Why was letter published?

  • Follow Letters

In an epic failure of judgment and character, The Augusta Chronicle published a letter to the editor June 15 (“America is godless nation”) that equated gay people to mules. My objection to the letter’s publishing will undoubtedly brand me a member of Oceania’s Thought Police, but what should be more troubling is that The Chronicle apparently deleted all 84 online comments on the letter sometime Saturday afternoon. Why? Is it because, as one commenter mentioned, The Chronicle would not dare print a letter equating black people to gorillas or Hispanic people to rats, and perhaps its editors realized their error? Did the exposure of their hypocrisy make them uncomfortable?

As the largest publication in the region, The Chronicle is a public forum as well as a public service. It sets the tone and topic of discussion in our community, and I would hope its editors feel that debate can be lively without being slanderous. They obviously don’t, as they have chosen to publish letters that clearly are ignorant and hateful toward gay people. But why stop there? Why not publish letters about how the Holocaust didn’t happen or how women shouldn’t vote? What’s the difference?

Is it because gay people comprise a relatively small fraction of The Chronicle’s readership, and offending them wouldn’t have much impact on revenue? Is it because The Chronicle actually agrees with the letter and is willing to sacrifice a profit to make a point? Why else would any journalistic institution promulgate a hypothesis that people whom we know and love are actually, as the letter hypothesized, members of a vast gay Nazi conspiracy?

In Matthew 6:24, Jesus – who said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, mind you – proclaimed, “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Apparently The Chronicle thinks otherwise.

Andrew Rauch

Evans

Comments (58) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 06/20/13 - 12:13 pm
4
0
Well if you want people to

Well if you want people to even contend to respect your point of view you have to be respectable in what you say. Like I'll respect someone's views all day long if they just want to say "they believe homosexuality is a sin as written in the bible." but as soon as you cross over into comparing gay people to mules you loose credibility in your opinions and it crosses over into something else entirely. I was particularly offended by this comment amongst other things that were said. Its just a very mean spirited view this man takes and he displays almost zero ability to express compassion and understanding. This is the real problem!

Nowhere in the letter does it say we should love gay people and be compassionate towards them. Maybe if he added that at the end I would respect what was written a bit more. Either way the mule thing is out of line and if you don't understand why then I don't even know what to say??

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 12:13 pm
1
1
--
Unpublished

--

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 12:13 pm
4
3
I suppose karradur no longer
Unpublished

I suppose karradur no longer has credibility with you then, duffstuff?

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 06/20/13 - 12:14 pm
1
0
about what? what did karradur

about what? what did karradur say?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 12:16 pm
3
2
About comparing me to a cow.
Unpublished

About comparing me to a cow. How is that different?

"@Humble Angela

As a woman, you are nurturing, hard-working, and not afraid to make some noise about your opinions.

You know, like a cow."

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 06/20/13 - 12:39 pm
2
1
if this person...

If this person is comparing you to a cow, and not in a light hearted joking manor, then you should be offended by that and I will support you in your offendedness. lol

Also I should note the more you generalize the more offensive it is because it becomes more ignorant. Like for example comparing you to a cow is one thing. Not a nice thing but it would appear more offensive and more ignorant if that person compared women in general to cows. That would be worse because it displays a much more broad sense of ignorance.

allhans
23523
Points
allhans 06/20/13 - 12:37 pm
3
1
I have just today seen two

I have just today seen two (2) letters from the "other side", so what is the problem.
I see no bias.

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 12:45 pm
6
1
re: InChristLove / re: Humble Angela

"I find it rather hilarious that gurto would presume someone is not intelligent and a liar, just because they are not offended by an opposing viewers statement of comparrison. It's wonderful that her self esteem is stronger than that."

She has a rational interest in saying that being compared to a cow would not offend her.

========

"Actually, I am quite aware that karradur was trying to provoke me and get me to make a hypocritical statement, but I'm not falling for it."

