It will come as no surprise to this newspaper’s regular readers that, for the past 25 or so years,  our content has reflected a commitment to community values. We feel confident in our ability to do that because, like you, we live here, work here, raise our families here.
Even though our ability to publish Wrangler News is based entirely on advertising revenue, we reject advertising and other content that we believe could be morally or otherwise offensive to the majority of our readership. It was with that guiding principle, for example, that we turned down a prospective year-long advertising schedule with a company that specializes in adult clothing and paraphernalia.
We did the same with another business that used suggestive graphics and language as the focal point of its marketing campaign.
Just as we stand firmly behind our belief in the tenets of what some might call an old-fashioned approach to community-newspaper publishing, we sometimes also find ourselves facing challenges that, to us at least, are not so clearly defined. For example, where First Amendment and freedom of expression issues seem to be involved.
A case in point was our June 4 issue, in which a candidate for U.S. Senate paid to have his campaign’s political publication inserted with our paper. Although the campaign met the required attribution statements on three separate pages, the content raised the ire of several readers who vehemently disagreed with the premise of some of the articles. Others, not surprisingly, felt exactly the opposite.
So, having set a tone of mostly non-controversial content for these many years and now finding ourselves in the midst of a debate, we asked ourselves what we felt were some important questions:
Did we err by accepting a political insert in our June 4 issue, even though we knew some might disagree with its conclusions? Can we restrict the flow of information because we may disagree with a contributor’s politics? And if we do, is it fair for us to accept only content espousing principles we agree with?
The ensuing discussion was both enlightening and, we think, helpful for the future.
Of the several email or phone objections we received, one of the most eloquently stated exchanges of ideas we had was with reader Ken Willmott.
We are reprinting this exchange in its entirety because we feel it will help to clarify the complexities of an admittedly difficult challenge for the media in general and for this newspaper in particular.
Ken Willmott — I was little shocked at “The Arizona Statesman” insert in your paper. It looks like it is a political advertising piece for Alex Meluskey but is nowhere labeled as such. You should take care that inserts in your publication are labeled correctly because IF this is part of your paper I would be concerned. Don Kirkland — Hi, Ken, and thanks for being in touch. The attribution to the Melusky campaign can be found on three pages of this paid insert in our June 4 issue: A lengthy statement in a box at the bottom on Page 2; in a box on Page 6; and in a full-width attribution statement on Page 10. While we may not always agree with a candidate’s views, the First Amendment allows free expression of ideas, and we don’t feel that we can control such content provided it does not violate laws nor incite overthrow of our government. We welcome views from other candidates, provided they follow the previously mentioned parameters. We are alerting you that the Melusky committee has indicated its plans for another paid insertion in our publication later in the campaign. Should you be connected to or in communication with any of the other candidates’ campaign representatives, no matter which political party they may represent, feel free to let them know of our willingness to accept their viewpoints as well. Again, we greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us. Best wishes…
Ken — Don, thank you for the response. When I read through this insert, I flipped through the paper and didn’t see the attribution, but I honestly didn’t not look that hard. Typically when there is an advertising (i.e. purchased) piece, even advertising a political campaign, the piece is clearly marked to avoid confusion from the content edited and screened by a paper. I have since recycled the insert but my recollection was that the insert was rife with inaccuracies and I was concerned about what appeared to be misinformation. I generally enjoy reading your paper and have not seen this type of thing in the Wrangler News before.
I teach Constitutional Law to law students and I agree with your policy of not censoring free speech and I would never ask you to do so. In fact, if need be, I would defend Melusky’s right to convey his message and your paper’s constitutional rights as the press to publish your works.
I only have one request: Can you make a somewhat conspicuous disclosure on the insert so we the readers know this is his message and not yours? With the current state of media, including social media, I think it is important to not confuse whose message is being conveyed so citizens have a chance of distinguishing facts from opinion.
Regardless of what you do with my request, I will continue to read the Wrangler News.
Don — Thanks, Ken, for your insightful analysis of an admittedly complex issue. It is greatly appreciated, and please know that we will keep your thoughts, and those of the readers who communicated with us, in mind as we face similar situations in the future.
