Jan-06
16
Local Writer Advocates for Censorship
By
I don’t understand һοw a local book writer саח advocate fοr censorship, bυt аѕ tһеу ѕау truth іѕ ѕtrаחɡеr tһаח fiction. Yes Marybeth Lorbiecki Mataya һаѕ аѕkеԁ tһе HHSSO tο limit tһе number οf letters a person саח write per year. Tһіѕ seems a ƖіttƖе ѕtrаחɡе fοr someone wһο mаkеѕ tһеіr living аѕ a writer οf children’s books (see ѕtοrу). Tο mе tһаt wουƖԁ bе a ƖіttƖе bit Ɩіkе Arnie Fett asking fοr аח independent audit!
See Marybeth’s letter tο editor advocating fοr censorship- See Letter
Dοеѕ tһіѕ add up?
No related posts.
Is this the same one who writes under 2 differnet names. Sometimes Lorbiecki and sometimes Mataya?
Ms Mataya certainly wrote a confusing editorial.
To which an online commenter noted, “I agree.” Which led me to wonder, to what? Good grief… The commenter went on to say, “…One nice thing about all of the letters the nitwits write is that it allows the rest of us to see them for what they are.” To that, I agree! Which comports with Mike Streed’s theory. Streed is onto something, I think. Ooooff Da!
Essentially, Mataya suggested three options including heavy editing (censorship), limitations per time period (she suggested four letters per year), and no change at all (given a “policy of civility”).
Her premise, which was reiterated at the end of her editorial was:
Whom “they” are is never defined by Ms Mataya, nor are the individuals who have been denied access (“a chance”) to appear in the editorial pages. Moreover, what constitutes a “policy of civility” is also not defined. It all sounds nice, but Ms Mataya seemed to have been yelling in the proverbial can. Perhaps she is tacitly advocating for some unknown minority who, up til now, has never been heard from in the pages of the HSO… Perhaps she could write again next week and illuminate all of us with her literary savoir faire on these matters.
For clarity, a person who is “authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable” is known as a censor. Ms Mataya appears to be arguing for such in the first option she proposes, and that Doug Stohlberg would be said censor. Now, I don’t think Doug really wants to do this sort of thing. I mean, really, I would hope he has much better things to do with his time. Furthermore, I find such a suggestion coming from a would-be popularist author a bit odd… Nevertheless, the Star Observer is a private business and could do this if it has the time and inclination.
Then comes the four times per year idea, far too few in my estimation as it would not allow for rebuttal on a solid debate. Some of those colloquies are great reading, and this is what an editorial page should be used for in addition to the disarming (civil) stuff to which nobody responds. I am afraid that the four times per year approach would foster a plethora of Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall poetry, and zero intellectual fisticuffs. I like mental fist fights, I also enjoy good poetry. I guess that makes me eclectic, damn proud of it too. Under the current policy, poetry, civil prose, and mental fisticuffs are all welcomed. I like that, hope it remains.
As far as I know, and I have not submitted a letter to the HSO in over a year, Doug Stohlberg simply prints every letter recieved (unless it is profane or otherwise not acceptable)so this idea that there are people out there who don’t “get a chance,” as Mataya suggests, is simply fictitious.
As far as civility goes, I agree that when push comes to shove more civility is a good thing but it ought not be a show stopper. Arguing is good, it airs disagreements and pent up frustrations. The more, the better in my book. I am hoping that what Ms Mataya was referring to was style and not content. I have read many many letters in the HSO and people sometimes do write with a bit of passion, but this is good and frankly we need more passion! It gives texture to the message and, I think, was what Mike Streed was speaking about in a previous letter. If the passion is misplaced, everyone sees its flaws.
Now, there may be people out there with no convictions to go with their opinions but that is another matter entirely. If you feel strongly enough about an issue and have the logic to back it up you should never be afraid to write a letter. On the other hand, I suspect that there are plenty of people who have propositions that cannot stand the light of public scrutiny who are, rightfully, reluctant to submit letters – and they should be.
If the Hudson Star Observer is looking for a simple solution to this perceived problem, then the logical approach is to do what many other papers do; limit each writer to one submission per month subject to the standing editing policy they have always had.
For what it is worth, if I were running the paper, I would not allow direct personal attacks (name calling, and ad hominems) but I would allow direct analysis and commentary on what other writers have submitted. Also, I would limit writers to a reasonable number of letters per year unless there are some extenuating circumstances that would make an editorial highly newsworthy. If I had to pick a number, it would be 15 per year out of the 52 weekly issues (roughly every third edition). But again, I would allow for a reasonable number of rebuttals. I would not publish unsubstantiated information or abusive denunciations that have a direct damaging impact on another’s reputation. Perhaps this was what Ms Mataya was referring to as “civil.” Public officials and elected representatives would get the least protection from said personal attack as they arguably deserve the most public scrutiny, while non-public figures need a much higher level of protection. That, by the way, should have been exercised in the article by Meg Heaton regarding the Devin Willi matter.
In short leave out the censoring and place a reasonable limit on number of submissions. Just the implementation of a limit would probably water down the irrational yet frequent letter writers… Also, one would have to think a little more before firing off a letter. There is no doubt that such a policy would change the tenor and type of letters which are submitted. The most important thing the paper can do is to have a distinct, equitable and fully understandable policy to which the paper adheres consistently and without exception.
Oh, one more thing. And when you are done reading the editorials make sure you come out here ontheborderline for the real fireworks!