Scary! When a judge rules against a newspaper’s right to print an opinion story!

Judge Orders Mississippi Newspaper to Remove Editorial, Alarming Press Advocates

The owner of The Clarksdale Press Register said he planned to challenge a judge’s order against an editorial that criticized city officials.

A brick building with a black-and-white sign saying “Press Register.”
“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” 
Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register in Clarksdale, Miss., said of a judge’s order.

By Michael Levenson {{<— New York Times reporter}}

Feb. 19, 2025  5:54 p.m. ET

A Mississippi judge on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order requested by the city of Clarksdale requiring a local newspaper to remove a critical editorial from its website, a move that alarmed press advocates.

By Wednesday, the newspaper, The Clarksdale Press Register, had removed the editorial from its website. But Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns The Press Register, said he planned to challenge the judge’s order at a hearing next week.

“I’ve been in this business for five decades and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Mr. Emmerich said in an interview, adding that the judge had targeted “an editorial that is pretty plain vanilla, criticizing the City Council for not sending out the approporate notices.”

The Press Register, which dates to 1865 and serves about 7,750 readers, published the editorial on its website on Feb. 8 under the headline, “Secrecy, deception erode public trust.”

The editorial criticized officials in Clarksdale, a city of about 14,000 residents near the Arkansas border, for what it said was their failure to notify the news media before they held a special meeting on Feb. 4, where they approved a resolution asking the Mississippi Legislature to impose a 2 percent tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.

“This newspaper was never notified,” the editorial read. “We know of no other media organization that was notified.”

The editorial also questioned city officials’ interest in the resolution.

“Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kickback from the community?” it asked. “Until Tuesday we had not heard of any. Maybe they just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea — at public expense.”

Clarksdale’s Board of Mayor and Commissioners voted on Feb. 13 to sue the newspaper for libel, saying the city clerk had created a public notice for the Feb. 4 board meeting but forgot to email a copy of it to Floyd Ingram, the editor and publisher of The Press Register, as she usually does.

After the meeting, Mr. Ingram went to the clerk’s office, where the clerk apologized for not sending him the notice and gave him a copy of it and the resolution that had been approved, city officials said.

In their lawsuit against The Press Register, city officials said that efforts by the mayor, Chuck Espy, to lobby for the tax proposal in Jackson, the state capital, had been “chilled and hindered due to the libelous assertions and statements by Mr. Ingram.”

On Tuesday, Judge Crystal Wise Martin of the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Miss., granted the city’s request for a temporary restraining order and told the newspaper to remove the editorial from its “online portals” and to make it inaccessible to the public.

“The injury in this case is defamation against public figures through actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth and interferes with their legitimate function to advocate for legislation they believe would help their municipality during this current legislative cycle,” Judge Martin wrote.

Mr. Ingram referred questions on Wednesday to Emmerich Newspapers. Mr. Emmerich said the editorial was clearly free speech protected by the Constitution.

“I don’t know how they can argue that a critical editorial is interfering with their businesses in a country that has a First Amendment that protects our right to criticize the government,” he said. “That’s the very idea of what an editorial in a newspaper does.”

The city’s lawsuit was part of what Mr. Emmerich described as an ongoing feud between The Press Register and Mr. Espy. He said that the newspaper had irked the mayor and other officials by reporting on their increased compensation and other issues and that “they’ve been at us ever since.”

Mr. Espy, a Democrat, said that the increased compensation had “nothing do with” the city’s lawsuit against the newspaper and “its malicious lies.” He said the city had threatened to sue the newspaper in the past, forcing it to retract an article.

“The only thing we’re asking for in city government is to simply write the truth, good or bad,” Mr. Espy said. “And I’m very thankful that the judge agreed to impose a T.R.O. against a rogue newspaper that insisted on telling lies against the municipality.”

Adam Steinbaugh, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports free speech, criticized the city’s lawsuit, writing on social media that it was “wildly unconstitutional.”

He said that governments “can’t sue for libel” under New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.

“Free-speech threats come from all corners of society, whether it’s the president of the United States or a mayor, and they come from all political parties,” Mr. Steinbaugh said in an interview on Wednesday. He said that once “we start eroding those rights, all other rights are threatened.”

Layne Bruce, executive director of the Mississippi Press Association, said he supported The Press Register’s right to publish the editorial and its effort to challenge the judge’s order.

“This is a rather astounding order,” he said, “and we feel it’s egregious and chilling and it clearly runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

OPINION — Why Give Absurdities Ink & Prominence?

Elon Musk owns a communications company (and so much more), and if he wants to promote an idea, surely he is free to do so. That’s the epitome of free speech…. Unchecked, unregulated, and uncensored.

And when he suggests that a media company’s employees deserve a “long prison sentence” for a story that he disagrees with, again, he is free to shout that from his platform and bask in the glow of his X echo chamber, maganified by the Prince of Mar-a-Lago.

