Censored

I was unable to get this web address published in the local media print outlets. Here's the full story.

I wanted to share this website with my community by mentioning this web address in our local community newspaper. My hope was to offer a counter view to the BLM perspective that permeates the news and events in our area. We are a small college town, Williamsburg Va. There is anxiety in the air. My goal was to get the word out locally to help balance the discussion.

My first attempt was to submit a short pararaph, including this web address, to the Virginia Gazette's 'Last Word'. The 'Last Word' consists of anomymous postings from citizens on the back page; a place to comment freely on a range of topics (1 - see end). My submission was not accepted.

My second attempt was to write a letter to the editor, including this web address. Since we have two papers which cover the Williamsburg area, and owned by the same parent company, I sent the letter to both, asking for publication in one or the other, whichever one would fit best for them (2). My letter was not accepted by either newspaper.

With no luck so far, I felt a stymied. When I inquired (3), the Editor was polite but firm. They felt they had already published enough letters mirroring my point of view. Mine just didn't get selected. As evidence, she sent me a link to the letter section in a third paper owned by the same company, The Virginia Pilot. I let it go.

My third attempt Why not just pay for an ad in the local Virginia Gazette to get the word out?!

Here's the reply I received to my inquiry on running an ad.

"...[The] Political Advertising Team ... informed me that the smallest ad available for this platform is a 1/4 page space. The cost would be $775.00 per run." YIKES!

[I asked if they were trying to discourage me!] The reply: "Your ad was deemed of a political nature, I was able to get approval for a 2 X 3 ad space. The rate would be $275.00." Great!

[A follow up email] "It looks like we need to add the following to you ad: PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT (AT THE TOP IN 8 POINT FONT). We also have to put a Paid For By statement at the bottom.

[We negotiated and came to this] "At the top, it can read "Paid Advocacy Ad" At the bottom, it can read. Paid for by an individual not related to any campaign or PAC - email address."

One more piece of paperwork - I have to INDEMNIFY the paper.

Made it! Paid and ready for publication.

[Friday, the day before publication. I received this email from advertising] "I was just informed that management has made the decision to pull your ad from the Virginia Gazette. I am waiting on feedback as to why, but I wanted to make you aware of it."

[This email was followed by a clarification of the reason for rejection]"The ad was initially accepted at the local level, it was flagged by the Chicago office as not meeting standards of acceptability and publisher has the right to accept or reject any advertisement". My apologies.

CONCLUSION: True, papers have the right to not accept ads. However, if you are a media company with a monopoly, owning all the papers that cover a certain geographical area, there is something inherently unfair about this level of control of information. The papers' owners may not agree with a point of view, but how does that justify refusing to accept money to advertise a different point of view, even with indemnification? If the owner of the newspaper feels that strongly, why not allow the ad to go through and counter with an editorial?

References from above

(1) Black Lives Matter has morphed into a larger movement of shaming and thought control. White children are being told that they and their parents are racist. Misinformation is rampant. Is COVID affecting the mind? As a counter to this hysteria see [web address].

(2) In each encounter between police and citizen, where the policeman has white skin and the citizen has black skin, Black Lives Matter sees Racism. George Floyd was black, officer Derek Chauvin was white. That’s as much as we know about the racial component of their interaction, yet racism is assumed. But studies tell us that racism cannot be assumed. A recent Michigan State University study clearly documents that race is NOT a factor when it comes to police violence. The website, nomatterwhatcolor.com, examines this study and documents multiple instances to substantiate its findings. Knee jerk accusations of racism are simplistic and inflammatory. Most troubling is that they are misleading our youth to see racism everywhere at the expense of reason and judgment. Another example of a race based accusation by BLM is the case of Eric Gardner. His restraint by a white police officer led to his death. What is not mentioned is that the on-site supervising officer of this tragic incident was black. She stated that "The perpetrator's condition did not seem serious and he did not appear to get worse". Judging by skin color is wrong. It is prejudice in raw form. It is the very definition of racism. To many of us, black and white, racial equality is achieved when we look past skin color, not when we emphasize it. Character, not color, is our hope for the future of our country.

(3) Dear Mr. xxxxx, Here is a link to where you may find out letters online. https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/ Thank you, J.

---