I know you are quite aware. I know you know. And that's why I feel like you're not being authentic when you answered the question. Instead of admitting that being compared to a cow is offensive (and maybe a personal attack?), saying that the statement is not offensive allows you to maintain your belief that the mule comment was not particularly out of line.

========

I have been very nice arguing with you few. I have abstained from making personal attacks, calling you all hypocrites, quoting the Bible in an attempt to point out inconsistencies, and trying to hang some sort of moral superiority over you. I have admitted that the letter itself was not 'slanderous' by definition of the word. I have agreed to stop using the word 'homophobic' to describe people who have a moral problem with homosexuality, at your discretion. I have respectfully communicated the fact that the first amendment is not a factor in this issue. The least I ask while we're talking is that you convey the same level of respect towards me.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 12:54 pm
4
2
I'm not offended....I
Unpublished

I'm not offended....I consider the source.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 12:56 pm
3
2
"I have just today seen two
Unpublished

"I have just today seen two (2) letters from the "other side", so what is the problem.
I see no bias."

True.....by publishing this letter, they prove that the letter writer is patently wrong.

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 12:57 pm
4
1
Are you implying that I

Are you implying that I should not consider what Hogue has to say?

Even "considering the source" and brushing off the insult from Hogue, consider this. I am not offended by what Hogue has to say. I am offended that the Augusta Chronicle decided that this was a worthwhile, appropriate, and inoffensive-enough statement to make to be published on their website.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 12:58 pm
4
2
"And that's why I feel like
Unpublished

"And that's why I feel like you're not being authentic............"

A polished up way of saying "you are lying."

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 12:59 pm
4
0
re: Humble Angela

"True.....by publishing this letter, they prove that the letter writer is patently wrong."

I addressed this in my very first post:

In doing so, they have managed to respond, in a sense, to the complaints about censorship and homophobia they were receiving online. While I'm not particularly convinced they understand why publishing the original letter was a poor ethical journalistic choice, they have at least shown that they are willing to hear criticism... and offer it up for discussion, I suppose.

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 01:02 pm
5
2
re: Humble Angela

"A polished up way of saying "you are lying.""

I am willing to believe that you do not take offense to whats-his-face calling you a cow, because he is some nameless person who you dislike.

I am not willing to believe that you would not take offense to an accredited news source publishing a letter that called all Christians, for instance, indoctrinating useless pigs.

Ms.Anthrope
502
Points
Ms.Anthrope 06/20/13 - 01:09 pm
1
1
accredited news source?
Unpublished

Are you calling the Augusta Chronicle an accredited news source?
And... everyone here is an accredited poster then?

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 06/20/13 - 01:21 pm
0
5
Quote from LTE

"but what should be more troubling is that The Chronicle apparently deleted all 84 online comments on the letter sometime Saturday afternoon. Why?"

This occurence reeks of a BIG EXAMPLE of non-First Ammendument actions by The Chronicle !! It diffinately disappointed me !

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 06/20/13 - 01:24 pm
1
5
GURTO @ 1:02

"I am willing to believe that you do not take offense to whats-his-face calling you a cow, because he is some nameless person who you dislike."

Abviously this nameless person has not seen her picture on her postings !

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 06/20/13 - 01:29 pm
1
4
GRUTO @ 12:59

"While I'm not particularly convinced they understand why publishing the original letter was a poor ethical journalistic choice, they have at least shown that they are willing to hear criticism... and offer it up for discussion, I suppose."

The conservatives and liberals seem to agree on the First Ammendment. SOOO, why can't publication of this letter be as simple as freedom of speach !!

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 01:32 pm
5
0
"The conservatives and

"The conservatives and liberals seem to agree on the First Ammendment. SOOO, why can't publication of this letter be as simple as freedom of speach !!"

This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects speech and publication from government censorship. The Chronicle choosing not to publish the letter is not a violation of the first amendment. It is up to their discretion.