Musk has long criticized CBS for a Kamala Harris interview during the November election. Most recently, following a critical story about Musk’s closure of USAID, the DOGE boss wrote, “60 Minutes are the biggest liars in the world! They engaged in deliberate deception to interfere with the last election. They deserve a long prison sentence.”

Seriously… “a long prison sentence” for? What would be the legal charge? What is the offense? What is the rationale, other than perhaps currying favor with prominent politicians? Evidently, Musk didn’t learn about the American value of free speech in his South African school system.

While Musk can and should be allowed to say anything, why does other media give him any credence by repeating his nonsensical mutterings?

Deciding what to include on any media platform is the province of editors who, one hopes, make their decisions based on what is newsworthy, the prominence of the person speaking, and the likelihood that what’s said will be impactful.

On any responsible calculus, in my nearly 50-year experience in media, I believe even repeating silly ideas or promoting individuals who are so out of touch with inherent American values is, in itself, irresponsible.

Tiffany Network At Risk of Losing Its Luster

It is being reported that CBS News is entering negotiations with the F.C.C. because a settlement with the Trump administration is politically expedient.

Expedient for the parent organization, Paramount? Apparently.

As reported in the NY Times, “But in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, has begun settlement discussions with representatives of Mr. Trump, according to several people with knowledge of the talks. Many executives at Paramount believe that settling the suit could help pave the way for the F.C.C. to approve Paramount’s planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company.”

Expedient also to avoiding any negative relations or a loss of access with the Trump White House? Perhaps true, but most likely a calculated decision based on fear of retribution from the press office.

The proposed settlement stems from a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump over allegations of misleading editing in a CBS News 60 Minutes story from October 7, 2024.

Business settlements and political decisions based on real or imagined ramifications are one thing. But it is quite another for a major broadcaster to cave so willingly and early in the legal process. More alarming to veteran news people is the apparent surrender and kow tow to a personality.

If a story has been properly produced, vetted by experienced and senior editors, and scrubbed for accuracy, then the network should stand by the work. Stand by your reporters and editorial team. One presumes the experienced team at CBS 60 Minutes, the premier news magazine show on CBS, did their jobs properly and professionally. It would be a sad thing for risk-averse managers at the television network to scuttle the work and settle for the expedience of a new business deal.

Paid Media? Media for Sale? A Federal court judge wants to know more in the Google-Oracle Suit

Today’s decision by a Federal court judge ordering Oracle and Google to disclose who they paid to write about their “JAVA trial” poses interesting questions about corporate media management — who pays for what to be written and what extent does that have on influence within the industry?
What would you expect that answer to be?

All Things D’s filing  Judge Orders Google and Oracle to Disclose Who They Paid to Write About Java Trial has the story quoting “Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote in his order that he’s “concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or Internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case.”
We’ve seen purchased coverage before in terms of trade press, I’m thinking especially of the sychophants who write gushingly about the latest Apple release and who (masquerading as reporters) would leap to their feet to applaud Steve Jobs.  Other companies (Cisco’s news site) commissions articles by well-known and reputable authors — though one might assume they are not (often) going to either write nor would Cisco (or others likely) post unflattering comments, reviews, analysis or criticisms.  This is coverage purchased to put forth the issue in the most flattering light possible under the circumstances.  
It is corporate communications imitating news.  It’s a lot like Sorkin’s The Newsroom imitating real news rooms.

BP Oil was insidious in the way it aggregated media coverage during the gulf oil spill while inserting reports from its own commissioned reporters…. it did make a disclaimer but only in the tiniest of print.  It was clever – in the midst of critical news it seemed unexpected to read glowing accounts of the importance of big oil to the community and their years of service and commitment to the economy and residents.
I don’t argue that this is happening – I find it refreshing that a federal judge is concerned enough to demand a review into how pervasive it may have been during his trial.
I find Judge Alsup’s order compelling. His full order can be found here .

It’s the arrogance, Stupid!

The Justice Department admits it served $16 dollar muffins, $8 cups of coffee and cookies and brownies that cost $10 each at a 2009 meeting.

At a time when many Americans don’t have enough money for basic groceries this seems to be, well the word that comes to mind is excessive.

The story, appearing in Wednesday’s Los Angeles Times Justice Department’s $16 dollar muffins don’t sit well, quotes Justice Department officials, “We agree that excessive spending of the types identified in the OIG report should not occur,” adding that the department has taken steps “to ensure that these problems do not occur again.”

Good messaging. Good Crisis Management.

Maybe they might have thought about the ramifications of the decision to spend so much before they thought they were so entitled. But it proves the old media adage, you never get caught for the crime when you do it but always for the cover-up or the discover.

