The Herald News reverses position on pro-life ads
Regarding the Herald News' rejection of Right to Life of Will County's pro-life ads three weeks ago, Steve Vanisko of Joliet's Herald News copied me on the following email he wrote to ABC yesterday:
After re-examining the ads that were submitted by Will County Right To Life, The Herald News has decided that the ads will be allowed to run should this group decide to do so. For the record, the original decision to not run them was mine and at no point did I state that the ads were “too graphic”. If that was stated by a representative of this newspaper, it was done so in error.
I e-mailed Jill Stanek Sunday afternoon and left a message with the local contact before 9:00am this morning requesting that they contact me. The purpose of this contact was to inform them of my decision.
Steve Vanisko
Advertising Director
The Herald News
Several pro-lifers also forwarded me the same note they received from Mr. Vanisko in response to their emails to the newspaper.
I appreciate that Mr. Vanisko changed his mind on the matter. However, I do not appreciate his questioning the fact that his subordinate did relay to us that he/the advertising department originally rejected our ads because they considered them "too graphic." Our " local contact" with the newspaper wrote down what the ad rep said verbatim, including also, "We have to be careful."
Nevertheless, this is a victory for the pro-life movement, demonstrating increasing influence with MSM. Thanks to all news organizations and bloggers who publicized the censorship and to all pro-lifers who emailed the newspaper.
In the end, I must also thank the Herald News. Whereas Right to Life of Will County would have paid hundreds of dollars for our ad to be seen by only thousands of people, we ended up paying zero dollars, and the ad was seen by millions of people.
I must also commend the Herald News for posting a letter to the editor from me yesterday on another pro-life topic (self-titled "pro-life" Rep. Careen Gordon opposing a ban on taxpayer funded human human cloning), thereby demonstrating good will.
FYI, I have been invited on The Laura Ingraham Show at 11:15 EST today to discuss the ad flap.Update: Due to breaking news, I've been bumped to tomorrow, about 11:30 EST.
Update, 2/14: Follow-up email from Steve Vanisko, posted with his permission:
Jill,
I just read the latest news on your site and felt compelled to clarify one item.
My point in indicating that I never stated that the ads were "too graphic" was to emphasize that I (that's me, the one who made the decision) never said (or even implied) that were the case. I simply told my rep yes to two ads and no to three of them--with no other comment. When this newspaper declines and ad, it is done so with no explanation. That is the policy that has been established so comments like "too graphic" don't take on a life form like they did in this instance.
My sales rep apparently used the "too graphic" phrase in her conversation with [name of RTL of Will Co. contact]. Her other comment about being careful was inappropriate as well. Due to this error, these words were inaccurately portrayed as the official stance of this newspaper. Of all that happened, the fallout from her decision to expound on this decision is what troubles me most. Given our poor handling of this situation, I talked to [name of contact] yesterday and asked her to deal with me directly in the future.
Steve
4 comments:
One trick, one trick, one trick. Deleting this comment doesn't make it not true.
I believe this is the third time the Cartwright example has been trotted out in a less than truthful light. Yes Cartwright, a Democrat, spoke out against slavery, but he was not a hard core abolishionist. In fact, when he ran against Lincoln for congress their stand on the issue was almost identical. They were anti expansion of slavery, but neither called for it to be abolished, they wanted it quarentined and both, at the time, thought the institution would survive for another century.
Additionally, Cartwright was much more vocal in his opposition to drinking and his desire to blur the lines between church and state than he ever was about slavery. So as an example of a "one-trick pony" he doesn't work.
No sense letting the facts get in the way of a justification though.
Go to the original source. Read his speeches in the GA. Read the contemporary accounts of the 1846 campaign, that would be the campaign in which Cartwright tried to smear Lincoln as an "infidel." One would assume you would have already read all this, claiming to be an authority and all.
Funny just how little we've progressed in terms of trying to politicize religion.
Anon 3:51 said: [i]Funny just how little we've progressed in terms of trying to politicize religion.[/i]
I wonder about Anon 3:51's views on outlawing "discrimination", protecting the environment. Isn't this politicizing your particular religion? Legsilating your morals?
Post a Comment