Re: fallen son family member

nick
Mar 23, 2010

This morning, someone writing under the handle "fallen soldier family member" wrote:

"I think that it is great that you want to give gratitude to our soldiers both living and dead, but you are sometimes wrong for how you do it. You publish wonderful things about our soldiers, yet you allow people to right hateful and disrespectful things on your blog. I asked your newspaper to remove some of the blogs for the respect that my family deserved, and you didn't, but now you want me to give you credit. It's all about getting a good story with you people and not thinking about how the family would react to the bad blogs. I don't support the register anymore. It is a insult to my family and the family of other's who have asked that you would remove hateful blogs. Our soldiers are worth way more then what you could ever publish."

I am sorry that what some people have written in the comments on our stories causes you pain. But the solution you suggest is not as simple as it sounds. This business comes down to one rule, above all, and it isn't the almighty buck. It's, as former Akron Beacon-Journal editor-in-chief Jack Knight once put it, "Get the truth, and print it."

What we strive for is to represent the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. I am repulsed by criticism of a soldier who gave his life for the rest of us, regardless of whether the war was a good idea or not, but we just cannot censor it solely for that reason. Moreover, when it does come to money, we make our living from free speech, so it's always hard for us to squash it. And part of what our soldiers are fighting and dying for is the freedoms of our country, freedoms like free speech.

But whatever rules we make -- and we are still making them -- whatever censorship we do provide, we constantly have to square it with the plain fact that our job is to shine a light into dark corners, not to cover things up. That is the dilemma we struggle with every day.

Now I don't know what specific comments you're referring to, so I can't say whether they were merely criticism or if they were nasty, non-substantive, or libelous. If they were the latter they should have been taken down, and I'm sure they were if you brought them to our attention.

If it's unverifiably accusatory, then we take it down, because that violates the rule. That is not exposing the truth. But if it's opinion, no matter how much we disagree with it, then I have to ask this, where do we get the right to take it down?

Comments

Anonymous

self righteous psychobabble bs... you're heartless and gutless nick

RHammons

That was the perfect response Nick. Immediately after reading her quote I had very similar thoughts on the topic as well.

Some people just do not get it, they so greatly want a Big Brother society and a free pat on the back.

Anonymous

Word to live by: If ya try to be everythin' to everybody, ya end up being nothin' to nobody.

Anon

I support free speech, as well. However, the Register blog is not a free speech issue...get off the high horse and quit hiding behind the free speech card. These men and women risk life and limb to protect our rights and freedoms, including free speech. They don't do it anonymously from behind a computer monitor, they do it on the ground all over the world. DO NOT TRIVIALIZE WHAT THESE BRAVE FOLKS DO BY SAYING THEY PROTECT SOME A$$HOLE'S RIGHT TO TEAR THEM DOWN AN INTERNET BLOG IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH.

Anonymous

As a former Register employe I can honestly say that the above blog is total crap. It is not about "get the truth, and print it" at 315 W. Market. It is about what is going to make us money today. Stories were scratched weekly because they either made advertisers look bad, or made non-advertisers look good. Violations of both safety and labor practices were committed almost daily to save a couple bucks.

Money, not the truth, is what spins the presses at that former bank building. Frankly I am shocked that one of the descendents of Dudley would support what Sandusky Newspapers INC. has become. Oh, wait it just makes your pockets deeper.

Anonymous

Wait What: Like the majority of collectivists (today’s liberals) you seemingly believe that money (capital) is apparently formed from thin air.

What are CNN and other twenty-four hours news services about if not the almighty dollar? SR is no different.

No bucks - no news.

I’d frankly be surprised that within the next decade if the newsprint version of the SR ceases to exist, only to be replaced by an online edition.

reader

Regarding the comment below....

"I’d frankly be surprised that within the next decade if the newsprint version of the SR ceases to exist, only to be replaced by an online edition. "

I wonder if the future online edition will go to press at midnight or 1 a.m., but not delivered to our computers (doorstep) until 4 the next afternoon?

Anonymous

You worked there? But yet you have the address wrong! Its 314 W. Market. Yeah. Your credibility just got tossed out the window. Idiot.

Anonymous

314 315 so he was off my one number. I think the rest of his post hold true. At least he did not have to call other posters names like he was in 2nd grade.

Anonymous

His credibility should be tossed out the window. I can assure you, this person had nothing to do with management; he was just a disgruntled peon that thought his opinion mattered. Yes, I know who you are...

Anonymous

Yes, it is about free speech. I find YOU offensive and un-American to even suggest that we take away the one (government given) right that has changed the face of this planet. YOU disrepect every person who has died promoting democracy. I may not like what you say...but I will defend with my life your right to say it.

Anonymous

I never worked for the register but I will verify that not to many years ago they would not print anything that shed any bad light on anything in the running of Sandusky or any company with money invested in the area. Most folks Know that good scandal sells much news papers, so it makes you wonder why they had that stance?!