I do not speak in defense or support of Mr. Keith Hansen, or his opinions expressed in the Dispatch’s opinion editorials. But I fiercely defend his right to speak what’s on his mind and for the Dispatch to employ the journalists, they are comfortable with.
The first amendment to our Constitution placed freedom of the press on equal footing with an individual’s right of free speech. Public discourse whether by the press or an individual is fundamental to maintaining our freedom to affect and control government.
The founding fathers did not mince words in their support of the right to free speech. After creating our Constitution, they exercised their right to amend that Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Before one goes after the messenger, one would be well served by reviewing the first amendment to our Constitution, found in the Bill of Rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
As citizens we stand into dangerous waters, when the best we can muster to an opinion we disagree with is a figurative “shoot the messenger” approach. We see where that approach has lead today in places like Syria, Egypt and Iran. Sadly, once shooting the messenger becomes acceptable among the citizenry, governments all too soon can follow the same extreme approach.
Dale Lueck
Aitkin
Comments (8)
Add commentWhen you cite the Constitution to bolster Hansens whacko views
I guess that speaks volumes about the "credibility " of what your about ready to read going forward.
Sort of like a prepaid/ permanent disclaimer.
WOW ! - Thanks for the warning Dale .
Can you say " Conservative Media Entertainment Complex"
I miss John Chancellor.
I didn't realize journalism was about finding a writer/reporter you are "comfortable" with. How about some scholarly articles written at a literary level above high school?
That's what makes for an educated citizenry.
Referance Nolan Spencers article
Reference is made to an article in the BDDearlier this week by Nolan Spencer from Deerwood. You state you are unhappy with Keith Hansens writings. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you realize what the rest of us have been going through prior to his arrival. You just got too comfortable with the liberal rag that was published under the likes of Mike O'Rourke, Denny Newton etc. If you don't like the BDD anymore, go for it. I'm quite sure the Mpls Trib will satisfy your lust for liberal news. In case you didn't notice, the conservatives took CWC in the last election. So if there are 10 conservatives reading Mr Hansens articles and subscribing to the BDD and 8 liberals subscribing, and you pull your subscription leaving only 7 liberals, that leaves a net gain of three new subscribers to the BDD. Looks to me like the BDD is the winner. Keep up the good work Keith. Variety is good for all. One side is bad for half the people.
What to write, what to ask?
I second Purposed and Southie. It is when the so-called
reporter picks the subject to write about and there usually is
a bias from all. The writer decides what to write about and
what questions to ask.
Many people are uninformed because they don't get the
answers to questions that aren't asked. They read about the subject that was chosen not something that may be more important.
This is why the internet for the users is a good tool if we as
users exercise caution.
Nolans article- Purposed
I read it in the "Reader Opinion" in the print eition and wrote some notes about it. I looked for it to appear on line but it never showed up. It was entitled "Extreme Editorials" and was on page 6A of Tuesday, Dec 11 paper. It was written by a guy named "Nolan Spencer" from Deerwood.
Journalistic integrity vs. blatant partisan advocacy
Some folks don't seem to grasp the basic difference between the two.
Setting aside the issue of whether a local/regional paper should constantly focus on national political issues or not, the concerns I am reading and hearing from many in the community regarding Hansen are not so much a reaction from a political position. I realize that this will be totally lost on the many who think you are either a commie libbie or goose stepping right wing nutjob, but you can lean to the left OR right and make your point with facts while respecting different viewpoints.
I think many in the area lean more moderate or conservative on many issues. Keith is disturbing even to them, not because of the conservative bent but how he handles that. Ignoring facts to suit the need in the argument being made, blatantly copying false information that just happens to routinely coincide with the exact some misinformation present from highly partisan sources, the constant focus on "issues" that just happen to match the partisan political spin at the time--these aren't things that are taught in journalism programs.
Mr. Lueck is an interesting person to be arguing these points by the way. Given that someone with an extreme partisan viewpoint torpedoed his campaign through speech that included false/misleading info, you'd think he'd be on board with more truth during the exercise of a free speech right!
I don't disagree with Luecks suggestion that the Dispatch ought to be free to hire who they want either. But I don't think the local staff had a thing to do with bringing in Hansen...a good analogy would be Rupert Murdoch hiring Sarah Palin!