Saturday, January 8, 2011

'Selectivity' about comments on Giffords assault

Earlier today I added a couple of comments on the AP story about the assault on Rep Giffords and the crowd. Two of them apparently didn't make the Courier's mysterious cut.They went like this:

"Perhaps we would better spend our energy asking why it took so long for sheriff's deputies and medical help to arrive."

"I notice that AP has altered the passage I mentioned previously."


dovh49 said...

I have to hand it to you. You let all my comments pass even though you don't like them. BTW, I don't dislike you as you said I did in a previous post. The courier is dumb for not letting all posts stay on, granted it is a private company so it does get to choose what comments are left. Sometimes that might be a good thing with some of the distasteful things people say online.

It's sad to hear what happened today. I pray those who survived will recovery completely. Violence is not the key, violence isn't good from the state and neither from individuals. Where's the love? As Ernest Hancock would say. A lovolution is key not violence, it will on get a violent response in kind. I wish we had more armed citizens to prevent crazy people like this from doing so much damage.

lestersjandm said...

I too have had my comments on the shooting censored by the "wizard" at the Courier. And I know what I posted was not "in violation" of their terms as they like to say. They do seem to give a pass to some while holdings others to a different standard. Not fair but what do you expect from the Courier. They protect their right wing friends first.

Mia Connolly said...


Just any old armed citizen will do? Lots more guns in crowds? Not comforting to me unless I'm packing myself, and have had lots of firearms safety and accuracy training and so have all the others. Seems a little wild-westish. I believe we could conceive a more civil solution.

Jack Wilson said...

My experience with posting comments on is they will not post comments that cut too close to the bone. I submitted one recently that the new Tourism Committee members were handpicked by Mayor Kuykendall and not by Don Prince. They apparently did not like that one and did not publish it.

Anonymous said...

Steve, it will now be my turn to argue (with you) about the Courier censorship. No it doesn't make sense, but they have yet to date been challenged by litigation over it. The Circuit Courts & SCOTUS have ruled more than a few time regarding the higher standards and responsibilities afforded news organizations as it relates to censorship & the free exchange of ideas. Currently an undisclosed group is reviewing these rulings and will proceed against certain aspects of censorship at the Courier. We'll see what happens.

Steven Ayres said...

If there's a basis in law for requiring a private company to publish anything, I've yet to hear about it. Can you share any citations?

dovh49 said...

This is a private company. If they don't want to let people make any comments they want to that's their choice. It's their private property.

Of course, if they receive any public funds that changes everything.

Just like this blog is "owned" by Steven and he can block any comments he wishes. He choices not to and that is his choice. It is neither mine nor yours.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I think this week the Courier moved up someone from the copy room who wants to impress his/her boss. They are taking words & phrases out that don't even make sense as to being outside the terms of use. Additionally, they are removing words that were cut & pasted from previous posts. Can't use the word 'nuts' anymore. Citations will be forth coming. Let's just say that they can totally dismiss the blogs or accept all the blogs, but the censorship is going over the top this week.
PS. If you are independent of the Courier, why do they have your site listed with the other sites. Something is fishy here.

Steven Ayres said...

=> If you are independent of the Courier, why do they have your site listed with the other sites?

It's a reasonable question. Not long after I started this blog in '07, Prescott Newspapers Inc.'s IT guy approached me about including it and several other local blogs on a new blog page for the online version of the Courier. I agreed and it ran for most of a year, until I let the blog go dark for a while. When I came back to it and started writing again, my pal in IT was gone, a new guy was running things and the blog page was filled with pseudoblogs ginned up by PNI -- really just occasional columns as online-only content. One day I happened to notice that Courierwatch was linked on the blog page as the only independent. No one asked me, and I don't complain. I get more readers, and I expect the Courier editors see me as adding to their content and value for customers. There's no money involved, and I don't want any.

That said, I can no longer claim complete independence since a few months ago I began writing a regular column for Pop Rocket, recently absorbed into the PNI machine, and there's a small PNI paycheck associated with that. But I maintain editorial independence there as well, and I assure you that if anyone tries to mess with my stuff, I'm outta there.

P.K. Lester said...

So I see that my post to the courier, simply noting that the tea-party might have made a bad choice in using the Gadsden flag
" don't tread on me" which has been associated with the right-wing militia and other anti-gov.groups. That's all I said and it was apparently to much.
Maybe Courierwatch should get the traffic.