newspaper ticks off community it serves!! woot woot!

[Jane]

Mississippi Newspaper responds to readers angry that they did their...

Our local LDN could learn a thing from the owner of this newspaper! Read the owners reply in italics it is awesome.

A newspaper in rural Mississippi is defending its decision to run a cover story on what it called the first same-sex marriage in the county it serves.

On Feb. 7, the Laurel Leader-Call published the story Historic Wedding: Women wed in Laurel through smiles, tears about the wedding of Jessica Powell and Crystal Craven. Craven has been battling brain cancer. The women exchanged vows earlier this month at a ceremony in Laurel, Miss., attended by family, friends and Craven's doctors.

"If chemo doesn't work, we don't know what happens after that," Craven told the paper.

"This is true love," Powell said. "Love is love. It knows no gender."

She added: "I don't remember voting on straight marriage, so why is gay marriage an issue?"

The story sparked a backlash among readers in a state that does not legally recognize same-sex marriage.

"We shouldn't have to defend every decision we make here at the Leader-Call," Jim Cegielski, the paper's owner, wrote in an editorial published on Saturday. "However, the intense reaction to our gay wedding front-page story, which led to a deluge of hate calls, letters, e-mails, Facebook posts, soundoffs and random cross stares thrown in my direction, warrants some sort of response. So here it is."

Cegielski continued:

We were well aware that the majority of people in Jones County are not in favor of gay marriage. However, any decent newspaper with a backbone can not base decisions on whether to cover a story based on whether the story will make people angry.

The job of a community newspaper is not pretending something didn't take place or ignoring it because it will upset people. No, our job is to inform readers what is going on in our town and let them make their own judgments. That is exactly what we did with the wedding story. Our reporter heard about the wedding, attended it, interviewed some of the participants and wrote a news story. If there had been protestors at the wedding, we would have covered that the exact same way … but there weren't any. We never said it was a good thing or a bad thing, we simply did our job by telling people what took place.

I took the bulk of the irate phone calls from people who called the paper to complain. Most of the complaints seem to revolve around the headline, "Historic Wedding," and the fact that we chose to put the story on the front page. My answer to the "Historic Wedding" headline is pretty simple. You don't have like something for it to be historic.

The holocaust, bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Black Sox scandal are all historic. I'm in no way comparing the downtown wedding of two females to any of those events (even though some of you made it quite clear that you think gay marriage is much worse).

[...]

We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children.

I had at least 20 or so readers express to me they think gay marriage is "an abomination against God." We never said it wasn't. We never said it was.

"We were simply reporting to the best of our ability," Cegielski wrote. "However, I can't help but be saddened by the hate-filled viciousness of many of the comments directed toward our staff … No one here deserves to be berated or yelled at simply because we were doing our job."

Fifteen readers canceled their subscriptions in protest, according to Cegielski.

"You have every right to cancel your subscription," he wrote. "But you have no right to berate and belittle anyone on our staff."

[Hat tip: SheWired]

[Willy]

Auquaman. You must read the post more carefully and not interject ideas that were not stated. I said I was against the gay life style and same sex marriage but I'm not against the individuals. I'm also against gays in the military and women in combat. The gays I know are people you would not realize were gay unless you knew them. Most I've known for years and I can say they are all decent human beings. I can separate the life style from the person and see each individual for the goodness inside them. It does no good for me to continually hold my opinions about their life style over them and berate them for who they are. I wouldn't do that to any friend or family member so why would I do that to them. They have a tough enough time as it is and they don't need any grief from me. They know how I feel and we accept each other in spite of it. You can't control the World and expect it to turn on your whims. The old saying is very true. "A rose by any other name is still a rose". They are who they are and no matter what I do or think the friends and family members I know who are gay are not going to change and they shouldn't. You should reread your post. You don't debate the issue you dictate that  everyone should fall in line and think as you do and if they don't you consider them "brainwashed". And aren't you doing what you criticize about in your post.  You stated " if you are embarrassed and ashamed of your own conclusions and beliefs, then, well, you have no minds of your own anymore. You have been brainwashed by the masses, instead of being individual thinkers, those few that determine their own destiny in their lives, not let the masses determine that outcome." You don't want me to be influenced by the "masses" but you want me to be influenced by what you think I should believe. 

[Lisa O'Brien]

Well said willy

[AQUAMAN]

Well, it's obvious nothing I say or reflect as science to this matter will ever change Willy and Lisa's minds. That wasn't the intention anyhow. I act and think my way, you do the same, without prejudice either way, ok?  I had a very best friend in grade/high school that moved to Cal. after his mid-20's. He was a smart, outdoorsy, and loyal guy, never heard he was gay until our 30's. He died of aids at about age 38, still in his prime, and sorely missed at our 20th LHS reunion. He worked in Hollywood as a professional photographer, worked in many plays, tv ads, and movies alike, rubbed elbows with many movie stars too. I was very shocked and saddened by his sudden loss. He returned home just a few months before his demise, and it was not a pretty site to view him in the last months. His choice of a new lifestyle after he left Michigan definitely is what killed him, so, as a good friend, I cannot say I was happy that this is how he left all whom he loved/loved him. I'm against this lifestyle and that's it, period. I'm not personally against all those whom have chosen that way, but, I'm not going to praise, sympathize, nor patronize them. Nor think they should have special rights that infringe on non-gays, just because it's popular. Too many cop-out and just say, look the other way, saying they don't mind if they don't bother them.  But, in all honesty, when gays say they deserve special attention, special treatment, special laws, and special rules to fit their lifestyle, that's when I draw the line. If it infringes on my non-gay rights, ways of lifestyle, legal unions, and my individual thought process to evaluate this situation for myself, then I become non-compliant and reject those that would force me to their mass thought conclusions. This thread obviously tells me at least, the story of two lesbians that demand attention, special rights, and are breaking Mississippi State Law, and it's printed "in everyone's in your face style" by the editor. In my opinion, the least these two women should have done is get married in a State where the laws permit these gay unions, and that has been the basis for most of my entire debate. This thread, imho, got liberally convoluted into a malfeasance of misinterpretations and perhaps statements. Too many times, as stated elsewhere in many threads, we may misinterpret one anothers' true internal feelings.  I hope my clarifications come through as a reflection of my own beliefs and values, not an intentional attack on any individual/s. Gay rights should not supersede heterosexual rights, just my conclusion.