Posted by lurker75 (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe the correct terminology would be "damage control."

Posted by emporia123 (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Early Release never disappeared it is still posted. The link is below.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/... more_about_early_release/
The webmaster has already explained that any comments taken down were not talking about the story. It is not a great conspiracy.

Posted by lildarling (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have an idea that will solve the everything. Since there are a few people who spend a lot of time on this site, all day it seems, perhaps they can take over monitoring the site.

I'm all for solutions.

Posted by webmaster (web master) on April 4, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for any confusion. The normal webmasters are out of state and rookies have been in charge.

Lildarling good idea.

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just another example of the Good ol' Gazette!!!???

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez louise people, are you really that negative? I'm starting to think some of you would never be satisfied with any job anyone does. Why get so high strung over moving articles, changing names, removing comments? Surely there are more important things going on.

If you don't like the good ol' gazette, perhaps you should stop reading it or just move somewhere else like Tennessee or something.

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't tell me where to move or what to read. I love it here and feel that the Gazette has created a monopoly and doesn't really care about finding the truth. This has to do with anything and everything. Maybe your thoughts should go alittle deeper before you start spouting off! If you have never been covered or been part of an issue then you have no idea how bias the Gazette can be at times. They normally just have a good excuse. It is only when they are proven incorrect by someone they feel is important to impress that we get the true story.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Proof please? If you are going to call someone out, back it up. Just like a good news reporter would do.

Posted by lildarling (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't see how it's possible to create a monopoly in the newspaper industry. Can Emporia support two newspapers? I think The Gazette does a great job covering Emporia and the surrounding communities six days a week. If you think the reporting is bias, apply to be a reporter. I think you will find that no matter what the issue (or non-issue in some instances) is, someone is going to feel left out, shorted, or upset.

Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I posted a comment that was removed. It contained a harsh criticism that was--in retrospect--personal, and perhaps unfair and I apologize to the Walkers and anyone who saw it. Must have been having a bad day!

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I called you out so therefore you prove to me that they are not bias at times. I know that they are by example so give me an example when they haven't left out or ask the important information. As for a monopoly, there is only one paper therefore only one source and that has become a monopoly of information and no one to compete with. Why would I want to be a reporter for the paper I just critizied. That would be a great working enviroment. I don't disagree that people will be upset. I do believe that they can pick and choose what they report on with out the possilbility that will be called out by another paper. And don't tell me that they don't pad there pockets by charging $40.00 an issue for a business card sized ad. The simple fact is that this paper has become severly flawed and if had any money i would start my own to take them down.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flint - you called me out? I was talking about backup for your "good ol' gazette" comment - I don't have to prove a point because you have yet to prove yours. I guess them moving a thread and not renaming it right or putting it in the right section makes them bias or proves some conspiracy theory that they did it all on purpose to further their own little evil plan? Prove to me that it was done on purpose. That is what I am asking for. You can't - for all you know - it was a mistake - unless you work at the gazette and have firsthand knowledge that an executive order was passed down to do it.

And I'm sorry - is there a law that says the Gazette or any other business (that is not non-profit) is not allowed to make a profit? Hello - no business would survive without making a profit. Your comment about padding their pockets with money made off advertisements is a joke. The Gazette has a payroll, they have expenses, bills, equipment, etc. - they are a business and they have to make money and a profit to continue on - what is wrong with that? If you had the money I would advise you not start your own paper because I would worry about your paper's ability to succeed using the business logic you stated above.

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like Deepthoughts is closely related to the gazette and is too blind to see past their own nose. My issue is with the paper as a whole not this one instance. As for making a profit there a difference they rape the community that they supposedly represent. Don't be so clueless you know that business/persons with something to lose will say or do anything to not jeopardize that. I have not stated anything about how I would run a business. I know ****well I would follow suit with the Gazette. DT you have no argument for the point that who called who out unless you actually are a party involved with the G. I have an objective view I am on the outside looking and far enough away from the influence that they have on you. Don't EVEN come back with a comment that you aren't closely involved here. You have displayed that with you offense to a short comment "Just another example of the Good ol' Gazette!!!???"

I am done with you!
Good Day Sir/Madam.
I SAID GOOD DAY!!!!!

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The deletion of the two postings were done correctly. Mine was one of those postings. The first poster used a phrase for children born in the US to undocumented aliens which is clearly a slur which approaches upon the obscene. I took exception to the use of the phrase but erred in repeating it within the context of my objection.

Gwen Larson was completely within bounds to delete both postings because of that.

I feel that there is nearly complete freedom on this forum to post whatever thoughts any of us might have. The only caveat is that we are asked (in a demanding way) to refrain from personal attacks and to withhold remarks like the one that caused this stir which characterize a specific group in a negative and unfair manner.

Doing so allows us to have reasonable conversations which are less likely to go out of control. This policy does not take away anyone's freedom. In fact, everyone's freedom of expression is enhanced. I applaud the policy as well as the way the Gazette enforces it.

CAF

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My apologies . . . This has, indeed, gotten a bit confusing. I posted my comments (above) to the wrong thread. However, the overall sentiment does apply to this thread, as well. I would prefer civil discussion to outbursts of anger which are often enough embarrassing to the writer more than anyone else. As one person here said, they did post at a moment of high dudgeon and acknowledged it to be inappropriate.

