Editorial When newspapers print unpopular truths

Smear campaign and boycot not peculiar to today

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

— Following is an editorial written by Billie Jines, editor of the Pea Ridge Graphic, on Thursday, Nov. 26, 1970.

A few days ago, Senator Alan Cranston (D of Calif.) said: “It is the job of the news media - indeed it is their duty - to delve beneath the superficial and to search behind the misleading and dog out the truth....”

And a few days ago, the Pea Ridge Graphic did just that. The results were rapid. Three men canceled their ads, with one of them canceling his subscription, also. A fourth man came to the office to harass the editor and offer veiled threats.

And there were some, who went about attempt to smear the publishers’ image. A day before, we had been to some of them a great little newspaper;

now, suddenly, they were whispering that we were tearing the town apart by revealing the truth as we saw it. Interestingly, we had thought some to be friends.

“Et tu, Brute!”

On the other side of the coin, the Graphic discovered friends previously unrecognized. Persons from both old and new families, people in their 20s and their 70s and in-between ages, upon hearing of an attempted economic boycott and smear campaign, informed us that they were staunchly with us.

In addition, if you will look through this week’s Graphic, you will note that only three ads are missing.

We do not mean to imply that we dislike those who opposed freedom of the press. There was no personal dislike for them then - nor now.

Our stand was this: Misleading and incorrect information had been sent out from City Hall to the voters of Pea Ridge. The mayor’s letter had causedinstant division among the people. One man who is highly respected here and is a relative of an alderman came to see us highly incensed that “those people” would cost the city $600 for an election. He refused to see that it was the only way the people could be heard, after the council had acted behind closed doors.

He also did not believe the election would cost less than $600 because “it says so right there in the mayor’s letter.” Others after him felt much the say way, acting as though “those people” were not a part of the city at all, but fighting the city.

We determined at that point that there was no other voice but ours to try to give the citizens - all the citizens - the facts.

Those were truths as we saw them last week when our editorial was written.

Those are the truths this week still.

It is still true this week, as last, that a governing body cannot legally use the tax-payers’ money to fight the tax-payers.

So far, not one person has denied that we told the truth.

No one knows at this point, of course, how the election will come out.

Should the citizens decide that the council erred and decide to rescind the transaction, then the Council surely will not react petulantly, as some contend they will. On the other hand, should the voters within the city decide to go on with the transaction, then let us all live with thedecision without a murmur.

For, after all, that is why the petitioners struggled for this election - to give the citizens an opportunity to voice their opinion, which the council had denied them when it failed to follow the laws.

And in this struggle, the American press, right here in Pea Ridge, finds itself fighting anew to retain the basic guarantee that was given it in Article I of the American Bill of Rights.

Shall we have freedom of the press in Pea Ridge?

If not, then who shall dictate to that press? True, one administration is in power now and would have the say-so as to what the people are told. But what about the day that is bound to come when some other group will be in power?

Will the present ones want to have some other group suppress the news and interpretation of the news from them?

It is little wonder that Sen. Cranston also said: “The press must remain free, fearless and, yes, fearsome. It must be the gadfly of the politician, always probing, querying, questioning and doubting.. And one of the warning signs that we may be in for trouble will be when an administration says it is happy with everything the press does. If the government likes the press, and the press likes the government, who will be left to protect the people?

◊◊◊

Editor’s note: This editorial appeared in the Thursday, Nov. 26, 1970, edition of the Pea Ridge Graphic, Earle Jines, publisher, and Billie Jines, editor. It was in response to the newspaper’s coverage of an election prompted by a petition of the citizens calling for an election ... “controversialpurchase by the City Council of two downtown business buildings” as stated in the Nov. 5 edition of the newspaper. Futhermore, “the petition asserts that the purchase of the old buildings was not in the best interest of the citizens of Pea Ridge and that the council approving the measure did not comply with the requirements of state laws governing the acquisition of real estate by municipalities.” The election was held Dec. 1 and voters approved the purchase 197/136.

◊Oct. 15 - City buys downtown buildings for City Hall.

The Graphic reported that the City Council, meeting in special session at 8:40 a.m.

Thursday, Oct. 8, approved the purchase of two downtown buildings for $7,890.

Two councilmen and the mayor were present. A third councilman, who arrive late, said he would not have voted for the purchase. The press was notified 20 minutes prior to the meeting that the Council was to meet. The Graphic published an editorial about keeping public meetings public and the requirements inherent in the Freedom of Information Act.

◊Oct. 29 - Graphic reported petition being circulated.

It was drawn up by Bill Denman, one of two candidates for mayor, and other interested persons.

◊Nov. 5 - Petition to call special election compiled.

The Graphic reported that enough signatures were on the petition being circulated to recall the city’s purchase of two downtown buildings.

The next step was for the petition to be verified by the City Council and to set a date for a special election to either back the Council or rescind the purchase.

◊Dec. 3 - Graphic reports “Issue Carries” with 197 persons voting for the purchase and 136 voting against it.

Opinion, Pages 4 on 12/01/2010