1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

To this paper, there is apparently something wrong with that

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by dooley_womack1, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

  2. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    A policy he undoubtedly came up with ... on Aug. 9. ::)
  3. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    I wonder what, if anything, corporate will have to say about this publisher's decision.

    I worked at a small Gannett daily in an ultra-conservative area a few years ago and it would run these announcements. Took a lot of flak every time one ran, but they did it. The policy there was if the marriage was legally recognized in the jurisdiction it was performed, then the paper would run it. I assumed all Gannett papers had a similar policy.
  4. golfnut8924

    golfnut8924 Guest

    Keep in mind folks that this is Utah we're talking about. Not exactly the most open minded state. I don't think it's as much of a Gannett issue as it is a Utah issue.
  5. crusoes

    crusoes Active Member

    It does. It values Anglos AND Saxons.
  6. BillyT

    BillyT Active Member

    Where is the Elkhart Truth when you need it!
  7. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Gannett values money. It will blow off a $150-200 wedding announcement if it might cost them a $2,000 a month advertiser. Being St. George's location, I wonder how many group shots they've run in the wedding section.
  8. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    For those who think the publisher is intolerant, those who militantly advocate for gay marriage don't strike me as being open minded.

    Who said that gay marriage had to be okay? It's not as if the majority of the country approves of it.
  9. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Well, that certainly makes it OK.
  10. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Stitch, my comment was aimed at the polygamous sect near St. George, not all LDS, but I agree, it was a gratuitous shot by me.
    That said, I can't believe a publisher made the comment that a picture might make readers "uncomfortable." That right there is why newspapers have lost their way. Newspapers should never be afraid to ruffle a few feathers. I realize the area is very conservative, but this is going to cause a bigger stink than just running the thing would have done. Gannett can't claim with a straight face that they allow individual newspapers to establish standards that reflect the communities they serve, because they don't. I wonder if it would have been different if they just bought a regular ad - Gannett's standards there seem a bit lower.
  12. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Dan, I apologize for my insult and deleted it in my post.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page