On the corporate media’s jihad against Southern heritage
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A reader has had enough of The State:
I recently submitted two letters to The State, the McClatchy Company newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina . Both letters presented arguments against removing the replica of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds. Those of you familiar with the philosophy and “principles” (?) of this newspaper will not be surprised when I tell you that neither of my letters was printed.
The Editorial Page Editor, Brad Warthen, is aggressively using all the clout his position has to get the Confederate flag removed. He claims, without offering supporting evidence, that the vast majority of black residents are offended by it; that it makes South Carolina the “laughing stock of the nation.” , and that it prevents new industry from locating in Columbia and South Carolina. In his campaign to get the flag removed, he writes frequent columns and blogs critical of it, often negatively stereotyping those who defend its display. (In a recent blog, he castigated legislators for giving state workers a paid holiday for Confederate Memorial Day.) Warthen also searches for and prints articles critical of the flag from other publications and other states. He allows most letters agreeing with his position to be printed while usually rejecting letters that do not.
My second letter, that Warthen rejected, used an analogy, not mentioned before, that should refute one of Warthen’s favorite anti-flag arguments: it prevents industry from locating in the state.
The letter The State refused to print reads as follows:
“Columbia’s Mayor, Bob Coble, claims that a replica of a Confederate Flag on statehouse grounds is an obstacle to the city’s economic development.
Let me take the Mayor back to the late 1950s when the city of Atlanta was in a competitive economic rivalry with its neighbor to the west, Birmingham. At that time both cities were relatively similar in size and attainments. A Confederate flag was prominently placed atop Georgia’s capitol in downtown Atlanta, but there was no Confederate flag on any government or other significant building in the city of Birmingham.
During the years that the Confederate flag flew above the state capitol in Atlanta, the city’s economic growth mushroomed as large conglomerates from around the nation as well as Europe and Asia opened corporate branches there. Atlanta’s spectacular economic development during those years has rarely been rivaled by any other city, either in the USA or overseas. However, Birmingham, where there was no Confederate flag presence, experienced little or no economic development during that same period.”
A final note: The McClatchy Company owns several newspapers in this region including The Charlotte Observer and The Beaufort Gazette. It seems to me that these two papers, as well as The State, offer identical “points of view” and share a similar reluctance to print letters that conflict with the agendas they promote.
All too familiar. I remember how our very own McClatchy Company newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, also took an absolute stance against the Battleflag memorial at the Columbia capital during the controversy of the late 90s. It was so rigid, so total in its position against the Battleflag that even the sports page commentator advocated taking it down. It’s almost amusing to remember that the editorials always objected to how the Confederate Battleflag was “in a position of sovereignty.” OK, it’s no longer in that position—but now that’s not good enough—it must be hidden from view and erased from memory as well. (See today’s postings below? Toldja.)
It’s their militant, single-minded assault on conservative, and especially Southern, values that’s behind the decline of the dead-tree, corporate media. Every day, their “news” articles glorify the entire leftist, globalist agenda, as if the takeover of Third-World immigrants was the greatest thing that ever happened to us. As the ever-useful Wikipedia notes:
Generally, The Observer takes a liberal editorial stance, and usually endorses Democratic candidates.
Which is why this is no mystery:
Circulation at the Charlotte Observer has been declining for many years. The most recent period (Spring 2007) showed a 1.2% decline in circulation compared to the prior year.
Cause and effect? Damn straight.