be drawing to a close.

Starting in September, the Repository is requiring youth carriers to finish their paper routes by 7:30 a.m. Now customers can enjoy the paper with their morning cup of coffee.

But efficiency often comes at a price. Every Repository subscriber must evaluate that price.

As winter approaches, how many parents would want their children out on the streets before sunrise? Would they be safe riding bikes or pulling wagons of newspapers through the dark streets of your neighborhood?

Newsboys in years past may have delivered their newspapers in the early morning hours, but regrettably, we live in a different time.

It seems more careless drivers are on the roads these days, and the streets are also unsafe for different reasons.

Our family recently discovered a sex offender described as having “unlawful sexual conduct w/a minor”, lives on our paper route; do you know everyone that lives in your neighborhood?

I expect many parents will reevaluate their children’s participation as a paper carrier due to the Repository’s new requirement.

As a former Repository carrier, I’m sad to see this “modernization” come about.

Our family has delivered a Repository route (passed down from sibling to sibling) for 10 years. When I had the route, I learned valuable lessons on dependability and treating customers with respect.

It’s sad that other youths may not have such a wonderful opportunity, due to the new requirements dictated by the Repository.

It has been said that, “You can’t stop progress.” But is it truly progress if you’re taking a step back?

jstevenson