How can anyone advocate for civility and free speech when elected politicans won’t practice it

A new low in the war against free speech, open debate, tolerance of views other than those of our own and civility… a new example of a politician stifling debate in what appears to be an effort to prevent an embarrassment.
Steve Chabot’s (R-OH) open town hall with his constituents seems to have been so controversial that the Congressman’s staff requested police disrupt and confiscate citizen-made videos. You’ve got to watch those taxpayers – those interested citizens – those just plain folk-who-no-doubt-have-turned-terrorsist-agents lest they do something really radical like post a video on youtube.com.

It is simply difficult to image what was so threatening to the Congressman that it was worth the fuss and furor of requesting police intervention. It is also mystifying why the police felt compelled to step in where there was no overt or even apparent threat to civil order.

This has the same big-brother feel of overt-over reaction. It raises the question, didn’t we fight a revolution against the British for their same Draconian tactics limiting free speech, open assembly and the right to protest? Are some of us – perhaps among them elected officials – forgetting our own history and roots?

Fed Ct Rules Public Can Make Photographs of Public Buildings – What would seem like a given right has been restored by Homeland Security

How many of us have been stopped, hassled and at times subjected to a Torquemada inquisition over taking pictures of the exterior of a Federal Building?

A Federal Court has ruled the public may make pictures and Homeland Security has changed the rules instructing their security officers not to prohibit or infringe on the public’s right.

Worth printing and having as part of your kit.

A longer version appears here.

Perverse and Perverted – Networks in Bidding War for Casey’s Story

That’s right – network’s don’t pay for interviews so instead they offer lavish treatment and buy the rights to photographs and other family memorabilia; it’s called the licensing rights for everything surrounding her actual tell-all tale. Payola by any other name is still wrong.

It’s been going on since before the verdict but now the bidding war for Casey Anthony’s story has gone big time with attorneys holed up in pricey New York hotels as they negotiate Casey for her licensing rights. That’s right – network’s don’t pay for interviews so instead they offer lavish treatment and buy the rights to photographs and other family memorabilia; it’s called the licensing rights for everything surrounding her actual tell-all tale. Payola by any other name is still wrong.

Postings in social media on this are colorful ranging from outrage and revulsion to snide comments about the ethics (or lack thereof) involved in even considering buying her story, much less rewarding her. None of this is new. None is shocking. It is what tabloids and quick-books have made fortunes on over the years. The networks should not be blamed – they are selling a product and need to corner an ever shrinking piece of the viewer’s loyalty. Sadly this is being done under the banner of news, but that seems to cause few any pain or difficulty.

Meanwhile – Casey may be in Palm Springs according to some… while cross country her lawyers are no doubt turning up the heat in their bidding war… and the weatherman said it was going to be a scorcher in New York today. No doubt.

ABC Rains Money

Paying for interviews is against network standards but there is nothing prohibiting payments for licensing rights and other perks paid to news sources and potential interviewees.  The latest? A two-hundred thousand dollar ($200,000.00) payment to Casey Anthony!   It isn’t new – it happened as recently as last night (Sunday)with a six figure deal with Jaycee Dugard and her publisher for a ‘first-look’ at her story.  It has happened over many years – and each network is guilty of doing it, although ABC and NBC have been in a more financially secure position reportedly to be more lavish in their offers.

And don’t think that money only flows to the victims or good guys in such stories.  Two networks were in a fierce bidding war for the songbook of Phillip Garrido – Dugard’s admitted captor and rapist – shortly after the story broke.  Attorneys representing a friend of Mr. Garrido received six figure offerings for his songs which included lurid details of a cross country sex odyssey and other perversions.

The audience doesn’t seem to see a difference between paying for news or paying for access.  In a  celebrity driven world it seems as if we have become accustomed to the habit of stars and news makers wanting to be compensated for their first hand stories.  Networks have been more than obliging in paying sums for what guarantees them the right to brand the interview an “exclusive”.  But does all this loot change the story – does more money make it ever so much more necessary to add an adjective or color the telling of a story in a particular way to make it seem worth the cash?  One cannot demand top dollar and then disappoint the paymaster.  It wouldn’t be good for business, especially when that is show business.

It may be good for business but it is bad for ethics, and there’s just no way around that.

A Smart Move – or just strageic? Or am I a skeptic?

ABC News hires kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart to cover child kidnapping and missing person cases. It is worth asking is this good journalism or smarmy public relations and booking?

ABC News has hired Elizabeth Smart, formerly in the news as a Utah kidnap victim when she was a child, as a correspondent assigned to kidnapping and high profile missing person cases, according to The Hollywood Reporter and reported in People Magazine.

Is this a strategic move or one aimed at creating and fostering special appreciation among victim’s families?
Is she a bona fide journalist or a talented ‘talking horse’?

The issue is simple – what’s her training, journalistic experience or story telling? Obviously she will work alongside talented producers; obviously she will be guided and hand-held… but is she being sent out as a lure to sway the sympathy of victims?

It is worth asking is this good journalism or smarmy public relations and booking?