Now, now. The paper’s editorial board did not call for anything. They printed a letter to the editor. They claim it slipped through. Whether you believe that or not, I don’t think this headline is fair.
Every paper I’ve ever read includes a disclaimer on their Letters to the Editor page that the opinions on that page are those of the community and not those of the editorial board of the newspaper. I don’t know about the Daily Item of Sunbury, but if that’s the case, “the paper” did not call for Obama’s execution.
Correct.
Also, I think that papers SHOULD run letters like this from your typical teabagger rube. The more we put them out in the open, the faster they will become marginalized.
Holy GOP~TEABAGGER Batman!
That area of Pa. is about as far North you can get while still being in the South!
I call it PennTuckey, and ain’t nothing but a bunch of squirrel eaters out that’a ways!
Bingo!
Absolutely. Instead of apologizing for running it, they should say something like:
“Our opinions page is where we invite members of the community to express themselves. We take great pride in not censoring the views of our readership. While we at the Daily Item disagree with Mr Stover, he submitted his opinion with the knowledge that it, and his name, would be printed in the public eye. We’ve printed a section of reactions from our readers and will continue to foster ongoing dialogue with strong opinions from all sides of the spectrum.”
It was literally printed in their pages. Perhaps the “Pa paper” didn’t call for it, as much as a hunk of dead trees can call for anything. However, certainly somebody that works there and can make decisions read it before allowing it to go to press.
While letters to the editor are not the editor(s)/papers opinion, I’ve never encountered one that didn’t edit them.
Also, the paper itself agrees with the BB headline to a large extent.
“The procedure at The Daily Item is for the person editing letters to review the content for offensive language and ad hominem attacks,” the paper wrote. “Publication is, however, a signal that the opinion is not one we would readily suppress, which can accurately be interpreted as an endorsement of acceptability — much to our chagrin in this instance.”
It was a bungle, this editor needs more sleep or something because damn.
Indeed, that’s why they’re called “letters to the editor” instead of “letters to the guy who will just publish any crazy rant sight unseen.”
Surely that occurred. Surely it was chosen from among several presented to them. Surely they knew it was inflammatory, and surely it is their right.
I support the printing of the letter to the editor, hope it’s author gets a nice short meeting with the Secret Service out of it.
Unrelated to that, I think the BB headline is perfectly accurate and fair. (edit: and it was rephrased by the author between your comment and mine)
It definitely is, now that they’ve changed it. Originally it read, “PA paper calls for Obama’s execution…”
Thanks for your comments! I made the headline more clear.
The headline is exactly true.
PA paper publishes letter calling for Obama’s execution, then apologizes when readers complain
There is nothing in your “clarification” that is different from what happened.
Edit: Unless it was changed since your post!
Yes, not an “Op-Ed,” but a LTE
The disturbing part that people overlook is that the guy almost certainly envisions an apocalyptic national purge of everyone that does not agree with him.
[quote=“Phrenological, post:14, topic:58542”]
Edit: Unless it was changed since your post!
[/quote]Indeed it has.
Just peruse the Fox Nation comments section on any story involving Obama (and even some that don’t) and you’ll quickly learn the various ways to call for the president’s execution without breaking the law. Posts such as “snipers needed” are everywhere.
Wow. if it wasn’t for the mention of ISIS, I might have thought this letter to the editor was one they found behind the cabinet that fell there 10 or so years ago…
That would be the Daily Mail, then.
