I know what I’d do if I were one of the students. I’d pressure him to clarify what he means by “articles of that nature”. Does he mean anything about LGBT people regardless of the subject? Does he prefer to pretend such people don’t exist?
If there aren’t online archives I’d also find a way to go through the papers’ history. I bet there are “articles of that nature”–just not positive ones.
With all the news available online, including from hyperlocal sources like Patch, does it really matter that this one newspaper owner won’t cover these topics?
Newspaper owner’s views on LGBT people as obsolete as newspapers.
Because these papers are so hyperlocal they’re publishing news that’s unlikely to be available anywhere, but the owner has made it explicit editorial policy to pretend that LGBT people simply don’t exist. Even an article about a gay-straight student alliance at a school is rejected for being “of that nature”.
So, yes, I would call that a problem.
Right. Though, without the articles in question there’s a lack of context here. Perhaps the articles happened to include “vulgarities,” like Steven Saus’s press release they rejected?
(Just trying hard not to “ascribe to malice…”)
Edit: judgment withheld long enough; seems like a dirtbag. See @transmothra’s post below.
For an industry that’s already on thin ice as it is…
Exactly what I was going to say. 
“Ohio newspaper chain owner says his papers doesn’t publish articles about LGBTQ people”
As far as he knows, that is.
So what I’m hearing is that there is a small, local market for QUILTBAG news in rural Ohio?
HEY INVESTORS, GIVE ME MONEY.
I’ve had Internet Words with this guy before. I’m from one of the tiny Ohio towns where he publishes his dumb little rags (which started as nothing more than a crappy right-wing 'zine when the REAL town newspaper folded several years back). In the past he has amended people’s obituaries to disinclude any vague reference to the decedent having been LGBTQ+. He literally changed somebody’s obit to change “partner” to “friend”.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. That asshole has censored LGBTQ+ people’s obits.
What a dick!
I wonder if his papers does employ headline editors.
Wish i could pick up a copy to see if he REALLY published the following:
https://www.facebook.com/EnonEagle/posts/10153366766206431
[edit] i posted on the Enon Eagle’s FB that it’s oddly soothing to know he’s still a bigot, and he returned with the above screenshot, before (natch) deleting my post.
Nothing like hastening your paper’s descent into irrelevance.
I hope one of those kids decides to challenge his monopoly…I’d help crowdfund that!
By the way I hope I didn’t come across as too harsh in my reply. I think you do raise a valuable point: the amount of news, and information generally, that’s available online means that LGBT people don’t always feel as isolated or alone even in small communities as they once did, and an absence of stories about LGBT people in a community paper may not be a big deal.
And if the owners’ policy were unstated the guy could be given some benefit of the doubt. We could say, well, space is limited so maybe he’s just giving priority to broader community stories. The way he stated the policy, though, in addition to @transmothra’s comments removes all doubt as to who he feels belongs in the community and who doesn’t. And statements like that do have an impact.
Not that I wish to defend this guy, but there’s nothing stopping the students from starting their own local competing site, or getting their news posted to other news sites.
If a 8-year-old can do it, anyone can:
http://www.cjr.org/the_profile/orange_street_news.php
Exactly why I wrote that up - and continue to document what conversations he has with me. What bothers me even more than the exclusion is that it’s only because someone was paying attention that it got noticed. What other groups or people are being excluded? How do we know?
He has refused to clarify; his actions (between what this student reports and what @transmothra found) and his comments in the e-mail quoted at the end of that post about the obituary make it pretty clear that yup, he’s trying to erase LGBT people from public discourse. The key paragraph there is this:
The idea that a man can consider another man his “spouse” is ludcrious (sic). Had the obituary come in identifying his daughter as his “spouse”, should I have printed it that way? What if it had identified his dog as his “spouse”?
They doesn’t?