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 06/20/13 - 01:40 pm
0
5
HA @ 11:15

"Well...60 posts so far today, and nearly 100 on the original letter, and since advertisers pay by the "hit" on websites, it should be obvious why the letter was published."

I diffinately don't agree that The Chronicle would publish an LTE to get advertiseing dollars !! It is freedom of speach !

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 06/20/13 - 01:46 pm
0
5
GURTO @ 1:32

"The Chronicle choosing not to publish the letter is not a violation of the first amendment. It is up to their discretion."

I have absolutely NO problem "BAD MOUTHING" The Chronicle when they are woung. I believe the LTE in question is protected under the 1st Amendment. Just as I believe distroying the 84 comments as a result of this LTE was against the 1st Amendment !!

Ms.Anthrope
502
Points
Ms.Anthrope 06/20/13 - 01:51 pm
0
0
I agree t3
Unpublished

the AC should repost those letters for all to read.............

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 06/20/13 - 02:00 pm
1
4
LTE's bad or good

People can brag untill they are blue in the face about The 1st Amendment. I say both letters are protected by The 1st Ammendment and should have been printed. The big difference in these two letters is that the "BAD" LTE was writen with two daggers for hands and today's is not !! There IS a time to pull the gloves off when you are writing ! Failure to do these results in your feels not coming through !! Next time try two daggers !

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 03:14 pm
4
2
"I am not willing to believe
Unpublished

"I am not willing to believe that you would not take offense to an accredited news source publishing a letter that called all Christians, for instance, indoctrinating useless pigs."

Doesn't really matter if you are willing to believe it or not. If I don't respect the writer, or value what he or she has to say, he or she can't offend me.

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 03:26 pm
4
2
re: Angela

"Doesn't really matter if you are willing to believe it or not. If I don't respect the writer, he or she can't offend me."

OK, Angela. It doesn't really matter if you do not get personally offended by the statement. The statement itself is offensive. Simply because you decide not to consider the statement does not mean it does not exist.

What I'm trying to say is that regardless of whether I am personally offended at being likened to Hitler or mules, the comparison is offensive. And yet there it is, staining the Augusta Chronicle website.

(Humble) Angela, a little bit of advice when it comes to online discussion -- it does not have to be antagonistic. We are supposed to benefit from each other's perspectives. That does not happen when you repeatedly try to 'win' by saying whatever you need to in order to shut down people you disagree with. Imagine a world where people can have a discussion about a controversial issue and come out of the discussion as better people.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 03:39 pm
3
2
If comparing me to a cow
Unpublished

If comparing me to a cow didn't offend me, then how is it offensive? Were YOU offended? If so, you might need to grow a thicker skin.

Show me where I have said "whatever I need in order to shut down" someone? I deal in facts. If you disagree with facts, then it is your problem. If I state an opinion, and I sometimes do, I usually state that it is my opinion.

gurto
162
Points
gurto 06/20/13 - 03:49 pm
3
1
"If comparing me to a cow

"If comparing me to a cow didn't offend me, then how is it offensive? Were YOU offended? If so, you might need to grow a thicker skin."

I am not offended. The text is offensive -- there is a difference.

I'm surprised that a Doctor Who fan like yourself would condemn homosexuality as a sin. How do you overlook the extreme amount of favor the television show puts on its bisexual / homosexual characters?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 03:54 pm
3
1
It can't be offensive it no
Unpublished

It can't be offensive it no one is offended.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 06/20/13 - 04:03 pm
4
1
And I didn't condemn
Unpublished

And I didn't and don't condemn homosexuality. I am defending the person's right to have his beliefs and express them. I'm about liberty, for all. If someone wants to be gay, that is their business....if someone wants to condemn that lifestyle, that too is their business. Live and let live.

Ms.Anthrope
502
Points
Ms.Anthrope 06/20/13 - 04:20 pm
0
0
live and let live
Unpublished

=^.^=

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs