Newspaper attempts censorship of conservative viewpoint
By: Caroline Miranda
 Click for more information |
5/14/01
The latest salvo in the media bias war comes with the attempt to halt the printing of an election campaign advertisement sponsored by American Patrol, a grass roots, anti-illegal immigrant organization.
The political ad in controversy reports ethnic separatist advocacy movements Los Angeles mayor candidate Antonio Villaraigosa was involved with and his pro-illegal alien, Mexican-nationalism loyalty. The Daily News in Los Angeles refused to run the ad after the Los Angeles Times complained a reproduction of a Times photo and banner (pictured right) in the ad violated copyright law. The Times threatened American Patrol with legal action for the ad, which reproduced a banner headline and photo about Villaraigosa to prove American Patrol's argument.
The Times, a liberal daily that constantly injects white racism allusions in its news stories, recently killed a B.C. comic strip as controversial because it honored Easter. Notorious for its telling reporters to interview more minorities in news stories and for producing a politically incorrect word list for reporters to follow, it now would censor a viewpoint with which it disagrees.
Through the decades, federal courts have held prior restraint to be the most odious sort of censorship. The paper joins the lowly status of college newspapers that disassociated themselves from a rationally argued ad by conservative activist David Horowitz, which argued against reparations to blacks for slavery.
Like the student editors, the Times evades reasoned argument and instead prefers the viewpoint not be expressed at all. The Left simply cannot withstand other viewpoints and would silence opposition. The paper that attacked Pat Buchanan for racial separatism finds it controversial to expose racial separatism and rights based on race advocated by the Left.
As to reproducing part of a Times banner and photo, entertainment venues showcase favorable reviews by the Times, with article reproductions blown up on display and touted in promotional literature. Restaurants also blow up favorable newspaper restaurant reviews for display. But let the issue turn political, and the Times objects.
Of course, the civil rights freedoms newspapers tout, which uphold their freedom to reject advertising, does not extend to private citizens who want to control their own property against government intrusion. Liberal papers like the Times are at the forefront of government control advocacy, from environmentalism to preventing homeowners from refusing to rent to unmarried couples. But for itself, it demands total independence.
Now, American Patrol is bringing a lawsuit to allow the ad to run. According to a 1994 article by Kathleen T. Lacher and Robert J. Rotfeld in the American Marketing Association Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, a survey answered by 321 newspaper publishers showed that protecting an audience from harmful products or services and not offending the audience were the most important factors in whether to run an ad. Apparently, ads against illegal immigration violate both those principles.
(Caroline Miranda is a free-lance writer who lives in North Hollywood, Calif.)
