By: E&P Staff
In today’s letters, the publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch responds to an E&P letter about an alleged “gag order,” a reader doesn’t agree with the Newark ‘Star-Ledger’ fake documents scoop, and another reader doubts ABC will get it right in a drama starring a female conservative pundit.
Richmond Paper’s Publisher Responds to Letter on ‘Gag Order’
Randall Patterson is correct in pointing out that the Richmond Times-Dispatch is “in the business of informing.” We endeavor to do that daily in providing news, information of interest, and advertising to our communities.
But when we deal with questions from outside the company about business matters, the publisher reserves the right to determine who speaks for The Times-Dispatch. Our policy has been in place for more than two years and was updated in December 2005. It recognizes that not every employee is adequately informed or qualified to answer questions from outside media, especially if those queries deal with business plans, personnel matters, product developments, and pending actions. We are indeed like other reputable businesses when we are determined to give accurate, clear, concise and coherent information by channeling questions to designated managers.
Regarding the use of the term “gag order” or “gag rule,” which showed up in the E&P story, please note that E&P picked up that term from a competitor’s opinion piece on our paper. If you read that first-person piece, you’ll find the reference to a “gag rule” in a quote from an unnamed reporter.
Open Letter to Newark ‘Star-Ledger’
So who cares about the documents your “ace” reporter obtained. … Is stocking a warehouse with some people who have questionable documentation [of news value]? Hardly. … No terrorists are using such cheap documents, only hard-working people. And your reporter shouldn’t cash the check, he isn’t worth it. You got taken and should send him back to one of those NY rags he “worked” for.
ABC Missing the Point With New Show
I guess ABC just doesn’t get it. The character of the conservative pundit is described as “a humanist”. If ABC were to use someone to advise them about conservatives whose thinking and feeling is not held down to the “two coasts” mentality, they would have discovered that humanism and conservatism don’t mix.
Conservatism presupposes a single, sovereign God in the JudeoChristian tradition who is active in our lives. Humanism rejects the concept of a sovereign and active God – hence the name “HUMANism”.
If ABC wants to connect with the vast number of conservatives to get them to view the program and buy the sponsored products, they need to shape the “conservative pundit” into a character at least resembling a “conservative pundit”.
Come on ABC — find a few conservatives somewhere between the coasts to help you figure out what a conservative is. You will be pleased to discover they don’t snort fire, burn crosses, or spend vast amounts of time figuring out who to hate. You might discover such conservatives are knowledgable, well read, educated, kind, and loving people that care for their families, friends, and neighbors a lot like you.
Here is to hoping some common sense will prevail so ABC can have another hit show. It was said in the article that they want “… to try and understand this, to leave behind some of the smug presuppositions of the two coasts, … to look at evolving patriotism and evolving traditionalism”. If so, ABC needs a clue.