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]

[XLFD]

It's one and the same, and I can understand how some may automatically disqualify his scientific opinion just because he does hold that science and God can coexist.  You will notice, however, that he does not resort to scripture, biblical teachings/dogma or anything outside of scientific peer review in coming to effectively the conclusion that there is no resounding proof about what makes a person gay and whether it is genetic, learned, environment or anything else which causes it.

And for the reasons he states before his conclusion, it is important to figure this out when you consider whether being gay is something you are born with and can't control (like your skin color), or whether it is a preference one acquires over their lifetime.  It may not seem like a big deal, but legally, it is, because it affects the dialogue for both sides of the gay rights issue.

As always, if you can present a better argument or refutation, have at it.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Well personally I can't present a better argument because I am heterosexual - which I believe is the way I was born. I have gay friends who state they were born gay. Since there is no way to really quantify whether they are telling the truth or not - I will have to believe they are being honest. Personally I have a hard time believing that anyone would chose a lifestyle that opens them up to so much ridicule and hatred - if they were not born that way.

[AQUAMAN]

X, thanks for the Deem article/link, very informative and elaborate to the truth of this matter. Lisa, so you're saying that a religious/christian person cannot be scientific and his studies given credibility, simply because he's christian? And your atheist beliefs are more credible? Without any science to back them up? Shame on you! You are the one always preaching as a liberal that conservatives don't have a heart, are biased, are prejudiced, and don't click in society, right? Now who is a hypocrite and fake? Look in the mirror for that answer! I think the State's Attorney should step into this situation, declare the marriage void and null, and arrest the participants that knew they were breaking the law, just to look cute and be accepted for their lack in morals.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Aquaman,

Maybe you need be checked out by a mental health specialist - I think you are having delusions. I have never said I was an atheist, nor have I said that conservatives don't have heart, are biased or prejudiced. If you are going to put words in my mouth, at least make sure they are the correct ones. As a general rule science and religion don't mix, so that disqualify's him in my opinion- again that is my opinion; everyone else has the right to their own. On a side note: I Love it when people extol that they are God fearing Christians, and then nothing but foul hate speech comes pouring out of their mouths. I think somewhere in that Bible it says something about judging people.

[AQUAMAN]

I respectfully disagree with your first few sentences Willy. There is all the reason in the world for gays to say that they were "born that way, gay". It's to give credence to it being normal, and the individual's justification for it to be accepted as a "normal way of life". And quite frankly, nothing is further from the real truth. Don't believe everything you were told by gay people/groups as accurate information, you never seem to on other subjects, so, why this one? I know, it's more popular and politically correct NOT to debate the real truth when it comes to "gays". It's a touchy subject, one which we just have to accept nowadays. This whole thing is about taking responsibility for your own choices and decisions in life, not to pass it off as a genetic reason. There is NO GENE that makes you gay, it's choice alone. And getting back to this paper editor, again, he asked for this controversy, and should accept that as his poor decision to put it on a front page in a State that has not legalized gay marriage.

[Willy]

If we have a choice as to whether we are gay or not then that would make us all bi-sexual at birth. Choosing a sex partner would be a day to day choice depending on how we feel on any particular day. To me it's common sense to realize that someone would not choose to be gay when they know there is so much negative reaction to that choice. As far as believing what gay's say, who else can tell us what they are feeling and thinking, certainly not straight people. That would be the same as consulting gay's on how heterosexual folks think and feel.

[Dave]

As far as this particular story goes, the editor of the newspaper needed to weigh the need of having this particular story as a featured story on the front page, a story somewhere within the pages of the paper or not do the story at all.. also keeping in mind that the readers who purchase the paper may or may not be offended by such a story. By presenting the story the way it was presented, the readership made its feelings known and obviously, most were not happy. In some ways this reminds me of the newspaper up in NY that had the interactive map up on its website that told of people with gun licenses... that newspaper paid a hefty price for doing so and may have hurt its self so much that it may fold at some point. The newspaper in this story might suffer the same pain if the readership isn't so forgiving.

[easymoney]

The thing that irritates me the most, is not whether some-one is gay or not, your life style choices are your own.  When almost every damn program on TV anymore, has subbliminal messgaes, or out an out gay portions, they, whom ever they are, is trying to get me, or you, to accept homo sexuality.

I have friends and, a relative. whom life's choice certianly wouldn't be mine, but , if you leave me alone, we'll get along just fine.

I personly feel pushing marriage tho, is going to far.

 

[Willy]

easy

That has been one of my gripes about liberals controlling the media. The fact that they are trying to shove there ideas and beliefs down our throats shows how narrow minded they really are. This has been a big problem on children's programs, especially PBS. Most, if not all of kids shows has some Spanish content in one form or another. I have the same view as you. Live and let live but don't force your beliefs and life style on me especially when it comes to the basic foundations of society such as marriage. There is no way I will accept or approve of same sex marriage. It goes against my basic human instincts.

[AQUAMAN]

Well said both easy and Willy, now we're getting somewhere. Except again for Lisa, whom strangely and adamantly believes that religion and science don't mix. In other words, you can't be a christian and know anything about science if you study it and have a grasp on it's concepts and principles. Lisa said, "I'd take that with a grain of salt", meaning, Deem has "no credibility". If you re-read X's link, I think YOU may need mental health exams. He seems to be very cogent and professional from what he wrote, and yes, he says there is NO SEX GENE in the human anatomy makeup. To that I just say this: I also don't agree that being a community organizer has anything to do with being Prez., so there, I said it, Obama's not qualified either, yet, he sits in the White House anyhow, right? I'll take Deem's credibility over Obama's any day. And I don't think the public in general should have to keep being reminded over and over in our daily lives that we "have to accept gays". I don't, period, never did, never will, no matter the torture tactics used by the left to force me to. I don't heckle them like the old days, but I sure as hell aint gonna shake their hands in praise and acceptance either. So, put me in jail, mentally or otherwise, I won't budge on this. Probably stubborn upbringing, and I'm proud of it too.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Aquaman,

I said that religion and science don't mix - not that you could not be a Christian and know about science. I was raised a Catholic - do I identify with the Catholic Church - no way. But I do believe I am a Christian, I believe in Christ and God - but I don't take the Bible as the word of God, it was written by a bunch of men years after Jesus death, in a time that was very sexist. 

As far as homosexuality goes, I believe they were born that way, you don't have to - we all have different opinions on the subject. Personally for me I don't care one way or the other, I do not have a stake in this. I wish everyone happiness and believe it is for God to judge not me.

[XLFD]

I agree, easymoney.  The surest way of ruining the institution of marriage is to allow the traditional meaning and reasons for it get lost by having any Tom, Dick and Harry (or Toni, Nikki, and Harriet) be able to marry to gain some kind of benefit instituted for the traditional use of marriage-- to raise kids in the best manner.