Other forums across the web have become useless because they have become anarchic shout fests rather than exchanges of opinion and information. Here, numerous threads result in exchanges of great value in forming individual opinions. Even were I living someone where else, this would be a desirable site upon which to land.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Flint
Obviously I'm not done with you because you are continuing to say things that are untrue and I will continue to try to make you understand your error in doing so. I am in no way associated with the Gazette (I claimed that in another thread as soon as I stood up for them because anytime you stand up for someone you get accused of being a relative, close associate, etc.), so consider my viewpoint the same as yours - an outsider looking in, but I guess I'm an outsider that tries to look at the big picture. I do not have "insider information" as to why the gazette moved threads, changed names, etc. and BECAUSE I do not KNOW that 100%, I am not willing to make ACCUSATIONS that I cannot prove. Kinda goes along with our judicial system - innocent until proven guilty. All I asked you to do was prove that there was some malicious intent on the Gazette's part for making the changes they did and instead of showing me your proof for your opinion and backing up what you said, you simply try to be done with me. I don't think you or anyone should jump to conclusions about why any business or even person does something unless you ARE in the loop because you don't know! Base your opinion on facts and people will respect it and listen to it more.

You make broad generalizations that just are not true. You cannot say that "business/persons with something to lose will say or do anything to not jeopardize that" because you are accusing everyone and unless you can prove that, you shouldn't say it. I know businesses and people who have ethics and morals who would NOT say or do anything to save face or their business, etc. I'm sorry you have such a negative view of the world and the people in it, but there are good people and businesses out there and I will continue to stand up for them until someone proves otherwise.

Flint - just to make sure we are on the same page with this - I have nothing against you personally - I don't even know you, but it feels like this has gotten personal for some reason. All I really meant to do was point out that I didn't agree and explain why, so I apologize if my remarks were misinterpreted.

Posted by lurker75 (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry DeepThoughts.......couldn't resist.

"I don't think you or anyone should jump to conclusions about why any business or even person does something unless you ARE in the loop because you don't know! "

So that means Mr. Walker should refrain from making judgements about the public school system here in Emporia since his children attend private school, yes?

Ok. You two can go back to your squabble. : )

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No need to apologize lurker - I agree. No one (you, me, Mr. Walker, etc.) should publicly broadcast information unless we know it to be 100% true. It goes back to writing papers and having to cite your sources to prove your evidence is reliable. That is my main disagreement with so many comments on these forums - people make statements or accusations that they can't possibly prove or make broad generalizations that are not true either. I just think we should all be responsible in the comments and information we pass along.

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You have just contradicted yourself by making the accusation about something you do not know about 100%. Who says that they can or cannot back it up?

The main point that you should make is that you think you view is somehow better therefore correct.

You defend and insult every point that you make.

Otherwise known as a "flip flopper".

One more time stop attacking people for an opinion. Unless you allow people to openly attack you for yours.

Yes, I did say what I said and would say it your face because you can't even see the error of your way of thinking.

You also think that it is some acceptable to insult someone then apologize. If you were being sarcastic then good one you got me.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flint
I did not accuse the Gazette of anything - YOU did - so YOU should be the one proving your accusations. The ACCUSER is the one that is supposed to show proof, right? I wouldn't agree with you BECAUSE I didn't know 100% that what you were saying was true - you still have not proved your accusations. Can you really not see the difference in this?

Like in the courtroom - the Defendent is being accused of a crime - in this example - the Gazette is the Defendent and you are the one accusing them, so just like it is the Prosecution's responsibility to prove the Defendent's guilt, you are the prosecutor, so you have to prove the Gazette is guilty of what you are accusing them of.

I do not think, as you state, that my view "is somehow better and therefore correct" - those words never came out of my mouth, so please do not assume. I think that I try to take all the facts into consideration before drawing my own conclusions instead of just believing everything I hear. I think that is a good plan for anybody when they want to decipher information.

I allow people to openly attack my opinion - that's fine - not everyone will agree on everything, but I have just as much right as the next guy to stand up for what I believe in or stand up for someone I think is being wrongly accused - no matter who they are. Like I said - before I form an opinion I want to know the FACTS so my opinion isn't based on emotion, etc., but rather something concrete. I actually welcome people presenting new facts to me that might prove my opinion is wrong - that is how everyone learns and it gives me something to think about.

In this case, if you can show me a memo from Chris Walker or anyone at the Gazette that states something to the degree that any comments that shed a negative light on the Gazette should accidentally "disappear", then you know what, I would reconsider my opinion, but I'm not going to convict someone of something no one has proven they did.

I feel that I have stated my side very clearly and I'm getting tired of going back and forth with you on this. I've done and said all I can. I apologize to all the other readers who have had to endure our "discussion".

Posted by jaredfromsubway (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people have too much time on their hands. I'm all for biased monopolies, and truly believe the gazette should take advantage of this as long as possible. The internet has put the hurt on many of the larger papers. And I think Chris should change his name to Johnny.

Eat Fresh.

Posted by 77flint (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You have missed IT completely. I will not speak to or about you again I would apreciate the same courtesy.

Thank you!!